Throughout schooling, English learners (ELs) perform well below their monolingual English-speaking peers on literacy assessments, and Hispanics make up the majority of EL students in the United States. There is a strong consensus about the importance of early English oral language skills for ELs’ literacy development, yet teachers are not adequately prepared to meet the needs of these young learners. Historically, policy has not provided incentives for educators to focus on oral language development in the classroom. However, the recently adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) emphasize oral language skills.
Purpose/Objective
This study examines a professional development program that equipped early elementary teachers in five urban schools with arts-based strategies to promote the oral English development of ELs. A second line of inquiry looked at the extent to which the creative drama and dance activities were aligned with CCSS.
Participants
There were 3,792 K–2 Hispanic ELs (treatment: N = 497; control: N = 3,295) from Title I schools in a large school district in California.
Intervention
The Teaching Artist Project (TAP) was a two-year K–2 arts and literacy professional development program consisting of 28 weekly 50-minute lessons (14 theater and 14 dance). The project provided classroom teachers with in-service training on utilizing movement, gesture, and expression to promote stimulating English verbal interactions. TAP was specifically intended to engage non-native English speakers in classroom dialogues, facilitating their oral English development.
Research Design
This study utilized a mixed methods design. To address the first research question, schools were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Multiple regressions were run on data from the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) to investigate the impact of the program on the English speaking abilities of K–2 Hispanic English learners. To address the second research question, document review was used to compare the K–2 CCSS speaking and listening standards and the TAP lesson plans.
Findings
The treatment group was found to significantly outperform the control group (β = 0.13; p < 0.05) on CELDT speaking scores. Additional review suggested that the performing arts activities corresponded well to the CCSS speaking and listening standards.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Creative drama and dance activities provide rich verbal classroom interactions, boost English oral language skills of ELs, and align with the CCSS. Yet concerns are raised about the lack of speaking assessments on tests created by the Smarter Balanced and PARCC consortiums and the potential subsequent distortion of K–2 instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrilC. R., & GaultB. M. (2006). The state of music in the elementary school: The principal's perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 6—20.
2.
AugustD., & ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617—645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
4.
BedoreL. M., PeñaE. D., GarciaM., & CortezC. (2005). Conceptual versus monolingual scoring: When does it make a difference?Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 188—200. doi:10.1044/0161-1461
5.
BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27—40.
6.
BrouilletteL. (2010). How the arts help children to create healthy social scripts: Exploring the perceptions of elementary teachers. Arts Education Policy Review111(1), 16—24. doi:10.1080/10632910903228116
7.
BrouilletteL., Childress-EvansK., HingaB., & FarkasG. (2014). Increasing the school engagement and oral language skills of ELLs through arts integration in the primary grades. Journal for Learning through the Arts [Online], 10(1). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8573z1fm
California Department of Education. (2015). English language arts/English language development framework for California Public Schools. Retrieved from https://www.mydigitalchalkboard.org
12.
CallahanR., & GándaraP. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the US labor market. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
13.
CatterallJ. S. (2009). Doing well and doing good by doing art. Los Angeles, CA: Imagination Group.
14.
ChurchR. B., Ayman-NolleyS., & MahootianS. (2004). The role of gesture in bilingual education: Does gesture enhance learning?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 303—319. doi:10.1080/13670050408667815
15.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
DeweyJ. (2005). Art as experience. New York, NY: Penguin.
19.
ElfersA. M., & StritikusT. (2013). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers' work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 305—344. doi:10.1177/0013161X13492797
20.
EspinosaL. M. (2008). Challenging common myths about young English language learners. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.
21.
FirthA., & WagnerJ. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285—300. doi:10.1111/j.15404781.1997.tb05480.x
22.
FisherD., FreyN., & RothenbergC. (2008). Content area conversations: How to plan discussion-based lessons for diverse language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
23.
GassS. M., & VaronisE. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(03), 283—302.
24.
GeneseeF., Lindholm-LearyK., SaundersW., & ChristianD. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of empirical evidence. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GerstenR., & GevaE. (2003). Teaching reading to early language learners. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 44—49.
26.
GlenbergA. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586—596. doi:10.1002/wcs.55
27.
GlenbergA. M. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 518.
28.
GonzálezN., MollL. C., & AmantiC. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
GraueE. (2009). Reimagining kindergarten: Restoring a developmental approach when accountability demands are pushing formal instruction on the youngest learners. The School Administrator, 10(66), 10—15.
30.
GreeneJ. C., CaracelliV. J., & GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255—274.
31.
GreeneM. (1995). Art and imagination: Reclaiming the sense of possibility. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 378—382.
32.
GreenfaderC. M., & BrouilletteL. (2013). Boosting language skills of English Learners through dramatization and movement. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 171—180. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1192
33.
GreenfaderC. M., BrouilletteL., & FarkasG. (2015). Effect of a performing arts program on the oral language skills of young English Learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 185—203. doi:10.1002/rrq.90
34.
GreyA. C. (2009). No child left behind in art education policy: A review of key recommendations for arts language revisions. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 8—15.
35.
GrossM., BuacM., & KaushanskayaM. (2014). Conceptual scoring of receptive and expressive vocabulary measures in simultaneous and sequential bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 574—586. doi:10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0026
36.
HardisonD. M., & SonchaengC. (2005). Theater voice training and technology in teaching oral skills: Integrating the components of a speech event. System, 33(4), 593—608. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.02.001
37.
HartB., & RisleyT. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
38.
HessF. M., & PetrilliM. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
39.
HillC. J., BloomH. S., BlackA. R., & LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172—177. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x
40.
HoffE. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4—14. doi:10.1037/a0027238
41.
HollingsheadA.B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
HuttenlocherJ., HaightW., BrykA., SeltzerM., & LyonsT. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236—248.
44.
KiefferM. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39(6), 484—486. doi:10.1.1.172.7069
45.
KoberN., & RentmerD. S. (2014). Common core state standards in 2014: Districts' perceptions, progress, and challenges. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=440
46.
KoskiW., & WeisH. (2004). What educational resources do students need to meet California's educational content standards? A textual analysis of California's educational content standards and their implications for basic educational conditions and resources. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1907—1935.
47.
KressG. (2009). Assessment in the perspective of a social semiotic theory of multimodal teaching and learning. In Wyatt-SmithC., and CummingJ. J. (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting theory and practice (pp. 19—41). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
48.
KrogstadJ. M. (2014). A view of the future through kindergarten demographics. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org
49.
KuhlP. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831—843.
50.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive–social debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 773—787. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00668.x
51.
LeeV., & BurkamD. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
52.
LockeJ. L. (1993). The child's path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
LopezM. H., & VelascoG. (2011). Childhood poverty among Hispanics sets record, leads nation. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org
54.
Mancilla-MartinezJ., & GreenfaderC. M. (July, 2014). Language skills among children from Spanish-speaking homes in early childhood: A pilot study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Santa Fe, NM.
55.
Mancilla-MartinezJ., & LesauxN. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers' word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544—1560. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.
56.
Mancilla-MartinezJ., & VaghS. B. (2013). Growth in toddlers' Spanish, English, and conceptual vocabulary knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3), 555—567. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.03.004
57.
McGuireM. E. (2007). What happened to social studies? The disappearing curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 620—624.
58.
McLaughlinM., GlaabL., & CarrascoI. H. (2014). Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A report from the Field. Palo Alto, CA: California State Department of Education.
59.
McMurrerJ. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.
60.
MedinaC. L., & CampanoG. (2006). Performing identities through drama and teatro practices in multilingual classrooms. Language Arts, 83(4), 332—341.
61.
Melby-LervågM., & LervågA. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: a meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 114—135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01477.x
62.
MeyerL. M. (2000). Barriers to meaningful instruction for English learners. Theory into practice, 39(4), 228—236. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3904_6
63.
MollL. C. (1994). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In RuddellR., RuddellM., & SingerH. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 179—207). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
64.
MollL. C., AmantiC., NeffD., & GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132—141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534
65.
MosesL. (2013). Viewing as a cultural tool in the construction of meaning with expository texts for young bilinguals. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 9(2), 72—93. Available at http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/
66.
MurnaneR. J., & WillettJ. B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
NealD., & SchanzenbachD. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics92(2), 263—283. doi:10.1162/rest.2010.12318
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013). Request for proposal (RFP) PARC speaking and listening. Washington, DC: PARCC. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/Procurement
75.
ParsadB., SpiegelmanM., & CoopersmithJ. (2011). A snapshot of arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 2009–10. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011078.pdf
PDK International. (2015). Testing doesn't measure up for Americans: The 47th annual PDK/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes about the public schools [Special supplemental issue]. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1), K1—K32. Retrieved from http://nea-nm.org/sites/www/Uploads/files/pdkpoll47_2015.pdf
78.
PeregoyS., & BoyleO. (2008). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K–12 teachers (5th ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
RiegS. A., & PaquetteK. R. (2009). Using drama and movement to enhance English language learners' literacy development. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(2), 148—154.
82.
SamsonJ. F., & LesauxN. (2015). Disadvantaged language minority students and their teachers: A national picture. Teachers College Record117(2), 1—26.
83.
SilvermanR. D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language and English- only learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365—383. doi:10.1086/516669
84.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2014). Smarter Balanced English Language Arts & Literacy Stimulus Specifications. Olympia, WA: Author.
85.
SnowC. E., & DickinsonD. (1991). Skills that aren't basic in a new conception of literacy. In PurvesA., & JenningsE. (Eds.), Literate systems and individual lives: Perspectives on literacy and schooling (pp. 179—191). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
86.
SnowC. E., & KimY. S. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenges of vocabulary for English language learners. In WagnerR., MuseA., & TannenbaumK. (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 123—139). New York: Guilford Press.
87.
SpiraE. G., BrackenS. S., & FischelJ. E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first-grade reading difficulties: The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 225—234. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.225
88.
StorchS. A., & WhitehurstG. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934—947. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934
89.
TaborsP. O., SnowC. E., & DickinsonD. K. (2001). Homes and schools together supporting language and literacy development. In DickinsonD. K., & TaborsP. O. (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language (pp. 289—339). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
90.
TomaselloM. (1992). The social bases of language acquisition. Social Development, 1(1), 67—87. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1992.tb00135.x
91.
UccelliP., & PáezM. M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and Spanish skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 225—236. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/024)
92.
UmanskyI., & ReardonS. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 59(5), 879—912. doi:10.3102/0002831214545110
93.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD) (2015). Local Education Agency Universe Survey, 2012–13. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
94.
ValentineJ. C., & CooperH. (2003). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines: Issues in the interpretation of effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse.
95.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96.
WalquiA. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159—180.
97.
WestC. (2012). Teaching music in an era of high-stakes testing and budget reductions. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(2), 75—79.
98.
WinnerE., GoldsteinT. R., & Vincent-LancrinS. (2013). Art for art's sake? Overview. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
