viernes, 17 de octubre de 2014

TITLE OF DISSERTATION BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE INTERDEPENDENCE: CUMMINS AND BEYOND





BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE INTERDEPENDENCE
CUMMINS AND BEYOND


by 


Carlos M. Ramírez




Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology
Yeshiva University
New York


June, 1985

ABSTRACT


BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE INTERDEPENDENCE: 
CUMMINS AND BEYOND

by

Carlos M. Ramírez

Statement of the Thesis

Hispanic School children have long been influence by the controversial issue of bilingualism. That these children need to attain well rounded skills in English has been agreed upon y everyone concerned with the education of language minorities. The controversy centers on whether L1 is to be kept alive in school or allowed to disappear.

This issue seems to be centered on the academic usefulness of the vernacular. Opponents see it as a hindrance to acculturation and mainstreaming. Those who support bilingualism maintain that it is in fact an aid to the child’s speedy transition into English.

Significant longitudinal research which specifically addresses the Spanish language contribution to English language development on urban bilingual children is not available in the current literature. It will be this dissertation’s goal to engage in longitudinal research to further evidence on behalf of the linguistic developmental interdependence hypothesis as propounded by Cummins (1979).
Methodology

The full population of Hispanic first graders enrolled in three bilingual neighboring schools in the city of Newark, New Jersey, who were administered both Spanish and English language proficiency tests, participated in the study (75 subjects). Analysis of L1 and L2 proficient scores for three consecutive years may relate L2 to the influence of L1 at the time the child is introduce to public education. Other anticipated oral language and home related intervening variables were factorially analyzed. In addition, these children’s intelligence quotients were obtained and covaried with language variables as a measure of control. 

Confirming Cummins’  hypothesis may strengthen the need of L1 maintaining bilingual education as an effective tool in the cognitive-academic development of the bilingual child. 
Conclusions

Two linguistic profiles in the context of school interlinguistic development in language minority children were generated by the study. The first is consonant with Cummins’s linguistic interdependence hypothesis, that second language development relies strongly on first language proficiency in this specific population of bilingual children. This was observed to be independent of the action of  intervening variables in a short term paradigm. The second involves the assumed action of intervening variables which seem to generate a developmentally regressive interlinguistic profile throughout the span of three years.

Significantly higher levels of English language competence only on the higher proficiency Spanish group were generated, thus strongly supporting the hypothesis that Spanish language competence is in fact a strong factor accounting for English language proficiency. The longitudinal dimension of linguistic interdependence, is shown to exist in the factor analytic study. This analysis showed Spanish and English academic language scores loading on one single factor within and across languages and within and across time variables. 

Spanish and English tests mean scores showed a downward trend from one year to the next. This may be descriptive of language in contact in the context of bilingual schooling subjected to the strains of heterogeneous mix of language skills among students and an unclear curricular philosophy. A diglossic arrangement for the teaching of languages so that these maintain functional significance also appear lacking. This strategy will allow languages to coexist in an orderly fashion, thus preventing confusion.


Extending beyond Cummins’ linguistic interdependence hypothesis, it appears necessary that Hispanics organize their own ethnic-mother-tongue schools. Only then will long lansting and authentic support of the vernacular ever be effected. 










  • Copyright 
  1985

by

Carlos M. Ramirez





ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to my wife and daughter who patiently and vicariously endured the difficult course involved in developing, formulating, testing and writing the thesis. In addition, they both experienced the toils of field work by sharing home visits and home interviewing. 

I am also indebted to Dr. Joshua A. Fishman, head of the Bilingual/Education Developmental Psychology Ph.D. Program. His inventiveness, by opening this area of endeavor for research and discovery, has brought opportunity and enlightenment to Hispanics and other dedicated to serve bilingual children. His humaneness, on one hand, and loyalty to science and truth, on the other, single him out as an exceptional individual. 

Dr. Ofelia Garcia, his close collaborator at Yeshiva University, was most helpful from the beginning. Her creative energy and dedication to her students awoke the spirit of industry and instilled in us the courage to continue. Dr. Moshe Anisfeld, Dr. Carl Auerbach, Dr. Gerard Hoffman and Dr. Jeffrey Crawford were most helpful aids in understanding statistics and/or introducing the very important area of computer technology applied to research and writing. I am very thankful to them for having allowed me a share o that knowledge.

Dr. Michael Gertner, also at Yeshiva, was always there, never failing when I asked for help. His expertise and erudition in linguistics were ever present during the whole editing process. My gratitude to Dr. Cobarubias, also at Yeshiva University, for his very useful comments and suggestions on several occasions throughout the course of my studies there.

My expressed gratitude to the staff of the Newark Board of Education: Dr, Anthony D’Agostino, Assistant Executive Superintendent for Elementary Programs, Miss Iris martinez Arroyo, Director of the Bilingual Education Program, Mr. Pedro Guerrero from the office of  testing; to the three principals of the schools which hosted the study, Mr. Filiberto Soto, Mr. Charles Mitchell and Mr. Jorge Almeda. My appreciation to Mrs. Rosa Gutierrez, Assistant Principal of Roberto Clemente Elementary School and members of the staff there: Mr. Luis Rivera, Mrs. Carlota Merino, Mr. Baudilio Cajigas and Mrs. Frances Irizarry.

