marciagodinez.tripod.commarciagodinez.tripod.com/JUT2Task2FIN.doc · Web viewDoes the instructor provide clear and understandable instructions for the task at hand? 2. Are the rules

Collabortive Pair Grouping 1

Collaborative Pair Grouping

&

First Language Deficient VESL Students

Jay P. Marlowe

JUT 2

Task 2

A Written Project Presented to the Faculty of the Teachers College

of Western Governors University

October 4, 2013


Introduction

This task will address the following scenario: The Director of Vocational English as a

Second Language (VESL) at the Center for Employment Training (CET) has stated that

all students enrolled in a certified vocational training program at CET must either have a

high school diploma or its equivalent or be enrolled in CET’s General Education

Development (GED) program. Many of CET’s vocational students are also concurrently

enrolled in CET’s VESL program.

Upon completion of GED instruction, a student may take the GED exam, which covers

five subject matter areas. Upon passing this exam, the student will receive certification

of proficiency for grades K to 12 (US/Canadian high school level academic skills). The

exam is offered in both English and Spanish.

Problem Statement

Although the GED is offered in Spanish, much of the instruction, on the other hand, is

presented in English. Moreover, the academic form for Spanish and English is followed

during both the instruction and the testing for the GED. This becomes problematic for

some of the VESL students because many of them are deficient in their L1 (Blakeway,

2011). This is apparent because most of these students with L1 deficiencies in Spanish

come from rural areas in Mexico and Central America where formal education is both

limited and scarce (Balán, 2002).

Deficiencies in the L1 have a significant impact upon second-language learning (Levine,

2003). Students with L1 deficiencies will be overly challenged because the use and

understanding of both the academic forms of their L1 and second-language (L2) occur


and are required during GED instruction and testing. These specific symptoms of L1

deficiencies include problems in understanding, speaking, writing and comprehension

errors or deficiencies when encountering the academic forms of both the L1 and L2

(Swain, Brooks & Tocalli-Beller, 2002).

Quantitative Research Scenario

Many CET VESL students are experiencing difficulty with the GED preparation material

that is being presented in both their L1 (Spanish) and L2 (English). Much of this is due to

their lack of exposure to a formal educational setting in their home country, which

makes their understanding of the academic form of their L-1 difficult. This deficiency in

their L1 prevents them from successfully completing the scheduled GED Preparation

modules contained within the GED preparation program.

Question: To what extent do VESL students who are deficient in their native Spanish

successfully complete scheduled GED preparation modules when collaboratively paired

with another VESL student who is proficient in Spanish?

Hypothesis: VESL students who are deficient in their native Spanish complete GED

preparation modules more successfully when collaboratively paired with another VESL

student who is proficient in Spanish.


Goals and Importance

The goal of this study is to recognize the effectiveness of pair grouping in a

collaborative setting where its participants’ first language deficiencies prevent success

in a traditional, teacher driven lecture oriented environment.

It is important to recognize methods to enhance the students’ learning experiences in

ways that will allow them to more likely achieve success and attain fulfillment toward

their educational goals. Collaborative grouping has been effectively employed in most K

to 12 classroom settings. Moreover, peer grouping has been found to be an effective

scaffolding tool that warrants further study in an adult education environment where

lecture driven, teacher oriented instruction is the norm.

The Role of the Researcher

In quantitative research studies the role of the researcher should appear as transparent

as possible, allowing anyone to take the data and arrive at identical

conclusions/findings. Moreover, any interaction between the researcher and the

participants should remain administrative in nature, allowing the participants to act

independently as though the researcher were nonexistent. Any bias or subjectivity

should not exist in any quantitative study.

Accordingly, in this study the researcher will only interface with the CET instructors who

are administrating a five module GED block of instruction where data will be collected

from an end-of-module progress test. Each end-of-module test will be scored on a 0 to

100% basis.


The Role of the Participants

In this study, there will be two types of participants: 1.) Active, and 2.) Inactive. The

active participants will include two groups of participants: 1.) VESL students who are

deficient in their native Spanish (L-1) who have been placed in a pair constructed

collaborative learning environment with another student who is proficient in Spanish,

and 2.) VESL students who are deficient in their native Spanish who have been placed in

an independent traditional teacher-driven, lecture oriented learning environment. The

inactive participants will be the CET VESL instructors who provide the instruction and

testing of GED Preparation blocks of instruction.

The CET VESL instructors will identify the VESL GED students who are deficient in their

native Spanish L1 through three separate writing assignments that will assess all VESL

students’ proficiency in Spanish. Each writing assignment will address the following

genre:

1.) Description

2.) Comparison and contrast

3.) Narrative.

A holistic rubric from the CET Language Proficiency Rubrics Series will be used to

identify students who are deficient in their native Spanish (Appendix A).

The VESL students whose rubric assessment was “Does Not Meet Expectations Range”

will be divided into two control groups: 1.) Collaborative Pairing, and 2.) Independent

traditional teacher-driven study.


The VESL students whose rubric assessment was either “Meets Expectations Range” or

“Exceeds Expectations Range” will be paired in a collaborative setting with another

VESL student whose rubric assessment was “Does Not Meet Expectations Range.”

