Eileen,
 
Heide has already responded to some of your more substantive questions
but here's just a quick reply to your question #3 regarding the
pronunciation and writing scores on the BEST that we did not use in the
study.  
 
We used the old BEST (not BEST Plus which was not yet developed) in the
study.  On that older test, the scorer can rate students pronunciation
and writing, the latter based on how well the student completed
identifying information (name, etc.) on the test booklet.  BEST Plus
does not have such measures.  Because pronunciation was not a focus of
the study and it is difficult to train raters to score it reliably, we
simply did not score it.  Because we already had a more comprehensive
reading and writing test, we did not score those aspects of the BEST
Plus either.
 
 
________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Cameron Eileen
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:40 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 260] Three Questions Regarding Research Articles
andRelated Topics in ESOL Instruction
 
1. In the article "National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and
Literacy: A Conversation With FOB... What Works for Adult ESL Students,"
it states that ESL students are better able to learn and understand
English when the teacher or instructor of ESL is bilingual, in which
case, the instructor can speak the students' native language or
languages in order to clarify the students' understanding to further
construct meaning.  This statement is also made in the article "Real
World Research: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research for
Adult ESL."  However, if a teacher or instructor is not bilingual, and
they want to improve ESL students' written proficiency levels, should
the instructor who is fluent only in English be encouraged to permit his
or her ESL students to first write an essay or paragraph, depending upon
the written assignment, within the student's own native language and
then work closely with the student to translate that writing into
English?  Is this a recommended form of instruction?  For one thing,
allowing ESL students to write within their native languages helps the
instructor familiarize themselves with languages that may be foreign to
them.  This can also help the student translate and interpret their own
native language and correspond their thoughts and ideas within a
contextualized English language.  This can permit ESL students to
demonstrate writing that displays clearer contextualized meanings.  It
also allows ESL students to demonstrate a complexity of thoughts and
ideas as well as express critical, analytical thinking skills within
written English, especially those ESL students who struggle with written
English in terms of writing incoherent sentences or clauses, or students
who write mere phrases or simple sentences with incorrect word choice
and improper use of grammar.  The article, "Real World Research," states
"English learners who, for example, have good higher order reading
strategies in their own language cannot call on those strategies to help
them understand English texts until their understanding of English
vocabulary and syntax are good enough to understand basic sentences and
expressions."  Can this same principle be applied to ESL students'
written English? 
 
2. The article "Real World Research: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Research for Adult ESL" briefly refers to the codings of a
running record.  A running record that is incorporated in the teaching
of standard American English and literacy within elementary schools in
this country is used in a way that teachers can determine a student's
reading abilities and potentialities through close observation of a
student's reading processes.  Before a running record can be
implemented, the teacher or instructor first must decipher the probable
reading level of a particular student.  For instance, the teacher must
select a book that the student will easily be able to read along with
selecting two other books that may be more challenging to this same
student.  Students must read 50 words within each of the three books.
To correspond the running record in accordance with the student's
reading, the teacher must listen closely and observe, paying strict
attention to the student's substitution or replacement of words,
repetition of words, omission of words, pronunciation and/or
mispronunciation of words, and number of self-corrections the student
makes during their reading.  Once the student is finished reading 50
words within all three selected books, the teacher must add up all of
the student's errors.  The book in which the student made no less than
five errors is selected for appropriate reading in terms of a
substantiated reading level since it presents more of a challenge.
However, a book in which a student makes more than five errors is
considered too difficult for the student to read or comprehend.  I
brought this up because in a standard English or literacy class in
grades K-12, a student can be placed within a specific reading level or
group and is given reading material in accordance with that particular
reading or grade level, as it pertains to a balanced literacy model in
adherence with the curricular standards of a running record.  Students
are given reading material that is slightly more challenging in order to
assist these students in mastering the English language.  Once students
have mastered the English language and have acquired appropriate English
reading skills, they will be able to read books that are several reading
or grade levels above their current reading performance level.  Can a
running record such as the one I have previousy described be applied
within an adult literacy program for ESL students?  Instead of using
grocery store fliers, electricity bills, and immigration documents, can
literature be incorporated in an adult literacy program for ESL
students?
 
3. In the research study discussed in the article "Instruction,
Language, and Literacy: What Works Study for Adult ESL Literacy
Students, the BEST Oral Interview was incorporated in measuring
listening comprehension, communication, and fluency.  In the footnote of
that same research study, it states that the BEST Oral Interview also
includes measures of pronunciation and a reading and writing score which
were not used in the study.  I would actually like to know more about
those measures of pronunciation, reading, and writing, and how they are
assessed in determining a student's perfomance level.  Recently, I
completed a training session for both print-based and the
computer-adaptive BEST PLUS software program which measures the same
items that were measured in the research study 1)listening
comprehension, 2) language complexity or fluency, and 3) communication.
When I completed the training session in BEST PLUS there was no mention
of scoring for pronunciation, reading, or writing.  Also, I wanted to
know if these measurements had been included in your research study,
would it have any effect on the students' performance levels
quantitatively? Also would it have any statistical significance
whatsoever in this particular research study if these variables had been
taken into consideration when the BEST Oral Interview was administered?

  
________________________________

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&s
id=396546091>  for great tips from Yahoo! Answers
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&s
id=396546091>  users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20070410/d7c1706a/attachment.html