Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Hearing books read in the first language : its association with reading achievement in the second language Walters, Ken 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1984_A8 W34_8.pdf [ 3.65MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078255.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078255+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078255.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078255+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078255+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078255+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078255 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078255.txt
Citation
1.0078255.ris

Full Text

HEARING BOOKS READ IN THE F I R S T LANGUAGE: ITS  ASSOCIATION WITH READING ACHIEVEMENT IN  THE SECOND LANGUAGE  by  KEN B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y  WALTERS of B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a , 1964  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER  OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE  (Department  We a c c e p t to  THE  o f Language  this  thesis  the required  STUDIES  Education)  as  conforming  standard  UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H July, ©  1984  Ken W a l t e r s ,  1984  COLUMBIA  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  granted by  the head o f  department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  my  It is  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s for f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be  allowed w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f  o(a-^\y^a^c^t  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  DE-6  (3/81)  ^tx^-  r%  'ff.  &~QS<L.  Columbia  ^a^c^-c  written  ABSTRACT  The "Does  purpose reading  of t h i s  study  books  t o E.S.L.  language have a g r e a t e r achievement second  than  d e t e r m i n e whether associated whether  with  a  Collections language A  Another reading  of  the  attitude  toward  children's  first  i n reading i n their  study  to children  teacher's  was  to  i n Chinese  is  habits,  First  and  Language  borrowing  of  first  books. design  was  variable,  Treatment  1, h e a r i n g stories  stories 1)  MacGinitie  by  gains  borrowing  independent  edition,  purpose  stories  v a r i a b l e and  were:  in their  language  influences  the q u e s t i o n ,  books t o E.S.L. s t u d e n t s  independent  no  students  first  research  hearing  t o answer  association with  reading  language?"  was  read  t h a t c o n s i s t e d o f one  dependent  hearing  stories  read  variables. read,  i n Chinese;  group) .  achievement Test  Level  The  Treatment  A,  1 9 8 0 ; a n d 2) t h e number  students.  ii  3,  dependent  as measured forms  by  2,  hearing  variables the  1 a n d 2,  of Chinese  The  c o n s i s t e d of  i n E n g l i s h , and T r e a t m e n t  (control  Reading  two  stories  read  reading  developed  books  Gates-  Canadian borrowed  The 12,  study  was  at a school  community.  carried  out with  l o c a t e d i n the core  The  a week f o r a d u r a t i o n  Two  o n e - t a i l e d £_tests to  test  achievement  for a  between  secondly  to test  pretest  and  applied three  groups  All the  made The  group  hearing  gains  borrowing  borrowing  the  English  no  was  no  stories  the  data,  reading and  d i f f e r e n c e between  the  ANOVAS w e r e  and  to  and  test  Chinese  the  the  for a  classes. stories,  control  achievement  group  (p < .05) .  d i d n o t make  than the group h e a r i n g  greater English  d i f f e r e n c e between  the  groups.  significant  difference  to  three  hearing  i n reading  h a b i t s of the three  significant  minute  d i f f e r e n c e between  significant  of the three  40  each group.  stories  Chinese  two  groups,  habits,  group  achievement  T h e r e was  i n any  There  of  9 to  Chinese  difference in  significant  gains  hearing  i n reading  stories.  significant  groups—the  significant  gains  a  in  ages  months.  applied  for a significant  for a  during  i n b o r r o w i n g h a b i t s b e t w e e n t h e two  three  group  were  p o s t t e s t means w i t h i n  to test  difference  of three  t h e means  students,  of Vancouver's  t r e a t m e n t took p l a c e  periods  firstly  39  (p <  iii  difference  groups. .05)  between  T h e r e was,  the  however,  b e t w e e n t h e number  of  books b o r r o w e d attitudes  by  class.  towards  first  suggests  that  books has  a profound  habits  of  study  schools  diversity stories  one  language  teacher's effect  books,  attitude on  teacher  this  toward  the f i r s t  held  negative strongly  first  language  language  borrowing  students.  This how  a  Because  adds  should of  important  respond  their  stories,  exposed,  i n a school  the  students.  learned English  English  to  and  i n f o r m a t i o n to the cultural  The  e q u a l l y as had  the  setting,  iv  to  and  students well  added their  as  debate  linguistic  hearing  Chinese  those  hearing  advantage own  on  of  culture.  being  HEARING BOOKS READ  IN THE F I R S T  ITS ASSOCIATION WITH READING IN THE SECOND  Table  CHAPTER 1:  LANGUAGE:  ACHIEVEMENT  LANGUAGE  of Contents  INTRODUCTION  1  Need F o r The S t u d y  1  Purpose  6  of the Study  Definition CHAPTER 2:  o f Terms  REVIEW  7  OF THE LITERATURE  9  History The  10  Effects  of B i l i n g u a l  Achievement  Education  on A c a d e m i c  i n t h e Second Language  Theory  40  Summary CHAPTER 3:  and C o n c l u s i o n s  47  METHODOLOGY AND  PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS  Methodology Presentation CHAPTER  4:  CHAPTER 5: APPENDIX  of Findings  DISCUSSION AND  56  IMPLICATIONS  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION I:  Chinese L i t e r a t u r e (Rating)  I I : Data  REFERENCES  51 51  Literature APPENDIX  13  60 72  - English 86 88  v  89  L I S T OF  TABLES  Reading  Tests  Table  I.  English  Table  II.  Research  Design  Table  III.  Summary  of Data:  Table  IV.  £  T e s t Between Groups  57  T a b l e V.  i  T e s t W i t h i n Groups  58  Table VI.  Chinese  B o o k s B o r r o w e d by  Groups  59  Table VII.  Chinese  B o o k s B o r r o w e d by  Class  59  vi  36 52  Table  o f Means  56  1.  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  Need F o r In  The  recent  (E.S.L.) States  than  School  language.  a  Second  or  46.5%  identified 1974).  will  as  where  rise  in  50%  of  the  the  comprise  the  do  immigrant  h a v e E n g l i s h as  of  trends  continue  i n Europe, the  a  Schools  (as  United  to  Cummins  in  Metro  their  first  Services  report  the  compared  entitled,  school  notes  school  to  i s not that  22.1%  in  for  Los  population  population  i t i s estimated  European  enrolment  Hispanic  population  (1981a)  students,  statistics  the  of  f o r Whom E n g l i s h  total  similar that  school  Cummins  of  Research  D i s t r i c t ' s  students  America.  third  the  T h e r e w e r e 24,524 E . S . L .  i t i s estimated 50%  and  population  presented  (1981a) r e p o r t s  over  language  According  school  not  Board  School  E.S.L.  Canada  E v a l u a t i o n and  North  2000, one  in  P u p i l s i n Vancouver  Cummins  Angeles  schools  Language.  of  English-as-a-second  dramatically.  School  Survey of  Is  of  Systems  I n 1982  Vancouver  1982  the  increased  more  Toronto  The  years  population  has  (1981a)  the  Study  by  1985.  limited i f  t h a t by  population  to  current the  year  will  be  immigrant. The  increase  in  E.S.L.  student  population  in  North  2.  American debate  and  on how  linguistic analyzed which child's  European schools  diversity  public  her  ethnic  the  minority  minority  speaking passed  to  the  increased  cultural  Masemann  Report  development Among  and  (1978-79)  Draft  the  days  language  children,  of  the  concerns  the  the use  they  will  of  Materials  the  in  School  reports  children  l a n g u a g e have  culture,  lingering o f t h e mother  for  officially  t o supplement  the student's  nevertheless,  development  and  punishing  own  English,  t h e m s e l v e s , ( p . 39)  (1983)  of  programs  development  Language  e d u c a t o r s seek  supplant  encouraging  than French or  community  in their  and  development  language  "First  the  or  English  J'Anne Greenwood  While  than  other  English  article,  Libraries",  and  culture.  maintenance  retard  impede  In  to  students.  maintenance  the s c h o o l s ,  ethnic  rise  following:  Language  of  given  respond  l a n g u a g e and  i s the  will  has  response to the Toronto Board  original  in  should of t h e i r  recommended  identified  schools  rather  there  is  feeling  that  tongue  will  3.  interfere  with  the learning  of  English.  (P. 15)  A news s t o r y w i t h  the heading  S t u d i e s " by S. D a l e y 1983.  "Panel  appeared  i n t h e New York  T i m e s . May 6,  I t states i n part:  A  group  of  educators  F e d e r a l money now g o i n g should  be  English, in  used  said  t o promote  not t o teach  other  F e d e r a l Government  that  teach  English them  children  yesterday  to b i l i n g u a l  a f o r e i g n language....  the  The  A s k s S t r e s s on E n g l i s h  proficiency  support  t o speak,  read  in  subjects  The e d u c a t o r s  a s q u i c k l y a s p o s s i b l e by  continuing belief  programs  academic  should  i n the language.  that  said  programs and w r i t e  'immersing'  ( p . 1)  t h a t use o f t h e f i r s t  language i n  E.S.L. c l a s s e s i n t e r f e r e s w i t h  the a c q u i s i t i o n  is  not confirmed  (McLaughlin,  1978).  Indeed,  on  t h e b a s i s o f what h a s b e e n l e a r n e d a b o u t  second  language  acquisition affirms,  by  during  " I t would  sociopolitically  research  the past be  15  years,  pedagogically  imprudent  to return  of E n g l i s h  Ovando  (1983)  unsound  to the  and  sink-or-swim  4.  methods over  of  the  past."  efficacy  materials In  the  Vancouver  as  collection  consisting includes  Vietnamese. available  Lord  to  writer  most  toward  the  these  for?  through use  teachers  p o p u l a t i o n , or  English?"  of  of  a  of  debate and  in  700  upper books.  we  in  A l a r g e p o r t i o n of  the  Elementary of  the  total  teacher-librarian The  to  be  reading  promote  A  and are  i s a b o u t 85%  No the  number  of  attitude E.S.L. "What  level  use  of  do  from  we  need  the  kids  primary  books  speaking  teachers  the  however, made  the  reading  on  at  teachers)  teaching  teachers,  a Chinese  e n t h u s i a s t i c about  i n Chinese.  Greek,  collection  c o l l e c t i o n was,  contacted  This  Portuguese,  whom w e r e  intermediate. To  books.  Strathcona  is a  supposed  ranged  Language  and  School. of  the  students.  thesis  (some  First  Chinese,  Japanese,  request.  Program,  fiction  written  population  Language  books  became  on  about  staff  teacher-librarian  children  primarily  used a t L o r d  this  Aren't  The  the  purchased  Elementary  First  to  quickly  the  instruction  Multicultural  Italian,  whose C h i n e s e  of  language  These books form a d i s t r i c t  Strathcona  part  a  books  c o l l e c t i o n was  The  of  District  Hindi/Punjabi,  School,  first  part  School  Collection,  school  of  Nevertheless,  continues.  1983,  Chinese  (p. 567).  to  the  parent  who  groups  of  invited  the  5.  parent those the  into  the classroom,  teachers story  students  participating  time  "wonderful  and t h e r e s p o n s e  enthusiastic,  i n the student's  experience eagerly  was  first  f o r the c h i l d r e n " .  came  on t h e p a r t o f  to the l i b r a r y  describing  language  as a  Not o n l y  asking  that,  f o r Chinese  books. Because working "Story  with time  presented in  the parent, in First  itself:  their  first  achievement who  of the e x p e r i e n c e  hear  intention  children  teachers  and s t u d e n t s  would  E.S.L.  language  read  of t h i s  study  i n their  who  greater  language  this  education  directed  two b r o a d  education  2)  What i s t h e e f f e c t  of b i l i n g u a l  education  language?  Schon  no a t t e n t i o n  ( 1 9 8 1 a , 1981b) a p p e a r s  explore  this  determine  area.  the e f f e c t  of  silent  issues:  on c o g n i t i o n ? on  academic  The use of  on r e a d i n g  first  achievement  by i n v e s t i g a t o r s .  t o be t h e o n l y  The purpose  I t i s the  f o r minority-language  of b i l i n g u a l  r e c e i v e d almost  students  question.  What i s t h e e f f e c t  has  i n reading  language?  toward  language l i t e r a t u r e and i t s e f f e c t  stories  E.S.L.  1)  i n t h e second  this  question  hear  gains  than  second  t o answer  in bilingual  i s primarily  students  make  second  stories  achievement  i n  Language Program", a c e n t r a l  i n their  Research  of the t e a c h e r - l i b r a r i a n i n  Isabel  investigator to  o f h e r two s t u d i e s was t o reading  time  i n  first  6.  language  upon  second  study  i s unique  date  which  association language  The "Does  the  have  achievement  t o be  The  the o n l y  study  s p e c i f i c a l l y  literature i n the  read second  in  present  with  to the  the  first  language.  Study of  the  books a  than  study  to  was  E.S.L.  greater  to  answer  students  To  answer  h y p o t h e s i s was  in  association with  r e a d i n g books t o E.S.L.  language?"  research  i t s e l f  r e a d i n g achievement  purpose  language  acquisition.  i t appears  concerns  reading  second  i n that  between h e a r i n g  and  Purpose of  language  this  the  question,  their  gains  i n reading  students  question  f i r s t  the  in  their  following  formulated:  Hearing s t o r i e s read i n Chinese i s associated with greater gains i n r e a d i n g achievement i n the second language among Chinese intermediate E.S.L. students than h e a r i n g s t o r i e s read i n English.  The  null  equal  to or l e s s  The (ages  hypothesis  study  9 t o 12)  than  will  rejected  i f probability  is  .05.  is limited a t Lord  be  to  intermediate  Strathcona  Elementary  E.S.L.  students  School  which  7.  is  located  i n the Chinese  community  of the Vancouver  School  District. One  purpose  disprove  t h e commonly  language  in  E.S.L.  tend  findings  t o remain  fixed  Another  purpose  stories  language  attitude  the use of  toward  borrowing First  children's  borrowing  Definition  o f Terms  as  p. 347)  common language  reports  o f books f o r c h i l d r e n established,  study  may  play  a  The  useful  r e g a r d i n g use of f i r s t  classrooms.  of t h i s  to children  first  i n human c o n s c i o u s n e s s .  misconceptions  will  i n t e r f e r e s with the  (1980,  present  m a t e r i a l s i n E.S.L.  that  n o t t o use f i r s t  Wertheimer  reported i n this  language  —  that  t o n g u e i s o v e r w h e l m i n g . " Once  i n dislodging  reading  evidence  Presently i t i s viewed teachers  However,  mother  concepts  first  belief  "The a r g u m e n t f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n  their  part  held  of English.  by many  materials. that,  was t o f i n d  m a t e r i a l s i n E.S.L. c l a s s r o o m s  acquisition sense  of the study  study  i s t o determine  i n Chinese habits,  Language  of f i r s t  Collections  Enalish-as-a-second-lanauaae  d e f i n e d as s t u d e n t s whose f i r s t  i s associated with  a n d whether  language  whether  a teacher's influences  books.  (E.S.L.)  students are  or home l a n g u a g e  (LI)  is  8.  different schools  from  the language  production  E.S.L.  student  "transitional until and  can  "maintenance even  English  — on  In  this  study  two  participate  a child  sense  as  languages  "the  by  the  (at l e a s t the  term  i n part) refers  in his to  language  in English  only  education" (first i s capable  i n which  of  both  i s used classes)  language i s  functioning  in  only classroom).  Reading  Achievement  i s defined  the G a t e s - M a c G i n i t i e R e a d i n g  Edition,  of  broad  education" (first  bilingual  after  a  t o a t e a c h i n g model  i s taught  bilingual  the c h i l d  continued an  and i t s  Preface).  Education refers  language.  