My gratitude to friends and supporters: Awilda Perez, (collaborator in the IQ testing of subjects), Rafael Claudio, Felix Ruiz and Yeshiva University bilingual program students Oriana Linares, Milga Morales, Maritza Garcia Cordero, Hillary Wang, Elsa Chodos, Jesús Fuentes, Minerva Gabriel and Gabriela Garcia Rivera.

A final word of gratitude to Dr. William Milán for his initial role developing the program and selecting students.


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

Introduction 
Bilingualism

Bilingualism is the practice of alternatively speaking two or more languages (Weinreich, 1953). It exists in sizable numbers of individuals in communities throughout the world. However, in its natural habitat it extends beyond the simple acquisition of a second language. It involves the assimilation of a number of psychological, sociological, cognitive and cultural influences (Hamers & Nelde, 1980). This kind of bilingualism, encompassing both linguistic and cultural variables, finds its historical origins (among other factors) in ethnic development and cross-ethnic conflict allowing for the migration of peoples within and across national frontiers (Fishman, 1972; Lewis, 1980). 

The United States experiences this phenomenon in the process of coming into being Different 
peoples of diverse languages and cultures merged as streams of migrants interacted among themselves and established meaningful contact by means of a language of wider communication, English.

However, many have preserved their vernacular languages as a very useful link to their personal history. A developing biculturalism in fact accompanied their bilingualism. Many inmigrants held on, in part, to their vernacular in assumed acknowledgment of underlying heritage values. This prevailed under the influence of an assumed freedom of expression (Fishman, 1972). 

Immigration has been, in fact, the most influential factor promoting widespread bilingualism in the United States (Lewis, 1980). This is revealed in the United States population census figures of 1790. Out of 3.2 million inhabitants of the United States at the time (800,000 non whites), only 61% of the white population were of English origin (cited in Lewis, 1980). 

Non-English Vernaculars

Vernacular languages fell prey to the growing force of a socially cohesive and monolithic economic structure. Incoming groups of foreign stock were perceived as aien to newly formed societal values, thus discriminated against for being culturally different.

Compulsory public education was geared toward the rapid assimilation of incoming immigrants. Part of the “education endeavor” for children born of these families was the rapid removal of whatever idiosyncrasies that appeared dissonant to mainstream standards, including native languages (Sarason & Doris, 1979). This policy, in turn, prevented large numbers of ethnic children from receiving the benefits of public education. Busey [1969] (cited in Sarason & Doris [1979]), referring to mid-nineteenth century data, claimed that while nationwide 82 percent of the native white children attended school, only 46 percent of the children of immigrants attended. Furthermore, large numbers were not attending any school at all (Sarason and Doris, 1979). 

Beyond the school rooms, the agenda for national construction subsumed the concept of assimilation. The dominant culture (Anglo-Saxon) and the majority language (English) were closely linked to the American value system and seen as prerequisites to full citizenship. 

Pressure of political and economic origin and the passage of time influenced heavily the diminished language use of minority language communities (Fishman, 1980). However, large numbers of individuals held on to their linguistic and cultural traditions.

Several factors may have contributed to the strengthening of the vernaculars across the United States. As the nation grew and expanded, it was unable to absorb effectively language minority individuals into its economy. At this juncture, the democratic ideals which had bound together all citizens into a “melting pot” of progress fell into critical questioning. Ethnic consciousness deemed reawakened under the pressure of obligatory economic side streaming of language minorities (Fishman, 1971; Chaika, 1982). 

Hispanics, currently the most numerous of immigrant groups and the largest linguistic minority in the United States (Peñalosa, 1981) have encountered serious difficulties. Large numbers shared and still hold low socioeconomic levels matching other highly discriminated groups in the U.S.A., such as the blacks. Most have been here for more than a century, such as the Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans (colonized as a result of the Spanish-American War of 1898).

The Education of Language Minorities in the U.S.

Increasing concern over he role of education among language minority children grew as large numbers were and still are unable to graduate from the nation’s High Schools. School attrition has been higher  for language minority groups than for their monolingual counterparts. 

On the other hand, educators have known for years that language minorit children have difficulty succeeding in English monolingual schools. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights declared in 1971 that no large-scale effort was ever undertaken to better the educational conditions of no-English speaking children of Mexican extraction (cited in U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1975). 

The Commission again conducted a study in 1972 which revealed that in that year the attrition rate for Puerto Ricans in the New York City Public Schools from 10th grade to graduation was 57 percent (cited in U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1975).

In 1968, the Bilingual Education Act, product of federal legislative action, provided funds to support bilingual programs. It came to be clearly recognized at federal levels that instruction in the native tongue of the child would help solve the grave problem of educational inequality for these children.

In 1970 the first expression of executive policy in the area of bilingual education was effected when the Department of Education and Welfare (HEW) issued its May 25 Memorandum requiring districts to provide assistance for language minority children. Failure to comply would be considered a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1974. 

In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court affirmed the interpretation of Title VI’s scope declaring that children of Chinese ancestry had a clear educational disadvantage because they were being taught in a language incomprehensible to them, English.

This decision of 1974 in fact changed the whole concept of American public education: the nation’s judicial system intervened on behalf of equal educational opportunity. Public education, until then, meant bringing children up to conform to wholesome mainstream standards This also meant leaving out those who persevered in being different. It now appeared to shift its focus on accepting and tolerating cultural differences under the mandate of law. 

