UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Kindergarten screening scores of ESL students Dickinson, David Wayne 1989

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1989_A8 D49.pdf [ 3.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054455.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054455+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054455.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054455+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054455+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054455+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054455 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054455.txt
Citation
1.0054455.ris

Full Text

KINDERGARTEN SCREENING SCORES OF ESL STUDENTS By David  Wayne  B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y  Dickinson  of B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a , 1980  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE Education  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Psychology  and S p e c i a l  University  We a c c e p t to  THE  Education  o£ B r i t i s h  this  t h e s i s as  the required  Columbia  conforming  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1989  (35 D a v i d  Department  Wayne D i c k i n s o n , 1989  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or of  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  study.  scholarly  or for  her  of  I further  purposes  financial  gain  of  Sfi£.^UM-  T=^fc>OC-A,i i Q  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  QuG-  H  agree  that  agree be  It  is  shall  ^  requirements  may  representatives.  permission.  Department  I  the  not  be  that  the  for  Library  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  by  understood allowed  the  make  extensive  head  that  without  it  of  copying my  my or  written  ABSTRACT The scores (L2)  purpose of the present  o f c h i l d r e n who  i n comparison  first  the  with  language ( L I ) .  screening  scores  time  of s c r e e n i n g  of  c h i l d r e n f o r which  compared  E n g l i s h as a second  c h i l d r e n who  Specifically,  preschool  at  Screening  was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e  learned  these  the kindergarten  experience,  and t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n English i s their  scores  to determine  considering  screening  date,  screening  first  variables the Florida  Battery  language  E n g l i s h as a  o f L2 c h i l d r e n were a n a l y s e d  variables of:  investigate  learned  study  age  scores  language.  To  Kindergarten  o f 79 L I a n d 79 L 2 c h i l d r e n w e r e  some o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n  both  groups. The fact  that  rationale tests  Kindergarten and  used  f o r the present  study  i s founded  i n g e n e r a l , and s p e c i f i c a l l y  Screening  f o r placement  Battery  upon t h e  the Florida  are administered,  interpreted  d e c i s i o n s , as i f L2 c h i l d r e n a r e  identical  to LI children.  available  a s t o how t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s o f L I c h i l d r e n o n  measures vary; from  Indo-Canadian Students  kindergarten the  even  less  French  included  i n the present  i n t h e Vancouver year.  who w e r e r e p e a t i n g  immersion  preschool  information exists  or Oriental ethnic  1987/1988 s c h o o l  students  In general, very  history  was these  forchildren  study  from  attended system  the study  during were  kindergarten, enrolled i n a  kindergarten or proven  data  groups.  P u b l i c School  Excluded  little  p r o g r a m , had an unknown  hearing,  i i  visual,  intellectual  or  emotional matched  problems.  f o r E n g l i s h language  financial  i n the  during  the  school  personnel.  variance  Pearson  factors  the  the  way  to  test  amount o f  LI  and  scores  significantly  Test,  L2  Florida It  students  and  and  by  collected Vancouver  analyses  impact  between  score  on  not  and  of  on  Test  made w i t h c a u t i o n u n t i l  clarified  by  of  (September  on  the  the d i f f e r e n c e s  c r o s s comparisons between e t h n i c  i i i  Vocabulary  significant  children  of  students  the  date  time  Integration  Picture  higher  L2  at  Battery.  t h a t because of  research.  the  that: LI  Peabody  scores  Low  b e t w e e n age  have a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  Screening  and  students.  that screening  scores  positive  subtest  Visual-Motor  significantly  upon t e s t  concluded  the  to  low  Test-Revised  of  groups  individual  indicated  f o r L2  Test  of  means b e t w e e n  experience  Test  the  higher  Kindergarten  be  Results  I n t e g r a t i o n and  between groups, should  for equal  were a l s o found on  January) does  was  factor  Results also indicated  score  amount o f  two  P i c t u r e Vocabulary  students.  versus  and  group.  correlations  Visual-Motor  been p r e v i o u s l y  relationship  Recognition-Discrimination  for  had  between p r e s c h o o l  Peabody  screening  ( L 1 / L 2 ) , sex  kindergarten screening  One  w i t h i n each  positive  ability  selected  Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s were used  correlations on  study  1987/1988  were used  determine  were randomly  status.  Data used  and  Students  groups  further  T A B L E OF CONTENTS Page Abstract  i  Acknowledgements List  i  v i i  of Tables  v i  1  INTRODUCTION  1  2  REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E 2.1 F i n d i n g s o f p r e v i o u s L2 assessment and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 2.2 Inherent factors i n tests 2.3 Factors Associated with Testing 2.3.1 D i f f e r e n c e s i n Test Scores between E t h n i c Groups . 2.3.2 Early Screening 2.3.3 Preschool Experience 2.4 F a c t o r s w i t h i n t h e L2 p o p u l a t i o n 2.4.1 Length o f time t o A q u i r e Competency in English 2.4.2 Social Style 2.4.3 Family a t t i t u d e s and Involvement .. 2.4.4 Consequences o f L2 A q u i s i t i o n 2.4.5 Social class 2.5 Summary  6  3  .  4  6 7 10 11 14 15 17 18 20 22 25  METHODOLOGY  27  3.1 Purpose 3.2 Subjects 3.3 Instrumentation 3.4 Procedure and Data C o l l e c t i o n 3.5 Operational Definitions 3.6 Variables 3.7 Hypotheses 3.8 Data A n a l y s i s 3.8.1 Hypotheses 1 and 4 3.8.2 H y p o t h e s i s 2 3.8.3 Hypothesis 3  27 27 28 32 33 35 35 36 36 36 36  RESULTS  37  4.1 Results 4.2 The Sample 4.3 Tests o f Hypotheses 4.3.1 Hypothesis 1 4.3.2 Hypothesis 2 4.3.3 Hypothesis 3  37 37  iv  40 41 43  5  4.3.4 Hypothesis 4.4 Summary DISCUSSION  4  47 49  5.1 Introduction 5.3 Discussion 5.3.1 Preschool Experience 5.3.2 E a r l y and L a t e S c r e e n i n g 5.3.3 T e s t S c o r e s L I v e r s u s L2 5.3.4 Age a n d T e s t S c o r e s 5.4 Educational Implications 5.5 L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study 5.6 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Further Research REFERENCES  51 51 53 56 57 60 62 65 .... 6 6 67  v  L I S T OF  TABLES  Table 1. P o p u l a t i o n Sample by Home L a n g u a g e 2.  3. 4. 5. 6.  P o p u l a t i o n Sample Sex  Page Dominant 38  b y Number  and 39  C o r r e l a t i o n s , Scores to Preschool E x p e r i e n c e , L2 S t u d e n t s  . ..  40  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r L2 E a r l y / L a t e Screening Scores  42  Mean S c o r e s : L2 S t u d e n t s  43  E a r l y / L a t e Screened  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e Comparing Date of S c r e e n i n g and L a n g u a g e Group on T e s t Scores  45  7.  Cell  46  8.  Correlations: Age  9. 10.  Means: S c o r e s Test  L I and L2 S t u d e n t s Scores  Screening 48  C o r r e l a t i o n s between T e s t s f o r L I and L2 S t u d e n t s  48  Summary o f S t a t i s t i c a l l y Findings,  53  vi  Significant  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n support wish  and t o l e r a n c e  while  t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n  Randy C r a n s t o n , f o r s h a r i n g enthusiam  and p a t i e n c e ,  Dr.  Perry  Leslie  and  continued A final  interest  analysis  h i sexpertise  and t o t h e o t h e r  in this  thesis.  I also  and h i s e n d l e s s committee  Early fortheir  members,  guidance  project.  word o f t h a n k s t o D r . Todd R o g e r s f o r h i s with  the s t a t i s t i c a l  and t o S h a r o n R e i d  her h e l p  this  family's  t o my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r , Dr .  and D r . M a r g r e t  generous a s s i s t a n c e  for  completing  f o r my  i n obtaining  p r o c e d u r e s and d a t a  a t t h e Vancouver  data  School  and i n f o r m a t i o n .  vii  Board  CHAPTER  ONE  Introduction A major f o c u s early  of education  i n North America  d e t e c t i o n of c h i l d r e n with  reason  for this  earlier  the  remediation  early screening  identification  the  ( B l a c h m a n , 1983;  early  screening  emotional  and  identification  and  to these  remediation  c o n c e r n s by  to a s s i s t  i n the  d e t e c t i o n of  the  that  Ysseldyke, reason  i s not  the  1986; Thurlow,  often stated for i s that  implemented  districts  secondary  of e a r l y  Smith & Wilborn,  (Dunleavy,  1977).  are  A  responding  upon e a r l y s c r e e n i n g  batteries  l e a r n i n g problems (La  Hawkhead, K a w a h i r a & B i l l o w , 1982;  the  potential for  i f a process  school  relying  belief  remediation  develop  Columbia  1982;  Another  Hansen, S z a s z & Baade, 1981; number o f B r i t i s h  i s the  Neisworth & Bagnato,  subsequent  problems w i l l  learning d i f f i c u l t i e s ;  greater  T o l l e f s o n , Rodriquez, Glazzard, O ' S u l l i v a n & Bursaw, 1 9 8 6 ) .  i s the  O'Connor, 1982;  Torre, Wedell,  1980). T h i s e m p h a s i s on learning  difficulties  the  early screening  of c h i l d r e n f o r  has  been c r i t i c i z e d  (Judy,  Kraayenoord, 1983).  Judy f e e l s  screening  useful for educational  should early  reflect screening  curriculum and  test  and  t o be school  that  curriculum.  b a t t e r i e s as questions  i n order  She  1986;  for a  assessment i t  further  criticizes  failing  to r e f l e c t  school  whether t h e  diagnostic  information  subsequent programs d e v e l o p e d  1  from t h e s e  screening  b a t t e r i e s a c t u a l l y meet t h e needs o f t h e s e The the  use o f e a r l y s c r e e n i n g  creation  Lerner,  of learning  1976; W a n c z y c k i ,  has even been  disabilities 1983).  Wanczycki f e e l s t h a t the  of i d e n t i f y i n g a t r i s k  best  and i s compounded a t t h e p r e s c h o o l due t o d e v e l o p m e n t a l  background. child  She b e l i e v e s  a t an e a r l y  "self-fulfilling early  and  that  i d e n t i f y i n g and l a b e l l i n g a to the r e a l i z a t i o n of a i f the benefits of  outweigh t h e p o s s i b l e  intervention  White (1986) b e l i e v e s  lack  of  despite  damaging o r  recognition.  that  hundreds o f r e s e a r c h  has been  t h e r e a s o n why so  many q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e e f f i c a c y o f e a r l y persist  kindergarten  l a g , l a n g u a g e and c u l t u r a l  the e f f i c a c y of early  questioned.  i s very d i f f i c u l t a t  p r o p h e c y " and q u e s t i o n s  negative e f f e c t s o f such Also,  children  age may l e a d  identification  implicated i n  (Hammond, 1986;  task  level  children.  intervention  studies  i s because o f a  information:  Contrary t o the conclusions  o f many p r e v i o u s  and  simply  textbook authors,  information of e a r l y  t o be c o n f i d e n t  intervention  [disadvantaged  variables (e.g., either  Similarly,  with  held  parental  i s n o t enough  about t h e long-term handicapped  and a t r i s k ] ,  many o f t h e commonly  is  there  impact  children  and e v i d e n c e  p o s i t i o n s about  i n support of mediating  i n v o l v e m e n t a t age o f s t a r t )  nonexistent or c o n t r a d i c t o r y there  reviewers  ( p . 412).  i s a shortage of information  2  about t h e  tests  and  batteries  themselves that  are  used  for  kindergarten  screening.  Judy (1986) suggests  often  prefer  screening  motor  s k i l l s components even though s t a t i s t i c a l  their  importance  batteries  in early  with  screening  visual,  has  not  that  educators  auditory proof  and of  been  demonstrated. Additional and  concerns of  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  variability additional  i n the  and  adequacy of  early  which  suggests that  measures  screening  measures c u r r e n t l y  faulty  children  for  special  found,  i n the  districts determined own  norming.  results  screening  or  of  data  technical  one  sixth  (1987) states  Thurlow nearly  3  400  factor  early  validity, that  of  the  et  the  tests of  children a l .  also  school consistently  each d i s t r i c t by  cite  screening  exclusion  identification  battery.  of  identification  single  rates;  and  newer  have adequate  from  no  referral  reasons for  the  only  the  for  Thurlow,  of  when r e q u i r e d .  analysis  referred  use  of  accuracy  and  the  incorrect  services  services  that  administration  in Minnesota, that  internal  used  Meisels  i n the  special  screening  while  is increasing,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or  ultimately  from  or  the  tests -is questionable  screening  reliability  are  programs.  (1986) state  screening  are  measures  children  special  Ysseldyke  screening  screening  r e a s o n s why  assessment or  O'Sullivan,  evidence  early  early  had  early  its  A problem potential second  that  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  language, rather  number o f  & Greenberg,  are  are  L2  solely  being  a  because of  a  An  English  a Second  as  are  referred  language.  real  poor  additional  to  on  learning  concerned special  background.  Gardner  between the  test  complexity  s t u d e n t s on  the  (Kaufman &  implications A  with  upon the  test  to  is a  (L2)  experience  screening  scores of  found  to  of  & Rozin,  Blachowicz,  been found  to  or L2  may  affect  the  differences  Punjabi for  may  speaking Children  that have  have a  serious  s i g n i f i c a n t impact the  effects  upon the  preschool  l a n g u a g e has  academic  been  achievement  Zucchermaglio, Pontecordo, addition, test  social class  scores of  4  of  kindergarten  i s unknown, the  p o s i t i v e l y with  In  ability  dissimilar  concluded  in their first  1986).  who  for  equal  significant  social class  1973;  1985;  their cultural  example, while  children  children  correlate  (Gleitman  For  A  English  of  obtain  a  decisions.  factors  scores  to  programs  tendency  cultural differences  other  preschool  experience  to  Gardner  upon placement  due  children  the  Kaufman Assessment B a t t e r y  due  number o f  that  C a n t o n e s e and  Kaufman, 1983).  discrepancies  due  (1986) found  s c o r e s of  the  problem.  education  proficiency  tests  is  Ovando & C o l l i e r ,  Language c h i l d r e n  standardized  Vancouver  difficulties,  d i f f e r i n g c u l t u r a l backgrounds to  scores  &  than  1986)  to  learning  a u t h o r s ( C u m m i n s , 1985;  Willig  but  i s more r e l e v a n t  children  has in  Tonnuci also their  first  language.  a  social  low  Bloom  ( 1 9 6 4 ) and  class adversely  affected school  E v e n when E n g l i s h i s n o t b a c k g r o u n d s may  result  study,  and  Sharpley  a  in test  d i f f e r e n c e s upon t e s t  children  when u s i n g  was to  i n drawing  interpret  than  the  the  test  usefulness  of  information  kindergarten  and  of  of  In a  effects  1985  of  Australian school  that  Testcaution  American  c h i l d r e n from  kindergarten  examine the  L2  inherent  kindergarten  and  the  as  norms  cultures  with  the  other  and  the  directly  or  review  at  L2  those  this L2  study  is  children  of  of c h i l d r e n  children).  literature  children;  indirectly  of  understood  time  scores  the  lack  variables of:  Language ( L I  consequences of  5  of  the  screening  will  less  age  ultimate  interpretation.  scores to  and to a  purpose of  date,  First  due  and  even  compared  assessment of  f a c t o r s that are population  tests  screening  kindergarten  f o l l o w i n g chapter  validity  biases  The  screening  whom E n g l i s h i s t h e i r  associated  screening  children.  screening  The  the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are  experience,  L2  different  P i c t u r e Vocabulary  remains over  preschool  the  the  They c o n c l u d e d  scores  (Oriental/Indo-Canadian)  for  culturally  i n f e r e n c e s when u s i n g  about t h e i r  These b i a s e s  to  success.  differences.  