SELF-EFFICACY, WORD READING, AND VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE

IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

TRICIA FLORENCE MASE, PhD

BS, Trinity College, 2001 MSEd, Fordham University, 2009

Mentor Joanna K. Uhry, PhD

Readers

Karen E. Brobst, PhD Giselle B. Esquivel, PsyD

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF FORDHAM UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK

2011

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3461888

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

UMI Number: 3461888

ii

© Tricia Florence Mase, 2011, All Rights Reserved.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank the principals and teachers from the

schools involved in my research for their sincere interest and endless support during

data collection. I would also like to acknowledge Melissa Rozon who was an

invaluable asset to the data collection and an integral part in the successful

completion of data collection. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge and thank my

husband, friends, and family for their understanding and support through this entire

process.

TFM

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 1 Theoretical and Research Basis 4 Second Language Acquisition 4 Self-Efficacy 5 Vocabulary 9 Word Reading 10 The Study 14 Statement of the Problem 14 Research Questions and Hypotheses 15 Definition of Terms 17 English language learner 17 Self-Efficacy 18 Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 18 Word Reading 19 Native Language Vocabulary 20

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Second Language Vocabulary 20 Significance of the Problem 20 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 22 Second Language Acquisition 22 Self-Efficacy 25 Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 29 Vocabulary 31 Word Reading 34 Summary 43 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY 45 Participants 45 Measures 46 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition 46 Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody 48 Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised-Normative Update 49 Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure 50 Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 50 Ethical Considerations with Human Subjects 51 Procedures 52 Statistical Analyses 53

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 54

Pre-Analysis Data Screening 55 Descriptive Statistics 56 Correlations 59 Path Analysis 60 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 64 Conclusions 64 Limitations and Future Studies 71 Implications for Practice 73 REFERENCES 76 APPENDIX A: SELF-EFFICACY OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE 86 APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL AND PARENT PERMISSION LETTERS 91 ABSTRACT 98 VITA 101

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Independent and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 80) 57 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Variables Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 80) 58 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Independent and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 74) 58 4. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Variables Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 74) 59 5. Intercorrelations Among Independent and Dependent Variables (N=74) 60 6. Intercorrelations Between Age and Incorrect Items, Accurate Items, Self-Efficacy and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N=74) 60 7. Simultaneous Regression Analysis Relating Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, and Self-Efficacy to English Vocabulary (N=74) 63 8. Simultaneous Regression Analysis Relating

Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy to English Vocabulary (N=74) 63

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1. Path analysis model of English

word reading, Spanish vocabulary, English self-efficacy, and English vocabulary 16

2. Path analysis model of English

word reading, Spanish vocabulary, English accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary 16

3. Scatterplot for English Word Reading,

Spanish Vocabulary, Self-Efficacy, and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy 56

4. Model of self-efficacy with standardized coefficients 62 5. Model of accuracy of self-efficacy with standardized coefficients 62

1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

In the past two decades, the United States school system has seen a dramatic

increase in the number of students for whom a language other than English is spoken

at home. These students are known as English language learners (ELLs). The

federal definition of an English language learner is:

one who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is in English or to participate fully in our society due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) was not born in the US or whose native language is a language other than English and comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; 2) is a Native American or Alaska Native or who is a native resident of the Outlying Areas and comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on such individual’s level of English language proficiency; or 3) is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant. (Public Law 103-382, sec. 7501 as cited in Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005, pp. 1–2).

Since the 1990-1991 school year, the ELL population has grown

considerably (105%) while the general school population has increased only slightly

(12%) (National Center for Education Statistics as cited in August, Carlo, Dressler,

& Snow, 2005). In addition, 66% of the ELL population in the United States scored

below the English basic reading level in fourth grade and 67% of the ELL population

scored below the English basic reading level in eighth grade (National Assessment

2

of Educational Progress as cited in Cárdenas-Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola,

2007). Based on these statistics, ELLs have recently become a focus of research on

the acquisition of the English language and English literacy skills. However, few

studies have examined the cognitive and affective variables that are important to the

literacy skills of English speaking students to the academic performance of ELLs.