Students whose rubric assessment was “Meets Expectations Range” will participate in

the study only after all students whose rubric assessment was “Exceeds Expectations

Range” have been paired with students whose rubric assessment was “Does Not Meet

Expectations Range.”

During a five-week timeframe, CET VESL instructors will provide instruction in five

weekly scheduled modules of GED preparation. Upon the conclusion of each week’s

module instruction, CET VESL instructors will administer an end-of-module test for the

prescribed GED preparation block of instruction. The end-of-module test follows a

multiple-choice format with correct answers graded on a 0 to 100% basis. Results of

each end-of-module test will be forwarded to the researcher for data compilation.

Data Collection Method

The scores obtained from five end-of-module tests will be the method used for data

collection. Each test will be composed of approximately 20 multiple-choice questions

that have been pre-established in the official GED Preparation Program. All GED

preparation students will have been given a pre-established time to complete each

module’s test, which typically includes 25 to 30 minutes to complete. Again, time

limits/testing protocols have been pre-established within the official GED Preparation

Program.

The correct answers from each end-of-module test will be recorded on a 0 to 100%

basis. This will represent the data to be compiled.


Instruments

Overall test scores from each end-of-module test will be the primary device used as a

measurement instrument. Data will be collected from each end-of-module test to be

compiled and used to represent the L1 deficient students’ overall performance in a five

module GED preparation block of instruction.

CET VESL GED instructors, as third-party informants, will be the group providing the

data from each end-of-module test. Five GED preparation end-of-module tests will be

used as performance instruments. Rating scales of 0 to 100% from each end-of-module

test will be used as a data collection instrument.

End-of-module tests will be used to measure performance, and item formatting for the

performance based end-of-module tests will include closed response, multiple-choice

questions.

Scores will be derived from the multiple choice questions and scored through a single

correct answer for each question. Scores will be reported, compiled and recorded on a 0

to 100% basis.

Norm referenced scoring will be used to compare the performance of L1 deficient

students working in pairs, compared to L1 deficient students working independently.

A major threat to the validity of assessment for my research is a loss of

subject/mortality variable that could occur when students who begin the five module

GED instruction dis-enroll from the program before completing all five blocks of

instruction. Accordingly, scores from these students will be included in each end-of-

module test that they complete. The overall assessment of the five module blocks of


instruction will include these students’ scores. Combined scores from all participants will

be recorded on a 0 to 100% basis. Although the number of participants could vary

between each end-of-module test, a scoring of 0 to 100% will remain in place to weigh

overall performance.

Qualitative Research Scenario




makes their understanding of the academic form of their L-1 difficult. This deficiency

slows and often delays these students progress while successfully completing the

scheduled GED preparation modules contained within the GED preparation program.

While collaborative grouping is popular and can be found in most K-12 classrooms, most

colleges and universities, along with adult education classes, on the other hand, operate

within a teacher driven, lecture oriented environment where collaborative study is

restricted to outside the classroom or lecture Hall.

CET VESL students like their ELL K-12 counterparts enter the American educational

system with very little if any background in English. Furthermore, while most students

commence their higher education at the college or university level, they do so with a

full command of the English language, and consequently are more prepared to achieve

success in a teacher driven, lecture oriented environment.

Many adult VESL students with limited English proficiency are also deficient in their

native L1. Moreover, established research indicates that post-adolescent VESL students

are at a disadvantage compared with pre-adolescent elementary ELL students


(Birdsong, 2006), who for the most part achieve SLA under collaborative learning

environments. Nevertheless, additionally more in-depth research shows that a modified,

more specialized ELL instructional approach will reduce the post-adolescent

disadvantage toward SLA (Levine, 2003). Because collaborative grouping has been

shown as an effective means for achieving SLA at the K-12 level, adult VESL students

who require a more specialized ELL instructional approach could also benefit under this

type of learning environment.

Indeed, the opportunity for VESL students to build confidence in smaller pair grouped

environments would also increase individual talk time, and when students are allowed

to interact with one another, they sense a level of control in their speech that lends

itself to building confidence while at the same time achieving more proficiency in both

their L1 and L2 (Johnson, 1995).

Furthermore, at the community college level where a great amount of ESL programs

exist, curriculum policy dictates that English instruction be designed to not only provide

English instruction but also prepare students for either associate or baccalaureate

study. Hence, in order to encourage future college study for all, as educators, we must

recognize ways that will enhance the students’ means for such study, and it is through

collaborative pair grouping where a more rapid rate of SLA could be actualized.

Research Question One: To what extent do VESL students’ views toward their

involvement in collaborative peer groups represent or impede the learning that is

essential for SLA?

Research Question Two: How do the CET VESL instructors’ views toward collaborative

peer grouping intersect with those of their VESL students?


I believe that there could be a relationship between the VESL students’ views of

collaborative peer grouping coupled with their degree of immersion in these groups that

increase their contact with the linguistic input essential for accommodating a more

fruitful rate for SLA. Moreover, a more effective degree of SLA through collaborative

peer grouping will occur when the students’ views toward their participation mirror

those of their instructors.


The goal of this study is to identify how peer grouping in a collaborative setting can be

best employed when its participants have first language (L1) deficiencies that deter SLA

in a traditional teacher driven, lecture oriented environment.