Bilingual education grew and expanded, partially due to a longstanding state of educational inequality for the linguistically different. The Bilingual Act of 1074 was enacted as a culmination of a series of accomplishments and advances on behalf of language minority individuals. It was supported and is now continued (reauthorization Bill of 1984) by the need to make the educational system work for the minority language child, an effort rarely observed in the annals of American public education.
Bilingualism and Bilingual Education

  Bilingual education has been and still is under heavy criticism in the United States. Most troubling is the general negative attitude of the majority population toward bilingualism of any kind. That maintenance of "old country" habits and behaviors (that is bilingualism and biculturalism) is frequently seen as suspicious or un-American  ( Fishman 1980). Other reasons are frequently stated. Expressions about the lack of effectiveness of bilingual education appear frequently in the popular media. Why allocate funds, mostly coming from the majority population, to implement programs which are not improving these children’s education? To the critics, then, it is futile to provide instruction to these children in the vernacular (Bowen, 1977). 

On the other hand, alternative reasons (other than linguistic) are presented to explain the minority child’s delayed progress in school. One is the low socioeconomic level of the parents which weighs on these children’s psychosocial development. Other reasons may fall under the umbrella of socioeconomic deprivation and poor school related program effectiveness.

However, no fully convincing body of experimental work has been put forth at this time to overcome contradictions and steady the course of bilingualism and bilingual education in the United States.

Statement of the Problem

School Bilingualism

Hispanic school children, as well as other language minority children in large urban cities is the United States, have long been influence by the controversial issue of bilingualism. That these children need to attain well rounded skills in English has been generally agreed upon by everyone truly concerned with the education of language minorities.

However, what has remained in the limelight of controversy is whether the language they bring with them to school, their vernacular, is to be kept in any way alive or allowed to disappear as rapidly as possible.

This longstanding issue seems to be centered on the academic usefulness of the vernacular. Opponents of bilingualism see it as a burden and a hindrance to acculturation and mainstreaming. On the other hand, those who support bilingualism maintain that is in fact and aid highly instrumental to the child’s speedy transition into English.

Research in this particular field has experienced considerable growth during the present decade. However, significant studies which specifically address the Spanish languge contribution (or lack of it) to English language development on urban bilingual children are not available in the current literature.

Cummins’  Hypothesis

Professor James Cummins, of the Ontario Institute for studies in Education 9Canada) and one of the most active supporters of bilingual education, has developed a comprehensive bilingual developmental interdependent hypothesis.

Cummins’  (1979) hypothesis states that “the level of L2 competence that a bilingual child attains is partially a function of the type of competence the child has developed in L1 at the time when intensive exposure to L2 begins” (p. 23). If a language minority child has failed to develop strong vocabulary concepts in the vernacular, it would be highly unlikely that this child would acquire competence levels of proficiency in the second language during his schooling years. Furthermore, his home language may eventually suffer further loss without adequate school support.

Empirical support for this hypothesis comes from correlational studies, studies of the optimal 
age question in L2 acquisition, and immersion program evaluations. This latter set of studies demonstrates the successful transfer of language skills across languages (Cummins, 1980).

Cummins also attempts to integrate linguistic and non linguistic factors in order to provide a better understanding of the problems currently confronting language minority children. He supports the idea that academic language deficit (deficit understood in terms of failure to compete with monolinguals in linguistic academic tasks) by itself does not fully explain a bilingual child's lack of adequate progress in school. 

Academic achievement, language attitudes, socioeconomic level, and teaching methods may also interact and explain the language minority child’s success or failure in school and in society. First language skills, however, seem crucial to competent school progress given the present conditions influencing language minority children (Cummins, 1979). 

Cummins’ hypothesis may help predict the negative cognitive as well as affective consequences of exposure to school in a second language. This may occur when language minority populations are being taught in a developmentally recent second language at a time when their first language has not matured up to academic readiness levels.

Cummins lends support to the idea that the first language is part and parcel of the child’s well-rounded development (as language belongs to the mind-ambience context of a fully developing individual). Its dynamic nature demands completion and maturity (Anisfeld, 1984). When a child’s first system stops growing because negative values have been attached to it and further exposure has been arrested, a sense of frustration may be felt by the child, hindering second language development (Saville-Troike, 1975).

Second language learning not only involves the task of applying-verbal skills toa new language system, but also the mental and psychological effort of adjusting to a highly complex context of societal realities. This introduction to a new social system, very much linked to second language acquisition, is not engaged fully  by the child until he or she enters a classroom. The double burden of acculturation and language learning is no small endeavor. It becomes ever more difficult when experienced at school, a totally new experience for a language minority child. A child’s fully developing first language system seems to be a springboard from which he or she may move on to other tasks (academic and social), part of which is second language learning. 

In conjunction with his “linguistic developmental interdependence hypothesis” Cummins (1979) has also formulated his threshold hypothesis. It proposes that there must be minimal level of linguistic development in L1 before the child can attain competitive level of achievement in school . Academic language development is seen in the context of mainstream language proficiency. A language minority child may have developed good second language skills to function adequately among his or her bilingual peers. Yet, this may not be sufficient for true academic progress in comparison to the wider domain of native speakers of English, that is, the majority population.