Various models and theories of reading development are consistent in the

notion that the ability to read hinges on the growth of two sets of early reading skills:

skills that are associated with decoding (such as phonological processing abilities

and word reading) and skills associated with comprehension (such as vocabulary

knowledge) (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Snow, 1991; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001).

Studies that have included ELLs focused on vocabulary knowledge because students

who are ELLs are dramatically behind in the number of English vocabulary words

they have acquired when they enter kindergarten (Tabors & Snow, 2001).

Vocabulary knowledge plays a critical role in reading comprehension, learning and

success in all academic areas (National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2000).

Moreover, the research that has been conducted on these early reading skills

focuses almost exclusively on instruction despite the fact that student characteristics

such as self-efficacy play a significant role in academic outcomes. Schunk and

Zimmerman (2007) state that self-efficacy is a key cognitive and motivational

variable in reading: “Compared with students who doubt their learning capabilities,

those with high self-efficacy for acquiring a skill or performing a task participate

more readily, work harder, persist longer when they encounter difficulties, and

3

achieve at higher levels” (p. 9). Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition

posits that a range of emotions and variables (such as motivation, confidence, and

anxiety) significantly impacts second language learning. Self-efficacy needs to be

incorporated into the study of literacy skills for ELLs. An additional dimension of

self-efficacy that has begun to be expanded upon in self-efficacy research is the

accuracy of self-efficacy or the match between one’s judgment of their ability and

their actual performance (Pajares & Miller, 1997). The match between one’s

judgment and performance represents the level of cognitive awareness one holds

regarding the success or lack thereof one will have on a given task (Chen, 2002;

Klassen, 2006).

A further influence on second language learning is the degree of proficiency

in the native language. Known as the developmental interdependence model,

Cummins’s (1979) theory supports a pivotal step in second language learning known

as cross linguistic transfer where abilities and resources in one’s native language are

accessed and utilized in order to facilitate the learning of the second language.

Consequently, it is important to explore the influences vocabulary knowledge in the

native language may have on the self-efficacy and vocabulary knowledge in the

second language.

A review of the literature indicates that there is no major study examining self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word reading abilities in ELL students. Incorporating affective variables such as self-efficacy, metacognitive variables such as accuracy of self-efficacy, and native language abilities and resources is crucial in reading research and research involving ELLs. In

4

addition, focusing on vocabulary knowledge has been highlighted as a critical area in need of improvement for ELLs. Therefore, further investigation is needed to examine the role self-efficacy plays in vocabulary acquisition among ELLs. The present study examined, in a sample of ELLs, the direct influence of self-efficacy on second language vocabulary knowledge, and as a mediator of English word reading and native language vocabulary knowledge.

Theoretical and Research Basis

Second Language Acquisition

Cummins (1979) proposed that during second language acquisition the degree

of proficiency in the native language will influence the proficiency in the second

language. Known as the developmental interdependence model, Cummins’s theory

supports a pivotal step in second language learning known as crosslinguistic transfer.

Crosslinguistic transfer refers specifically to the occurrence when students learning a

second language access and utilize linguistic resources from their native language

(Leafstedt & Gerber, 2005). Linguistic resources include knowledge of the

alphabetic principal and phonological processing abilities.

One of the first studies to investigate and find support for crosslinguistic

transfer was conducted by Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993). The

authors found that native language phonemic awareness predicted significant

variance in second language word reading among first-grade students. Over the next

decade, additional studies by several authors such as Quiroga, Lemos-Britton,

Mostafapour, Abbott, and Berninger (2002) and Lindsey, Manis, and Bailey (2003)

continued to find evidence for and support Cummins’s theory.

5

As the research concerning the developmental interdependence model began

to expand, several authors found support for crosslinguistic transfer of other abilities

such as phonological memory, print concepts, and letter knowledge (Dickinson,

McCabe, Clark-Chiarelli, & Wolf, 2004; Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis, Lindsey, &

Bailey, 2004; Swanson, Saez, Gerber, & Leafstedt, 2004).

