Reflection / Synthesis: Jose

Biliteracy Blog:  José

Synthesis / Reflection

          Introduction:  José is a Mexican student who is currently enrolled in my Developmental Bilingual Education Spanish Arts class and my Newcomers Class (English as a Second Language).

He comes from a family of five children, and his parents are very supportive of his education.

José arrived in Madison from Mexico in mid-2010 and enrolled in mid-year at Stephens Elementary.  At the start of the 2011-2012 school year, he spoke very little English, whispering only a few words.  As I evaluated his Spanish, I noted that his Spanish literacy was strong, so I quickly requested authorization to enroll him in DBE-Spanish Language Arts so that he could continue to develop his Spanish, use his Spanish literacy to bridge to English and benefit from the self-esteem that his strong Spanish gave him.

Sequential or Simultaneous?  Jose is a sequential bilingual, having arrived from Mexico last year.  Spanish is his native tongue, and it is still his dominant language.

Previous evaluations:  I administered Jose’s WIDA ACCESS Oral Exam in Jan. 2012.  He scored a 3 (Developing) in Instructional Language and a 2 (Beginning) in both the Social Studies and Science sections

Attitudes about language:  At home, he uses Spanish exclusively.  He speaks Spanish with his Mexican friends and English with all of the others, and he has quite a few English-dominant friends.   José bridges the cultures extremely well, and Krashen would say that “affective factors” are having a positive rather than an adverse effect on Jose’s language acquisition.

Oral assessment- Spanish:  Jose is in my Spanish Language Arts class (DBE), and I asked him to summarize a chapter from the novel we are reading, Cajas de Cartón.  Employing the strategies based on the Six + One Traits of a Good Reader, he was able to deduce information from the text, paraphrase, summarize and defend a point of view with reasons.  I can conclude from my evaluation and recording, along with his class participation, that Jose’s vocabulary usage is at Level 5 Bridging.  He used academic vocabulary to describe situations from the text:  “Yo puedo deducir que su madre estaba muy preocupada y no quería hablar.”  Also, in describing a grammar mini-lesson, he said “Este verbo está en pretérito porque describe algo que pasó una vez en un momento preciso.”  He is probably high 4 – low 5 in linguistic complexity, given that he used sentences of varying lengths, some long and complex, including with dependent and independent clauses, for example.   “Panchito quería su propio costal de algodón para mostrar que era un hombre.  El costal, para el, significaba ser hombre. “ Jose’s language control is also Level  5, given that he completed 4th grade in Mexico and given his fluency.  He speaks using correct and complex grammatical structures, “Creo que la curandera no curó a Torito.  La familia de Torito rezó  durante un año a la Virgen De Guadalupe, y fue eso que lo salvó.” 

English:  I asked Jose to discuss two of the scary stories (Lexile 350-400) that we read recently in class.  I did not see examples of code-switching, linguistic blending or semantic extensions.  Jose is capable of thinking in English.  From this evaluation, I’d argue that his vocabulary is a high 2 Beginning, but really pushing a 3 Developing.  He can re-phrase ideas from speech, “The wicked wooden maidens wanted to eat the boy.”  He can express time through multiple tenses, “They gave him ice cream so he would be fat so they could eat him.”  I also saw the beginnings of academic vocabulary, “The two stories are different because one had a reindeer, and the other had a lamb.  They were similar because both children didn’t supposed to open the door.”  He can connect ideas in discourse using transitions, “They took him to their cave, and then they gave him candy.”  I would put Jose’s linguistic complexity at a level 3 (Beginning-Developing) since most of his ideas were expressed in short, simple sentences.  “The wicked maidens wanted him to open the door.”  “They wanted him to go their cave.”  He expressed only a few expanded complex sentences.   His weakest point is language control.  He is relatively strong with “the bricks” (nouns, verbs), but, as is common with ELLs, he is still struggling with usage and prepositions, for example (“the mortar”).  Here, I would argue that he is a 2-3.  He is perfectly comprehensible, but he still struggles with control “They took him for eat.  The reindeer didn’t heard him, and he finally find him and saved him.” 

