1. Bridging the Gap for SIFE Dr. Elaine C. Klein and Dr. Gita Martohardjono Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society (RISLUS), CUNY Graduate Center Email: slal@gc.cuny.edu March 11, 2008

2. 2 Who are SIFE?  Subgroup of English Language Learners (ELLs)  Recent arrivals to the US  Low literacy  Gaps in prior schooling (2 yrs +)

3. 3 Some Facts about ‘SIFE’  Schools struggling to identify SIFE  Schools struggling to meet SIFE needs  SIFE graduation rates far lower than those of other ELLs

4. 4 Some Facts about ‘SIFE’ in NYC Schools *  Approximately 15,000 “new” and existing SIFE comprise 11% of ELL population  Highest % of new SIFE enter 8 th, 9 th and 10 th grades: Approximately 4700 in 2006-7.  SIFE evenly distributed in 4 boroughs  59% of SIFE: Spanish native language *Bilingual Education Student Information Survey (BESIS) 2006-2007: NYC DOE Office of English Language Learners. 2007.

5. SIFE-Related Research

6. 6 Short, Boyson, & Coltrane (2003) Examined selected “newcomer” programs nation-wide to “identify, document, analyze … effective program approaches to literacy development and assessment.”

7. 7 Short et al. Conclusions Many programs find that [the assessment instruments they use for SIFE] are inadequate…, particularly for those with no literacy skills in English.”  “Many programs find that [the assessment instruments they use for SIFE] are inadequate…, particularly for those with no literacy skills in English.” …A relatively new and unresearched program option, … we have much more to learn about the most effective ways to deliver instruction…” [to SIFE].  “…A relatively new and unresearched program option, … we have much more to learn about the most effective ways to deliver instruction…” [to SIFE].

8. 8 “adequate assessments are essential for gauging individual strengths and weaknesses…” August & Shanahan (2006) “[Develop] new and improved assessments of the adolescent ELLs’ native language abilities, English language development and content knowledge learning.” Short & Fitzsimmons (2007) Additional Studies

9. 9 Previous Research: SUMMARY  Inadequate Assessment  Inadequate Placement  Inadequate Instruction

10. The SIFE Research Project Phase I: 2005-2006 Phase II: 2006-2008

11. 11 Overall Goals  Characterize SIFE backgrounds  Assess SIFE academic competencies  Observe SIFE instructional settings  Track SIFE academic progress  Determine SIFE needs for HS graduation  Develop “pathway programs” to college  Make instructional recommendations

12. 12 Our Research Questions  How do we identify SIFE?  What are the characteristics of this population?  How do SIFE differ from other ELLs?  What academic competencies do SIFE bring to school in the US?  What are their native language (NL) literacy skills?  What is their academic knowledge?  What are the academic needs of SIFE?

13. The SIFE Project: Phase I Review

14. 14 Overview of Method Participants:  12 new SIFE in 9th grade  2 high schools  Native language: SpanishMaterials:  Batería III Woodcock Muñoz : Individual Assessment of Literacy and Content Knowledge  Questionnaire  Classroom ObservationsMethods:  Individual case studies  Group data

15. 15 Phase I: Summary of Results  Average Reading comprehension: 3 rd grade  Average Math: 3rd – 4th grade  Average Science and Social Science: 1st – 2nd grade  Some students have no gaps in schooling  Students respond better in sheltered classes

16. 16 Phase I: Conclusions SIFE differ from other ELLs  In addition to mastery of English, SIFE need foundational skills in their native language to take them to grade level:  Reading skills  Content area knowledge

17. 17 Phase I: Recommendations  Use SIFE diagnostics system-wide  Include “gaps in NL foundational skills”  Increase native language support  Provide intensive ESL from beginning  Use sheltered classes

18. The SIFE Project: Phase II In Progress

19. 19 Current Research Plan 18 month Longitudinal Study Participants:  103 students identified as SIFE  9 th and 10 th grade  Native language: SpanishSchools:  5 NYC high schools  Varying types of programs and instruction

20. 20 Data Collection  Quantitative:  Intake and exit questionnaire (Spanish)  Versant (Oral Spanish and English)  Basic Syntax Comprehension (Spanish and English typical language development)  Diagnostics (Spanish and English reading and content)  Benchmark comparisons (State and city-mandated tests)  Qualitative:  Classroom observations  Teacher and student interviews  Student work samples

21. 21 Oral Questionnaire Intake  Personal and Language Information  Family and Home Background  Education History  Language and Literacy Practices  Transition to School in US Exit  Experience in School

22. 22 Questionnaire Results: Gaps in Schooling

23. 23 Questionnaire Results: Goals and Aspirations

24. 24 Other Questionnaire Results  Most are from the Dominican Republic, Mexico or Honduras.  Most live in the U.S. with only one parent and have family members in their country of origin.  Most report high school as highest level of education among family members in U.S.

