Early Language Research
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Early Language Research as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,669
- Pages: 7
Apple Education Series
Early Language Connections
Longitudinal Study
This research report summarizes the findings of a multiyear study commissioned by Apple Computer, that systematically explored the implementation and use of Early Language Connections and resulting student performance between 1994–1996. The research was conducted by Larry Guthrie, Ph.D. at the Center for Research, Evaluation and Training in Education (CREATE). Summary of findings
Measures of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing showed students in Early Language Connections classes were performing as well as or better than peers in less technology-rich classrooms. First-grade students in Early Language Connections classrooms performed as well as or better than their peers in comparison classrooms. Second-grade students in Early Language Connections classrooms, who had more experience with a technology-rich learning environment, performed better than their peers in comparison classrooms on measures of vocabulary and composition.
About Early Language Connections Apple’s Early Language Connections is a technology and literature-based K–2 language arts curriculum program that integrates a wide range of teaching resources. Early Language Connections consists of three to four Apple Macintosh computers per classroom, literature (including more than 350 children’s books), instructional software, and sample lessons to promote language development. The program also includes two days of on-site staff development that gives teachers hands-on experience with the computers and software. It is designed to help them move beyond the mechanics of using the computers to fully integrating technology into their regular language arts curriculum and instruction. ®
®
The curriculum and software
The curriculum includes three thematic units for kindergarten and two thematic units for first and second grade. These language arts lessons use 52 titles selected from the best children’s literature to develop the full range of language skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Each unit is designed to last four weeks, and includes up to 40 follow-up activities that connect the language arts lessons to science, math, social studies, music, and art. Some of the software and activities focus directly on phonics and building sound-letter connections. Software such as Muppets on Stage (Sunburst Communications, Inc.) and Word Munchers (The Learning Company) have this orientation. The CD-ROMs such as Just Grandma and Me (Living Books, a Random House/Brøderbund Company) provide literary content. Productivity tools for students, such as KidWorks 2 (Davidson & Associates, Inc.) and SuperPrint (Scholastic Inc.) provide a foundation for the full range of writing and drawing activities. The Grady Profile (Aurbach & Associates, Inc.) gives teachers the ability to assess student performance and store their evaluations in electronic portfolios. Together, the software and curriculum materials create a model for technology integration, encouraging teachers to use computers as one of several resources available to them. Teachers may either adopt the lessons in their entirety or adapt them to the unique demands of their respective classrooms. The program structure
In order to appreciate the results of this research study, it is important to understand the structure of the Early Language Connections program. Early Language Connections was designed to be used in the regular classroom. The curriculum gives teachers specific strategies for using the various parts of the program to support children as they learn to speak, read, write, and listen. Taken as a whole, the lessons could be used to replace certain existing instructional units, or teachers can select from among the resources and strategies they offer, fitting them into their ongoing instruction. The ideal Early Language Connections classroom is organized into learning stations that focus on a specific subject (science, art, math, reading), activity (vocabulary, silent reading, story web/pre-writing, information-gathering) or function (library, theater, quiet place, research lab). In each case, one (or more) of these learning stations will be a technology center, with three to four Macintosh computers loaded with the instructional software that comes with Early Language Connections.
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
1
Early Language Connections Research The Center for Research, Evaluation and Training in Education (CREATE) conducted a multiyear study of the use of Early Language Connections. This research was designed to provide Apple Computer, Inc., educators, and the public with systematic information on product implementation, use, and impact. Three key questions guide the research:
1. How is Early Language Connections implemented and used in classrooms? 2. What is the impact of Early Language Connections on teachers? 3. How does Early Language Connections affect student learning? This report summarizes findings on question 3, the effects of Early Language Connections on student learning. In this brief, we report on findings on student performance in reading and composition. The study included one Early Language Connections classroom and a comparison at the first- and second-grade levels at eight schools (16 teachers total) between 1994– 1996. Comparison classrooms were selected based on demographics and curriculum comparability. While students in the comparison classes had access to technology, it was more incidental to regular instruction and consisted of a single computer in the classroom or access to a computer lab setup. The study was conducted at four geographically and demographically diverse sites: Camden, NJ; El Paso, TX; Cape Coral, FL; and Lexington, NE.