in  comprehension  (Cummins, 1981,  Bilingual  first  i s defined  and/or  same p e r s o n "  the  community  (L2).  Bilingualism  —  of the wider  as t h e measure o b t a i n e d  Tests,  Level  A,  Canadian  1980.  generalisations Since in  t h e sample  was  a C h i n e s e community,  that  population.  drawn f r o m C h i n e s e c h i l d r e n generalizations w i l l  be  living  limited  to  9.  CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  The for  following issues  minority-language  present 1)  study  What  What  a  current  of  language research  are p e r t i n e n t to the  education  a  education  hypothesis.  literature.  of  bilingualism  i s given.  research  be c o n s i d e r e d  This  helps  context.  place Theory  a t the c o n c l u s i o n o f  basis  theory  f o r the  presented  i s to  research  a t t h e end o f t h e c h a p t e r  and t h e o r y  and  f i n d i n g s i n terms of  f o r presenting this  theoretical  to the research  reading  on t h e a b o v e i s s u e s ,  i n a more m e a n i n g f u l  T h e summary  on  language?  to interpret  sound  on a c a d e m i c  language?  children  The p u r p o s e  education  analyzed:  the history  function will  review.  provide  the  and  of b i l i n g u a l  i n the second  attempts  cognitive  focus  which  of b i l i n g u a l  i n the second  overview  minority  the  to b i l i n g u a l  an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e r e s e a r c h  brief  which  be p r e s e n t e d  i s the effect  achievement As  children  i s the effect  achievement 2  will  relating  brings  i n the review  of  10.  History Early  r e s e a r c h on b i l i n g u a l  cognition.  From  researchers,  to  the  had  1960's  I n 1922  without  (1975)  that  on  i s , of  be  familiar the  with  too dear.  question  hardly  the  languages the  instead  (Jesperson, 1982,  power  might  p.  220)  that  positive.  studies  prior  might  have  for a child  as  but  and  either  required  of  would  o f one of  learning  148  to  cited  the  have  two done  two  diminishes  other be  in  Secondly,  master  certainly  ought p.  to  to  without  of a l l the c h i l d  he  wrote:  generally i s ,  h i m s e l f t o one...  and  1922,  be,  learns  effort  child's  which  may  First  limited  brain  than  Otto Jesperson  languages:  as p e r f e c t l y  had  1960's  the view  o n l y two  advantage  two  advantage  languages  early  bilingualism  linguist  c o u r s e , an  purchased  he  the  with  cognition.  the i n f l u e n t i a l  It  if  to  concerned  exception, held  claims that  suggested  consequences  doubt  through  f a r more n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s  Lambert  favourable  1920's  almost  bilingualism Indeed,  the  c h i l d r e n was  things learnt.  i n Grosjean,  11.  Jesperson's in  the e a r l y  and  they  limited in  period  usually  bilingualism intelligence  did.  problem with lacking.  not taken  into  eradicate  a l l sorts  restricted  etc.  I t was  early  studies  poor h e a l t h  a f f e c t i n g  was t h a t  and o t h e r  Another  adequate  i n minority  (1981a)  claims  that  of  studies  "should  be a t t r i b u t e d  a s Cummins  of school  systems  children,  causing  problems.  the negative  to the lack  status,  variables  factor,  o u t , was t h e a t t e m p t  Cummins  but rather  that  development.  account.  bilingualism  errors  concluded  negatively  c u l t u r a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  itself,  vocabularies,  u n u s u a l word o r d e r ,  social,  early  of problems,  F o r example, , s o c i o e c o n o m i c  opportunities,  ( 1 9 8 1 a , 1983) p o i n t s to  found  handicap,  and c o g n i t i v e  were  educational  They  structures,  a  a s f a c t , and r e s e a r c h e r s  to find  hesitations, was  major  controls  were  expected  grammatical  morphology,  The  v i e w was a c c e p t e d  As  research  well, results  not to b i l i n g u a l i s m  of f u l l  b i l i n g u a l i s m " (p.  22) . A  turning  Anisfeld  point  and W a l l a c e  French-English ahead  came  i n 1962.  Lambert  bilingual  In t h a t  completed  children  results  measures  were  of intelligence  confirmed  i n a second  Elizabeth  a study  i n which  scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y  o f c a r e f u l l y matched m o n o l i n g u a l s  non-verbal  year  both  on v e r b a l  (Lambert, study  1975) .  and The  by A n i s f e l d i n  12.  1964. 1973  Lambert from  around  children, definite  (1975)  which  indicate that  to monolingual  or  divergent  to the present  bilingual  achievement Ontario  education  i n the second  Institute  f o r Studies  force  development" held  by  a l lresearchers  education, thinking  among most  Despite in  the f a c t  research  prior  to  consciousness recently "But  English  academic of the  an  ardent  and e d u c a t i o n a l  T h i s v i e w may n o t be of  bilingual  i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of c u r r e n t  that  since  s t i l l  of both  t h e r e has been a d r a m a t i c 1962, t h e r e s u l t s  have general  their  i t confusing  t o be p r e s e n t e d  on  p u b l i c and e d u c a t o r s . of t h i s  f o r c h i l d r e n who with  change  of studies  influence  a comment was made t o t h e w r i t e r  isn't  on  among  researchers.  findings  1962  attention  b i l i n g u a l i s m a s "a  i n the f i e l d  b u t Cummins' s t a n c e  i n the  J i m Cummins  i n children's intellectual  (Cummins, 1981a, p . 2 2 ) .  While  education,  i n Education,  spokesman f o r b i l i n g u a l i s m , d e s c r i b e s positive  their  i t seffects  language.  a  flexibility',  researchers  of b i l i n g u a l and  "show  (p. 6 5 ) .  began t o t u r n  areas  bilingual  controls,  thought'"  on c o g n i t i o n h a s c o n t i n u e d ,  a number o f s p e c i f i c  them  s i x s t u d i e s between 1970 and  a d v a n t a g e on m e a s u r e s o f ' c o g n i t i v e  1970's t h r o u g h to  the w o r l d  relative  'creativity', research  cites  materials  the Just  thesis,  are learning  i n their  mother  tongue?"  The in  Effects  of Bilingual  the second In  se...  "We  There  whether The  York  Times  who recommend  stated,  i s a l l kinds  question  really  help  and  i n English?  there  questions. research Troike,  design  comparison the  i s does learn  bilingual  i t work?  t o read,  I t should  (Dulay  & Cruz,  group,  positions there  But such  bilingual  education  problems  a t the outset  i n answering  1977).  Because  design,  invalidate  of b i l i n g u a l  such  upon  bilingual criteria  program.  1982;  any one o f  a s no b a s e l i n e  research  results,  be c o n s i d e r e d education  on  i nthe student  t o support  education. o f what  these  weaknesses i n  s t u d i e s have been q u o t e d  f o r or a g a i n s t  i s no a g r e e d  about  bilingual  e t a l . , 1979; M a c L a u g h l i n ,  of the e f f e c t s  performance.  Does  be n o t e d  f i n d i n g s f r o m many s t u d i e s c a n n o t  discussion  e d u c a t i o n per  s o l v e math  difficulties  i n research  or c o n t r o l  1983, t h e  i n the language,  many s t u d i e s h a v e c r i t i c a l  weaknesses  6,  (p. 1)  a r e two m a j o r  1978; Z a p p e r t  several  Achievement  of c o n t r a d i c t o r y evidence  children  First,  o f May  students  are not c r i t i c i z i n g  education  that  article  immersing  or n o t i t works."  speak  on A c a d e m i c  Language  t h e New  educators  Education  Second,  constitutes a  I n one p r o g r a m f i r s t  language  14.  may  be used  100% as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l  another program according never  i t may  to MacLaughlin  used.  language why  i s almost there i s  or n o t b i l i n g u a l  What k i n d of r e s u l t s would we f i n d  a t t h e s t u d i e s which  weaknesses i n r e s e a r c h d e s i g n ? et  while i n  In some c a s e s ,  to understand  e v i d e n c e a b o u t whether  e d u c a t i o n works. only  far less.  (1982) f i r s t  I t i s easy  contradictory  looked  be u s e d  language,  do n o t have  critical  That i s e x a c t l y what  a l . (1979) , Z a p p e r t and Cruz  i f we  (1977) and T r o i k e  Dulay (1978)  did. Dulay  (1979) and o t h e r s reviewed 38 r e s e a r c h  and 175 p r o j e c t e v a l u a t i o n s f i r s t met  minimum  their  research  findings.  projects  t o determine whether they  d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s , t h e n t o examine  S t u d i e s showing  any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g  c r i t i c a l weaknesses i n r e s e a r c h d e s i g n were e x c l u d e d : 1)  No c o n t r o l f o r s u b j e c t s ' socioeconomic s t a t u s  2)  No c o n t r o l f o r i n i t i a l  language p r o f i c i e n c y or  dominance 3)  No b a s e l i n e comparison or c o n t r o l  4)  Inadequate  5)  Excessive a t t r i t i o n  6)  Significant  sample  7)  Insufficient  size rate  differences  c o n t r o l and experiment  group  i n teacher qualification for  groups  data and/or  statistics  reported  [improper  statistical Only  applications].  nine  of  demonstration of  these  1967  reading  place  They  language  and  i n the  first oral  language  United  the  language  social  second  language  achievement  language), science/math  achievement  language),  cognitive  cognitive  attitude  and  studies  i n second l a n g u a g e ) , c o g n i t i v e  language,  between  language  (measured  non-verbally),  States  All  reading  i n second  f i r s t  process.  student  (measured  in  bilingual  following  proficiency,  arts,  three  the s e l e c t i o n  included  variables:  second  s t u d i e s and  survived  took  1973.  performance  research  projects  studies  and  arts,  the  toward  function  function self  and  function  measured  own  (measured (measured  i n the  culture,  and  second school  attendance. Out 24  of  total  o f 59  (41%) were n e u t r a l  largest and 7  a  number  language  neutral  of  arts  and  findings,  and  findings (where  1 negative),  i n second language  positive  and  years  the  (58%)  (1%)  was  were  positive;  negative.  i n second language  findings  and  of  reading  6 were p o s i t i v e  science/math  (where  The  14  and  achievement  findings  10  were  neutral).  studies  of  programs  4  1  was  o f 14  measured  The  only  34  r e v i e w e d were i n e f f e c t  experimental operation  i n United  States public  during  the f i r s t  of b i l i n g u a l  schools.  10  education  D u l a y and  others  16.  (1979)  conclude,  Despite  the  innovation, show  programs  Only  3 o f 108  studies  reported,  38  met  of b i l i n g u a l  project  evaluations  the c r i t e r i a .  with  respect  non-significant  bilingual rate  Of 27  education and 9 o f 76  t h e 66  findings  (41%) n e u t r a l  the " n e u t r a l "  as  classes students  demonstrates languages  effect  i s not a  to b i l i n g u a l effect,  that  are learning  the f a c t  that  negative  education. students i n  at the  i n monolingual learning  does not i n t e r f e r e with  and 1  findings,  (1977) p o i n t o u t ,  non-significant  finding  Z a p p e r t and C r u z  survey  In c o n s i d e r i n g  and Cruz  A  speaking/non  ( p . 2)  (58%) were p o s i t i v e ,  negative.  A  English  students,  another  findings  than monolingual  e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same c r i t e r i a ,  conducted  research  of the  complex  worked  [limited  speaking]  this  education  for  LES/NES  of  half  b i l i n g u a l better  programs.  Zappert  than  significantly  Using  (1%)  more  that  English  (1977)  recentness  same  classes, i n two  a student's  17.  academic in  and  bilingual  advantage culture  a  these  finding effect  their  Students  the  added  language  be  a  interpreted  bilingual  and  educational  circumstances  can  of  have  second  impeding  Under  positive  They  learning  without  significant  performance.  classrooms  of  progress.  (p.  cognitive  nonas  a  education,  39)  conclude,  Contrary  to widespread  conducted regards  to to  bilingual  date the  research  the  use  medium (p.  Troike p r o g r a m s and  i s not  effects  education  The  of of  the  belief,  reviewed child's  research  contradictory of  on  the  bilingualism  student ...  strongly  in  U.S.  and  performance. supports  n a t i v e language  instruction  with  as  a  schools."  40)  (1978)  i d e n t i f i e d twelve  concluded  "quality"  bilingual  18.  enough  evidence  possible  t o say with  bilingual providing  equal  following  cites  third  the twelve  PA  and  opportunity f o r  examples:  both  kindergarten  program exceeded  r e c o r d s were b e t t e r  Students  students  than  test), i nthe  (French)  i n g r a d e s K-3 program  significantly  referenced  ( p . 5)  P a r i s h , LA  bilingual  mean  g r o u p on t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a  and  Lafayette  and  i nthe  the c i t y - w i d e  (a c r i t e r i o n  group.  Anglo  students  Readiness Test attendance  of which  (Spanish)  a control school  control  speaking  studies,  year-program  Spanish-speaking bilingual  of  ( p . 4)  Philadelphia, a  quality  the goal  non-English  two a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  In  t o make i t  that  c a n meet  educational  from  backgrounds.  then  confidence  programs  s t u d e n t s  Troike  h a s now a c c u m u l a t e d  better  i n the French-English  performed than  i n the regular  as w e l l  as or  a c o n t r o l group of program  i n a l l areas  the  19. tested,  including  readiness,  reading  linguistic  included  Metropolitan referenced  The  work  clearly  of Dulay  of  agreement  studies  (Dulay  reported  a significant  (41%) groups  factor  bilingual  of f i r s t  finding.  significant  effect  i t i s worthwhile  groups d i d n o t achieve  control  group,  As w e l l ,  —  neither  there  why  minimum there i s  bilingual  the l a c k of used  while that  in a  i t could  is,  also  bilingual  bilingual  than  no  control  significant  that  significantly achieve  which  the remainder  higher was  1978)  some  t o remember  d i d they  Troike  f a c t o r i n t h e two  & Cruz,  significantly where  that  language  i n explaining  In the s t u d i e s  difference,  however,  positive effects  d i d not score  groups.  the  no  and  not meeting  be a s i g n i f i c a n t  research  ( 5 8 % ) show  show  and C r u z ,  e t a l . , 1977; Z a p p e r t  negative  programs  ( p . 6)  are eliminated,  be n o t e d ,  could  the  criterion  on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f  the extent  program  Test  and a  studies  criteria  I t should  bilingual  be  design  regarding  Test,  f o r French.  once  Instruments  Abilities  et a l . , Zappert  i n research  education. clarity  Achievement  indicates that,  standards  science.  the Primary  test  reading  structures, writing,  math c o n c e p t s a n d s o c i a l used  and  while  higher  the than  significantly  20.  lower,  and  extent)  of l e a r n i n g  One 1978 a  study  large  reports  Institute  programs than  i n federally  students  English.  Dulay  a n d may  limited  was  students group  depending learn,  benefit  level  i n English The  study,  i n other  that  the use  for instruction  does n o t  emphasize  that  to Spanish  who  but to a were  level)  skills  dominant speaking  heterogeneous  largely  monolingual ...  t h e r e f o r e , whether basic  study  be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n  or E n g l i s h  from  The  38  Spanish/English  to suggest  language  (LES/NES),  on g r a d e  under t h e  i n 10 s t a t e s . funded  In out  I t encompassed  speaking/non-English  of s t u d e n t s  dominant  education  not impressive  do not r e f e r  English  mention.  (AIR) c a r r i e d  a t a lower  e t a l . (197 9)  findings  language.  n o t i n the program.  i n size,  dominant  make a d i f f e r e n c e  to  (1978).  The c o n c l u s i o n s a p p e a r  a student's  the  Danoff  (to whatever  deserves  f o r Research  performed  impressive  respects.  results  11,500 c h i l d r e n  students  arts  advantage  e v a l u a t i o n of b i l i n g u a l  and over  bilingual  while  negative  of Malcolm  that  language  the added  or m a i n t a i n i n g a second  with  scale  projects  of  had  the American  direction  of  they  English  (65 t o 81%  I f one  wishes  LES/NES  students  instruction  through  21.  