How different are English learners from their native English-speaking peers? Evidence of equivalent lexical competence in classroom conversations

IF 1.2 1区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Hsi-Chien Hsieh, Simon Wiles, Guillermo Solano-Flores
{"title":"How different are English learners from their native English-speaking peers? Evidence of equivalent lexical competence in classroom conversations","authors":"Hsi-Chien Hsieh, Simon Wiles, Guillermo Solano-Flores","doi":"10.1080/19313152.2022.2118193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We address the concern that classification of English learners (ELs) primarily based on standardized tests does not accurately reflect what students know and can do with English. While qualitative classroom discourse analyses show that ELs’ language-in-use is not as limited as test scores indicate, available evidence is sparse and prone to unintentional biases. Informed by sociocultural theory, we performed a series of quantitative analyses of student conversations during academic tasks at a larger scale. We analyzed 833 conversation transcripts between pairs of K-12 students in science and English language arts (ELA) classrooms. To uncover patterns of lexical resources in different interactions, word frequency and correlation analyses were performed for three dyadic configurations: two English-only students (EO-EO), two ELs (EL-EL), and the heterogeneous combination (EO-EL). Results showed that lexical size was only significantly different among grade-level bands despite EL-EL dyads’ conversations being shorter in length in ELA. Relative to EO-EO dyads’ language use, in general, EL-EL dyads maintained better word-frequency correlations in science-specific language, while EO-EL dyads maintained strong correlations in ELA-specific language. The findings suggest that attention to authentic language use between peers in class could be more informative than discrete tests and more effective to scaffold EL learning.","PeriodicalId":46090,"journal":{"name":"International Multilingual Research Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"87 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Multilingual Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2118193","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT We address the concern that classification of English learners (ELs) primarily based on standardized tests does not accurately reflect what students know and can do with English. While qualitative classroom discourse analyses show that ELs’ language-in-use is not as limited as test scores indicate, available evidence is sparse and prone to unintentional biases. Informed by sociocultural theory, we performed a series of quantitative analyses of student conversations during academic tasks at a larger scale. We analyzed 833 conversation transcripts between pairs of K-12 students in science and English language arts (ELA) classrooms. To uncover patterns of lexical resources in different interactions, word frequency and correlation analyses were performed for three dyadic configurations: two English-only students (EO-EO), two ELs (EL-EL), and the heterogeneous combination (EO-EL). Results showed that lexical size was only significantly different among grade-level bands despite EL-EL dyads’ conversations being shorter in length in ELA. Relative to EO-EO dyads’ language use, in general, EL-EL dyads maintained better word-frequency correlations in science-specific language, while EO-EL dyads maintained strong correlations in ELA-specific language. The findings suggest that attention to authentic language use between peers in class could be more informative than discrete tests and more effective to scaffold EL learning.
英语学习者与以英语为母语的同龄人有何不同?课堂对话中对等词汇能力的证据
摘要:我们关注的是,主要基于标准化考试对英语学习者的分类并不能准确反映学生对英语的了解和能力。虽然定性的课堂话语分析表明,ELs的语言使用并不像考试成绩所示的那样有限,但现有证据很少,容易产生无意的偏见。在社会文化理论的指导下,我们对学生在更大范围的学术任务中的对话进行了一系列定量分析。我们分析了833份K-12学生在科学和英语语言艺术(ELA)课堂上的对话记录。为了揭示不同互动中词汇资源的模式,对三种二元结构进行了词频和相关性分析:两个纯英语学生(EO-EO)、两个ELs(EL-EL)和异质组合(EO-EL)。结果表明,尽管EL-EL二人组在ELA中的对话长度较短,但各年级的词汇大小仅存在显著差异。相对于EO-EO二元组的语言使用,总体而言,EL-EL二元组在科学特定语言中保持了更好的词频相关性,而EO-EL二元组在ELA特定语言中维持了很强的相关性。研究结果表明,在课堂上关注同龄人之间真实的语言使用可能比离散测试更具信息性,也更有效地支持EL学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The International Multilingual Research Journal (IMRJ) invites scholarly contributions with strong interdisciplinary perspectives to understand and promote bi/multilingualism, bi/multi-literacy, and linguistic democracy. The journal’s focus is on these topics as related to languages other than English as well as dialectal variations of English. It has three thematic emphases: the intersection of language and culture, the dialectics of the local and global, and comparative models within and across contexts. IMRJ is committed to promoting equity, access, and social justice in education, and to offering accessible research and policy analyses to better inform scholars, educators, students, and policy makers. IMRJ is particularly interested in scholarship grounded in interdisciplinary frameworks that offer insights from linguistics, applied linguistics, education, globalization and immigration studies, cultural psychology, linguistic and psychological anthropology, sociolinguistics, literacy studies, post-colonial studies, critical race theory, and critical theory and pedagogy. It seeks theoretical and empirical scholarship with implications for research, policy, and practice. Submissions of research articles based on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods are encouraged. The journal includes book reviews and two occasional sections: Perspectives and Research Notes. Perspectives allows for informed debate and exchanges on current issues and hot topics related to bi/multilingualism, bi/multi-literacy, and linguistic democracy from research, practice, and policy perspectives. Research Notes are shorter submissions that provide updates on major research projects and trends in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信