The Effect of English Language Proficiency on Phonological Awareness Skills Among Second Graders
JOURNAL REFERENCE
Title: The Effect of English Language Proficiency on Phonological Awareness Skills Among Second Graders
Author: Mackenzie Thompson, Harding University
Journal: Journal of Graduate Education Research, Volume 3, 2022
Citation: Thompson, M. (2022). The effect of English language proficiency on phonological awareness skills among second graders. Journal of Graduate Education Research, 3, 15-19.
Access Link: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/jger/vol3/iss1/6
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study: To determine the effect of English language proficiency on phonological awareness skills among second graders.
Sample Size: 101 second graders from a Northwest Arkansas school.
Secondary data was analyzed from the Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST).
Findings: Significant differences were found in phonological awareness skills, with native English speakers outperforming English language learners (ELLs).
INTRODUCTION
Reading Difficulty in U.S. Students:
Only 35% of fourth graders were proficient in reading (NAEP, 2019).
Notable decline in reading scores since 2017 (Green & Goldstein).
Policy Changes in Education:
Mississippi showed improved reading scores prompting policy reforms.
Achievement Gap:
Hispanic and Asian ELLs lag behind native English-speaking peers in reading (Carnoy & Garcia, 2017).
Rising number of ELLs in schools (Mitchell, 2018).
READING SKILLS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS (ELLs)
Many ELLs start school with lower reading skills compared to native speakers (Linklater, O’Connor, & Palardy, 2009).
Large percentage of ELLs display at-risk levels in oral reading fluency (Yesil-Dagli, 2011).
Phonological Awareness:
A key predictor of reading success in early grades (Lonigan & Goodrich, 2018; Yesil-Dagli, 2011).
IMPORTANCE OF PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS
Definition: Phonological awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate sounds in words (Bottari, 2020).
Best predictor of reading ability in early education (Lonigan & Goodrich, 2018).
Example: Kindergarten students with high phonological awareness perform well on later reading exams (Pynell, 2012).
Correlation with ELL reading:
Lower skills lead to difficulties in both native and second languages (Bing et al., 2015; Kalia et al., 2018).
Distinction between L1 (native language) and L2 (learned language) phonological skills.
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS IN L1 VS L2
Cross-transfer of skills:
Students can transfer phonological awareness skills from L1 to L2 (Kalia et al., 2018).
Good L1 skills should theoretically imply strong L2 skills (Yeung & Ganotice, 2014).
L1-L2 Distance:
Defined as phonological units available in a native language compared to a second language (Saeigh-Haddad, 2019).
Example: Sounds unique to English may not be present in students’ L1, affecting their reading and spelling ability.
TRAINING IN PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS
Benefits of Training:
Important for ELL reading skill development (Bing et al., 2015; Zoski & Erickson, 2017).
Training has shown improvements in reading benchmarks (Li & Chen, 2016).
Example: Taiwanese children improved after phonological awareness training.
OTHER SKILLS IMPACTING ELL READING ABILITY
Factors affecting reading include:
Vocabulary skills
Oral language ability
Background knowledge (Lonigan & Goodrich, 2018).
Early introduction to English correlates to better reading skills.
Letter naming fluency, vocabulary, and phonological awareness predict oral reading fluency (Yesil-Dagli, 2011).
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Focus: To assess whether English language proficiency affects phonological awareness in second graders.
Definitions:
English language proficiency: Distinguished as ELL or non-ELL students.
Phonological awareness refers to the ability to manipulate sounds in words.
Significance:
Findings can inform school administrators and intervention strategies for ELLs.
HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis: English language proficiency affects phonological awareness in second graders.
METHOD
Participants
Sample Size: 101 second-grade students (56% males, 44% females).
75.4% qualified for free/reduced lunch.
56.4% were ELLs, 43.6% were non-ELLs.
Instrumentation
Primary tool: Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST) by Kilpatrick (2018).
Consists of 10 sections (D to M) with 52 questions.
Scoring: Includes correct answers within 2 seconds (automatic responses) and correct responses after 2 seconds, with a maximum score of 52.
Validity and Reliability: Strong concurrent validity and acceptable test-retest reliability (r = 0.82).
Procedure
Casual, comparative, nonexperimental design.
IRB approval obtained.
Data from one school in Northwest Arkansas analyzed using independent samples t-test.
RESULTS
Independent Samples t-test:
Significant difference found: t(99) = 5.31, p < .0001.
Mean PAST scores:
Native English speakers: m = 41.30, sd = 10.57
ELLs: m = 30.21, sd = 10.26
Conclusion: English language proficiency has a significant impact on phonological awareness skills.
DISCUSSION
Findings
Conclusion: Statistically significant differences were found in phonological awareness skills between native and non-native English speakers.
Limitations
Geographic limitation: Results from just one school in Northwest Arkansas, affecting generalizability.
Potential uncontrolled variables: Gender, socioeconomic status, teaching methods, etc.
IMPLICATIONS
Findings highlight the necessity of phonological awareness training for ELL students to overcome reading challenges.
Current educational practice may not adequately support phonological awareness for ELLs.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Need for additional studies utilizing the PAST for ELL intervention assessments.
Exploration of phonological awareness differences among various ELL groups based on language backgrounds to tailor interventions effectively.
REFERENCES
Comprehensive references documenting studies and claims made throughout the article in APA formatting.