7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

1/23

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

2/23

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

3/23

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

4/23

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

5/23

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

6/23

LOADING FILE...

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

7/23

NANANG HERI S. DC

NURUL ABIDAH

REYNA CANTIK

VIOLITA SEKAR

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

8/23

Understand the nature of the relationship betweenoral language and reading proficiency among L2learners can help educators in making keyeducational decisions, including:

The identification of needs The development of curricula and teaching

strategies Designating students as either fluent English-

proficient (FEP) students or placing them intomainstream classes

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

9/23

Finding that some students are good in

reading without have enough oral

proficiently in their L2, but not all orallyproficient students have enough reading

skill.

A reason of mixed result based on

Fitzgerald (1955)

The variety of measurements

that have been used to access

students oral proficiency.

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

10/23

The present study:

1. Examined young L2 students academic oralresponses in typical science instruction context

and analyzed it related to their reading

proficiency.

2. Studied L2 students in an English-only school

district.

3. Examined academic oral proficiency in relation

to reading proficiency among monolingualEnglish-speaking students who had received

instruction in the same school district as their

L2 counterparts.

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

11/23

Some aspects of language proficiency are related toones reading and other academic work and havedeveloped more varied distinctions.

A classical distinction in educational linguistic is thatbetween basic interpersonal communicative skills(BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency(CALP)

Cummins characterized the tasks and activities along 2dimensions:1. Range of contextual support2. Degree of cognitive involvement

What is Academic Language? It is a variety or a register of English used in

personal books and characterized by thespecific linguistic features associated withacademic disciplines, (Scarcella 2003).

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

12/23

The Relationship Between Oral Proficiency and

Reading Proficiency Among L2 Learners

Some factors that cause the inconsistent result :a.The relationship between L1 oral skills and L2

reading skills VS the relationship between L2 oralskills and L2 reading

b.The measurements used to assess readingproficiency (for word-level VS text-level readingskills)

c.The measurements used to assess oral proficiency

(for oral vocabulary/grammar VS more academic-oriented oral skill)

d.Participants cognitive abilities and learningcontext

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

13/23

Research Purpose

Oral proficiency reading proficiency

Strong/ struggling readers

NE(Native English-speaking children) L2(English-learning children)

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

14/23

Method

Participants instrument and procedure

L2 and NE

Northern California oral assessment analysis of academic

of academic English oral activities

The assessment should be embedded in more cognitively demanding and

context-reduced activities compared to daily conversations. The assessment should be authentic

The assessment should include the language use

The assessment should be designed for learning

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

15/23

oral assessment analysis of academic

of academic English oral activities

Five components: meaning aspects of language

1. An introductory explanation a. meaning accuracy

by the teacher b. Use of academic vocabulary

2. A first comprehension check and accuracy of academic

3. Three hands-on experiments vocabulary use

4. A second comprehension check formal aspects of language

5. A reflection on the lesson itself a. syntactic complexities

b. well- formedness.

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

16/23

First, the means and standard deviations for each component

were calculated. Table 1 summarizes the results for Ravens SMP

as well as all of the components except well-formedness

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

17/23

Table 2 indicates the number of responses and the percentage

of total responses given by each group as well as the average

scores of individual students in each group

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

18/23

The ANOVAs found that, for meaning accuracy, use of academic

vocabulary, and accuracy of academic vocabulary use,

significant differences were found only between strong and

struggling readers but not between NE and L2 readers

T e examp es e ow represent i erences in compre ension an aca emic

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

19/23

T e examp es e ow represent i erences in compre ension an aca emicvocabulary use between strong readers and struggling readers.A strong L2

reader (L2+) and NE strong reader (NE+) could use the newly introduced

names of three metals and the word attract accurately. In contrast, a L2

struggling reader (L2) did not

show strong comprehension of the lesson and failed to use anyacademic vocabulary introduced during the lesson.

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

20/23

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

21/23

Investigated the relationship between

academic-related oral proficiency and

reading proficiency. It is compared between strong and

struggling readers.

Based on the result the oral responses ofL2 and NE students, strong readers

compared with struggling readers.

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

22/23

Related to the formal aspects of

language, the differences in

performance also found between NEand L2 students.L2 students have some benefits

according to this study.Oral language were related to readingproficiency.

7/31/2019 Group IV Part 2

23/23

WASSALAMUALAKUM WR. WB.