their to  The  first  t h e AIR  title  of  and  a  In  (Dulay  numbers  too  small  students  a  of  such  to  allow  in  the  their  bilingual  (p.  1)  to  look  the  Impact  Education  Danoff  acknowledges  students  non-Title impact  on  that  were  between  the  funded  VII  Dulay  [LES/NES]  comparisons  program  programs  these  of  Program"  c o n v e r s a t i o n between  federally  respect  design:  cannot  " E v a l u a t i o n of  telephone  and  with  students,  1)  Furthermore,  to  study,  (Title VII)  problems"  one  f o r answers.  e t a l . , 1979),  the  (p.  language,  Spanish/English Bilingual  misnomer. Danoff  study  Danoff's  ESEA T i t l e V I I is  primary  with the  McLaughlin the  study,  initial  g r o u p s was  language  (1982)  raises  among them e l e m e n t a r y  c o m p a r a b i l i t y of not  clearly  dominance,  contained  74%  non-English  whereas  the  control  non-English  speaking  McLaughlin  (1982)  several  since  speaking  classrooms or  draws  and  with  bilingual  or  factors  bilingual  established the  "serious in non  respect  classrooms  bilingual  children,  contained  only  bilingual attention  children. to  17% Also  weaknesses  in  22.  Danoffs  statistical  procedures,  especially  h i s use  of  gain  scores. A world &  study  by  American  wide a t t e n t i o n i s the  Farella,  study  1976;  conducted  criteria  for  Evaluation  of  Rosier from  "a  the  are  dramatically  1975  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  evaluation  by  i s on  Rosier  and  achievement  reading  their (Rosier  authors  do  experiment; 'were'"  Navajo  a b i l i t y  are  (Rosier  A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t was  &  their  studies Holm, the  AIR of  the  Rosier  Rock and  of  Point  Farella  read  students affected  in  English  1).  studies  of  t o be  'things  1980,  Test  results  evaluation  language  principal  Achievement  evidence  reading,  to  p.  program".  The  i n t r o d u c i n g Navajo  the  (Rosier  (1978)  research  focus  in English  purport  education  (1980) and  & Holm, 1980,  "they  Metropolitan  Holm  study  education. the  received  Troike's  i n Troike's  from  has  This l o n g i t u d i n a l  met  primary  how  in  later  not  1977  bilingual  The  particularly to  to  different  programs.  Navajo  & Holm, 1 9 8 0 ) .  quality bilingual  bilingual  (1976)  Rock P o i n t  i t i s included  for  The  i n v e s t i g a t o r s which  p.  as  1).  a  they The  instrument was  also  scientific are'  or  Stanford used.  used  in  The 1976.  23. Students 1975  were  when  only  reported.  i n grades  second  Mean  constituent group.  tested  through  scores  through  fifth  for  presented  suggests  the  effects  of  instruction Navajo  may  total  students  grade) added Navajo  reading  may  do  achievement began  reading  better  test  does The  the  than  to  who  obtain  to the  third  through  seem  learned scores  d i d not.  helps  closer  continuous  Navajo  English,  difference  t h o s e who  growth  on  s c o r e s each year  students  appear  in  better than  them  pp. 387-388)  in  standardized students  they  do  who  achieve  thereafter.  read  the in  Nor same.  Navajo  p r o g r e s s i v e l y higher In e f f e c t ,  norms'  their  i n each  rate  grade  i n s t e a d of m a i n t a i n i n g  'educationally retarded'  achievement.  2nd  (in  reading  to remain to  while  to achieve p r o g r e s s i v e l y  'national sixth,  b i l i n g u a l  recently  i n English to  no  tests  have  (Rosier  &  level  Farella,  i t s  control  that,  that  in  were  and  the matched  cumulative:  who  scores  reading  (continuous) be  s i x , except  grade  s u b t e s t s were compared w i t h  Data  of  two  a of  1976,  24.  Rosier the  and  "ability a  (as a  to English"  cannot  Navajo  prove  language  Point  program  admit  that  includes,  community  foreign  use  and  training.  Point end  the  were  of  through  Navajo  other  cause,  the  six prior  grade  conclude  the  EFL  Rock  We  must as  of a  a mix  parental  [English  a c t i v i t i e s , NLT  of  increased  increased  extensive ELT  or amount o f  language  things,  not  as  a  on-going  [Navajo Language  [ E n g l i s h Language  Teaching]  (pp. 28-29)  Students  instruction  into  that  i s  incorporation  fact  i s that  t h e c h i l d r e n a t Rock  two y e a r s b e h i n d norms i n E n g l i s h  Grade  program.  They  i n s t r u c t i o n i s part  language]  Teaching]  the  intensive  and  length  these results.  of  control,  evaluation,  Whatever  that  among  involvement,  the  language)  (p. 2 8 ) .  caused  the  of  instruction  means o f a c a d e m i c that  second  simple function  exposure  One  (1980) make t h e s i m p l e o b s e r v a t i o n  in English  necessarily in-school  Holm  six  t o the i n i t i a t i o n  participating in (and  i n Navajo)  receiving  25  reading  of the  the to  by  bilingual  program 50%  were p e r f o r m i n g s l i g h t l y  the  of  above  in  K  their U.S.  25.  grade less  six  norms  exposure  (Cummins, wonder  in  to  English  English  1981).  about  reading,  the  instruction  These  findings  effects  of  Rock  findings  Point  with  investigators  Gale,  program  Milingimbi  School  .  For  bilingual  et  al.  i n the years  classes  were  The  findings  is  Cummins  and  T e r r i t o r y of  for  the  Harris  from both  are  at  the  introduction  Milingimbi,  learning  to  the read  A  started  in  Australia  in  in  by  and  furthering  respect  their  also  achieving  English,  (p.  309)  better  reading,  mathematics English  own  than  write their  English  they  monolingual  were  not  only  in  their  knowledge  culture, academic  education  are  but  they  results in composition  under  the  education  and  academic  summarized  bilingual  children  l a n g u a g e and for  of  by  (1981) .  English-only  achievement  study  similar  Australia  Gupapuyngu was  children tested  in  by  (1981):  Since  to  implemented  supported  C h r i s t i e and  Northern  of  Jim  well  children  in English  four  subjects.  study  McClay,  previously  children.  Aboriginal  bilingual  1973  Navajo  considerably  than  cause  similar  p r o g r a m s upon C a n a d i a n N a t i v e The  despite  own with are oral and  former system,  Gale  26.  Bilingual  test  significantly and  7  English  higher  at p =  Composition  Also, L2  with  Tests  Reading  a simple  instruction and grade  levels  relationship in  French  simple  through  students and well  i n that  netween In o t h e r  receiving  80%  20% i n s t r u c t i o n  instruction 83)  t h e medium  study of  as  i n English  words,  of a  of  students  study,  language At a l l positive  instruction  and  b u t no English  francophone  instruction  i n English  (see  between  achievement PIF  spent  that  language.  between p e r c e n t a g e  in English  ability  i n Manitoba  relationship  (PIF) and French  achievement.  show  Sight  of time  t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t  r e l a t i o n s h i p  Written  In r e v i e w i n g the Manitoba  the f i n d i n g  achievement  function  students  5, 6  Tests.  i s c o n f i r m e d by H e b e r t ' s  Cummins, 1979-80, p . 8 3 ) .  i s no  tests,  (1980) o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t  6 and 9 francophone  there  means i n g r a d e s  Age T e s t s a n d C l o z e  that  6 and 7 were  (Ferdinand & B u l l ) , Dolch  instruction,  Cummins e m p h a s i z e s  5,  i n mathematics  i s not n e c e s s a r i l y  3,  i n grades  than E n g l i s h - o n l y  R o s i e r a n d Holm's  English  grade  means  .05 o r l e s s  Words, S c h o n e l l  in  score  i n French  did just  as  receiving  80%  a n d 20% i n F r e n c h ,  (p.  27.  The  researchers  Toukomaa  carried  achievement children  out  both  1  to  Navajo  children  9.  were  Their  "immersion"  for  instruction without  Swedish,  E.S.L.  of  to  the longer the  bilingual is  Finnish  the  the  Rock  Finnish  better  their  i n Swedish.  their  But  greatest  education  Finnish  gradually  gaining f u l l  700  similar  students  in Finnish  educational  Toukomaa's  that  Pertti  p r o g r a m s i n Sweden i n  taught  and  and  almost  are  that  the  Finnish,  They f o u n d  producing  of  i n courses  debate  "semilingualism".  Finnish,  in  Skutnabb-Kangas t o the  no  findings  was  on  monolingual  educated  contribution  L2  They f o u n d  academic achievement perhaps  and  and  study.  Skutnabb-Kangas  research  LI  in bilingual  grades Point  in  Tove  versus  concept  children,  given  lost  competence  in  native-level  competence  in  " s e m i l i n g u a l i s m " i n both  Finnish  Swedish.  Even in  after  seven  years  they  Swedish o n l y i n s t r u c t i o n  [Finnish  the  children  i n the Swedish language.  they  faster Probably  had  than both  competence  their  they  learned  their  Swedish  had  of At  forgotten had  children  classes]  reached  time  average  of  Swedish the  mother  and  not  same  tongue  Swedish. especially  and  their  Finnish  than  the  will  Swedish  (Skutnabb-Kangas,  Skutnabb-Kangas  Only  or  r e m a i n much p o o r e r  F i n n i s h  average.  1979, p . 10)  continues:  58%  compared enter  of  [Finnish]  to almost  immigrant  children,  90% o f S w e d i s h  children,  the Swedish  secondary school,  university  gymnasium  school)  after  and v e r y  few  theoretical  She  always  track  education.  the of  comprehensive  them  which  (terminal  choose  the  p r e p a r e s f o r  ( p . 13)  concludes:  Semilingualism  i s then, according  produced  in a situation  factors  coincide:  w h e n many  minority  t o my  view,  different  c h i l d r e n from  working c l a s s homes a r e f o r c e d  to accept  i n s t r u c t i o n i n the f o r e i g n , majority middle class  language,  and t h e i r own language has a  low p r e s t i g e , b o t h i n t h e s o c i e t y and i n t h e school  ... I f a c o m p l e t e  lost  generation  of  29.  semilingual not  have  children  time  t o wait f o r the f i n d i n g s  research  and e x p e r i m e n t s .  wise  give  to  minority their  migrant  children  mother  teaching giving  will  being  i t may  prove  resulting (1975)  new  other  o f and i n  possible  fatal.  ...  no h a r m ,  Such  but not  ( p p . 17-20)  "semilingualism"  of " s u b t r a c t i v e  Lambert  and  teaching  and Toukomaa's  by W a l l a c e  replaced  as  of  pedagogically  children  c e r t a i n l y do  t o t h e phenomena  described  It i s  a s much  tongue  Skutnabb-Kangas similar  i s n o t t o emerge, we do  (1975) .  bilingualism"  of b i l i n g u a l i s m  comments  on  i s "subtractive".  " a d d i t i v e "  and  L2, t h e Lambert  " s u b t r a c t i v e  bilingualism":  Thus  t o know  Africa,  Hebrew  Israel, would  or  i n each  relevant skills. second  Afrikaans  and E n g l i s h  and E n g l i s h  French  and  i n New  English  i n South York  to one's  I n no c a s e w o u l d language  portend  and  i n Montreal  c a s e be t o a d d a s e c o n d  language  as  When L I i s g r a d u a l l y  by t h e more d o m i n a n t a n d p r e s t i g i o u s  form  is  socially  repertoire  of  the l e a r n i n g  of the  the dropping  or the  30.  replacement high-level Canadians a  of the other; skills  i n English  might  refer  additive that  form  with  "subtractive bilingual  to these  attainment  works"  of b i l i n g u a l i s m  social  contrast  ( p . 67)  t h e phenomena of " s e m i l i n g u a l i s m " and i t i s possible  i n many o f t h e e a r l y  t o have a c h i e v e d l e s s  immersion cited  that  "negative"  the  studies  than average  educational  programs  i n Canadian  schools are  by e d u c a t o r s a s p r o o f  of Canadian  value:  "a  t o one's  that  immersion  in  groups...  bilingualism",  added  child's  and  o f an  form e x p e r i e n c e d  a n d s h o u l d be u s e d w i t h E.S.L.  languages  not imply  i n both L I and L 2 .  French sometimes  French-  as examples  a more s u b t r a c t ! v e  children  were l i k e l y  does  of  of French or Spanish.  by many e t h n i c m i n o r i t y  Considering  among  or Spanish-Americans  corresponding loss  We  t h e development  second  repertoire  socially  would  language.  e d u c a t i o n demonstrate  be  not follow  successful  that  have  language i s  I t does  Findings  But both  programs  relevant  of s k i l l s " .  programs  "immersion  students.  students i n immersion  LI i s a minority  bilingual  that  from  immersion  when t h e studies programs  31.  for  minority  bilingual  the  this at  show  50%  of  5, the  the  school  E n g l i s h or students  work" as  and  and  following  level.  compared  to  of  program  Ukrainian-English matched u n i l i n g u a l  Ukrainian  ambiguities  were in  achieved  nature of  out  that  Program  on  the  students  significantly  English  unilingual  Ukrainian  the  program  a  In  fact,  higher  Two  study  to 3  to  compare on  the  analyze  surface structure, and  of  2)  their  word-ref e re n t  were  compared  x three  able  structure  English-speaking  the with  analyses  were r e l a t i v e l y  better  sentence  by  skills.  dependent v a r i a b l e s . who  of  scores  c h i l d r e n attending  c o n t r o l groups.  revealed  skills.  lexical,  In  development  ambiguities,  groups  Bilingual  v a r i a n c e were c a r r i e d  of  children's ability  arbitrary Two  in  c h i l d r e n i n grades 1 and  structure  relationships.  the  (1978) d e s i g n e d  unilingual  the  on  academic  input, s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  awareness  equivalent  Evaluations  report  Program.  i s given  group i n E n g l i s h reading  Mulcahy  underlying  analyses  the  (1981a)  Bilingual  effects  v a r i a b l e s : 1)  linguistic  Cummins  instruction  other  in  comparison  bilingual  in  not  ( 1 9 7 8 ) and  detrimental  Cummins  and  Mulcahy  elementary no  grade  "do  Edmonton U k r a i n i a n - E n g l i s h  children's  than  and  program  the  students  programs.  Cummins on  language  to than  c h i l d r e n not  of The  fluent detect either in  the  32.  program  or  children  predominantly Are  was  students?  located  five  o f these  Only  that  school  designed  variable  the language  a study  1, E n g l i s h  instruction  Treatment  2, b i l i n g u a l  students  posttest  i n grades  s c o r e s which  the English The  ANCOVA  Scheffe, ANCOVA Scheffe  were  was was  language  of i n s t r u c t i o n  tested tested  Melendez c o n c l u d e s :  h a s on  E.S.L. s t u d e n t s i n  in California,  consisted  Helendez  o f one i n d e p e n d e n t  variables.  independent  treatment, c o n s i s t e d  of Treatment  instruction  3, S p a n i s h  7 - 10).  instruction  The d e p e n d e n t  reading achievement  were  used  i n the s t a t i s t i c a l  a t t h e .10 l e v e l  pretest  and  ability  language. comparison treatment.  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  level  (N =  variables  to assess reading  and t h e S p a n i s h  a t t h e .05  7 - 10) ,  (N = 51 s t u d e n t s i n  and t h e post-hoc multiple used  level  In order t o  (N = 94 s t u d e n t s i n g r a d e s  and S p a n i s h  to  The  7 - 1 0 ) , and Treatment  were E n g l i s h  in  that  a n d two d e p e n d e n t instructional  95  from  generalizable  of secondary  districts  variable,  grades  studies  one s t u d y a t t h e s e c o n d a r y  r e a d i n g achievement  selected  (1981)  came  i n t h e s e a r c h of the l i t e r a t u r e .  examine t h e e f f e c t English  who  E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g homes.  the findings  secondary  i n the program  of  test, The  and t h e  significance.  33.  This  study  distinct their on  students  mother  tongue  a  students  of  secondary continued  progress  secondary  effective  education, strong  the  studies  use o f f i r s t  reading  English  research  i s readily  culture reading  i s  tongue  students  only  these  level.  i n the t o t a l  goal  than  i n English  i s essential  school  foundation  been l a i d .  