Reading Performance Reading performance was measured with a standardized test: the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT). This test has nine levels and is designed to assess reading skills in grades 1–12. We administered Level 1–2 (grades 1–2). The test includes a vocabulary and a comprehension section in which students answer questions in a multiple-choice format. The comprehension passages represent a balance of narrative and non-narrative modes and of fiction, poetry, and content area materials and include a cross-section of semantic structures. Vocabulary words were chosen from standard lists and represent the different parts of speech. In the vocabulary section, students choose the word that goes with a picture.
2
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
First grade
Table 1 shows mean raw scores, grade equivalents, and percentile rankings for first-grade students. Figures 1 and 2 present a more visual representation of this data. These data suggest that all students are close to average for their grade level on the test. The gains from fall to spring are also about what we would expect— about .5 grade equivalent. Table 1
GRADE 1
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT) Grade Equivalent Scores and Percentile Ranking Vocabulary Fall Spring
Fall to Spring Comprehension Fall Spring
Fall
TOTAL Spring
Mean Raw Scores
Early Language Connections
18.2
32.8
18.2
32.2
36.4
65.0
Comparison
15.7
30.2
16.2
30.7
31.9
60.9
Early Language Connections
1.2
1.9
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.7
Comparison
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.6
Early Language Connections
32
55
29
49
26
49
Comparison
23
44
21
43
18
43
Grade Equivalent Scores
Percentile Ranking
GMRT Grade Equivalent
GRADE 1
GMRT Percentile Ranking
60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yyy yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Spring yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Vocabulary yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ Fall ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ Comprehension @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Spring @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy yy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy Comprehension Comparison Fall
1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vocabulary 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Language Connections Figure 1
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
Percentile Rank
GE Score
2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
GRADE 1
yyy yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yyy yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Language Connections
Comparison
Figure 2
3
Second grade
Table 2 shows the results for second-grade students on the GMRT in terms of raw scores, grade equivalents, and percentile rankings. These data reflect a somewhat different pattern. Early Language Connections second-graders scored much better on the vocabulary portion of the test in the fall, and then made greater gains in the spring. In terms of grade equivalents, they increased more than one grade to 3.4, while the comparison group moved up less than one. In percentile rankings, the Early Language Connections group increased their vocabulary ranking 11 percentage points to the 71st percentile. We also calculated Normal Curve Equivalent scores, and this gain represents a gain of 6 NCEs for the Early Language Connections group, but only 1 NCE for the comparison students. These differences are shown graphically in Figures 3 and 4. Table 2
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT)
GRADE 2
Grade Equivalent Scores and Percentile Ranking Vocabulary Fall Spring
Fall to Spring
Comprehension Fall Spring
TOTAL Fall Spring
Mean Raw Scores
Early Language Connections
28.3
37.2
33.9
39.1
62.2
76.3
Comparison
23.7
31.8
26.6
34.1
50.3
65.9
Early Language Connections
2.3
3.4
2.4
3.4
2.4
3.4
Comparison
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.5
1.7
2.6
Early Language Connections
60
71
63
60
64
68
Comparison
39
41
36
40
37
41
Grade Equivalent Scores
Percentile Ranking
GMRT Grade Equivalent
yyy yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
GRADE 2
GMRT Percentile Ranking
80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GE Score
yyy yyy yyy Spring @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Vocabulary yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ Fall ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ Comprehension ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy yy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Spring @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy Comprehension Comparison
2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fall Vocabulary 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3
Percentile Ranking
70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Language Connections
GRADE 2
yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy
@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ .......................................... @@@@@ 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ .......................................... @@@@@ 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ ............... @@@@@ @@@@@ 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 20 @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ ............... 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ .......................................... 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
Early Language Connections
yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy
Comparison
Figure 4
Findings from the administration of the test show that:
Overall, students in Early Language Connections classrooms performed as well as or better than their peers in comparison classrooms on the GMRT. Results were consistently in favor of Early Language Connections classrooms at both the first- and secondgrade levels, on both the vocabulary and comprehension portions of the test. 4
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
Writing Performance To assess writing, students were given 30 minutes to complete a story based upon a common prompt. For the fall 1995 assessment, the prompt given was “Once there was a boy and his dog…”; in spring 1996, it was “Once I had a funny friend….” Compositions were scored using a six-point holistic scoring rubric that was developed in part by first- and second-grade teachers. Classroom teachers with experience in holistic scoring were trained in using the rubric and conducted the scoring. One-fourth of the samples were scored twice to ensure reliability among scorers. Figure 5 shows timed writing scores for Early Language Connections first-graders and comparisons for fall and spring. Early Language Connections students performed better than the comparison group in the fall (1.96 to 1.45), but both groups scored the same in the spring (2.67). Early Language Connections second-grade students performed better on the writing sample than their counterparts. While Early Language Connections students scored a consistent 3.9, the comparison group dropped to 3.07 in the spring.