results  that  American. Much c o n t r o v e r s y  with  score  Peabody  (Dunn & Dunn, 1981).  needed  factor,  Stone (1985) explored  cultural  Revised  Coleman ( 1 9 7 5 ) found  specifically  related factors.  to  the  CHAPTER  TWO  Review o f L i t e r a t u r e One  of the underlying  screening an  (L2)  are  purpose o f t h i s  E n g l i s h Language based  assess  in  and a major  issues pertaining to  three  Third,  norms?  which  what  than  screening  b a t t e r y to Language  issue generates  concerns  i s t h e impact o f f a c t o r s  t e s t s such  S e c o n d , what  i sthe effect  language other  this  i s determined  to the testing  experience  what  i n screening  inappropriate screening,  First,  i s t h e use of  o f E n g l i s h as a Second  Specifically,  areas.  inherent  bring  kindergarten  the learning a b i l i t y  children.  study,  kindergarten  as c u l t u r a l  i s t h e impact o f d a t e o f  of the factors that such  as having  E n g l i s h , age a t s c r e e n i n g ,  and p o s s i b l y being  b i a s and  by t h e i n d i v i d u a l  situation  from  that  a lower  schools?  L2 a  students first  preschool  social  economic  status?  Findings The  of Previous  results  classification several in  years  L2 Assessment and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  of previous  testing  o f L2 c h i l d r e n has been w e l l documented f o r by t h e over  representation of ethnic  American s p e c i a l education  1973).  Over  representation  similarly  reported  who f o u n d  that minority  represented system.  and subsequent  c l a s s e s (Dunn, 1968; Mercer,  o f L2 students  has been  i n Canada by Shapspn and Purbbo language c h i l d r e n were  i n non-academic programs  Despite  extensive  students  litigation  6  (1981),  over-  i n the Toronto  school  as a consequence o f  the  overrepresentation  Wright  and S a n t a  minorities  mentally  were over  in special  that e t h n i c / r a c i a l  represented  forces  They c o n c l u d e d  in California,  that  Inherent  and c o n t r i b u t e  groups  cultural  not being  (Sattler,  Factors  1978;  bias  bias  Sattler,  within  possibly  the battery  i n t h e norm  e d u c a t o r s (Cummins,  1982)  according  norms b a s e d  The  bias  and  test  cultural  population  minority  conjuction  with  issues  1985;  around  norms, t e s t b i a s class white  biases)  vigorously Flaughter,  culturally  students.  The  (i.e.,  biased  tests  s t u d e n t s and  and t h e poor former  to significantly  7  with  skills  two f a c t o r s i n test  test strategies are  affect test scores.  that:  in  inherent  test taking  an u n f a m i l i a r i t y o f s t a n d a r d i z e d  f o r m a t , p r o c e d u r e s and u n p r o d u c t i v e  (1988) states  t o be  t o S a t t l e r ( 1 9 8 2 ) c a n be d e s c r i b e d  upon m i d d l e  American c u l t u r a l  believed  ethnic  i n Tests  of t e s t s continues  terms of inappropriate  ethnic  greater  1982).  by v a r i o u s  testing  and  t o t h e m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f L2  represented  The c u l t u r a l debated  and  (p. 394).  There a r e two p o t e n t i a l f a c t o r s t h a t  children:  "strong  must be m i t i g a t i n g a g a i n s t  i n special education"  scores  programs,  i n programs f o r the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d  handicapped.  persistent parity  Cruz (1983) found  still  particularly  o f L2 s t u d e n t s  Sattler  of  Some e t h n i c m i n o r i t y c h i l d r e n accept  the  however. adult if  achievement aspects  [ s i c ] T h e y may  encounter,  they  may  It  i s important  to  as  a number  1978)  concluded  culture that  the  they  of  a l l tests  suggests  little  mean s c o r e s  not  change  f o r the  will the  that  and  reliability  Cummins ( 1 9 8 0 ) .  be  children  of  or,  the  570) (1982)  as  Green,  surrounding  the  biased biased  states but items,  minority students  result  i s the  Screening  standardized  test  does the  in  do  however, the  case  with  really  by  an  the  student  child,  resemble  8  "On  native  Mercer  norms u s e d  (1973)  to  exclusively  Florida  native speakers  asking,  for  questionable  B a t t e r y ( G o t t s , 1980).  normed on  are  appropriate  been expressed  a culturally/language different t h a t we  not  have been d e r i v e d from  Kindergarten  closely  aspects  Flaughter  of  child-  to achieve;  culturally  removal  and  has  Often,  Anglo p o p u l a t i o n , as  suggests  enjoyable  arguments  n a t i o n a l norms a r e  validity  to  situation,  ( F l a u g h t e r , 1978;  merit.  or  significantly.  concern  L2  an  a time  populations of  language c h i l d r e n  assess  as  test  though, that S a t t l e r  i f any  minority  and  the  i t as  authors  inevitably  of  t o comprehend  them. ( p .  crucial  t h a t even a f t e r  the  The  note  other  fail  problem-solving  ignore  that the  b i a s have  view  rather than  recognize  situation,  well  may  When  is Fine  this  a  administered (1988)  test,  how  English-Speaking  students i n terms of background, school experience, knowledge and s k i l l s ? " ( p . 23). Although a l o t of e f f o r t has gone i n t o c r e a t i n g  culture  f r e e t e s t s , t h i s e f f o r t has been g e n e r a l l y acknowledged as f u t i l e (Ovando & C o l l i e r , 1985).  Instead, i n h e r e n t c u l t u r a l  b i a s e s have been acknowledged and e f f o r t s have gone towards creating culturally f a i r  t e s t s (Ovando & C o l l i e r ,  1985;  S a t t l e r , 1982). In order to address the d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with the t e s t i n g of L2 c h i l d r e n , i t has been suggested use of s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s with L2 students be  that the  restricted.  The E n g l i s h as a Second Language Resource Book f o r B r i t i s h Columbia (1981) s t a t e s t h a t , "There i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r u s i n g the r e s u l t s of s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s to assess E.S.L./D. s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t i e s u n l e s s one of E.S.L./D. support" ( p . 43).  i s t e s t i n g f o r the  withdrawl  However, F i n e (1988)  suggests the u t i l i z a t i o n of s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s as d i a g n o s t i c rather than survey  instruments.  F i n e f u r t h e r suggests that  s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s should be used as a r e f e r e n c e f o r improvement r a t h e r than comparing the s k i l l s of L2 to LI norms.  students  Reschly ( c i t e d i n Samuda, 1985), s t a t e s that  t h e r e are three s i m p l i s t i c n o n - s o l u t i o n s to the assessment of L2 c h i l d r e n , ( a ) the banning  of IQ t e s t s  without  addressing the e d u c a t i o n a l f a i l u r e of s t u d e n t s , ( b ) the use of p l u r a l i s t i c  norms with c o n v e n t i o n a l t e s t s u n r e l a t e d t o  programming and remdediation, and ( c ) the use of IQ t e s t s as  9  screening  and placement  disportionate education The  classification  classes  information Hilliard,  when  needs ( i . e . ,  that  the only  when m a t c h e d  whites  rational  classifications  be abandoned.  in relation  associated  to their  Language).  groups.  (American  memory t a s k s  Samuda  with  also for a l l  Testing groups groups are reduced  s t a t u s , a number o f i n test  d i f f e r e n c e s between white  Indian,  Hispanic,  Black,  Kindergarten  studies  scores  Umansky a n d Cohen ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,  on t h e McCarthy  1972).  percieved  purpose f o r t e s t i n g  differences exist  were s i g n i f i c a n t  Instead  instruction.  f o r socio-economic  ethnic  (McCarthy,  traditional  should  1979).  (excluding  d i f f e r e n c e s between e t h n i c  indicated that  i s the use of  & Sabers,  i n Test Scores between E t h n i c  Although  there  cases),  i s t o improve  Differences  programming.  ( F i n e , 1988;  f o r L2 students  be l a b e l e d  Factors  various  L2 s t u d e n t s  E n g l i s h as a Second  suggests that  have  of minorities i n special  i n addition to socio-cultural  retarded)  should  lead to  resultant ineffective  assessing  evident  mentally  students  would  1980; Samuda, 1985; R e s c h l y  demonstrably  students  which  o f a number o f a u t h o r s  testing  Samuda, b e l i e v e s  (i.e.,  with  suggestion  standardized  devices  between  found  that  and non-  O r i e n t a l ) on Screening  Test  On t h e K a u f m a n A s s e s s m e n t B a t t e r y f o r  Children  (K-ABC)(Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983),  speaking  c h i l d r e n were found  Cantonese  t o have s u p e r i o r  10  spatial  skills  as  compared  (Gardner, is the  t o t h e E n g l i s h and P u n j a b i  1986).  academic s k i l l s necessarily viewpoint  vary  Early  for a child such  be s t r e s s e d  suggests  tests  from  as speed  i s research  (1980) that may  Samuda ( 1 9 8 4 ) s u g g e s t s  forgotten that standardized same m e a n i n g  speaking that  a different  i n that culture.  the causal  between c u l t u r a l  sometimes i t  do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y have  or i n d i v i d u a l  by R a v i n ,  children  culture since  effort  may n o t  Supporting  Bar-Tal, Ravin perception  &  this  Bar-Tal  of achievement  groups.  Screening  Another early  concern  screening  Although early  there  of kindergarten  of average but l a t e i s a general  screening,  there  screening maturing  i s with the students.  agreement on t h e n e c e s s i t y o f  i s disagreement  about  the effects of  screening age. Erion any  (1987),  reviewed  school  records  t o determine i f  p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s between c h r o n o l o g i c a l age and  identification classified  of a learning d i s a b i l i t y  a s l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d had e v i d e n c e d  u n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t and had a c h i e v e d visual  existed.  a low score  or auditory d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  Children  significant on t e s t s o f  Erion discovered  moderate c o r r e l a t i o n  (r=.53) between c h i l d r e n ' s ages  entrance  and t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  into  disabilitity. Smith the  school  A number o f a u t h o r s  1986; W a n c x y c k i ,  effects  (Hammond,  1983) have e x p r e s s e d  of premature  identification  11  a upon  of a learning 1986; Shepard a concern  and subsequent  about  &  remediation Knight  w h e r e no d i s a b i l i t y  (1984)  summarize  exists.  the concerns  Wood, P o w e l l a n d  with  the following  statement: Children because of  who a r e m i s l a b e l e d " s p e c i a l of developmental  unnecessary  assessment  appreciation labeling  youngness r i s k  failure.  of children  needs"  Professionals  f o r developmental  r e a d i n e s s by Shepard  the major  point  than s t a t i s t i c a l differences  (p.  A synthesis  and Smith  significance  graders are small,  i s that  the oldest  there  i n the later  Perhaps an  issue  children  that  children  ready  entrance  age based  age.  o f r e s e a r c h on concluded practical  similarily  rather  rather  small  points. that i f  and tends t o  May a n d W e l c h c o n c l u d e  t h e school ready  exist,  that  first  concluded  i ti s time f o r t h e r e a d i n e s s debate o f making  deeper  achievement  i ti s relatively grades.  a  the effects  i n the order of 7 or 8 p e r c e n t i l e  i s an age e f f e c t  disappear  that  and t h e youngest  A s t u d y b y May a n d W e l c h ( 1 9 8 6 )  with  11).  (1986)  t o b e made w h e n c o n s i d e r i n g  between  charged  life  ( s i c ) to avoid the  o f s o many y o u n g c h i l d r e n  s c r e e n i n g age a r e m i n i m a l .  school  a school  a t s c h o o l e n t r a n c e need  However , o t h e r a u t h o r s have s u g g e s t e d of  simply  that:  t o become  f o r the variety of  t h a n a t t e m p t i n g t o make t h e  f o r t h e s c h o o l by m a n i p u l a t i n g s c h o o l on b i r t h d a y ,  ( p . 104)  12  sex or developmental  For culture  L2  children,  the  effects  i n a d d i t i o n to the  of  a different  previous  testing  early,  "can  experience interest, Fine in  the  Fine  (1988) states  culturally/language different  result  in a frustrating,  f o r the  child,  often  further states that  i n c o r r e c t placement  student  too  discouraging,  impacting  motivation, confidence  and  negatively  self-esteem"  on  (p.  23).  i n a p p r o p r i a t e a s s e s s m e n t may  and  or  factors raises further  concerns about premature assessment. that  language  subsequent  placement  result  or  intervention. As  a result  social,  cultural,  previously students, the  a  school  e c o n o m i c and  date  school  in  Ontario  with  for  an  The  difficulty  is  even  appraisal Bagnato, objection  of  longer  L2  with  or  L2  time  (2  testing,  i t occurs  and  to delaying  the  assessment of  13  L2  testing 1988).  remediation  that the  that a  of  districts  (Fine,  needs c h i l d r e n i s c r u i c a l  defer  January  school  i s that  Cummins ( 1 9 8 0 ) c a u t i o n s  may  postpone  years)  modify  the  populations  will  L2  assessment  within  number o f  of  usually  until  that  (as  scores  defer  Schools  populations  sooner  test  screening A  postponing  the  factors  populations  high  year.  p e r i o d of  special  1986).  with  kindergarten  high  more e f f e c t i v e  L2  ( F i n e , 1988).  school  possible effects  language  (Samuda, 1980)  system  kindergarten  the  have upon t h e  boards with  September/October the  may  instrument  later  Vancouver  concerns about  outlined),  testing  until  of  early  (Neisworth serious  children i s ,  &  "that  early  identification  impossible" While  testing  dates  f o r L2 c h i l d r e n ,  first  i s a positive  and academic  and postponement o f review  was d i s c o v e r e d  Tonnuci  been t e n t a t i v e review  greater  reading. directly  of  supporting  without  from  In a  education,  as i n a t t e n t i v e ,  have  1983  Clark  experience,  t h e home t o k i n d e r g a r t e n , a n d e v e n more c o m p l e x  language"  experience  school  1986), c o r r e l a t i o n s  preschool  labelled  i n their  Zucchermaglio,  language c h i l d r e n .  prior  preschool  states  have  a  immature or  She f u r t h e r comments t h a t f o r L2 s t u d e n t s  In a study  compared  1973;  i n preschool  m i n o r i t y background  second  between  language competence and not y e t ready f o r  magnified  ethnic  f o r second  chance o f being  limited  Rozin,  & Blachowicz,  of developments  children  correlation  achievement of c h i l d r e n  language ( G l e i t m a n ,  Pontecordo,  a  literature  i n the present  no e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h  there  experience  be  i n the  Experience  While  of  support  practices.  Preschool  that  i s general  the modification of tests  literature, these  becomes  ( p . 109). there  suggesting  of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s  "Such p r o b l e m s  for a child  or t h e c h i l d  from  could  an  f o r whom E n g l i s h i s  ( p . 116).  o f t h e long term  effects  on m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ,  the academic  students  going  of  preschool  Evans  achievement and sentiment  (with preschool  14  experience)  (1985) o f 44  high  to that of a  control had  group.  attended  g r o u p by that by  this  and  or  grade  they  and  lapsed s i n c e the s u b j e c t s were matched  ethnicity.  s h o w s no  have been mixed experience  surprising,  sustained  and  sentiment  "...  Greenberg,  has  children  1986).  t o c a t c h up  to their  1987;  o f an  an  after  English  as  assessments  Cummins f o u n d  that although  arrived  in English  within  i n Canada a t age  average  t o approach  A more r e c e n t s t u d y  in  by  the e f f e c t s findings  impact  6 or  upon  400  that  & L2  in  English  Language ( L I ) In a  immigrant can  peers  1980  the children.  usually those  between 5 and  norms i n E n g l i s h  15  test  willig  fluent  years, i t took  Collier  the  1985;  becoming  after  grade  are  and  to suggest  children  two  of  English  F i n e , 1988).  L2  that  Population  a First  of over  middie  201).  s t u d y , Cummins e x a m i n e d  psychological  fluently  (p.  i s evidence  Cummins, 1980;  ongoing  the  that these  obvious  years  defined  Evans s t a t e s  (Ovando & C o l l i e r ,  There  students take several  report  t h e L2  as for  absence of powerful  within  control  concluded  into  s t u d i e s on  Time t o A g u i r e Competency  o f L2  (Collier,  from  hypotheses  i n the  Language a b i l i t y results  results  199).  