Further research recommended that studies should investigate whether or not oral language abilities transferred between languages (Cárdenas-Hagan et al., 2007; Manis et al., 2004). Along those lines, crosslinguistic transfer research has progressed to include vocabulary knowledge (Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999; San Francisco, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2006). This research emphasized that the understanding of crosslinguistic transfer of vocabulary is still unfolding and needs to be explored in future studies. Consequently, this study incorporated Spanish vocabulary to investigate the influences it may have on English vocabulary knowledge.

Self-Efficacy

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition integrates five hypotheses

that explain the processes of acquisition. The hypothesis most relevant to this study

and perhaps the least incorporated in studies is the affective filter hypothesis. This

aspect of Krashen’s theory refers to the range of emotions and affective variables

(motivation, confidence, anxiety) that influence language acquisition. There are

three general affective filters: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Krashen

(1982) posited that increased, negative arousal (high anxiety) interferes with the

acquisition process. Krashen’s model allows researchers to integrate affective

6

variables such as self-efficacy based on established theory. In addition, Proctor,

Dalton, and Grisham (2007) emphasized that future research involving English

language learners must include measures of self-efficacy in addition to the cognitive

processes being studied to determine the role affective variables may play in

learning.

In his 1977 seminal article, Bandura established the concept of self-efficacy. Over the next few years, he solidified this concept by developing the theoretical framework renowned today as social cognitive theory. Essentially, social cognitive theory refers to the way human functioning is interpreted as a series of reciprocal interactions among personal influences such as self-efficacy, environmental factors, and behaviors. Specifically, self-efficacy refers to beliefs people have regarding their ability to perform specific behaviors or tasks. Bandura (1986) posited that self-efficacy is more powerful than knowledge, skill, and prior attainment. These beliefs about behaviors can be applied in a myriad of settings. In

education, self-efficacy influences the choice of activities, effort expenditure,

persistence, and achievement (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 2001). Students with high

self-efficacy participate more willingly, work harder, exhibit more diligence when

faced with challenging tasks, and achieve academically at higher levels. Conversely,

self-efficacy is influenced by performance, modeled experiences, forms of

persuasion such as feedback, and physiological reactions (Schunk & Zimmerman,

2007).

Since 1977, researchers have investigated the role self-efficacy plays in

academic achievement and linked self-efficacy to academic performance (Multon,

7

Brown, & Lent, 1991; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Pons, 1992). Since the predictive

role of self-efficacy has been supported in the research numerous times, Graham and

Weiner (1996) (as cited in Pajares, 2003) stated that self-efficacy is a more constant

predictor of outcomes than other self-beliefs.

Perhaps the most important area where self-efficacy has been investigated is

reading because learning to read is the key to success in school. Many researchers

have found evidence supporting self-efficacy as a predictor for reading achievement

(Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Ehrlich, Kurtz-Costes, & Loridant, 1993; Schunk & Rice,

1991; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989). Specifically, Shell, Colvin, and Bruning

(1995) found that higher achievement was associated with higher self-efficacy, and

Lynch (2002) and Wilson and Trainin (2007) found a link between children’s

perceptions of their reading ability and their reading achievement.

A review of the self-efficacy and reading literature invariably utilizes reading

achievement as the outcome measure. However, reading achievement is comprised

of many more basic and critical skills such as decoding (e.g. word reading) and

comprehension (e.g. vocabulary). Pajares (1996a) posited that assessments of

self-efficacy must be task and domain specific since the judgments of self-efficacy

are specific to the particular task being assessed. In other words, the self-efficacy

beliefs should correspond directly to the domain being measured. In the literature

reviewed, not one article investigated the effects self-efficacy has on basic skills of

reading such as vocabulary despite the critical role both factors play in academic

achievement as evidenced by the research. Based on the self-efficacy literature,

beliefs a student has regarding how well they can derive the meaning of a word may

8

mediate and significantly influence their performance on vocabulary measures.

Although self-efficacy beliefs are important to reading, research on the second

language acquisition of ELLs has failed to include self-efficacy as a variable. The

present study addressed this need by incorporating self-efficacy of vocabulary

knowledge.