Two  this  acquisition  a basic  better  test  of the host  their  distinct  level  reading i n  Submerging  i n t h e mother  linguistically  skills,  reading  at the secondary  point  instruction  taught  achievement  mode.  n o t seem t o i m p r o v e  salient  linguistically  did significantly  i n the language  achievement  the  were  taught  bilingual  students did  who  that  the E n g l i s h reading  those or  suggested  The that  of the at the  for  their  spectrum of  curriculum. of E n g l i s h  of bilingual  reading bicultural  accomplished  i n t h e mother  The  when  a  tongue has  ( p p . 109-110)  by  Isabel  language  achievement  Schon  (1981a, 1981b) f o c u s e d  literature  and i t s e f f e c t s  and a t t i t u d e s toward  reading.  on on  34.  The  purpose  determine Spanish  whether and  affects  of  Schon's  first  providing a great  sixty  minutes  a week  the reading  abilities  students  i n grades  2, 3 and 4.  positive  improvement  reading  abilities  result  after  which and  highlight  history  or  the l i f e s t y l e ,  group were week to  of f r e e  help  their  reading students  r e a d i n g . " The f i v e to  teach  reading  teachers reading  instruction  teachers, those the  four  they  The  of Hispanic that a  and E n g l i s h  attitudes  t o books  would  i n Spanish  fiction,  i n either  The f i v e  time  poetry,  develop  teachers  group  the c o n t r o l  teachers  "at least  positive  60 m i n u t e s  attitudes  i n t h e C g r o u p were  they  normally  reported  i n English,  that  do.  though  were s u p p o s e d t o t e a c h  reading  dominant.  as  a  could toward  instructed  Most  they  even  (C)  i n the E  a n d t o do e v e r y t h i n g t h e y  c h i l d r e n who w e r e S p a n i s h  treatment  time  s c h o o l s were i d e n t i f i e d and  to provide  t h e way  i n the C  reading  people.  (E) g r o u p .  instructed  of books i n  Spanish  folklore,  H i s p a n i c c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d experimental  of free  reading  are exposed  Comparable groups from 114  variety  was t o  I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  and i n t h e i r  of Hispanic  (1981a)  and a t t i t u d e s  i n the s t u d e n t s '  the students  study  of the  emphasized bilingual  i n Spanish  to  The d u r a t i o n o f  was e i g h t m o n t h s .  statistical  procedure  used  to analyze  the data  was  35.  analysis  of c o v a r i a n c e .  (p < .05) r e s u l t e d three and  English  speed).  that  E  The  difference  prior  note  students  instruction,  reading  that while  vocabulary improved  findings revealed exceeded  tests.  the C  I n g r a d e 2, t h e  better  there  i n E group  had never  i n  Spanish  scores  gains  between  learns  no  significant  reading  tests i n  received,  either  formal E n g l i s h  the study,  yet considerable  i f a child  was  E and C on E n g l i s h  during  reading  Spanish)  read  reading  3 and 4 s i g n i f i c a n t l y  I.) T h i s was s i m i l a r  words,  to  Spanish  significantly  between  to or  English  (comprehension,  and speed, b u t n o t comprehension.  authors  g r a d e 2,  on any o f t h e  a t t i t u d e s of the E g r o u p  (p < . 0 5 ) .  performed  vocabulary  Table  measures  i n a l l three Spanish  group  case  reading  E group i n grades  group  E - C differences  a t any o f t h e g r a d e l e v e l s  The r e a d i n g  significantly  No s i g n i f i c a n t  were  made  i n the  p r e and p o s t - t e s t s .  f o r the control t o read  reading  group.  (See  In o t h e r  i n one l a n g u a g e  (in this  t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be a t r a n s f e r e n c e o f a b i l i t y  i n t h e second  language  t h a t i s known o r a l l y  by t h e  child. At reading do  the grade  3-4  instruction  not t e l l  meaningless,  level,  the E p u p i l s received  exclusively  us when t h e s t u d y but the authors  until  began,  February so t h i s  go o n t o t e l l  Spanish  [the authors  date  i s rather  us  ...] " y e t  Table English  I*  Reading  Tests  Grade Pre Reading  2  Post  Gain  Comprehension E C  4.13 3.81  13.10 13.69  +9.0 +9.9  9.08 11.06  18.17 18.25  +9.1 +7.2  Reading V o c a b u l a r y E C  * adapted  f r o m Schon  (1981a), p.  6.  37.  they who  improved devoted  i n English reading  much m o r e  instruction"  (p.  time  10).  The  students  are able to read  reading  English will  groups  study  are  mention  has  said i s  be  made  performance.  of  of  reading  time  i n Spanish  week.  One  teacher  reports,  most  classrooms  the  students reading  C  and  one One  students  two  at  to  check  aspects:  E  had  had  In  E n g l i s h and  i n the out  control  books  of  from  44  E  which  Hispanic  only  group  book  reading  Spanish  the  per  the  English  Spanish  free  write  classrooms  groups  group  minutes  25.  total  no  the  pupils  least  a  but  teacher  the  of  the  or  received  groups  teacher  80  to  10-11)  attrition)  to  five  the  i f the  (pp.  students  two  group had  50  Hispanic  In  attrition)  after  from  (consisting  instruction,  instruction. Hispanic  group  dominance  wrote  i n Spanish.  after  instruction  varied  which  "If  socioeconomically,  students  her  reading  difficulty  c l a s s e s which formed  had  pupils  transition  of u n s a t i s f a c t o r y  a l l Hispanic  instruction formed  of  the  English vocabulary."  Hispanic  C  English  major  language  (consisting  the  conclude,  well,  no  matched  In t h e f i v e 49  authors  present  a number  to  much as  formal  Spanish  E n g l i s h words a r e i n t h e i r This  to  as  only  reading reading  encouraged library  in  Spanish. In e f f e c t ,  because  of  the a c t i v i t i e s  experienced  in  the  38.  C  group,  weakness (Dulay that  there we  may  1976;  the  significantly  no  true  1978;  experimental neither  than the c o n t r o l  group.  cultural  benefit  group.  observed  Troike,  higher,  added  control  c o n c l u d e , as  et a l . ,  while  lower  was  Given  i n other  did  not  did i t achieve  exposure  to  1977),  achieve  significantly  It did, i n fact,  of  studies  Zappert & Cruz,  group  this  have  first  language  m a t e r i a l s w i t h o u t impeding  second language a c q u i s i t i o n ,  it  improvement  enjoyed a  whereas  the c o n t r o l  The first,  significant  purpose b u t was  200  time  difference  reading  grade  8  level  only  C  one  which  there  reading  Further findings.  I t would  45 m i n u t e s  the  of  grade  the  7  were  of  level  8.  free  t h e mean  measures:  gains  control  of  statistical  f a v o u r e d the c o n t r o l  the  7 and  a week  achieved  eight  there  English  group.  i n English  group.  significant  At  In  gains  in  comprehension.  i s needed  appear  t h e same a s  e x p e r i m e n t a l group  groups  in  speed and  research  an  were s i g n i f i c a n t  comprehension  e x p e r i m e n t a l group  Spanish  At  E and  comprehension  reading the  on  attitudes  students i n grades  at least  i n Spanish.  significance  the  Hispanic  between  and  d i d not.  out with  students received  reading  i n reading  o f S c h o n ' s s e c o n d s t u d y was carried  approximately These  group  the  that  to refute a number  or c o n f i r m  of f a c t o r s  in  these this  39.  study  have  concluded English  not by  is  Spanish but  study  materials, reading  no  within  reading  the  E  the  The  group,  abilities  i n d i c a t i o n of  not  but  second  involving  rather  materials  identified  are  authors  gains  in  positively  amount o f  correlation  language  learning  and  4  of  and  the 5  students Sustained control  in  were  education  reading  study  involved  one  (ages of  three  English  ("Book  provided  with  S i l e n t Reading which  Each of  the  who  Posttest  three did  to  11)  not  effect  on. t h e  story  from  group  the  speak  in  as  months  380  rural  since  Book these  books),  traditional  eight  of  Shared  English,  English  use  books.  eight  contained  and  virtually  high-interest  groups  results after  be  treatments: A  Experience  employed  the  random a s s i g n m e n t  Flood" 250  could  illustrated a  9  that  L2  (1983)  first  program based  high-interest,  to  students  language.  a  students  group  Syllabus.  of  between  LI  and  Mangubhai  hypothesized  i n formal  means  schools  Experience  Fijian  by  students  E l l e y and  differences  abundance of  Fijian  E.S.L.  critical  design  Class  involving  i s pertinent.  these d i f f e r e n c e s  o f an  b i l i n g u a l i n s t r u c t i o n or  five  eliminated  The  that  controlled.  given. One  of  adequately  noting  and  correlated,  been  43%  or  a  the  English to  51%  their  first  showed  that  pupils and  i n t h e Shared  listening  a t twice  hypothesis important 20  related  that  role  months  Book  the normal  t o p l a y i n second  language  formula  L2  situations  of  such  as those  suitable, story  i n L2  has an  learning.  After  read."  and spread t o  standards i n  prevailing  i n the  students  with  a  we 1 1 - i 1 1 u s t r a t e d , books,  i n the s c h o o l program  are widely  the  conclude,  literacy  i s to provide  high-interest time  language  for raising  Pacific  range  reading  The a u t h o r s  i n reading  and c o n f i r m e d  had i n c r e a s e d f u r t h e r  skills.  One  progressed  rate,  high-inter est  the gains  South  Experience  and t o s e t aside  t o ensure  that  they  (p. 67)  Theory Wallace  Lambert's  (1964)  "breakthrough"  Theory  no l o n g e r  provided  proficiency.  implicit  i n Jesperson's  Sharing  Effect  e x p l a n a t i o n of  Theory  (which  was  t h i n k i n g when he made h i s s t a t e m e n t thesis)  capacity available  this  Effect  Anisfeld's  the Balance  a satisfactory  The B a l a n c e  on p a g e 10 o f t h i s  specified  and E l i z a b e t h  s t u d i e s meant t h a t  language  quoted  (1962)  c a p a c i t y between  assumed  that  f o r language  two l a n g u a g e s  t h e r e was a proficiency.  would  lead  to  41.  lower  l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y  speakers. abilities of  one  The  i n L I and L2  of  the  compartment Thus  t h e o r y had  the  would  lower  minority-language (Cummins,  nicely  framework. not  would  two  levels  through  linguistic  that  of  children  L2  that  Use  the  other  ability.  t e a c h i n g  t h e medium o f L I  skills  as  taught through  consideration  would  compared  to  t h e medium o f  of the h i s t o r y  their  language  by  early  noted, the  studies  by  thinking  as  upon  experienced first  the  that  these  actual  children  of  L2  early  educators  relationship  were  of  were c o n s e q u e n t  them".  of  the upon  problems eradicate  Unfortunately,  s t i l l  assumptions  Effect  findings  social-psychological  "assimilate  many  research  i n t o a meaningful  i n schools attempting to  and  implicit  and  of  the B a l a n c e  findings  languages, but rather  controlled  motivated  mean  p r e d i c t  children  placed  consequent  poorly  unilingual  i n r e l a t i o n to language  would  However,  bilingual's  the  assumption:  b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n , i t i s seen  Theory  to  1981a).  From our b r i e f in  compared  a r e i n s e p a r a t e "compartments".  decline  theory  in  a second  compartments  minority-language result  i n each,  appears  the  Balance  to  be  Effect  Theory. As  a  follow-up  result studies  of  Lambert's  which  (1967,  confirmed  his  1975)  work  findings,  a  and new  42.  framework was  f o r understanding  needed.  The  inconsistencies and  theory i n the  The  also  results  of  order  Threshold Hypothesis levels  of  borrows  competence  communication environment  skills  of  of  a  to  lead  230).  i n such  a  of  second,  on  to accelerated Once  competence  this  has  there  are  has  be  Cummins  level  language  two  both  not  with  the  the  1979, lower  language.  i n "semilingualism". threshold  sufficient but  growth"  threshold the  language  (Cummins,  second)  function,  cognitive  of  i n terms of i n p u t  attained  (or  (1978,  concept  of  In  (interpersonal  to  "the  of competence m i g h t  reached,  1979)  needs.  "interaction  lower  would  higher  been  his  results  the  level  low  impoverished"  cognitive  higher  1978-79,  that  the  "positive"  Toukomaa's  a  in his first  competence  effects  and  second  child  cases  attainment  bilingual negative  Such  more r e c e n t  level,  language,  t o be  competence  Bilingualism The  that  is likely  229-230) .  or  explain  t o meet t h e s e  has  only),  through  output,  level  If a c h i l d  to  (1978,  threshold  in his first  need  proficiency  linguistic.competence.  Skutnabb-Kangas  "semilingualism".  language  proposes  bilingual  to d e f i n e the lower  1979)  pp.  Cummins  the T h r e s h o l d Hypothesis  threshold  and  would  "negative" studies.  proposed  bilingual  be  level  of  avoid  any  attainment necessary  (Cummins, 1979,  p.  level  of  bilingual  phenomena  of  "additive  43 .  bilingualism"  as d e s c r i b e d  Cummings a n d M u l c a h y children in  attending  by L a m b e r t  (1978)  carried  bilingual were  the  concept  better  of  competence".  relatively able  to  s t r u c t u r e  occurs.  out t h e i r  study  the U k r a i n i a n - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l  Edmonton t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e  especially  (1975)  As  fluent detect  than  Threshold  the  "higher  noted  in Ukrainian ambiguities  the  students  and of who  significantly  English  sentence  e q u i v a l e n t  u n i l i n g u a l  English-speaking  c h i l d r e n n o t i n the program  or c h i l d r e n i n  the  came  program  homes.  who  These  e i t h e r  threshold level  were  in  program  Hypothesis,  above,  of  on  especially  the concept  according with  the  to  this,  Threshold  academic  and  of  of  and  Threshold  "higher  The  Hypothesis  a  provides  (semilingualism —  inconsistencies findings.  But  was  Hypothesis,  and  threshold  level  of  c h i l d r e n are,  effects.  cognitive effect  theoretical  what  "additive bilingualism"  basis  a framework of  different  i n which forms of  or s u b t r a c t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m  a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m ) may  provides  with  Ukrainian  experiencing  cognitive  English-speaking  consistent  the  the  competence".  bilingualism —  the basis  i t s positive The  predominantly  f i n d i n g s were  predicted  bilingual  from  be  for  in  "positive"  the  hypothesis  and  predicted.  explaining "negative"  does  not  t e l l  It also apparent research us  how  s e m i l i n g u a l i s m and a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m develop, nor does it  tell  the type  of s c h o o l programs which  are l i k e l y to  promote a d d i t i v e and s u b t r a c t i v e forms of b i l i n g u a l i s m . answer these q u e s t i o n s , Cummins the Developmental  The  a  Interdependence  developmental  proposes  (1978, 1979, 1981b)  To  posits  Hypothesis.  interdependence  hypothesis  t h a t the l e v e l of L2 competence which  bilingual  child  attains  i s partially  f u n c t i o n of the type of competence  a  the c h i l d  has developed i n L I a t the time when i n t e n s i v e exposure  t o L2 b e g i n s .  When  the usage of  certain  f u n c t i o n s of language  and t h e  development of L I v o c a b u l a r y and c o n c e p t s a r e strongly  p r o m o t e d by t h e c h i l d ' s  environment of  most  likely  o u t s i d e the s c h o o l , as i s the case  middle-class children  programs,  linguistic  then  intensive  to r e s u l t  competence  exposure  i n high  a t no c o s t  in  immersion t o L2 i s  levels  to LI  o f L2  competence.  (Cummins, 1979, p. 233)  This hypothesis i s strongly Navajo  study,  supported  the M i l i n g i m b i study,  by t h e Rock P o i n t  the study  of  Finnish  children  i n Sweden,  Manitoba,  and  Program.  the  study  the s t u d y of  Research  has  between  language,  achievement  and  francophone  shown  that  i n both  situations  time  spent  i n that  instructed  i n LI perform  than  children  instructed  i n L2  i s , in effect,  transference the  from  one  higher threshold  attained.  The  Hypothesis  together  paradoxical example,  the  two  a more r e c e n t  Think  which Tank"  Tank  research  Model  which  findings  language.  assumptions:  may  The  may  better  skills.  i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e or  be  and  the  children,  that been  Threshold  framework  i n which  interpreted.  