Furthermore, when addressing the linguistic characteristics of language minority children, Cummins (1980bc) makes a distinction between communicative proficiency (accent, fluency), which he gives the acronym of BICS (basic interpersonal communicative skills) and cognitive-academic proficiency, which he refers to as CALP (cognitive/academic language proficiency). The former (BICS) is contextualized or context embedded language. The speakers can actively exchange meaning in the context of paralinguistic and situational transactions (Cummins, 1984). 

In contrast, CALP depends mostly on linguistic cues to express meaning in logical terms (Cummins, (1984). Language proficiency tests con be categorized as measures of CALP  and may serve as good descriptors of what cognitive academic language proficiency means.

The use of this terminology to distinguish these two aspects of language has been the subject of recent debate (Rivera, 1984). Criticisms of Cummins’ linguistic distinctions have basically addressed two issues. One is Cummins’s assertion that academic cognitive/linguistic  lags may explain the bilingual students’ delay in academic achievement. Troike (1984) and Wald (1984), two of his major critics, maintain that sociocultural factors as well as cultural attitudes, expectations and teacher behaviors are at the crux of the problem. Cognitive-linguistic phenomena may only be indicators of the level of acculturation attained by these students; CALP is only a symptom, not a cause of poor academic achievement.

The second issue questions Cummins’ understanding of BICS and CALP as separate and independent proficiencies. Canale (1984) describes it as a “dichotomous characterization of communication” (p. 31) claiming that language must always exist in some context in order for it to be meaningful. Cummins’ (1984) hast clarified this issue by positioning BICS and CALP as a single proficiency, each describing separate points in a continuum. The former, BICS, describes the most context embedded and least cognitively demandingproficiency and the latter, CALP, the most context reduced and cognitively demanding proficiency.

Previous Research

Abundant research evidence has accumulated during the last seven years in support of  Cummins’ (1979) developmental interdependence hypothesis. A large proportion of it has taken place either in foreign setting (Canada and Sweden) Czico, 1976; Swain et al. , 1976; Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa, 1976). or in the western and norther part of the continent,with immigrant Mexican (Modiano, 1968) and Hispanic children (Walters, 1979; Sancho, 1980;  Hadis, 1984; Guerra, 1984) and indigenous populations (Leslie, 1977).

Research encompassing this specific area of Cummins’ hypothesis addressing Hispanic children and adults has followed along similar methodological lines as that previously mentioned. These studies have been limited in scope by basically considering correlations among linguistic variables. The longitudinal aspect of language development measured by observations of a single sample of bilingual children throughout the span of several years has not been the subject of previous research about Cummins’ linguistic interdependence hypothesis. 

The present research endeavor, in turn, will focus on the collection of correlated measures pertaining to students’s test scores of first and second languages throughout a period of three consecutive years. This will allow for observations and analysis of a wider spectrum of language variables within and across time parameters as well as within and across languages. An additional statistical procedure, not observed by previous research on Cummins’s hypothesis, will be implemented by the inclusion of the subjects’ intelligence quotients (IQ). These scores will be covaried with second language scores in order to determine whether our subjects’ intelligence scores contribute significantly to second language development.

Research on Hispanics

Four linguistic interdependence studies involving Hispanic subjects are reported in the literature (Walters, 1979, Sancho, 1980, Hadis, 1984, [cited in Gingras, 1984]). All four provide support for Cummins’s hypothesis. However, these studies apply the interdependence hypothesis to address diverse aspects of the problem. 

The first study by Walters (1979) is limited to the pragmatic domain of language ability. It shows that a relationship exists between bilingual children’s two languages and that this relationship influences performance on certain tasks in the second language. However, it fails to address the cognitive-linguistic aspects of language development and its longitudinal dimension. Cummins’ hypothesis, on the other hand, underscores cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in the context of long term bilingual education (Cummins, 1980c).

The second monograph, by Sancho, compared the effects of two fundamentally different approaches to bilingual education, maintenance and transitional instruction in San Antonio, Texas. Analysis of the results indicated that the type of program had less influence on student achievement than did the degree of linguistic competence which the bilingual child initially brought to the school setting. A direct relationship was found between academic performance and initial proficiency in both languages. This supports the hypothesis that the development and maintenance of two languages in the classroom increases the ability of bilingual children to perform logical operations such as those required in mathematics.

However no observations where recorded on the developmental interdependence influences of both languages upon each other such that one, the native language, may be predictive of second-language development. Hadis (1984), on a similar study, fails to include treatment of the academic language performance of the Hispanic high school students who served as subjects. Furthermore, no data on elementary school children’s language performance was collected and analysed.

The fourth and most recent study of Cummins’  linguistic interdependence hypothesis by Guerra [1984] (cited in Gingras, 1984), analyzed the effect of three native language related variables and two English language learning related variables on six measures of error recognition and correction (error judgements) of the second language.

A sample of 182 Hispanic adults was randomly drawn from the total population of Hispanic students at Houston Community College. Guerra found that academic native language skills (Spanish) appeared to be predictive of the students’ ability to comprehend and recognize errors in the second language as well as t he ability to correct local errors in the second language when examples of syntactic errors were shown to these students.

Although this study provide evidence of Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis, it limits the sample to Hispanic adults and focuses solely on the subject’s ability to recognize and correct syntactic errors in both languages. Academic language proficiency for either children or adults includes other aspects of language, such as vocabulary knowledge and comprehension.

