1
Introduction
Statement of Problem
With the number of ELL students in our schools on the rise, schools and educators
struggle to find the right setting for our students to succeed. While Bilingual education can be a
great option, it is not the only successful setting for ELL students. ESL settings can yield
academic achievement. With over 1200 students and over 46% of those students being identified
as ELL, PS X in Brooklyn New York often debates on which setting is more successful,
Transitional Bilingual or ESL classroom settings.
Review of Related Literature
When educating English Language Learners (ELL) schools often struggle to find the
most appropriate and successful setting. There are many different settings for ELL students
including, ESL, Dual Language, Structured English Immersion, and Bilingual. Each setting has
its own pros and cons (Hornberger, 1990). When the native language is not supported in the
classroom it often creates a negative stigma, as is the case with ESL and Structured English
Immersion classroom settings. These settings are often viewed as culturally insensitive and dated
(Hoingsfeld, 2009; Manyak, 2006). Although supporters of Bilingual and Dual Language
education may only claim ESL and SEI setting faulty (Hu, 2008), there are some great benefits in
ESL and SEI settings. ESL settings can promote conversational English, and is not as segregated
as Bilingual classes. With some ESL classes the ELL are in the same class as the monolingual
students and this creates a more welcoming learning community for the ELL (Carhill, SuárezOrozco, & Páez, 2008). These ESL classes give the ELL students opportunities to listen to
“model” English speakers.
1
2
Many studies have been done world wide to prove or disprove the effectiveness of ESL
classroom settings (Baker,1998; Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung & Blanco, 2007; Gallahan,
Wilkinson, Muller & Frisco, 2009; Slavin & Madden, 2000). Some researches set out looking to
disprove the ESL setting and then once the study is concluded, found that their hypothesis was
incorrect (Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung, & Blanco, 2007; Irby, Lara-Acecio, Kwok, Mathes, &
Tong, 2008; Manyak, 2006; Slavin & Madden, 2000). Some studies were conducted outside the
United States. The studies looked at how English speaking students learned languages in schools
that do not offer Bilingual classroom settings. These students learned the new languages, and
were able to understand and communicate in the new language (Mhic-Mhathúna, 2008;
Tsushima & Hogan, 1975). Although there are some researches skeptical of the effectiveness of
ESL classrooms there are several studies that demonstrate that ESL classrooms do help students
learn. These researches know that with compassionate, thoughtful instruction ELL students can
learn a new language without forfeiting their first language (Baker, 1998; Ernst, 1994; Kim,
2008; York-Barr, Ghere, & Sommerness, 2007). ESL and SEI settings not only work with ELLs
they have shown to work with students with English as their native language, but do not speak
Standard English (Day, Gallimore, Tharp, Chan, & Connor, 1978).
All of the studies used similar methods to assess the English Language Learners. Formal
and informal tests are used to measure the level of student growth and achievement. Like
anything in the educational field, there are pros and cons to standardized testing. Testing is
necessary but there are things that can be tweaked (Gandara & Merino, 1993; Solórzano, 2008).
Tests are different from location to location and that could change the results and how a student
is placed into a class or discharged out of a program (Callahan, Wilkinson, Muller, & Frisco,
2009). Once a student is considered an English Language Learner, they will be tested within one
2
3
year. Although growth is a made, as it should be, it takes longer than one year for students to be
proficient in English (Guerrero, 2004).
It is not the setting that makes a successful class room, it is the practices that the teacher
uses that helps students learn. All young students should be taught with modeling, repetition, and
visuals, but this is especially true for ELLs. One of the largest difficulties ELLs have is
comprehension, and verbalizing what they comprehend. It is imperative that we model
meaningful talk and discussions. A student giving a yes or no answer to a question does not
demonstrate a deep understanding of content. We need to give the students the tools and
strategies to comprehend what they are reading and make text to self connections (Purdy, 2008).
Students need models when learning a new language. Listening centers, Shared Reading, and
Guided Reading are great resources for an ESL classroom to have. These centers and practices
give the student the opportunity to hear correct grammar, pronunciation, and fluency (Koskinen,
Blum, Bisson, Phillips, Creamer, & Baker, 2000).