An additional characteristic of self-efficacy that was explored in the

present study is the issue of calibration or accuracy of self-efficacy. Calibration is the congruence between a students’ judgment of their capability to perform and their actual performance (Pajares & Miller, 1997). Regarding mathematics, researchers have consistently discovered that students are often overconfident in their ability to solve math problems (Hackett, 1985; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pajares & Miller, 1994). In addition, results have shown that typically achieving students are also overconfident in rating their academic abilities (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares & Miller, 1994). Overconfidence may lead to students not studying adequately or not being receptive to corrective feedback on their academic work, which, in turn, impacts their academic performance negatively (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Garavalia & Gredler, 2002). Researchers have found a relationship between a more exact judgment of one’s ability and improved test grades in college students (Hacker, Bol, & Horgan, 2000). In the present study, the accuracy between a student’s self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge and her actual vocabulary knowledge was assessed and the influence the accuracy of self-efficacy may have on vocabulary knowledge was explored.

9

Vocabulary

In April 2000, the National Reading Panel concluded that the cognitive

process of reading comprehension is an integration of complex abilities. Moreover,

reading comprehension cannot be understood without investigating the essential role

of vocabulary learning and instruction as well as its development. After reviewing

50 studies from 1979 to the late 1990s that met the panel’s strict criteria, the

researchers on the panel determined that the role of vocabulary knowledge in reading

comprehension is crucial and necessary to make gains in reading comprehension.

The significant role vocabulary knowledge plays has long been recognized in

education dating back to 1925 (Whipple as cited in National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development, 2000). Since that time, the strong correlation and

predictive relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension

has been supported time and time again in the research literature (Fukkink & de

Glopper, 1998; Klesius & Searls, 1990; National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).

There are two main types of vocabulary knowledge: oral and print. Oral

vocabulary refers to words that are used when speaking and listening, and print

vocabulary refers to words that are recognized and used in print. As children learn

to read, they utilize their oral vocabulary in addition to phonological processing and

decoding abilities for recognizing and understanding words encountered in print.

Because oral vocabulary is much larger than print vocabulary, it is a key component

in a child’s transition from understanding oral word forms to written word forms.

The fewer the words children have in their oral vocabulary, the fewer words they

10

will understand in print and vice versa (National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development, 2000).

Tabors and Snow (2001) found that ELLs have acquired significantly less English vocabulary words when they begin formal schooling. August et al. (2005) also found that ELLs know less about the meaning of each word. Research provides evidence that this gap is persistent through the school years: “ELLs who experience slow vocabulary development are less able to comprehend text at grade level than their EO (English only) peers, and they may be at risk of being diagnosed as learning disabled when in fact their limitation is due to limited English vocabulary,” (August et al., 2005, p. 50). The poor vocabulary of ELLs affects performance at every grade level and on every type of assessment including curriculum based measures, classroom tests, and more formal, standard tests such as state-wide exams. Current research has focused on effective instructional methods for teaching ELLs vocabulary. It is also necessary to begin investigating the role cognitive and affective variables play in vocabulary acquisition for ELLs since the need to understand influences on learning vocabulary and increase vocabulary knowledge is critical.

Word Reading

There are several theories, hypotheses, and models of reading development.

In general, most schools of thought recognize two sets of skills that are crucial in

early reading: skills that are associated with decoding such as phonological

processing and word reading and skills that are associated with comprehension such

as vocabulary knowledge (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Snow, 1991; Whitehurst &

11

Lonigan, 2001). Reading ability develops in a particular developmental trajectory

from more basic skills such as phonological processing (processing the sounds of a

language) to more complex skills such as reading comprehension. In early reading

development, prekindergarten through first grade, Frost, Madsbjerg, Niedersoe,

Olofosson, and Sorensen (2005) stress that phonological processing skills are

necessary to initiate reading ability since they are the building blocks of decoding or

the ability to match the sounds of a language with the letters of a language.

