Individual Differences in Second Language Learning of Korean Immigrant Students.
Jun-Aust, Heesoon (1985). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED256156
-
examining30Students, grades1-6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer-pairing)
- The study is ineligible for review because it is not within the time frame specified by the review protocol
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Peer Tutoring and Response Groups Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Peer Tutoring and Response Groups.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Language behavior- addressed from subject to peer |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as usual |
After 4 1/2 months |
Grades 1–6;
|
11.60 |
2.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Language behavior –talking to peer |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as usual |
After 4 1/2 months |
Grades 1–6;
|
14.00 |
5.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Listening comprehension |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as usual |
After 4 1/2 months |
Grades 1–6;
|
9.00 |
7.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Oral language production |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as usual |
After 4 1/2 months |
Grades 1–6;
|
20.80 |
17.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Language behavior– talking to teacher |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as usual |
After 4 1/2 months |
Grades 1–6;
|
1.05 |
0.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Language behavior –addressed from teacher to subject |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as usual |
After 4 1/2 months |
Grades 1–6;
|
0.45 |
0.50 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Washington
-
Race Asian 100% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at two elementary schools located seven blocks apart in the Tacoma Public School District in Tacoma, Washington.
Study sample
The study included 30 Korean English language learners in grades 1–6. All students participated in “pull-out” bilingual education conducted by English-speaking Korean teachers. Students who qualified for the study were identified as limited English proficient on the school district’s language proficiency test (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, PPVT) and on a reassessment of the PPVT just before the study began, scoring at or below the 20th percentile. All participating students were also recent immigrants to the United States (less than six months). Classes of students were randomly assigned into peer-pairing or non-peer-pairing conditions to avoid placing children from the same class in the intervention and comparison groups.
Intervention Group
The 14 Korean students in the intervention group participated in a 4.5-month peer-pairing program designed to increase social interaction, language development, and listening comprehension skills. When they started the program, the Korean students were asked to identify an English-speaking child from their classes with whom they would want to work. The chosen peers were then seated together by their classroom teachers, who asked the English-speaking peers to help the Korean students by explaining English to them, answering their questions, or being their friends.
Comparison Group
The 16 students in the comparison condition continued to participate in all regular classroom activities without the peer-pair program or teacher prompts to help peers learn English.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcomes were listening comprehension, oral language production, and actual classroom language behavior. Listening comprehension was measured by a researcher-developed assessment that required the student to listen to an audio tape of a monolingual English speaker and answer questions about daily tasks and Korean culture. Oral language production was assessed by asking students to tell stories in English about two pictures. Responses were audiotaped and scored according to a five-point rubric. Actual language behavior was evaluated with an event sampling classroom observation system that recorded when a target student was talking to or being addressed by a peer or the teacher.
Support for implementation
Teachers attended a meeting that discussed second language learning and the purpose of using peer-pairs in the classroom and provided an operational definition of the concept. During the meeting teachers matched pairs according to the Korean student requests and created a new classroom seating chart for the pairs. Teachers were also instructed specifically to tell American peers to help their Korean peers to learn English by explaining to them, answering their questions, or just being friends (Jun-Aust, 1985, p. 14).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).