It is important to recognize the means by which collaborative grouping enhances the

students’ learning experience while at the same time recognizing ways in which the

students can matriculate more quickly into a traditional lecture driven, teacher centered

learning environment.


In qualitative research, the researcher must recognize that the students and the

teachers who participant act independently in classrooms that are continuously

constructed in evolving and often changing environments and settings. Moreover, in

qualitative research such variables include teaching styles that vary from one teacher

to another. Accordingly, aside from the compilation of data where the actions of the

researcher occur apart from the actions studied of the participants, the researcher on


the other hand, will often intercede by interacting with the participants as the research

proceeds.

As a researcher, I will need to interview each teacher participant in order to understand

individual teaching styles and current classroom environments. Accordingly,

observations of the classrooms must occur both before and after the research is

complete. Along with this, the researcher will interface with the CET instructors before,

during, and after they have conducted the five module GED blocks of instruction.

Researcher will observe the classroom at the beginning and toward the end of the five

module block of instruction. During these observations, an observation checklist will be

used to record both the students’ and instructor’s participation.

Observation Checklist

1. Does the instructor provide clear and understandable instructions for the task at

hand?

2. Are the rules and the procedures discussed?

3. Do students provide oral participation while a lesson’s procedures are outlined and

discussed?

4. Does the instructor ensure that all groups are actively involved in the task?

5. Does the instructor explain the usefulness and importance of the lesson?

6. Do the students react as though they understand the instructor and lesson

requirements?

7. Do the students exhibit a high level of enthusiasm for the assigned task?


8. Do the students seek clarification from instructor?

9. Do the students employ prior knowledge?

10. Do the students scaffold in their L1?

11. Do the students employ a variety of skills such as reasoning, hypothesizing,

predicting, and intuitive reasoning?

12. Does the instructor hold each student accountable for individual tasks such as tests

and work submission?

13. Does a collaborative environment prevail in the classroom?

14. At the conclusion of the lesson, do the students and the instructor discuss and

reiterate the goals for the block of study?

15. Do the students and the instructor discuss their progress or need for remediation?

As a non-participant observer, data will be collected from standardized open-ended

questions during the student and instructor interviews. The overall purpose for the

interviews will be to discover the opinions, attitudes, and motivations of the students

and the instructors regarding collaborative pairing and English language learning.



In this study, there will be two types of participants: 1.) CET VESL instructors, and 2.)

VESL GED Preparation students who are deficient in their native Spanish L1.

Researcher will interview CET VESL instructors prior to the instruction of the five

modules of GED preparation in order to recognize not only the instructors’ teaching

style and classroom environment but also their expectations and experiences relating to

the teaching of GED preparation to students who are deficient in their L1. At the

conclusion of the five module instruction, instructors will again be interviewed in order

to identify any new experiences they encountered during the research timeframe. In

addition to any new experiences encountered, instructors will be asked to provide any

recommendations they feel could be incorporated in their and other instructors’

teaching styles and methods.

Students will be interviewed before and after the five module block of instruction

through a questionnaire that solicits open-ended responses to the following questions:

1.) In what ways have you found the learning of English difficult in a traditional teacher

driven, lecture oriented learning environment? 2.) In what ways do you feel that your

English instruction could be better improved? 3.) Have you ever studied in a

collaborative group environment?

Researcher will be provide students with an oral description of both collaborative group

learning and teacher driven, lecture oriented learning environments. In addition,

questions will be encouraged and answers will be provided during the oral description

presentation. Both the researcher and the instructors will discuss the procedures

followed in a collaborative pair group environment, and accordingly, the instructors will

coach the students how a pair group should function.

Upon completion of the five module block of instruction, both the teachers and the

students will be interviewed. Researcher will ask instructors to not only describe any


new observations that occurred during the study but also any recommendations that

they feel could be included, as well as what they intend to incorporate into their


Students will be asked to describe what ways collaborative pairing improved or affected

their learning. In addition, students will be asked to describe how their teachers were

most effective.




genre:

1.) Description


3.) Narrative.















weekly scheduled modules of GED preparation.

Instruments

Semi-structured interviews consisting of the below listed questions will delineate the

research to be studied. These questions will be open-ended in order to allow my

research to digress so as to track an idea or answer in more detail. The litheness of my

approach, when compared to structured interviews, will permit the detection and

expansion of information that is essential to the participants but may not have been

recognized beforehand as relevant to the research.

The student participants will be asked the following questions prior to the onset of the

five module block of instruction:

1.) In what ways have you found the learning of English difficult in a traditional

teacher driven, lecture oriented learning environment?

2.) In what ways do you feel that your English instruction could be better

improved?

3.) Have you ever studied in a collaborative study environment either inside or

outside the classroom? If so,

A.) Describe this environment.

B.) In what ways was this collaborative study beneficial?


C.) In what ways did collaborative study hamper a more rapid rate of

learning?

The student participants will be asked the following questions upon completion of the


1.) In what ways did the collaborative study improve your English skills?

2.) Do you feel that your acquisition of English occur much quicker? Or, did it

take more time than you feel is necessary to move through the instruction?

3.). Do you feel that your first language skills improved alongside your learning of

English?

4.) In what ways did you find your instructor most effective?