Timed Writing
3.0
2.0
Timed Writing 4.0
.................................................................
yyyy 2.67 yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy
yyy 2.67 yyy yyy yyy yyy 1.45 yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy Comparison
yyyy 3.07 yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy
..............................................................
2.0
..............................................................
1.0
..............................................................
Fall
yyy yyySpring
3.6
3.0
.................................................................
Early Language Connections
yyy 3.9 yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy Early Language
GRADE 2
..............................................................
3.92
.................................................................
1.96 1.0
GRADE 1
Comparison
Connections
Figure 5
Figure 6
Conclusion Findings of Early Language Connections research suggest that effects of integrating technology into classroom lessons may be stronger as children mature. Vocabulary, comprehension, and timed writing scores for first-graders in the two groups were roughly equivalent. The second-grade Early Language Connections group, however, scored higher than the comparison group on vocabulary and in timed writing. In addition, the fact that the second-graders in Early Language Connections classrooms had also used Early Language Connections in their first-grade classrooms may have had some impact on the results.
Apple Education 2420 Ridgepoint Drive M/S 198-ED Austin, TX 78754 1-800-800-APPL (2775) © 1996 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, and Macintosh are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc.
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
5
Early Language Connections
Longitudinal Study
This research report summarizes the findings of a multiyear study commissioned by Apple Computer, that systematically explored the implementation and use of Early Language Connections and resulting student performance between 1994–1996. The research was conducted by Larry Guthrie, Ph.D. at the Center for Research, Evaluation and Training in Education (CREATE). Summary of findings
Measures of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing showed students in Early Language Connections classes were performing as well as or better than peers in less technology-rich classrooms. First-grade students in Early Language Connections classrooms performed as well as or better than their peers in comparison classrooms. Second-grade students in Early Language Connections classrooms, who had more experience with a technology-rich learning environment, performed better than their peers in comparison classrooms on measures of vocabulary and composition.
About Early Language Connections Apple’s Early Language Connections is a technology and literature-based K–2 language arts curriculum program that integrates a wide range of teaching resources. Early Language Connections consists of three to four Apple Macintosh computers per classroom, literature (including more than 350 children’s books), instructional software, and sample lessons to promote language development. The program also includes two days of on-site staff development that gives teachers hands-on experience with the computers and software. It is designed to help them move beyond the mechanics of using the computers to fully integrating technology into their regular language arts curriculum and instruction. ®
®
The curriculum and software
The curriculum includes three thematic units for kindergarten and two thematic units for first and second grade. These language arts lessons use 52 titles selected from the best children’s literature to develop the full range of language skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Each unit is designed to last four weeks, and includes up to 40 follow-up activities that connect the language arts lessons to science, math, social studies, music, and art. Some of the software and activities focus directly on phonics and building sound-letter connections. Software such as Muppets on Stage (Sunburst Communications, Inc.) and Word Munchers (The Learning Company) have this orientation. The CD-ROMs such as Just Grandma and Me (Living Books, a Random House/Brøderbund Company) provide literary content. Productivity tools for students, such as KidWorks 2 (Davidson & Associates, Inc.) and SuperPrint (Scholastic Inc.) provide a foundation for the full range of writing and drawing activities. The Grady Profile (Aurbach & Associates, Inc.) gives teachers the ability to assess student performance and store their evaluations in electronic portfolios. Together, the software and curriculum materials create a model for technology integration, encouraging teachers to use computers as one of several resources available to them. Teachers may either adopt the lessons in their entirety or adapt them to the unique demands of their respective classrooms. The program structure
In order to appreciate the results of this research study, it is important to understand the structure of the Early Language Connections program. Early Language Connections was designed to be used in the regular classroom. The curriculum gives teachers specific strategies for using the various parts of the program to support children as they learn to speak, read, write, and listen. Taken as a whole, the lessons could be used to replace certain existing instructional units, or teachers can select from among the resources and strategies they offer, fitting them into their ongoing instruction. The ideal Early Language Connections classroom is organized into learning stations that focus on a specific subject (science, art, math, reading), activity (vocabulary, silent reading, story web/pre-writing, information-gathering) or function (library, theater, quiet place, research lab). In each case, one (or more) of these learning stations will be a technology center, with three to four Macintosh computers loaded with the instructional software that comes with Early Language Connections.