t o g e t h e r e x p l a i n why a n d why  For  immersion  i t doesn't  children.  publication,  r e p r e s e n t s the  learning  Hypothesis  findings  language  as or  shows  competence has  a theoretical  language  of a  t o the o t h e r , p r o v i d e d  of b i l i n g u a l  hypotheses  "work" f o r m i n o r i t y  the  form  research  "works" f o r m a j o r i t y  In  language  Developmental  medium  on m e a s u r e s o f L2  and  simple  Research  as w e l l  developmental  level  majority  the  language.  children  Bilingual  t h e r e i s no  through  that  There  students i n  the U k r a i n i a n - E n g l i s h  minority-language l e a r n i n g relationship  of  Cummins  (1981a)  provides a single be  interpreted.  child's model  cognitive  makes  the  posits  framework i n The  "Think  facility  following  for  three  46.  1.  There  thoughts  that  language that  as w e l l  the f i r s t  other  the f i r s t  potentially  individual's  important  Think  Tank.  and w r i t i n g the t o t a l In  i n both  which  formulates and  people's  and second  second  thoughts  language.  i n t h e same T h i n k has a c c e s s  Tank,  to a l l the  so s t o r e d .  The  extremely  of  i n both  Tank  A l l information i s stored  information  the  Think  as comprehends  the i n d i v i d u a l  3.  one  are expressed  are expressed 2.  and  i s only  either Think  language  i s  f o r the o p e r a t i o n and development  of  Thus,  language  speaking,  c o n t r i b u t e s t o the development  of  t h e Think  Tank  to the assumptions  performance  i n t h e second  determined  only  language;  instead,  store  knowledge  Model  Cummins  that  o f many  teachers, minority children's  entire  reading,  Tank.  (1981a) makes t h e p o i n t  and  with  understanding,  his discussion  Contrary  experience  i n the Think  the t o t a l i t y  both  languages.  i n the  i t i s determined  of l i n g u i s t i c  from  educational  language  by e x p e r i e n c e  and  Tank w h i c h  of the c h i l d ' s ( p . 31)  parents  i s not second by t h e  conceptual i s derived  experience i n  47 .  The  Think  cognitive  Tank  Model  function  and  by  itself,  the  contradictory  together  t h e model  Developmental  findings  the  does  n o t answer  Interdependence  development  portraying However, of  clearly  The T h i n k  Threshold  theoretical  analogy  acquisition.  research findings.  Hypothesis  Hypothesis  education  and academic  and  some o f  Tank  Model  and the  provides  framework f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g  i n bilingual  cognitive  useful  i n language  with  substantial  i s a  a  research  i t seffects  on  achievement.  Summary and Conclusions The  brief  review  of  bilingual  education  emphasized  the dramatic  the history  change  Lambert's and E l i z a b e t h  Poorly  controlled  account  f o r the almost  children  i n research findings Anisfeld's  study  after  i n 1962.  s t u d i e s and s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l consistent  on  negative research  factors finding  t o 1962.  Although position  taken  effectiveness children, many  research  f o r minority-language  Wallace  prior  of  has been  a fundamental  by most i n v e s t i g a t o r s of b i l i n g u a l  there  claiming  efficacy.  there  continues  there  In order  shift  i n the  on t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e  education f o r minority-language t o be d e b a t e  i s contradictory  to determine  among evidence  educators, about i t s  what t h e r e s e a r c h  actually  48.  says  about  the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  minority-language  children,  and  and  Cruz,  surveys  (1977)  of  findings there  positive, Troike's  41%  goal  students  of  (the  United  States  sense"  concepts  upon c r i t e r i a range  100%.  of  which  use  (Programs not be  finding  called from  of  both  research  negative.  of  immersion  a  and were  result  programs,  4).  effectiveness students  findings  studies  myths;  i n more  LI  education i n such  lack  and  the  programs —  agreed  upon  programs"); studies  the  on  5)  of  arises  of  pervading  4)  he  opportunities for  (p.  3)  of  can m e e t  programs  the  example);  meeting  "bilingual  findings  As  educational  that  early recent  r e c e i v e d wide a t t e n t i o n i n  for b i l i n g u a l the  Dulay  fact,  negative  are  research  In  background"  which  critical  found  "quality" bilingual  1)  prime  out  excluding  for  Zappert  s t u d i e s , i t was  controlled  study  is a  (1979),  for minority-language  poorly  education  carried  By  surrounding  l o c i :  AIR  1%  equal  non-English  2)  years  and  a l .,  "Quality b i l i n g u a l  providing  several  58%  twelve  education  research;  not  that  confusion  bilingual  wide  of  states,  from  The  from  agreement.  neutral  review  confidently the  designed  discovered  et  (1978)  findings.  poorly  i s general  Zappert  Troike  research  from  Dulay  bilingual  the  "common of  agreed  consequent from  criteria positive  0%  to  should research  majority-language  49.  children  l e a r n i n g a second socially  Despite  the  education are  on  confusion,  academic  the  minority cost  world.  achievement  Not  children's  to  LI  i n LI  these  materials  and  efficacy  language  to  sensible; of  that  use  research  of in  literature children language"  has  on  this  use  show  promoted they  of  that at  show  first  programs  education  no  that  been and  literature. particular  i s more  in  Isabel  i t s association  to with  Bilingual upon  Various  as  an  tend  to  program  improving One  student  such  component  S c h o n has  initiated  component for  minority-  findings  whole".  than  sound.  for  looked  research  education  reference  language  established.  been i n v e s t i g a t e d .  no  from  s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n  with  effectiveness  bilingual  contains and  has  "undifferentiated  LI  be  also  language  findings  studies  can  but  bilingual  second  i t i s pedagogically  been  whole,  p e r f o r m a n c e have not  the  these  the  bilingual  their  in  of  L2.  however,  components a n d  the  L2,  factors,  undifferentiated relate  in  in  children  education,  do  effects  research  i n s t r u c t i o n i n E.S.L.  socio-politically The  only  i s associated  academic achievement Given  in  proficiency  proficiency  proficiency  is  positive  i r r e f u t a b l y demonstrated  around  relevant l a n g u a g e .  part,  but  the  minority-language  "story reading  time  in  first  achievement  in  •3  50.  L2 .  The  empirical  presented  suggests  at  have  least  acquisition  no  and  L2  proficiency.  to  investigate  association  with  evidence  that  "story  time  detrimental  will  possibly  Therefore "story gains  time  and  theoretical in first  effects  be  on  the p r e s e n t in first  i n English  language" second  associated  with  study  was  language"  reading  rationale will  language gains  in  designed and  achievement.  i t s  51.  CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND PRESENTATION OP FINDINGS  This  study  reading have  books  a  i n E.S.L.  greater  achievement E.S.L.  was d e s i g n e d  In  order  hearing  design  variable, hearing stories stories were:  greater gains  stories  hearing stories read read  that  stories read  (control  Test  hearing  read,  reading  books t o  stories  i n LIi s  of one  i n Chinese;  independent  Treatment 3,  2,  A, f o r m s  mu 1 > mu 2  fj:  mu 1 = mu 2  Hypothesis  no  variables  by t h e  Gates-  1 a n d 2, C a n a d i a n  of Chinese  Hi;  1,  hearing  hearing  The dependent  as measured  Level  research  of Treatment  and Treatment  group).  i n L2  The i n d e p e n d e n t  consisted  Hypothesis  H  reading  achievement  variables.  students.  Null  i n  experimental  consisted  1980; a n d 2) t h e number  Research  language  language?"  i n reading  achievement  Reading  than  "Does  first  gains  i n L2, a q u a s i  in English,  1) r e a d i n g  edition,  second  a n d two d e p e n d e n t  MacGinitie  by  i n their  was d e v e l o p e d  variable  i n their  second language  t o determine whether  associated with than  students  the question,  a s s o c i a t i o n with  i n their  students  t o answer  books  borrowed  52.  where  mu  1 i s represented  group E l (Chinese  stories)  mean o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l A  graphic  provided  by t h e mean o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d mu  2 i s represented  g r o u p E2  illustration  (English  of  by t h e  stories).  the research  design  i s  i n Table I I .  Table II Research Group  Design  Treatment  Dependent  Variables  El  Chinese  stories  posttest  number o f L I books borrowed  E2  English  Stories  posttest  number o f L I books borrowed  posttest  number o f L I books borrowed  C  no  stories  The  study  was c a r r i e d  two  intermediate  Elementary students, students.  E.S.L.  School and Of  out with  students,  classrooms  i n Vancouver.  the other these,  spoke  l a n g u a g e and 3 s p o k e V i e t n a m e s e . from sample  the school o f 38.  i n which  during  the school  Chinese  i s located.  from  Strathcona  consisted  a total  o f 20  sample  o f 39  as t h e i r  first  One C h i n e s e  the treatment  A l lsubjects lived  Lord  One c l a s s  19, making 36  at  a g e s 9 t o 12,  student  period,  i n the Chinese  moved  leaving  a  community  53.  The  39  randomly were  assigned  (E2)  each  treatments:  contained Vietnamese The  El  E2  as  3 Vietnamese  Once  the groups  assigned  t o one o f  (El), English t h e 13 s t u d e n t s  their  f i r s t  students  and  were  stories who made  language. C  E2  contained  no  students.  treatment  took p l a c e  week f o r a d u r a t i o n and  stories  ( C ) . By c h a n c e  Chinese  classrooms  groups.  g r o u p was r a n d o m l y  Chinese  o r no s t o r i e s  E l a l l spoke  i n t h e two E . S . L .  t o one o f t h r e e  comprised,  three  up  students  included  during  of three  two 40 m i n u t e p e r i o d s a  months.  Each  session  a d i s c u s s i o n of the stories  inEl  listened to.  d i s c u s s i o n was i n L I a n d E2 d i s c u s s i o n was i n L 2 . The  with  Control  their  took  were  regular  place  completed  Group  (C) p a r t i c i p a t e d  classroom  during  this  u n f i n i s h e d work,  i n the classrooms.  teacher. period.  they  played  These  i n "catch-up No  formal  After  teaching  students  various  time"  games  had that  i n c l u d e d math and E n g l i s h  games.  Selection The speaking English readers  o f Books Chinese  books  were  readers  using  the form  Literature: consulted  Rating"  together  rated  by  "Chinese  (see Appendix  using  t h e two  this  form  Chinese  Literature -  I).  The C h i n e s e  to s e l e c t  books  to  read  from  a total  f o r m was u s e d two  selection  as a guide  E n g l i s h reader  i n selecting  volunteers.  readers  agreed  Chinese  and E n g l i s h R e a d e r s  There  o f some 700 b o o k s .  were  two  volunteer  stories  one p e r i o d  Books w e r e s e l e c t e d  Chinese  volunteer  readers,  each  a week.  demonstrated  tempo, a n d a b i l i t y  The f o u r  The  four  volunteers students.  a t the school  i n which  reader—who  Folk  Tales,  and sometimes  principal  primary  content.  a l l four  As w e l l t h e  rapport with  E.S.L.  teacher were  duties  told  of the Chinese One  children  to take  experience  had p r e v i o u s l y took  place.  background  stories, School  with  in  was  a  situated  The  Chinese recently  near  Lord  o f t h e E n g l i s h r e a d e r s was a  a t Lord  made  reader  the study  had a r i c h  Elementary.  Arrangements classroom  a warm  One C h i n e s e  Chinese  Strathcona  told  v o l u n t e e r s were a l l  a l l had t e a c h i n g  other  retired  or  enunciation, phrasing,  dramatic  t o form  read  In an a u d i t i o n  diction,  a n d two  by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r .  intermediate taught  good  t o convey  had an a b i l i t y  as observed  by t h e i f both  readers  o f whom  competent and e x p r e s s i v e r e a d e r s .  readers  E n g l i s h books  on t h e f o u r c a t e g o r i e s .  English  readers  The same  Strathcona  to free part  her from  i n the study.  Elementary. her The  regular second  55.  English  volunteer  Canadian  native  completed  reader  Indian  A each  Library  exposed  between  t h e two  many  books  Chinese.  each  which  The c l a s s  be  of i n t e r e s t  and a f t e r  b o o k s be r e a d  was  selected  had  of the books English  times  school).  who  (before Each  students,  were  Chinese told i n  to a l l students was  by t h e c l a s s r o o m s t u d e n t s  arranged teacher. d u r i n g  school, at recess, teacher  during non-instructional  by  has had  folktales  A s i g n - o u t system  by  judged  to intermediate  books were a v a i l a b l e  borrowed  changed  class  i n t e r m e d i a t e E.S.L.  and m o n i t o r e d  were  each  teacher-librarian  i n the study.  classroom  so  and  s e t o f b o o k s was  A l l the books  The m a j o r i t y  non-instructional hour  a  would  The C h i n e s e  books  t o r e a d one p e r i o d a  classrooms,  and o t h e r s were m a i n l y  participating  was  b o o k s was m a i n t a i n e d i n  classes,  books.  experience with  E.S.L. s t u d e n t s . folktales,  the study  i n c o l o u r and a l l books were  investigator,  The  library  two w e e k s .  t o t h e same  considerable  in  Chinese  every  illustrations,  be  When  of  Books  o f t h e two i n t e r m e d i a t e  exchanged  to  children.  teacher  group.  s e t o f 50-60  approximately  the  an e x p e r i e n c e d  she volunteered to continue  week t o t h e c o n t r o l  Chinese  was  insisted  times.  lunch  t h a t the  A r e c o r d was  kept  of  the  number  of  books each  Presentation The  Gates-MacGinitie  administered both  month p e r i o d mean s c o r e  of  and  Chinese.  f o r m 2 of  r e s u l t s of  the the  of  Level  Instructions At  the  t e s t i n g are  Data:  Pretest  S.D  A,  form  were  conclusion  same t e s t was  Table Summary  borrowed.  Findings  Reading Test  to a l l subjects.  English  student  of  1,  was  given the  three  administered.  The  shown i n T a b l e  III.  III Table  of  Means  Posttest  S.D.  Difference  El  Chinese  65.23  13.30  72.23  5.81  7.00  E2  English  58.77  15.76  64.72  16.84  5.85  C  Control  58.91  15.64  71.91  8.35  13.00  Two  i_tests  were  applied,  significant  difference  groups,  secondly  and  between the The  pretest  r e s u l t s are  and  firstly  between  to  the  test for  posttest  summarized  in  means  to  test  of  the  a significant  means w i t h i n  i n Tables  a  three  difference  each  I I I through  for  VII.  group.  57.  Table £  T e s t Between  Pretest/Posttest Mean D i f f e r e n c e  N  TV Groups  S.D.  Chinese  13  +7.00  Control  12  +13.00  10.43  English  13  +5.85  8.39  Control  12  +13.00  10.43  Chinese  13  +7.00  9.28  English  13  +5.85  8 .39  *Significant The by  mean  score  Chinese read (p  <  24  Hypothesis  associated  As shown  23  .33  24  with  i n English.  i n Table  IV, p  =  .05 i n  group.  .33, p > .05  stories  greater gains E.S.L.  There were,  i n the reading  >  mu 1 > mu 2  i s not rejected.  of hearing  intermediate  .05)  1.90*  group and C h i n e s e - E n g l i s h  fc  treatment  23  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n e a c h g r o u p was t e s t e d  Hi:  Null  1.52  a t .05  Chinese-Control  The  D.F.  9.28  a one-tailed £ test.  the  t Value (Pooled Var.)  The  read  experimental  i n Chinese  was n o t  i n reading achievement students  than  however,  scores  hearing  significant  of a l l three  among stories gains  g r o u p s , as  58.  shown  i n Table  V.  Table V i  Test Within  Pretest/ Posttest Mean Difference  N  S  Groups  * * D  t  V  a  l  u  e  1  D.F.  Tailed  13.30 El  Chinese  13  +7.00  2.72  12  .01  2.51  12  .02  4.32  11  .0005  5.81 15.71 E2  English  13  +5.85 16.84 15.64  C  Control  12  +13.00 8.35  Another reading first there by  to c h i l d r e n  language  borrowing  i s no d i f f e r e n c e that  number  prob.  toward  study  t o determine  i n Chinese habits.  