5.) In what ways did you find any your instructor’s presentations confusing?

6.) In what ways could your learning have been improved?

The CET VESL instructors will be asked the following questions prior to the five module

block of instruction:

1.) Have you ever employed collaborative group study in any of your classes?

2.) What methods have you found the most effective for teaching English?

During the pre-instruction interview, I will solicit as much information through questions

and observations as possible regarding the physical classroom teaching environment.

Upon completion of the five module block of instruction, instructors will be asked the

following questions:


1.) In what ways did you find collaborative study most beneficial during your

instruction?

2.) Do you feel that students benefit more in a collaborative group environment?

3.) Could you explain how the students learning benefited or was hampered

during collaborative group study?

4.) In what ways could collaborative group study be improved in a VESL

classroom?

The purpose of the aforementioned interview questions will be to explain the

opinions, experiences, attitudes, and motivations of the students and instructors in

regards to collaborative group pairing and how it either improves or hampers English

language learning.

Triangulation

Validity during qualitative research is established when the data results are “true” and

“certain.” True results accurately reflect the problem for study, and certain results are

viewed as accurate when they are supported by evidence. Qualitative research employs

various triangulation methods in order to test and to confirm validity from multiple

perspectives (Patton, 2002).

In this study the researcher will conduct Data Triangulation in order to establish the

validity of the questionnaires.


Triangulation sources: 1. Student interviews, 2. Instructor interviews, and 3.

Research observations.

The feedback from the questionnaires given to the students will be compared with the

feedback from instructors in order to establish areas of agreement as well as areas of

divergence. In addition, observations of the classroom during instruction will also occur

in order to recognize which actions within an observation checklist are employed by

both the students and the instructor. Conflicts could also be addressed through cross-

referencing. For example, students might assert that they learn better when the

instructor interfaces more with them in their L1. Instructors, on the other hand, might

express that their goal is to have the students interact more in the target L2, and one

means they feel for actualizing this is for them to model the L2 as much as possible

while in direct interaction with the students.

Triangulation in a qualitative study increases the researchers’ confidence in their data.

Moreover, triangulation creates innovative ways to understand the phenomenon,

reveals unique findings, challenges or integrates theories, and provides a much clearer

discernment of the problem (Thurmond, 2001).

Although some researchers criticize triangulation methods because its findings might

allege that a single definitive account for the phenomenon of study exists, other

researchers, on the other hand, contend that research confirmed under this method not

only adds depth but also increases the density to an inquiry. As such, triangulation

should be regarded as an effective tool for heightening the integrity and persuasiveness

of a research narrative (Denzin, 1970).

Action Research


Action research is best conducted when one seeks to change a common practice were

problems endure. While various teaching methodologies exist, an action researcher

seeks to test one or more methodologies with one’s specific circumstance. While

acknowledging that solutions to other’s situations have merit, action researchers seek

to test their situation and its content in order to better understand their overall teaching

goal. In doing this, one can better analyze an existing practice in order to identify

specific elements to change (Cohen & Morrison, 2000).

Action Research Scenario




makes their understanding of the academic form of their L-1 difficult. This deficiency

slows and often delays these students progress while successfully completing the

scheduled GED preparation modules contained within the GED preparation program.

While collaborative grouping is popular and can be found in most K-12 classrooms, most

colleges and universities, along with adult education classes, on the other hand, operate

within a teacher driven, lecture oriented environment where collaborative study is

restricted to outside the classroom or lecture Hall.

Action Research Question: To what extent do the VESL students who are deficient in

their L1 improve their SLA when studying in a collaborative peer group environment?



The goal of this study is to recognize the effectiveness of pair grouping in a

collaborative setting where its participants’ first language deficiencies prevent success

in a traditional, teacher driven lecture oriented environment.

It is important to recognize specific methods that enhance the students’ learning

experiences in ways that will allow them to more likely achieve success and attain

fulfillment toward their educational goals. Collaborative grouping has been effectively

employed in most K to 12 classroom settings. Moreover, peer grouping has been found

to be an effective scaffolding tool that warrants further study in an adult education

environment where lecture driven, teacher oriented instruction is the norm.


In action research, the researcher must recognize that the students and the teachers

who participant perform in classrooms that are continuously constructed in evolving and

often changing environments and settings. Moreover, in action research such variables

include teaching styles that vary from one teacher to another. Accordingly, aside from

the compilation of data, the researcher will observe the participants as the research

proceeds.

As a researcher, I will need to interview each teacher participant in order to understand

individual teaching styles and current classroom environments. Accordingly,

observations of the classrooms must occur both before and during the research. Along

with this, the researcher will interface with the CET instructors before, during, and after

they have conducted the five module GED blocks of instruction. During this study the

researcher will also interface with the CET instructors who, after each of the five

modules of GED Preparation will give their students an end-of-module test where its


data will be scored on a 0 to 100% basis. Results from each of these five end-of-module

tests will be compiled in order to weigh not only the students’ learning but also the

instructors’ effectiveness in regards to the observations and interviews that were

garnered.

Researcher will observe the classroom at the beginning, during, and toward the end of

the five module block of instruction. During these observations, an observation checklist

will be used to record both the students’ and instructor’s participation (See Appendix B).