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
1
Early Language Connections Research The Center for Research, Evaluation and Training in Education (CREATE) conducted a multiyear study of the use of Early Language Connections. This research was designed to provide Apple Computer, Inc., educators, and the public with systematic information on product implementation, use, and impact. Three key questions guide the research:
1. How is Early Language Connections implemented and used in classrooms? 2. What is the impact of Early Language Connections on teachers? 3. How does Early Language Connections affect student learning? This report summarizes findings on question 3, the effects of Early Language Connections on student learning. In this brief, we report on findings on student performance in reading and composition. The study included one Early Language Connections classroom and a comparison at the first- and second-grade levels at eight schools (16 teachers total) between 1994– 1996. Comparison classrooms were selected based on demographics and curriculum comparability. While students in the comparison classes had access to technology, it was more incidental to regular instruction and consisted of a single computer in the classroom or access to a computer lab setup. The study was conducted at four geographically and demographically diverse sites: Camden, NJ; El Paso, TX; Cape Coral, FL; and Lexington, NE.
Reading Performance Reading performance was measured with a standardized test: the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT). This test has nine levels and is designed to assess reading skills in grades 1–12. We administered Level 1–2 (grades 1–2). The test includes a vocabulary and a comprehension section in which students answer questions in a multiple-choice format. The comprehension passages represent a balance of narrative and non-narrative modes and of fiction, poetry, and content area materials and include a cross-section of semantic structures. Vocabulary words were chosen from standard lists and represent the different parts of speech. In the vocabulary section, students choose the word that goes with a picture.
2
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
First grade
Table 1 shows mean raw scores, grade equivalents, and percentile rankings for first-grade students. Figures 1 and 2 present a more visual representation of this data. These data suggest that all students are close to average for their grade level on the test. The gains from fall to spring are also about what we would expect— about .5 grade equivalent. Table 1
GRADE 1
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT) Grade Equivalent Scores and Percentile Ranking Vocabulary Fall Spring
Fall to Spring Comprehension Fall Spring
Fall
TOTAL Spring
Mean Raw Scores
Early Language Connections
18.2
32.8
18.2
32.2
36.4
65.0
Comparison
15.7
30.2
16.2
30.7
31.9
60.9
Early Language Connections
1.2
1.9
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.7
Comparison
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.6
Early Language Connections
32
55
29
49
26
49
Comparison
23
44
21
43
18
43
Grade Equivalent Scores
Percentile Ranking
GMRT Grade Equivalent
GRADE 1
GMRT Percentile Ranking
60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yyy yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Spring yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Vocabulary yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ Fall ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ Comprehension @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Spring @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy yy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy Comprehension Comparison Fall
1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vocabulary 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Language Connections Figure 1
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
Percentile Rank
GE Score
2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
GRADE 1
yyy yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yyy yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Language Connections
Comparison
Figure 2
3
Second grade
Table 2 shows the results for second-grade students on the GMRT in terms of raw scores, grade equivalents, and percentile rankings. These data reflect a somewhat different pattern. Early Language Connections second-graders scored much better on the vocabulary portion of the test in the fall, and then made greater gains in the spring. In terms of grade equivalents, they increased more than one grade to 3.4, while the comparison group moved up less than one. In percentile rankings, the Early Language Connections group increased their vocabulary ranking 11 percentage points to the 71st percentile. We also calculated Normal Curve Equivalent scores, and this gain represents a gain of 6 NCEs for the Early Language Connections group, but only 1 NCE for the comparison students. These differences are shown graphically in Figures 3 and 4. Table 2
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT)
GRADE 2
Grade Equivalent Scores and Percentile Ranking Vocabulary Fall Spring
Fall to Spring
Comprehension Fall Spring
TOTAL Fall Spring
Mean Raw Scores
Early Language Connections
28.3
37.2
33.9
39.1
62.2
76.3
Comparison
23.7
31.8
26.6
34.1
50.3
65.9
Early Language Connections
2.3
3.4
2.4
