A Second Grobp. English Was the Instructional Language
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
.11 (I qtrhipti.vr Pt RR OMR ED 030 473 24 PS 001 789 By-Barclay. Lisa Frances Kurcz The Comparative Efficacies'of Spanish, English and Bilingual Cognitive VerbalInstruction With Mexican-American Head Start Children. Final Report. New Haven Unified School District, Union City. Calif. Spons Agency-Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.Bureau of Research. Bureau No -BR -7 -1035 . Pub Date Jan 69 Grant OEG -1 -7 -070035 -3871 Note 304p. EDRS Price MF -$1.25 HC -$15.30 Descriptors -*Bilingual Education. English (Second Language). *ExperimentalPrograms. Instructional Programs. Lanouage Programs, Lesson Plans, *Mexican Americans. PreschoolCurriculum, *Preschool Programs. Program Descriptions. *Program Effectiveness. Second Language Learning. SummerPrograms Identifiers-Barclay Test, *Head Start. ITPA, Peabody Picture VocabularyTest, PPVT, Templin Darley Test of Articulation, Vance Language Skills Test Sixty-seven Mexican-American children were administered aspecial 7-week Head Start language training program during the summer of1967. Three basic treatments were used. and there was acontrol group. Two teachers were used. thus raisingthe number of groups to eight. The three basic treatmentsinvolved a structured English language training program. in one group. Spanish wasthe language of instruction, in a second grobp.English was the instructional language: and in thethird, both languages were used. The control groups received the usualpreschool art and music activities. Tests were administered at the beginningof the program. at the end. and the next spring. It was found that (1) since the groupswere initially of varying ability, final differences in performance could have been due to thisinitial difference. (2) the teacher factor, sex factor, and age factor contributednothing to the results. (3) the structured language treatments did not produce better scoresthan the control treatment and (4) the bilingual treatment was notsignificantly superior to the Spanish or English treatment.(WD) pr\ 6R-1-tojs' N, L OMIMIENT OF KWH, DUCKIVN-SleFARE -4- OFFICE OF EDUCATION C:) reN morocteazs HAS BEEN RE-P,ODUCED UACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE FEWN O ini.:14129133 fl;-_--':-#:LTS IT_ FO!NIS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS C:) surthDo MT NECMARILY RERaENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION ROM= OR POW. L=3 IDE-13R THE COMPARATIVE EFFICACIES OF SPANISH, ENGLISH AND BILINGUAL COGNITIVE VERBAL INSTRUCTION WITH MEXICAN-AMERICAN HEAD START CHILDREN Final Report Project No, 7-1-035 Grant No, 0EG-1-7-070035-3871 Lisa Frances Kurcz Barclay January 1969 The research.reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract with the 'Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgMent in the COnduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessari/y represent official Office of Education position or policy. NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Union City, California, 94587 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this study waspossible only with the help and cooperation of manyindividuals and organizations. would like to express mythanks to Dr. John Krumboltz, Dr. Henry McDaniel and Dr.Robert Politzer; all of Stanford University for their adviceand aid, to the New Haven Unified School District forthe use of its facilities and students in theexperimental:study, and to Dr. EdithTrager of San Jose State Collegefor help with the developmentof curriculum and% tests. The United States Office ofEducation granted the financial.aid that made the studypossible. Earlier the United Cerebral PalsyResearch.and EducationalFoundation had provided me.the means toattend graduate school. Thanks are due boththese organizations. I would also like to thank myassociates in the study, Elva Cooper, SusanRodriguez-Bascur, and Edgar Gallardo, for their generouscooperation and effort. Finally, I would like to thankmy'family for their encouragement and forbearance,during these hectic months. A particular debt ofgratitude is owed to my husband,James, and my children, Anne,Robert, Gregory, andChristopher. -5,71,1-.. -", TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES xix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION The Problem 2 Related Research 10 1. Bilingualism 10 2. Preschool Curricula 13 Summary 37 II. STUDY.DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 39 Background 39 Setting 40 Hypotheses, Research Design, Independent Variables and Treatments 41 Selection and Composition of the Experimental Sample 43 Selection and Implementation of Treatments 45 Teachers, Classrooms and Ancillary Personnel 47 Curriculum 49 Test Selection and Development 62 Test Administration 65 Summary 68 III. RESEARCH FINDINGS 69 Pretesting and Correlation 72 Analyses of Covariance Related to Hypothesis 1 77 Analyses of Covariance Related to Hypothesis 2 . .99 2 x 4 Analyses of Covariance 144 Summary 145 iv Chapter Page IV. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS 149 Summary 149 The Problem 149 Method 150 Results 152 Limitations 153 Imolications for Future Research 157 Conclusion 160 APPENDIX A. CURRICULUM FOR MEXICAN-AMERICAN HEADSTART CHILDREN 161 5; TESTS DEVELOPED FOR THE STUDY 255 C. ADDITIONAL TABLES (TABLES63-82) 260 BIBLIOGRAPHY 280 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Form B, Pretest; Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Combination of Groups 72 2. Correlation of Demographic, Treatment, and Test Variables 78 3a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls . , . 79 3b. Mean Scores, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 79 4a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of ITPAAuditory- Vocal'Automatic Test--Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 80 4b. Mean Scores, ITPA Auditory-Vocal Automatic Test 80 5a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of ITPAAuditory- Vocal Association Test--Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 81 5b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, ITOAAuditory- Vocal Association Test 81 6a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Barclay Test-- Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 82 6b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, Barclay Test 82 7a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Vance Language Skills Test, Spatial Relations A Subtest-- Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 83 7b. Mean Scores of Treatment GrOups, VanceLanguage Skills Test, Spatial Relations A Subtest 83 vi. LIST OF TABLES--continued Table Page 8a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of VanceLanguage Skills Test, Spatial Relations BSubtest-- Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 84 8b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups,Vance Language Skills Test, Spatial Relations BSubtest . 84 9a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance ofVance Language Skills Test, Speech Sound Discrimination Subtest--Posttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 85 9b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, VanceLanguage Skills Test, Speech Sound Discrimination Subtest 85 10a. 1 x 2 Analysis ofCovariance of Additional Speech Sound ItemsPosttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 86 10b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups,Additional Speech Sound Items 86 lla. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Trager Linguistic QuestionnairePosttest; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 87 11b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups,Trager Linguistic Questionnaire 87 12a. 1 x 2 'Analysis of Covariance ofTemplin-Darley Test of Articulation--Posttest;Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls . n 88 12b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups,Templin-Darley Test of Articulation 88 13a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test--Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 89 13b. Mean Scores of TreatmentGrOups, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 89 vii LIST OF TABLES--continued Table Page 14a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of ITPA Auditory- Vocal Automatic Test--Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 90 14b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, ITPA Auditory- Vocal Automatic Test 90 15a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of ITPA Auditory- Vocal Association Test--Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls . 91 15b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, ITPA Auditory- Vocal Association Test 91 16a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Barclay Test-- Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 92 16b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, Barclay Test . 92 17a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Vance Language Skills Test, Spatial Relations A Subtest-- Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 93 17b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, Vance Language Skills TestSpatial Relations A Subtest . 93 18a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Vance Language Skills Test, Spatial Relations B Subtest-- Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 94 18b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups, Vance Language Skills TestSpatial Relations B Subtest . 94 19a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Vance Language Skills Test, Speech Sound Discrimination Subtest-- Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls 95 19b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groupg, Vance Language Skills Test, Speech Sound Discrimination Subtest 95 LIST OF TABLES--continued Table Page 20a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance ofAdditional Speech Sound Items--Followup Test;Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls '96 20b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups,Additional Speech Sound Items 96 21a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance of Trager Linguistic Questionnaire--Followup Test; Combined Treatment Groups vs. Controls . 97 21b. Mean Scores of Treatment Groups,Trager Linguistic Questionnaire 97 22a. 1 x 2 Analysis of Covariance