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.