With every theory, opinion, study conducted, the one goal that everyone shares is for our
students to succeed. If there is a correct answer to the “best” setting, there would be no debate or
cause for research. Often when a study is done researchers do not take in consideration other
factors that could affect the students’ performance. Like any other student, some ELLs have
learning disabilities. These often go unnoticed and undiagnosed and when a student does not do
well in a particular area, it is blamed on language (Kohnert, Windsor, & Danaby-Ebert, 2008;
Palladina & Ferrari, 2008). Another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is a
student’s home life. Parental involvement is essential for students to succeed. It is not the only
factor but a parent’s educational level is a large factor that can help or hinder a student’s success
(Reese, Goldenberg, & Saunders, 2006). Home environment, socioeconomic status, and
3
4
teachers’ abilities all can affect a student. These things do weigh on a student but with proper
training and a compassionate teacher, the student can succeed (Janzen, 2008).
Statement of Hypothesis
HR1-The ten ELL students receiving English only guided reading instruction once a week
for eleven weeks will yield greater reading progress than the ten ELL students receiving guided
reading instruction in a Bilingual classroom at PS X in Brooklyn New York.
4
5
Method
Participants
Included in this study will be one teacher in the ESL setting (born in the United States),
one teacher in the Spanish Bilingual setting (born in Columbia), and one teacher in the Chinese
Bilingual setting (born in China). The ESL class will be comprised of ten first grade ELL
students; five Hispanic and five Chinese. The Spanish Bilingual setting will have five first grade
participants. The Chinese Bilingual setting will also have five first grade participants. There are a
total of 23 participants in this action research project, three being teachers, and 20 being ELL
students. Twelve of the students are female (60%) and eight of the students are male (40%). All
of the participants come from a low socioeconomic household. PS X is a Title 1 public school.
Ten of the participants speak Spanish in their home and ten of the participants speak Chinese in
their home. The participants range in age from five to seven years old.
Country of Origin
Is pano, 5%
Mexico, 30%
No Ans wer,
25%
China, 40%
5
6
Ge nde r of Stude nt Participants
Male, 40%
Female 60%
Instruments
All first grade teachers, regardless of classroom setting is required to assess students’
reading levels within the first two weeks of the start of the school year. PS X has adopted the
DRA reading assessment program. The DRA assessments used were level 1,2,3,4 and 6.
Students take a “picture walk”, make predictions, read the story, retell the story and attempt to
make personal connections. Levels 1, 2 and 3 allow the teacher to read the first page to give the
child assistance. Level 1, 2 and 3 do not ask any prediction or retelling questions but rather
questions that assess phonemic awareness. After giving each student in the class the DRA
assessment they are placed into guided reading groups based on reading level and reading needs.
The researcher used the DRA assessment results as the pre test results for this action research
project. The researcher then supplied the assistant principal a letter of consent requesting
permission to conduct the action research project. After reviewing the ESL class and the two
Bilingual class’ pretest results, the researcher identified the students that would be included in
the action research project. After the desired participants were identified, parent consent forms as
6
7
well as a parental reading survey were distributed. The parent reading survey measures hours per
week that are spent reading to their child, reading to their self, listening to their child read, using
a computer and watching television. The parents circled the appropriate answer and each answer
was given likert scale rating 1,2,3 or 4. 0-2 hours a week was given a rating of 1. 2-4 hours a
week was given a rating of 2. 4-6 hours a week was given a rating of 3. 7 hours or more a week
was given a rating of 4. After the parental consent forms and parent surveys were returned the
student participants were given a reading survey measuring their attitudes and opinions toward
reading. The student survey consisted of five questions about reading. A happy face icon was
used to indicate a yes answer and was given the likert rating of 1. A sad face icon was used to
indicate a no answer and was given the likert rating of 2. The questions asked on the student
survey were: I like reading, I read at home, I like listening to stories, I like reading to other
people and I liker reading alone. The post- test was a second DRA assessment given eleven
weeks into the project following the same format as mentioned above along with reading level 8.
Experimental Design
The research design model for this action research project is quasi experimental and
will employ the non-equivalent control group research design model. Three non-random
research groups were assessed during this action research project. X1 represents the five
Spanish and five Chinese students in an ESL setting. X2 represents the five students in the
Spanish Bilingual class. X3 represents the five students in the Chinese Bilingual class. The
students were chosen based on their gender, reading level, and ethnicity. All three groups
were pre-tested, exposed to the treatment, and post tested. O,X1,O ; O,X2,O ; O,X3,O is the
symbolic design for this action research project.
