BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Poster #113 - Classroom-based Discussion in Middle School and Bilingual Students’ Literacy Development

Thu, March 21, 9:30 to 10:45am, Baltimore Convention Center, Floor: Level 1, Exhibit Hall B

Integrative Statement

Introduction. Given the growing population of Dual Language Learners (DLL; who speaks a language in addition to English at home) in the U.S. and evidence of a persistent reading achievement gap between these learners and their English-only (EO) peers (NCES, 2015), there is urgency to increase our understanding of the factors that promote DLLs’ reading development. Classroom discussion is an important instructional strategy for promoting reading skills, including text comprehension, during middle and high school (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991; Nystrand, 2006). Participation in classroom discussion serves to build comprehension skills by giving students the opportunity to practice using the language that appears in academic text (Mercer, 1995). Yet, despite larger effects of discussion on reading comprehension for below-average ability students (Murphy et al., 2009), little is known about the discussion practices that promote reading comprehension, specifically in middle school DLLs. Thus, we examine the relation between classroom-based discussion practices and middle school DLLs’ reading comprehension outcomes. Specifically, we ask: How does discussion practices in middle school classrooms influence DLLs’ gains on reading comprehension?
Hypotheses. Lager (1995) stressed that generating classroom discussion promotes students’ reading comprehension more than testing does. In fact, frequent opportunities for discussion promotes students’ reading comprehension, especially when difficult passages are the focus of discourse (Van Den Branden, 2000). Thus, we hypothesize students’ comprehension will be positively impacted by discussion practices that require students to reframe ideas and elaborate on their thinking, for example, the use of authentic questions (i.e. questions that do not have a pre-specified answer), in contrast to test questions (i.e. questions that require a pre-specified answer).
Method. 179 sixth-grade DLLs (mean age = 11.7) and their 15 English Language Arts (ELA) teachers (mean age = 37.42) participated in this study. Students’ fall and spring reading comprehension skills were measured using the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation for the Sixth Grade (Pearson GRADE; Williams, 2001), which includes 30 multiple-choice questions. The DLL students self-reported speaking English and Spanish (n=151) or Spanish-only (n=20) at home. One 50-minute ELA class was audio-recorded, using state-of-the-art recording technology (Language ENvironment Analysis), and transcribed using the Child Language Data Exchange System (MacWhinney, 2010) conventions. Teachers’ transcripts were coded following Nystrand’s (2001) established discussion practices guide, with a focus on teachers’ use of Authentic Questions and Test Questions (see definition above). The number of question types were divided by the number of minutes of discussion to yield a per minute score (i.e. rate of questions asked). Using the rate of questions asked, classrooms were clustered into low and high groups for analysis.
Results. Table 1 shows that teachers used more Test than Authentic Questions (p = 0.06). Multiple regression analyses (Table 2), clustered by classroom, revealed a positive relation between bilinguals’ spring GRADE reading comprehension scores and teachers’ use of Authentic Questions (rate per minute), but not Test Questions. Study findings suggest that teachers’ use of authentic questions may result in improved reading comprehension for bilingual students.

Authors