The above four research projects regarding Hispanics, in sharp contrast with our contemplated study, focused wither on linguistic proficiencies exhibited by adult Hispanics (Hadis and Guerra), on the one hand, or measured the communicative competence of children, in contrast to academic proficiency (Walters). Sancho’s study, although focusing on primary school children, observed the subjects’ initial proficiencies in the first and second language with respect to academic performance, failing to compare first and second language intercorrelations over time (or longitudinally).

The long term effects of first language proficiency on second language ability  were no subjected to analysis. Furthermore, the influence that intelligence may have on the subjects’ ability to learn the second language is not known from any of the studies reviewed here.

Research on Finnish Students

Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976) provided strong support for Cummins’s hypothesis, precisely by showing that Finnish immigrant children (mostly of indigent families) reached competence levels in Swedish, in direct correspondence with the levels of proficiency in their vernacular. In other words, children who know Finnish best also learned Swedish best. And those who did not attain progress in Finnish (the vernacular) only accomplished slow and poor progress in Swedish. Moreover, the authors observed vernacular loss by those children who followed the Swedish curriculum alone: their Finnish remained static, or stagnant. Ethnic values appeared to have been negatively structured into the curriculum, to these children’s disadvantage.

Skutnabb-Kangas’ (1979) research drew data from 700 Finnish immigrant children in two communities in Sweden. Picture vocabulary test scores were collected by her colleague Pertti Toukomaa (1979). Poor language productions on both languages were reported below the 30th percentile rank on picture vocabulary tests administered in Finnish and Swedish; however, Finnish  immigrant children exposed to a Swedish language medium of instruction exhibited a diminishing level of proficiency in Swedish across three consecutive years (first, second and third graders) on a cross-sectional study (independent groups). 

To further her hypothesis, Skutnabb-Kangas provided data (see table 1) on language proficiency scores (listening comprehension in Swedish) of Finnish children schooled in their native country (Finland). Strikingly enough, children schooled in Finland performed better in Swedish listening comprehension tests than Finnish children who never went to school in Finland. To advance her point, the author presented evidence of significant improvement for Finnish children who underwent schooling for more than three years in Finland. This author also demonstrated improvement in Swedish comprehension tests for those children undergoing bilingual education. 

TABLE 1

Listening comprehension (Swedish) and the Language of School Entry



GROUP I
GROUP II
TEST
MARK
%
STARTED SCHOOL IN SWEDEN STARTED SCHOOL IN FINLAND


School years in Finland
before emigration

SWEDISH           FINNISH  
CLASSES            CLASSES
1-2 YEARS      3 + YEARS
    1-2 (-)       12
4
14             12
      3             50
33
17            12
    4-5 (+)      38
63
69          76
100%
100%
100%        100%
N   =  82
49
29            17

NOTE: From Language in the process of Cultural Assimilation and S
tructural incorporation of linguistic Minorities, (p.16), by Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 
(1979) Interamerica Research Associates, Inc


     The author, however, fails to indicate statically whether there are significant differences among the four groups of Finnish children (Table 1). A non parametric analysis of variance seemed to be the appropriate statistical operation. Two factors (independent variables) are represented on the frequency table described above: Finnish academic proficiency by virtue of language of school entry with four levels; and Swedish comprehension with three levels. 

Research of Amerindians

Leslie (1977), likewise, discovered a high correlation between childdren’s oral Cree competence and English reading skills in a study conducted with grade one and two students on the Hobbema Cree Indian Reserve in Alberta. Similar findings were reported by Modiano (1968) with mexican Indian children. Those who were first taught to read in the vernacular did better in English than those who were taught to read only in English. 

The common pattern revealed by these researchers is that first and second language appear to be correlated such that command of the native language at the onset of schooling may have significantly contributed to the acquisition of the second language throughout the education process.


Dissertation Rationale


This particular research work will attempt to discover, in fact, whether developmental interdependence and, consequently, additive bilingualism is observable among Hispanic children 
currently undergoing schooling in large urban centers on the eastern part of the mainland, specifically, in Newark, New Jersey. In contrast to research reviewed previously, Cummins’  hypothesis will be investigated by observing first and second language development in primary school bilingual children on a longitudinal basis; that is, the collection and analysis of language scores of a single group of children for three consecutive years.

Secondly, and sharply differing from previous studies, it will be designed to show statistically whether intelligence is to be held accountable in significant levels for the improved second language proficiencies of  these children in place of first language skills. Thirdly, it will perform a factorial analysis of first and second language proficiency across the span of three years, encompassing within language and across language interactions in concomitance with several presumed linguistic-related variables, thus presenting a wider picture of linguistic development as influenced by ethnolinguistic, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.

And, fourthly, sampling criteria will provide for the observation of a wide repertoire of first and second language skills currently exhibited by children undergoing bilingual education from the onset of schooling (first grade) thus allowing for a comparative longitudinal analysis of children with lower and higher proficiencies.

Results of this study may most clearly indicate whether the development of first language skills by these children may be useful if second language skills are to be effectively fostered. Bilingual education aimed at developing first language skills will then be a most clearly convincing need.