follow-through procedures"  of  Evans  general carry-over effect  and  Factors Length  to the  amount o f p r e s c h o o l e x p e r i e n c e  school achievement  preschool  the  had  senior high school years" (p.  there  not  sex,  "type  study  measured  years  p r e s c h o o l and  age,  the,  Eleven  (1987) analysed  converse who  6 years  on  vocabulary. the  l e n g t h of  time to  required  1,548  L2  students (grades  become p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h  results  of  required  her  by  study  in English  7 years of  years  o f age  age.  Collier  age,  entered  was  at  l e a s t 4-8  English  national  grade-level areas  m e a s u r e d on A factor proficiency language.  children their  authors prior childs 1981;  language  age  that  i s accelerated  i s that  to this  competence Jakobovitz,  children  to  to  15  5  11  years  of  A  cited  to  begins  LEP  ina l l  the  to  aquiring  a  language in Vilke,  of  age  by  major  and most of  some  affect  (Cummins, 1978; For  seven  langauge  negatively  1988).  second  language  ages o f two  a second  as  reach  internal structure  p o t e n t i a l to  16  that  reach  years  hypothesis expressed  the  i n some  617)  prior to s i x years  in either as  for  reach  speakers  number o f  between the  assimulated the  has  to  academic achievement,  a child  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  date  native  ( 1 9 8 1 ) comments t h a t  language.  time  f o r a l l ages of  tests, (p.  i s the  that  of  for children 8  students  and  a f f e c t the  native  program  proficiency  norms o f  may  have not  ESL  required  that  i t i s believed  length  The  2 years, i t i s projected  be  standardized  Ireton  development  reach  Proficiency]  of  11)  purposes.  f o r c h i l d r e n 12  as  may  [Limited  subject  and  little  years  8 and  that".  W h e r e a s some g r o u p s may i n as  6,  the  (a) 3 to 8 years  ( c ) 6 to 8 years  subjects  an  (b) 2 to 5 years  concludes  4,  f o r academic  indicated that  c h i l d r e n who  proficiency to  by  this  a  Ireton,  reason, 1986)  support  solely of  some a u t h o r s  the concept  i n their  school,  (Hakuta  first  until  & Gould,  that  1987; M c L a u g h l i n ,  a child  receive instruction  language, through  their  formal  the i n i t i a l  langauge s k i l l s  grades  are  solidified.  Social  Style  Additional second  f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the a c q u i s t i o n of a  language a r e the s o c i a l  attitude/interaction  style  of h i s family  of the child  with  and t h e  the majority  culture. Studies with  have  indicated that  h i s p e e r s t h e more  faster  rate  Latimer Strong  variety  concluded speed  rate.  1983; McGroarty, that  of recent  concludes  communicative  studies  which,  relationships competence  likely  t h a n c h i l d r e n who  competence f o r second  to  acquire  English  acquired  studies  there  competence  "... h a v e s h o w n j u s t how  17  at the wider  and slower  of communicative McGroarty  i s a strong  social  and c i t e s critical  and m a i n t a i n i n g  i n and o u t of s c h o o l "  a  language a t a  i n schools  are i n achieving  English  responsive  language students, that  1983).  to interact with  acquired  at a  Hayes-  1984; S t r o n g ,  were more t a l k a t i v e ,  In a review  similarily  c h i l d r e n who  were more  of peers,  gregarious  he w i l l  a child i s  (Chesterfield, Barrows-Chesterfield,  & Chavez,  greatest  likely  t h e more s o c i a l  (p. 264).  An  component  several social  language underlying  factor  a f f e c t i n g the  stereotypes Gould  associated  (1987),  speaking  groups that  may  are  with  studies i n the  ethnic  that  group.  a L2  by  child  Harikuta i f  classrooms  stereotyped  then minimal  of  indicate that  mainstream  negatively  peers,  an  ability  and  non-English  come  their  are  from  English  i n t e r a c t i o n between both  groups  occur.  Family  Attitudes  Several towards the  cite  children  speaking  socialization  the  value  English found  and  Involvement  factors within majority  placed  upon  a f f e c t the  literacy 1983;  rate  of  and  handicap  i n the  a t t i t u d e of  and  believes  children  from  the  1981)  have a l s o second  language  achievement  been  be  a  is  the  the  majority  also  determinant  shown by  of  language  Cummins ( 1 9 8 1 ) key  1981),  quantity  what seems t o  a second  attitude is a  language c h i l d r e n w i l l  i n school majority  when t h e y  Parental  extremely  important.  provide  are  l a n g u a g e and  culture.  to  Cummins  groups  in  the  of  different cultures:  . .. minority well  that  Similarily,  parental  i n academic  attitude  immigrant parents toward  language.  that  variation  a c q u i s i t i o n of  as  1983;  a c q u i s i t i o n of  Berryman (1983) s t a t e s  culture  such  q u a l i t y and  Wells,  skills.  ambivalent  family  c u l t u r e (Berryman,  spoken (Connor,  to  the  to  highly  tend  do  with this  However, p a r e n t s w i l l  a d e q u a t e e n c o u r a g e m e n t when t h e y  18  perform  motivated  identify  encouragement to  to  the  to  learn  majority  is be  unable  feel  hostile  towards  the majority  the value o f t h e i r children's  reflect  own c u l t u r e .  performance  proficiency  group  In these  i n school  as well  they develop i n both  the ambivalent attitude  and i n s e c u r e cases as the  languages w i l l of their  about  tend t o  parents  (p.25). The  successful  t o be g r e a t l y  use o f language  influenced  the  that  quality  on  literacy  to  their  factors mother  school  and p a r e n t a l  I n a 1981 s t u d y , W e l l s  s u c c e s s f o r L2 s t u d e n t s i s r e l a t e d t o  and q u a n t i t y  of communication,  the value  i n t h e home a n d how p a r e n t s t r a n s m i t  children. that  Guebert  (1983) i d e n t i f i e d  a r e important t o second  tongue  relevance  i s believed  b y t h e home e n v i r o m e n t  involvement (Ganguly, 1985). concluded  i n society  maintenance,  of reading  prior  materials,  language  4  this  value  additional  acquisition:  experiences with and l e v e l s  placed  literacy,  of proficiency  demanded by t h e s c h o o l . Further language  factors  that  affect  the acquisition  are, ( a ) the modeling of incorrect  of a  second  E n g l i s h by  parents (Ganguly, 1985), ( b ) t h e percentage of E n g l i s h spoken  a t home ( C o n n o r ,  differing  dialects  Within group  1983) and ( c ) t h e e f f e c t o f  of English  (Taylor,  t h e L2 p o p u l a t i o n ,  o f 428 m i n o r i t y  language  eight,  who h a d b e e n r e f e r r e d  within  a large  Canadian  urban  1974).  Cummins ( 1 9 8 4 ) , s t u d i e d  children,  g r a d e s one t o  f o rpsychological school  19  district.  assessment  a  Approximately were born  outside  differences students; better  of  with school  minority  reflection  system.  Consequences of L2  English,  found  generations  that  personnel  i n the a  they  attitudes  do p o i n t  t o an  test results.  Agusition that  i f L2 c h i l d r e n a r e capable o f  i r r e s p e c t i v e of i t s q u a l i t y , they are  L I peers academically.  questionable  language m i n o r i t y  report  i n Canada  that  this  and  psychologists  Maldonado-Colon  f a u l t y assumption can  t o f a l s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of assessment r e s u l t s .  believes  i n the  are probably  of parental  when e v a l u a t i n g  (1986) raises the concern lead  (1983),  a c c u l t u r a t i o n of the Canadian  p r o f i c i e n t enough by t e a c h e r s  compete w i t h  only  not born  These d i f f e r e n c e s  Cummins ( 1 9 8 0 ) f o u n d  to  This i s  i n non-academic programs  culture; nevertheless,  important consideration  considered  i s generally  and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n  towards Canadian  speaking  consistently  Shapson and Purbbo (1981)  of the increased  L2 c h i l d  L2  o f Cohen and Manion  l a n g u a g e c h i l d r e n who w e r e  school  born  immigrants but not subsequent Similarly,  (54 percent)  significant  performed  t e s t s a n d t h e UIISC-R.  t o be o v e r r e p r e s e n t e d  Toronto  born  born L2 s t u d e n t s  performance  generation  tended  Cummins f o u n d  the conclusions  immigrants.  that  i n the study  between Canadian born and f o r e i g n  on a c h i e v e m e n t  poor  first  o f Canada.  Canadian  consistent that  half of the students  students  s p e c i a l education indicate that  a r e t r e a t i n g language m i n o r i t y  20  He  placements of  assessment c h i l d r e n as  pathological different concerns  cases and a r e ignoring  language noting  handicapped. previous that  will  that  L2 c h i l d r e n  I n agreement  with  language, a l l t e s t s ,  become t e s t s  risk  may  English  1986).  fail  1986).  to aquire  development  that their  o f competence  competence  minority first  language  to  believe  that  language  situations  i n a second  & Chan,  1984;  L2 s t u d e n t s  language  Guebert  because  language  ability  language  (Dopke,  i sr e l a t e d t o  (1983),  may n o t b e a b l e  states  to maintain  of the majority Consequently,  children  level  Guebert  may n o t b e a b l e  i ntheir  first  t o develop concepts i n t h e second Lambert  h y p o t h e s i s by s t a t i n g  where t h e l e a r n i n g  (no loss  L2 s t u d e n t s a r e  Cummins h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e  and community.  (balance effect).  upon G u e b e r t ' s  additive  which  i neither  children  minority  m a i n t a i n an adequate  language with  that  been s u g g e s t e d t h a t  ability  of the school  purpose  due t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f  i nhis first.  language  language  hypothesized  of their  of the  proficiency.  competence  I n a 1978 a r t i c l e ,  a child's  (1985) r a t i o n a l i z e  ( G u e b e r t , 1983; S t e i n b u r g  I t has a l s o  as  the statements of the  regardless  of English  these  arebeing c l a s s i f i e d  of dropping out of school  learning Tighe,  (1986) e c h o s  L2 s t u d e n t s h a v e a r e a s o n a b l e m a s t e r y  A number o f a u t h o r s a l s o at  Buttler  two a u t h o r s , Ovando a n d C o l l i e r  until  English  background.  t h e impact o f a  and Taylor that  of a second  to thefirst  21  (1984)  expand  there are language  may b e  language) or s u b t r a c t i v e  (loss  to f i r s t  situtation is  language).  a second  language  subtractive  situation  class  i s learning  child  initial  longitudinal to  support  instructed group (80 primary  I n her  in English  s c h o o l , no to note  surrounded country  by  and  the  language  the  last  (1988), a  study, grade  however  that these  language  and  were a p p r o x i m a t e l y  1987;  (Cummins, 1978;  Lambert &  important language  children  was  interference Social  a second  the child's  were  week.  When  final  year  observed.  students of  this of  It is  were  their  native  1983;  by  a  number  Harikuta &  Gould,  that i t i s  in their  of age),  of  prior  native to  major  language.  Class  Low the  from  evidence  8 years o l d .  competency  (approximately 6 years  stage  intellectual  i n the  f o r the concept  attain  necessity.  of a three  children  culture  Guebert,  Taylor),  social  to find  p e r i o d s each  effect"  a  effect" , that  or  two  re-examined  "balance  to  low  of  child  i s detrimental to a  achievement  f o r two  out  failed  I n summary t h e r e i s g e n e r a l s u p p o r t authors  class  opposed  stage  "balance  language  academic  s t u d e n t s ) was  important  of  Vilke  a second  language,  additive  middle  c h o i c e as  a second  hypothesis of  of  development.  by  by  an  where a m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e ,  findings  study  the  acquisition naitve  example of  i s where a m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e ,  learning  The  An  test  social  class  has  been found  scores of LI c h i l d r e n  22  to  impact  w h i l e f o r L2  n e g a t i v e l y on  children  there  is  a lack  (Ganguly, have found  of data  of the a f f e c t s  1985).  In general  that  Nafstad, for  1982).  lag  cognitive low on  result  potentials  socio-economic  their  with  a poor  a r e t h e same. W a l k e r were  1983;  l a g behind  He f e e l s  this  albeit  their  (1985) found  inclined to act  enviromental  evidence  and t h i s  background  that  impulsively  factor  tends  t o lower  scores. A further  scores  variable  i s the tendency  satisfied  with  the informal  study  by P o z n e r  games w i t h families,  that  groups  that  they  however  communication pattern  from  class.  t o other  but equally since  1982),  using  when  t o them and had children.  different  Nafstad  socio-economic  effective patterns of  the school  system  of the middle c l a s s ,  23  A 1974  satisfied  had been e x p l a i n e d  from  t o be  low socio-economic  were more o f t e n  the rules  children  test  and t o communicate  ( c i t e d i n Nafstad  children  have d i f f e r e n t  communication,  information  children  explaining  (1982) states  t o depressed  o f low socio-economic  and S a l t z  preschool found  contributes  language o f t h e lower  some o f t h e r u l e s  difficulty  that  incomplete  using  only  children  of c u l t u r a l deprivation  children  with  empirical  academically.  achievement and i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s  coupled  positively  (1983) found  children  status  researchers  1983; M i l l s ,  low s o c i a l c l a s s  social class  i s a direct  correlates  1975; Connor,  Globerson  the b e l i e f that  higher  for LI children,  social class  achievement (Coleman,  of social-economic  adopts the  children  from  lower  socio-economic  Nafstad  further  socio-economic language  of  states  backgrounds  of  situations  are at a  disadvantage.  although children  from  are a b l e t o produce "are d i f f e r e n t  calling  f o r an  lower  the  in  formal  their  elaborated  code"  136). In a study  of  that  the s c h o o l s , they  evaluations (P.  backgrounds  48  Zigler,  disadvantaged testing  Abelson  children  situation  received  lower  comparing  advantaged  children  than  information  about  the  m a j o r i t y of  test  abilities  tests  4 to 5  towards  and  of  as  a  better  than  the result  study  disadvantaged  concluded  advantaged  1/2  that  (1972) i n a  "great paucity" impact  of  that  on  kindergarten disadvantaged  One  the f i n d i n g s  of  (Ganguly,  socio-economic  c o n c e n t r a t e on  measured  i n the second  language"  (1980) found  scores for white  here  and  and  (p.  24  of  factors  of Ganguly's between  since a  study socio-  the a q u i s i t i o n  of  125).  the d i s c r e p a n c y between ethnic  1985)  the attainment of  there i s a strong relationship  economic s t a t u s as  Jensen  children  studies  language.  "that  (ages  (1973) found  Leitz  performance  children. is a  skills  scores.  significantly  there  was,  Seitz  kindergarten children  L2  second  children  advantaged  ability  performed  i n the  were more a p p r e h e n s i v e  p e r c e p t u a l motor  kindergarten For  and  t h e p e r c e p t u a l motor  individual  the  factors  economically disadvantaged  years),  and  of m o t i v a t i o n a l  groups  was  the  markedly  verbal reduced  when  t h e groups were r o u g h l y  status. 1986) LI  More r e c e n t  also  studies  indicate that  equated  f o r socio-economic  (Cohen & Manion,  the discrepancy  Philips,  i n t e s t scores  and L2 c h i l d r e n i s g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d  financial  1983;  when  for  matched for  status. Summary  In  summary,  kindergarten opposing  the l i t e r a t u r e  screening  views  o f L2 s t u d e n t s  seems t h a t  as  an e s s e n t i a l s t r a t e g y  evidence  kindergarten  early  that  suggests  ultimately create  are  merely  bias, time  by  little  self-concept"  of  data  in  kindergarten  in children  who  of f a c t o r s such as c u l t u r e  date  of screening  Attempts  Subsequently,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of test scores  25  and age a t  e f f e c t on  the reason  i s , "compounded by  the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n date  results.  level  development.  (1985) suggests,  (p. 54).  accepted  empirical  e a r l y assessment  a number  by L2 s t u d e n t s  evidence.  