Ls Spanish English

How Spanish-English Speaking Kindergarteners Identify English Speech Sounds and Letters ASHA 2007: Session # 1399 Roanne G. Brice, Ph.D. University of Central Florida [email protected]

Poster #103

Alejandro E. Brice, Ph.D. Valdosta State University [email protected] 1

1

Recent Research States: ! ! ! !

!

The ability to read is the primary fundamental skill required for children to achieve academic success (Simmons, 1999) Phonemic awareness and phonics skills are essential in learning to read (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1967; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987 ) Children who are English Language Learners (ELL) and/or children with disabilities often have difficulty learning to read (Ramirez, 2000) Thus, these at risk students find it difficult meeting grade level expectations (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) All at-risk students would benefit from: ! Early ! Early,

identification of reading difficulties (Nat. Center for Learning Disabilities, 2003) intensive, high-quality reading intervention & instruction

(Torgesen, 1998)

! Monitoring

of Response-to-Intervention before referral for special education assessments (Vaughn & Fuchs,2003). 2

2

Statement of the Problem !

English Language Learners/Hispanic students are: at-risk and are more likely to be referred for special education assessment due to difficulties in learning to read (Burnette, 1998; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ortiz, 2003)

! Educationally

! At-risk

for reading difficulties: % of fourth-grade Hispanic students performed below the basic proficiency level in reading (National Assessment of Educational

! 56

Progress, 2003) ! ELL

students performed at an even lower reading level

(U.S. Department of Education, 2002) ! ELL

students “are operating in two languages and often have difficulty in separating the different phonological and orthographic systems” (Durán & Shefelbine, 2003; p. 220). 3

3

Purpose of The Study !

Purpose: To identify phoneme & grapheme abilities in kindergarten students, high and low readers, with and without disabilities, who are English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual students.

!

To provide valuable teaching strategies for at-risk students, that is, students with disabilities and English language learners

!

Research Questions Include the Following Independent Variables: ! initial & final positions of words ! one & two syllable words ! voiced & voiceless distinctive features ! high and low reading abilities ! Monolingual and bilingual students 4

4

Setting: Elementary School in Central Florida !

Demographics: ! Approx. 950-1000 students ! 56% Hispanic, 32% White, 9% Black, 3% Other ! Low SES-75% in Free/Reduced Lunch Program ! 25% served in Exceptional Education Programs ! 20% in the English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Program (Source: Elementary School Improvement Plan, 2003-2004)

5

5

Participant Selection !

Multistage stratified random sampling procedures were used to place students into participant groups:

!

1. High/low early reading skill levels ! Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 2. Languages Spoken: a) English b) English-Spanish 3. Simple random sample used to obtain 80 kindergarten students (20 participants for each of the four groups): ! Group 1: High reading level/English monolingual ! Group 2: Low reading level/English monolingual ! Group 3: High reading level/Spanish-English bilingual ! Group 4: Low reading level/Spanish-English bilingual Ages: 5 yrs.-5 months to 6 yrs.-7 months

! ! !

!

6

6

Number of Special Education Program Placements By Groups 14 students in Special Education Programs (18%) DD

LLD

SI

SLD

Student Total

1. High Reading Level English Monolinguals

0

0

1

0

1

2. Low Reading Level English Monolinguals

0

3

4

0

7

3. High Reading Level English-Spanish Bilinguals

0

0

0

0

0

4. Low Reading Level English-Spanish Bilinguals

1

3

1*

2*

6

Groups

Note: One student was identified for special education and placed in both programs 7

7

Instrumentation: Word Stimuli List !

!

Developed by the researcher based on criteria: ! Use of most English consonants ! Phonemes/Graphemes taught in kindergarten ! Phonemes in initial and final positions in words ! One and two syllable words (CVC and CVC-CVC) ! Emphasis on using cognate pairs (e.g., /p,b/; /f,v/) ! 68 stimuli words (34 initial & 34 final) Content validity established by: ! Extensive review of related research ! Review by experts in the field ! Piloted on 7 kindergarten students (each group/ disabilities)

8

8

Instrumentation: Recording of the auditory stimuli words ! ! ! ! !

Stimuli recorded by the researcher Recorded using “clear speech” (Kent & Read, 1992) Apple G5 computer /High fidelity microphone Best of at least three recordings of each stimuli word Stimuli randomly assigned and each word inserted into a PowerPoint slide Acoustic Wave

!

Form !

“bell”

Sound Studio used to digitally record stimuli

9

9

Task Administration

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Stimulus Word # 57 Directions: Given in both English & Spanish 1 demonstration model of task presented 5 practice items were administered: Initial & Final All stimuli words were presented: Initial then Final Ceiling: 5 consecutive errors Testing time: 15 to 30 minutes The participants were asked to: ! Identify the beginning/ending sound in the word presented by saying the initial/final phoneme ! Point to the corresponding letter(s) on the Grapheme Chart Sessions video/audio taped Interrater reliability established by second rater: 1984 Agreements / 2176 Total Responses = 91.2% 10,880 data entries entered into SPSS

moth

/ m!! /

10

10

Initial Statistical Analyses

Twelve Research Questions ! Questions 1-6: dependent t tests ! Questions 7-12: two multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) !

! ! !

!

Necessary because more than one dependent variable More powerful than separate univariate tests May detect combined differences not found in separate univariate tests

16 Analyses: 13 statistically significant

11

11

Overall Results: Phoneme and Grapheme Identification 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Initial Phonemes Mean=27.46 Final Phonemes Mean=17.46 Initial Graphemes Final Mean=22.19 Graphemes Mean=15.64

Significant at p<. 001

Significant at p<. 12 001

12

Results Indicated: !