In this study, there will be two types of participants: 1.) CET VESL instructors, and 2.)

VESL GED Preparation students who are deficient in their native Spanish L1.

Researcher will interview CET VESL instructors prior to the instruction of the five

modules of GED preparation in order to recognize not only the instructors’ teaching

style and classroom environment but also their expectations and experiences relating to

the teaching of GED preparation to students who are deficient in their L1. At the

conclusion of the five module instruction, instructors will again be interviewed in order

to identify any new experiences they encountered during the research timeframe. In

addition to any new experiences encountered, instructors will be asked to provide any

recommendations they feel could be incorporated in their and other instructors’


Students will be interviewed before and after the five module block of instruction

through a questionnaire that solicits open-ended responses to the following questions:

1.) In what ways have you found the learning of English difficult in a traditional teacher

driven, lecture oriented learning environment? 2.) In what ways do you feel that your


English instruction could be better improved? 3.) Have you ever studied in a

collaborative group environment?

Researcher will be provide students with an oral description of both collaborative group

learning and teacher driven, lecture oriented learning environments. In addition,

questions will be encouraged and answers will be provided during the oral description

presentation. Both the researcher and the instructors will discuss the procedures

followed in a collaborative pair group environment, and accordingly, the instructors will

coach the students how a pair group should function.

Upon completion of the five module block of instruction, both the teachers and the

students will be interviewed. Researcher will ask instructors to not only describe any

new observations that occurred during the study but also any recommendations that

they feel could be included, as well as what they intend to incorporate into their


Students will be asked to describe what ways collaborative pairing improved or affected

their learning. In addition, students will be asked to describe how their teachers were

most effective.




genre:

1.) Description



3.) Narrative.














weekly scheduled modules of GED preparation. Upon the conclusion of each week’s

module instruction, CET VESL instructors will administer an end-of-module test for the

prescribed GED preparation block of instruction. The end-of-module test follows a

multiple-choice format with correct answers graded on a 0 to 100% basis. Results of

each end-of-module test will be forwarded to the researcher for data compilation.

The scores obtained from five end-of-module tests will be the method used for data

collection. Each test will be composed of approximately 20 multiple-choice questions

that have been pre-established in the official GED Preparation Program. All GED

preparation students will have been given a pre-established time to complete each

module’s test, which typically includes 25 to 30 minutes to complete. Again, time


limits/testing protocols have been pre-established within the official GED Preparation

Program.

The correct answers from each end-of-module test will be recorded on a 0 to 100%

basis. This will represent the data to be compiled.

Data Instruments

The action research instruments employed in this study contain three elements: 1.) End-

of-Module tests, 2.) Student and teacher interviews, and 3.) Researcher observations of

classroom, students, and instructors.

End-of-Module Tests. Overall test scores from each end-of-module test will be one of

the devices used as a measurement instrument. Data will be collected from each end-

of-module test to be compiled and used to represent the L1 deficient students’ overall

performance in a five module GED preparation block of instruction.

CET VESL GED instructors will provide the data from each end-of-module test. Five GED

preparation end-of-module tests will be used as performance instruments. Rating scales

of 0 to 100% from each end-of-module test will be used as a data collection instrument.

End-of-module tests will be used to measure performance, and item formatting for the

performance based end-of-module tests will include closed response, multiple-choice

questions.

Scores will be derived from the multiple choice questions and scored through a single

correct answer for each question. Scores will be reported, compiled and recorded on a 0

to 100% basis.


Norm referenced scoring will be used to compare the performance of L1 deficient

students working in pairs, compared to L1 deficient students working independently.

A major threat to the validity of assessment for my research is a loss of

subject/mortality variable that could occur when students who begin the five module

GED instruction dis-enroll from the program before completing all five blocks of

instruction. Accordingly, scores from these students will be included in each end-of-

module test that they complete. The overall assessment of the five module blocks of

instruction will include these students’ scores. Combined scores from all participants will

be recorded on a 0 to 100% basis. Although the number of participants could vary

between each end-of-module test, a scoring of 0 to 100% will remain in place to weigh

overall performance.

Student and Teacher Interviews. Semi-structured interviews consisting of the below

listed questions will delineate the research to be studied. These questions will be open-

ended in order to allow my research to digress so as to track an idea or answer in more

detail. The litheness of my approach, when compared to structured interviews, will

permit the detection and expansion of information that is essential to the participants

but may not have been recognized beforehand as relevant to the research.

The student participants will be asked the following questions prior to the onset of the


1.) In what ways have you found the learning of English difficult in a traditional

teacher driven, lecture oriented learning environment?

2.) In what ways do you feel that your English instruction could be better

improved?


3.) Have you ever studied in a collaborative study environment either inside or

outside the classroom? If so,

A.) Describe this environment.

B.) In what ways was this collaborative study beneficial?

C.) In what ways did collaborative study hamper a more rapid rate of

learning?

The student participants will be asked the following questions upon completion of the


1.) In what ways did the collaborative study improve your English skills?

2.) Do you feel that your acquisition of English occur much quicker? Or, did it

take more time than you feel is necessary to move through the instruction?

3.). Do you feel that your first language skills improved alongside your learning of

English?

4.) In what ways did you find your instructor most effective?