As  shown  (AN OVA  with  i n Table  of books  E l and E2 had no  borrowed  whether  i s associated  i n t h e mean number  i s treatment  of books  was  VI  borrowed  association  F(2,35)  =  .010,  F  = .99) .  Because  by  of t h i s  stories  groups,  with  purpose  one t e a c h e r  L l books,  class,  (Teacher  t h e number  and t h e r e s u l t s  A) h a d a n e g a t i v e  o f b o o k s b o r r o w e d was  a r e shown  i n Table V I I .  attitude analysed  Table VI C h i n e s e B o o k s B o r r o w e d by G r o u p S.D.  N  Mean  Chinese  13  14.54  17.2  English  13  13 .85  17.2  Control  12  13.75  Group  8.61  Min.  Max.  4.77  1  56  4.77  0  54  2.49  4  31  S.E.  F  .99  Table V I I C h i n e s e B o o k s B o r r o w e d by Group  N  Mean  S.D.  S.E.  Class Min.  Max.  Teacher  A  18  8.78  8.83  2.08  0  31  Teacher  B  20  19.70  16.83  3.76  0  56  F  .02  The F prob. will  significant = .02) i n mean  difference number  (ANOVA  of books  be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g  F(l,35)  borrowed  discussion.  =  6.066  by  class  60.  CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS  The  research  intermediate would  E.S.L. s t u d e n t s  make  of  1)  than  i n L2.  language reading  show b i l i n g u a l has  achievement 1975;  Cummins and  Mulcahy,  1979;  Zappert 1978;  Rosier 2)  findings  of  terms  "Threshold  Hypothesis:  Cummins and  Mulcahy,  Hypothesis  (Cummins,  Tank H y p o t h e s i s " Even not  though  make  students  greater hearing  stories  this  on  schools  how  study  Cruz, et  Holm,  cognitive  1978,  English  minority effect  on  1978;  et  a l . ,  1981;  research  namely  the  1978-1979; 1979;  and  1981b);  hearing  i n L2  Interdependence and  Chinese  reading  stories  adds i m p o r t a n t should  basis  the  "Think  1981a).  students gains  heard  Skutnabb-  interpret  Development  1979;  reading  Troike,  Gale  LI  achievement  function;  (Cummins, 1978;  1 9 7 8 ) ; The  positive  a l . , 1979;  1980;  In  the  among  1977;  that  who  on  academic  theories which  (Cummins, the  and  general  and  students  education  Dulay  and  M e l e n d e z , 1 9 8 1 ) ; and in  and  in  formulated  significant  i n L2  (Lambert,  Kangus,  a  was read  gains  E.S.L. was  study  stories  higher  This hypothesis  children  this  heard  intermediate  studies that  of  who  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  achievement stories  hypothesis  respond  or  achievement  students  information to  stories  the  to  than  hearing the  did  no  debate  cultural  and  61.  linguistic in  this  the  diversity  study—the  group  group  a  The  three  first  achievement  direct  Cummins  relationship  length  or  Cognitive  amount  determined  by in  totality  the  of  As  a c a d e m i c and not  be  account  and  The  debate  materials with  time  .05) o f 80  to  taken  by  there  into  entire  in  child's  Tank  experience  another  arena  the  Cultural  collections concerning  be  the  E.S.L. s t u d e n t s  must  school way  use  language  and  Cummins  language] i s conceptual  LI  the  languages"  i n L2  be  (p.  besides reading  development taken  setting.  of  i s not  As  and  of d o i n g  The  in a into  use  of  this.  instruction  focused  a  language.  addressed  important  i s one  Holm  i s d e r i v e d from  realities  i n the  reading  necessarily  second  Achievement  only  their  and  to t h a t  i n both  must  in on  account.  which  reading  Rosier  i s not  i n the  control  m i n u t e s a week  s t o r e of l i n g u i s t i c  Think  the  effects  emphasized  groups  Chinese,  students  i n - s c h o o l exposure  addressed  language  in  between a c q u i r i n g a second  considered  life.  first  As  cognitive factors.  child's  <  detrimental  (1979-1980),  of  the  well,  (p  read  " i t [performance  the  knowledge  31) .  no  f a c t o r s must be  (1981a) s t a t e s ,  can  had  read  i n E n g l i s h and  gains  to  A l l three  stories  read  period  i n English.  and  students.  instructional  month  language  (1980)  stories  s i g n i f i c a n t  achievement. over  their  group h e a r i n g  hearing  had  of  on w h e t h e r  and LI  62.  materials  assist s t u d e n t s i n l e a r n i n g t h e i r second language  or  The  not.  impede gives the  debate  second  1  language  a very clear  use  of  language  materials  detrimental Further, stories  read  English  stories,  of  being  but  our  awareness  that  richness  to  the  the  in  a  English,  these m a t e r i a l s  achievement more  d i d not  cultural  piece  First  Chinese  Indeed,  First  needs  and  The  evidence  a  which  not  growing  the  of and  person  Collection  "Even  i f  on  need  books  impede  in this  makes  own  strength  effect  language  findings  their  is a  as  cultural  do  advantage  Language  expressed,  heard  acceptance  brings  have a p o s i t i v e meet  to  there  and  that  mosaic.  i s first  i n English. of  heard  setting,  expression  School Board  books  meeting  first  acquisition.  t h e added  society  backgrounds  fact  that  a b s o l u t e l y no  had  s t u d e n t s who  f o r purchasing the  The  study  concerned  language  school  language  society."  This  e q u a l l y as w e l l a s t h o s e who  Canadian  the Vancouver  study  second  i t i s the  cultural  responsible  on  multicultural  diverse  materials  specifically  t h e s e s t u d e n t s had  exposed, In  in this  did  English  culture.  for  used  only  not.  are  materials,  LI  second language a c q u i s i t i o n .  effects  not  or  t o t h o s e who  language  impede  whether  acquisition  answer  first  books,  language  i s f o c u s e d on  first  learning in  assist  our in  reading  study are  i t possible  one for  63.  Wertheimer  (1980) t o  of  for  books  overwhelming" As  the  It  not  can  treatment L2  as  (p.  be  IV  and  that  was  with  to  the  only  be  reading  L2  "English  be  supported  and  required lower  C.  to  The  or  discovered in  among t h e  gain  English  by  III).  lower  Chinese  groups,  was  of  from  of  seven  an  the  English  study were  and  students  one  these  (as  from  the  students  L2  Such  course,  research  in  with  to  until  i t  daily  Assistant  English  L2  is the  E2.  compared  during  regular  group,  low  compared  associated  their  a  standard  as  received  (see  story"  acquisition.  E2  anomaly  control  the  .05).  "no  i s , of  of  as  who  of  <  achievement  students  Language part  from  an  (p  the  Further  achieving  C  unchanged  scores  group,  four  i s  difference  c h i l d r e n with  the  control  group  increase  to  the  of  program), Chinese  in  that  English  duration  Table  It  d e t e r m i n e what i s , i n f a c t ,  gains  tongue  treatment.  e f f e c t on  pretest-posttest (See  story"  literature  to  El  in  tentative.  This  to  and  reading  detrimental  the  provision  significant  gains  a  of  a  that  has  deviation  the  mother  however,  proficiency tends  for  p o s t t e s t means E2  i s associated  can  their  there  concluded,  compared  possible  in  argument  347).  pretest  conclusion  "The  children  shown i n T a b l e  between  in  state,  two  group.  Appendix  the was help the  E.S.L. from The II)  the mean was  64.  considerably  higher  increase  of  19.57  compared  as  A  students  purpose  which might was  of  would  hearing  stories  This  the  could  cultural  as  i t may  (p be  by  attitude  lower  C  <  less  as  of  hearing books  expected  toward  would  positive  those  no  and  that a l l  having  (1981a)  have  a  need.  study,  the  improved  reading  reading  i s , first  this  students  the  books.  there  t o meet  silent  not  difference  that  that  in  in  Spanish.  of  positive  Chinese  effect  upon  reading.  scores  (see T a b l e  than  It  read  to read Chinese  i n Schon's  that  books.  i t appears  helps  after  factors  stories  T h e r e was  Hispanic  .05)  students  language  implying  classroom  scoring students  become  first  present  i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the  E l and  any  uncover  consequently  demonstrated  pretest/posttest to  to  i n Chinese.  need  attitudes  literature  assistance:  Chinese  interpreted  significantly  It  was  group  more  read  books i n the  their  the  borrow  language  Thus  study  that  a  average  individual  were e q u a l l y m o t i v a t e d  be  t h e mean  5.97.  this  indeed,  reading  receiving  three groups,  groups  Moreover,  p o s t t e s t than  i n f l u e n c e borrowing  Chinese  three  the  not  to  anticipated  between  on  unchanged  i n E2  (English  III) indicates i n E2 than  (  did not at  the  standard  deviation in  stories) t h a t the improve  beginning  as  compared  attitudes and of  may the  of  have study.  65.  In o t h e r  words  probably  do n o t c o m p r e h e n d  even  cause  posttest  a loss  adequately  the  students  If  effect  y o u were  t o have  only  do n o t  (Teacher  The s t u d e n t s i n less  .02).  books  commenced, however,  about  "A" s t a t e d t o Chinese  of the i n s i s t e n c e  attitude.  remained  neither  of L l  to p a r t i c i p a t e  the study.  a negative  has a  habits  because A's c l a s s  than  This strongly  LI l i t e r a t u r e  was w i l l i n g  I feel  A) h a d a  you wouldn't  Collection;  the c l a s s  literature  they  borrowing  from  by t h e Further  teacher  B d i d n o t have  positive  (p =  the study  "You know how  an E.S.L.  Language  strong  student  or  read.  toward  A initially  t h a t Teacher  Teacher First  upon  Shortly after  I t was  when  significantly  B's room  II).  r e a d i n g L2  LI collections.  borrowed  Teacher  investigator,  how  i s being  A wanted t o withdraw  principal  as suggested  acquisition  toward  i n Teacher  the study.  either."  gains,  (see Appendix  the teacher's a t t i t u d e  literature.  Teacher  L2  they  L2 a c q u i s i t i o n ,  one o f t h e t e a c h e r s  attitude  profound  the  study,  A's c l a s s  suggests  in  effects  comprehend what  In t h i s  Teacher  26  t o L2 s t o r i e s w h i c h  impede  i s needed t o understand  students  negative  may  of previous  score of s u b j e c t  research to  subjecting students  books.  want  them  of the  i n the study.  attitude  d i d Teacher  toward t h e B have a  The t e a c h e r was s i m p l y  borrow books and d i d n ' t f e e l  willing  i t would  do  66.  any  particular  books s h o u l d Because toward  LI  Teacher  be  read only  of  the  has  relative  to  Collections  should  an  s e s s i o n on  in-service  be  f  on  series  survey  the  use  useful First  the  a  and  second  none o f w h i c h  literature  on  First  A,  felt  teacher's  as  of  the  a  appear  LI  attitudes  F i r s t  Language point  for  Collections.  Further  language  of  teacher's  starting  Language  attitude  borrowing  of  of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t e d  collections themselves,  Teacher  student  Some I m p l i c a t i o n s F o r A  like  effect  a school d i s t r i c t  beliefs  B  d u r i n g n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l time.  powerful  literature  literature, and  harm.  Study  to  first  language  acquisition  present  t o have been a d d r e s s e d  Language C o l l e c t i o n s  or  in  Bilingual  Education: 1.  Would  students and  of  described  First  between by  Language comfortable  First  Lambert  Language  effect  regard for their  Would  conflicts  from  use  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  positive 2.  the  own  upon s t u d e n t  (1967)?  other  and  assist  students  bicultural  identity  i n which  o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n LI  and  L2?  in  lessen  language  words,  Collections  language  self-esteem  r e s o l v e or  identity In  by  culture?  Language C o l l e c t i o n s cultural  Collections  will  First  achieving  students  as  a  profit  67.  3. the  G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s i n the present  Chinese  Chinese  population living  i n Vancouver  population, community most  i n a Chinese  make  i n which  they  toward  up a p p r o x i m a t e l y  a r e hard  live.  Chinese  workers  students  tend  reading  to children  of m i n o r i t y  attitude  of "expecting  t o do w e l l "  greater  impact  Chinese 4.  setting  Chinese  on s e c o n d  the  students  larger  on t h e p a r t o f  seems t o be  a n d do w e l l " ,  "Chinese  and c o n s e q u e n t l y  t o do w e l l .  groups does  The  15% o f t h e  by  The a t t i t u d e  teachers  to  t o expect  are limited to  community.  and a r e g e n e r a l l y r e s p e c t e d  teachers  students  study  Would  i n L I when t h e  not exist,  language a c q u i s i t i o n  than  have  a  reading  students?  Would p a r e n t s  reading  be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  to children  gains  i n L I i n t h e home  i n reading achievement i n  L2? 5. the  Would  home  setting  achievement 6. the  7. L2  listening  with  read  gains  to children  be a s s o c i a t e d  i n L 2 , and w o u l d L l be  I s r e a d i n g L2 l i t e r a t u r e  skills,  to children  be a s s o c i a t e d  parents  setting  achievement  listening  i n LI i n  i n reading  i n L2?  Would  home  parents  and c o n s e q u e n t l y  what i s b e i n g  read,  with  read  gains  i n L2 i n  i n reading  maintained?  to children  who  can not adequately  have low comprehend  d e t r i m e n t a l t o L2 a c q u i s i t i o n ?  68.  Research potential resource  Elley  value  of f i r s t  and Mangubhai's Study:  the Shared  books  learning",  Book  had been c o m p l e t e d .  Shared  Book  Examination  rural  performed schools  [Science  < .001) .  in  the F i j i a n  contrasts  A special to as  t h e main  (p <  Book  the three  Experience of  Studies  Mathematics  (p < . 1 0 ) .  was made i n t h e S h a r e d  put i t , " t o reduce  Class  Intermediate  b u t l e s s marked  as p o s s i b l e  i n the  other  .001) G e n e r a l  tendency  The o t h e r  Reading  of E n g l i s h  L2  further  performance  and S i l e n t  only i n the case  make r e a d i n g a s m e a n i n g f u l the authors  A  Book  (p < .001) a n d  Examination  Shared  "rapid  study with  the t y p i c a l  T h e r e was a s i m i l a r ,  effort  produced  The S h a r e d  Studies]  Language  i t was  high-interest  w e r e compared w i t h  above  i n English  significant  with  s c h o o l s on t h e F i j i a n  well  between  i n which  consideration.  results.  and S o c i a l  (p  proved  test  study  C l a s s 6 p u p i l s who w e r e  E x p e r i e n c e group in Fijian  i n school  society.  language  after  groups  to r e a l i z e the  collections  Experience  further  a n a l y s i s was u n d e r t a k e n  6 students  (1983)  i n the target  i s worth  i s needed  Some F u r t h e r I m p l i c a t i o n s  and Mangubhai's  shown t h a t  groups  language  centres i n a multicultural  Elley  story  i n a l l of these areas  groups  (p < . 0 5 ) .  Book  experience  t o the c h i l d , o r ,  the c r i t i c a l  differences  69.  between appear  typical  LI  and  t o h a v e been  in  terms  of  this  an  educational  effectiveness critical  factor  themselves group),  L2  most s u c c e s s f u l .  The  system of  can  the  was  rather  have  total  not  powerful  second  results  from  added  communication"  term  discussion using  First  "meeting to  there  needs  child need  language  one  be  social  than c u l t u r a l f o r the  child  study, which  of  and  One  i t appears  (1983)  to  have  study—there is a  total  learning  child  to  been  experience.  "communicate  to  Reading which  theory  was  In v i e w  such  be  of  which  used  of  in  the  outcomes Elley's  of and  acknowledged  that  fundamental  to  the  development  of  the  need  about  When t h i s  i s the  apparent  those things need  in Elley's  profound  by  dimension  positive  more  t o communicate  are m e a n i n g f u l t o the c h i l d . as  the  psychological  needs.  The  acquisition.  i t must are  the  needs"  Language C o l l e c t i o n s . (1983)  cognitive,  be  cultural  describe  Mangubhai's may  second  must  the  stories  meaningful c o m m u n i c a t i o n  the  "meaningful  The  on  system.  the S i l e n t  Thus  to explain  impact  language  o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the s t o r y time.  attempts  emphasizes,  component part o f  a  educational  the  by  a  investigators  What t h i s  p r e s e n t study i s t h a t  (as p r o v e n  but  learning".  