In addition to better language performance, stronger cognitive-conceptual abilities may be developed by these children. Competence levels of English proficiency will consequently allow no delay in the general education of these children. Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976) observed that achievement in subject matter which required abstract modes of thought was appreciably improved when migrant children exhibited more sophisticated knowledge of their mother tongue. In addition, these children had increased probabilities of competing with native speakers of Swedish in the job market There, skillful use of cognitive and language abilities were requires. Thus, their chances of fully joining the social and economic structure of the receiving country were improved (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1979).

     Hispanics who have lived and grown up in large urban areas, such as Newark and New York City, are currently evidencing poor chances of structural incorporations into the economic system. Large numbers have not developed deep level academic, cognitive, and language skills to compete on an equal level with white Americans.

Drop-out levels continue to be as high as ever (Aspira of New York, 1983) for Hispanics of the New York City public school system. This may remain so until educators of the majority population realize that maintenance bilingual education is not to be seen solely as a legal issue, but as a pressing alternative in need of serious research. Only then will it become a truly effective instrument of educational and socioeconomic opportunity for disadvantaged language minority children.















miércoles, 15 de octubre de 2014

CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY - WTH CORE VARIABLES

CHAPTER II

Methodology
Introduction

It will be this dissertation’s goal to provide further evidence on behalf of Cummins’ linguistic developmental interdependence hypothesis. Systematic observations of academic bilingualism among Hispanic children were registered in an attempt to measure their degree of linguistic (Spanish-English) interdependence. Data comprising language tests scores were gathered periodically during three years of schooling, beginning in first grade.

The full population of Hispanic first graders enrolled in these bilingual neighboring schools in the city of Newark, New Jersey, who were administered both Spanish and English language proficiency tests, participated in the study.

It is hypothesized that variations observed in second language proficiency scores of primary school bilingual Hispanic children may significantly relate to the active influence of previously developed vernacular language at the time the child is introduced to public education. Other anticipated intervening sociolinguistic and demographic variables were gathered by interviewing the parents of the children participating in the study. In addition, these children's intelligence quotient was obtained by administering the Spanish WISC intelligence test to the sample. It may be fairly assumed that confirming Cummins’ hypothesis will strengthen the need of L1 maintaining bilingual education as effective tool in the cognitive-academic development of the bilingual child.
Subjects

Seventy-five third graders of Hispanic extraction undergoing bilingual education at the Roberto Clemente, Elliott Street and Franklin Elementary Schools in Newark, New Jersey, were the subjects of the study.

Selection Criteria

These students comprised the full population of first graders who were administered and completed two consecutive L1 and L2 language tests in May 1982 and in May 1983. These tests were the following:
  1. Spanish proficiency: CTBS Espanol levels B and C: Level B administered in 1982 and Level C in 1983.
  2. English proficiency : The MAC: Grade I in 1982, and the LAB-1982 Form A, Grade 2 in 1983.
Core Variables (See Appendix II)

The Spanish CTBS (Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills), English MAC (Maculaitis Assessment Program), and LAB-82 (Language Assessment Battery), all language proficiency tests, served as core variables.

The following Table details the year month each test was administered, the language of the test, and the grade level in which it was administered.

TABLE 2

YEAR AND MONTH OF ADMINISTRATION, TESTS ADMINISTERED, 
LANGUAGE OF TEST, AND GRADE LEVEL


YEAR
MONTH
TEST
LANGUAGE
GRADE
1982
May
CTBS (LEVEL B)
Spanish
1
1983
May
CTBS (LEVEL C)
Spanish
2
1982
May
MAC (K-1)
English
1
1983
May
LAB 82 
Form A (K-2
English
2
1984
February
LAB-82
Form A
(3-5)
English
3
   
     The CBS Espanol is a Spanish-language adaptation of the CTBS/S Reading and Mathematics tests, levels B through C. It was developed by Norwalk-La Miranda Unified School District in Southern California (1978). The CTBS is not intended to measure achievement in specific course content as reflected in textbooks for that level. However, performance on the test depends on the possession of relevant knowledge at the grade level. Levels B and C, respectively, are grade I and grade II tests. A brief description of the content of the subtest of the reading test o both levels o the CTBS Espanol (level B & C) will follow. A description of the Mathematics test will be omitted, since it will not be used as data for this study. 

CTBS: Grade I

Level B (Grade I) subtests on the reading sections are as follows:
1. Word Recognition I: (19 items):
  • An oral stimulus is provided for the student to identify and match the printed form of the same word.
  • Example: The child is instructed to identify the written word that corresponds to the one pronounced by the tester. 
  • The child must mark a small circle drawn under the word. He or she must choose from a set of four words as illustrated below:
hambre
()
Hora 
()
dentro
()
hombre 
()
  1. Reading comprehension
  • The student is asked to read a sentence, comprehend its meaning and choose from the picture choices the one that is appropriate for the sentence. The three choices include the correct answer and any two of the following error types: (1) as error in gender, (2) and error in number (3) a content error, and (4) a phonetic error.
  • Example: The following sentence is given the child to read:
“Mira el carro”
  • Drawn under this sentence, there are three pictures each separated by a vertical line, (the length of each drawing is is about two inches); the first a car, the second a horse, the third a cat. The child must be able to read (silently) the sentence, understand its meaning and mark the picture of the car.
  1. Word Recognition II (19 items):
  • Many of the words used in this test are the same as those used in Word Recognition I. However, the item and answer choices are arranged differently. The test presents a picture stimulus followed by four answer choices. The student is required to match the visual stimulus with the printed form of the same word.
  • Example: The picture of a foot appears drawn at the beginning of horizontal sequence of choice words.
Picture of a foot
que 
()
pié
()
pan 
()
peor
 ()
  • The student must mark the circle under the correct word, foot.
CTBS, Grade II
Level C (Grade II) subtests (reading section) are as follows:

1. Reading Vocabulary (33 items): The student is orally provided with a description of one of  four words which appears in writing on his answer sheet. The distractors are of the following types: antonyms, contextually related words, and unrelated words.