5.) In what ways did you find any your instructor’s presentations confusing?

6.) In what ways could your learning have been improved?

The CET VESL instructors will be asked the following questions prior to the five module

block of instruction:

1.) Have you ever employed collaborative group study in any of your classes?

2.) What methods have you found the most effective for teaching English?


During the pre-instruction interview, I will solicit as much information through questions

and observations as possible regarding the physical classroom teaching environment.

Upon completion of the five module block of instruction, instructors will be asked the

following questions:

1.) In what ways did you find collaborative study most beneficial during your

instruction?

2.) Do you feel that students benefit more in a collaborative group environment?

3.) Could you explain how the students learning benefited or was hampered

during collaborative group study?

4.) In what ways could collaborative group study be improved in a VESL

classroom?

The purpose of the aforementioned interview questions will be to explain the

opinions, experiences, attitudes, and motivations of the students and instructors in

regards to collaborative group pairing and how it either improves or hampers English

language learning.

Observations. Various, ongoing observations of the classrooms will occur both before

and during the five modules of GED Preparation instruction. During these observations,

an observation checklist will be used to record both the students’ and instructor’s

participation and actions. The following questions will be answered during the

researcher’s observations:

1. Does the instructor provide clear and understandable instructions for the task

at hand?



3. Do students provide oral participation while a lesson’s procedures are outlined

and discussed?




requirements?







12. Does the instructor hold each student accountable for individual tasks such

as tests and work submission?


14. At the conclusion of the lesson, do the students and the instructor discuss

and reiterate the goals for the block of study?

15. Do the students and the instructor discuss their progress or need for

remediation?

How action research will commence:


1.) Look at the situation; i.e., VESL students who are deficient in their L1, which

subsequently impedes their SLA, and develop an appropriate research

question.

2.) Gather applicable data through observations, interviews, and test results.

3.) Define and describe what is found through observations, interviews, and test

results in order to build a picture to describe the situation, e.g., “Force Field

Analysis” (Stringer, 1999).

4.) Explore and analyze how the observations, interviews, and test results

intersect with one another in order to establish both converse and inverse

relationships between the three.

5.) Reflect on the overall findings in order to understand how and why the

problem exist in order to better tailor one’s instruction.

6.) Implement tailored instruction.

7.) Evaluate how tailored instruction addresses and improves the problem.


Recommended Research Design

Action research is very applicable for my research because it permits the most useful

aspects from both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to be applied in order to

better understand how collaborative peer grouping can be employed in a classroom

where students whose L1 deficiency is hampering their SLA. Moreover, a “cyclical

process that alternates between action and critical reflection” occurs during action

research (Slavin, 2006). Hence, this would allow me to tailor my research as it directly

relates to improving SLA for L1 deficient VESL students. Most importantly, however,

because action research is designed to be conducted by the educator, I am able to aim

my research directly toward my particular instructional setting.

By triangulating the data from my interviews, observations, and test results I will be

able to balance “hard data” from the tests with subjective variables identified in the

interviews and observations. Furthermore, by including an analysis of test scores, I will

see which correlating student attitudes and instructor observations produce visible

success in the classroom.

It must be pointed out that my findings would require implementation in order to fine-

tune instruction that further addresses a means for improving instruction for those

students whose first language deficiencies impedes SLA.


Literature Review

Many CET VESL students are facing problems while preparing for GED preparation

modules due to deficiencies in their first language (L1). In addition, their L1 deficiencies

have a significant impact over their Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and this is

reflected while they are participating in the GED Preparation program (Blakeway, 2011).

Although studies suggest that a student’s deficiency in his or her L1 speaking, writing,

and understanding skills have a significant impact over SLA, researchers on the other

hand, differ as to whether or not this hinders or enhances SLA. While some argue that it

does, others state the opposite by asserting that L1 deficiencies challenge a student

more, which ultimately motivates one to produce better results when compared to

those with higher L1 skills (Levine, 2003).

In a research article conducted by Levine (2003), the author asserts that a student’s

deficiency in his or her L1 have a positive impact toward learning a second language.

He further claims that these students feel over challenged, which not only encourages

but also motivates them to apply more effort in order to better understand the teacher

and the academics. This study was based on a questionnaire that included more than

604 language students and 164 language teachers. The research was structured to

show how L1 deficient foreign language students are more anxious due to the

deficiencies in their first language than those students possessing high L1 proficiency

skills. This he feels affects the learning of an L2 positively. His research demonstrated


that L1 deficient students tend to use their L2 more often when they are provided a

good communicative environment because the target language feeds on this anxiety.

This researcher believes that anxiety is an important factor due to three reasons:

1.) Due to this deficiency, the teachers focus more attention toward those

students who are deficient (Indeed, the squeaky wheel does get the most oil).

Moreover, teachers are forced to use different educational methods or policies

from which the students can learn best.

2.) L1 deficient students are more able to use their previous experiences and

perceptions more often when the teachers’ attitudes and behaviors are more

positive.

3.) When all of the aforementioned factors are in place, students will be more

motivated to learn a second language than students who are more proficient in

their L1.