25. Language, Literacy and Content

26. 26 Oral Language: Versant  Measures  Vocabulary  Sentence Mastery  Fluency  Examples: repetition of sentences, story recall, answering questions

27. 27 Versant Results by Component Overall Mean % Correct = 79, SD = 16

28. 28 Basic Syntax Comprehension  Sentence: The bear tells the monkey to dance, and he does.  Oración: El oso le ordena al mono bailar, y así lo hace. Mean % Correct = 89, SD = 12

29. 29 Literacy and Content Diagnostic Cumulative assessment from 1 st to 7 th grade  Basic literacy  Word level reading  Literacy  Language, vocabulary and reading comprehension  Math  Procedures and problem solving  Science and Social Science NOTE: Items carefully selected for appropriateness

30. 30 Basic Literacy Results First Grade  Phonological & Orthographic Awareness  Word Reading  Simple Sentence Comprehension Mean % Correct = 96, SD = 4.5

31. 31 Language Components  Language Mechanics  Capitalization  Usage  Punctuation  Language Expression  Sentence Structure  Prewriting  Content and Organization

32. 32 Language Example Grade level 4: Language mechanics - usage

33. 33 Results: Language

34. 34 Reading Vocabulary  Synonyms - recognize a synonym for a printed word  Multiple-meaning words - determine the meaning of words with multiple meanings in a given context  Context Clues - use context clues to assign meaning to an unknown word

35. 35 Reading Vocabulary Example Grade 4: Context Clues

36. 36 Results: Reading Vocabulary

37. 37 Reading Comprehension  Basic Understanding:  Recall factual information  Identify relevance  Thinking Skills (Inferencing):  Analysis and synthesis  Classification and sequencing  Comparison and contrast  Cause and effect, fact and opinion, implied relevance  Conclusions, predictions, and hypotheses

38. 38 Reading Comprehension: Excerpt from 5th Grade Passage

39. 39 Reading Comprehension Example Grade Level 5: Thinking Skills

40. 40 Results: Reading Comprehension

41. 41 Reading Vocabulary – Reading Comprehension Relationship  significant positive correlation between reading vocabulary and reading comprehension r =.578, p <.001

42. 42 Results: Content Areas

43. 43 Results: Math

44. 44 Results: Science

45. 45 Results: Social Science

46. 46 Summary of Diagnostics LITERACY  Students seem to have word level reading skills BUT are not at grade level in higher level reading skills:  Typical reading vocabulary level: 5 th – 7 th grade  Typical reading comprehension level: 3 rd grade

47. 47 Summary of Diagnostics CONTENT  Students Lack Academic Content Knowledge  Typical math level: 3 rd grade and below  Typical science level: below lowest grade tested  Typical social science: below lowest grade tested

48. 48 Correlation between length of gap and total score

49. 49 Range of Performance for Students with No Gap in Schooling

50. 50 Comparison Groups  Native English Speaker Groups:  9th and 10th Graders  Community College West Indian English and AAVE speakers  Regular ELLs Group:  9th-12th Graders  Spanish-English Bilingual Group:  “Pathway Program” in a Community College

51. 51 Literacy in Native Language

52. 52 Conclusions Academic abilities of students identified as SIFE in NYC range from 2 nd to 5 th grade (at least 4 grades below grade level in native language reading and content knowledge)

53. 53 How to Bridge the Gap? Use unified and systematic SIFE diagnostics across NYC schools –Academic Literacy and Language Diagnostic (ALLD) Use assessment information to inform instructional programs

54. 54 How to Bridge the Gap? Using ALLD scores comparatively: Average SIFE Performance Across All Schools VocabularyReading ComprehensionMath Grade 5Grade 3 Average SIFE Performance in Your School VocabularyReading ComprehensionMath Grade 7Grade 5Grade 3 Performance of SIFE Student X VocabularyReading ComprehensionMath Grade 7Grade 6Grade 4

55. 55 How to Bridge the Gap? Use assessment information to build student competency profile Reading Comprehension (Grade 6) –Basic UnderstandingHIGH –StrategiesHIGH –InterpretationMED –Critical AnalysisLOW

56. 56 How to Bridge the Gap? PROGRAMMATIC SOLUTIONS  Increase native language support  Intensive ESL instruction from beginning  Transitional Program  Two extra years  Rigorous curriculum with technological support  Focus on foundational skills  Intensive academic literacy instruction  Content knowledge taught in native language

57. THANK YOU!

58. 58 Acknowledgements  Participating schools and SIFE liaisons  Participating community colleges  All participants and teachers  RISLUS Research Team

59. 59 Current Plans  Compare SIFE progress under different instructional conditions  Identify best practices  Make recommendations for programming and instruction  Transadaptation of SIFE diagnostics into Haitian-Creole, French, Chinese, Urdu, Bengali and Russian

60. The SIFE Research Team Project Coordinators: Michele de Goeas-Malone & Leigh Garrison- Fletcher Research Assistants: Carolina Barrera-Tobón, Xuân-Nga Cao-Kam, Rebecca Curinga, Teresa Fredericks, Katie Hawkland, Ingrid Heidrick, Rocio Raña Risso, Cynthia Ribadeneira, Edmund O’Neill, Olga Ward

61. 61 Math Example Grade Level 5

62. 62 Science Example Grade Level 4