impact  which  i s addressed—  and on  This fundamental  meaningfully" i s not  Mangubhai's the  child's  need  f o r the  related  to  cultural  factors  and  fulfilled  by  e i t h e r L I o r L2  factor  i s the  between the most  using  by  experiences. need  to  others which  the  use  of  the  essential  partially  literature.  relationship  and  or  and  language  facilitated  and  shared  more  i s met,  occurred we  do  this.  If  then  know the  —  Cummins  child  development  to  the  (that  bilingual  competence  termed  is  the  be  level  positive  positive  nor  of  phases  have  there put  students  was.  finger  were  of by  the  group.  "dominant languages",  a level  But  this on  or  Elley  and  should the  very  other  simple  and  there  neither language  Mangubhai  mean t h a t E l l e y a  be  of  which  bilingualism" before  o f one  was  Skutnabb-Kangus  must a t t a i n  there  may  study,  "additive bilingualism",  effects  Does  (1983)  in  to i n v e s t i g a t e  study  i n one  cognitive effects),  negative  their  the  This  Experience"  presented  "dominant  cognitive functioning.  found  in  would  L l functioning  undertaken  level  theory  of  Book  be  involved  "native-like to  level  book  fundamental  the  Mangubhai's  "Shared  (1978),  above  and  what  needs  students  according  and  of  research  bilinguals"  Elley  not  characteristic Further  in  key  communication  seems t o be  literature  The  r e g a r d l e s s of h i s l e v e l of functioning i n LI?  although  on  fulfilled,  "communicate m e a n i n g f u l l y "  be what  can  be  Is i t p o s s i b l e that i f t h i s  move t h r o u g h L2  meaningful  child  easily  may  (1983)  Mangubhai  formula  for  improving  English  students? much  Is i tp o s s i b l e  easier,  simply  language  by  that  more n a t u r a l ,  providing  communicate  first  language?  Reading was  n o t the "shared  Mangubhai Ll and  yield  level  Further  Chinese  (1983).  L2 a c q u i s i t i o n  could  e n j o y a b l e and e f f i c i e n t  a t l e v e l s which  of their  among i n t e r m e d i a t e E . S . L .  students  t h e medium o f L2 l i t e r a t u r e regardless  skills  with  of language  study  process  opportunity  a r e meaningful and "Shared  be a  t o them  Book  to  through  Experiences",  development  i n their  i s obviously indicated.1  literature  to children  i n this  study  book e x p e r i e n c e " d e s c r i b e d by E l l e y a n d Would  findings with  such  Chinese  Mangubhai's f i n d i n g s w i t h  a shared students  Fijian  book e x p e r i e n c e i n similar  to  Elley  students?  It should be n o t e d t h a t i n a recent p u b l i c a t i o n by Cummins (1983a) he elaborates on t h e "Interdependence H y p o t h e s i s " a n d E l l e y and M a n g u b h a i ' s (1983) f i n d i n g s may be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n i t s framework: "Minority students' a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t i n L2 i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o how w e l l t h e i r common u n d e r l y i n g p r o f i c i e n c y i s d e v e l o p e d . However, t h o s e who a r g u e that L l i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l impede L2 ( e . g . English) acquisition fail to r e a l i z e that experience or i n s t r u c t i o n i n e i t h e r language can promote development o f the p r o f i c i e n c y u n d e r l y i n g both languages, g i v e n adequate motivation and exposure t o both i n either s c h o o l or the wider environment" (Cummins, 1983a, p . 4 3 ) . The q u e s t i o n still must be a s k e d , however, "How w e l l was t h e 'common u n d e r l y i n g p r o f i c i e n c y ' i n t h e S h a r e d Book E x p e r i e n c e g r o u p developed?" I f i t was not well d e v e l o p e d , some o t h e r factors, such as c o n s i d e r e d above must be taken i n t o account.  72.  CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION  The  recent  schools to  i n Canada, U n i t e d  increased  cultural In in  increase  debate  Toronto  public  i n s t r u c t i o n with language In  diversity  E.S.L. s t u d e n t s  her a r t i c l e , J'Anne  "First  respond  rise to the  students.  t o m u l t i c u l t u r a l programs (1978-1979)  found  the  l a n g u a g e m a t e r i a l s and  i n schools  language,  there  impedes  news  punished  t h e use  Materials  (1983)  i s , nevertheless,  encouraging  i n t e r f e r e with  Language  Greenwood  a r e no l o n g e r  English  should  of t h e i r  use of f i r s t  children  A  population of  English  development.  Libraries",  that  schools  Masemann  that  minority  and Europe has g i v e n  p u b l i c response  schools,  believes  States  o n how  and l i n g u i s t i c  analyzing  i n ethnic  of  reports  Studies"  with  T i m e s . May 6, 1 9 8 3 .  that  while  their  "the l i n g e r i n g the mother  the heading  b y S. D a l e y ,  School  f o r speaking  the l e a r n i n g of E n g l i s h " .  story  in  "Panel  appeared  I t states i n part:  own  feeling  tongue  will  ( p . 15) Asks  Stress  i n t h e New  on  York  73.  The  educators  should  support  speak,  read  possible ...  said  the Federal  programs  and w r i t e  by ' i m m e r s i n g  'We  are not  education stated]  per se.  There  evidence  that teach English  children to  a s q u i c k l y as  them i n t h e l a n g u a g e .  1  c r i t i c i z i n g [one of  i s a l l kinds  about  Government  whether  bilingual  the  educators  of contradictory  or n o t i t works.'  (P. 1)  The  question  education —  the  instruction children  is  some  to read,  A major  language  part  solve  difficulty  i t work?  of  math  1978;  (Dulay  Zappert  weaknesses comparison  1977).  i n research  or c o n t r o l  of the e f f e c t s  performance. positions  But such  day—help  and speak i n  these  weaknesses  such  invalidate  f i n d i n g s f r o m many s t u d i e s c a n n o t  discussion  and  questions  i n research  1982; T r o i k e ,  B e c a u s e a n y one o f s e v e r a l  design,  group,  bilingual  materials  problems  e t a l . , 1979; M a c L a u g h l i n ,  and C r u z ,  Does  the school  i n answering  t h a t many s t u d i e s h a v e c r i t i c a l  design  the  i s does  use of f i r s t  during  learn  English?  really  of b i l i n g u a l  a s no  research  results,  be c o n s i d e r e d education  s t u d i e s have b e e n q u o t e d  f o r or a g a i n s t b i l i n g u a l  baseline  education.  on  i nthe student  to support I t i s easy  74.  to  understand  whether  or  why  not  there  is contradictory  bilingual  results  would  which  not have c r i t i c a l  This  do  we  i s exactly  (1977) and Dulay worked  find  education  a l . (1979)  and  Cruz  contradictory, child's  but  the c o n c l u s i o n o f  equal  at  bilingual  the  (1977)  concluded  in research  design?  Zappert  that  literature their  on  than  monolingual that  rather  "strongly  support  his  a s a medium o f review,  Troike  bilingual  and  9,  that  found  Finnish, courses  the taught  of  Troike's  study  findings the  use  instruction (1978)  Dulay's  (1978)  (1979),  critical  education, further Skutnabb-Kangas  of  almost  monolingual  are  not  of  the  ..."  states  At  that  providing  non-English  their  i n Swedish.  700  Zappert  review  and  of  the  findings  support  (1979),  after  Finnish  children  p r o g r a m s i n Sweden i n g r a d e s  the l o n g e r F i n n i s h better  programs  (p. 4 ) .  bilingual  a  Cruz  programs.  p r o g r a m s c a n meet t h e g o a l o f  conclusions.  completing  and  bilingual  conclude  completion  and  of  studies  (1977)  backgrounds"  Since  kind  the  e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s t u d e n t s from  speaking  Cruz  only  e t a l . (1979),  better  n a t i v e language  "quality  looked  What  about  (1978) d i d .  significantly  Zappert  works.  weaknesses  what D u l a y  Troike et  i f we  evidence  1 to  c h i l d r e n were e d u c a t e d  academic  achievement  was  in  in in  75.  After and in  Holm the  an  extensive  (1980) f o u n d  bilingual  g r a d e norms or before  the  were a b o u t end  of  years 6.  in  necessarily in-school  program  bilingual  Grade  "ability  Gale's  show t h a t s t u d e n t s academic  results  composition,  and  Isabel with  United  States.  authors English  note and  correlated.  second  f u n c t i o n of  (1981)  with  6,  Rosier  children  at United  States  whereas  a t Rock  simple  Point  (p.  observation: i s  l e n g t h or  amount  not of  28).  findings  from  children  bilingual  program  English, than  the  language)  the  aboriginal  i n the  had  four  in  year  Australia  achieved  English  they  a  better  reading  under  the  and  former  system. et  I t was group  improved  of grade  makes t h e  a  a l .  (1981a,  Ll literature  experimental  Spanish)  (as  mathematics  Schon  studies  the  author  in oral  English monolingual  children  norms i n E n g l i s h r e a d i n g by  to E n g l i s h "  a l .  program  end  were p e r f o r m i n g  behind  simple  et  the  Navajo  above i n E n g l i s h r e a d i n g ,  English a  with  program Navajo c h i l d r e n  The  exposure  bilingual  t h a t by  slightly  two  study  found  and  Hispanic  t h a t the  ( s t u d e n t s who  significantly  t h a t w i t h i n the Spanish  1981b)  (p  students  in  reading attitudes  had <  silent .05).  experimental  reading  conducted  abilities  reading Further,  group, were  gains  two the of in the in  positively  76.  It of  i s important  the e f f e c t s  achievement cal to  to place  of  bilingual  and g e n e r a l  framework.  t h e above e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s education  academic achievement  What i s t a k i n g p l a c e  on  reading  in a  theoreti-  at a cognitive  level  explain the findings? Jim  Cummins  Education  of the Ontario  describes  children's (Cummins,  b i l i n g u a l i s m as  intellectual  1981a,  to place  theoretical  framework.  hypothesis  i s based  language  and  between  research  dependent,  or  "a p o s i t i v e  the  findings  Cummins'  (1983)  i n the evidence  force i n  development"  Interdependence  into  a  meaningful  rationale for  is little  t h e amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n  minority  suggests  that  i n L2 a n d a c h i e v e m e n t  t h a t L l a n d L2 s k i l l s  "manifestations  of  a common  are  i n that inter-  underlying  proficiency". He f o r m a l l y s t a t e s t h e h y p o t h e s i s  To  the  extent  that  effective  i n promoting  transfer  of this  provided  there  (either  his  there  children receive  language, which  f o r Studies in  educational  p. 2 2 ) , and p o s i t s  Hypothesis  relationship  Institute  instruction  i n Lx i s  the p r o f i c i e n c y i n Lx,  p r o f i c i e n c y t o Ly w i l l  i s adequate  i n school  as f o l l o w s :  exposure  occur t o Ly  or environment) and adequate  77.  motivation  to  learn  Ly.  (Cummins,  1983a,  p.  41)  Cummins g i v e s  In  a  a concrete  Ukr a i n i a n - E n g l i sh  instruction  that  s k i l l s  i s not  skills,  i t is  conceptual strongly  and  and  just  effectiveness children, academic  achievement  demonstrated Not  only  first  do  language  proficiency that  these  use  proficiency  which  of  academic  debate  is  English s k i l l s .  surrounding  of  bilingual  i n the second language findings show  second  language  deeper  the  education for minority-language  proficiency  of f i r s t  a  the  studies  i n their  developing  41-42)  effects  in research  reading  Ukrainian  general  of b i l i n g u a l  positive  Ukrainian  to the development  despite  program,  developing  linguistic  (Cummins, 1983a, p p .  summary,  bilingual  develops  also  related  l i t e r a c y  In  example:  can  from  that be  are  around  minority  promoted  language,  materials  e d u c a t i o n on  can  but be  irrefutably the world. children's  a t no  also  cost  to  they  show  associated  with  78. significant  gains  i n academic  achievement  i n t h e second  language. The  empirical  presented  strongly  language"  will  second with order  evidence  and  suggest  that  at least  have  language a c q u i s i t i o n  gains  i n second  to test  theoretical "story  no  language  the hypothesis  time  detrimental  and w i l l  rationale in  first  effects  on  p o s s i b l y be a s s o c i a t e d  proficiency.  Therefore, i n  that  h e a r i n g s t o r i e s read i n Chinese i s associated with greater gains i n r e a d i n g achievement i n the second language among Chinese intermediate E.S.L. students than h e a r i n g s t o r i e s read i n English a  research  design  was  developed  independent  v a r i a b l e and  independent  variable,  Treatment hearing no  1, h e a r i n g stories  stories  were:  read  1)  edition, by  read  group).  achievement's Test  Level  A,  1 9 8 0 ; a n d 2) t h e number  students.  whether  stories  Another  reading  associated  with  variables. read,  i n Chinese;  Treatment  forms  first  of Chinese  borrowing  hearing  the  books  was  to children  language  by  2,  variables  1 a n d 2,  purpose of the study  stories  3,  The d e p e n d e n t measured  The  c o n s i s t e d of  i n E n g l i s h , and T r e a t m e n t  (control  M a c G i n i t i e Reading  c o n s i s t e d o f one  dependent  hearing  stories  read  reading  two  that  Gates-  Canadian borrowed  to determine  i n Chinese habits,  i s and  79.  whether  teachers'  Collections language The from  influence  study  was  carried  two i n t e r m e d i a t e School  community. other  Once  One  were  assigned  50-60  were  classroom approximately There  every  volunteer  stories  one p e r i o d  teaching  experience  a t Lord  Strathcona  students,  Chinese and the The 39  each  group  Chinese  group. was  was  groups. randomly stories,  A different  maintained  between  the  two  s e t of  i n  each  classes  two w e e k s .  two  an a b i l i t y  books  a g e s 9 t o 12,  t o one o f t h r e e  treatments:  exchanged  English  The  first  o f 39 s t u d e n t s .  comprised,  library  were  sample  or the c o n t r o l  and  students,  o f 20  assigned  t o one o f t h r e e  Chinese  observed  of  of Vancouver's  consisted  a total  stories,  out with  i n the core  randomly  the groups  English  Language  borrowing  E.S.L. c l a s s r o o m s  class  19, making  students  children's  First  books.  Elementary  with  a t t i t u d e s toward  Chinese  volunteer  readers,  each  a week.  readers  o f whom  read  a n d two or  told  The f o u r  volunteers  a l l had  a n d were c o m p e t e n t ,  expressive  readers  t o form  a warm  rapport  with  c h i l d r e n as  by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r . treatment  took  week f o r a d u r a t i o n participated  place  during  of three  i n "catch-up  two 40 m i n u t e p e r i o d s a  months. time"  The c o n t r o l  with  their  group  regular  80.  classroom Two firstly  teacher.  No f o r m a l  one-tailed  £. t e s t s  to t e s t  achievement secondly pretest the  scores the  t h e means  difference  I t i s probable  students  that  The  one s i g n i f i c a n t  Of  seven  assistance  as p a r t  were  the control  from  of their  and one f r o m  course,  possible  group,  that  Further  what i s , i n f a c t , lower  reading  stories i n English  (p <  achieving  stories)  and the within  with  E.S.L.  achieving  the  receiving  duration  individual  program,  the Chinese group.  literature  t h e lower  students  story  to children on  L2  t o determine  gains  (English  four  I t i s , of  effect  i s required  i n E2  achieving  control  during  story  L2  research  students  t o the lower  difference i s  has a d e t r i m e n t a l  associated  compared  The  than  two f r o m  the English  l o w L2 p r o f i c i e n c y  acquisition.  regular  between  f i n d i n g : the  a number o f low  students  and  greater  i n the c o n t r o l group r e c e i v e d  the study.  group,  which  reading  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  the s i g n i f i c a n t  assistance  in  data,  groups,  each group.  of the group which heard  to the extra  with  to the  of the three  means w i t h i n revealed  place.  applied  for a significant  £_test  took  o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  .05).  