Example: The student is asked to search and then mark the word that names a domestic animal. Four words are presented in written form as illustrated below. The correct answer is cat.

()venado
() bebé
() gato
()juguete


2. Reading comprehension: Sentences (23 items): a printed sentence with a missing word is shown. The answer choices appear within the sentence.

Example:

                    ( () uno   () felices   )

Los niños (                                    )       sonríen

                   ( ()  tristes  ()  rojos   )

3. Reading comprehension: Passages (18 items): The student is given six brief passages or letters to read, and 18 items related to the passages. The items measure specific skills in both literal and critical comprehension, including literal recall rewording of details, using context clues to answer questions, stating the main idea, and interpreting the story to reach a conclusion.
Example: 

2. Reading comprehension: Sentences (23 items): a printed sentence with a missing word is shown. The answer choices appear within the sentence.

Example:
              ( () uno   () felices   )
Los niños (                                    )       sonríen
                 (     ()  tristes   ()  rojos   )
  1. Reading comprehension: Passages (18 items): The student is given six brief passages or letters to read, and 18 items related to the passages. The items measure specific skills in both literal and critical comprehension, including literal recall rewording of details, using context clues to answer questions, stating the main idea, and interpreting the story to reach a conclusion.
Example: 

Querido Tomás: 

Nosotros estamos en la casa de mi tío Jaime. Cata y yo nos estamos divirtiendo. Jugamos en la arena y en el mar. Pero más que todo nos gusta ir en el barco de mi tío Jaime. También jugamos con un perro que se llama Lobo.

Encontramos unas conchitas muy bonitas. Algunas son rosadas y otras son blancas. Te las enseñaré cuando regresemos a casa. Quisera que estuvieras con nosotros.

Tu amigo,

           Jose

¿Para quién es la carta? ¿Qué encontraron los niños?
() José     ()Tomás () arena    () algunos pescados
() Cata    () el Tío Jaime () conchitas  () un barco

¿Quienes juegan en la arena? ¿Dónde encontraron los niños?
() Tomás () Cata y José () en un rancho () en un bosque
() el perro () el tío Jaime                               y Tomás
() en la ciudad () cerca de la playa


The Maculaitis Assessment Program: MAC K-1

The MAC provides measurement of the students’s performance on global and specific English language proficiency, and academic achievement in the second language (English). The following are the content areas covered by the MAC K-1. `
MAC, Grade 1

1. Oral expression (2 subtests, 10 items, maximum score: 60)
First subtest: Five simple questions are asked by the examiner.
Example: “What grade are you in?
Answer   a. First grade                   --- 2 points
              b. in the first grade.         --- 2 points
              c. I’m in the first grade.  --- 2 points
              d. I first                           --- 1 point
               e. school                         ---  0 points

Second subtest: connected discourse is examined by the use of a pictorial sequence story. A speech sample is obtained and scored on the students use of the following skills: comprehension, pronunciation, grammatical structure, vocabulary, and fluency.

Example: The examiner shows the student four pictures; each picture follows in story-like sequence. In the first picture Henry is sitting on a chair watching TV and having a snack. The examiners describes his first picture and asks the child what has happened in the second, third and fourth picture.

The student is encouraged to speak as clearly as possible (answers are taped). He or she is then scored on each of the four skills described above with the use of a scoring sheet. For example, if the child indicates native speaker ability to comprehend the target language he is give a score of ten on the first skill, comprehension. If he appears to have native speaker pronunciation of target language he is given a core of ten un pronunciation.

2. Listening Comprehension (3 subtests, 21 items, maximum score 36)

First subtest: comprehension of commands. In this part of the test, there are six test items: a pair of scissors, a small piece of scrap paper for each student, a pencil, a wastepaper basket, a ruler, and a book. The examinar uses a puppet (Johnny) to mediate communication with the student. 
Example: the student is asked to take the book, open it and give it to Johnny, etc.

Second subtest: In this part of the test there are six listening comprehension questions. The examiner is to read the three brief selections in a “normal” tone and speed; the ask the student two questions based on each selection.

Example:
Maria Elena went to the store for her mother. She bought milk and bread. Then she went home.

“Where did Maria go?”
“What did she buy?”

Third subtest: minimal pairs. In this part of the test, there are six items. The student responds to each item by pointing to the appropriate picture in the MAC: K-1 Stimulus Booklet.

Example: The examiner shows the cat/cap picture and asks the student to point to the cat.
3. Vocabulary Recognition: (one subtest 15 items, maximum score 30)

In this part of the test there are fifteen test items to identify in the MAC: K-1 Stimuls Booklet. Skills tested are: vocabulary identification (consonants, vowels, and consonant blends/one, two and three syllable words; definition of the nouns/simple and compound sentences.