The findings of this study support previous research, that is, phoneme and grapheme identification are important beginning reading skills (Adams, 1990; Lyon, 1998; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Shaywitz, 1996).

!

Similar results were found for grapheme identification tasks; alphabetic skills are also related to difficulty levels (Bear & Barone, 1989)

!

Identification of phonemes and graphemes also appears to be a developmental skill in English for both monolingual and bilingual students. 13

13

Results Indicated: !

Developmental patterns of learning: ! Phonetic

structure: 1-3 phonemes easier than 4 or more phonemes

(e.g., kit vs. stripes) ! Size of phonological

unit: one syllable (CVC) is easier than two syllable (CVC-CVC) words ! Position of phonemes in words: Initial sounds easier to identify than final sounds (Smith, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998) !

Therefore, research and literature support universal grammar and general acquisition of phonemes and phonology for all children regardless of language background (Iribarren, Jarema, & Lecours, 1999; Major, 1994; Major & Faudree, 1996; Yopp, 1988; Young-Scholten, 1994)

!

Increased Memory, Attention, and Processing Demands: ! Inability ! Inability

to move information to a working memory level to process the information through an auditory loop

(Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Swanson, 1999)

14

14

Results: Voiced/Voiceless Phonemes (Sounds) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Initial Voiced Phonemes Initial Voiceless Mean=14.74 Phonemes Final (Maximum=18) Voiced Mean=12.73 Phonemes Final (Maximum=16) Voiceless Mean=8.61 Phonemes (Maximum=18) Mean=8.85 (Maximum=16)

Significant at p<.001

Non-Significant

15

15

Results: Voiced/Voiceless Graphemes (letters) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Initial Voiced Graphemes Initial Voiceless Mean=12.70 Graphemes Final (Maximum=18) Voiced Mean=9.49 Graphemes Final(Maximum=16) Voiceless Mean=8.39 Graphemes (Maximum=18) Mean=7.25 (Maximum=16)

Significant at p<.001 Significant at p<.001 16

16

Further Analyses !

The data were further analyzed to determine specific mean differences according to initial and final phonemes by groups. Specifically, analyses included One way ANOVAs for each initial and final phoneme for the 4 groups (High reading English, High reading English-Spanish, Low reading English, Low reading English-Spanish).

!

Results indicated significant differences (p<.05) on 20/34 phoneme comparisons. Tukey post hoc analyses were also conducted. Descriptive results are reported here. Refer to the following Figures. 17

17

Contributions of This Study !

With regards to special education, these findings have strengthened the importance of: ! Phonemic awareness and phonics skills related to reading ! Developmental levels for children with disabilities and at risk for reading failure ! The relationship between reading and memory, attention, and processing

!

As applied to bilingual education, this study supports the research regarding: ! How phonemic awareness skills in Spanish influence the acquisition of literacy abilities in English ! The distinctive feature of voicing in correct sound and letter identification. 18

18

Contributions of This Study !

With regards to general education, this study has added to the literature regarding: ! How children with low reading abilities, with and without disabilities, need systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. ! The knowledge that differences exist between monolingual and bilingual students even with high reading abilities. These differences may be attributable to normal second language learning difficulties and possibly not due to disabilities. ! The fact that all bilingual children, even high readers, need additional instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics.

!

In addition, this study has documented that a reading achievement gap, even at the kindergarten level, exists between bilingual and monolingual students at both high and low reading levels. 19

19

Recommendations for Practice ! !

Based on the results and observations in this study, the following recommendations are made for practice: ! Specific instruction in place, voice, & manner ! Link phonemic awareness with correct articulation ! Student say words and segment aloud for auditory and kinesthetic feedback ! Pair phoneme and grapheme identification tasks ! Identify/say the sound, then say the letter, point to the letter ! Teach phoneme identification in developmental sequence initial, final, medial ! Practice aloud phoneme and syllable segmentation ! Begin with CVC, generalize skills to more complex structures 20

20

Conclusion !

It is anticipated that this study will add to the body of knowledge that might lead to successful early intervention and prevention of reading difficulties in atrisk bilingual students with and without disabilities. This could ultimately lead to fewer inappropriate referrals for special education and correct placement of Hispanic ELL students.

!

In teaching reading to bilingual students with disabilities, educators must be knowledgeable in the areas of scientifically based reading instructional practices, exceptional education instructional methods, and bilingual/ multicultural language development and language differences. 21

21

Initial Phonemes 1.20

1.00

Means

0.80

High Readers English 0.60

High Readers Eng.-Spanish 0.40

Low Readers English

Low Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.20

0.00

/p/

/b/

/f/

/v/

/t/

/d/

Initial Phonemes 1.20

1.00

0.80

Means

High Readers English High Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.60

Low Readers English Low Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.40

0.20

0.00

/s/

/z/

/k/

/g/

/T/

/D/

Initial Phonemes 1.20

High Readers English

1.00

Means

0.80

High Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.60

Low Readers English

0.40

0.20

Low Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.00

/S/

/tS/

/m/

/n/

/l/

1.20

1.00

0.80

Means

High Readers English High Readers Eng.-Spanish 0.60

Low Readers English Low Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.40

0.20

0.00

/p/

/b/

/f/

/v/

Final Phonemes

/t/

/d/

1.20

1.00

Means

0.80

High Readers English

0.60

High Readers Eng.Spanish Low Readers English

0.40

0.20

Low Readers Eng.Spanish

0.00

/s/

/z/

/k/

/g/

Final Phonemes

/T/

/D/

1.20

High Readers English

1.00

Means

0.80

High Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.60

Low Readers English

0.40

0.20

Low Readers Eng.-Spanish

0.00

/S/

/tS/

/m/

/n/

/l/