3.4
2.4
3.4
Comparison
1.7
2.6
1.7
2.5
1.7
2.6
Early Language Connections
60
71
63
60
64
68
Comparison
39
41
36
40
37
41
Grade Equivalent Scores
Percentile Ranking
GMRT Grade Equivalent
yyy yyy yyy yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
GRADE 2
GMRT Percentile Ranking
80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GE Score
yyy yyy yyy Spring @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Vocabulary yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ Fall ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ ÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@ Comprehension ÀÀÀÀ yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yyy yy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ Spring @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy yyy @@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀÀ yy Comprehension Comparison
2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fall Vocabulary 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3
Percentile Ranking
70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Language Connections
GRADE 2
yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy
@@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ .......................................... @@@@@ 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ .......................................... @@@@@ 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ ............... @@@@@ @@@@@ 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 20 @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ ............... 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ .......................................... 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÀÀÀÀÀ @@@@@ ÀÀÀÀÀ
Early Language Connections
yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy
Comparison
Figure 4
Findings from the administration of the test show that:
Overall, students in Early Language Connections classrooms performed as well as or better than their peers in comparison classrooms on the GMRT. Results were consistently in favor of Early Language Connections classrooms at both the first- and secondgrade levels, on both the vocabulary and comprehension portions of the test. 4
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
Writing Performance To assess writing, students were given 30 minutes to complete a story based upon a common prompt. For the fall 1995 assessment, the prompt given was “Once there was a boy and his dog…”; in spring 1996, it was “Once I had a funny friend….” Compositions were scored using a six-point holistic scoring rubric that was developed in part by first- and second-grade teachers. Classroom teachers with experience in holistic scoring were trained in using the rubric and conducted the scoring. One-fourth of the samples were scored twice to ensure reliability among scorers. Figure 5 shows timed writing scores for Early Language Connections first-graders and comparisons for fall and spring. Early Language Connections students performed better than the comparison group in the fall (1.96 to 1.45), but both groups scored the same in the spring (2.67). Early Language Connections second-grade students performed better on the writing sample than their counterparts. While Early Language Connections students scored a consistent 3.9, the comparison group dropped to 3.07 in the spring.
Timed Writing
3.0
2.0
Timed Writing 4.0
.................................................................
yyyy 2.67 yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy
yyy 2.67 yyy yyy yyy yyy 1.45 yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy Comparison
yyyy 3.07 yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy yyyy
..............................................................
2.0
..............................................................
1.0
..............................................................
Fall
yyy yyySpring
3.6
3.0
.................................................................
Early Language Connections
yyy 3.9 yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy yyy Early Language
GRADE 2
..............................................................
3.92
.................................................................
1.96 1.0
GRADE 1
Comparison
Connections
Figure 5
Figure 6
Conclusion Findings of Early Language Connections research suggest that effects of integrating technology into classroom lessons may be stronger as children mature. Vocabulary, comprehension, and timed writing scores for first-graders in the two groups were roughly equivalent. The second-grade Early Language Connections group, however, scored higher than the comparison group on vocabulary and in timed writing. In addition, the fact that the second-graders in Early Language Connections classrooms had also used Early Language Connections in their first-grade classrooms may have had some impact on the results.
Apple Education 2420 Ridgepoint Drive M/S 198-ED Austin, TX 78754 1-800-800-APPL (2775) © 1996 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, and Macintosh are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc.
Early Language Connections: Longitudinal Study
5
Related Documents
Early Language Research
April 2020 6
Language Research
April 2020 3
Language Research
May 2020 6
Research On Early Human.docx
October 2019 17
Language In Research
June 2020 1