of  between  and p o s t t e s t  scores  due  were  for a significant  to test  groups  teaching  among t h e  stories)  in El  as  (Chinese  group.  the groups i t e s t r e v e a l e d  significant  gains  81.  in  a l l three Two  groups  ANOVAS  significant borrowing  were  The  to test  i n Chinese  was n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h difference  b o o k s b o r r o w e d by c l a s s w i l l  i n  for a difference in There  and h e a r i n g  number  (p <  for a  groups  was  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t h r e e  stories  significant  to test  the three  h a b i t s b e t w e e n t h e two c l a s s e s .  i s , hearing  English  firstly  d i f f e r e n c e between  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  that  applied,  h a b i t s , and s e c o n d l y  borrowing to  (p < .05) .  groups,  stories in  o f books  .05) i n mean  be c o n s i d e r e d  found  borrowed. number  of  i n the f o l l o w i n g  discussion. Even  though  make  greater  gains  students  hearing  English  not  stories on  how  this  this  the  study  schools  linguistic in  the students  study — the  made  achievement. over first  a  three  of t h e i r group  read  The i n s t r u c t i o n a l  h a d no  hearing  to the cultural A l l three  stories  no  read  and  groups  i n Chinese,  i n E n g l i s h , and t h e c o n t r o l (p <  time  t o read  detrimental  i n English.  than  i n f o r m a t i o n t o the debate  gains  period  achievement  students.  hearing  stories did  or students  respond  s i g n i f i c a n t  language  achievement  stories  important  stories  month  Chinese  i n L2 r e a d i n g  should  diversity  group h e a r i n g  group  adds  hearing  .05)  in  reading  o f 80 m i n u t e s to students effects  As e m p h a s i z e d  a week  i n their  on  reading  by R o s i e r  and Holm  82.  (1980)  and  direct  or  amount  Cognitive a  affects  the c h i l d ' s  instruction focused  study gives  concerned  that  specifically acquisition. had  Chinese heard  use  English  learn  of  The  growing  awareness  diverse  richness  to  our that  cultural the  the  use  students  debate  answer  first  books,  English but  of being exposed, In  cognitively  of i s  LI not  i s focused  t o t h o s e who  language  on  impede  materials  second  used  on  language  in this  second  study  language heard  equally as well a s t h o s e these  in a  s t u d e n t s had  school  multicultural  setting, society  i t i s the e x p r e s s i o n backgrounds  Canadian  are  materials,  n o t o n l y d i d t h e s t u d e n t s who  stories,  culture.  totality  assist students i n l e a r n i n g  not.  language  Further,  stories  advantage  of  E.S.L.  absolutely no d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s  acquisition.  own  with  language  First  language.  The  L2  concerning  a very clear  the  first  account.  and  impede 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 o r  L l materials  This  to that  both L I a n d  LI m a t e r i a l s or  a second language  a  t o e x p r e s s i n L2.  debate  language  i s not n e c e s s a r i l y  exposure  taken i n t o  materials  on w h e t h e r  whether  in-school  ability  the  and  second  not.  of  experience in  Moreover,  there  between a c q u i r i n g  f a c t o r s must be  child's  their  (1979-1980),  relationship  length  of  Cummins  mosaic.  that  and  brings  Indeed,  as  who  the  added  to  their  there  is a  acceptance strength the  and  person  83 .  responsible for  f o r p u r c h a s i n g the  the Vancouver  School Board  language  books  English,  these m a t e r i a l s  society." meeting  The  fact  cultural  achievement more  d i d not  piece  of  have a p o s i t i v e meet  needs The  evidence  of  for  One that  books.  a  the  E.S.L.  strongly  =.02).  It a  no  need  in  our  assist  one  i t possible  mother  in  reading  study are  argument f o r the  their  first  learning  impede  for  provision  tongue  This  habits  t o d e t e r m i n e any  borrowing  first  i s  negative attitude  strongly  of L l noting  has  were  suggests a  factors  language  between t h e t h r e e groups i n  However, i n t h e c l a s s where  classroom^, there  i s worth  strongly  with  difference  Ll literature  borrowing  i f  on  books  in this  makes  s t u d y was  associated  habits.  had  toward  of t h i s  T h e r e was  borrowing  (p  be  i n  Collection  (p. 3 4 7 ) .  purpose  might  not  findings  "The  children  cultural  do  which  (1980) t o s t a t e ,  overwhelming."  a  effect  language  and  Wertheimer books  Language  e x p r e s s e d , '"Even  is first  in English.  First  toward fewer the  profound  the  teacher  C h i n e s e books books  in  borrowed  teacher's attitude  effect  upon  student  literature. t h a t w h i l e most t e a c h e r s do  negative attitude  toward  L l literature,  not  have  many a r e  The t e a c h e r d i d n o t want t o h a v e C h i n e s e books i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s t a t i n g t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r , "You know how I f e e l about C h i n e s e b o o k s " , and o n l y d i d so on t h e i n s i s t e n c e o f the school p r i n c i p a l .  84.  concerned  that  impede L2  sessions  the  to  become aware  b i l i n g u a l education  materials  such as  students  use  language (but  second  First  does not  2)  Collections  at  to a s s i s t teachers  1)  be  Language  may  or  will  acquisition.  In-service needed  First  of  materials not  the  the  necessarily  first  Language  and  E.S.L.  English and  f i r s t  Collections  associated  a c q u i s i t i o n  are  language  with  instruction  First  are)  of  of  level  that  use  learning  as  district  Collections  language  such  language  or  Language  impede first  school  with  can  gains  general  in  academic  achievement. 3)  use  reading 4)  First  attitudes  language 5) low  held  affect  by  to  improve  students  teachers  student  tends  toward  borrowing  First  habits  Language of  first  books reading English  adequately detrimental 6)  Language C o l l e c t i o n s  among E . S . L .  attitudes  Collections  have  of  in  e f f e c t s on is  English  proficiency,  comprehend  there  instruction  stories  the  little  received  what  in  and is  to  E.S.L. s t u d e n t s  consequently being  a c q u i s i t i o n of  read,  and  can may  not have  English.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the L2  who  achievement  in  amount L2,  of  which  85.  strongly  suggests  interdependent of  a  L l and  ( t h a t i s , academic  "common  reading  that  underlying  skills  may  be  L2  academic  skills  are  proficiency"),  promoted  by  are  manifestations  and  using  skills  therefore  either  L2  L2  or L l  i n the  first  literature. 7)  transference  language  of p r o f i c i e n c y gained  t o a second language w i l l  adequate  occur  provided  there  is  e x p o s u r e t o t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e and m o t i v a t i o n  to  learn i t . The  efficacy  of  bilingual  language  children  bilingual  education  not  the p r i n c i p l e  exist,  (1983a)  First  skills  to  from  language  and  will  Moreover, students,  special  one  skills  Cummins  there  is transference  of  language  to another—may  be  programs  with  assist  certainly  expose  i n reading leaders  where  c h i l d r e n do  "interdependence" which  and l i n g u i s t i c  will  minority  Even  p e r se f o r E.S.L.  C o l l e c t i o n s may  language which  heritage.  of  for  established.  E.S.L.  of conceptual  acquisition  their  programs  existing  Language  development first  been  i d e n t i f i e d - - t h a t  linguistic applied  has  education  the  little  the  student's  proficiency in his  not  child  impede  English  to h i s  cultural  Ll literature  to  minority  i n e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s may  i n the c l a s s  cost.  setting.  share  86. APPENDIX I CHINESE LITERATURE —  ENGLISH LITERATURE  (Rating) Title Author Book Number PART A  1.  A f t e r r e a d i n g t h e b o o k , p l e a s e p l a c e an x on t h e a p p r o p r i a t e blank t o i n d i c a t e your response t o the following questions:  T h i s book w i l l p r o b a b l y be i n t e r e s t i n g t o c h i l d r e n o f a g e s 9 t o 12:  yes 2.  T h i s book which w i l l 12.  maybe  no  c o n t a i n s e v e n t s , c o n c e p t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s be u n d e r s t a n d a b l e to c h i l d r e n of ages 9 t o  yes  maybe  T h i s book h a s a m a i n c h a r a c t e r with a g e s 9 t o 12 c a n e a s i l y i d e n t i f y . yes 4.  and p l e a s u r a b l e  maybe  no whom c h i l d r e n o f  no  The s t o r y i s w r i t t e n i n a language which flows naturally. S e n t e n c e l e n g t h and c o m p l e x i t y i s r e l a t e d t o t h e theme a n d c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s t o r y , b u t n o t of such l e n g t h and c o m p l e x i t y t h a t a young c h i l d o f a g e s 9 t o 12 c a n n o t f o l l o w t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e t h o u g h t from t h e b e g i n n i n g t o t h e end o f t h e s e n t e n c e .  yes  maybe  no  87 .  APPENDIX I  PART B  ** O r a l  (Continued)  GENERAL D I F F I C U L T Y L E V E L * * P l e a s e the f o l l o w i n g : F o r most c h i l d r e n t h i s book w o u l d p r o b a b l y be 1.  easy  2.  easy  3.  average  4.  average  5.  difficult  comprehension  t o average  to  difficult  c h e c k one o f a g e s 9 t o 12  88 .  Appendix  II  Data  El (Chinese)  E2 (English)  (Control)  Subject  Teacher  Pretest  Posttest  Difference  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  B B B B B A A A A B B A B  81 77 75 75 74 73 70 68 62 58 51 46 38  78 79 78 76 78 70 75 68 67 76 65 64 65  -3 2 3 1 4 -3 5 0 5 18* 14* 18 27  14 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  A B A A A A A B A A B B A  79 79 71 70 69 67 61 61 51 44 43 35 34  82 82 76 75 69 68 71 68 64 58 62 46 19  3 3 5 5 0 1 10 7 13 14* 19 11 -15  27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  B B B A A B A B B A B B A  83 77 72 68 68 59 58 53 50 50 40 29 1  83 78 80 72 77 75 63 71 73 64 74 53 moved  * S t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d i n d i v i d u a l E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g the d u r a t i o n of the s t u d y .  0 1 8 4 9 16* 5 18* 23* 14 34* 24  -  89.  REFERENCES  Cummins, J .  (1983a) .  literature Cummins, J .  Heritage  review.  The M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n ,  (1983b).  educational  Mother  I n J . Cummins  Issues  (Ed.).  1  Heritage  Canada.  Bilingualism and minority-language  (1981a).  children.  Ontario.  and d i r e c t i o n s ( p p . 4 0 - 4 3 ) .  S u p p l y and S e r v i c e s  Cummins, J .  A.  tongue development as  enrichment.  Language education: Ministry  language education;  The O n t a r i o  Institute  f o r Studies i n  Education. Cummins, J .  (1981b).  underpinnings  Education, Cummins, J .  Empirical  of b i l i n g u a l  i _ ( l ) ,  (1980).  and  theoretical  education.  Journal of  16-29. B i l i n g u a l i s m a n d t h e ESL  student.  TESL T a l k . 11(1), 8-13. Cummins, J . in  (1979-1980).  the education  Interchange, Cummins, J .  of minority  issue  language c h i l d r e n .  1_(4), 7 2 - 8 8 .  (1979).  educational  The l a n g u a g e and c u l t u r e  Linguistic  development  i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e and t h e  of b i l i n g u a l  of Educational Research,  children.  19.(2), 222-251.  Review  90.  Cummins, J .  (1978-1979).  development groups  i n anglophone  i n Canada.  Cummins, J .  R.  in Ukrainian-English  Daley,  S.  (1983, May  studies:  VII  M.  New  bilingual  children.  t o language  CJJiLld.  on  English  Times.  Evaluation  o f t h e i m p a c t o f ESEA Education  Program.  Title ERIC  ED 154 63 4.  H., B u r t ,  National  M.,  & Bloomsbury, look  Clearinghouse  B., & M a n g u b h a i ,  reading  Orientation  Panel asks s t r e s s  Spanish/English Bilingual  W.  Modern  395-416. (1978).  6).  education: A close  Elley,  o f mother  1239-1242.  York  (1978).  Document Dulay,  implications  E d u c a t o r s u r g e end o f U.S. a i d f o r b i l i n g u a l  programs. Danoff,  19_,  francophone  i n minority-language groups.  24.(3),  Cummins, J . & M u l c a h y ,  Development,  and m i n o r i t y  Educational  tongue maintenance Review.  and e d u c a t i o n a l  I n t e r c h a n g e , 9_(4), 40-51.  (1978).  Language  Bilingualism  W.  (1979).  at i t s effects. for Bilingual F.  (1983).  Bilingual  Focus.  No. 1.  Education. The i m p a c t o f  on s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g .  Reading Research  Q u a r t e r l y . 19_(1), 53-67. Gale,  K., M c C l a y , D., C h r i s t i e ,  Academic education  achievement program.  M. & H a r r i s ,  i n the Milingimbi  S.  (1981).  bilingual  TSSQL Q u a r t e r l y , 15.(3), 297-309.  Greenwood, J .  (1983).  libraries. Grosjean,  F.  (1982).  University L a m b e r t , W.  McLaughlin,  47.  McLaughlin,  Culture  education.  of immigrant  two  languages:  Cambridge:  and  language  Harvard  as f a c t o r s  In A. W o l f g a n g students  in  (Ed.),  (pp. 5 5 - 8 3 ) .  A s o c i a l psychology  of Social  Issues. 21(2),  (1978-1979). schools. B.  Toronto:  Language  (1978).  childhood.  bilingualism.  91-109.  M u l t i c u l t u r a l programs i n  Children's  second  in education:  ERIC Document ED B.  of  I n t e r c h a n g e . 9_(1) , 29-44.  (1982).  learning. No.  in school  Press.  (1967).  Maseman, V. Toronto  materials  Institute f o r Studies i n Education.  W.  Journal  with  to b i l i n g u a l i s m .  and  Education  Lambert,  Life  (1975).  learning  language  Emergency L i b r a r i a n . _ ( 4 ) , 15-19.  introduction  Ontario  First  217  Second  H i l l s d a l e , N.  Theory  and  Practice,  701.  language  J.:  language  acquisition in  Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates. Melendez,  W.  (1982).  instruction English  on  101-112. Education.  e f f e c t of the language  the r e a d i n g achievement  speakers  Dissertations  The  i n secondary  schools.  of  limited  In O u t s t a n d i n g  i n B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . 1981.  National  Clearing  of  pp.  House f o r B i l i n g u a l  Ovando, Its Rosier,  C.  (1983, A p r i l ) .  legacy P.,  and i t s f u t u r e .  & Farella,  education  Bilingual/bicultural  a t Rock  M.  Phi Delta  Kappan. pp.  (1976, D e c e m b e r ) .  Point  —  education 564-  Bilingual  Some e a r l y r e s u l t s .  TESOL  Q u a r t e r l y , PP. 379-388. Rosier,  P.,  & Holm,  W.  (1980).  A l o n g i t u d i n a l study Document Schon,  ED  195  The Rock P o i n t  of a Navajo  school  experience  program.  ERIC  363.  I . and o t h e r s .  (1981a).  Spanish  and f r e e r e a d i n g  reading  abilities  The e f f e c t s  of books i n  time on H i s p a n i c  and a t t i t u d e s .  students'  ERIC Document  ED  204  0 96. Schon,  I . and o t h e r s .  reading  (1981b).  time i n Spanish  attitudes  of Hispanic  ERIC document Skutnabb-Kangas, cultural  ED 205 T.  (1979).  Bilingual  Education.  effectiveness ED 159  900.  special  abilities  school  and  students.  Language i n t h e p r o c e s s  a s s i m i l a t i o n and s t r u c t u r a l  (1978).  of  342.  minorities.  R.  on t h e r e a d i n g  j u n i o r high  linguistic  Troike,  The e f f e c t s  National  Research  of b i l i n g u a l  incorporation of  Clearinghouse  evidence  of  of  f o r the  education.  ERIC  Document  93 .  Vancouver  School Board  (1982).  Evaluation  E n g l i s h as a Second  and R e s e a r c h Language:  Services.  1982  Survey  Summary. W e r t h e i m e r , R., and  multiethnic  United 21, Zappert,  & F o y , K.  Kingdom,  (1980).  heritage:  Australia,  and t h e U n i t e d  of  immigrants  Canada, the  States.  Library  Trends.  339-348. I . T.,  & Cruz,  E.  (1977).  An a p p r a i s a l o f e m p i r i c a l 758.  Children  Bilingual  research.  education:  ERIC Document  153  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 9 43
United States 9 0
France 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 8 0
Beijing 7 0
Shenzhen 2 43
Unknown 1 0
Redwood City 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.831.1-0078255/manifest

Comment

Related Items