Reading Assessment- Spanish: I began by interviewing Jose, first in Spanish, then in English, about his attitude, motivation, strategies and habits related to reading in both Spanish and English.  I then asked him to read an excerpt from Cajas de Cartón, the novel we are reading in DBE class.  Cajas de Cartón is Francisco Jimenez’s  autobiographical account of his childhood of a migrant worker.  This is clearly an authentic text, and one that my students can identify with.  I would argue that Cajas is of “situational interest” to José, as defined by Hidi and Anderson in 1992 as “interest that is elicited by text through topics or ideas that are of universal or archetypal appeal.”  In this case, the “topics of universal appeal” are social justice and the importance of education and family.  For English, he read from two different English language texts, one non-fiction text entitled “Ruler in the Desert” from the New Practice Reader and another fictional text called “Don’t Touch That!”  I took a running record while I listened to him read and recorded the readings for analysis.

I.       Interview:  Attitudes about Reading/Motivation:    Jose is clear that the objective of reading is to obtain meaning, but he defines this more precisely when he states “I read because I want to know about the story.  I like to read the wars because I want to know what happened in the second war.  I like to read sports because I’m an athlete.  I like to read action because it’s so fun.  I like to read about animals because I think they’re cute.”  Krashen would be pleased that Jose is reading “..something he is really interested in, that he would read in his first language.” (Krashen, 1982, p. 164.)

Attitudes about Reading/Motivation:   When asked which language he prefers to read in, he said, “En español, puedo leer más.  Me gusta leer en los dos idiomas, pero prefiero leer en inglés para aprender más en inglés.  Una vez que aprendo más en inglés, volveré al español.”  “If I read now, I will be a good student and a great person in the future.” 

Strategies:  When asked what strategies he uses when he has trouble comprehending while reading in Spanish, he said, “Divido las palabras en partes para pronunciarlas.  Las busco en el diccionario y las escribo en mi cuaderno.”   When asked the same question with regard to English, he said, “If I don’t understand, I look in the dictionary to find the words and then I write in my book for don’t forget the word.”  The fact that he was specific about dividing Spanish words into syllables shows that he is aware that the syllable is “the most important unit of phonological awareness in Spanish..” (Escamilla, 2000, Mora, 2009, Myer 2010).

Reading as a Metacognitive Process:  When asked what he thinks about when he reads, he said, “Pienso en lo que está pasando o lo que va a pasar.  Pienso en como se siente el autor.  Pienso en sus sentimientos.”

II.      Running record:  Fluency:  The Colorín Colorado rubric defines fluency as 1) accuracy in decoding, rate (automatic recognition) and expressive and meaningful interpretation.  The MMSD rubric rates expression, phrasing, pace and word recognition and accuracy from one to four (highest).  According to the Spanish running record, Jose read 134 words in 60 seconds with no miscues.  As a confident, Spanish language dominant student, he monitored his reading, quickly and adeptly self-correcting on the words “algondero” and “cultivadores”, saying “algo-algodonero” and “cult-cultivadores”.  According to the Colorín Colorado rubric, he read at 100%, at an independent level, which I fully expected.  According to the MMSD rubric, he scored a four in all four categories, “consistently reads aloud with appropriate and varied intonation…”, in phrasing, “reads aloud using larger meaningful phrases, in pace, “varies speed to match purpose”, and in word recognition, “reads aloud with high word recognition..and smoothly self-corrects miscues.” 

