population in the U S schools, deserves greater attention with increased L2 proficiency students may feel less need in using LLS and suggested that age and
| Previous PDF | Next PDF |
[PDF] Determining Language Proficiency
Determining language proficiency for job applications or resumes, in the United States, common language terms and possible definitions was compiled from
[PDF] predictors of English proficiency and academic achievement - CORE
population in the U S schools, deserves greater attention with increased L2 proficiency students may feel less need in using LLS and suggested that age and
[PDF] Masterclass Proficiency
f Did you want to come round and see us tonight? g I was hoping we could get this sorted out this week Word knowledge: would 14 Read this extract from the text
[PDF] Foreign Language Proficiency in the Classroom and
This fact alone should give us a considerable sense of accom- plishment This was an ILR group, whicl developed a proficiency scale capable of reflecting top
[PDF] C2 Proficiency - Cambridge English
For us, learning English is more than just exams and grades It's about having the C2 Proficiency was originally offered in 1913 and is a high-level qualification
[PDF] Federal Policy and the Evaluation of the US Census Bureaus
2 avr 2018 · Acknowledgment: I am grateful to the U S Census Bureau for support of this proficiency, which is typically asked about the official or national
[PDF] i am proficient in the use of microsoft office
[PDF] iana language subtag registry
[PDF] iata 3 letter city codes
[PDF] iata 3 letter country codes
[PDF] iata airline and airport codes
[PDF] iata airline codes list download
[PDF] iata airline codes pdf
[PDF] iata airport
[PDF] iata country codes
[PDF] iata news
[PDF] iata summer season 2020
[PDF] ib discrete mathematics pdf
[PDF] icao airport codes list download
[PDF] icao flight time limitations
[PDF] icao standard phraseology
Univ ersity of Louisville ,(3 $/0(15-%-2(03(**$ThinkIR: The Univ ersity of Louisville's Institutional Repository '(,)'$,(3 $/0(15-%-2(03(**$0,01(121(-, *$.-0(1-/5Electr onic Theses and Dissertations
Academic achievement of English language learners (ELLs), the fastest growing population in the U.S. schools, deserves greater attention. This non-experimental study investigated the unique contributions-above and beyond other individual difference and school characteristics-of language learning strategies (LLS) to student academic outcomes in a second language (L2). The sample comprised 1,057 ELLs (651 elementary, 275 middle, and
Language Proficiency........................................................... 27 Defining English Proficiency....................................... ... 27 Research on English Language Development.... ...... ... ....... ... 32 37
Language Learning Strategies..... ..... ......... ... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... 38
Academic Achievement in English as a Second Language... ... ...... .... 72
Summary and Selected Variables........................................... ... 86 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................. ... 92 ........... 93
Model Specification..................................... ...... 201 Final Explanatory Model....... ..... .... ......... ... ...... 203 Estimating the Means.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Estimating the Slopes.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Xlll
[PDF] iana language subtag registry
[PDF] iata 3 letter city codes
[PDF] iata 3 letter country codes
[PDF] iata airline and airport codes
[PDF] iata airline codes list download
[PDF] iata airline codes pdf
[PDF] iata airport
[PDF] iata country codes
[PDF] iata news
[PDF] iata summer season 2020
[PDF] ib discrete mathematics pdf
[PDF] icao airport codes list download
[PDF] icao flight time limitations
[PDF] icao standard phraseology
Univ ersity of Louisville ,(3 $/0(15-%-2(03(**$ThinkIR: The Univ ersity of Louisville's Institutional Repository '(,)'$,(3 $/0(15-%-2(03(**$0,01(121(-, *$.-0(1-/5Electr onic Theses and Dissertations
English language learners in focus : pr
edictors of English ,&*(0'* ,&2 &$*$ /,$/0(,%-"20./ $#("1-/0-%,&*(0'./ -7"($,"5 ,# " #$+(" "'($3$+$,1./ -7"($,"5 ,# " #$+(" "'($3$+$,1Y uliya Ardasheva University of Louisville -**-41'(0 ,# ##(1(-, *4-/)0 1'11.0 (/*(!/ /5*-2(03(**$$#2$1#Recommended Citation $"-++$,#$#(1 1(-, Ardasheva, Yuliya, "English language learners in focus : predictors of English proificiency and academic "'($
3$+$,1
*$"1/-,("'$0$0 ,#(00$/1 1(-,0 '11.0 $1#This Doct
oral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's ,01(121(-, *$.-0(1
-/51' 0!$$, ""$.1$#%-/(,"*20(-,(,*$"1/-,("'$0$0 ,#(00$/1 1(-,0!5 , 21'-/(6$# #+(,(01/1-/-%'(,)'$,(3$/0(15-%-2(03(**$0,01(121(-, *$.-0(1-/5'(01(1*$ ..$ /0'$/$"-2/1$05-%1'$ 21'-/
4'-' 0/$1 (,$# **-1'$/"-.5/(&'10-/+-/$(,%-/+ 1(-,.*$ 0$"-,1 "11'(,)(/*-2(03(**$$#2
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN FOCUS:
PREDICTORSaOFa
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
ByYuliya Ardasheva
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of theGraduate School
of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
College
of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity
of Louisville, Louisville, KentuckyDecember
2010Copyright 2010 by Yuliya Ardasheva
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN FOCUS:
PREDICTORSaOFaENGLISHa
PROFICIENCY AND
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
ByYuliya Ardasheva
B.A.,Perm StateaPedagogicalaUniversity, 1995
M.A.,Perm StateaPedagogicalaUniversity, 1995
A Dissertation Approved
onNovember 18,2010
by the following Dissertation Committee:Dissertation
Co-bltector
bissertation Co-Director 11ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank Dr. Thomas R. Tretter, my advisor, dissertation co chair, and a great mentor, for the moral and academic support he has given me over the years. His patience, wisdom, and warmth have carried me through difficult times. His willingness to share his expertise, his openness to exploring new ideas, as well as many intellectually stimulating conversations about research methods and statistical analyses we had over the years have contributed tremendously to my growth as a researcher. My special gratitude also goes to Dr. Penny B. Howell, my research mentor and dissertation co-chair, and Dr. Elizabeth B. Patton, a great academic and life mentor, for their patience, warmth, and nurturing support over the years. I would also like to thank the other committee members, Dr. Ann E. Larson and Dr. Diane W. Kyle, for their kindness, great advice, and support throughout this journey. This work would not be completed without Marti Kinny, the district's ESL coordinator, as well as other key district personnel, who helped obtaining datasets and clarified any questions relevant to conducting this study. My sincere gratitude goes to their pleasant manner, professionalism, and accessibility. I am also grateful to Dr. Rebecca L.Oxford and Dr. Kimberly A. Noels for giving me
permission to use their instruments, without which this work would not be completed.Finally,
my biggest and warmest thank you goes to my husband, Greg, for his understanding, patience, and great meals that gave me moral as well as physical strength to finish this work. His publishing and editing skills were also a great contribution. My warmest thank you also goes to my mother for always being there for me. 111ABSTRACT
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN
FOCUS: PREDICTORSaOFaENGLISH
PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Yuliya Ardasheva
December
2010Academic achievement of English language learners (ELLs), the fastest growing population in the U.S. schools, deserves greater attention. This non-experimental study investigated the unique contributions-above and beyond other individual difference and school characteristics-of language learning strategies (LLS) to student academic outcomes in a second language (L2). The sample comprised 1,057 ELLs (651 elementary, 275 middle, and
131 high school) attending 38 schools in one urban school
district. Descriptive analysis results indicated that ELLs used a large array ofLLS; yet, except for metacognitive strategies, most LLS were reportedly used only at a medium level of frequency. The results also indicated a strong awareness of strategy effectiveness among teachers: A lack of significant correlations between teacher and student LLS ratings, however, suggested that teacher beliefs may not necessarily translate into practice.The results
of Structural Equation Modeling analyses identified three positive, instructionally manipulable contributors to ELLs' L2 outcomes: metacognitive strategies, motivation, and native language (L1) literacy. Whereas metacognitive strategy use
IV appeared to be stable, cognitive strategy use declined as a function of age; memory, social, affective, and compensation strategy use declined as a function of length of residence (LOR). These results confirmed Gardner et al.'s (1997) hypothesis holding that with increased L2 proficiency students may feel less need in usingLLS and suggested
that age and LOR may moderate the relationships between LLS and L2 outcomes. Hierarchical Linear Modeling results indicated that metacognitive strategies, L 1 literacy, and English proficiency significantly contributed to reading achievement.Controlling for other predictors, lack
of prior formal schooling had no negative effect onELLs' achievement; lack
of mother formal education was a negative predictor of mathematics and science-but not reading and social studies-scores. Higher school quality indicators predicted higher academic achievement among ELLs. The overall results suggest that ELLs would benefit from: (a) integrated content, language, and metacognitive strategy instruction; (b) classrooms that stimulate motivation; (c) Ll literacy maintenance; (d) additional L2 support; and (e) placement in higher-performing schools. Additional research is needed to explore the potential moderator effects of age and LOR on the relationships between LLS and L2 outcomes. vTABLE OF CONTENTS