i s also controversial  f a c t o r s as language, c u l t u r a l  altering  supports  the a b i l i t y  learning difficulties  experience,  As Samuda  scores  uncertain the  i s very  the  i s generally  o f assessment a l l have an u n d e t e r m i n e d  additional and  that  i n their  L2 s t u d e n t s ,  results. test  lagging  preschool  screening  i n t e r v e n t i o n . There  may  For  often  f o r assessing  even though t h e r e  supporting  with  i n the absence of s u b s t a n t i a l  It  children,  associated  f o r poor  such  patterns,  t o address  values,  these  or procedures  there  test  issues  produces  i s uncertainty in  f o r L2 c h i l d r e n  .  Perhaps  the reason know v e r y  f o r opposing little  language ( V i l k e ,  v i e w s i n r e s e a r c h i s t h a t we  about the p r o c e s s 1988)  and  (McGroarty, The  learning  a  second  have o n l y vague n o t i o n s a b o u t  l a n g u a g e demands p l a c e d on language p r o f i c i e n t  of  still  students  a child  by  needs t o be  t h e s c h o o l and to succeed  methodology o f the p r e s e n t  will  outline  study.  26  the purpose  how  in school  1984).  f o l l o w i n g chapter  the  and  CHAPTER  THREE  Methodology This chapter study. by  First  presents  the methodology  t h e purpose  f o r the study  of the present  i s stated, followed  i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b j e c t s , i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and d a t a  collection. hypotheses analysis  Operational definitions, a r e then  outlined.  and i m p l i c a t i o n s  v a r i a b l e s and  Finally,  i n f o r m a t i o n on  data  are presented. Purpose  Through  the gathering of data  schools,  the present  concerns  related  kindergarten. the of of:  preschool  screening for  s e l e c t e d Vancouver  has addressed  some o f t h e  t o t h e s c r e e n i n g o f L2 c h i l d r e n i n  Data gathered  relationships L2 c h i l d r e n  study  from  have p r o v i d e d  i n f o r m a t i o n on  between t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g  (Oriental/Indo-Canadian)  and t h e v a r i a b l e s  experience, screening date,  age a t time o f  and t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g s c o r e s  whom E n g l i s h i s t h e i r  First  scores  of  children  Language ( L I c h i l d r e n ) .  Subjects The  subjects i n this  students school  Canadian, L2 not  i n t h e Vancouver  year.  cultural  study  Oriental  i n the present English.  school  These s t u d e n t s  groups w i t h i n  Financial  kindergarten  system  were from  t h e Vancouver  and Anglo. study  were  school  f o r t h e 1987/1988 the three  school  major  system:  Indo  S u b j e c t s were d e s i g n a t e d  i f the predominant  home l a n g u a g e  s t a t u s o f t h e s u b j e c t s was  27  as was  determined Survey  by  (1986).  undertakes are  then  Tract  using data Every  a survey  analyzed  Survey.  students time,  who  those  five  of  and  who  an  These  Canadian  the  unknown p r e s c h o o l  i n a French  and  those  proven  emotional  Canada  i n Canada.  the  from  Tract  study  immersion  were  those first  experience, kindergarten  hearing, visual,  data  Census  e n t e r i n g k i n d e r g a r t e n f o r the  were e n r o l l e d had  Statistics  into  excluded  who  who  Canadian Census  household  compiled  not  had  the  years  each  Subjects were  from  those program  intellectual  or  problems. Instrumentation  Every tested the  kindergarten student  with a m o d i f i c a t i o n (Vancouver  Florida  1982).  The  Kindergarten Screening Florida  kindergarten tests:  the  Picture  Beery  (VMI)  Developmental  (Beery,  Localization. is  the  1967), The  best  the  Vocabulary  Test  Alphabet  a multiple choice test  measure  Discrimination  of  1985)  of  Fletcher,  Battery i s a the  following  Test-Revised  (PPVT-R)  designed  ability  a child  Motor I n t e g r a t i o n  Recitation  of  and  Test-Revised  to evaluate  children  word.  i s asked  28  Finger  Vocabulary  or  to p o i n t to the  each vocabulary  test,  Visual  Picture  s u b j e c t i s asked  illustrates  Board,  Recognition-Discrimination Test,  Peabody  (hearing) vocabulary  currently  Battery (Satz &  s c r e e n i n g b a t t e r y composed o f Peabody  is  School  Kindergarten Screening  (Dunn & Dunn, 1981), the  i n Vancouver  For to  the r e c e p t i v e  adults. drawing the  On  this  that  Recognition-  identify  a  geometric  stimulus  Developmental visual-motor of  Test  among a g r o u p o f f o u r o f V i s u a l Motor  ability  by a s k i n g  24 i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t  On t h e A l p h a b e t  designs.  the child  designs  to duplicate a set  using  pencil  R e c i t a t i o n measure a c h i l d  as a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e .  Finger  Localization  measure a c h i l d  series  of increasingly d i f f i c u l t Kindergarten  Screening  from  a large scale study,  into  the factors associated with  (Gates,  1984).  likelihood manifest  that  factors: the in  the Florida  an i n d i v i d u a l  & Fletcher,  each  finger.  was  developed  Longitudinal Project,  reading  success  years  and  failure  to predict the child  later,  would  a t t h e end o f  1982).  strength of the battery the inclusion  with  kindergarten  three  For the  to tap out a  Battery  b a t t e r y was d e s i g n e d  l e a r n i n g problems  grade 2 (Satz The  This  i s asked  patterns  and p a p e r .  i s required to  the alphabet  Florida  i s d e p e n d e n t upon  o f two normed t e s t s ,  two  t h e PPVT-R a n d  VMI ( G o t t s , 1 9 8 0 ) , a n d t h e u s e o f a l o n g i t u d i n a l t h e development In  an a t t e m p t  of the battery (Gates,  found  a modified  tests  1984).  a number o f s c h o o l  assessment procedure.  that approximately  modified  design  t o compensate f o r b i a s i n g f a c t o r s i n the  assessment of L2 s t u d e n t s adopted  Beery  I n t e g r a t i o n measures  recite  The  The  Samuda  82% of a l l school  when e v a l u a t i n g L 2 s t u d e n t s .  schools  have an o v e r a l l  percent  (V.S.3.,  1982).  L2 p o p u l a t i o n Those s c h o o l s  29  districts  boards  have  (1980) i n Ontario  Vancouver  of approximately i n Vancouver  48  with  a  large  L2  population  screening  (1975) i n his review  Screening  Battery,  was  that  screening  battery  also  that  felt  Satz  Australian  screening  as  the  risk  i n grade  three. of  some c h i l d r e n who and  Satz  assessment  Screening  Battery  had  kindergarten  the  Florida of  not  Battery  System, L a t o r r e  30  White, of  Kindergarten children failure  by  w e r e L2  speak  or  that seven  the  of  sample  i n a follow-up  In a cross  He  f o l l o w up  the  percent  Florida  a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d 81  kindergarten  showed symptoms  Noteably,  the  Screening  P u b l i c School  battery  year  reading  could  of  by  was  children  understand study  of  years  Kindergarten  accurately classified  children.  Kindergarten  Vancouver  of  had  evaluation  batteries.  percent  (1982),  who  developed.  use  L o n g i t u d i n a l P r o j e c t , found  initial  Florida  the  w h i c h 30  the  the  to  in kindergarten,  Fletcher  Florida  after  high  a population  included  English.  a  overall  i n a three  75  assessing  teachers  partially  children using that  at  Kindergarten  a promising  elaborate  F r i e l (1979),  battery  failure  Gotts'  only  than other  having  Florida  kindergarten  much e a s i e r  B a t t e r y , found  drawn from and  and  the  i t represented  i t was  school  identified  reading  kindergarten  i t more a c c u r a t e  t h a t was  paraprofessionals  Screening  of  c h i l d r e n for a year.  battery  Batini,  found  d i f f i c u l t i e s than  known t h e the  late  date.  Gotts  learning  u s u a l l y have a  77  percent  validation results,  study  within  (1985) found  percent  of  of  readers  of the  that that  w o u l d be b e l o w a v e r a g e by t h e end o f g r a d e also the  found  that  while  L 2 c h i l d r e n who  tended In  contrast  to the previous  Gates c r i t c i z e s  He r e p o r t s  that  Kindergarten  Screening  reports,  Battery  groups.  i n a 1984 t e s t  was p e r f o r m e d  and upper  Similarly  on a sample o f  c l a s s males from  Gotts  (1980) states  subtests  c a n n o t be v i e w e d  to the disproportionately large a high  concludes question. extensive  socio-economic  that  the v a l i d i t y  one  that the  and  Finger  as adequately  number o f w h i t e  background. of these  Both authors suggest local  a l l of  (90.9%) i t also  Recitation, Recognition-Discrimination  Localization  from  almost  the standardization of the battery.  middle  in Florida.  Alphabet  due  readers  Latorre  t h e 1970 s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f t h e F l o r i d a  predominantly  county  became p o o r  predicted  t o o v e r - c l a s s i f y L2 c h i l d r e n i n t o r i s k  review,  497  the battery  one.  that  Gotts  three  normed males  therefore  measures  i s in  t o use the b a t t e r y  v a l i d a t i o n or r e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n is  necessary. A number o f c o n c e r n s e x i s t to  with  i t s correlation to intelligence,  with  other  cultures.  Florida  Kindergarten  convert  PPVT-R  scores against  Although Screening  standard  scores  t h e PPVT-R achievement  in relation and usage  instructions issued Battery  with the  d i r e c t users  i n t o PPVT d e v i a t i o n  to I.Q.  ( S a l t z & F l e t c h e r , 1 9 8 2 ) , a number o f a u t h o r s i t s use a s an i n t e l l e c t u a l  & Handal , 1986; B r a c k e n  screening  device  caution (Alpater  & Prasse , 1983; C a r v a j a l , Mcvey,  31  Sellers, found  Weyland  t o have o n l y  predictors 1983). the  & McKnab, 1987).  a moderate c o r r e l a t i o n  of achievement (Breen,  In a d d i t i o n , other  u s e o f t h e PPVT-R w i t h  1984;  Sharpley  8< S t o n e ,  other  1985).  call  In order accurate  and r e l i a b l e  Vancouver  kindergarten  Screening  Battery  the  exclusion  Sattler  (V.S.B.,  1985).  Vancouver  Kindergarten separate  the Florida  Screening  an  f o r the  Kindergarten  f o r use i n Vancouver  weighting  formula  from  by  and t h e  the battery  1985 s t u d y  student  scores  Battery  was t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f  every  two y e a r s  p o s i t i v e s and f a l s e Procedure  schools  ability  A consequence of L a t o r r e ' s  of  on t h e F l o r i d a  f o r L I and L2  kindergarten  and t h e i n d i v i d u a l  at this  d i s c r i m i n a n t functions which  Of  and develop  L o c a l i z a t i o n Test  variables are adjusted  true  information.  The d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n s f o r t h e b a t t e r y a r e  recalculated  of  population  & Altes,  because the s t i m u l i  criticisms  discriminant functions  students.  the  loaded  of a Vancouver  kindergarten  against  (1982) found t h e  measure o f r e a d i n g  of the Finger  & Pfeiffer ,  cultures (Sattler  has been m o d i f i e d  implementation  to other  have c a u t i o n e d  for culture specific t o meet p r e v i o u s  has been  1983; N a g l i e r i  studies  PPVT-R t o be h i g h l y c u l t u r a l l y pictures  The PPVT-R  to result  have a c c e p t a b l e  in a set  rates of  p o s i t i v e s (VSB, 1986). and Data C o l l e c t i o n  t h e 77 p u b l i c e l e m e n t a r y were randomly  time  weights of  schools  s e l e c t e d (5 f r o m  32  i n Vancouver, a low  financial  10  status  area  area).  5 from  From e a c h  randomly and  and  a medium o r  s c h o o l up  selected into  Anglo  groups of  ethnicities L2  groups  1982).  Using  fifty-eight  equal  i n the  this  size  Vancouver  formed  Data r e q u i r e d f o r the during  the  Vancouver  school  personnel.  were c o l l a t e d  school  the  and  20  LI  status  students  sex.  to concentrate  on  school  (V.S.3.,  had  of  system  one  hundred  the  into  a computer  two  and  study.  p r e v i o u s l y been  1987/1988 k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g After  were  Alternate  sample f o r t h i s  the  initial  data  file  by  collection  by  Vancouver  of  a child  personnel. Operational  English  financial  O r i e n t a l / I n d o Canadian  a group  study  collected  data  and  i n order  procedure  students  L2  a sample of  were e x c l u d e d  largest  t o 20  high  Language A b i l i t y :  communicate o r a l l y  The  Definitions ability  i n E n g l i s h as  level  compared  to  to  h i s LI  peers. Ethnic  Group:  A cultural  characteristics, Financial  status:  Low  language or financial  income  less  than  by  1986  Canadian  the  financial Florida  group of  to  Beery  Test  Visual  per  Battery:  Motor  33  year  to a family as  determined  Medium or  incomes over  b a t t e r y c o n t a i n i n g the of  common  status refers  Census T r a c t .  status refers  with  customs.  20,000 d o l l a r s  Kindergarten Screening  screening  people  A  this  high level.  kindergarten  following  tests:  Integration (Beery,  the 1967),  Recognition-Discrimination, Test-Revised Finger Indo  (Dunn & Dunn,  Peabody  Picture  1981), Alphabet  Vocabulary Recitation,  Localization.  Canadian:  A person of East Indian  a n c e s t r y and  culture. Kindergarten: year  Ll:  level  of primary school  preceeding grade  minimum the  First  age o f f i v e  one.  f o r the school  Admission requires  a  y e a r s on o r b e f o r e December  31 o f  enrollment year .  Children  whose f i r s t  language  o r home l a n g u a g e i s  whose f i r s t  language  o r home l a n g u a g e i s  English. L2:  Children different this  from E n g l i s h .  difference  language  spoken  will  For t h e purpose  of this  study  be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e dominant  a t home, a s s t a t e d  interview  form  f o r kindergarten  The t e r m s  L2 and m i n o r i t y  on t h e p a r e n t  screening  language  will  (VSB, 1985).  be u s e d  synonymously . Oriental:  a person of Chinese, Japanese  ancestry Preschool:  Vietnamese  and c u l t u r e .  A licensed  enrollment  or unlicensed  f o rchildren  kindergarten. be u s e d  or  In this  centre  t o o young  to attend  study preschool  synonymously.  34  providing  and daycare  will  Var i a b l e s The  The  independent  1.  preschool  2.  date  3.  age  4.  ethnicity  5.  English  of at  variables  experience.  kindergarten time  of  screening.  screening.  ( Oriental,  Language  dependent v a r i a b l e  kindergarten  are:  Indo C a n a d i a n , Anglo  ability. i s the  screening  )  subtest  scores  on  the  battery.  Hypotheses 1.  There  i s no  screening  correlation  scores  of  L2  between  the  kindergarten  students  and  preschool  exper i e n c e . 2.  There  i s no  of  students  L2  significant  O c t o b e r ) and  who  L2  are  difference screened  students  who  are  between the  early  scores  (September-  screened  late  (January). 3.  There  i s no  significant  difference  between  screening  scores  of  L2  students  and  the  screening  scores  of  LI  students  screened  kindergarten  kindergarten at  the  time. 4.  There  i s no  screening  correlation  and  the  b e t w e e n age  screening  students.  35  scores  at of  time L2 /  of LI  same  Data Hypotheses The  4  significance  variables using  1 and  was  For  and  fourth  between  hypotheses  (Nie, Hull,  Jenkins,  these analyses the  .05  was  the determined  a s p r o v i d e d by  Steinbrenner &  level  of  the  Bent,  significance  used.  Hypothesis  2  A one-way a n a l y s i s second  On  significance  (.01)  the effect  Hypothesis A two  this  level  computed  on  h y p o t h e s i s a more s t r i n g e n t  was  utilized cell  i n data analysis  the (Nie et  level to  of  control  numbers.  3 factor  analysis  of variance  t h e S P S S X ANOVA  et a l . , 1986).  On  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  control  was  t h e S P S S X ONEWAY s u b p r o g r a m  of unequal  hypothesis using (Nie  of variance  hypothesis using  a l . , 1986).  for  relationship  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s  SPSSX s u b p r o g r a m 1986).  o f any  i n the f i r s t  Pearson  Analysis  f o r the e f f e c t  this (.01)  was  c o m p u t e d on  subprogram  h y p o t h e s i s a more was  utilized  of unequal  36  this  cell  stringent  i n data analysis numbers.  to  CHAPTER  4  Results This chapter of  students.  in  the  four  presents  The  results  previous chapter  hypotheses  a description of  are  Florida  kindergarten during  the  present of  study.  Oriental,  language. illustrated  i n Table  A total  of  elementary  Five  family  a strata drawn.  the  i n the  which  Students  the  a second  children  who  language (L2)  i n the  study  of  Schools  sample f o r  Anglo-Saxon,  the  from  one  Indo-Canadian  a second  or  first  sample p o p u l a t i o n i s  Vancouver  and  having  five  the  of  441  had  s e l e c t e d from  School  District.  