English running record:  In English, Jose read 96 words in 60 seconds.  He had three miscues, so he read 93 words correctly for a 97% accuracy/rate score (borderline instructional/independent).  His miscues included “digging” (he asked me, “Ms. Scott, what is this word?”  before beginning to read.  He read “watch-ed” for “watched”.  He hesitated, and I helped him with “dug”, and he said, “pi-i-i-pe.”, and I confirmed that it was “pipe”.   He showed more hesitancy in English, and while he did self-monitor in English (he is not content with guessing—he wants to be correct), he was not able to adeptly self-correct as in Spanish.  He asked me on two occasions, and he mumbled approximations (as in “pipe”) which I then confirmed.  This is normal, of course, given that he has only been in the US a year, and Spanish is his dominant language.

On the realistic fiction text that he was familiar with, he scored a 2 in expression “attempts to change intonation..comprehension not always apparent”, and 3s in phrasing, pace and word recognition (“resolves most miscues through self-correction”), for an overall score of 2.75 (MMSD rubric, nearing a 3, full understanding and application.) 

On the non-fiction text with which he was very unfamiliar, he scored 2s in all categories. (Phrasing: “two and three word phrases…often sounds choppy, inconsistent attention to text structures..” Pace: “reads at an inconsistent rate”..Word recognition:  “reads aloud with developing accuracy. Occasionally attempts self-correction.”).  I am certain that this discrepancy is due to prior knowledge and familiarity with one text as opposed to the other.  Jose’s comprehension is very strong on the fictional text “Don’t Touch It!”  He re-told the story in detail, using precise vocabulary from the story.  “Marcos and Leon wanted to watch the men work.  They dug a ditch and lay a pipe.”   While Jose shows excellent fluency and comprehension while reading aloud in Spanish, in English, he also demonstrates good comprehension, despite his less than proficient fluency (rate and accuracy).  I am theorizing that this is because Jose has some of the excellent skills found among the “6 traits of a Good Reader” (he can infer, deduce, and use context clues..)  His oral skills in English are still developing and while he sometimes has trouble pronouncing and recognizing words while reading aloud, he can still comprehend the text through his use of the above-mentioned strategies. 

This leads me to question the assertion of Barone and Xu, (2008, p. 108), who find that “..as students increase their reading and writing proficiency, there is similar increase in oral language proficiency.  I challenge this finding because, while it is logical that if students can use language in reading and writing, then they should be able to use it orally, as well, I would say not necessarily if they do not practice.  In my own experience, I have seen students who read and write quite well, but who cannot produce the same level of proficiency orally because they are shy and reluctant to practice speaking.  Even if they are potentially able to produce a certain level of proficiency, they must practice in order to actually be able to produce the language.  Knowledge without practice is nearly useless!  Conversely, “as students increase their oral proficiency, they simultaneously increase their reading and writing proficiency.”  I also challenge this finding.  I currently have a student in Jose’s Newcomer class who has progressed enormously in terms of oral and listening proficiency, but who has not made visible gains in reading and writing.  He has trouble grasping phonemic concepts and memorizing and recognizing sight words, and he will be evaluated for a learning disability.  While Barone and Xu’s general observation holds true, and also holds true in the case of José, his oral proficiency will not improve without oral practice.  This is especially important when it comes to shy individuals, who tend to speak very little.

  In conclusion, I can confidently predict that Jose will be an excellent reader in both languages due to his already well-developed skills and strategies, due to his excellent attitude and reading habits and due to his strong motivation and supportive home environment.  Citing Krashen’s “affective factors” and Cummins’ “literacy engagement”,  I can say that Jose is a happy, highly-motivated learner and a very engaged reader.  He must, however, have practice in all three domains of English, and oral practice is the most elusive due to his Spanish language home environment.  In large classes of 25, José is bound to get more practice reading and writing than speaking.  Oral practice in my class thus becomes crucial.

Jose’s Writing Analysis

          I asked Jose to write a short essay about immigrating to the United States in both languages.   He wrote the Spanish essay first and then asked me if he could use it to write the English essay.  I politely declined, explaining that I preferred that he think in English rather than use his Spanish essay to “translate”.   I was not surprised to see that his essay focused heavily on soccer, which is his great passion in life.  Both essays were clear and comprehensible.  It is clear that Jose understands that the purpose of writing is to convey meaning. 

