Assignment introduction A syntax-based reading intervention for English as second-languag.pdf

INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW

The transition to school requires children to use their acquired oral language skills in a

different and more elaborated way, because written language builds on and is dependent on

students’ oral language proficiency (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; Scarborough,

2001). Children are expected to think about language and its use for reading and writing,

including reflecting on grammatical structures. Readers must apply their knowledge about

language to reading, both for decoding and for comprehension (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009). In

comparison to oral language, literate language consists of a greater number of embedded and

conjoined utterances, abstract vocabulary and complex discourse structures (Loban, 1976; Wells

& Wells, 1984). Children acquire the ability to understand and produce these complex

utterances through reading, writing, and classroom lectures (Nippold, 1998). For native

speakers, the syntax of written text in beginning stages of reading is within their oral language

proficiency so the child only needs to focus on learning the written code. However, with each

grade level the syntactic complexity increases until the grammatical complexity of text at the

fourth grade level exceeds typical conversational language (Chall, 1983). However, for non-

native speakers, the language presents challenges that can interfere with learning to read from the

earliest reading levels.

Students with English as second language (ESL) have the extra burden to learn to speak a

second language proficiently and to learn to read that second language before they fully

understand it. While their English-speaking peers mastered the basic sentence types by four

years of age (Brown, 1973) and can use this native language foundation to support their efforts in

reading, older second language learners lack the proficiency in English to interpret even

beginning level reading passages. Even when vocabulary is known, the nuances of word order

can interfere with fluent reading as well as comprehension. Poor syntactic awareness has been

shown to be a persistent problem that is highly correlated with comprehension deficits for ESL

students (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). If older ESL students are to learn to read fluently and

comprehend what they read, it is important to improve their ability to process the advanced

syntactic strategies used in literate language.

This study explored the effects of an intervention designed to increase syntactic

awareness, including meta-awareness of key structures of English for ESL students. The ability

to produce embedded and conjoined structures, including changes in both oral language and

reading were examined.

Challenges for Students from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations

Public schools in the U.S. are characterized by an increasing number of linguistically and

culturally diverse students. Between 1997 and 2009, the number of English as second-language

learners (ESL) enrolled in public schools in the United States increased from 3.5 million to 5.3

million. This corresponds to 51% growth in comparison to 7.2% growth of the general

population of students , or an overall number of 49.5 million (National Clearinghouse for

English Language Acquisition, 2011). According to Fry (2008), ESL learners have been the

fastest growing subgroup of students for the past ten years. Their annual enrollment in U.S.

public schools is predicted to increase by 10 percent. By 2020, it is estimated that 1 out of 4

students will be an ESL learner.

Increasingly, ESL students are enrolled in early childhood intervention programs, yet

they remain at high risk for low academic performance. The Early Childhood Longitudinal

Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K, 2009) reveals that ESLs who enrolled in kindergarten with low

English proficiency scored in the lowest performing quartile in fifth grade reading and math

assessments (Najarian, Pollack, & Sorogon, 2009). The 2009 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) for reading reported only 29% of ESLs in fourth grade scored at or

above a basic reading performance level, compared with 70% of native speakers (National

Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). These at-risk students are likely to fall increasingly

further behind their native-speaking peers with each year in school, with academic success

dependent on sufficient reading comprehension to understand and actively engage with the

curriculum (Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer & Pierce, 2010).

Syntax as Foundation to Reading

A growing number of studies have established a relationship between higher-level

language abilities and reading (Carlisle & Rice, 2004; Demont & Gombert, 1996; Gottardo,

Stanovich, & Siegel, 1996; Leikin, 2002; Mahony, Singson, & Mann, 2000; Nation & Snowling,

2000; Nation, Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004; Stothard & Hulme, 1992; Yuill & Oakhill,

1991). Syntax is one of the foundational skills of reading and speaking. In English, word order

is important for establishing the relationships of meaning between and across propositions.

Phrases can extend the information associated with a noun or verb phrase using elements such as

prepositions, adverbs, or infinitive verbs. Two complete propositions can be placed in

coordinating, correlative, or subordinate relationships through use of conjunctions, or one

proposition can be embedded within another using relative or adverbial clause structures.

Mastering the more complex structures of English is important for children entering

school. With each grade level, the number and types of clauses included in one sentence

increase, placing greater language demands on reading with successive grades (Fry, 1963;

Loban, 1976). The acquisition of these complex grammatical structures, forms, and strategies

allows for more sophisticated and precise ways of using language. With each grade level,

students must become more proficient at using these “literate” forms of language for reading and

writing (Fillmore & Snow, 2000).

Sentence processing as prerequisite of reading comprehension. Sentence parsing is

defined as the ability to identify and process grammatical structures within a sentence (Scott,

2009). Successful readers need to be able to recognize the grammatical forms that indicate when

information has been embedded, conjoined, or moved within a sentence. Syntactic ties also

provide a means to indicate how information is related across the boundaries of sentences

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976). While we have much descriptive literature detailing how syntactic

complexity increases across grade levels, several authors point out that the relationship between

reading comprehension and sentence processing as a prerequisite of reading comprehension have

not been well addressed in reading research (Scott, 2009). Scott recognizes that even reports

about best practices for reading instruction by the National Reading Panel (2000) do not include

syntax, but mention only the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text

comprehension. However, a growing body of research suggests that difficulties understanding

and processing syntax may be important reasons for reading failure, including fluency and

comprehension (Bentin, Deutsch, & Liberman, 1990). Syntax can be seen as “vehicle” or

“workhorse of meaning” (Scott, 2009, 185) when it comes to reading comprehension.

One of the major difficulties for school-age children is the discrepancy between oral and

written language that becomes more apparent by third or fourth grade. At this level, the syntactic

and semantic complexity of written language surpasses oral language, while at the same time the

picture support for the language is reduced to a few illustrations that communicate limited

meaning until combined with the text. At this age, reading problems may become apparent for

readers who have good word recognition skills but lack the language skills to comprehend the

text at this level of complexity (Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Ellis-Weismer, 2005; Scarborough,

2005; Scott, 2004).

Certain structures present particular difficulties for children, such as inflectional

morphology (e.g., verb tense and agreement), reflexive pronouns, object relative clauses, relative

clauses and passive sentences. Long separations between subjects and predicates that occur as a

result of embedded clauses have also shown to be difficult for struggling readers (Thompson &

Shapiro, 2007). Other variables of difficulty include the number of propositions, how many and

what kind of embedded structures are used (e.g., dependent vs. independent clauses), and order

of mention (e.g., SVO structure vs. passive sentences).

Models of Word Recognition and Reading Comprehension

The Rand Reading Report (2002) describes reading comprehension as “the process of

simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with

written language” (RAND, 2002, p.11). Successful reading comprehension is dependent on

word decoding strategies and higher order linguistic comprehension; thus, both bottom-up and

top-down processes need to be mastered. Bottom-up processes include decoding strategies and

rapid word recognition. Top-down processes include knowledge of vocabulary, syntax and

morphology, pragmatics, discourse, and text structure, as well as inferential skills, background

knowledge, and comprehension monitoring skills. The organization of input according to

syntactic structures and the ability to parse sentences into constituent structures during reading

are important to word recognition and influence the speed and accuracy of word recognition

(West & Stanovich, 1986). Chard, Pikulski and McDonagh (2006) showed that knowledge of

syntax predicts word choices and is used as part of the feedback system that confirms whether a

word has been correctly decoded. The syntax limits the words that could potentially fit a

context, and if an ungrammatical sentence results from a word choice then the reader is cued to

the error. In good readers, the miscue is self- corrected. Thus, syntax both guides decoding and

gives feedback used in self-monitoring. Two different models of word recognition and reading

are introduced in the following section to illustrate bottom-up and top-down processes. Ehri’s

stage model (2000) provides an example of bottom-up word recognition processes. Seidenberg

and McClelland’s connectionist model of word recognition (1989) is described as an example of

an interactive reading model.

Bottom-up models. Bottom-up reading models emphasize a unidirectional, part-to-

whole processing of a text. The models place little emphasis on contextual information,

including syntax, or other higher-order information until word recognition is achieved. At that

point, the same processes used to interpret speech are involved in comprehending the text. The

more automatic the word recognition becomes, the more fluent the reading, and, in general, the

better the comprehension.

To understand how words are recognized, it is necessary to know how printed words map

onto speech. English is not a full alphabetic writing system because there are more phonemes,

particularly vowels, than there are graphemes. There are several strategies, such as doubling

vowels and use of silent e, to indicate the intended pronunciation but there are numerous

exceptions to every pattern. Consonants also have variable roles, such as the hard and soft

pronunciations of the letter “c” (“cat” versus “cent) or letter combinations such as “gh” (i.e.,

tough, light, ghost). English also tends to spell morphemes consistently, regardless of

pronunciation (i.e., past tense is spelled “ed” whether the pronunciation is /t/ “jumped,” /d/

“lived,” or /ə d/ “headed”). Yet other consonant phonemes have no letter and are represented

using two letters (i.e., sh, ch, th, wh).

To learn this system, children must convert unfamiliar written forms of words into

familiar spoken forms. This process is very slow and laborious at initial stages of reading but

becomes increasingly more rapid and automatic with time and experience. Ehri’s stages of word

recognition lend insight regarding how this learning occurs and the changes in the underlying

cognitive structure that evolve to support word recognition (Adams, 1990; Chall 1983; Ehri,

2000; Frith, 1985).

According to Ehri (2000), the first phase or the “prealphabetic level” is characterized by

the acquisition of letter-sound correspondences. Environmental signs or labels can be

recognized (e.g., the golden arches to read McDonald’s), but the connections between letters and

sounds are still unsystematic and arbitrary. Frith (1985) described this stage as the ”logographic

level”. As soon as children develop a first insight into the alphabetic system and gradually

understand that units of letters correspond to certain sounds, they begin to read words and

transition to the next phase, the “partial alphabetic level”. At this level, children are able to read

salient letters in a word, usually consonants. Oftentimes the first and last letters of a specific

word are used to sound out the word. Characteristic of this phase is that words are remembered

or recognized based on certain contextual cues, but the alphabet is not fully mastered. The third

level is called the “full alphabetic phase”. Children in this stage are able to decode unfamiliar

words and use their fully developed alphabetic knowledge to segment words into individual

phonemes. New words are learned by analogy, with reference to letter and syllable patterns of

sight words stored in memory.

The fourth level is the “consolidated alphabetic level”. This is the phase when children

recognize orthographic patterns and are able to reduce their attentional resources, because they

begin to automatically recognize combination of letters, identify specific patterns with words,

and decode new words using analogy to known words, thus increasing independence from

decoding individual letters. Consequently, children gain increasing fluency and accuracy

through repeated reading. Chall (1983) describes this phase of confirmation and fluency as

“ungluing from print” (p. 18). Phonics advocates claim that systematic, explicit instruction is

needed to enable children to create the alphabetic structure needed for decoding. However,

connectionist models suggest that the patterns are part of the implicit knowledge that is

structured as input is processed.

Connectionist model of word recognition. Seidenberg and McClelland (1989)

proposed a model that includes four coordinated and highly interactive processors involved in

the reading process: the orthographic processor, the phonological processor, the meaning

processor and the context processor. The connections between the phonological and

orthographic representations form a phonological pathway to word recognition, and the

connections between semantic representations, phonology and orthography form a semantic

pathway. Reading depends on visual processing, therefore the orthographic processor is

activated as soon as the visual information from the printed page is received. The orthographic

processor starts the process of word or syllable recognition through interaction with the

phonological processor, the meaning processor and the context processor, so that the incoming

visual information can be processed simultaneously. Simultaneous processing facilitates the

speed and accuracy of word recognition. To explain how the system works under ideal

circumstances to facilitate the word recognition process and thus fluent reading, strategies of

fluent readers will be described to illustrate the interconnections of the processors.

Fluent readers process words as sequences of letters and spaces that co-occur.

Connections form between the co-occurring forms that become recognized patterns as

connection weights strengthen with repeated instances of the same pattern. Through repeated

reading, the reader activates and strengthens only associations between letters that frequently

occur together, but weak connections also form between letters that randomly co-occur (Adams,

1990). Even though individual letters are received as input, they are perceived as whole words

or syllables through the repeated attention to the described patterns.

Auditory information about a word, syllable or phoneme is processed through the

phonological processor. As described for the orthographic processor, if the string of letters is

pronounceable, certain units are activated and strengthened as the information comes in and

weaker connections are formed for information that is not as frequently used. The phonological

processor is directly connected not only with the orthographic processor, but also with the

meaning processor. If the pronunciation of a certain syllable or word is activated, meaning is

attached to the string of sounds through the direct link to the meaning processor, assuming the

word is a part of the reader’s lexicon. Conversely, if the meaning of the word is processed first

from context, the phonological processor is activated to analyze and strengthen the associations

of the different phonological units.

The connection between the processors ensures that the incoming information is

processed simultaneously. Every processor guides and facilitates the extraction of meaning and

activation of units, as well as the creation of initial or stronger connection weights to and

between processors. The activation of the phonological system occurs as an automatic and

instant result of visual word processing and skilled readers are able to access the sounds of a

particular string of letters, their meaning and spelling simultaneously. Adams (1990) describes

two important functions of the phonological processor: first, the phonological processor serves as

an alphabetic backup system to retain the speed and accuracy of word recognition. The second

function is the provision of on-line memory for individual words to facilitate text

comprehension. The connection between speech and print is strengthened, refined and facilitated

through repeated practice. The phonological processor can assist in interpreting unfamiliar

words through sounding them out. Skilled readers use this strategy automatically and without

much effort.

The more frequently a certain spelling pattern is encountered and processed, the more its

individual letters activate each other in the orthographic processor. Consequently, it is crucial

that the individual letters are interpreted relatively fast and correctly in order to create a holistic

image of the word and its spelling patterns. The more a certain spelling pattern has been

associated with a particular pronunciation, the faster, more focused and stronger the connection

weights between processors and to the phonological processor develop.

The more often a written word interpretation has occurred, the stronger and faster the

connections to and from the meaning processor become. The meaning processor is directly

connected to the context processor. A skilled reader compares new incoming words with his

expectations and predictions that are compatible with the ongoing interpretation of the text. If

the context is highly predictable, the reader does not have to rely as strongly on information of

the orthographic processor, which is another good example for the interconnectedness of the

system. Learning from context is considered to be a very important component of vocabulary

acquisition. The earliest stages of reading development are mostly dedicated to form strong

connections between orthographic and phonological processor, the semantic pathway becomes

more dominant later in development when decoding skills are developed and the main goal is to

develop efficient reading strategies for unknown words, such as irregular verbs.

Poor Comprehenders

Gough and Tunmer (1986) proposed the Simple View of Reading to explain the

relationship between decoding and comprehension. In this model, the two processes needed for

reading comprehension are a) fluent decoding, and b) sufficient language skills to interpret the

text, including syntax. Gough and Tunmer argued that children begin learning to read with well

developed language abilities, including facility with compound and complex sentences.

Therefore, the only new skill that a reader must acquire is decoding. Once the print is decoded,

the reader simply enacts the same mechanism used to interpret oral language. Reading

instruction is viewed as a decoding problem, and consequently they concluded that instructional

efforts should be directed toward this goal. While several studies have supported the Simple

View (Catts, Adlof & Ellis-Weismer, 2006; Hoover & Gough, 1990) not all readers follow this

pattern.

Two subgroups of poor readers are identified when it comes to specific problems with

reading comprehension (Hulme & Snowling, 2011; Lipka & Siegel, 2011, Yuill & Oakhill,

1991). The first group of poor comprehenders can be described as having difficulty interpreting

text using oral language processes because of poor decoding. Poor reading comprehension is a

consequence of their weak basic level skills with letter-sound correspondences and decoding

abilities. The second group consists of children who have good word recognition skills in

comparison to their age level peers. This group can read fluently and accurately, but they show

specific problems with reading comprehension due to problems with higher-level language skills

(Yuill & Oakhill, 1991). It is estimated that 10% of primary-school children show deficits in

reading comprehension compared to reading accuracy (Hulme & Snowling, 2011; Nation &

Snowling, 2004). Hulme and Snowling (2011) report that 28% of readers classified as poor

comprehenders were English as second-language learners and that this particular type of

comprehension difficulty due to higher-level processes is more common among second-language

readers.

Successful Reading Comprehension and Underlying Processes

Hoover and Gough (1990) applied the simple view of reading to a longitudinal study with

Spanish-speaking minority students in the U.S. The authors assumed reading comprehension is

dependent on the reader’s ability to process linguistic structures to comprehend oral language.

They proposed three processes that are important for successful reading comprehension. The

first process is the ability to parse sentences into their basic constituents. The second process is

the ability to recognize relationships within and between sentences and to integrate information

through inferential skills. Third is the identification of the underlying text structure including the

microstructure used to process propositions within a text and macrostructure needed to process

the main ideas of the text. Yuill and Oakhill (1991) showed that young, beginning readers have

lower levels of mastery and more difficulty coordinating the described processes for reading

comprehension than older, more experienced readers.

As reading ability increases, the correlations between decoding abilities and reading

comprehension decrease in favor of higher correlations between listening comprehension (the

ability to understand spoken language and process linguistic structures) and reading

comprehension (Cain, 2010; Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Gough, Hoover, & Peterson, 1996;

Hulme & Snowling, 2011; Lervag & Aukrust, 2010; Melby-Lervag & Lervag, 2011; Nation &

Snowling, 2004). This is true for first and second-language learners. The shift from decoding

skills to listening comprehension reflects the increasing linguistic complexity of text with each

grade level. Longitudinal studies with L1 and L2 learners suggest that second-language learners

with poor comprehension skills showed difficulties with working memory and phonological,

syntactic and morphological awareness (Lipka & Siegel, 2011). Particular challenges for L2

learners are not only their receptive and expressive language skills in both languages, but also the

culturally-based lack of background knowledge (Lesaux, Lipka & Siegel, 2006).

Predictor variables for sucessful reading comprehension. In comparison to L1

studies, there are far fewer ESL predictor studies in reading comprehension. Several studies

showed evidence for the importance of word level reading skills and oral language proficiency in

English to reading comprehension (for overviews see August & Shanahan, 2010, 2008; Erdos,

Genesee, Savage & Haigh, 2010; Geva &Yaghoub-Zadeh, 2006; Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer &

Pierce, 2010; Lesaux, Lipka & Siegel, 2006; Lervag & Aukrust, 2010; Nation & Snowling,

2004). Studies also revealed the strong relationships between vocabulary knowledge, decoding

skills and reading comprehension (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux,

2010; Verhoeven, 2000) and the impact of vocabulary, grammatical knowledge and listening

comprehension on reading comprehension (Catts, Adlof & Ellis-Weismer, 2006; Nation, Clarke,

Marshall, & Durand, 2004; Nation, Cocksey, Taylor, & Bishop, 2010; Verhoeven, Reitsma &

Siegel, 2011). De Jong and van de Leij (2002)’s study indicated that fifth grade reading

comprehension can be predicted by third grade word decoding, vocabulary, and listening

comprehension skills, even after controlling for third grade reading comprehension. Lesaux and

colleagues (2010) followed Spanish-speaking students from fourth to fifth grade and showed that

oral language proficiency in L2 was a much stronger predictor of reading comprehension than

word recognition skills, which only accounted for a portion of variance in one of four models.

L2 listening comprehension had the strongest influence on reading comprehension for the

examined group of Spanish-speaking students followed from fourth to fifth grade. This finding

is very essential, because most of the research with L2 learners shows that even after several

years in U.S. schools, listening comprehension skills do not typically reach native-like

proficiency and thus impact the development of reading comprehension skills in a negative way

(Lesaux et al., 2010; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010).

Reading comprehension in ESL learners. The majority of the L2 studies examining

reading comprehension indicate that L2 learners perform significantly lower than their peers on

measures of reading comprehension, even when decoding skills, reading fluency and

phonological awareness abilities are comparable to native speakers (Aarts & Verhoeven, 1999;

August & Shanahan, 2008, 2010; Droop & Verhoeven, 1998, 2003; Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer &

Pierce, 2010; Low & Siegel, 2005; Verhoeven, 1990, 2000). Longitudinal studies by Lesaux,

Rupp and Siegel (2007) and Low and Siegel (2005) demonstrated the opposite results, but it

must be noted that their group of highly diverse ESL learners received early intervention in

phonological awareness in kindergarten and the schools provided a highly balanced literacy

program for all students. Low and Siegel (2005) investigated the role of phonological

processing, verbal working memory and syntactic awareness in reading comprehension with L1

and L2 learners in sixth grade. They found that L2 learners performed equally to their native

speaking peers in word reading, but their performance on syntactic awareness measures

examined by oral cloze tasks was much lower. The authors attributed the slightly lower levels of

reading comprehension in ESL learners, in comparison to native speakers, to the lower measures

in syntactic awareness skills. However, the mean scores for reading comprehension fell into the

50th percentile in comparison to the 58th percentile for native speakers, indicating that ESL

students were not at a disadvantage. Lesaux, Rupp and Siegel (2007) examined the same cohort,

comparing their kindergarten and fourth grade performance. They found that in kindergarten, L2

learners performed significantly lower on early literacy assessments, but by fourth grade there

were no differences between L1 and L2 students in reading comprehension.

A longitudinal study by Chong (2009) investigated reading comprehension in L1

(N=593) and L2 learners (N=153) from fourth to seventh grade who attended an urban school

district of 30 schools in North Vancouver, Canada. The participants had a variety of linguistic

backgrounds and her sample included 33 different languages. All of the students in this study

were exposed to a rich literacy program and if they were identified as at-risk students, received

intensive phonemic awareness training during their preschool years. Chong measured

phonological awareness, pseudoword decoding, word identification, reading fluency, and

syntactic awareness as basic processes of reading comprehension and examined whether or not

there were differences between the two groups. Her results showed that ESL learners and native

speakers did not differ significantly in the linear ways their reading comprehension skills grew

and changed over the three years. For both groups, word identification, reading fluency, and

syntactic awareness were identified as significant predictor variables for higher levels of reading

comprehension at fourth grade, but pseudoword decoding skills and phonological awareness did

not turn out as significant predictors for reading comprehension. This pattern has been found in

studies with native English-speakers, suggesting that the relationship between reading

comprehension and phonological skills may be indirect and mediated by word recognition (Cain,

Oakhill & Bryant, 2000).

However, second-language-learners were weaker in reading comprehension and did not

close the initial gap over the course of the study. The author suggests that the weaker reading

comprehension skills of ESL learners could be related to weaker abilities in underlying basic

processes of reading comprehension. While both groups performed similarly in the areas of

word reading and reading fluency, ESL learners showed much weaker abilities in syntactic

awareness tasks. Deficits in structural and grammatical aspects of English (e.g., lower syntactic

awareness) in ESL learners have been shown in other studies as well (August & Shanahan, 2010;

Da Fountoura & Siegel, 1995; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Lesaux et al., 2006).

Most of the previous L2 research has concentrated on word recognition and phonological

awareness skills, validating that the stages of initial reading development are the same for L1 and

L2 learners. This suggests that models of reading development such as Ehri’s bottom-up model

(2000) are applicable to both groups (for reviews see August & Shanahan, 2010, 2008). Chong’s

study contributed to the existing research with her finding that the development of text

comprehension skills are dependent on the same underlying processes and occur similarly in

nature and growth rates for L1 and L2 learners. Her longitudinal study shows that L2 learners

developed the same word recognition skills as their native speaking peers by grade four,

suggesting that the early intervention in phonological awareness development and the school-

wide literacy program were highly effective. Nevertheless, L2 learners still lagged behind their

peers in syntactic awareness and text comprehension despite of all early intervention efforts, as

reported in August and Shanahan’s meta- analyses (2008, 2010). Several L2 researchers

strongly suggested that intervention programs should include components based on syntax and

morphology (Demont & Gombert, 1996; Lipka & Siegel, 2011; Martohardjono et al., 2005;

Siegel, 2008).

Syntactic Awareness in ESL Learners

During the past two decades, researchers have become increasingly aware of the role of

syntactic awareness and the importance of grammatical knowledge for reading comprehension.

Syntactic awareness is a cognizance of the grammatical structures of a language. It is defined as

awareness of the syntactic structure of sentences and the ability to reflect on and manipulate that

structure (Kuo & Anderson, 2008). It has been argued that this meta-awareness of the

grammatical patterns in one’s native language can be used to analyze and understand similarities

and differences when a second language is learned (August & Shanahan, 2008; Bialystock, 2007;

Cummins 2000; Tarone, 1979). Likewise, learning a second language heightens syntactic

awareness as a speaker thinks about language consciously when attempting to formulate an

utterance.

One can differentiate between different levels of syntactic awareness skills in young

children: syntactic error detection is acquired earlier than error correction skills, and explanations

of why certain structures are required are the most difficult task. To make grammatical

corrections in their own sentence productions, children must understand how to analyze syntactic

structures and to assign roles to different sentence parts (i.e., noun, verb). This process takes

several years and improves throughout grade levels and even beyond the school years (Menyuk,

1999).

A variety of tasks has been used to measure syntactic awareness, sometimes with

conflicting results. Measures typically include tasks to detect, correct and/or explain syntactic

errors, word order correction tasks and cloze tasks. One view of these contradictions is that

syntactic awareness may not be a solitary entity, but rather a continuum of meta-abilities that

evolve both developmentally and with experience.

Syntactic and morphosyntactic awareness. The concept of transference of first

language knowledge during the process of second-language acquisition was explored by

Cummins (1978). Known as the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, Cummins proposed

that the linguistic abilities, both knowledge and skills, present in the first language can facilitate

the development of similar abilities in the second language. That is, having a word order

strategy in one language for communicating a linguistic role can help the speaker identify a

strategy for performing a similar function in the second language. This expectation, as well as

already acquired structures in the first language, can form a scaffold for learning a second

language. Becoming consciously aware of this process is termed syntactic awareness.

Syntactic awareness is defined as conscious knowledge about how sentences are

constructed. Kuo and Anderson (2008) differentiate two components of syntactic awareness:

knowledge about word order and morphosyntactical awareness. Both subcomponents have been

shown to be important for second-language acquisition. Word order awareness refers to a

conscious recognition of differences between the native language and a second language. Slobin

(1980) conducted cross-cultural research and revealed word order variations among languages.

Some languages have relatively restricted word order patterns (e.g., French, German) while

others are more flexible, making greater use of inflection (e.g., Hebrew, Portugese, Romanian,

Russian, Finnish). Essentially every language makes use of a preferred word order strategy.

When learning a second language, the differences in word order between the native and target

language often result in heightened syntactic awareness abilities and interference with second

language learning. Researchers (Ellis, 1994; Slobin, 1980) suggested that the degree of difficulty

learning a second language could be predicted by the differences between the structure of the

first and second language. Termed Contrastive Analysis, these linguists studied pairs of

languages for their structural differences and similarities and found that second-language

learners often apply their knowledge of word order in L1 to their constructions in L2, leading to

confusion, overgeneralizations, and mistakes (Cummins, 2000; Tomasello, 2003).

Morphosyntactical awareness is the ability to consciously analyze, compare, manipulate

and alter language forms (e.g., subject-verb agreement, agreement in tense, aspect, number,

gender or case). All languages use morphology to specify relationships within and across

sentences, but some languages use morphology to mark grammatical roles to a greater extent

than others. For example, Russian makes use of a complex inflectional system in nouns, while

English specifies these roles using word order. Learning a second language may be easier or

more difficult depending upon the similarity in the morphosyntactic markers to the first

language. The structures and markers of a first language can be transferred fairly directly to a

similar second language (i.e., Spanish and English), but for languages with inflectional

differences, an entirely new structure must be acquired (i.e., Russian and English).

Syntactic awareness in bilingual children. Support for the role of syntactic awareness

in second language acquisition can be found in the study of children acquiring two languages.

To acquire two languages, speakers must differentiate between two or more language systems

and different syntactic rules. Researchers have proffered that children learning two languages

become consciously aware of the different systems as they learn contrasting syntactic strategies

for communicating the same content. If this is the case, bilingual children are likely to develop

syntactic awareness very early in their language acquisition process, especially when compared

to monolingual speakers (Kuo & Anderson, 2008). Several studies that examined syntactic

awareness skills have found advantages for young bilingual immigrant children (Bialystock,

1988; Cromdall, 1999; Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990; Ricciardelli, 1992).

Syntactic awareness assessed with word order correction tasks. Ricciardelli (1992)

conducted a study with 57 Italian-English bilingual and 55 monolingual English speaking first

graders with a mean age of 5;8 years. To assess grammatical awareness, she used a word order

correction task and specifically examined three word order violations, adjective-noun violations

(e.g., I like days hot), subject-verb-object violations (e.g., Dad the car washes) and verb-negator

violations (e.g., The lawn not is wet). Children were asked to help a puppet to say the sentences

in the right way (correction task). Her conclusions were that even though bilingual Italian-

English children showed smaller English vocabularies when compared to monolinguals, they

outperformed the monolingual English-speaking control group in the described word-order

correction tasks. However, the level of second language proficiency did make a difference. Her

data supported her hypothesis that high language proficiency in both languages led to better

results in word order tasks than low language proficiency in one or both of the languages. This

finding is consistent with Cummin’s (2000) threshold theory proposing that cognitive advantages

in bilinguals can only be found in students with highly proficient or balanced language

proficiency.

Syntactic awareness assessed with grammatical judgment and correction tasks. Similar

results were found by Bialystock (1988) who examined performance on syntax correction tasks

in bilingual French-English children. Their findings showed the advantage in syntactic

awareness skills compared to monolingual English-speaking children was only observed in

balanced bilingual speakers. Children with a lower proficiency in French did not show superior

skills.

Syntactic awareness may be acquired in different levels over an extended period of time

as examined in Galambos and Goldin-Meadow’s study (1990). The authors investigated

developmental patterns of syntactic awareness in monolingual English, monolingual Spanish,

and bilingual Spanish-English speaking children in pre-K, kindergarten, and first grade (age

range 4;4 to 8 years). Bilingual children were proficient in both languages. A grammatical

judgment task was used to assess developmental patterns. Three different levels of syntactic

awareness skills were presented: the detection of syntactic errors, the correction of detected

errors, and the explanation of error corrections. The different tasks reflected children’s

metalinguistic development from implicit (i.e., recognizing that something is incorrect) to

explicit (i.e., understanding the grammatical rules) knowledge about language. Their tasks

indicated a continuum from lowest to highest levels of awareness, or a change from content-

based understanding to a structure-based interpretation of language. Results revealed similar

stages of development for both groups: syntactic error detection was acquired earlier than error

correction skills and explanation was the most difficult task. In addition, age differences were

found. Bilingual children in pre-K showed a grammar-oriented approach to corrections, while

monolinguals showed a content approach until kindergarten. Explanations were difficult for all

children across ages, and bilinguals were not more successful than monolinguals at providing

grammar-based explanations for incorrect structures. This outcome suggests that bilingual

children acquire an earlier sensitivity for forms, but at first grade do not have greater explicit

knowledge about language.

The role of language proficiency in grammatical judgment tasks. Bialystock (1988)

conducted an experiment to explore if the degree of bilingual language proficiency had an

influence on students’ ability to differentiate between form and content of syntactic structures

and to find and correct errors. She administered grammatical judgment tests to 41 bilingual

Italian-English first grade students in both languages. Four different types of sentences were

included in the test: grammatically and syntactically correct sentences, semantically meaningful

but grammatically incorrect sentences (called incorrect), semantically not meaningful but

grammatically correct sentences (called anomalous) and semantically not meaningful and

grammatically incorrect sentences. The conditions of interest were the incorrect and anomalous

sentences in which content and form conflicted, because children had to focus on the

grammatical structure instead of the meaning to determine that the sentences were wrong. For

both types of sentences, children had to intentionally suppress the meaning and focus on formal

structures, a judgment that requires high level cognitive as well as syntactic awareness skills.

Results were similar across language groups for test scores on the anomalous items, but children

with better Italian language proficiency scored higher on tasks with incorrect sentences in

comparison with children with low Italian proficiency and monolingual children. Her study

supports the advantage for bilingual children, but puts an additional emphasis on high and

balanced language proficiency in both languages. It also has to be noted that her examination

was based on error detection and correction and not on explanations why certain forms were

wrong, the highest developmental stage of syntactic awareness as described in Galambos and

Goldin-Meadow’s study (1990).

Cromdall (1999) replicated Bialystock’s study with two groups of English-Swedish

bilingual students and a monolingual Swedish group. The bilingual participants showed similar

proficiency in English, but different levels of Swedish proficiency. The group with lower

Swedish proficiency performed similarly to the monolingual group, even though their vocabulary

in Swedish was significantly smaller. The highly balanced Swedish-English group scored higher

on the incorrect sentence tasks compared to the monolingual group.

Davidson, Raschke and Pervez (2010) compared ten monolingual English-speaking

children’s performance on grammatical judgment tests with ten bilingual Urdu-English speaking

children’s performance. The bilingual children were described as highly proficient in Urdu and

English, but they were only tested in English for the first experiment. Fifteen grammatically

correct and fifteen grammatically incorrect sentences were presented. Children were asked to

determine if they were correct and if not to explain why the sentence was incorrect. Bilingual

children outperformed monolingual children in detecting grammatically incorrect sentences, but

all children had problems explaining why sentences were incorrect, consistent with Galambos

and Goldin-Meadow’s study (1990). In a second experiment six additional sentences were added

and bilingual children received either an English version of the sentences or a version in Urdu.

The sample size was increased to 72 children. Results showed that the bilingual children and

monolingual children could identify the correct sentences equally well. However, the bilinguals

performed better than their monolingual peers at detecting incorrect sentences in English. The

language of instruction did not make a difference so that grammatically incorrect sentences were

equally well detected in English and Urdu. The authors also found that children between 3-4

years of age were not able to point out grammatically incorrect sentences but the 5- 6 year olds

could perform this task. Consistent with Galambos and Goldin-Meadow (1990), a

developmental continuum was apparent that showed younger children attended more to meaning

instead of form and that bilinguals held an advantage in detecting ungrammatical sentences.

Lower syntactic awareness in ESL learners. While several researchers have shown

greater syntactic awareness among bilingual children, not all studies have supported this finding.

No advantages for second-language learners on syntactic awareness over monolingual children

were found in a series of early studies by Siegel and colleagues (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002;

Chiappe & Siegel, 1999; Lipka & Siegel, 2007). The different results could be attributed to

different measurements used to assess syntactic awareness. The studies by Siegel et al. focused

on the development of reading skills for English speaking children and English as second-

language learners. Syntactic awareness skills were assessed through oral cloze tasks. Children

had to listen to 12 different sentences and were asked to provide the missing word to create a

semantically and syntactically correct sentence (e.g., Jane ____ her sister ran up the hill; the

brown dog is small; the grey dog is smaller; but the white one is the ______). Results of all three

studies indicated that native English speakers always scored significantly higher on oral cloze

tasks than ESL students. Kuo and Anderson (2008) argue that native speakers might not need

explicit syntactic awareness skills to fill in the right word. Monolinguals could attend to

meaning instead of form and might not be able to explain why they used the word as opposed to

bilingual speakers, who might have a more explicit understanding of language forms, but smaller

vocabularies. Additionally, language proficiency in the native language was not taken into

account in studies by Siegel and colleagues. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether

bilingualism did not have an impact on syntactic awareness or whether the participants did not

show a certain proficiency in their second language yet, so that metalinguistic advantages did not

occur at the time of evaluation. While Siegel and colleagues present data suggesting that

bilinguals do not hold an advantage for all tasks, the literature does suggest that bilingualism has

a positive impact on children’s early abilities to focus on language structures and to detect

incorrect structures. It can also be concluded that the level of proficiency in both languages is an

important indicator for the degree of metalinguistic awareness. Children with higher or equal

language proficiency in their second language showed higher syntactic awareness skills because

of their abilities to differentiate between languages and to consciously compare grammatical

forms for self-correction.

Syntactic awareness and written language in ESL learners. Earlier research showed

an advantage for young bilingual children with high language proficiency in both languages on

syntactic awareness tasks. However, early language differs from academic language in

important ways. Cummins (2000) made a distinction between basic interpersonal

communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). According

to Cummins, the conversational language skills or BICS can be acquired very quickly through

interactions with peers, because very few cognitive demands are required (Cummins, 2000;

Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2006). Cummins compares the development of basic interpersonal

communication skills with the language development of typically developing children and

explains that children do not need formal instruction to acquire such language skills. On the

other hand, his research showed that it takes between 5-7 years for minority students to achieve

native-like academic language proficiency (CALP) in their second language, because schools

demand very high decontextualized language skills and abstract thinking which includes

metacognitive skills such as syntactic awareness.

Jongejan, Verhoeven and Siegel (2007) looked at the relationship between second

language learning and academic learning. They examined first and second-language learners

between first and fourth grade to predict word reading and spelling abilities. Their study

specifically addressed the question of whether or not the processes that are known to underlie the

reading and spelling skills of L1 speakers (phonological awareness, lexical access, syntactic

awareness and working memory) would be the same for second language learners. Syntactic

awareness was assessed using syntactic error judgment tasks; the children had to determine if

sentences were grammatically correct or not (e.g., To school go I. This is a chair.) Thirty-five

sentences were used, including 12 syntactically correct and 13 incorrect. The overall results of

the study revealed that performances on phonological awareness tasks, word and pseudoword

reading, and word and pseudoword spelling were similar for both groups. Second-language

learners outperformed the monolingual group in tests related to lexical access (e.g., rapid word

naming tasks), but scored lower on tasks related to syntactic awareness and verbal working

memory. Even though the authors report improvements in syntactic awareness skills in grades 3

and 4, it was questioned whether ESL children would reach native-like syntactic awareness skills

in higher grades. As a result of their regression analysis, the authors came to the conclusion that

syntactic awareness and verbal working memory were important predictor variables for word

reading and spelling competencies for monolingual children in grades 3 and 4, but not for

second- language learners. Verbal working memory was assessed with sentence completion

tasks and repetition of responses. According to the authors it is possible that the lower language

proficiency of the ESL students may have accounted for the lower performance on working

memory tasks in comparison to the monolingual students.

Despite lower performances for the second-language learners in syntactic awareness,

reading and spelling skills were comparable to first language learners. One possible explanation

suggested by Jongejan et al. (2007) was that second-language learners may use their superior

lexical access skills to compensate for lower skills in working memory and syntactic awareness.

It also should be pointed out that reading and spelling were measured using single words and

nonsense words. Reading comprehension and text writing abilities were not considered in this

study, and results might have been different if they would have served as variables. The findings

show that the importance of syntactic awareness and verbal working memory to reading skills is

ambiguous. Since language proficiency was not controlled for, children in these studies may

have developed social language skills (BICS) but not a level of proficiency that would support

academic language (CALP) (Cummins, 2000).

A second study by Lipka and Siegel (2007) investigated reading skills in second-

language learners. The longitudinal study assessed phonological awareness, syntactic awareness,

memory, spelling, word reading and lexical access as predictor variables for reading skills in

kindergarten and third grade. The study included 701 L1 students and 128 ESL students in

kindergarten and through grade 3. Syntactic awareness was assessed with oral cloze tasks in

which children had to provide missing words for 11 sentences. The ESL group showed

significantly lower scores in the areas of phonological awareness, syntactic awareness, spelling

and memory for sentences in kindergarten, but by third grade, both groups showed similar scores

except for results in syntactic awareness and spelling. As in earlier studies by Siegel and

colleagues, it was found that ESL students did not reach the same level as their monolingual

peers when it came to syntactic awareness. The authors found that the variation in third-grade

word reading for L1 students was explained by the five kindergarten measures (i.e., phonological

awareness, syntactic awareness, lexical access, letter identification and memory for sentences),

but only letter identification and memory for sentences explained the variation for word reading

ability for second-language learners.

The results of these two studies suggest that syntactic awareness skills may only play a

limited role in literacy abilities of young L2 learners, since both studies show equal reading

proficiency levels in both groups. However, both studies only measured reading skills at the

word level. Syntactic awareness skills were reported to increase by grade level and this finding

suggests they might become predictor variables for ESL students if passage reading and

comprehension skills on the text level are addressed.

Poor readers’ difficulties to detect and correct errors. Adams (1990) revealed the strong

positive correlation between metalinguistic abilities and reading and writing skills. The presence

of reduced syntactic awareness, as measured by various different tests, is documented in several

studies of poor readers, suggesting that poor readers have difficulties detecting and correcting

syntactic errors. Tunmer (1989) conducted a longitudinal study with 100 first graders and found

out that syntactic awareness skills at first grade were strong predictors of word recognition in

second grade, controlling for effects of verbal intelligence and concrete operativity. Syntactic

awareness was assessed by 3-5 word long oral word-order correction tasks. There was a stronger

correlation between syntactic awareness, reading comprehension (r = .42) and listening

comprehension (r = .56) than between phonological awareness, reading comprehension (r = .31)

and listening comprehension (r = .31). Syntactic awareness also correlated with real word and

pseudoword decoding (r = .46) and was described as equally predictive as phonological

awareness skills for decoding. Listening comprehension became a significant independent

contributor to reading comprehension in second grade, suggesting that as soon as basic decoding

skills are acquired, listening comprehension increases in significance at later stages of the

reading process. Tunmer considered syntactic awareness as an independent predictor of listening

comprehension and decoding abilities. This finding was challenged by Gottardo, Stanovich and

Siegel (1996) who conducted a study with third graders. Their main result found phonological

awareness measures, but not syntactic processing as significant predictors for word reading. The

conflicting findings might be explained by the different age groups, but also by different

assessments of the construct “syntactic awareness” or “syntactic processing”. While Tunmer

only used word order tasks, Gottardo et al. used sentence judgment and correction tasks,

including word order tasks, but also subject-verb agreement and errors in prepositional usage.

Fowler (1988) used a syntactic judgment task with good and poor readers in second

grade to examine whether or not there were differences between the two groups in detecting and

correcting errors. The students were asked to judge if orally presented sentences were correct or

incorrect. She found no association between reading ability and the ability to point out correct

and incorrect sentences. However, good readers showed superior skills in syntactic correction

tasks in comparison to poor readers. She therefore drew the conclusion that there was no

difference in syntactic knowledge between the two groups, but that poor readers might have

more problems with manipulating syntactic elements in short-term memory in comparison to

good readers.

Bentin, Deutsch, and Liberman (1990) conducted a similar auditory syntactic judgment

task with 3 groups of Hebrew-speaking students. They compared 19 students identified as

severely dyslexic readers with good (N= 15) and poor readers (N=15) who attended fourth grade

at two local elementary schools. The poor readers were identified as good decoders, but did not

perform as well as the good reading group on a reading task without vowel marks. Reading

instruction in Hebrew starts with vowel marks that are presented with the consonant letters.

Children begin to learn to read without vowels during third grade and are expected to be fluent

readers of unvoweled text by fourth grade (Bentin et al., 1990). It is generally agreed that there

is an inverse relationship between fluency in Hebrew and reliance on vowel marks for reading.

When asked to judge if sentences were correct or incorrect, good and poor readers

performed equally, but the good readers were significantly better in correcting syntactic

violations. It is likely that their superior performance in syntactic awareness reflect greater

language fluency. The dyslexic group performed significantly lower than both comparison

groups, both in the auditorily presented sentence judgment task, as well as in the correction task.

The dyslexic readers were able to detect syntactically correct sentences as well as good readers,

but their performance on incorrect sentences was inferior for detection and correction. This

suggests that the dyslexic group showed less explicit awareness about basic syntactic structures.

In opposition to Fowler (1990), Bentin et al. (1990) argued that the differences cannot be

attributed to short-term memory deficiencies, because only three or four-word sentences were

used and students of all groups were able to repeat all sentences correctly. Their results suggest

group differences in the ability to detect and generate correct syntactic structures; and a

relationship between reading disabilities and syntactic abilities in Hebrew. The authors proposed

the existence of different aspects of syntactic awareness that might develop at different rates, a

suggestion that has been advocated in several other studies (Davidson, Raschke, & Perves, 2009;

Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990).

Nation and Snowling (2000) researched syntactic awareness of 30 English-speaking

children (15 poor comprehenders, 15 typical readers) between 6-11 years, matched on decoding

skills, chronological age and nonverbal skills. Auditory word order correction tasks on active

and passive sentences were presented to both good and poor readers. The overall results

revealed that typical readers performed significantly better on all experimental tasks than poor

comprehenders. Both groups performed better on active sentences. Therefore, the authors

concluded that the children’s performance on word ordering tasks was influenced by syntactic

complexity (e.g., active vs. passive structures). Syntactic awareness was also influenced by

semantic ambiguity. Reversible sentences (e.g., The elephant gave the monkey to the rabbit)

were much more difficult for children than irreversible sentences (e.g., The elephant put the

bananas in the box). The authors suggest that poor comprehenders’ lower syntactic awareness

abilities reflect difficulties with higher-level language skills and include major weaknesses in

semantics and grammar.

Demont and Gombert (1996) followed 23 French students from preschool to second

grade to determine if phonemic and syntactic awareness predicted later reading achievement.

Grammatical judgment and correction tasks were administered as measures for syntactic

awareness and the authors found that syntactic awareness skills increased steadily over time.

The students performed better on judgment tasks than on correction tasks, a result that is

congruent with several other studies (Bentin, Deutsch & Liberman, 1990; Davison, Raschke, &

Perves, 2009; Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990). The authors found performance on

phonemic tasks (e.g., phoneme counting, phoneme deletion, phoneme inversion) to be the best

predictors of decoding skills, whereas syntactic awareness skills only contributed weakly to

decoding abilities. By comparison, they observed that only syntactic awareness measures

predicted reading comprehension, particularly judgment and correction in word order tasks and

the correction of morpho-syntactic structures. This was specifically important from second

grade on and confirmed the hypothesis of a strong link between syntactic skills and

comprehension abilities. However, phonemic awareness measures contributed much more to the

variance in decoding skills than syntactic measures to the variance in comprehension measures,

so that other variables that were not measured might have to be considered (e.g., working

memory).

Mokhtari and Thompson (2006) examined thirty-two fifth grade students' levels of

syntactic awareness in relation to their reading fluency and comprehension. Syntactic awareness

was assessed through three subtests (oral sentence combining, word ordering and grammatical

comprehension) of the TOLD:I (Hammill & Newcomer, 1997). Correlation analyses revealed a

significant relationship between syntactic awareness and reading fluency (r = .625), as well as

between syntactic awareness and their performance on reading comprehension (r = .816). The

results of the study confirmed the authors’ proposed hypothesis that students who scored higher

on measures of syntactic awareness showed higher level performance in reading fluency and

reading comprehension. In accordance with Nation and Snowling’s studies (2000, 2004),

Mokhtari and Thomson concluded that lower syntactic awareness skills cannot be described as

“by-product of poor phonemic awareness skills”. According to the authors, weaknesses in

syntactic awareness skills refer to language processing difficulties with higher- level language

skills, especially syntax. Mokhtari and Thomson even go a step further to argue that the over-

emphasis on phonemic awareness and decoding in research may have masked the urgency to

examine the relationships between syntactic awareness skills and reading problems. This is

consistent with Nation and Snowling’s (2004) findings that language skills beyond decoding

skills were strong predictors for additional variance in word recognition. Listening

comprehension and expressive vocabulary were stronger longitudinal predictors than semantic

skills, measured by semantic fluency and a synonym judgment task, suggesting that general

language abilities rather than specific semantic features shape the development of the reading

system.

Syntactic processing difficulties in dyslexic readers. Leikin (2002) compared the ability

of 18 dyslexic and 18 normal readers between 18-27 years of age to identify differences in

sentence processing in Hebrew. Electrophysical measures (event-related potentials) were used to

detect different levels of brain activation as well as different levels of processing difficulties.

The emphasis of the study was based on the use of information about syntactic functions for

sentence comprehension or, in other words, the identification of grammatical roles of words,

especially subject and predicate. An earlier study with typical readers (Leikin & Breznitz, 1999)

showed that adult Hebrew-speaking readers preferred a predicate-oriented, morphologically

based strategy to process different grammatical functions and that word order did not significally

impact the ability to identify grammatical parts of speech. Results of the study with poor readers

(Leikin, 2002) showed that readers with dyslexia were significantly slower in sentence

processing and showed more effort in comparison to normal readers, suggesting weaknesses in

syntactic processing. It was also revealed that dyslexic readers mainly used a word order

strategy instead of a predicate-oriented, morphologically based strategy.

Oral Hebrew interpretation does not generally rely primarily on word order when other

morphological cues are present, since morphological affixes are containing important syntactic

information. Thus, using word order strategies to identify words’ grammatical functions is a

simpler and not always successful strategy and tends to be characteristic of Hebrew speakers

with less verbal fluency. The predicate- oriented strategy was more evident in normal readers

who showed the highest brain activation for the detection of the predicate, followed by subject

detection, the object, and/or modifier and/or preposition. The word-order activation pattern

observed in the dyslexic readers showed the highest brain activation for the detection of the

subject, followed by the predicate, the object and/or preposition and the modifier. Leikin’s

finding confirms the hypothesis of differences in sentence processing between normal readers

and readers with dyslexia.

Good readers show good mastery of syntactic structures and perform high on syntactic

awareness tasks. Repeated reading leads to more and more knowledge about syntax and how to

manipulate syntactic structures. Poor readers however start out with low syntactic awareness

skills and do not have the opportunities to increase their syntactic awareness skills because of

their difficulties with decoding and language processing.

The concept of transference of first language knowledge during the process of second

language acquisition intuitively presents an explanation of strategies used when acquiring a

second language. The degree to which this process occurs consciously is still open for debate.

There is evidence that young children acquiring a second language develop at least recognition

of incorrect sentences earlier than their monolingual peers. However, this advantage depends on

language proficiency in both languages, age of child, and task demands. Several researchers

suggest that task demands should be considered as existing along a continuum that is influenced

by both age and language proficiency. Difficulties interpreting the literature are found when task

demands or language proficiency levels are not given or fully defined. When older children are

examined, the relationship of bilingualism and syntactic awareness is less clear. Older bilinguals

appear to perform less successfully than their monolingual peers on measures of syntactic

awareness.

Intervention for Syntactic Awareness

The increasing evidence of the importance of syntactic awareness to reading

comprehension for both L1 and L2 speakers has researchers calling for the need for effective

instruction aimed at syntactic awareness (Demont & Gombert, 1996; Lesaux, Lipka & Siegel,

2006; Mokhtari & Thomson, 2006; Siegel, 2008). If poor levels of syntactic awareness

correspond to poor reading fluency and poor comprehension, then increasing syntactic awareness

should have a direct positive effect on reading.

The question becomes what form this training should take. Formal grammar is studied

within language arts from elementary through high school with the expectation that learning the

parts of speech and grammatical analysis will lead to improvements in reading comprehension

and writing (Hillocks, 1986). Workbook pages and other textbook activities are used to practice

identification of examples of targeted grammatical forms, correct errors such as noun-verb

agreement, and analyze the structure of sentences. However, decades of research and variations

in instructional approaches have revealed few positive outcomes resulting from the formal

training of grammar on any aspect of oral or written language (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, &

Schoer, 1963; Hillocks & Smith, 2003; Weaver, 1979). Braddock et al. (1963) stated that

explicit formal teaching of grammar is of no benefit and may even be harmful because of the

time that it takes away from useful classroom instruction. This finding was reinforced in a recent

review by Andrews (2010) who concluded that no current studies have shown any positive

effects from the teaching of grammar. The instruction in grammar has been particularly

ineffective for those most at-risk who fail to learn the grammar and subsequently are unable to

use the information to reflect on language for reading and writing (Lundberg & Squire, 2003).

While many agree that there is a need to revise the method in which grammar is taught (Hillocks,

1986; Schleppegrell, 1998; Weaver, 1996), Taylor (1986) argues that traditional instruction

continues because viable alternative approaches have not been developed.

Harris and Graham (1992) argued that grammar taught outside of a context of meaning

and use had little chance of generalization to authentic writing. They indicated greater benefits

could be accrued from explicit teaching of grammar in context during actual writing. Similarly,

Hillocks (2005) argued that knowing the parts of speech does not help develop the skills and

strategies needed to develop a focused and coherent written essay. It is the wrong type of meta-

reflection about language because it does not help writers to think or generate ideas. The few

studies that evaluated teaching of grammar in the context of writing did show reductions in

grammatical errors or increases in grammatical complexity, referred to as “syntactic fluency”

(Elley et al., 1976; McQuade, 1980; Weaver, 2010).

In addition to scaffolded grammar instruction during writing, only sentence combining

with or without learning the grammatical terms had positive effects on syntactic fluency in

writing. Mellon (1969) found small significant gains for students instructed in transformational

grammar rules that had a sentence combining component. O’Hare (1973) was able to replicate

the outcomes using sentence combining alone with no reference to the grammatical terminology

or rules. This led to a flurry of studies examining the effects of sentence combining on writing.

Hillocks and Mavrogenes (1986) reviewed the extant research and revealed that 60% of the

studies using sentence combining practice did result in increases in syntactic maturity for

experimental subjects compared to control group subjects across age groups and types of

students. Remedial and disadvantaged students also showed greater change than higher

performing peers following sentence combining practice (Hunt & O’Donnell, 1970; Perron,

1975; Ross, 1971; Schuster, 1977; Waterfall, 1978).

Few studies have examined the effects of teaching grammar in the context of reading

comprehension. This lack of research is surprising in that one of the two measures of readability

(Fry, 1963) is grammar (the other being the number of syllables per word, a measure of

vocabulary). The relationship between grammar and reading comprehension has also shown

high correlations (Catts, 1993; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999). The effects of grammar

instruction on reading comprehension was explored by Straw and Schreiner (1982) who found

that students who engaged in sentence combining compared to a control group who learned to

name parts of speech did better on a reading cloze task but not on a test of reading

comprehension following 25 sessions. The opposite was found by Levine (1977) who compared

sentence combining (96 sessions) to a control group who only read their classroom reading text

for a comparable amount of time. In this study, comprehension improved significantly following

grammar instruction while measures of word recognition did not. Chipere (2003) taught

complex noun phrases to 18-year old college students and demonstrated improved reading

comprehension.

The majority of the intervention studies for ESL students target phonemic awareness and

phonics training (August & Shanahan, 2008, 2010). Results of these studies reveal that reading

fluency improves and for many subjects, once words are fluently recognized comprehension also

improves. However, syntactic awareness remains poor and subtle comprehension problems

remain (Demont & Gombert, 1996; Lipka & Siegel, 2006; Van Staden, 2011).

Animated PowerPoint presentations as intervention tool. Norris (1989) proposed an

interactive model of reading, termed Communicative Reading Strategies (CRS), to improve

reading fluency and comprehension. Consistent with Hoover and Gough (1990), during CRS

interaction sentences are parsed into their basic constituents, students are guided to recognize

relationships within and between sentences, and the macrostructure is examined for clues used to

draw inferences. To accomplish this, the interventionist facilitates word recognition and

comprehension by scaffolding the reading for the child turn-by-turn. When the reader has

difficulty, as interpreted by poor fluency, inappropriate phrasing or intonation, low volume, or

miscues, the facilitator provides support by giving a prompt, providing more information, or

providing a quick explicit lesson on the needed skill (i.e., decoding/phonics, morphology,

vocabulary, or syntax).

Scaffolding strategies used for syntax include providing a preparatory set that suggests

what the sentence will be about, parsing a sentence into constituent clauses or phrases, or

pointing to and paraphrasing a sentence, followed by reexamining it as written. While clinical

trials have shown highly positive changes in reading fluency and comprehension, the scaffolding

procedures are variable and based on the facilitator’s interpretation of the information needed by

the child moment to moment. It also is dependent upon the facilitator having a strong

metalinguistic awareness of the syntactic difficulties found in the text and their transformational

origin in order to show the reader how to interpret the sentence. Therefore, it is not a technique

that can be broadly disseminated.

To address the need for instruction in syntactic awareness in a more reliable manner,

Animation Scaffolded PowerPoints were developed (Norris, 2009). The animation in the

scaffolded PowerPoint stories follow Hoover and Gough’s (1990) principles, parsing complex

sentences into their constituents so that students can see the phrases and sentences underlying the

complex structure, and then highlighting the linguistic forms that build the relationships of

meaning within and across sentences as the complex sentences are reconstructed. Thus,

strategies for sentence combining are modeled and practiced, consistent with research

demonstrating the efficacy of that practice (Hillocks & Mavrogenes, 1986; Hunt & O’Donnell,

1970; Perron, 1975; Ross, 1971; Schuster, 1977; Waterfall, 1978).

For example, if the sentence read, “Whales are mammals that breathe air through

blowholes”, then animation would unpack this into two sentences, “Whales are mammals” and

“Whales breathe air through blowholes”. The animation highlights the redundant noun “whales”

and then substitutes the second for the pronoun “that” which also syntactically combines the

sentences.

The successive frames in the PowerPoint build the macrostructure and allow for returning

to previous frames to help readers see how information presented in earlier sentences is used to

draw inferences later in the text. The function of forms such as pronouns that reduce redundancy

are highlighted, as well as forms such as conjunctions that combine and subordinate information.

Like Communicative Reading Strategies, the interactions with the animated PowerPoints

are primarily a meaning making process. The grammatical structures are revealed as strategies

to express intended meanings. Forms are viewed as tools for coding the intended meanings.

Like the scaffolded grammar instruction approach for writing (Weaver, 2010), grammar

instruction is incorporated into the PowerPoints as a natural part of the discussion. Animation

brings in visual tags that label important elements such as nouns, verbs, conjunctions, or relative

pronouns. As the PowerPoint is presented, the facilitator prompts the children to identify

sentence constituents, find redundant information, and suggests how to combine the sentences or

add clauses such as prepositions or adjectives. Thus, the intervention is highly interactive and

requires the students to actively problem solve and verbally explain the strategies they choose,

thus fostering syntactic awareness using visual and verbal strategies.

Rationale for the Current Study

ESL students are typically behind monolingual peers in reading comprehension even

when phonemic awareness skills, phonics and word recognition are at grade level. The lack of

syntactic awareness is one of the reasons cited in multiple studies (August & Shanahan, 2010; Da

Fountoura & Siegel, 1995; Leseaux & Siegel, 2003; Leseaux et al., 2006; Chong, 2009; Siegel,

2008). All of these studies recommended procedures to increase syntactic awareness skills and

to support the understanding of complex syntactic structures as intervention goals for English as

second-language learners.

Two pilot studies have been conducted using Scaffolded Animated PowerPoints (Norris,

Meaux, Tausch, 2009; Norris, Meaux, Tausch, Delrose, 2010). A fifth grade Animation

Scaffolded PowerPoint was used in a pilot study for monolingual at-risk fourth graders.

Following six weeks of intervention (one hour weekly) reading comprehension improved by

eight months (significant) and measures of syntax improved by +1 standard deviation (also

significant) on the Test of Language Development: Intermediate (TOLD:I) compared to the

control subjects. A second pilot study addressing younger subjects yielded similar gains for

word recognition, comprehension, and language subtests on the TOLD:I. These promising

results suggest that Scaffolded Animated PowerPoints are effective intervention tools for

monolingual speakers and it is hypothesized that they may be beneficial for English as second-

language learners too.

Most of the existing studies for second-language learners focus on increasing phonemic

awareness and phonic skills and do not include training on complex syntactic structures. The

purpose of this study is to contribute to the existing research gap in the literature examining

whether an intervention to improve syntactic awareness skills would be effective for English as

second-language learners.

Specifically, this study evaluated whether or not English as second-language learners

who participated in a syntactic awareness intervention for six weeks would improve their

syntactic awareness and reading scores in comparison to a control group who received a

phonemic awareness intervention.

Research Questions

1. Will there be differences on syntactic awareness measures for ESL students who receive

a syntactic awareness intervention compared to students who receive a phonemic

awareness intervention?

2. Will there be differences on measures of word recognition between ESL students who

receive a syntactic awareness intervention compared to students who receive a phonemic

awareness intervention?

3. Will there be differences on measures of reading comprehension for ESL students who

receive a syntactic awareness intervention and students who receive a phonemic

awareness intervention?

4. Will the level of English Language Proficiency (i.e., beginning vs. intermediate) affect students’

progress in performance scores on measures of syntactic awareness and reading?

METHODS

A six-week intervention, comprised of either a syntactic awareness (SA) or a phonemic

awareness condition (control condition, PA), was implemented with children who spoke English

as a second language at a level considered below the proficiency needed for success in the

classroom. The intervention students were seen three times weekly, receiving an intervention

lesson followed by a daily probe.

Participants

Interventionists. Eight LSU students served as the interventionists at a local Elementary

School. The students included five undergraduate seniors, one master, and two doctoral students

majoring in Communication Sciences and Disorders. The undergraduate and master’s students

were volunteers who enrolled for practicum hours and were receiving a grade for participating.

The undergraduates had just completed an undergraduate course in language disorders, and had

implemented either the syntactic awareness PowerPoint intervention or the phonemic awareness

intervention during an eight-week service learning experience in an elementary school. The

students had learned to administer the test instruments as part of the course/service-learning

requirements.

Immediately prior to the initiation of the study, the course instructor and the Ph.D.

students provided a 2-hour training workshop explaining the activities and procedures. During

that workshop, the test instruments were reviewed and the general procedures were discussed.

The group then subdivided into the syntactic awareness and phonemic awareness groups where

the activities and procedures specific to each condition were presented and practiced.

The interventionists followed the prescribed schedule of testing and intervention

throughout the project according to their assignment on a given day. Interventionists

administered pretests and posttests, intervened using materials provided, and administered daily

probes. One of the Ph.D. students who held state licensure as a speech-language pathologist

(SLP) and is ASHA certified provided ongoing monitoring and supervision. She made sure that

the interventionists followed the daily lesson plans for each group and provided corrective

feedback as needed to ensure treatment fidelity.

Elementary school students. Students were recruited from an elementary school in

Louisiana that houses one of three English as Second-Language (ESL) programs in the parish.

All of the participating students were referred as below grade level by the ESL teacher who

instructed them in a pull-out class for 45 minutes daily. Consent for participation was sent home

by the ESL teacher, and child assent was obtained from those who returned forms. Four students

were excluded from the study following pretesting because their reading performance met grade

level expectations, even though they were referred as students at risk.

The students for this study were twenty elementary students (13 fourth graders and 7 fifth

graders), including ten syntactic awareness intervention students (SA), and 10 phonemic

awareness students (PA) as a control group. The students included 14 males and 6 females.

Students ranged from 9 years, 3 months to 11 years and 6 months of age (mean age SA = 10.6;

PA = 10.4). Seven of the SA and six of the PA students were fourth graders and three of the SA

and four of the PA students were in fifth grade.

All of the students spoke a native language other than English. All of them received free

lunch, an indicator of low socio-economic status. None of the students were receiving services

for special education and none of them had a known delay in their native language according to

parent report. The students had a variety of first languages such as Spanish, Arabic, Swahili,

Thai, Japanese, Dinka, Burmese, Munukutuba, Vietnamese, and French. The heterogeneous

group of ESL students used in this study reflect typical classrooms with a high percentage of

ESL students (see Lesaux, Lipka, & Siegel, 2006). The participant description is profiled in

Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Experimental and Control Students

Subject #

Age

Gender

Grade

Country

Experimental Group

10;3

Munukutuba

Gabon/Congo

10;10

Thai

Burma

10;1

Arabic

Iraq

11;5

Dinka

Sudan

11;5

Spanish

Honduras

10;1

Swahili

Congo

10;1

Burmese

Burma

10;0

Japanese

Japan

10;11

Spanish

Mexico

10;7

Swahili

Congo

Control Group

9;3

Spanish

Cuba

9;6

Thai

Burma

10;4

French

Gabon/Congo

10;8

Arabic

Iraq

10;5

Vietnamese

Vietnam

11;5

Spanish

Mexico

9;5

Spanish

Mexico

9;11

Spanish

born in U.S.

11;6

Spanish

Mexico

11;3

Swahili

Congo

Oral Language Proficiency in English

The English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) measured students’

proficiency in English. This test is given by the school annually and was administered during the

second week of intervention, providing current English proficiency levels. The ELDA assesses

both academic and social/school environment language in the domains of listening, speaking,

reading, and writing. ELDA has five levels of performance descriptors, ranging from level 1

(beginning to learn English), to level 5 (full English proficiency) (LA State Department of

Education). The descriptions of these five levels of English proficiency are summarized in the

descriptions below:

Proficiency level 1 (beginning)

 beginning to understand short utterances, but use gestures to communicate

 understand some cognates, borrowed words, or social conventions (e.g., greetings,

introductions)

 demonstrate understanding through nonverbal responses

 imitate others’ use of English

 beginning to understand simple printed materials

 beginning to develop communicative writing skills

Proficiency level 2 (lower intermediate)

 understand simple statements, directions, and questions

 use of strategies to successfully initiate and respond in simple conversations

 comprehension of main ideas in basic reading passages

 composition of short essays about familiar topics

Proficiency level 3 (upper intermediate)

 understand conversations/directions in standard school and social settings

 oral communication with some hesitation

 understands some more complex narratives and descriptions about familiar

contexts

 composition of short essays and reports

Proficiency level 4 (advanced)

 ability to understand main ideas and more detailed information in conversations,

discussions or classroom presentations on a wider range of topics

 active participation in familiar and most unfamiliar discourse contexts

 comprehension of most academic text with support

 write multiple paragraph stories, journal entries, letters, and creative passages

with some errors

Proficiency level 5 (full proficient)

 ability to process and point out main ideas and relevant details of broader

discussions and presentations on familiar and unfamiliar topics

 production of accurate and fluent language

 similar reading skills as native English-speaking peers to comprehend a wide

range of social and academic texts

 some circumlocutions in writing, but fluent writing skills including the use of

technical vocabulary, appropriate writing conventions and more sophisticated

language structures.

Table 2 provides a profile of subject’s performance on the ELDA subtests. The

Composite score, including all oral and written measures, shows that all participating students

were at the beginning (Level 1) or lower intermediate level (Level 2) of English proficiency.

Students’ performances on subscales were variable. To determine if group differences were

present for oral language, reading, or writing, independent t-tests were conducted to compare

groups. Table 3 presents means and standard deviations and shows that there were no significant

differences between the two groups.

Table 2: Profile of Subject’s English Proficiency Performance on the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA)

Subj. #

Listen.

Rating

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Compreh.

Composite

Experimental Group

289

298

356

358

306

163

341

358

413

369

422

251

438

688

341

296

473

578

422

329

496

856

422

506

520

490

483

439

556

528

529

506

668

767

371

506

744

805

371

358

490.3

2.20

554.2

2.70

405.8

1.20

390.7

1.30

1.40

143.24

1.40

229.86

1.49

62.56

.42

92.92

.48

.52

Control Group

321

163

398

358

336

298

327

358

350

163

356

380

350

413

356

296

350

448

435

401

532

767

293

358

608

805

384

296

652

856

371

489

685

767

341

489

795

856

384

439

497.90

2.30

553.60

2.70

364.50

386.40

1.20

1.30

177.46

1.57

286.47

1.83

39.60

68.99

.42

.48

Note. Subj. # = Subject number, Listen = listening comprehension, LL = listening level, Rating = differentiation into beginning and

intermediate proficiency, SL = speaking level, RL = reading level, WL = writing level, Compreh. = comprehension level

Table 3: Group Comparisons for the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA)

English Language Proficiency

Experimental Group

Control Group (PA)

Subtest Scores

Listening

M(SD)

490.30(143.24)

497.90(177.46)

Group Comparison

t(18) = -.11, p = .917

Speaking

M(SD)

554.20(229.86)

553.60(286.47)

Group Comparison

t(18) = .005, p = .996

Reading

M(SD)

405.80(62.56)

364.50(39.60)

Group Comparison

t(18) = 1.76, p = .095

Writing

M(SD)

390.70(92.92)

386.40(68.99)

Group Comparison

t(18) = .117, p = .908

Note. The raw score means for the subtest listening correspond to proficiency level 2

(Intermediate), the raw score means for speaking correspond to proficiency level 3 (upper

intermediate), and the mean raw scores for reading and writing correspond to proficiency level 1

(beginning)

The students’ individual speaking and listening levels ranged from the beginning level 1

to proficiency level 5. Language comprehension or listening abilities usually precede speaking

abilities, especially in a second language. Therefore, the listening subtest level was used to

divide students into a beginning and intermediate group for subsequent analyses.

Students who scored at Level 1 for the Listening subtest of the ELDA were rated as

“Beginning English Proficiency” and coded as “1” for the purposes of this study, while those

who scored at Levels 2, 3, 4, or 5 were rated as “Intermediate English Proficiency” and coded as

“2” (see Rating column in Table 2). Four of the experimental group members and five of the

controls rated as beginning proficiency for listening abilities, and six experimental and five

controls rated as intermediate proficiency.

Test Battery

Basic reading inventory 5th edition (BRI). The BRI (Johns, 2005) is an informal

reading assessment used to measure reading (words in isolation and in context) and

comprehension. The word lists and reading passages (scored for word recognition and

comprehension) were administered. Administration began with the Pre-Primer level for both

word lists and reading passages and continued until the subject reached a ceiling (frustration

level) for word lists, in either word recognition or comprehension for passages. Only significant

errors were counted (insertions, substitutions, and omissions). Self-corrections and repetitions

were marked but not counted as errors. The level at which frustration was reached was used to

report reading levels for word lists, word recognition and comprehension. Form A was given at

pretest and Form B at posttest.

Test of language development-intermediate (TOLD:I) (Hammill & Newcomer, 1997).

Two subtests measuring grammatical elements were administered. For all subtests, raw scores

were compared at pretest and posttest.

1. Sentence combining. The subject is required to form one compound or complex

sentence from two or more simple sentences spoken by the examiner.

2. Word ordering. The subject forms a complete, correct sentence from a randomly

ordered string of words, ranging from three to seven in length.

Test of written language 3 (TOWL 3) (Hammill & Larsen, 2009). The Sentence

Combining subtest of the TOWL was administered. The child subject must integrate the meaning

of several short sentences into one grammatically correct written sentence. Raw scores were

compared at pretest and posttest.

Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) (Good & Kaminski, 2002).

The students’ daily progress was monitored using the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

progress monitoring passages for first grade students. At the end of each session, students were

given one minute to read a passage and another minute to retell the story if they were able to read

at least ten words of the passage correctly.

Pretest Performance on Test Battery

Immediately prior to intervention, students were administered a battery of oral and

written language assessments. Three of these measures assessed syntactic awareness, i.e.,

sentence combining and word order subtests of the Test of Language Development Intermediate

–3rd Edition (TOLD:I); and the sentence combining subtest of the Test of Written Language

(TOWL). The Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) provided three measures of reading, i.e., word

recognition in isolation, passage word recognition, and passage comprehension. Table 4 profiles

subject performance at pretest. Language and reading measures are reported as raw scores and

the reading measures additionally reflect the grade level at which frustration was reached.

Following the administration of the pretest battery, students were matched on as many

variables as possible with priority given in order of performance on a) oral sentence combining,

b) word ordering, c) written sentence combining d) reading level, and e) age. Once students

were matched, a member from each pair either was randomly assigned to the experimental or

control condition. Language and age scores were normally distributed, but the reading scores did

not follow the assumptions of normality. Therefore, Mann-Whitney U tests and parametric

Independent t-tests for the normally distributed language scores were conducted to determine if

the groups were similar in language, reading measures, and age. Results revealed that the means

for the experimental and the control group for the language scores and age were not significantly

different for any variable, indicating that the groups were equal prior to intervention (see Table

5). The comparison of the median scores for the reading data also did not show any differences,

indicating equivalencies of groups at pretest (see Table 6).

Table 4: Profile of Oral and Written Language Abilities on Individually Administered

Instruments at Pretest for Experimental and Control Students

TOLD: I

TOWL

BRI

Subj. #

WRSC

Words

Level

Passage

Level

Comp

Level

Experimental Group

115

100

113

100

369

Mean

3.00

2.70

1.22

47.80

2.90

103.30

1.30

3.95

1.30

Mdn

3.50

1.50

2.00

28.00

2.00

77.00

1.00

1.25

1.00

3.20

3.09

.97

43.33

2.13

95.98

.95

8.24

.95

Control Group

100

181

Mean

2.90

2.60

.80

41.00

2.90

78.60

1.10

4.00

1.10

Mdn

1.50

1.00

.50

35.50

2.50

83.50

1.00

3.11

3.17

.92

33.48

1.79

49.58

.32

6.06

.32

Note. TOLD: I = Test of Language Development Intermediate –3rd Edition (Hammill &

Newcomer, 1997) Subtests: SC = Sentence Combining, WO = Word Order; TOWL = Test of

Written Language (Hammill & Larsen, 2009) Subtest: WRSC = Written Sentence Combining;

BRI = Basic Reading Inventory (Johns, 2005) Subtests: Words = Word Recognition in Isolation

(# of words read), Level = Reading Level (1 = preprimer, 2 = primer, 3 = 1st grade, 4 = 2nd grade,

5 = 3rd grade; 6 = 4th grade); Passage = Word Recognition in Context, Level = Reading Level 1-

6; Comp. = Reading Comprehension, Level = Comprehension Level 1-6.

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations and Group Differences for Language Scores and Age by

Treatment Group

Experimental Group

Control Group (PA)

Matching Variables

TOLD:I

Subtest Sentence Combining

M(SD)

3.00(3.20)

2.90(3.11)

Group Comparison

t (18) = 0.71, p = 0.94

Subtest Word Ordering

M(SD)

2.70(3.09)

2.60(3.17)

Group Comparison

t (18) = 0.71, p = 0.94

TOWL

Subtest Written Sentence

Combining

M(SD)

1.22(.97)

.80(.92)

Group Comparison

t (17) = 0.97, p = 0.34

Age

M(SD)

126.80(6.65)

124.40(10.09)

Group Comparison

t (18) = 0.63, p = 0.54

Table 6: Medians, Mean Ranks and Group Differences for Reading Scores by Treatment Group

Experimental Group (SA)

Control Group(PA)

Matching Variables

BRI

Subtest Word Recognition

Mdn

28.00

35.50

Mean Rank

11.15

9.85

Group Comparison

U(18) = 43.50, z = -.49 , p = 0.62

Subtest Word Recognition in Context

Mdn

77.00

83.50

Mean Rank

10.70

10.30

Group Comparison

U(18) = 48, z = -.15, p = 0.88

Subtest Comprehension

Mdn

1.25

1.00

Mean Rank

10.55

10.45

Group Comparison

U(18) = 48.5, z = -.12, p = 0.91

Materials

Scaffolded Animated PowerPoint stories. The Scaffolded Animated PowerPoint Stories

had been created by undergraduate students under the direction of their instructor, Dr. Janet Norris,

in the following manner. Each student wrote an original story that paralleled the syntactic structure

of an assigned DIBELS reading passage. For example, if the DIBELS passage was about a tornado,

the student might write a parallel story about a hurricane with parallel content and sentence

structures. During intervention the sentences of the story are “unpacked” into their simple

constituent structure and are displayed on the screen. The complex sentences are recreated step by

step. With each mouse click, the animation highlights redundant information, deletes and/or

substitutes the words with a pronoun, and cohesive ties, such as relative pronouns or conjunctions,

are shown as they connect the sentence constituents to recreate the complex sentence. Each

sentence in the story is “unpacked” and recreated.

Five stories at the first grade reading level and one story at the second grade level were used

in this study (see Appendix K). Story length ranged from 22-29 sentences, consistent with the

DIBELS passages.

Figure 1. Scaffolded PowerPoint Slide with animations

Visual grammar cards. Visual grammar cards use mnemonics to define the meaning of

basic grammatical terms using picture cues (i.e., nouns, verbs, pronouns, conjunctions, relative

pronouns). Pictures superimposed on the letters in the word visually define its content. For

example, the definition “A noun is a person, place or thing” is represented as a face drawn into

letter “o,” a house drawn into the first letter “n,” and a wrapped gift with a question mark for “a

thing” (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2. Visual Grammar Noun card with mnemonics superimposed into letter to provide

parts of speech.

Phonemic awareness stories. The Phonemic Awareness stories included CVC words

containing the daily target phonemes (see Appendix G). Embedded pictures illustrated actions and

vocabulary that may have been unfamiliar to the ESL students. Two different stories were read per

week, but on the last day of the week, both of the stories were read.

Figure 3. Phonemic Awareness Story

Phonic faces. Phonic Faces multicolored picture cards (Norris, 2001) provide iconic

representations of speech and facilitate associations between letters and sounds. The letters and

their shapes are imposed on the faces of the 44 individual characters, which represent 44 sounds

forming their lips or tongue and indicating voiced features or speech patterns. Through the visual

cues, the meaning and purpose of letters is clarified, because there is a direct link between the

visual shape of a letter and the speech sound. Phonic Faces utilize short anecdotal stories that

function as mnemonic device and accompany each letter of the alphabet.

Figure 4. Phonic Faces picture cards

Consonant production chart. The consonant placement chart provides a visual description

of the articulators used when producing a sound and the manner in which the sound is produced

(i.e., fricatives versus glides). The articulators used to make the sound were represented using

Phonic Faces (Norris, 2001).

Figure 5. Consonant Placement Chart

Word train. The word train is a visual for depicting the sound structure of words. The

initial sound(s) are placed on the engine, the medial sound on the train card, and the final sound(s)

on the caboose. It can be used for decoding or encoding words by phonemic structure or by

orthographic representation.

Figure 6. Word Train

Setting

The intervention was implemented at a local elementary school in southeastern Louisiana.

The school serves a diverse population of 450 students, representing approximately 40 countries

and 31 different first languages.

Assessments and interventions took place in the school’s auditorium that contains three

classrooms for speech-language therapy, ESL services, and exceptional, self-contained students.

The area designated for intervention also served as workroom for teachers and as an area for

delivery of other services, including reading and math resource services, administration of DIBELS

assessment, school pictures, and administration of vaccinations.

The large area designated for intervention was able to accommodate the setup of six tables

with at least three chairs. School announcements occurred during intervention sessions each

morning.

Procedures

The intervention groups received a battery of tests prior to the first week of intervention.

Intervention was implemented three times weekly for 35 minutes in the auditorium. The

intervention was implemented for 6 weeks, followed by readministration of the test battery

(posttest). Students were seen in groups of two with an interventionist who had been trained to

implement the respective syntactic awareness or phonemic awareness program.

Daily probes. Three probes were alternated in order of administration and presented at the end

of each session.

DIBELS reading passage (2 min). One story from the 20 progress monitoring passages

of DIBELS was administered following each intervention session. Each child was given one minute

to read as many words as he or she could. The score received was the number of correctly read

words. Students who correctly read more than 10 words were asked to retell the story. A slash

mark was made on the DIBELS form for every word used to retell the story. If the student did not

say anything for 3 seconds, the prompt “Try to tell me everything you can. Begin” was given. The

score received was the number of words used to retell the story in one minute.

Sentence combining (2 min). A group of 2-3 sentences ranging from 4-8 words each

were read to the child. The child was asked to combine the sentences into one complex

sentence. The first series included three pairs of 4-5 word sentences that could be conjoined with

“and,” “or,” or “but.” The second series included pairs of 4-7 word sentences that could be

conjoined or combined using a relative clause (e.g., “The dog was watching the cat.” and “The cat

was walking slowly.” Could be combined as “The dog was watching the cat that was walking

slowly,” or “The dog was watching the cat because it/the cat was walking slowly.”) The third

series included groups of 4-8 word sentences. The number of sentences correctly produced out of

12 possible sentences in two minutes was recorded (see Appendix I).

Decoding Probe (2 min). The phonics probe is an investigator-created task used to monitor

each student’s word decoding abilities (Randolph, 2010). The task consisted of four words for the

first two days that contained the target phoneme in the initial or final position of a one-syllable

word with a CVC pattern (e.g., pack, car, goat, jug). All eight words were presented on the final

day. Each word was printed using a 1 ½” boldfaced, sans serif font and printed on 2 x 3” cardstock.

Each student was asked to read the printed word and the student’s response was recorded

phonetically. If the child was unable to read one of the word cards, approximations were recorded

on the response sheet. If no approximations were made by the child (e.g., “I don’t know”), the

experimenter presented the word orally and the child’s repetition was transcribed. Students were

given one point if they were able to read the word correctly and a score of zero for incorrect

responses. The received score included the number of words read, as well as the number of

phonetically correct produced sounds (see Appendix H).

Syntactic awareness group. The Syntactic Awareness Group used Scaffolded Animated

PowerPoints and Visual Grammar cards (Norris, 2007) to focus awareness on the form, meaning,

and function of syntactic structures. Instruction was provided in the context of meaningful stories

presented in the PowerPoint programs. Each interventionist had a laptop computer and grammar

cards.

Five types of grammatical forms and constructions typically found in first- and second-

grade-reading passages were explored using structured activities and animated PowerPoints. The

same PowerPoint was used for one week (i.e., three sessions). The forms and constructions

included the following:

1) Grammatical Phrases: sentences are composed of noun, verb, and prepositional phrases

2) Elements: three elements common to noun and verb phrases

3) Transformations: rules for combining, embedding, and moving phrases

4) Punctuation: sentence boundaries and transformations are marked with punctuation

5) Forms: contractions, possessives, and irregular past tense forms

A different exemplar of the structure was presented each day (see Table 7). During each

intervention session, awareness of the new grammatical form or construction was highlighted, but

other forms and constructions were talked about throughout the interactive lesson (see Appendix

E).

Table 7: Schedule of PowerPoints and Grammatical Structures Introduced by Day and Week

PowerPoint

Grammatical

Structures

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Week 1

Ant Pile

Phrases

Noun Phrase

Verb Phrase

Prepositional

Phrase

Week 2

Roly Poly

Elements

Pronoun

Verb Tense

Adjective

Week 3

The Kitten

Transformations

Adverb

Conjunctions

Relative

Clause

Week 4

Favorite

Colors

Transformations

Infinitive

Quotation

Clause

Movement

Week 5

Cold Zoo

Punctuations

Commas

Capitalization

Periods

Week 6

Tree House

Forms

Contractions

Possessives

Irregular Past

Each lesson proceeded with

1. 1 min.: Identify and define the target form or structure using a Visual Grammar card

2. 20 min.: Read the PowerPoint and help the child identify instances of the form or

structure

3. Talk about other transformations or forms animated in the PowerPoint

4. 12 min.: Conduct probe

Define form or structure. The grammatical target structure for the day was introduced and

defined. The definition focused on meaning; for example, “A pronoun stands for a noun, usually a

person, place, thing, or idea. Instead of saying the noun twice in one sentence or in different

sentences, the pronoun can be used instead. It is a word that “points to” or refers to the actual

noun.”

Read the PowerPoint. First, the full sentence written in the target sentence box was read

by the researcher. Second, the first constituent sentence was displayed using the animation.

Children were asked to read the words with the mentor as they appeared on the screen. Any

instances of the target form for that day were pointed to and talked about for their meaning and

function, using the grammar cards as a reference. The first constituent sentence was displayed

using the animation. Third, children were asked to read the words with the mentor as they appeared

on the screen. Any instances of the target form for that day were pointed to and talked about for

their meaning and function using the grammar cards as a reference

… we found even more roly-polies.

They were teeny tiny

Figure 7. Visual Grammar Pronoun card with mnemonics superimposed into letter to

provide parts of speech

“The word ‘they’ is a pronoun. What does ’they’ mean in this sentence? You might need to look at

the prior sentence to find the meaning. Yes, ‘they’ means the roly-polies. So does the pronoun “they” mean

a person, a place, or a thing? (refer to the visual grammar card). The pronoun “they” points to a word in an

earlier sentence so when I see a pronoun, I need to think which word it is “pointing to.” So now we know

that the roly-polies were what size? Yes, they, the roly-polies, were teeny tiny.”

As the PowerPoint progressed, children were asked to find the pronouns and explain

them. In addition to the target form, the researcher also talked about other forms or

structures that were animated or highlighted on the slide, as well as unfamiliar vocabulary.

As modeled above, the talk focused on both meaning and form. This was assisted by the

structure of the PowerPoints. The constituent sentences all began in the Noun Phrase + Verb

Phrase format; subsequent animation systematically showed how elements were deleted,

moved, or added to create more complex constructions from the simple sentences. Likewise,

pictures appeared on every slide that provided images of the meaning of vocabulary words

and the overall sentence. Thus, throughout the intervention the focus was on how the forms

function to communicate meaning.

The same PowerPoint was read for three days, but with a focus on a different

grammatical target form each day. The discussion focused on the new form, but also

reviewed previously introduced forms. For example, on Day 1, the target form was noun

phrases; the children were helped to find the noun phrase of the sentence and to learn to

recognize nouns. On Day 2, the target form was verbs; the children were helped to find the

verb phrases and the verbs, and to contrast them with the noun phrase. On Day 3 the target

form was prepositional phrases; the children were helped to find the prepositional phrases

and to contrast them to noun and verb phrases.

Once the three target forms (constituents) were completely combined to recreate the complex

sentence, the children were asked to read them again. Words were provided if needed to

successfully read the sentences.

Phonemic awareness group. The phonemic awareness group used Phonic Faces (Norris,

1997) to focus awareness on the form, meaning, and function of phonemic structures. Instruction

was provided in the context of phoneme manipulation activities and meaningful stories. Eight

categories of phonemes were explored using structured activities and stories. The same category of

phonemes was examined for one week (i.e., three sessions). The phonemic categories included:

1. Stop Plosives: airflow blocked and then released during production

2. Alveolars: sounds produced at the ridge behind the upper front teeth

3. Fricatives: airflow constricted but not fully blocked

4. Nasals: sounds produced with air passing through the nose

5. Liquids: sounds produced with close but not touching articulators

6. Affricates: sounds that begin like stops but end like fricatives

7. Glides: produced like a vowel but with tongue closer to roof of mouth

8. Glottal: produced using space between the vocal folds

Phonemes that are representative of each of the 8 categories of phonemes were presented

each day, usually two minimally contrasting phonemes the first two sessions within a week, with all

of the targeted phonemes explored on day 3. The schedule of phonemes taught is profiled in Table

Table 8: Schedule of Phonemes Introduced by Day and Week

Week Phonemes Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

Week 1 Stop Plosives b, p k, g b, p, k, g

Week 2 Alveolars t, d s, z t, d, s, z

Week 3 Fricatives f, v sh, th f, v, sh, th

Week 4 Nasals m n, ng m, n, ng

Week 5 Liquids, Affricates l, r j, ch l, r, j, ch

Week 6 Glides, Glottal y, h w, wh y, h, w, wh

The following procedure was followed for the Phonemic Awareness Group:

1) The two phonemes were introduced using the Phonic Faces. The phonetic production cues

were represented on the face for each sound (e.g., “The letter ‘b’ looks like your bottom lip.

When you make the /b/ sound, you stop the air with your lips and then explode the sound.”)

2) The phonemes on the Consonant Production Chart were examined. The interventionists

discussed what the target consonant has in common with related sounds for place of

production and for manner of production.

3) A series of ten words were presented using the Phonic Faces cards containing the target

phonemes. The words were chosen to demonstrate the phonemes in different word

positions and were arranged so that the students practiced producing the first word, followed

by one change to create the next word. For example, for b/p phonemes the sequence was

‘p a t’ which changed to ‘b a t’ followed by ‘t a b’ which changes to ‘t a p’ and then to

‘t o p.’ The phonemic awareness activity required the students to fully process each word

because changes occurred in all positions of words. It simplified the production task by

holding most of the word constant and by allowing the students to exert processing attention

to the one change in each word. Students could narrow the field of possible letter-sound

pairings and produce the speech sound sequence more easily.

4) Following the practice activity, a short story was presented containing all of the target

words. The students read the text and their interventionists helped them with decoding and

comprehension when necessary. The stories gave the students an authentic language

context to produce the words with the targeted speech sounds. The stories also gave the

subject immediate practice in applying the speech production strategy learned in the lessons

to words that are located in sentences and in longer discourse contexts. The sentences in the

stories ranged from three to nine words in length and most were simple noun phrase + verb

phrase + (prepositional phrase) sentence structure. However, seven occurrences of the

infinitive to construction and five compound sentences (conjunctions “and” or “but”)

occurred within the 12 stories.

5) The subject was then given a Sound Train and asked to place Phonic Faces in sequence to

represent the sounds of the target word. The subject placed initial sound(s) on the engine,

medial sounds on the car, and final sounds on the caboose. Prompts and feedback were

given as needed.

Reliability and Fidelity

Treatment fidelity. During the first two weeks, the course instructor and doctoral

supervisor observed and provided feedback to interventionists. Throughout the six weeks, informal

observations and feedback were provided for parts of sessions and questions were answered as they

arose. The school principal and guidance counselor were unwilling to grant permission to

videotape sessions and the environment was not conducive to audio recording.

Observations guided by a checklist were used to assess whether interventionists included the

necessary components of the daily plan and followed guidelines (i.e., do not sound out words if

teaching the SA PowerPoint group) (see Appendix J). During the six week intervention period two

intervention sessions for each interventionist were randomly chosen and observed for fidelity by

the Speech Language Pathologist. The experimenter ensured that the individual lesson plans were

followed and the session implemented according to protocol. If certain elements were not

implemented correctly, the element was scored as incorrect and feedback and suggestions were

provided by the experimenter. Interventionist ratings showed that procedures were followed with

94% accuracy.

Scoring test and probe data. The experimenter scored all daily probes following each

session. The interventionists initially scored the tests given at pre- and posttest but all scoring was

checked for accuracy by the experimenter. Twenty percent of the daily probes and pre/post tests

were rescored by two certified speech-language pathologists, including one blind to the purpose of

the study and treatment condition received by the participants. Interscorer reliability for the daily

probes were: DIBELS 98%, sentence combining 100%, and decoding 97%. The interscorer

reliability for the tests were: BRI 98%, TOWL written sentence combining 100%, TOLD oral

sentence combining 100%, TOLD word order 100%.

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not students who participated in a

syntactic awareness PowerPoint intervention for six weeks would show higher gain scores on oral

and written measures of syntactic awareness and reading in comparison to the control group who

received a phonemic awareness intervention.

Treatment Effects on Measures of Syntax

Two measures of oral syntax were used to assess the efficacy of the syntactic awareness

PowerPoint intervention. The first, sentence combining, examined the students’ ability to use

grammatical strategies such as conjunction and embedded clauses to create a grammatically

complex sentence from two simple sentences. The second, word ordering, required the participants

to organize randomly presented words to create a grammatically correct sentence.

Sentence combining. The mean raw scores for the Sentence Combining subtest of the

TOLD:I are displayed in Figure 7. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean. The

figure shows that the groups were equal at pretest, with the SA group scoring a mean of 3.0 (SD =

3.20) and the PA control group scoring a mean of 2.9 (SD = 3.11). At posttest, the mean scores for

the SA group showed greater gains than the PA group, with a mean posttest score of 7.30 (SD =

5.25) compared to 3.60 (SD = 2.84). Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the assumption of

sphericity was met. Therefore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were used without

corrections in the following analyses.

A 2 x 2 mixed repeated measures factorial ANOVA (Huck, 2008) was used to analyze

group differences between pre- and posttest. Time (pretest and posttest) was treated as a within-

subject variable, and group (SA, PA) as a between-subject variable. The raw scores for sentence

combining served as the dependent variable.

Results revealed a significant main effect for time, F(1, 18) = 11.59, p = .003, partial eta

squared = .39, and a significant interaction for time x group, F(1, 18) = 6.01, p = .025, partial eta

squared = .25. There was no significant main effect for group, F(1,18) = 1.62, p = .22. Paired

samples t-tests were completed to follow up the significant interaction, and showed a significant

gain between pre- and posttest scores for the SA group t(9) = -3.50, p = .007, and no significant

difference between pre- and posttest for the control group, t(9) = -.87, p = .41.

Figure 8. Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores for TOLD:I Sentence Combining Subtest.

Sentence combining ability was evaluated using measures of English proficiency level as

measured on the ELDA. A visual inspection of the mean gain scores of students who ranked

beginning versus intermediate on the ELDA listening level showed differential learning (see Table

9). Students scoring at the beginning listening level made small and approximately equal gains (SA

= 1.25, PA = 2.0) regardless of group. In contrast, SA students at the intermediate listening level

made large gains (mean = 6.33), whereas their PA group peers did not improve (mean = -.60). This

finding suggests that a higher level of receptive English language proficiency may have been

needed for students to benefit from the exploration of syntax provided by the PowerPoint activities.

Pretest

Posttest

Mean Scores

for Sentence

Combining

Time of Measurement

Table 9: Comparison of Group Gains for Sentence Combining by Receptive English Language

Proficiency

Syntactic Awareness

Phonemic Awareness

Beginning

Intermediate

Beginning

Intermediate

1.25

2.36

6.33

3.39

2.0

1.87

-.60

2.61

Word ordering. The mean raw scores for the Word Order subtest of the TOLD:I are

displayed in Figure 8. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean. The figure shows

that the groups were equal at pretest, with the SA group scoring a mean of 2.7 (SD = 3.09) and the

PA control group scoring a mean of 2.6 (SD = 3.17). At posttest, the mean scores for the SA group

showed greater gains than the PA group, with a mean posttest score of 4.80 (SD = 4.42) compared

to 4.10 (SD = 2.81). Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity was

met. Therefore, analysis of variance procedures were used without corrections in the following

analyses.

Figure 9. Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores for TOLD:I Word Ordering Subtest

Pretest

Posttest

Mean Scores

for Word

Ordering

Time of Measurement

A 2 x 2 mixed measures ANOVA was used to analyze group differences between pre- and

posttest. Results revealed a main effect for time, F(1,18) = 10.29, p = .005, partial eta squared =

.36 , but no main effect for group, F(1,18) = .08, p = .78. The interaction between time x group was

not significant F(1,18) = .29, p = .60. These results indicated that both groups made equivalent

gains in the ability to correctly order words to form sentences.

However, when the ELDA levels of subjects were considered by visual inspection in Table

10, differences in the SA and PA groups were apparent. The means for the low and high

proficiency levels for the PA group showed that the greatest gains were made by students with

beginning English proficiency. These students had not mastered early sentence structures at pretest

and scored very low. The items that they scored correct at posttest were four-word sentences in the

NP+VP format, a sentence structure they were exposed to in the phonemic awareness stories.

Exposure to the simple sentences in the PA tasks helped establish basic syntactic order and their

scores increased accordingly. In contrast, those PA subjects with intermediate English proficiency

had correctly constructed these sentences at pretest and made only minimal gains at posttest,

indicating they had not learned higher level structures.

Table 10: Comparison of Group Gains for Word Ordering by Receptive English Language

Proficiency

Syntactic Awareness

Phonemic Awareness

Beginning

Intermediate

Beginning

Intermediate

1.00

1.41

2.83

2.79

2.20

3.19

.80

1.92

The SA group showed the opposite profile. The beginning SA group made minimal gains,

suggesting the sentences on the PowerPoints may have been too difficult to learn basic NP + VP

patterns while the intermediate group made the greatest gains, having both the language foundation

and the exposure to more complex sentences in the SA task.

Treatment Effects on Measures of Written Language

The subtest of Written Sentence Combining was used to assess the students’ ability to

integrate the meaning of several short sentences into one grammatically correct written sentence.

Written sentence combining. The mean raw scores for the Written Sentence Combining

subtest of the TOWL are displayed in Figure 9. The error bars represent the standard error of the

mean. The figure shows that the groups were equal at pretest, with the SA group scoring a mean of

1.22 (SD = .97) and the PA control group scoring a mean of .80 (SD = . 92). At posttest, the mean

scores for the SA group showed greater gains than the PA group, with a mean posttest score of 2.56

(SD = 3.61) compared to 1.70 (SD = 2.16). Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the

assumption of sphericity was met. Therefore, analysis of variance procedures were used without

corrections in the following analyses.

Figure 10. Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores for TOLD:I Written Sentence Combining Subtest

A 2 x 2 mixed measures ANOVA was used to analyze group differences between pre- and

posttest. There was no time effect F(1,17) = 3.17, p = .09, no significant interaction effect F(1,17)

Pretest

Posttest

Mean Scores

for Written

Sentence

Combining

Time of Measurement

= .12, p = .73 and no group effect F(1,17) = .67, p = .42. Neither group made significant gains in

written sentence combining.

A visual inspection of the means in Table 11 revealed that students rated beginning for

listening level made no gains for the SA condition but notable gains for the PA condition, an

unexpected outcome. The majority of students in both groups could not combine sentences in

writing at all or with limited success at pretest. The PA students may have learned to use the

conjunction “and” through repeated reading of the PA stories, which did contain these structures.

The opposite pattern was found for students in the intermediate level. The intermediate PA subjects

decreased their scores while the SA subjects increased their scores (gains range 1 to 9 correctly

combined sentences). This finding suggests that a threshold level of language proficiency was

needed to maximally benefit from the SA activity. The PA intermediate students did not make

gains, suggesting they already had the basic sentence types at pretest and did not learn higher level

sentence combining strategies from their intervention.

Table 11: Comparison of Group Gains for Written Sentence Combining by Receptive English

Language Proficiency

PowerPoint

Phonemic Awareness

Beginning

Intermediate

Beginning

Intermediate

.00

1.16

2.40

4.22

2.20

2.05

-.40

1.14

Treatment Effects on Measures of Reading

The assumption of normality was violated for the reading measures, therefore

nonparametric statistics were used to assess group differences. Three separate nonparametric

Mann-Whitney U tests were completed to examine the three subtests of the BRI scores: word

recognition in isolation, word recognition in context, and reading comprehension. The

improvement was measured in raw scores (numbers of word read). Reading level changes by

groups will be discussed.

Word recognition in isolation. Table 12 shows reading levels at pretest and posttest for

words read in isolation from graded word lists. These medians show students who participated in

the SA group increased their median word recognition scores from 28 words to 45 words,

indicating a change from primer to 1st grade. Students who participated in the PA group increased

their median word recognition from 35.50 to 43 at posttest, also representing a change from primer

to 1st grade.

Table 12: Pre and Posttest Median Scores for Isolated Word Recognition (Basic Reading Inventory)

Pretest

Posttest

Mdn

Mean Rank

Mdn

Mean Rank

28.00

11.15

45.00

11.30

35.50

9.85

43.00

9.70

A nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test revealed no differences between posttest scores (U =

42, z = -.61, p = .55), and no group differences between gain scores (U = 42.50, z = -.57, p = .57).

Both groups improved from pretest to posttest in isolated word recognition, but neither treatment

yielded an advantage.

Table 13: Profile of Level Changes in Isolated Word Recognition

No change

Loss

Increase +1

Increase +2

Low

Note. Low = Beginning Listening Proficiency; IP = Intermediate Listening Proficiency (ELDA)

No change = reading level did not change, Loss = posttest scores were lower than pretest scores,

Increase +1 = reading level increased one level, e.g., from preprimer to primer, +2 = reading level

increased two levels, e.g., from preprimer to first grade level.

Table 13 shows that eight participants made no changes in word recognition (SA = 5; PA =

3) and that four decreased their score (SA = 1; PA = 3). A gain of one reading level was made by 2

students (PA = 2) and two levels of change were shown by 6 students (SA = 4, PA = 2). No

relationship was found between the ELDA listening level and changes in word recognition.

Word recognition in context. Table 14 profiles median reading scores at pretest and

posttest for words read in the context of reading passages. Students who participated in the SA

intervention increased their median numbers of words read from 77 words at pretest to a median

reading score of 136.50 at posttest, indicating an improvement from preprimer to primer reading.

Students who received the PA intervention improved their median reading scores from 83.50 to 95

words at posttest, indicating full mastery of the preprimer level.

Table 14: Pre and Posttest Median Scores for Word Recognition in Context (Basic Reading

Inventory)

Pretest

Posttest

Mdn

Mean Rank

Mdn

Mean Rank

77.00

10.70

136.50

11.80

83.50

10.30

95.00

9.20

A nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test revealed no differences between posttest scores (U =

37, z = -.99, p = .33), and no group differences between gain scores (U = 27.00, z = -1.74, p = .08).

Both groups improved from pretest to posttest in word recognition in context, but neither treatment

yielded an advantage.

Table 15 reveals that twelve students (SA = 4; PA = 8) did not show gains in contextual

word recognition. Eight students increased their word recognition level (SA = 6; PA = 2). When

the ELDA listening level was considered, seven out of eight students who made +1 level of change

or greater had been ranked as intermediate in listening proficiency. Four intermediate students

failed to make gains (SA = 1; PA = 3). Four students made a level change from preprimer to

primer (SA), including one student ranked as beginning in listening proficiency. Two intermediate

students from the SA group increased their reading level from preprimer to first grade and

preprimer to third grade, and two intermediate students from the PA group increased their levels

from preprimer to second and preprimer to fourth grade.

Table 15: Profile of Level Changes in Word Recognition in Context

No change

Increase +1

Increase +2

Increase +3

Increase +4

Increase +5

Low

Note. Low = Beginning Listening Proficiency; IP = Intermediate Listening Proficiency (ELDA)

No change = reading level did not change, Increase +1 = reading level increased one level, e.g.,

from preprimer to primer, +2 = reading level increased two levels, e.g., from preprimer to first

grade level, +3 = reading levels increased three levels, e.g., from preprimer to second grade level,

+4 = reading levels increased four levels, e.g., from preprimer to third grade level, +5 = Reading

level increased by five levels, e.g., from preprimer to fourth grade level.

Reading comprehension. Table 16 profiles reading levels at pretest and posttest for

response to comprehension questions. Students who received the SA intervention increased their

median comprehension score from 1.25 at pretest to 10.25 at posttest, indicating a change in

comprehension level from the beginning pre-primer to primer. Students who received the PA

intervention increased their median comprehension scores from 1 at pretest to 4 at posttest,

indicating a change from the beginning preprimer level to instructional/independent mastery of the

preprimer level.

Table 16: Pre and Posttest Median Scores for Reading Comprehension (Basic Reading Inventory)

Pretest

Posttest

Median

Mean Rank

Median

Mean Rank

1.25

10.35

10.25

11.85

1.00

10.65

4.00

9.15

A nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test revealed no differences between posttest scores for

reading comprehension (U = 36.5, z = -1.03, p = .30), and no group differences between gain scores

(U = 30.5, z = -1.48, p = .14). Both groups improved from pretest to posttest in comprehension, but

neither treatment yielded an advantage.

Table 17: Profile of Level Changes in Reading Comprehension

No change

Increase +1

Increase +2

Increase +3

Increase +4

Increase +5

Low

Note. Low = Beginning Listening Proficiency; IP = Intermediate Listening Proficiency (ELDA)

No change = reading level did not change, Increase +1 = reading level increased one level, e.g.,

from preprimer to primer, +2 = reading level increased two levels, e.g., from preprimer to first

grade level, +3 = reading levels increased three levels, e.g., from preprimer to second grade level,

+4 = reading levels increased four levels, e.g., from preprimer to third grade level, +5 = Reading

level increased by five levels, e.g., from preprimer to fourth grade level.

Table 17 reveals that twelve students (SA = 4; PA = 8) did not show gains in passage

comprehension, but eight students did increase their comprehension level, the majority from the SA

group (SA = 6; PA = 2). When the ELDA listening level was considered, seven of the students who

made +1 level of change or greater were ranked as Intermediate in English proficiency. All but

one of the SA students who made no change were ranked as Beginning proficiency, while both

Beginning (5) and Intermediate (3) students in the PA group made no gains. Two of the students

who made the greatest gains were in the PA group. These students were ranked respectively as

advanced and full proficiency in listening level.

Conclusions

Results of the standardized measures of oral and written language indicated that both groups

improved on oral sentence combining, word ordering, word recognition in context and

comprehension. Although visual inspection showed that more students in the SA group showed

increases, particularly in reading scores, the differences were not significant except for oral

sentence combining.

Daily Probe Results

DIBELS. The two DIBELS subtests for reading fluency and retell were administered for

one minute after each intervention session. The analysis for the daily probes revealed no

statistically significant time differences between the two groups for reading fluency F(2.15, 38.71)

= 1.70, p = .19. Mauchley’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, chi square

(14) = 56.59, p <.05) therefore the degrees of freedom were adjusted with the Greenhouse-Geisser

method (epsilon = .430). There was no interaction between time x group F(2.15,38.71) = 1.45, p =

.25. There was also no group effect F(1,18) = 1.72, p =.21.

Figure 11. Mean Scores for Dibels Oral Reading Fluency Probe over Six Weeks

For the retell subtest there was a significant time effect F(5,90) = 5.13, p < .001, partial eta

squared = .22. A Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple follow-up t-tests and an alpha

level of .01 (.05/5) was used. For the SA group, significant differences were found between probe

1 and probe 3; t (9) = -3.58, p = .006, and between probe 1 and probe 5; t (9) = -3.68, p = .005.

Number of

Words Read

Weeks of Intervention

For the PA group, significant differences were found between probe 1 and probe 5; t (9) = -

4.03, p = .003. There was no significant interaction between time and group F(5,90) = .66, p = .65

and no significant group effect F(1,18) = 1.26, p = .28. Both groups increased their numbers of

words retold in a minute during the six weeks.

Figure 12. Mean Scores for Dibels Retell Probe over Six Weeks

Sentence combining. The daily sentence combining probes were administered for two

minutes after each intervention session. Mauchley’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity

was violated (chi-square (14) = 48.37, p < .001); therefore the degrees of freedom were adjusted

with the Greenhouse-Geisser method (epsilon = .43). Results revealed a significant effect for time

F(2.15, 38.77) = 15.56, p < .001, partial eta squared = .46. A Bonferroni correction was applied for

multiple follow-up t-tests and an alpha level of .01 (.05/5) was used. For the SA group, significant

differences were found between probe 1 and probe 4; t(9) = -3.31, p = .009, probe 1 and probe 5; t

(9) = -4.02, p = .003, and probe 1 and probe 6; t(9) = -3.59, p = .006. For the PA group, significant

differences were found between probe 1 and probe 5; t (9) = -4.25, p = .002. There was no time x

group interaction effect F(2.15, 38.77) = .33, p = .74 and no group effect F(1,18) = 1.30, p = .27.

Both groups were able to combine more sentences correctly across the six weeks of intervention.

Number of

Words Retold

Weeks of Intervention

Figure 13. Mean Scores for Sentence Combining Probe over Six Weeks

Decoding. An investigator-created word-decoding probe measured word decoding skills

across time (Randolph, 2010). Results revealed a significant effect for time F(5,90) = 5.60, p <

.001, partial eta squared = .24. A Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple follow-up t-tests

and an alpha level of .01 (.05/5) was used. For the SA group, no significant differences were found

between probes. For the PA group, significant differences were found between probe 1 and probe

3; t(9) = 3.34, p = .009. There was no time x group interaction effect F(5,90) = 1.45, p = .21 and no

group effect F(1,18) = .68, p = .42. Both groups performed equally on word decoding tasks.

Figure 14. Mean Scores for Decoding Probe over Six Weeks

Number of

Sentences

Combined

Weeks of Intervention

Number of

Words Read

Weeks of Intervention

DISCUSSION

English as second-language learners have the dual burden of learning to speak a second

language while also learning to read and write a language before they fully understand it. The

challenges are even greater for older students who must function in upper grade level classrooms

and take high-stakes exams (Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer & Pierce, 2010). It is critical that we seek

methods for simultaneously addressing the oral and written language needs of this population in a

manner that could accelerate learning. Syntactic awareness has been shown to be highly related to

second language acquisition as well as reading fluency and comprehension (August & Shanahan,

2010; Da Fountoura & Siegel, 1995; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Lesaux et al., 2006; Chong, 2009;

Siegel, 2008). Although correlational studies have repeatedly revealed these relationships, few

studies have attempted to improve syntactic awareness for ESL students, in part because there are

few strategies shown to be efficacious (Andrews, 2010; MacKey, 1982; Shin, 2009). In addition,

syntactic awareness is viewed as a developmental ability that improves gradually throughout the

grade levels and beyond (Menyuk, 1999) so it is unclear how quickly changes can be made,

particularly when awareness is measured in a second language. This study endeavored to address

these issues for fourth and fifth grade ESL students with limited English proficiency.

To determine whether a syntax-based Animated Scaffolded PowerPoint intervention held

potential, it was compared to a phonemic awareness intervention, a treatment generally prescribed

for beginning readers. Although enrolled in upper elementary classrooms, all but two of the

students in this study were essentially nonreaders, reading at or below a beginning first grade level,

comparable to younger beginning readers. Training in phonemic awareness is consistent with the

Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), suggesting that decoding is the primary skill

needed for learning to read. However, unlike native speakers, the ESL participants were at

beginning to intermediate levels of English proficiency for listening and speaking as well. Even

with good decoding skills, these readers may not have the language skills needed for

comprehension at the first grade level. This is supported by the finding that seventeen of twenty

students reached a ceiling for comprehension for the beginning (preprimer) passage, one at the

primer passage (mid first grade), and one at the second grade passage at pretest.

Measures of Syntactic Awareness

Four measures of syntactic awareness were elicited, including two standardized measures of

oral syntax, one measure of written syntax, and weekly sums of daily sentence combining probes.

Sentence combining requires the individual to consciously compare the content of two sentences

and then determine the type of relationship between them (i.e., additive, subordinate, adversative).

Words must be added, deleted, or moved to combine the information syntactically. The results

showed that, as predicted, students who received the syntactic awareness intervention (SA) made

significantly greater gains for the oral sentence combining subtest of the TOLD:I than the phonemic

awareness group (PA). The gain represented an increase in two standard scores, from 5 to 7,

according to the ten year old norms for the TOLD:I (i.e., an increase from the very poor to the

below average range). In contrast, the PA group remained in the very poor range. Thus, both

statistical and clinical changes were seen following only ten hours of intervention.

However, a closer examination showed that differences were evident between students with

lower and higher levels of English language proficiency within the SA group. Those students who

were ranked as beginning or low on listening comprehension on the English Language

Development Assessment (ELDA) made minimal gains with several students unable to combine

sentences, and those with greater proficiency made large gains and all successfully combined

sentences. This finding suggests that the PowerPoints had a differential effect according to the

English language proficiency of the students exposed to the intervention. For those with beginning

English proficiency, the PowerPoints presented language at a level too advanced for students to

process and learn, even though the complex sentences were examined as a series of simple

sentences, each accompanied by a picture. The vocabulary, syntax, and morphology were all

unfamiliar and three sessions per week with the same PowerPoint story were not sufficient to

enable them to learn the words and sentence patterns. Further, the beginning level students were

essentially nonreaders with only some decoding abilities at the single word level and so they could

not benefit from the print on the PowerPoints. For readers, the print can be used to support the oral

language used by the interventionist to explain the sentences and the sentence transformations. The

print remains visible and allows the learner to reread and reexamine the sentence patterns. The

inability to read the print placed high level demands on listening for students who were only

beginning to grasp English. In contrast, those with higher listening proficiency were able to benefit

from both the animation modeling sentence combining and the print supporting the oral language.

The six weekly probes for sentence combining showed a steady increase from one to over

three sentences successfully combined for the SA group as expected, but also an unexpected

increase beginning the fourth week for the PA group to approximately the same level. Most of the

sentences successfully combined were simple conjunctions. It is possible that exposure to the

probes after daily intervention sessions created an awareness of this sentence type which occurs

with high frequency in conversational language. Following a month of school, both groups were

learning this pattern.

When written sentence combining was examined, both groups made minimal gains that did

not show significant change across time or between groups. This finding was not surprising

because the ELDA writing subtest score showed most subjects to be at the beginning proficiency

level for writing. Developmentally, beginning writers use invented spellings to write simple ideas.

Further, syntactic complexity in writing lags behind oral language by at least one year (Loban,

1976) and the majority of the students were not using either compound or complex sentences in

their oral language. Thus, difficulty using these sentence types in writing would be expected.

The other measure of oral syntax, the Word Ordering subtest of the TOLD:I, yielded

significant improvements in the ability to order three to seven words in correct syntactic order for

both groups but no group differences. The student was required to reorder the words to make sense

by creating syntactically correct sentences. In this case, the ESL student needed to attend to

English word order strategies that may differ from the native language (for example, adjectives

before the noun rather than following it as in Spanish). Once again, English language proficiency

showed differential results. For students in the SA condition, visual inspection of those with higher

proficiency showed greater gains than those with lower proficiency.

However, an interesting outcome occurred for the Phonemic Awareness (PA) group that

was seen across measures. Surprisingly at first glance, visual inspection of those in the PA group

who had greater language proficiency either decreased in syntax at posttest (i.e., both oral and

written sentence combining) or made minimal gains (i.e., word ordering). However, when the

materials for the PA instruction were examined, all of the sentences for the intervention stories

were in simple noun-verb-object sentence structure (i.e., Bob got a pot. He took off the top. He

saw a big crab.) These sentences were also supported by a series of pictures depicting main ideas

and were read and discussed by the interventionists. Thus, even though the goal was to read the

words following a particular phonic pattern in context (i.e., short vowel CVC words), that context

did provide a format for learning the basic syntactic patterns of English. Those students who were

at the earliest stages of acquiring English benefitted from this input and increased their scores in

oral and written sentence combining and word ordering.

In contrast, those students in the PA group who were already proficient at this simple level

of vocabulary and syntax in English did not similarly benefit because they were not exposed to

more complex syntax or vocabulary. Unlike their SA group peers, they did not improve in

syntactic abilities at posttest. For those receiving the SA treatment, the students who had greater

listening proficiency in English (rated as intermediate, advanced, or proficient on the ELDA

assessment) made moderate gains in measures of syntax following intervention. Two attributes

enabled the more proficient students to make gains in both oral and written sentence combining and

ordering: first, having sufficient understanding of the patterns of English syntax; and second, a

large enough vocabulary to follow the stories and the explanations provided by the interventionists.

These contrasting profiles of learning for the treatment groups explain why significant

changes were found for time but not for group for all but the sentence combining measure.

Measures of Reading

Five measures of reading were elicited, including isolated word recognition, word

recognition in context, and passage comprehension from the Basic Reading Inventory, and daily

probes for passage reading and a decoding probe. Isolated word reading was measured as the

student read word lists at increasing levels of difficulty until a ceiling was reached. According to

the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), the PA group should have had a distinct

advantage because they received direct instruction on decoding common word patterns and then

identified and read them in short passages. Indeed, the PA group did improve word recognition

from a median score at the primer to the first grade level, but surprisingly, so did the SA group that

received no training in decoding. This finding is consistent with an interactive model of reading

that suggests that an interaction between higher level language (i.e., top-down) and decoding print

(i.e., bottom-up) results in word recognition (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989). This suggests that

as words were repeatedly read in the SA intervention, connections were established between the

written words and the orthographic patterns comprising them, resulting in improved word

recognition. This is consistent with Chard, Pikulski and McDonagh (2006), who attributed a direct

role of syntax for decoding, stating that knowledge of syntax is used to confirm the accuracy of

decoding as well as guiding decoding. The word to be decoded must fit into the structure of the

sentence, and thus syntax can serve to limit the potential words that the reader is attempting to

decode.

Visual inspection showed no differences in groups in level changes for word recognition.

For both the SA and PA groups, only half of the subjects made gains (e.g., changes from preprimer

to primer or to first grade level word lists), while the other half remained the same or decreased

word recognition scores. No relationship was found between the ELDA listening level and changes

in word recognition, indicating that higher proficiency students did not have any advantage for

word recognition in isolation.

The weekly decoding probe showed similar results with an overall tendency of a decrease in

scores across time in words decoded for both groups. At each week, the group receiving the SA

intervention with no decoding component scored similar to the PA group who were directly taught

decoding skills.

Word Recognition in Context

Neither group made significant gains in word recognition in context. However, visual

inspection showed that 8 of 10 students in the PA condition remained at the same reading level, and

4 of the SA group members increased their reading level from a beginning reading level to a mid-

first grade level (i.e., preprimer to primer). Two SA students increased their reading level from

preprimer to first grade and from preprimer to a third grade reading level, respectively. Because the

remaining 4 SA students did not change levels, the increases were not statistically significant, but

they were clinically significant for those who made changes, representing progress expected

following half a school year (change from preprimer to primer) and more. Once again, English

language proficiency corresponded with changes in reading. Seven of the eight children who made

one level of change or greater (change from preprimer to second grade level and change from

preprimer to fourth grade level) were ranked as intermediate in listening proficiency on the ELDA

scale. The two students who made the greatest change, representing a change from the preprimer to

the second grade reading level and from preprimer to the fourth grade level, were from the PA

group. They also had the highest ELDA level, ranked as advanced and full proficient in their

listening level. They were the only students in the PA condition who increased their reading level,

suggesting that high English proficiency and some reading ability is needed to fully benefit from a

bottom-up phonics approach, consistent with the Simple View of Reading.

A greater number of students made changes from the SA condition despite no direct

instruction in decoding, including one with beginning level proficiency on the ELDA who made a

change from the preprimer to a primer reading level (half a school year). In general, regardless of

condition, those ranked as beginning English proficiency made slower progress. These findings

suggest that proficiency in language is a necessary condition for reading to develop and that a

balanced program that focuses on both top-down and bottom-up processes may prove most

efficacious for those with beginning and intermediate listening proficiency. Only those with highly

proficient listening proficiency did well in the PA condition. This is in contrast to most reading

programs which emphasize decoding, consistent with the Simple View of Reading, as well as the

recommendations from the National Reading Panel (2000) that do not include higher level language

skills such as syntax in their recommendations for reading instruction.

Comprehension

Comprehension improved significantly for both groups but there were no group advantages.

However, examination of profile changes revealed different patterns of change for the two groups.

Only two students in the PA group increased their comprehension levels, and both made large gains

(+3 and +5 levels, indicating changes from preprimer to second and preprimer to fourth grade,

respectively). When ELDA listening levels were considered, both of these students had the highest

listening levels in the group, ranking at the advanced and full proficiency level. These changes

were consistent with the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), whereby students

already had the language to support comprehension and only had to improve their decoding skills

during intervention. The phonics training received in the PA condition was effective for this profile

and large gains were seen in a very short period of time.

In contrast, the remaining eight students in the PA condition did not make any changes in

comprehension, remaining at the preprimer level regardless of whether their English proficiency

score ranked as beginning or intermediate. Comprehension was limited by poor decoding skills,

and higher level language was not available to guide word recognition, resulting in slow progress in

both processes, consistent with Chard, Pikulski and McDonagh (2006).

A different profile was observed for students in the SA condition. Six of ten students in this

condition improved their reading comprehension, ranging from 1 to 4 levels of change. Of those

who made changes, all but one student ranked as intermediate in listening proficiency. Three of the

four who failed to make gains ranked at the beginning level of proficiency. These findings suggest

that those students who had some listening proficiency were able to benefit from the PowerPoint

program, and acquired higher levels of language that were then available for comprehension. This

finding supports a top-down model of reading where organization of higher levels of language

improved the language foundation needed to support comprehension, as shown by significant gains

in syntactic awareness and significant gains in decoding.

Although twelve students from both groups continued to reach a ceiling for comprehension

at preprimer reading, evidence of change was revealed by examining their scoring level. At pretest,

half of the students were not able to answer any comprehension question after reading a fifty word

passage, thus scoring at the frustration level. At posttest only three students were not able to

answer any comprehension questions, most scoring closer to an instructional level. It is important

to recognize the small differences that students did make, representing clinically important changes

(i.e., comparable to the difference between an “F” versus a “C” on an exam). The small

improvements that initially appear minimal need to be interpreted based on Cummin’s (2000)

research, that suggests that it takes about 2 years to acquire conversational skills in a second

language and 5-7 years to acquire academic language skills. These students had recently arrived in

the U.S., (only one was enrolled at the participating school for more than a year), whereas all other

students had been enrolled for one year or less.

The comprehension probes presented a similar profile of change, with significant gains for

both groups across time. The means for the SA group were higher than those of the PA group for

all six weeks, although large standard errors precluded group effects.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this study did show promising support for the syntactic awareness training with

young English as second-language learners, it is not without limitations. Areas that could be

improved upon include sample size, subject selection, instruction methods, length of intervention,

as well as project design and analyses. Qualitative interviews with parents and observations in the

home environment would provide additional measures.

Population and sample size. The population studied was a very small and heterogeneous

sample of English as second-language learners. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons

were not applied to the analysis of variance procedures due to the exploratory character of this

study and the limited sample size, suggesting high probabilities for increased type one errors. A

replication of this study with an increased sample size would be necessary to confirm the trends of

this study.

The sample included several different first language backgrounds, cultures, and different

language proficiency skills in L2 (English), even though all but one student were enrolled into the

program within the same year. Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain comprehensive data

about the students’ first entry into the United States to learn more about the length of exposure to

English while living in the U.S., their families’ living conditions and the time between arrival in the

U.S. and the first enrollment into the American school system. Therefore, the results of this study

have limited generalizability and can only refer to trends within this particular sample, not to the

overall population of English as second-language learners.

All students were qualified for free lunch and therefore were considered as students with

low socioeconomic status (SES). However, some of the students had parents who moved to the

United States to pursue higher-level degrees and were enrolled at the nearby university. Thus,

children’s educational levels, motivational factors, and cultural-based background knowledge

varied considerably and influenced the outcome of this study. Additional measures, such as the

assessment of oral and written language proficiency, including the occurrence of complex syntactic

structures in L1, the administration of IQ tests and qualitative parent interviews in the home

environment would have contributed to additional background knowledge and more differentiated

results.

Outcome results may have been different if children were divided into groups with the same

first language to additionally target specific differences between L1 and L2. The goal of this study

however was to explore the usefulness of syntax-based language interventions in typical classrooms

that have very limited personnel resources and widely varying cultures and language groups.

Improvement of instruction methods and time constraints. The study suggests that more

time on each PowerPoint story may be needed for English as second-language learners. Children

would benefit from a modification to the use of the PowerPoints. Given that their vocabulary was

much smaller in English than that of native English-speaking peers who receive this type of

intervention, the current study suggests an advantage in maintaining the vocabulary of content

words and themes constant, allowing the children to establish relevant semantic frames for the

words. By doing this, their ability to focus more on the targeted grammatical features will be

facilitated. For beginning speakers, one story at the primer level may be sufficient, and the targeted

grammatical features could be reduced for an intervention period of six weeks.

The two treatments focused on very different skills, phonemic awareness compared to

syntactic awareness. However, practice reading the words in isolation and decoded in short

sentences was provided in the PA condition and thus confounded the data. The SA group did not

receive any training in word decoding and only read words in context and may have been at a

disadvantage.

An overall limitation of this study was the short time for the daily intervention. The 35-

minute intervention time consisted of 22 minutes of direct intervention and 12 minutes for daily

probes, due to the group intervention structure and the time constraints set by the school. Future

studies would benefit from extended time periods for intervention and testing. Overall, the

intervention was short in duration (17 sessions over a period of six weeks). This is a very short

time period to effect changes in oral and written language. Knowing that it takes several years to

increase academic language proficiency in a second language (Cummins, 2000), a longer period of

intervention may have resulted in more significant group effects in that the trends in the data were

in favor of the SA group for most measures.

Site/Personnel logistics. The intervention took place in the school auditorium and reflected

natural school conditions, but the intervention was frequently interrupted with announcements and

schedule conflicts because of testing periods, or school-based activities and events. The students

met in small groups near each other so there was ambient noise and visual distractions throughout

the sessions. Although not ideal, this is typical of an educational setting and the conditions were

equal across groups.

Improving treatment fidelity. Another limitation includes the lack of videotapes and

recordings of the intervention sessions. Even though the clinicians were supervised by the Speech

Language Pathologist to ensure that the provided daily lesson plans were followed, future studies

would benefit from detailed videotape analyses to follow the treatment protocol and to monitor the

interactions between clinicians and children. To ensure the development of a stable relationship for

intervention procedures, students worked with the same interventionist for the six week intervention

period, unless make-up sessions had to be provided. In spite of working with the same

interventionist for most of the time, it is unclear how the different personalities of interventionists

and classroom teachers influenced the students’ learning process. Students have to get used to

interacting with different teachers throughout the school day and after school programs, but

different personalities and different relationships between students and adults may have affected the

intervention results of this study.

In addition to videotape analyses concerning the relationships between clinicians and

students, classroom observations would have been helpful to see, if and how the ESL students were

able to participate in classroom lectures, to determine the complexities of the classroom discourse,

and to compare interpersonal relationships in classroom and small group intervention settings.

Comparisons between small group interactions and classroom behavior regarding language

proficiency and willingness to speak would supplement the results of probes and posttest scores and

should be included in future studies.

Control group. Even though the Phonemic Awareness group served as the control group

for the Syntactic Awareness group, future studies should include a third group that receives

additional attention from the researchers, but works on worksheets or regular exercises without

instruction. The inclusion of such a control group would help control for maturation effects.

Clinical Implications

This study revealed the importance of identifying student’s language and listening

proficiency when planning for classroom instruction or small group interventions. Although nearly

all students initially scored at the beginning first grade level (preprimer) for reading, only those

with higher listening proficiency made rapid gains when presented the PowerPoints that contained

first grade level sentences or activities with first grade phonic rules. Students with lower listening

proficiency made slower gains even though their initial reading scores were similar. This is

consistent with Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) predictive formula in their Simple View of Reading,

stating that successful reading can be estimated by knowing the person’s ability to decode words

and their understanding of spoken language. The formula also demonstrated efficacy for predicting

gains in sentence combining.

This study used the listening level of the ELDA as the measure of language. Listening

proficiency is a global measure of language comprehension in which short stories or passages are

read and students must respond to multiple choice questions that are also read while they follow

along. This subtest of the ELDA added explanatory power to the analysis of both oral language and

reading changes because it represented what students understood at the beginning of the treatment

and how likely they would be able to fully benefit from the instruction provided. The high impact

of listening comprehension levels found in the current study is consistent with Lesaux et al.’s

longitudinal study (2010) that showed that oral language proficiency and specifically listening

comprehension in L2 had the strongest influence on reading and reading comprehension for fourth

and fifth grade students.

For practitioners, it is important to recognize that substantial gains can be made in a short

period of time (i.e., 6 weeks). The personnel responsible for delivering the interventions were

preprofessional undergraduate and graduate students with limited training and experience, as

opposed to licensed speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The training they received included an

undergraduate course in language development supplemented by training inservice, and daily

problem-solving sessions on site if questions occurred. Ongoing training and monitoring was

provided by a licensed speech-language pathologist. The implications of the children’s

improvement in language and reading scores suggest that speech-language pathologists may be able

to provide effective input to those with more limited training, such as a classroom aide, thereby

maximizing their impact on the ESL population. Many ESL students receive instruction in

inclusive classrooms where the ESL specialist consults with the classroom teacher on strategies

than can be implemented. The structured training guided by the PowerPoint program could be

implemented by an aide under the supervision of the SLP. This study suggests that it is a tool that

can enable ESL students to progress in their ability to comprehend and produce more complex

sentences and read in English. These skills will enable students to gain better benefit from

classroom instruction, and move them toward catching up with their peers.

The finding that students exposed to the SA intervention made equal gains in decoding and

passage reading as those receiving direct instruction in phonics suggests that time may be better

spent on reading activities designed to improve language skills than on isolated phonics instruction.

It is tempting to assume that ESL students will have the same needs and learn in the same manner

as younger native speakers who benefit from intensive instruction in decoding. The results

suggested that the time spent on higher level language was not at the expense of word recognition

skills, consistent with an interactive model of reading which suggests that an interaction between

higher level language (i.e., top-down) and decoding print (i.e., bottom-up) occurs to result in word

recognition (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989).

Summary. Learning to read English is going to be a slow process for ESL students with

limited proficiency in English. However, recognizing a student’s listening level and providing

differentiated instruction accordingly can help students to maximize their success. Scaffolded

Animated PowerPoints are a tool that can assist ESL students, particularly those with higher

proficiency.

Assignment introduction A syntax-based reading intervention for English as second-languag.pdf

Students also viewed