having  were p o o l e d . students  yearly  This  being selected  sample p o p u l a t i o n f o r the  spoke E n g l i s h as  their who  i n each catchment  study  first  spoke E n g l i s h area.  A l l  been p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d  37  the  yearly family  schools  language ( L I ) were matched w i t h s t u d e n t s as  Public  composed of c h i l d r e n  20,000 d o l l a r s  in a total  from  the  1.  20,000 d o l l a r s  resulted  formed  catchment areas  incomes under  process  was  year  s c h o o l s were randomly  schools  s c h o o l s from  incomes over  into  10  to  Battery scores  English i s either  A breakdown of  sample  described  in relation  Screening  s a m p l e was  f o r which  final  investigation.  three general e t h n i c groups,  and  77  The  analyses  a t t e n d i n g Vancouver  1987/1988 s c h o o l  the  Sample  Kindergarten  children  data  discussed  tested in this The  The  the  of  by  their  kindergarten teachers  second  Table  as having  English as a f i r s t or  language .  1  Population  S a m p l e b y D o m i n a n t Home  Language  a Home L a n g u a g e  b  %  n  Cantonese Chi nese English Hindi Japanese Mandarin Punjabi Vietnamese  46 4 79 4 3 3 13 6  29 . 1 % 2.5% 50 .0% 2 .5% 1 .9% 1 .9% 8 .2% 3 .8%  Note. E t h n i c groups i n c l u d e d i n t h e sample a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f those e t h n i c i t i e s i n t h e Vancouver kindergarten student population (1987/1988). a Number o f s t u d e n t s b Percentage o f sample, does n o t t o t a l 100% due t o r o u n d i n g  One  hundred  students, criteria French  (79 LI students  kindergarten  randomly for  preschool  Kindergarten Screening selected student  the present  analysed  study:  they  kindergarten classes,  and t h e i r  study.  using these  sampled  a n d 7 9 L 2 s t u d e n t s ) met t h e  required for this  Immersion  Flordia  a n d f i f t y - e i g h t o f t h e 441 randomly  not enrolled i n had n o t repeated was d o c u m e n t e d .  Battery scores  The main  into  hypotheses  scores.  composed o f 76 m a l e s a n d 82 f e m a l e s  38  they  attendance  were p o o l e d  pooled  were  from  each  t h e sample were  then  T h i s s a m p l e was and r e p r e s e n t s  used  approximately kindergarten The  four  percent  students  of Vancouver's  enrolled  i n the public  school  5 months.  skewed  towards  The s a m p l e a s i n d i c a t e d  lower  financial  number o f L I a n d L 2 s t u d e n t s w i t h a low f i n a n c i a l  i n Table  from  the 5 school  status;  Approximately  area  income  Table  s t a t u s (median  6  7 8 9 10  percent  catchment  less  than  2 S a m p l e b y Number  and Sex  a  1 2 3 4 5  75  dollars).  Population  School  2, i s  catchment  a school  w i t h a low f i n a n c i a l  5  s t a t u s due t o t h e h i g h e r  (n=118) o f t h e sample p o p u l a t i o n i s from  20,000  system.  a v e r a g e a g e o f t h e s a m p l e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y  years,  areas  3,949  b Male 6  18 10 18 10 2 2 4 4 2  Female  n  6 20 14 4 12 0 4 10 6 6  12 38 24 22 22 2 6 14 10 8  c  % 7.6 24 .0 15.2 13 .9 13 .9 1.3 3 .8 8.9 6 .3 5.1  Note. E t h n i c groups i n c l u d e d i n t h e sample a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f those e t h n i c i t i e s i n t h e Vancouver kindergarten student population (1987/1988). a Schools 1 t o 5 r e p r e s e n t c h i l d r e n from low f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s f a m i l i e s (median y e a r l y income < 20,000) and s c h o o l s 6 t o 10 r e p r e s e n t c h i l d r e n f r o m m e d i u m o r h i g h f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s f a m i l i e s (median y e a r l y income > 20,000). b Number o f s t u d e n t s c May n o t t o t a l 1 0 0 % d u e t o r o u n d i n g o f f  39  Tests Hypothesis  of  Hypotheses  1  There  is  no  screening  correlation  scores  of  hypothesis  was  between L2  the  students  kindergarten  and  preschool  experience. This  Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s null  hypothesis  significant hypothesis following Florida  the  .05  i s rejected.  level The  sample c o r r e l a t i o n would  table  appear (Table  Kindergarten  preschool  Table  at  analysed . using  by 3)  of  Screening  test  i s less  indicates  Product-  significance.  probability  f o r the  chance  Pearson  the  that  a  measures  than  .05.  scores  in  this  The  correlations  Battery test  The  of  the  to  experience.  3. a  Correlations,  Test  20 .29 28 .88 10 .99 10 .27  8 18 3 3  Experience  r  s .d .  M A-R PPVT-R R-D VMI  Measures to Preschool  .72 .72 .14 .08  .05 .24* .22* .05  Note. A-R = A l p h a b e t R e c i t a t i o n ; P P V T - R = P e a b o d y P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , F o r m L; R-D = R e c o g n i t i o n D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r Integration a N = 79 * P< .05 Table 3 correlations  indicates  that  there  between p r e s c h o o l  40  are  low  experience  positive and  test  scores  on  the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary  Test-Revised and the T h i s i n d i c a t e s that L 2  Recognition-Discrimination Test.  c h i l d r e n with preschool experience may score s l i g h t l y on these measures. measures, Alphabet  C o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the remaining two R e c i t a t i o n Test and Test of Visual-Motor  I n t e g r a t i o n , i n d i c a t e no s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p preschool experience and t e s t s c o r e s . for  higher  between  T h i s suggests that  L 2 c h i l d r e n , preschool experience does not have a  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon Alphabet  R e c i t a t i o n or Visual-Motor  Integration test scores. Hypothesis 2 There  i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  of L2 students October  difference  who are screened  ) and those  L2 students  between early  the  scores  (September-  who are screened  late  (January). Test data f o r t h i s hypothesis were analysed s e p a r a t e l y by means of independent one way analyses of v a r i a n c e . n u l l hypothesis i s accepted.  The  The p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t e s t means would appear by chance i s greater than of  .01.  Table 4 summarizes the r e s u l t s  a one way analyses of v a r i a n c e of F l o r i d a Kindergarten  Screening B a t t e r y t e s t s c o r e s f o r L 2 students who are screened e a r l y and screened  late.  41  Table  4  Analysis  of Variance  Subtest  Source  A-R  Between Within Total  f o r L 2 Early/Late Screening  SS_  df  1.11 5857.02 5858.13  1 75 76  Tests f o r Homogeneity of Variance: B a r t l e t t - B o x F = . 2 4 , p >.05 Between Within Total  PPVT-R  9.31 27097.91 27107.22  Between Within Total  55.92 695.87 751.79  Between Within Total  VMI  6.26 655.20 661.45  l 0.01  9.31 361.31  .90  .54, p  0.03  Cochrans C =  .8729  6.02*  Cochrans C =  6.26 8.74  > .05  . 5 3 , p_ > .05  55.92 9.27  1 75 76  Tests f o r Homogeneity of V a r i a n c e : B a r t l e t t - 8 o x F = . 6 1 , p >.05  p_  Cochrans C =  1 75 76  Tests f o r Homogeneity of Variance: B a r t l e t t - B o x F = . 7 2 , _> > .05  F  l . l 78.09  1 75 76  Tests f o r Homogeneity of Variance: B a r t l e t t - B o x F = . 1 8 , £ >.05  R-D  MS  Scores  .0164  . 5 6 , p_ > .05  0.72  Cochrans C =  .4000  . 5 7 , p_ > .05  Note. A-R = A l p h a b e t R e c i t a t i o n ; P P V T - R = P e a b o d y P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , F o r m L ; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r Integration;R-D =R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . *p<.05 Table Screening of  4 indicates  B a t t e r y s u b t e s t s were s u p p o r t e d  significance.  scores than  t h a t none o f t h e F l o r i d a  Table  a t t h e .01  5 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mean  f o r L 2 s t u d e n t s who  t h e mean s c o r e  Kindergarten  are screened  of those  students  42  early  who  level  test  are higher  are screened  late.  T a b l e 5. Mean S c o r e s : E a r l y / L a t e S c r e e n e d  L2 S t u d e n t s  Alphabet R e c i t a t i o n Recognition-Discrimination PPVT-R VMI  Early  Late  20.40 11 .67 28 .95 10 .42  20 .16 9 .94 28 .25 9 .84  N o t e . A-R = A l p h a b e t R e c i t a t i o n ; PPVT-R = P e a b o d y P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , Form L; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r Integration;R-D = Recognition-Discrimination. Since unequal  cell  heterogeneity of c e l l  numbers i n d i c a t e d  a p o s s i b i l i t y of  variances, a test of t h i s factor  made u s i n g C o c r h a n ' s C a n d B a r t l e t t ' s Box F.  was  In a l l cases  t h e d e g r e e o f h e t e r o g e n e i t y was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . Hypothesis There  3 i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  screening screened  scores  difference  of L2 students  at the same  between and LI  kindergarten students  time.  In o r d e r t o determine  i f a significant  difference  e x i s t s b e t w e e n k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g s c o r e s o f L I a n d L2 students screened  a t t h e same t i m e , t e s t d a t a f o r t h i s  h y p o t h e s i s were a n a l y s e d u s i n g a two f a c t o r  analysis of  v a r i a n c e a s p r o v i d e d by t h e SPSSX s u b p r o g r a m ( N i e e t . a l , 1975)  a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .  level of significance significance  Although  t h e .05  was o r i g i n a l l y c h o s e n t h e .01 l e v e l o f  was a d o p t e d  to control  43  f o r unequal  cell  sizes.  The a  null  hypothesis  significant difference  chance  i s less  indicate Florida  a two  than factor  Kindergarten  .01.  i s rejected. between The  test  The  means w o u l d  following  analysis Screening  44  of  the  probability  data  test  Battery.  appear  i n Table  scores  that  on  6 the  by  Table  6  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e Comparing D a t e o f S c r e e n i n g Language Group on T e s t S c o r e s  Subtest a  df  Source  SS  Scrm ( A )  11 .26  Flang (B) A * B Remainder Total  197 23 8926 9156  MS  1  F  11 .26 197 23 58 59  and  .60 .58 .97 .22  1 1 152 155  110.80  1  110.80  42955.29 38.84 49254.26 92576.97  1 1 152 155  42955.29 38.84 324.04 597.27  .601 .58 .73 .07  0 .19  .662  3 .37 0 .40  .069 .527  a Scrm ( A )  0.34  .560  b Flang (B) A * B Remainder Total  PPVT-R  a  Scrm  (A)  K D Flang (B) A * B Remainder Total  23.11  1  2.28 33 .28 1116 .82 1174  1 1 152 155  132.56**.000 0.12 .730  23 .11  3 .15  .078  2 33 7 7  0 .31 4 .53*  .578 .035  0 .56  .456  7 .16** 0 .20  .008 .657  .28 .28 .35 .58  a Scrm ( A ) u D Flang (B) A * B Remainder Total  4 .91  1  4 .91  62 .89 1 .74 1334.34 1402 .69  1 1 152 155  62 .89 1 .74 8 .78 9 .05  Note. A-R = A l p h a b e t R e c i t a t i o n ; PPVT-R = Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , Form L; R-D = R e c o g n i t i o n D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r I n t e g r a t i o n ; N = 156 a  b Scrm = s c r e e n i n g month; F l a n g * = p_ < .05 ** = p_ < .01  45  = L I o r L2  As T a b l e LI  indicates,  and L2 s t u d e n t s  Vocabulary of  6  probability  indicates visual  p_ =  Picture  .008).  sample d i f f e r e n c e  measures at the  i s less  .01  than  level  of  Test  The would  .01.  significance,  of Recognition-Discriminationtest  some i n t e r a c t i o n  means ( T a b l e  Peabody  L2 s t u d e n t s  Cell  that a significant  scores  b e t w e e n s c r e e n i n g month  7) i n d i c a t e  screening, LI students  Table  between  and  perception.  Cell  the  t h e Peabody  I n t e g r a t i o n ( F = 7.16,  not s i g n i f i c a n t  an a n a l y s i s  on b o t h  difference  ( F = 1 3 2 . 5 6 , p_ = 0 . 0 0 0 ) a n d t h e  by c h a n c e o n b o t h  Although  late  found  Test-Revised  Visual-Motor  appear  was  a significant  Picture  score  Vocabulary  t h a t f o r both higher  than  Test-Revised,  on t h e T e s t  of Visual  Test  L I and L2  Motor  early  and  L2 s t u d e n t s but score  on  below  Integration.  7 Means:  Subtest  A-R PPVT-R R-D VMI  Scores  Early  Screening  Students  Late  Screening  LI  L2  LI  L2  22.02 62.98. 10.67 8.98  20.40 28.96 11.67 10.42  23.37 60.23 10.83 8.83  20.16 28.25 9.94 9.84  Note. A-R = A l p h a b e t R e c i t a t i o n ; P P V T - R = P e a b o d y P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , F o r m L ; R-D = R e c o g n i t i o n D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r I n t e g r a t i o n  46  Hypothesis There  4 i s no c o r r e l a t i o n between  screening  and  the screening  age at time  scores  of  of L2 / LI  students. In order to determine i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p  existed  between  age at time of s c r e e n i n g and s c r e e n i n g s c o r e s , t e s t data f o r t h i s hypothsis were analysed using Pearson Product-Moment correlations a l , 1986) The  as provided by the SPSSX subprogram (Nie e t .  at the  .05 l e v e l of  n u l l hypothesis  significance.  i s rejected.  The p r o b a b i l i t y  that  a s i g n i f i c a n t sample c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the above t e s t measures would appear by chance i s l e s s than this analysis  are presented  i n d i c a t e a low p o s t i v e the VMI for  ( r = 0.23,  LI s t u d e n t s .  .05.  i n Table 8.  The r e s u l t s of These r e s u l t s  c o r r e l a t i o n between t e s t s c o r e s on  p_ = 0.045) and age at time of s c r e e n i n g Correlations  between age a t time of  s c r e e n i n g and other t e s t s on the F l o r i d a  Kindergarten  Screening B a t t e r y f o r LI students were not s i g n i f i c a n t . No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s time of s c r e e n i n g and  were found between age at  t e s t measures on the F l o r i d a  Kindergarten Screening B a t t e r y f o r L2 A post hoc a n a l y s i s also  indicates  several  students.  of the data f o r t h i s  positive correlations  hypothesis a t the  .01  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , between t e s t s on the F l o r i d a Kindergarten Screening B a t t e r y f o r both groups (see 9).  Table  For LI students a l l t e s t s had s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e  47  correlations  between e a c h o t h e r .  few s i g n i f i c a n t Table  positive  F o r L2 s t u d e n t s  correlations  between  there  were  tests.  8  Correlations:  Test Scores  to Screening  LI s t u d e n t s  A-R R-D PPVT-R VMI  L2 s t u d e n t s  s_ .d.  M 22 .53 10 .73 61 .94 8 .92  Age  6 .31 2 .32 16 .90 2 .95  r .04 - .04 .13 .23*  M 20 10 28 10  s .d. .29 .98 .88 .27  r  8 .72 3 .14 18 .72 3 .09  .18 - .05 .18 .08  Note. A-R = A l p h a b e t R e c i t a t i o n ; PPVT-R = Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , Form L; R-D = R e c o g n i t i o n D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r I n t e g r a t i o n a N - 158  Table 9 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between T e s t s f o r L I and L2  Subtest  LI A -R  A-R 1 .0 PPVT-R .3** R-D .4** VMI .4** Note.  Students  PPVT-R .3** 1 .0 .4** .5**  R-D .4** .4** 1 .0 . 5**  A-R = A l p h a b e t  Students  L2 S t u d e n t s VMI  A-R  .4** .5** .5** 1 .0  1 .0 .3** .3** .1  Recitation;  PPVT-R  1 .0 .2 .1  R-D . 3** .2 1 .0 .5**  PPVT-R = Peabody  .1 .1 . 5** 1 .0  Picture  V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d , Form L; R-D = R e c o g n i t i o n D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; VMI = T e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r I n t e g r a t i o n ** p < .01  48  VMI  Summary One one  h u n d r e d and  fifty-eight  kindergarten students  o f t h r e e g e n e r a l e t h n i c g r o u p s and  levels who  two  f o r m e d t h e sample f o r t h e p r e s e n t  spoke E n g l i s h as t h e i r  students  who  first  financial  study.  from  status  Students  l a n g u a g e were matched  spoke E n g l i s h as a s e c o n d  l a n g u a g e by  with  sex  and  financial status. The Pearson  first  positive  test  f o u r t h hypotheses  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s  significance. low  and  An  at time  Data f o r t h e s e c o n d one  way  not s u p p o r t e d The  of  indicated and  Test-Revised  third  at the  I n t e g r a t i o n f o r LI  .01  level  h y p o t h e s i s was  cell  sizes.  An  that  at both  early  was  .01  significantly  level  adopted  late  higher  of  analysed  a n a l y s i s of data and  a low  test  scores  students.  