The students contained in this study included many who were deficient in their L1

writing and grammar skills. Eighty percent of the L1 deficient students reported that

they felt more motivated while acquiring the target language than did the more

proficient L1 students. One of the most important questions in the questionnaire asked

the students to rate their approach to learning provided by their teachers. The

questionnaire demonstrated that most of the students appreciated the efforts of their

teachers, and that only 9% were unsatisfied with their learning experience. Those who

were unsatisfied claim that the teacher’s instruction was unclear, which they feel was

the major factor that prevented them from understanding. Nevertheless, all students


agreed that the teachers who had used the students’ native language during most of

the instruction achieved more student approval.

Levine asserts that it is imperative that teachers use different strategies in order to

ensure that their students are following the instruction properly. Although

communication is important to establish, Levine observed that learning is more

effective when there is motivation amongst students.

In a research proposed by Elizabeth Bernhard (2005). The researcher suggests that a

student’s L1 literacy level has a significant effect upon L2 learning. Her research

demonstrates that interaction of processing strategies, background knowledge, and

relationship between non-cognizant cognitive and cognitive L2 and L1’s and background

knowledge are all necessary components during second language acquisition. This

study implies that L1 skills and abilities have great effects regarding L2 reading skills.

However, these deficiencies can be remedied when the teacher attains a L2 capacity

equal to or better than the intended ELL students’ L1.

Rather than suggesting a peer to peer dialogue as a means for scaffolding English

instruction between students in their L1, Bernhardt insists that it is the teacher’s role to

interface directly with students in L1 dialogue. Indeed, one-on-one instruction of any

kind has its merits. However, a teacher must retain a high degree of proficiency in the

students’ L1 in order to surpass or even match what many feel is obtainable in peer to

peer L1 grouping. In addition, Bernhardt fails to recognize the benefits achievable for a


L1 proficient student, who while engaged in peer to peer scaffolding, internalizes a

much deeper understanding of the intended lesson.

In a study performed by Meryl Swain, Lindsay Brooks, and Augustine Tocalli-Beller

(2002), the researchers focused on the impact of collaborative and peer to peer

dialogues in relation to student reading, writing, and listening skills. They observed that

if collaborative peer to peer dialogues are embedded in the reading, writing, and other

learning activities better SLA learning results will be achieved. The researchers further

suggest that collaborative dialogues be introduced whenever first language deficiencies

exist.

In the research performed by Swain et al. (2002) the researchers found that students

who were both deficient and proficient in their L1 learn more effectively when peer to

peer dialogues include problem-solving activities. The researchers observed that when a

teacher is included in this dialogue, students will become more interactive and will tend

to achieve the lesson goals more quickly. In addition, Swain et al. point out that

teachers must understand what sorts of difficulties their students are facing in both the

L1 and L2 in order to make the lesson more understandable. Cognitive dialogues not

only act as a tool for those students who are deficient in their first language but also are

instructive for the researchers and teachers to create better strategies for learning a

second language.

The difference in L1 proficiency levels and how it affects learning for Florida English

language learners has been a subject of debate amongst educators in that state for


decades. Nevertheless, Van Lier (1996) observed that peer to peer interaction between

the students in their L1 provided significant results for those learners. Van Lier asserts

that his research along with others support peer to peer interaction in favor of the

students with a higher L1 proficiency level.

Van Lier is supportive of peer to peer native language dialogue between L1 proficient

and deficient students. His research shows that L1 proficient students are eager to

assist students who are deficient in the same L1, and that it is during this dialogue that

not only the L1 deficient students benefit, but also the L1 proficient student who during

the scaffolding dialogue is able to enforce as well as widen his or her understanding of

the assigned lesson.

Researchers such as Levine reject the theory that a student’s deficiency in his or her L1

retards the second-language learning process. Instead, they go further by claiming that

an adverse relationship exists between L1 proficiency and SLA. This can be certainly

true if one would consider how such distinct errors in transforming the active to the

passive in ones L1 could be transferred to the intended L2. However, it must be pointed

out that these type of errors are pertinent at the upper level of second-language

instruction, and are much more easily corrected than first language interference issues

found at the beginning level of SLA, which occur most often when students are deficient

in their native language.


In a study conducted by Hussein and Mohammed (2010), sixteen English as a foreign

language students whose L1 was Arabic studying at a university in Qatar were judged

on three genres of English:

1.) Comparison and contrast.

2.) Persuasion, and

3.) Narration.

Both researchers observed that all of the students attempted to write each essay in

their native Arabic, which would later be translated into English. For their study, these

researchers required their students to submit all rough drafts along with their finished

essay. It was during this review that they discovered that several distinct grammatical

mistakes originating in the L1 written rough drafts continued on into the final English

written essay. In addition, both researchers found that students who displayed

difficulties expressing themselves in their L1 drafts tended to focus more of their

attention on grammatical structuring in the later L2 phases of their essays. It must be

noted, however, that the researchers identify deficiencies in the L1 when students failed

to address certain writing conventions related to the assigned themes for writing. In my

opinion, I feel that certain cultural differences exist which could have made a first

language version appear illogical for some. For example, if tasked to write a persuasive

paper addressing gender equality, many highly educated, highly proficient Arabic

writers would be in conflict with cultural realities so embedded in their culture that they

would find any Arabic rendering illogical. Moreover, most cultural and historic works

addressing Arabic society would tend to reference the most common norms found in

traditional Arabic society (Cannon, 2009).