          Rubin and Carlan /Vocabulary/Sentence Structure/Grammar/Spelling:  The transitional stage, as defined by Rubin and Carlan, is characterized by knowledge of common spelling patterns as well as sounds they hear in words (Gentry, 1982,2000)  One example of demonstrating knowledge of spelling patterns would be adding silent e at the end of words.   This is where Jose’s written English falls (the transitional stage), as is evidenced by only two errors in his one-page writing sample (“Inglesh” and “United State”).  His spelling accuracy was nearly the same in both languages, and his use of vocabulary was slightly more developed in Spanish than in English (“llegamos” as opposed to “came”)(“empece a jugar “ as opposed to “I played with another team”.) 

          The transitional stage, which  has no equivalent in Ferreiro and Teberosky’s scheme (probably because most Spanish words are spelled phonetically, and students thus move directly to the conventional stage), also features more complex sentence structure and syntax as compared to the phonetic stage.  In the English sample, Jose’s placement of adjectives was correct, but he omitted the article “the” in one instance “came from Mexico to United State”.  Apart from that one instance, the two samples were not very far apart.  Jose’s written Spanish is definitely at the conventional (Level 5) stage of development.  In terms of grammar, Jose uses four grammatical tenses in his Spanish sample, (“me sentí, “estaban en Mexico”, “quisieron que yo jugara con ellos” y “he aprendido”, while in his English sample, he used only the present tense and the past simple tenses.  He definitely shows greater language control in Spanish, which is why I place him in the conventional L5 stage.  He did, however, omit most of the accents in his writing, a fact which has informed my instruction.  We have been studying the accent rules for the past month.

Writing Miscue Analysis

          Jose, surprisingly, showed no evidence of spelling approximations or code switching.  He is able to form fairly complex sentences in English without borrowing vocabulary and without blending except for his placement of periods, which I believe qualifies as copying as it applies to punctuation.

           It seems that Jose is confused about the placement of periods, and I am theorizing that, as a Mexican who is used to writing long sentences with dependent clauses and additive relationships, he has been corrected and asked to shorten his sentences by inserting periods (in his English writing.)  His English essay consists of three very long sentences (the last consisting of 43 words), while his Spanish essay consists of six sentences (the longest of which was 89 words).

          His placement of periods indicates confusion in both languages.   (“Cuando me mude de Mexico a Estados Unidos me senti triste. Porque mis amigos estaban en Mexico.” “..cuando llegamos a los Estados Unidos.Entre en un equipo de mexicanos…” When I came from Mexico to United State.I was sad because my friends are in Mexico.”  I am theorizing that his teachers’ entreaties to write simpler, shorter sentences have resulted in confusion with regard to punctuation in both languages.

          Smith/Discourse pattern: He also seems to have transferred his Spanish discourse style, characterized by long, run-on sentences characterized by additive, explicative and causal relationships, according to Smith) to English.  (“Mi mejor amigo se llama Elviz y el me regalo un balon de futbol que tanto queria y cuando llegamos a los Estados Unidos….”  “And I was happy and when we came to United State I played with a mexican team and then I played for another team the problem is when…”).

          While Jose’s English writing is at the transitional stage, I have some useful data to help form my instructional plan. 

          His English and Spanish writing are both steadily progressing given that he had step-by-step instruction in Newcomers (phonics and sight words, which then gave way to reading 400 lexile books and writing essays).  He is progressing simultaneously in Spanish through DBE-Spanish Language Arts, where we focus heavily on reading, research and writing.

          Jose’s confusion with regard to the placement of periods in both languages and the related issue of discourse patterns in the respective languages will definitely continue to inform my instruction. I have worked with him on these issues, and I have seen improvement, but more practice is required.

          Over the domains of English, José is generally a 2-3 (according to the ACCESS scale), while in his native/dominant Spanish, he is a 5-6.  Practice and cross-language transfer continue to be very important, as are the explicit and distinct features of each language.