This  using  hypothesis  significance. u s i n g a two  factor  of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  to c o n t r o l for this  for  hypothesis  found  students  than  the  49  s t u d e n t s on  This  unequal  s c r e e n i n g d a t e s , LI L2  An  positive  o f s c r e e n i n g and  analyses of variance.  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  scored  Vocabulary  h y p o t h e s i s were a n a l y s e d  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e at the level  level  hypothesis  number f o u r f o u n d  the Test of V i s u a l - M o t o r  was  .05  the R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Test (r=.22).  c o r r e l a t i o n between age  independent  first  t h e Peabody P i c t u r e  a n a l y s i s of hypothesis  on  at the  using  c o r r e l a t i o n s between p r e s c h o o l e x p e r i e n c e  s c o r e s on  ( r = . 2 4 ) and  a n a l y s i s of the  were a n a l y s e d  Peabody  P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test of V i s u a l  Test-Revised  b u t below L 2 s t u d e n t s  Motor I n t e g r a t i o n .  50  on  the  CHAPTER  5  Discussion Introduction The related scores  purpose of to the  o f L2  Screening between date, and  versus  study  and  Instruments  used  sample s i z e  who  had  the  Florida  using  was  age  at time  i n the  f o r the  by  independent  the  Data  and  first  Test  of  factor  one  third  analysis  subprogram  at  and  158  were f o u r  screening Oriental  way  second  analyses  at the  hypothesis  .01  level  s u b t e s t s of  .05  the  51  Recitation,  Integration). students  four subtests  of  Battery. hypotheses  at  were  as  the  hypothesis of  level were  v a r i a n c e as  level  of  provided  by  analysed  provided  .05  by  analysed provided  using a the  significance.  the  of  significance.  were a n a l y s e d  of  the  Recognition-  kindergarten  using  fourth  of v a r i a n c e as  the  relationships  screening for  Visual-Motor  Screening  f o r the  SPSSX s u b p r o g r a m  f o r the  examined  Test-Revised,  been screened  Data  the  Kindergarten  Battery (Alphabet  SPSSX s u b p r o g r a m ( N i e e t . a l , 1986)  using  Florida  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s  significance.  comparing  experience,  of  study  Screening  Kindergarten  Pearson  preschool  composed of  previously  Data  of:  Vocabulary Test  The  present  the  by  concerns  students.  Kindergarten  Discrimination  children  The  L2  Peabody P i c t u r e  L2  on  variables  students  i s to address  LI students  Indo Canadian  Florida  study  screening of  Battery.  the  LI  this  SPSSX  two  A number o f c o n f o u n d i n g affected to  the r e s u l t s of the study.  have been a major  screening ethnic  dates.  altered  the time  intervention  results.  have  influencing  may  test  have a l s o  w h i c h may  chapter  have f u r t h e r  effect of these  presents:  l i m i t e d sample w i t h i n  implications and  within  a t both the to  practice .  52  permitted  influenced  factors  may  the  have  A summary o f i n Table  a) a discussion  practice  implications  dates  i s presented  the limits  f o r educational  c ) some  scores  appears  the significance of the findings.  significant findings  final  status  contributed  the significance of the findings.  This  significantly  Financial  span between screening  The c o m b i n e d  statistically  study  may  D i f f e r i n g c u l t u r a l values  or decreasing  addition,  teacher  the  factor  groups of the study  increasing In  factors  based  of the study,  10. on  with  b) l i m i t a t i o n s of the  for further  research  and  Table  10  Summary  of S t a t i s t i c a l l y  Significant  A-R Hypothesis 1 . L2 P r e s c h o o l e x p e r i e n c e  Findings  PPVT-R  R-D  r=0.24  r = 0 .22  H y p o t h e s i s 2. L2 E a r l y / L a t e s c r e e n i n g  a  H y p o t h e s i s 3. L I v e r s u s L 2 , same screening date H y p o t h e s i s 4. LI and L 2 , t e s t  VMI  F=132  F=7 .16  a  r = 0 .23  age  Note. a = s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05, h y p o t h e s i s significance  a t .01 l e v e l o f  Discussion The p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y concerns  related  kindergarten, variables students  s p e c i f i c a l l y the relationships  of:  each  some o f t h e  t o t h e s c r e e n i n g o f L2 c h i l d r e n i n  preschool  and age a t time  Canadian L2 s t u d e n t s . the  was t o a d d r e s s  between t h e  experience, screening date, LI of screening f o r Oriental  The f o l l o w i n g  section  and Indo  briefly  l i t e r a t u r e and d i s c u s s e s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s  arising  reviews from  hypothesis. Preschool  experience.  A number o f p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s h a v e f a i l e d consistently preschool measures.  determine  experience While  positive  correlations  and i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y  preschool  experience  53  to between  on v a r i o u s  has been  found  test to  correlate Rozin,  positively  1973;  with academic  Zucchermaglio,  Blachowicz,  1986),  significant  correlations  review  of  mixed  for  about  that these  experience,  no  main  term  results  correlation Test-Revised conclusion research  that in  1973;  which  1986).  The d a t a  experience  effects  that there are  experience. indicate  t h a t f o r L2 positive  Picture  Vocabulary  coming  from  Tonnuci  f o r the present  English receptive vocabulary does not appear  achievement  Pontecordo,  preschool (Gleitman,  &  study  i n a slight  and v i s u a l  suggests increase  perception.  t o be a c o n s e q u e n c e o f L2  medium o r h i g h  financial  families,  s i n c e o f t h e 79 L 2 c h i l d r e n  preschool  experience,  approximately  54  This  previous  also indicates that  does r e s u l t  and  t h e need  term  the findings of  t o academic  Zucchermaglio,  preschool  children  underscore  and t h e R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n T e s t .  does c o r r e l a t e  correlation  study  history  experience  of the long  on t h e Peabody  for LI children  Blachowicz,  results  In h i s  i s a  does have a low  i s i n agreement w i t h  experience Rozin,  experience  with scores  that there  of preschool  of the present  non-  preschool  Evans a l s o concludes  effects  preschool  of  &  &  t o have  of preschool  I n h i s 1985 s t u d y  preschool  children  the effects  conflicting  of  long  Tonnuci  & Bradshaw, 1980).  f o r the effects  more s t u d y .  The  (Silva  Evans (1985) concludes  results  concludes  Pontecordo,  i t a l s o has been found  of l i t e r a t u r e  experience,  achievement (Gleitman  status  i n the study  8 2 % were from  with lower  This  financial from  status families.  medium o f  increased larger  effect These as  English  lower  As  of  to v i s u a l  the  children  with  benefits  and  Florida  crafts  time spent  Kindergarten  more f a m i l i a r  tend  to decrease  have a  low  positive correlation  Discrimination addition,  accrue not  a  number  e.g.,  enviroment during  with  that of  Test-Revised  will  which  scores  and  the  on  experience  does  not  Alphabet-Recitation  Kindergarten  increase  have  c h i l d r e n , preschool i n the  Screening  overall  Battery.  55  score  Although  and This  experience on  the  In  significant  (rj=.05)  scores.  does  Recognition  preschool  a slight  also  experience  r=.22 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  g e n e r a l l y f o r L2  likely  will  ( r = . 2 4 and  Integration (r=.05) test  skills.  testing.  test  Visual-Motor  the  social  experience  to  in  painting),  m e a s u r e d by  Battery  correlations  that  and  such  and  Test  the  the  the  factors  language  children preschool  Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary  by  minimal.  I t i s probable  preschool  anxiety  I n summary, f o r L2  minimized  children is  drawing  areas  a school  their  upon  suggests that  English  experience  Screening  with  have  a consequence of  (e.g.,  In a d d i t i o n , c h i l d r e n w i t h be  upon L2  the  i n other  be  this  in preschool.  preschool skills  be  with  would  low,  experience  familiarity  that children  population.  c o r r e l a t i o n s are  c o r r e l a t i o n s may  greater  during  status  effect  s t a t u s would  language a b i l i t y  preschool  low  financial  financial  both  exposure  higher  Hence any  the  Test  of  suggests results  Florida  statistically  significant experience  the practical upon  the Florida  a p p e a r s t o be m i n i m a l . exercised  preschool  and l a t e  some a u t h o r s  should  (Collier,  discovered  suggest  and  these  hypothesis,  L 2 c h i l d r e n who w e r e  screening  This  difference  between  when t e s t i n g  research  L2  was d e t e c t e d  screened  Therefore  or disagreeing  between  suggests  Battery  that  Kindergarten  the scores  of  dates the date  of  i m p a c t upon t h e scores  two f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e t h a t both  there  difference at the  on d i f f e r e n t  Screening  was  hypothesis.  no s i g n i f i c a n t  initially  Kindergarten However,  o f L2 a  significant  g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n on s u b t e s t s o f  the  Florida  the  mean R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n s c o r e s  time),  without  students.  alterations.  does n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t  students.  L2  information supporting  of probability  (early/late).  date  1 9 8 6 ) , no s t a t i s t i c a l  supporting  this  level  screened  by  the m o d i f i c a t i o n of t e s t s or  the findings of the present  Florida  Battery  1987; Cummins, 1980; F i n e , 1988;  a p p e a r s t o be l i t t l e  For  Screening  t h e r e f o r e be  with  screening,  postponement of t h e s c r e e n i n g  Maldonado-Colon,  .01  Caution  preschool  experience.  While  with  Kindergarten  between L2 s t u d e n t s  Early  students  of  i n creating inaccurate expectations  differentiating  the  significance  Screening  Battery  group of L2 c h i l d r e n a r e higher  (a)  of the early  (despite  and ( b ) t h e d i f f e r e n c e between both  56  may e x i s t :  less  groups approached  significance factors null  may  (pj=.016) a t t h e .01 have c o n t r i b u t e d  hypothesis  such  level.  to the failure  as the p o s s i b l i t y  students (January) b e n e f i t i n g from (approximately formal  four  educational  informal  English  Language a b i l i t y  greater  percentage  benefited  preschool  screening  discrimination children  majority middle  ability  early  suggests that  should  and middle/upper LI It  LI  i s generally  etc.).  improves the  In addition, a  screened  experience.  This  time  late  status  believed  and L2 c h i l d r e n i s markedly  57  4 months  L2 c h i l d r e n  who  early  Since  are also  the  from  also  when c o m p a r i n g t h e  between c h i l d r e n status  that  that  L2  families, this  L2  also  experience,  discrimination.  scores  versus  indicates  late  recognition  school  be e x e r c i s e d  financial  early)  (approximately  are behind  i n recognition  Recognition-Discrimination lower  5% o f t h o s e  and greater  financial  care  Second  significantly  o f c h i l d r e n who a r e s c r e e n e d  or upper  receive  i n t e r v e n t i o n by  date) to increase  who a r e s c r e e n e d  screened  or  c h i l d r e n who w e r e s c r e e n e d  the advantages of extra  to late  time  skills  o f L2 s t u d e n t s .  of those  23% versus  are  and formal  screening,  (approximately  due  screened  Speech and Language t h e r a p y ,  prior to late  despite  the extra  i n t e r v e n t i o n ( E n g l i s h as a  teachers  from  additional  to reject the  of late  months), t o acquire  Language a s s i s t a n c e , Presumably, both  Several  from  families.  scores. the discrepancy  reduced  between  when t h e g r o u p s a r e  matched  f o r socio-economic  Jensen,  1980; P h i l i p s ,  indicated  that  differences  i n test scores  1986).  necessarily  1986).  (Cohen & Manion, 1983;  However, s t u d i e s  e v e n when m a t c h e d  groups ( A l t e p e t e r Gardner,  status  f o r socio-economic  e x i s t between v a r i o u s  mean t h e same t h i n g  previous  which  The Peabody the  r e s u l t s from  receptive  higher  than  reflected  vocabulary  The Test  reason  difference  Subsequently  language  a n d may  i tappears  l a g behind  also  dates  areas  was  scores of  ability  listening that  of  due t o to the  L2  t h e i r LI peers  l a g i n other  that  (see Table  f o r the higher  English  of  i s significantly  and l a t e s c r e e n i n g  higher  children  i n receptive  English  ability. r e s u l t s from  significantly  Test  This  of variance  scores suggest  number o f y e a r s o f e x p o s u r e  of Visual-Motor  score  of LI students  A possible  language.  kindergarten  language  early  support  are differences  analysis  Test-Revised  o f L2 s t u d e n t s .  i s their  increased  English  the  that  4).  LI s t u d e n t s the  vocabulary  there  study  groups  groups.  a two f a c t o r  Vocabulary  a t both  6, C h a p t e r  indicate that  between e t h n i c  Picture  ethnic  to different ethnic  The r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t  test scores  status,  t e s t i n g may n o t  (Samuda, 1984).  in  also  & H a n d a l , 1 9 8 3 ; Umansky & C o h e n , 1980; Additionally, standardized  studies  have  an a n a l y s i s Integration  higher  of Visual-Motor  than  of test scores indicate  LI children.  Integration  58  that  f o rthe  L2  children  Mean s c o r e s  (see Table  7)  on  indicate  that  at both  score  early  significantly  scores  of  L2  integration group of  cultural  late  higher  children are  children.  As  a  differences  may  and  Integration.  On  on  speaking the  E n g l i s h and  study,  the  ethnicity scoring be  the  had  higher size  1).  on  and  system  effect).  Furthermore, test  of  L2  of  that  (hence greater cultural  behavior  and  1986;  that  test  scores  cultural effect  upon  children.  or  compared  to  present  Oriental  f o r L2  children  Integration the  repetition values  as  In the  were of  demands o f  &  Cantonese  skills  Visual-Motor  visual  LI  Visual-Motor  found  children  Test  the  measure (K-ABC )(Kaufman  speaking  greater  character  influenced  Test  P o s s i b l e reasons  the  contend  positive  superior spatial  m a j o r i t y of  to  (Gardner,  in differing  (1986),  Punjabi  (Table  1985)  higher  visual-motor  authors  a significant  a related  children  their  children The  i n comparison  Stone,  the  Kaufman, 1983), Gardner  L2  i t i s possible that  had  children's scores  dates  children.  that  result  language, have  LI  number o f  d i f f e r e n c e s may of  than  advanced  Sharpley  independent  screening  suggest  skills  Samuda, 1984;  L2  and  may  Chinese  and  practice  attitudes  benefited students  on  may  have  this  measure. The  interaction  screening test  month and  scores  hypothesis  (significant  at  the  level)  between  l a n g u a g e on R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n  i s consistent with results two.  .05  A n a l y s i s of  hypothesis  59  J  noted  under  number two  indicated  a s i g n i f i c a n t (F = 6.02) amount of v a r i a n c e between the t e s t scores of L2 students who are screened e a r l y versus who are screened  those  late. Age  and t est s c o r e s .  While some r e s e a r c h e r s suggest  that there i s an e f f e c t  between c h r o n o l o g i c a l age and d i f f i c u l t y 1987), and subsequently  i n school ( E r i o n ,  express concern about the premature  l a b e l i n g of immature c h i l d r e n (Hammond, 1986; Wancxycki , 1983), other authors suggest  that the e f f e c t of  c h r o n o l o g i c a l age i s minimal  (May & Welch, 1986; Shepard &  Smith 1986).  While  the r e s u l t s of the present  study  g e n e r a l l y support r e s e a r c h t h a t suggests the e f f e c t of c h r o n o l o g i c a l age i s minimal,  results also p a r t i a l l y  support  the f i n d i n g s of E r i o n (1987) which i n d i c a t e d a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between c h r o n o l o g i c a l age and scores on the Test of V i s u a l Motor I n t e g r a t i o n . The s c r e e n i n g scores of LI students on the Test of V i s u a l Motor I n t e g r a t i o n are the only t e s t s c o r e s that have a s i g n i f i c a n t but low c o r r e l a t i o n t o age at time of screening.  The low s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.23) suggests  age a t time o f s c r e e n i n g has only a s m a l l impact upon the t e s t scores of LI s t u d e n t s .  