Furthermore, while addressing gender relation issues in English, most students would

reference material originating from the West. Moreover, specific issues such as a

woman’s right to drive a car originate from a Western society that first produced the

automobile, and this would be seen in Arabic society as a secondary influence

originating out of the West. (Cannon, 2009) After all, one rarely hears of a woman being

prevented from riding a horse or a camel in any part of the Middle East.

Indeed, in regards to Hussein’s and Mohammad’s research, it could be further argued

that a student’s lack of literary background in their L1 make it more possible for these

students to address writing conventions from the West because no literary conflicts

between the two cultures, as displayed through language cross analysis, would have to

be addressed when students are engulfed in a L2 grammatical or literary rich

environment. This I believe explains Hussein’s and Mohammad’s assertion that

students who are less proficient in their L1 are able to omit first language errors and

focus more on their L2 SLA skills.

Although research differs as to whether or not L1 deficiencies hamper SLA, all

researchers agreed that both L1 proficient and L1 deficient students benefit better in a

collaborative peer-based learning environment. It is during this social mediation that not

only occurs between two other students but also with the teacher that widens the

learning experience. It was further noted that teachers should be required to take a

more active role in collaborative dialogue, which is best enhanced when the teacher has

a proficient understanding of the students’ L1.


In addition, the aforementioned research indicates that students who are less proficient

in their L1 are able to learn equally and as effectively as a more proficient student when

a high degree of motivation and collaboration exist. Nevertheless, none of the research

indicated that L1 deficient students could out-perform L1 proficient students in either a

collaborative or traditional teacher based environment. However, research still exists

(Levine, 2003) that shows how deficient L1 students can produce better results on the

basis of having additional motivation and other factors that more proficient L1 students

cannot obtain.

To view Appendix A visit: http://marciagodinez.tripod.com/jayspapers/AppendixA.rtf

Appendix B

Observation Checklist

1. Does the instructor provide clear and understandable instructions for the task at

hand?


3. Do students provide oral participation while a lesson’s procedures are outlined and

discussed?



http://marciagodinez.tripod.com/jayspapers/AppendixA.rtf



requirements?







12. Does the instructor hold each student accountable for individual tasks such as tests

and work submission?


14. At the conclusion of the lesson, do the students and the instructor discuss and

reiterate the goals for the block of study?

15. Do the students and the instructor discuss their progress or need for remediation?


References

Balán, J. (2002). Higher Education in Rural Regions of Mexico. Latin American Studies

Review. Los Angeles, CA. University of California Press.

Blakeway, D. (2011). Personal Interview on 8/12/2011. Center for Economic Center,

Gilroy, CA.

Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and Procrastination in Second Language Reading. Annual

Review Of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/197926824/1407D4C

F1831FA67EC9/1?accountid=35812

Cannon, B. (2009). Nineteenth-Century Arabic Writings on Women and Society:

The Interim Role of the Masonic Press in Cairo — (Al-Lata'if, 1885–1895). International

Journal of Middle East Studies. Retrieved from:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=061FAA55AC8

CB93F6DE7D6086796D4E8.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3007728

Cohen,L ; Morrison, K (2000) Research Methods in Education (5th Edition), London,

Routledge Falmer.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine

Hussein, A. A. & Muhammad, M. F. M. (2010), Negative L1 Impact On L2 Writing,

International Journal Of Humanities And Social Science. Retrieved from:

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_18_Special_Issue/22.pdf

Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and Instructor Beliefs and Attitudes About Target

Language Use, First Language Use, And Anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_18_Special_Issue/22.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=061FAA55AC8CB93F6DE7D6086796D4E8.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3007728

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=061FAA55AC8CB93F6DE7D6086796D4E8.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3007728

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/197926824/1407D4CF1831FA67EC9/1?accountid=35812

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/197926824/1407D4CF1831FA67EC9/1?accountid=35812


The Modern Language Journal. Retrieved from:

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=208060ad-85bc-4ecb-b997-35ce86c193b0%40sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=108

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Slavin, R.E. (2006). Educational Psychology Theory and Practice, 8th Edition, Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action Research, 2nd Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of

second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=135901

Thurmond, V. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3),

254–256. Retrieved from:

http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/gr/resources/docs/the-point-of-triangulation.pdf

Van Lier, L., (1996), Interaction In The Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy,

And Authenticity. Harlow, UK: Longman. Retrieved from:

http://www.amazon.com/Interaction-Language-Curriculum-Authenticity-Linguistics/

dp/0582248795

http://www.amazon.com/Interaction-Language-Curriculum-Authenticity-Linguistics/dp/0582248795

http://www.amazon.com/Interaction-Language-Curriculum-Authenticity-Linguistics/dp/0582248795

http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/gr/resources/docs/the-point-of-triangulation.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=135901

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=208060ad-85bc-4ecb-b997-35ce86c193b0@sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=108

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=208060ad-85bc-4ecb-b997-35ce86c193b0@sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=108


Documents

marciagodinez.tripod.commarciagodinez.tripod.com/JUT2Task2FIN.doc · Web viewDoes the instructor provide clear and understandable instructions for the task at hand? 2. Are the rules