......... 111 .................. IV LIST OF TABLES.................................................................. ......... XIV LIST OF FIGURES................................................................. ........ XVI CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................... ... 1Background to the
Study........................................................ 1Historical Development
of Language Support Programs: An Overview. 4Statement
of the Problem.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Purpose of the Study ............................. ,. ...... ... ....... ..... ......... 10Study Significance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 11
Study Limitations............................................................ ..... 12 Research Questions .............................. , ........ ...... .... ... .......... 12 ......... 13 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................. 16Second Language Acquisition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Defining the Field................................................... .... 16 Selected SLA Theoretical Frameworks.............................. 17 Language as a Faculty of the Mind...... .... ... ...... ....... 17 Language as a Cognitive Skill.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 VI Language as a Socially Constructed Skill......... .......... 25 27Language Proficiency........................................................... 27 Defining English Proficiency....................................... ... 27 Research on English Language Development.... ...... ... ....... ... 32 37
Language Learning Strategies..... ..... ......... ... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... 38
Theoretical
Considerations............................................ 38 Overview, Assumptions, and Connections.... ... ..... ...... 38Defining Language Learning Strategies....
..... ....... .... 39Categorizing Language Learning Strategies...
........ .... 41Theoretical Underpinnings: LLS and Autonomous
Learning......................................................... 43 Defining Strategy Instruction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 44LLS: Methods and Data
Sources............................ 45
Early Descriptive Research: "The Good Leamer".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 46 LLS and Language Proficiency.................. .... ..... .... ..... .... 47 Variations in Strategy Choice, Use, and Evaluation........... ..... 52 Proficiency LeveL............................................. 52 Age............................................................... 54 Gender........................................................... 55 Culture........................................................... 55 Teacher Role.......................................................... ... 56 Vll Strategy Instruction..................................................... 58LLS and Academic Achievement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 60
62Language Learning Motivation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 63
Connecting Motivation, Strategy Use, and Proficiency....... ..... 63 Defining Language Learning Motivation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 64 Theoretical Perspectives on Language Learning Motivation...... 64Empirical Findings.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 68
LLS and Motivation........................................... 68 Motivation and Leamer Autonomy in a Classroom...... 70 71Academic Achievement in English as a Second Language... ... ...... .... 72
Defining Academic Achievement 72
Current Trends in ELLs' Academic Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 73 Theoretical Perspective Explaining the Achievement Gap.... .... 74Academic Achievement Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
85Summary and Selected Variables........................................... ... 86 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................. ... 92 ........... 93
Research Design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93
Population, Research Site, and Sample... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 94 Study Population and Research Site.... ...... ... ...... ...... 94 Vlll Study Sample and Sampling Procedures............... ..... 95InstrumentationlMeasures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 98
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)-
Student
Form............ ...... .... ... ..... .... ..... .... ..... .... 98Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)-
Teacher Form....