Any synonym is accepted. For example “car” “auto,” or “automobile, “ are all acceptable and, therefore, equally correct. Example: the examiner shows a picture of a dog and asks: “What’s this?”

The LAB-82: Language Assessment Battery

This test differs from the original LAB, published in 1978. It contains all new item content, and is composed of four levels and only one form at each level. The LAB-82 has English and Spanish versions. Form A (Grades K, 1 and 2 are level I;  grades 3, 4, 5 are level II) includes tests of listening, speaking, reading, and writing at all levels. The purpose of the English version of the battery is to assess the language proficiency of all students whose English language proficiency is limited. 

LAB-82, Grade 2
Test Content (Level I, Form A):
Test I: Listening and Speaking: 30 items
Items 1-9

The child is asked to respond verbally o simple commands.
Example: what is his or her name, what color is Gloria’s bus, what is the name of an object printed at on a picture, to whom does an object in a picture belong, etc. The child is also asked to perform some actions such as touching his or her ears, legs, etc.

Items 9-22

Verbal responses about what the child observes on a picture, remembers from past events and imagines on future action are marked for relevance and grammar. For example, the examiner points to a boy painting at the easel and asks “what is this boy doing?”

 The answer is relevant if it describes observed action; it is grammatically correct if it conforms to standard rules of grammar.

Items 23-30
The child submits written responses which conform to his or her correct answer from a selection of one of three pictures depicting some action. Questions address an agent as action, an objet and a relationship.
For example, the examiner asks the child to mark the picture that shows “the boy is painting”; “the man who is running has a flag”, etc.

Test II: reading and Writing: 28 items
Items 1-43. 
The child is asked to mark the correct word (from a list of four words) which appears in writing after the examiner has orally dictated he corresponding word. For example: mark the word ‘me’.”

Items 5-9
The child is asked to mark the picture that corresponds to the word which appears at the onset of a horizontal ordering of pictures (one of which pictures matches the word). 
For example, “read the word next to the house. (house symbolized the item) then mark the picture that goes with that word.”

Items 10-12
The child is shown a picture, then is asked to mark the box next to the sentence that tells about the picture. Three sentences are presented.
For example: “look at the picture of the bird. Mark the box next to the sentence that tells about the bird.”

Items 13-19
The child is shown a picture and a sentence to read. There is a missing word. He or she has to mark the word that best finishes the sentence. The picture illustrates the meaning of the sentence.

For example: Now you read the next sentence to yourself. It has a missing word. Read the words that are in the boxes under that sentence. Find the word taht best finishes the sentence. Mark the box with that word in it. Mark only one box.”

3. Writing (20 items). (test 3): It tests understanding of syntax by having he child choose the answer that best finishes the sentence of best answers the question.

Items 20-28
These items present a similar set of paradigms to the previous ones, except that there is no picture shown. The child has to choose the word that best finishes the sentence from reading the text alone.

For example: the __________ is running.”

                      --  was         -- cat       -- little
         
LAB-82, Grade 3

Test Content: Form A, (Grades 3, 4, 5) Level II
Listening (test 1):

Part I (16 items): tests understanding spoken English by presenting a choice of pictures that best describes a spoken sentence.

Example: A sentence is read aloud by the examiner. The student should find the picture (among a row of three) that best tells what the sentence is about. 

The sentence is : ”This is a bird.” A tree, a bird and a chair are presented in sequence A, B, and C.: B is the answer.

Part II (14 items): tests understanding spoken English by having the child listen to questions and select the right answer from printed and oral presentation of choice words.
Example: A question is read aloud by examiner. The examiner will also read four possible answers which are printed on the exam sheet. The student must mark the correct answer.

“Is it cold today?”

A. Every day.
B. Yes, it is.
C. Once a week.
D. After school.

2. Reading (36 items, 5 reading passages), (test 2) : It tests understanding of text allowing the child to select the missing word in a string from a set of choice words, only one of which makes sense from the context.

Example: The student is asked to read a story. In each story some words are missing. Wherever a word is missing, there is a blank line with a number on it. The student is asked to choose the word that makes the most sense in the blank space.

Mrs. Smith has a baby. A. cry             B. girl
The baby is a _______. C. good

3. Writing (20 items) (test 3): it tests understanding of syntax by having the child choose the answer that best finishes the sentence or best answers the question.
Example: Some sentences with a word missing are shown the student. A list of possible answers are given under each sentence. The best answer must be chose.
“Ruth __________on my street.”

A. house
B. lives
C. his
D. always

4. Speaking (test 4) (oral question and response format): Part I (18 items): base upon picture stimuli, the child must answer questions. His answers are scored for relevance and for grammatically correct responses.

Example: the student is shown four pictures and asked some questions about the pictures on the page. The first picture represents a boy tying his shoe on the steps in front of a door. Any relevant response is cored as correct, such as:

“He is on the steps.”
“In front of a door.”
“on the steps.”
“Outside the house.”

Part II (8items): responses are base entirely upon questions asked by the examiner. No pictorial stimuli are presented.
Example: The student is asked some questions.

“Tell me about someone you like.”
A model correct response:

“He is nice.”
“Fun to play with.”
“Helps me.”