7
8
The threats to internal validity were history, maturation, testing, instrumentation,
and morality. History was a threat to the researcher due to many different circumstances.
During the action research project there were four fire drills, multiple days were
participants were absent, school assemblies, and on more than one occasion changing the
guided reading schedule due to scheduling conflicts.
The next threat to internal validity is maturation. All of the participants are in first
grade but vary in age and maturity. Although the action research project was lasted only
eleven weeks, some of the participants may have matured and naturally improved their
reading skills, rather than the guided reading improving their reading skills.
The testing threat was apart of this action research. All of the students in the
participating classes were given the DRA assessment (pre test), however only the selected
participants were given the reading surveys. The participants may have become aware that
they were being included in a study and began to put extra effort into their reading.
Instrumentation was another threat to internal validity. Although all teacher
participants used the same pre and post- test, and would not knowingly alter the results of
the test, there could be a level of human error or bias when administering the pre and post
test. The researcher administered the surveys to the student participants. Some of the
students may have been familiar with the researcher, comfortable with the researcher, and
may have given more accurate responses. At the same time the participants who were not
familiar with the researcher may have felt less comfortable when taking the student survey
and replied in a manner that they believed the researcher wanted. All of the student
surveys were written in English and verbally read in English. This could be a disadvantage
8
9
for the students who have a lower level of verbal English comprehension. Although the
parent surveys and parent consent forms were written in English, Spanish and Chinese
there were completed with errors and omissions. Some parents in the Chinese Bilingual
class are not literate in their native language and the Chinese Bilingual read the surveys to
them. Many parents did not complete the native country section on the survey. The parents
may have altered their answers to try and appease the researcher.
Morality was the final internal threat to validity in this action research project.
Student number eight in the ESL classroom setting moved the first week of November and
was not able to take the post test. This directly affected the outcome of the action research
project.
The threats to external validity in this action research project were ecological,
generalizable conditions, pre-test treatment, selection treatment interaction, specificity
of variables, multiple treatments, treatment diffusion, and experimenter effects. The
students’ attitude towards testing could affect the outcome of the pre test, post test, and
the reading surveys. The parents’ attitudes towards the school environment could also
have an affect on the way they responded to the parent reading survey. These actions
could be an ecological threat to external validity.
Generalizable conditions are a possible threat due to the fact that different teachers,
although teaching the same information, could have different teaching styles,
techniques and classroom environments that yield different results. Pre test treatment
is a valid threat in this action research because student participants could have had an
9
10
adverse experience when taking the pre test, thus affecting their attitude towards
taking the post- test.
Selection treatment interaction is another possible threat to external validity. The
participants were not randomly selected and that may affect the results of the surveys.
The researcher chose the participants and that may change the way all participants
answer the questions and the amount of effort put forth in the pre and post- test. Each
classroom teacher is responsible for giving the pre test and the post- test. The
researcher is responsible for administering all of the reading surveys. The relationship
between all the teacher participants and the student participants is the specificity of
variables threat.
Multiple treatments are a valid threat. Although guided reading instruction is only
conducted once a day. It is only national for the teacher participants to assist students
throughout the day, offering them more treatments than the action research calls for.
Treatment diffusion occurs when students discuss instruments that are involved in the
action research project. This threat could occur if student a student takes the pre test or
post test and then discuss the test with another participant before he or she takes the
test.
Procedure
After all first grade students in the three participating classrooms were given a first DRA
assessment (Pre Test) in September 2010 the researcher identified the students that would to
be asked to be participants in the action research project. The researcher gave the assistant
principal in charge of the first grade a consent letter requesting permission to conduct the
10
11
action research project in three first grade classrooms at PS X in Brooklyn New York. The
researcher then assigned each student participant a number ranging from one to twenty. Each
ELL student in the ESL setting was compared to an ELL student in a Bilingual setting. The
student groupings were chosen based on reading level, gender and native language. Each
parent survey was labeled with the correct number to assure confidentiality within the study.
Once the parent consent forms and surveys were collected the students were given the
student reading survey. The researched administered the survey in English. The survey was
written in English but had icons assisting the students complete the survey. All student
participants received guided reading instruction once a week for eleven weeks. After eleven
weeks of guided reading instruction the teacher participants gave the student participants a
second DRA assessment (Post Test). After the Post Test was complete the researcher
analyzed the pre test, parent surveys, student surveys, and post-test results.
11