T h e r e f o r e , i t would appear t h a t  the e f f e c t of a student's age at the time of s c r e e n i n g (September/October versus January  s c r e e n i n g ) f o r LI students  on the F l o r i d a Kindergarten Screening B a t t e r y i s minimal. The absence of a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r L2 students on  60  this L2  m e a s u r e , may  students  during  period of  correlations  Kindergarten  test  measures.  Vocabulary  measure for  8).  L2  students  within  test  the  scores  to scores  correlate  f o r L I and  Motor  Integration.  on t h e Peabody  Picture  not have s i g n i f i c a n t  Integration.  correlations Test-Revised  Motor  ( c ) Alphabet  Integration Recitation  subsequent research subtest for  L2  scores  correlations the  American  exist  ( a ) Peabody  to Alphabet  to  scores  or the  the  test  following  Picture  Recitation,  to Recognition  ( b ) Test  Discrimination. relationships  Kindergarten  the difference L I a n d L2  b y L2  on  of  t o R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and  acquisition  culture  students,  determines causal  then  between  developing  F o r L2  on t h e F l o r i d a  students,  Picture  However,  correlations  Motor  Visual  remaining  Vocabulary  of  Vocabulary  L2  one  to scores  t h e R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n measure  significant  on any  on t h e Peabody  on e i t h e r Visual  Florida  on t h e  positively  of  measure, R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n  of Visual  scores  do  of  students  i n t h e number  tests  correlated  Recitation  Test-Revised,  between  For example, scores  and t h e t e s t  as L I  For LI students, scores  Test-Revised,  Alphabet  difference  B a t t e r y and  are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  three  the  Screening  (see Table  as r a p i d l y  skills  time.  i s a substantial  significant  children  that the visual-motor  are not d e v e l o p i n g  this  There  indicate  students  possibly  of the English  students.  61  between  Screening  i n t h e number  If  Battery  of  reflects  l a n g u a g e and  North  Educational  Implications  Although  the  results  preschool  experience  scores  L2  that  of  are  (e.g.,  children,  different  preschool  those  without L2  not  from  scores  on  the  positive  skills  not  Florida  Kindergarten  Screening  insufficently not  learning  such  cultural  Battery  f o r L2  language  are  (b)  a  negate the  children (e.g.,  d i d not  have a g r e a t e r  62  subsequent  further  do  or  Florida taught children  at  this  age,  from a l t e r n a t e or  d)  of  interfere  I f one  experience  merits  fact  Battery  the  benefits  t o b e n e f i t L2  chidren  the  interaction  altered  L2  research  of  skills  maternal  from  between  preschool  i n these  formation).  tests  children  then  by  taught  be  of  L2  number  t h a t L2  or  these  Screening  measured not  the  to f a c t o r s  relationship  by  could  due  to  differentiated  determined  scores  was  be  c h i l d r e n b e n e f i t most  factors that  values,  instruction preschool  skills  informal play  experience  possibilities  test  as  presence of  preschool  the  instruction  preschool  be  Kindergarten  in preschool,  b e n e f i t from  ( c ) t h a t L2  the  that  may  achievement  c o r r e l a t e more s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s (a)  correlation  I f subsequent  a causal  academic  indicate that  m e a s u r e d by  experience.  and  study  e v a l u a t i o n of  should  determines  experience  present  increase  the  preschool  possibilities,  do  low  this  experience  students  preschool that  a  the  a n x i e t y ) , t h e r e f o r e the  with  with  has  of  of  with  these  research  then  learning. effect  Why  upon  investigation.  the  If  further studies support  screening scores, either  date  then  L2  made.  the  and  have a s i g n i f i c a n t students  (late/early),  should  be  results  then  of  the  Most  significant  and  cross  made w i t h  research.  present  study  ultimately  have  important  between  suggest  that  L2  differ  comparisons for t h i s clarified  by  r e a s o n s why  possible educational  at  directly  between  may  test  screened  be  d i f f e r e n c e s between s c r e e n i n g and  measure subsequent  there  failed  dates  despite  intervention  consequences f o r the  to  may  instruction  students. The  scores  results  for LI  vocabulary LI  of  support  comparison of  kindergarten  L2  c h i l d r e n suggest  that  skills  of  L2  not  children at  c h i l d r e n have  either  screening  inclusion  of  programs ( E n g l i s h as  significantly  higher  screening  agrees with 1986).  the  and  need f o r c o n t i n u e d  late  be  comparisons  scores  students  importantly, the  time  with  LI  caution until  additional  L2  could  and  that  impact upon  group ( l a t e / e a r l y ) could  b e t w e e n L2  significantly,  of  conclusion  Recognition-Discrimination test  students  be  date  in either  Since  not  kindergarten  screening  students  the  does  the  This  expectations  the  on  scores  the  Test  f i n d i n g s of  suggests f o r L2  that  L2  the  receptive  reached  date.  This  students  in  screening  parity implies  language  a Second Language, e t c . ) . of  of  L2  c h i l d r e n at both  Visual-Motor  previous teachers  c h i l d r e n on  63  early  The and  Integration  research should  the  (Gardner,  have  visual-motor  higher  tasks  such  as  drawing.  These  weighting  formulas  the  results  a l s o suggest  should  be used  Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y  that  different  f o r L I a n d L2 s t u d e n t s  Test  and t h e Test  of  on  Visual-  Motor I n t e g r a t i o n . The  results  chronological significance Screening implies  of the present  age a t time  kindergarten students  be  compared  generally  aquisition Screening  scores  of older  have e n t e r e d  as measured  peers.  group  scores  I t also  of children  kindergarten, factor  i n the  by t h e F l o r i d a  little  kindergarten  research  existing  knowledge o f k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g .  identifying  will  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between e a r l y  kindergarten  screening  Kindergarten  increased.  Ultimately, Canadian  and subsequent  Moreover, t h i s  of financial  f o r L2  add t o t h e body o f  and  By late  o r b e t w e e n L2 a n d L I s c o r e s t h e  of the assessment  assignment  research  exists  i n Vancouver, t h i s  the  This  who a r e c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y y o u n g e r c a n  students  is  Kindergarten  Battery.  very  accuracy  practical  L I o r L2 s t u d e n t s .  age i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t  of s k i l l s  h a s no  of the Florida  i n d i c a t e s t h a t w i t h i n each  chronological  that  g r o u p (L1/L2), t h e s u b t e s t  to the subtest  (L1/L2), o n c e c h i l d r e n  As  scores  Battery f o r either  of  indicate  of screening  upon s u b t e s t  t h a t w i t h i n each  study  placement  i n f o r m a t i o n may a s s i s t  a n d human  64  i n the  resources.  because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s  language and c u l t u r e ,  process  i n adapting to  L2 s t u d e n t s  may  develop  learning  difficulties  K n o w l e d g e o f how white  middle  benefits  Limitations As are  and  community  s e t t i n g s should  investigation.  levels,  school  grouping  years,  In addition,  a s s i s t a n c e , speech  educational or further  the students  attended  academic  the study  Canadian, Oriental  i n t e r v e n t i o n such  and language  therapy  i n c l u d e d more  than  i n t h e Vancouver  other  largest  may  e t h n i c groups  i texcluded  other  ethnicities  populations (French  the study  (Italian,  (Indo  In addition,  the small  not a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t  65  School Spanish  sample s i z e  effect  These  upon t h e  of the study  the characteristics  population.  included  Immersion, e t c . ) .  p o p u l a t i o n s may h a v e h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t  results.  i s unknown  a n d A n g l o ) c o m p a r i s o n s c a n n o t b e made  the  e t c . ) and other  as  one e t h n i c i t y  Although  District  vary  years.  between v a r i o u s e t h n i c groups. three  may  n o t be g e n e r a l i z e d t o g r o u p s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n  i n other  Since  that  s i n c e t h e c u r r i c u l u m and  the influence of educational  should  of e t h n i c i t i e s  n o t b e made w i t h o u t  of the preschools  children  battery  generalization of the results to  grade  results  from t h e  instruction.  has a unique  i n continual flux,  learning  differently  o f t h e Study  different  and  LI students.  norm on a k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g  assessment  Vancouver  language  f r e q u e n t l y than  e t h n i c groups perform  class  both  more  of the  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Further  Research  Since the r e s u l t s of t h i s study are l i m i t e d  to  kindergarten c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d during the 1 9 8 7 / 1 9 8 8 school year , there i s a need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h with L2 at  other grade l e v e l s over  a p e r i o d of time.  L2  students a t t a i n v i s u a l motor and  The  students rate  language s k i l l s  s i g n i f i c a n t l y at higher grade l e v e l s and may the r a t e that LI students a t t a i n these  not  that  may  vary  parallel  skills.  Research i s needed to determine what s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s w i t h i n Preschool and Kindergarten b e n e f i c a l i n improving children.  programs are the most  the E n g l i s h language a b i l i t y of  For example, would L2 c h i l d r e n who  p r e s c h o o l s that use t h e i r from c h i l d r e n who  L2  attend  n a t i v e language score  differently  attend E n g l i s h language p r e s c h o o l s , or  does the number of years of attendance improve What i n s t r u c t i o n a l or remedial  scores?  methods are the most  appropriate? The e f f e c t t h a t f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s and  individual  e t h n i c i t y has upon t e s t s c o r e s of L2 c h i l d r e n needs to be more c l o s e l y determined.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , why  do L2 c h i l d r e n  score higher than LI c h i l d r e n at both s c r e e n i n g dates on Test of Visual-Motor  the  I n t e g r a t i o n and what e f f e c t does  f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s have upon the R e c o g n i t i o n - D i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t scores of L2 c h i l d r e n ? research with L2 c h i l d r e n who  F i n a l l y , there i s a need f o r are e x p e r i e n c i n g l e a r n i n g  problems and with L2 c h i l d r e n who  66  are i n s p e c i a l programs.  References A l t e p e t e r , T. , & H a n d a 1 , P. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Use o f t h e PPVT-R f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l s c r e e n i n g w i t h s c h o o l aged children"- A c a u t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e d i a t r i c P s y c h o l o g y , 4 ( 2 ) , 195 - 1 9 8 . B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) . E n g l i s h as Second Language/Dialect r e s o u r c e book f o r K-12. Ministry Education. B l a c h m a n , B. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Are factors c r i t i c a l in early 91-109. B l o o m , B. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . characteristics. B e e r y ,  K.  we a s s e s s i n g t h e reading? Annals  33,  S t a b i l i t y a n d c h a n g e i n human New Y o r k : W i l e y a n d S o n s  Developmental Chicago: Follett.  ( 1 9 6 7 ) .  Integration.  linguistic of D y s l e x i a ,  a of  Test  of  Visual-Motor  B r e e n , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s between the PPVT-R and t h e W o o d c o c k - J o h n s o n a c h i e v e m e n t c l u s t e r s c o r e s f o r n o n r e f e r r e d r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d students. Psychology i n the S c h o o l s , 2 0 ( 3 ) , 295-297. B u t t l e r , K. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . L a n g u a g e r e s e a r c h an p r a c t i c e : A m a j o r contribution to special education. I n J . M o r r i s & B. B l a t t , ( Eds.), S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h and T r e n d s (pp . 272302). New Y o r k : P e r g a m o n P r e s s . C h e s t e r f i e l d , R., B a r r o w s - C h e s t e r f i e l d , K., Hayes-Latimer, K. & C h a v e z , R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The i n f l u e n c e o f t e a c h e r s and peers on s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n i n b i l i n g u a l p r e s c h o o l programs. T E S O L Q u a r t e r 1/, 1 7 ( 3 ) , 4 0 1 - 4 1 9 . C l a r k , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . E a r l y education•" i s s u e s and E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 3 5 ( 2 ) . 113-119.  evidence.  Cohen, L., & M a n i o n , L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Multicultural Perspectives for teachers. L o n d o n : Croom Helm  classrooms:  Coleman, J . (1975). M e t h o d s and r e s u l t s i n t h e IEA s t u d i e s of e f f e c t s of s c h o o l i n l e a r n i n g . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 45(3 ) , 355-386 . C o l l i e r , V. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Age a n d R a t e o f . A c q u i s i t i o n o f S e c o n d Language f o r Academic Purposes. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 2 1 ( 4 ) , 617-641.  67  Connor, U. (1983). P r e d i c t o r s of second-language reading performance. Journal of M u l t i l i n g u a l and Multicultural Development, 4(4 ) , 271-287 . Cummins, J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment of immigrant c h i l d r e n : L o g i c or i n t u i t i o n ? J o u r n a l of M u l t i l i n g u a l and Multicultural Development, 1(2), 97-111. Cummins,  J .  children. Cummins, Issues  in  (1981). Toronto:  J .  Bilingualism OISE  ( 1984 ) .  minority  and  special  language  Press.  Bilingualism  assessment  and  and  pedagogy.  M.  (1986).  Avon:  education:  Mu11i1ingua1  Matters. Cummins,  J .  academic  achievement.  & Swain,  Language  (pp . 138-223 ) .  New  proficiency  York:  Dunleavy, R., Hansen, J . , Szasz, C. Baade, L. (1981). kindergarten identification of academically not-ready c h i l d r e n by u s e o f human f i g u r e d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a l Psychology in the S c h o o l s , 18(1), 35-38 Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for i s much o f i t justifiable? Exceptional Dunn,  L.  & Dunn,  Test-Revised.  L.  (1981).  Circle  Erion, J . (1987). identification of Quarterly, 11(1 ) ,  Peabody  Pines,  MN:  and  Longman. Early score.  the mildly retardedChildren, 35, 5-22.  Picture  American  Vocabulary  Guidance  C h r o n o l o g i c a l a g e , i m m a t u r i t y and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Education 2-7.  Service. the Research  Evans, E. (1985). Longitudinal follow-up assessment of differential preschool experience for low income minority group c h i l d r e n . Journal of Educational Research, 78(4), 197-202 . Fine, J . (1988). S t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s and the culturally/language different student. Ontario May/June,  Education,  23-24.  F l a u g h t e r , R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . American Psychologist,  The 33,  many d e f i n i t i o n s 671-679.  of  test  bias.  Fletcher, J . , & Satz, P. (1982). Kindergarten prediction of reading achievement: A seven year longitudinal follow-up. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 4 2 ( 2 ) , 681-685.  68  Gardner, J . (1986). A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e K-ABC and WISC-R f o r C a n t o n e s e , E n g l i s h and P u n j a b i s p e a k i n g C a n a d i a n s . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , 2, 4 5 - 5 3 . G a t e s , R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . F l o r i d a Kindergarten Screening Battery. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l N e u r o p s y c h o l o g y , 6 ( 4 ) , 459-465. G a n g u l y , S. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . E g o - a t t i t u d e s i n second language l e a r n i n g , a socio-economic a n a l y s i s . Journal of M u l t i l i n g u a l and M u l t i c u l t u r a l Development, 6 ( 2 ) , 117-133. G l e i t m a n n , L., & R o z i n , P. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T e a c h i n g r e a d i n g by u s e of a s y l l a b a r y . R e a d i n g R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , 8, 4 4 7 - 4 8 3 . G l o b e r s o n , T. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . M e n t a l c a p a c i t y and c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g : Developmental and s o c i a l c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s . Developmental P s y c h o l o g y , 19, 225-230. G o t t s , E. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . F l o r i d a Kindergarten Screening Battery. I n 0. B u r o s , ( E d ) , M e n t a l measurement y e a r b o o k . 583 - 5 8 5 . G r e e n , 8. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . In defense P s y c h o l o g i s t , 3 3 , 664-670.  o f measurement.  American  G u e b e r t , L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . L e a r n i n g t o read i n a second TESL T a l k , 15( 1 ,2 ) , 5 2 - 5 9 .  language.  H a k u t a , K. & G o u l d , L . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . S y n t h e s i s o f R e s e a r c h on B i l i n g u a l Education. E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 4 4 ( 6 ) , 38-45. Hammond, C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . " N o t r e a d y ! Don't r u s h C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n , 6 2 ( 4 ) , 276 - 2 7 8 .  me!".  H i l l i a r d , A. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . C u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y and s p e c i a l education. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 46, 584-588. J e n s e n , A. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Press.  B i a s i n mental  testing.  New Y o r k :  Free  Judy, J . (1986). Early screening i s essential f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y : Response t o S a l z e r and t o Shepard and S m i t h . E d u c a t i o n L e a d e r s h i p , 4 4 ( 3 ) , 87-88. K a u f m a n , A. & K a u f m a n , N. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Kaufman A s s e s s m e n t Battery f o rChildren. C i r c l e P i n e s , MN: A m e r i c a n G u i d a n c e Service.  69  K l e i n , A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The v a l i d i t y o f t h e B e e r y t e s t o f v i s u a l motor i n t e g r a t i o n i n p r e d i c t i n g a c h i e v e m e n t i n k i n d e r g a r t e n , f i r s t and s e c o n d g r a d e s . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 3 8 ( 2 ) . 457-461. K r a a y e n o o r d , C. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Preschool screening for learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : i s i t warranted? New Z e a l a n d J o u r n a l f o r E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s , 1 8 ( 1 ) , 48-58. I r e t o n , E. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . L e a r n i n g House, 54, 326-329.  a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e . The  Clearing  L a t o r r e , R. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Kindergarten screening: A crossv a l i d a t i o n of the F l o r i d a K i n d e r g a r t e n S c r e e n i n g B a t t e r y . The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1 6 ( 3 ) , 174-190. L a T o r r e , R. Hawkhead, P., K a w a h i r a , T. , & B i l o w , D. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . K i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g p i l o t p r o j e c t i n Vancouver s c h o o l s 1979-1980. A two y e a r f o l l o w up o f t h e M c C a r t h y S c r e e n i n g Test. B.C. J o u r n a l o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , 6, 23-41. L a m b e r t , E . & T a y l o r , D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Language i n t h e e d u c a t i o n of e t h n i c m i n o r i t y c h i l d r e n i n Canada. In R . J . Samuda, J.W. B e r r y & M. L a f e r r i e r e ( E d s . ) , M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m i n Canada S o c i a l and E d u c a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e s ( p p . 201-228 ). Toronto: A l l y n and B a c o n . L i e t z , E. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . P e r c e p t u a l - M o t o r A b i l i t i e s of D i s a d v a n t a g e d and A d v a n t a g e d K i n d e r g a r t e n C h i l d r e n . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 87, 887-890. M a l d o n a d o - C o l o n , E . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A s s e s s m e n t : C o n s i d e r a t i o n s upon i n t e r p r e t i n g data of l i n g u i s t i c a l l y / c u l t u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t s t u d e n t s r e f e r r e d f o r d i s a b i l i t i e s or d i s o r d e r s . In A. W i l l i g & H. G r e e n e r g , ( E d s . ) , B i l i n g u a l i s m and l e a r n i n g disabilities. New Y o r k : A m e r i c a n . May, D. & W e l c h , E . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . S c r e e n i n g f o r s c h o o l r e a d i n e s s : The i n f l u e n c e o f b i r t h d a t e and s e x . Psychology i n the S c h o o l s , 23, 100-105. M c C a r t h y , D. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Children's A b i l i t i e s .  Manual f o r t h e M c C a r t h y S c a l e s o f New Y o r k : P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n .  M c G r o a r t y , M. (1984). Some meanings o f competence f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s t u d e n t s . 1 6 ( 2 ) , 257-270.  70  communicative TESOL Q u a r t e r l y ,  M c L a u g h l i n , B. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Are immersion programs the for b i l i n g u a l education i n the United S t a t e s ? The R e v i e w , 11 ( 1 ) , 3 - 1 1 . M e i s e l s , S. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Uses and a b u s e s o f s c r e e n i n g and s c h o o l r e a d i n e s s t e s t i n g . 42 ( 2 ) , 6-7 . Mercer, J . (1973). Berkeley-University  L a b e l l i n g the of C a l i f o r n i a  answer Bilingual  developmental Young C h i l d r e n , " •  mentally retarded. Press.  M i l l s , B. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The e f f e c t s o f s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s young c h i l d r e n ' s r e a d i n e s s f o r s c h o o l . E a r l y C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t a n d C a r e , 1_1( 3/4 ) , 2 6 7 - 2 7 3 .  on  N a f s t a d , H. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Preschool children: Inquiry into i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s between s o c i a l c l a s s , l a n g u a g e and t r a i n i n g programs. Scandinavian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 2 6 ( 3 ) , 121-139. N a g l e r i , J . , & P f e i f f e r , S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . S t a b i l i t y , concurrent and p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y o f t h e PPVT-R. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 39(4 ) , 965-967 . N e i s w o r t h , J . , & B a g n a t o , S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Curriculum-based d e v e l o p m e n t a l a s s e s s m e n t : C o n g r u e n c e o f t e s t i n g and teaching. School Psychology Review, 1 5 ( 2 ) , 180-199. N i e , H., H u l l , C.N., J e n k i n s , J . G . , S t e i n b r e n n e r K. & B e n t , D.H. (1986). SPSSX: S t a t i s t i c a l P a c k a g e f o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ( 2 n d e d . ) . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l . O ' C o n n o r , A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E a r l y s c r e e n i n g - some p r o b l e m s a n d practices. B.C. J o u r n a l o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , 4, 2 7 1 - 2 8 2 . Ovando, C , classrooms.  & Collier, New Y o r k :  V. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Bilingual McGraw-Hill.  and  L2  P h i l i p s , C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . E d u c a t i o n a l under-achievement in d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c groups. Educational Research, 21(2), 130 .  116-  R a v i n , A., B a r - T a l , D., R a v i n , A. & B a r - T a l , Y. (1980). C a u s a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e by a d v a n t a g e d and disadvantaged pupils. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 50, 137-146.  71  R e s c h l y , D. & S a b e r s , D. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A n a l y s i s of t e s t bias i n four groups with the r e g r e s s i o n d e f i n i t i o n . Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l M e a s u r e m e n t , 1 6 ( 1 ), 1-9. S a m u d a , R. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Test i n g , Assessment, Counse11ing and Placement o f E t h n i c M i n o r i t y S t u d e n t s : C u r r e n t Methods i n Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. S a m u d a , R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Assessing the a b i l i t i e s of a minority students within a multiethnic m i l l i e u . I n R . J . S a m u d a , J.W. B e r r y & M. L a f e r r i e r e ( E d s . ) , Mu 1 1 i c u 11 u r a 1 i srn i n C a n a d a S o c i a l and E d u c a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e s ( p p . 353-367 ). Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon. S a m u d a , R. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Racism & t h e assessment of m i n o r i t i e s : Implications, consequences, a l t e r n a t i v e s . Intercultural Social Sciences. S a t z , P., & F l e t c h e r J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Kindergarten Screening Battery. Assessment Resources.  Manual f o r t h e F l o r i d a Odesa, FL: P s y c h o l o g i c a l  S a t t l e r , J . (1982 ) . Assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e and s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s ( 2 n d e d . ). Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. S a t t l e r , J . (1988). San D i e g o : Jerome M  Assessment Sattler.  of children  ( 3 r d e d . ).  S a t t l e r , J . , & A l t e s , L. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Performance of b i l i n g u a l and m o n o l i n g u a l H i s p a n i c c h i l d r e n on t h e Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d and t h e McCarthy P e r c e p t u a l Performance Scale. Psychology i n the Schools, 21(7), 313 - 3 1 6 . S h a p s o n , S., & P u r b b o , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A t r a n s i t i o n program f o r Italian children. C a n a d i a n Modern Language Review, 3 3 ( 4 ) , 486-496. S h a r p l e y , C. & S t o n e , J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . An e x p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o d e t e c t c r o s s - c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e PPVT-R. P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 2 2 ( 9 ) , 383 - 386. S h e p a r d , L . , S m i t h , M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . S y n t h e s i s o f r e s e a r c h on s c h o o l r e a d i n e s s and k i n d e r g a r t e n r e t e n t i o n . Educational L e a d e r s h i p , 4 4 ( 7 ), 78-85 .  72  S i l v a , P. & B r a d s h a w , J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Some f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o i n t e l l i g e n c e a t age o f s c h o o l e n t r y . British Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 50, 10-15. S m i t h , D., & W i l b o r n , B. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . learning d i f f i c u l t i e s . Academic  Specific predictors of T h e r a p y , 12,(4), 4 7 1 - 4 7 7 .  S t r o n g , M. (1983). S o c i a l s t y l e s and t h e second language a c q u i s i t i o n o f S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g k i n d e r g a r t n e r s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1 7 ( 3 ) , 241-258. T a y l o r , F. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Race, s c h o o l and community: r e s e a r c h and l i t e r a t u r e . S l o u g h : NFER  A study of  T o l l e f s o n , N., R o d r i q u e z , R., & G l a z z a r d , P. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . ' P r e d i c t i n g r e a d i n g achievement f o r k i n d e r g a r t e n boys and girls. P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 22( 1 ) . 3 4 - 3 9 . T h u r l o w , M., O ' S u l l i v a n , P., Y s s e l d y k e , J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Early s c r e e n i n g f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n : How a c c u r a t e ? Educational L e a d e r s h i p , 4 4 ( 3 ) , 93-95. T i g h e , V. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . O l d i s s u e s and h e l p f u l h i n t s : Content area r e a d i n g f o r second language l e a r n e r s . Reading Improvement, 2 3 ( 4 ) , 293-298. U m a n a s k y , W. the McCarthy 400-404.  & Cohen, L. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Race a n d s e x d i f f e r e n c e s on Screening Test. Psychology i n t h e S c h o o l s , 17,  Vancouver School Board. (1986). Procedure f o r changing the w e i g h t s ( e v e r y two y e a r s ) . D e t e r m i n i n g t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t elementary assessment program's kindergarten c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Vancouver School Board. Vancouver School Board. (1985). elementary assessment program.  Resource Vancouver  guide f o r the School Board.  Vancouver School Board. (1982). S u r v e y o f p u p i l s f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a second language. Vancouver School Board. V i l k e , M. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Some p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f e a r l y second-language acquisition. J o u r n a l o f M u l t i l i n g u a l and M u l t i c u l t u r a l Development, 9(1&2), 115-128.  73  W a l k e r , W. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . I n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t s of socioeconomic s t a t u s a n d c o g n i t i v e t e m p o o n WISC-R p e r f o r m a n c e . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n C o u n s e l i n g and Development, 1 8 ( 2 ) .  W a n c x y c k i , W. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . component o f B i l l 8 2 . 25-29.  The k i n d e r g a r t e n e a r l y identification S p e c i a l Education i n Canada, 57(1),  W e d e l l , K. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Assessing special education B . C . J o u r n a l o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , 7, 3 4 5 - 3 5 0 .  needs.  W e l l s , G. (1981). Some a n t e c e d e n t s o f e a r l y e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y o f E d u c a t i o n , 2, 181-200. W h i t e , R. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Efficacy of early Journal of Special Education, 19(4),  intervention. 401 - 4 1 5 .  The  W h i t e , M., B a t i n i , P., S a t z , P. & F r i e l J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) P r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of a screening b a t t e r y f o r c h i l d r e n 'at risk' f o r reading f a i l u r e . The B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 49, 132-137. Wood, C , P o w e l l , M., K n i g h t , R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . r e a d i n e s s : The v a l i d i t y o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 17(1 ) , 8-11.  Predicting school age. Journal of  W r i g h t , P. & S a n t a C r u z , R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Ethnic composition s p e c i a l education programs i n C a l i f o r n i a . Learning D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y , 6 ( 4 ), 387-394 .  of  Y s s e l d y k e , J . , T h u r l o w , M. , O ' S u l l i v a n , P . , & B u r s a w , R. (1986). Current s c r e e n i n g and d i a g n o s t i c p r a c t i c e s i n a s t a t e o f f e r i n g f r e e p r e s c h o o l s c r e e n i n g s i n c e 1977: Implications f o rthe f i e l d . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4 ( 3 ) , 191-201. Z i g l e r , E . , A b e l s o n , W., S e i t z , V. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . f a c t o r s i n the performance of economically c h i l d r e n on t h e Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y Development, 44, 294-303.  Motivational disadvantaged Test. Child  Z u c c h e r m a g l i o , C., P o n t e c o r d o , C., T o n u c c i , F . , & B l a c h o w i c z , C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . L i t e r a c y and l i n g u i s t i c awareness: A study of I t a l i a n f i r s t grade students. Reading Psychology, 7, 1 1 - 2 5 .  74  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 6 0
Japan 3 0
China 3 0
Iran 1 0
Costa Rica 1 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Unknown 2 3
Memphis 2 0
San José 1 0
Seattle 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054455/manifest

Comment

Related Items