Saunders, William M. (1999). Educational Research and Evaluation (An International Journal on Theory and Practice), v5 n4 p345-81. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ602669
Reviewed: November 2016
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading subtest |
Transitional Bilingual Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
41.90 |
34.51 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading subtest |
Transitional Bilingual Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Transition-5 Subgroup (Standardized test completed in Spanish);
|
44.56 |
36.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading subtest |
Transitional Bilingual Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Transition-4 Subgroup (Standardized test completed in English);
|
40.56 |
33.62 |
Yes |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study took place in a public elementary school in southern California. Five schools participated in the transitional bilingual program that started with 2nd and 3rd grade as pre-transitional grades, 4th grade as the transitional grade, and 5th grade as a second transitional grade if needed. Five comparison schools were chosen from neighboring schools in the area. All of the students were enrolled at the same elementary school throughout the study, spoke Spanish at home, and enrolled in a transitional bilingual program in school.
Program and non-program schools have the following characteristics: mean enrollment is 880 students (range: 478-1295); 96% of the student body is Latino or Hispanic (range: 93-99%); 74% of the students are limited English proficient (range: 65-85%); 95% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch (range: 80-100%). Grade 2 Spanish reading median percentiles for the year prior to the project ranged from 29th to the 48th percentile, with 8 out of 10 between 44th and 48th percentile.
This study examined the effects of a multi-year transitional bilingual program for Spanish-speaking students in the 2nd through 5th grades. This study's primary goal was to improve student literacy - in English and Spanish. All Spanish speaking limited English proficiency students enrolled in the program received language arts and content instruction in their native language with 20-30 minutes daily of English language development instruction. The goal of the program was to redesignate students as fluent English proficient when they demonstrate grade level reading, writing, and oral language skills on standardized English language achievement tests.
Non-project students participated in the transitional 3-6 month bilingual program that is business as usual for the school district.
No support for implementation was provided in the study.
Reviewed: October 2006
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 Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Writing |
Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
2.87 |
2.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Language subtest |
Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
45.38 |
37.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Performance assessment |
Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
2.79 |
2.25 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading subtest |
Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
41.90 |
34.51 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 90% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 10% |
The study took place in a school district in southern California. The average enrollment for the 10 participating schools was 880. Over 90% of the students enrolled in these schools were Latino or Hispanic, 74% were limited English proficient, and 95% qualified for free or reduced-price lunches.
Eligible participants for the study were students who enrolled in their respective schools from first grade through fifth grade, considered Spanish their primary home language, had limited English proficiency at the time of enrollment, and were in a Spanish transitional bilingual program. Among the pool of eligible English language learners, 180 were randomly selected at the beginning of second grade from five intervention schools and five neighboring schools, then matched on academic achievement, percentage of students with limited English proficiency, percentage of students in the free or reduced-priced lunch program, school enrollment, and ethnic composition. Of the 180 English language learners, 125 remained at their respective school through fifth grade, from which 42 intervention-group English language learners and 42 comparison-group English language learners matched on first grade Spanish reading and language and transition status were selected for data analysis.
English language learners in the intervention group participated in a transitional bilingual program, which covered several transitional phases as they progressed from receiving instruction in their primary language to instruction in English. English language learners were in the Pre-Transition phase in the second and third grades, in Transition I in the fourth grade, and in Transition II in the fifth grade. Transition II is the only phase during which instruction was dedicated completely to reading and writing in English, and English language learners were assessed with English language measures. Transition II services were provided only in grade 4 or 5, depending on whether a student was ready for English-only instruction. The earlier transition phases involved academic support and assessments in both English and Spanish. This transition program incorporated 12 instructional components, including Instructional Conversions and Literature Logs. Instructional Conversations involved ongoing discussions, while Literature Logs (and writing projects) entailed writing activities. Teachers assisted English language learners in understanding how the experiences of a character in a story relate to their own experiences. Writing assignments were intended to encourage English language learners to think about and express ideas, as well as extract meaning from the stories. The Instructional Conversations were intended to provide a forum for sharing ideas and a more complex understanding of story themes. English language learners studied literature during each phase, practiced using reading comprehension strategies, and read assigned books independently. The assignments were based on each English language learner’s reading level. Additionally, for 45 minutes per day during the Pre-Transition phase, teachers provided instruction using the English Language Development through Literature program. Instruction was provided in small groups comprised of English language learners with similar levels of English language proficiency. Three or more times per week, teachers read aloud for approximately 20 minutes. English language learners also chose a book or story to read independently each day and completed short assignments for the ones that they found most engaging. Additionally, they wrote in journals during the beginning stages of English writing and received written responses from the teacher. Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs were two of the 12 components of the language arts program that was implemented.
English language learners in the comparison group met the same criteria as those in the intervention group. English language learners in the comparison group participated in the district’s typical bilingual education program. In the primary grades, for approximately 20–30 minutes each day, English language learners received instruction in English language development. Instruction for the rest of the day was in Spanish. When they demonstrated proficiency in Spanish reading and writing, and basic proficiency in relation to oral English skills (the end of second grade through the beginning of third grade), they continued Spanish language arts, and began receiving reading and writing instruction in English (transition stage). After approximately 3–6 months, English language learners began a mainstream English program. The comparison group did not receive the transition program that incorporated 12 instructional components, including Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs, which were taught to English language learners in the intervention group.
English language learners’ reading and English language development were assessed using the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) and the Criteria for Addition of Reading in English (CARE). Reading outcomes were also assessed using performance assessments. Because most English language learners in grades 1–4 took the CTBS and performance assessment in Spanish, findings from these grades are not included in this report. Only findings for fifth-graders, who took the tests in English, are included in this report (see Appendix A2.1 and A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Saunders (1999) noted that the teachers involved in the study worked with project staff for the full five years during which it was implemented. No further information about teacher training was reported.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube