A COMPARISON OF LANGUAGE SAMPLES OF MONOLINGUAL AND LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS By ELIA^VAZQUEZ-MONTILLA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1991 Copyright 1991 by Elia Vazquez-Montilia DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Ivan, and to my parents, Aida and Angel, who share with me an appreciation of learning and a commitment to providing encouragement to children trying to reach their potential. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my appreciation of the assistance my chairperson, Dr. Dorene D. Ross, has provided me throughout my graduate career as well as during the long period of writing my dissertation. I especially benefitted from the direction she has given me. My committee members, Dr. Vivian I. Correa, Dr. Sandra H. Fradd, Dr. Clemens L. Hallman, and Dr. Lynn C. Oberlin, have provided support and information throughout this long process. I am grateful for their patience and admire their commitment to this endeavor. I could not have carried out my investigation without the staff and students of Broward County, Florida. Dr. Nancy G. Terrel and Dr. Diane K. Wilen were facilitators who made carrying out this research easy and pleasant. I also want to acknowledge the help of persons without whom I could not have completed this work. Dr. Matilda Martin and Dr. Elizabeth Ruiloba have been supportive listeners from our days as university students to the present day. Daisy Arroyo and Orlando Merced, my Puerto Rican friends, came forward without question when I needed computer skills or discussion of ideas. Jeanne Weismantel and Joanne Schwandes were true friends who read and iv responded to my dissertation in progress. Leila Cantara word-processed efficiently and produced a beautiful final copy. From the beginning, my great support has been my family, my husband and children, whose favorite question came to be, "when are you going to finish?" My children's grandparents, Irma and Francisco, Aida and Angel, were always available when needed, no matter the geographical distance. I am grateful, finally, for my own bilingual Puerto Rican background. Out of this heritage has come my understanding and appreciation of the value of linguistic and cultural differences. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xii ABSTRACT xiii CHAPTERS I RATIONALE FOR STUDY 1 Background of the Study 3 Demographics in Florida 4 The Educational Challenge 54 Definition of Terms 8 Purpose and Significance of Study 10 Assumptions 16 Delimitations of the Study 16 Organization of Study 17 Summary 18 II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF LANGUAGE SKILLS OF LEP STUDENTS: AN EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE 20 Understanding Language 21 Pragmatics 23 Functional Elements of Language 25 Form 27 Content 28 Use 29 Pragmatics, Functional Elements of Language, and LEP Students 29 Summary of the Understanding of Language 31 Understanding Language Assessment 31 Defining Language Proficiency 32 Competence 34 Performance 34 Ideas relevant to the study 35 Formal and Informal Language Assessment 37 vi Paradigms of Language Assessment 41 Behaviorist Paradigm 42 Psycholinguistic Paradigm 44 Interactionist Paradigm 48 Summary of Understanding Language Assessment 51 Language Assessment and LEP Students 52 Factors that Influence Language Assessment Procedures 56 Cultural differences 57 Socioeconomic status and opportunities ... 57 Bilingualism 58 The process of learning a new language ... 59 The Search for Appropriate Assessment Procedures 60 A multi-informational approach 61 A pragmatic approach 61 A functional approach 62 A comprehensive approach 63 Synthesis 64 Summary of Language Assessment and LEP Students 65 Toward the Development of an Informal Model of Language Assessment for LEP Students 66- Language Sampling: An Informal Elicitation Procedure 67 Important Features of Language Sampling 69 Representativeness 69 Establishment of rapport 69 Task and contextual variety 71 Age, sex, and cultural appropriateness ... 72 UUssiinngg LLeavneglusageofFPurnoctfiiocnieAnncaylyfsoirsAsfsoerssment .. 75 Assessment 78 Chapter Summary 83 III METHODOLOGY 86 Subjects 87 Subject Description 87 Subject Selection 88 Data Collection 92 Research Questions 92 Language Elicitation 94 Setting 94 Rapport building 95 General procedures 95 Elicitation activities 97 Data Analysis 101 Overview 101 Language Proficiency Levels Analysis 102 Vl•l• Frequency Counts and Language Proficiency Levels 104 Language Function Analysis 105 Training and Inter-rater Reliability 107 Organization and Presentation of Results .... 108 Researcher's Experience in Collection and Analysis of Dependent Measures Ill Limitations 120 Summary 12° IV FINDINGS 122 Overview of Chapter 123 Findings 124 Research Question One 125 T/LEP and T/MONO groups 126 SLD/LEP and SLD/MONO groups 129 Observed trends in language proficiency .. 131 Research Question Two 134 T/LEP group 136 SLD/LEP group 137 Observed trends in language proficiency .. 138 Research Question Three 140 Regulatory 143 Heuristic 145 Imaginative 147 Observed trends in language function 148 Research Question Four 150 Regulatory 151 Heuristic 154 Imaginative 156 Observed trends in language function 157 Research Question Five 160 Proficiency, function, and performance ... 160 T/MONO students 163 SLD/MONO students 164 T/LEP students 165 SLD/LEP students 167 Summary 169 V CONCLUSION 172 Summary of Findings 173 Discussion 181 Conclusion One 182 Conclusion Two 183 Conclusion Three 186 Conclusion Four 188 Limitations 191 Suggestions for Further Research 193 Implications 198 Summary 200 viii APPENDICES A LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY TESTS FREQUENTLY USED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF LEP CHILDREN 202 B ELEMENTS OF ORAL PROFICIENCY LEVELS 204 C CONSENT FORMS 205 D GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR A LANGUAGE SAMPLE ELICITATION 212 E ANALYSIS RECORD CHART: PROFICIENCY LEVELS 214 F ANALYSIS RECORD CHART: FREQUENCY COUNT 215 G JUDGING ADEQUACY BETWEEN VERBAL PERFORMANCE FOR A LANGUAGE FUNCTION AND TASK DEMAND 218 H ANALYSIS RECORD CHART: LANGUAGE FUNCTION 220 I AN EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE SAMPLES 221 J STUDENTS1 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES 225 K SUMMARY OF STUDENTS1 PERFORMANCE 250 REFERENCES 253 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 273 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 Formal Versus Informal Measures 42 2-2 Language Definition Over Time 53 2-3 Language Functions 82 3-1 Student Profile 90 3-2 Format of Session 97 3-3 Language Functions, Observed Behaviors, and Activities 99 3-4 Oral Proficiency Levels and Observed Behaviors 100 3-5 Language Proficiency Measures for Each Subject in English 112 3-6 Language Proficiency Measures for LEP Subjects in English and Spanish 113 3-7 Language Function Measures for Each Subject in English 114 3-8 Language Function Measures for LEP Subjects in English and Spanish 115 3-9 Comprehensive Analysis of Data for Each Subject 116 4-1 Findings Using the Language Proficiency Descriptors 127 4-2 Findings Using the Language Proficiency Descriptors for T/LEP and SLD/LEP Groups .. 135 4-3 Rating of Language Function Measures in English 141 x