...... ......... ............... ..... .... ... ..... 100 English Language Learning Motivation Scale (ELLMS) 100Assessing Comprehension and Communication in
English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs®)......................................... 102 Kentucky's Core Content Tests.......... ......... ....... .... 104 Study Variables: Operational Definitions......................... ... 106 Data Collection Procedures............................................ 109Data Analysis Plan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 112
Data Preparation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 112
Research Question 1.... ... ..... ....... ......... ......... ... ... 112Research Question 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 114
Research Question 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
......... 117 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS................................................................. .... 118Descriptive Statistics.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 118
School Sample........................................................... 118 Teacher Sample....... .................. ...... ...... ......... ........ .... 119 IX Attrition Analyses for the Student Sample.......................... 120StudentaSample... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 123
Data Preparation............................................................. .. ... 126 Modified Instruments' Validity and Reliability........................... ... 128 English Language Learning Motivation Scale (ELLMS)... ... ... 128 Strategy Inventory for Language Leaming (SILL}-ELL Student Form.......................................................... ... 129 Strategy Inventory for Language Leaming (SILL}-ESL TeacherForm ............................................................ 130 Research Question 1................ ..... ...... ...... .... ...... ...... ... ..... .... 132 Individual Level Analyses.......................................... ... 132 Teacher Strategy Effectiveness Ratings Profile...... ..... 137 Student Strategy Use Profile............................ ..... 138Comparison of Teacher and Student LLSaRank
Orderings..................... ........................................... 139 Within-School Teacher-Student Strategy Profiles............... ... 140Elementary School.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Middle School.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 146
High SchooL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 147
Summary of Research Question 1 Results........................... 148 Research Question 2......... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ..... .... ...... ... ... .... 150SEMaAnalytical Approach.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 150
Hypothesized Model Specification................................... 153 x Model Fitting, Evaluation, and Modification........................ 156Parameter Estimates.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Predictors of Academic Achievement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 161 Predictors of English Proficiency.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 162 Predictors of Strategy Use and Intervening Effects...... 163 Correlations among Exogenous Variables... ......... .... 168 Practical Significance.................................................. 168 Summary of Research Question 2 Results... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 169 Research Question 3....... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ...... ... ...... ......... ... ... 172HLM Analytical Approach.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 172
Data Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Reading Model.......................................................... 174 Model Specification.................................... ....... 175 Final Explanatory Model.................................. 177 Estimating the Means... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Estimating the Slopes.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Practical significance................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Summary....................................................... 183Mathematics Model.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184
Model Specification..................................... ...... 184 Final Explanatory ModeL................................. 186 Estimating the Means.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Estimating the Slopes..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 XlPractical significance.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Summary....................................................... 191Science Model.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 192
Model Specification..................................... ...... 192Final Explanatory
Model.................................. 194
Estimating the Means.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Estimating the Slopes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198Practical significance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 199
Social Studies Model.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
201Model Specification..................................... ...... 201 Final Explanatory Model....... ..... .... ......... ... ...... 203 Estimating the Means.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Estimating the Slopes.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Practical significance..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Summary............. ........................................ ... 208 Summary of Research Question 3 Results........................... 209 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS............................... 212Research Question
1..................................................... 212
Research Question 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Research Question 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Student L2 Profiles and Background Characteristics Effects......................................................... 223 xuSchool Organizational and Quality Indicators
Effects......................................................... 227Significance and
Implications.................................................. 228 REFERENCES..................................... ............................................ 232 APPENDICES..................................... ........................................... ... 257APPENDIX A Permission to use
SILL................................................ 257APPENDIX B SILL-ELL Student
Form.............................................. 258APPENDIX C SILL-ESL Teacher
Form.............................................. 263 APPENDIX D Permission to use LLOS-IEA......................................... 268APPENDIX E
.. 269APPENDIX F ELLMS
(Modified)....................................................... 271 APPENDIX G SILL-ELL Student Form (Modified)................................. 272APPENDIX H SILL-ESL Student Form (Modified)
....... :................... ...... 274APPENDIX I
APPENDIX] Individual Level Comparison
of Teacher and Student Ratings of Learning Strategies Effectiveness by Educational Level.. ..... 278 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for HLM Reading, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies Model Variables........ 279 CURRICULUM VITAE ....................................................................... 287Xlll