Accordingly, phonological processing skills are the most significant predictors and

major cognitive determinants of word reading skills, which begin to emerge in first

grade and become more developed around second grade (Bus & van Ijezendoorn,

1999; Ehri, 2005; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; McBride-Chang, 1996; Muter, Hulme,

Snowling, & Taylor, 1998; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987;

Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994).

Specifically, Ehri (2005) enumerated four developmental phases that occur as

children learn to read words by sight: pre-alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full

alphabetic, and consolidated alphabetic. The pre-alphabetic phase consists of

children reading words by visual cues instead of letter-sound connections. For

children who have sufficient literacy experiences, the pre-alphabetic phase occurs

during the pre-school years. For those who lack literacy experience, this phase

occurs at the start of school. By late kindergarten, children advance to the partial

alphabetic phase when they learn the names and sounds of the letters in the alphabet

and use those skills to remember how to read words. Around the beginning of first

grade, children then become full alphabetic readers as they learn to read words by

12

forming a complete association between letters and sounds. This phase continues for

approximately two years. As children use their full alphabetic abilities to retain

more and more words in their memory, they progress to the consolidated alphabetic

phase. The author highlights that these phases are flexible meaning children

experience them at different ages based upon inherent abilities and external

experiences, yet, once set in motion, the phases unfold successively.

In 1987, Wagner and Torgesen reviewed the literature and established three

main types of phonological processing abilities that support word reading:

phonological awareness, phonological recoding in lexical access (retrieval of

phonological codes from long-term memory), and phonetic recoding to maintain

information in the working memory (phonological coding in short term memory).

Phonological awareness is a broad term that refers to processing the elemental

sounds of a language (phonemic awareness is a component of phonological

awareness) and the awareness of and access to the phonology of a language.

Retrieval of phonological codes (also known as rapid naming or phonological

naming) refers to the ability to access the pronunciation of letters, digits and words

from the sound based representational system of written symbols created in

long-term memory. Lastly, phonological coding in short term memory refers to the

storage and immediate use of the sound based system of written symbols during

ongoing processing (phonological memory).

In 1984, Share, Jorm, Maclean, and Matthews found that phonemic awareness

and letter knowledge determined how well children learned to read. The National

Reading Panel (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of research on phonemic awareness

13

and found that training students in phonemic awareness improved their reading. Ehri

et al. (2001) found similar results in their replication of the study conducted by the

National Reading Panel.

In addition to phonemic awareness, access to the phonological codes is a

significant predictor of reading achievement (Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). de Jong

and van der Leij (1999) extended previous work by Wagner and Torgesen and

investigated the effects of the different phonological abilities on reading

achievement. The authors found that rapid naming was not related to phonological

awareness and phonological coding and that rapid naming was the only phonological

ability that influenced subsequent reading achievement. These findings suggest a

difference between accessing information and simply having the information.

Subsequent research support these findings (Manis, Seidenberg, & Doi, 1999). Wolf

and Bowers (1999) concluded that naming speed and phonemic awareness do in fact

contribute independently and uniquely to reading acquisition, which led to the

creation of the double deficit hypothesis where reading difficulties arise from

problems with phonemic awareness and naming speed. Further research (Anthony,

Williams, McDonald, & Francis, 2007; Cardoso-Martins & Pennington, 2004;

Sunseth & Bowers, 2002) continues to support this model.

Phonological memory refers to the ability that children have to create

temporary phonological blueprints of unfamiliar sound sequences in short term

working memory. This ability has also been linked to vocabulary acquisition

(Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989). More specifically, phonological memory has been

found to contribute to vocabulary directly by significantly predicting vocabulary

14

knowledge (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole &

Baddeley, 1990; Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, & Baddeley, 1992). Moreover,

researchers have found that phonological memory plays a significant role in second

language acquisition (Cheung, 1996; Service, 1992; Swanson et al., 2004).

Several studies support the significance of various phonological processing skills in explaining variance in English vocabulary among native English speaking children (Avons, Wragg, & Cupples, 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole, Service, Hitch, Adams, & Martin, 1999; Gathercole et al., 1992; Metsala, 1999). More specifically, McBride-Chang, Cheung, Chow, Chow, and Choi (2006) investigated the association of metalinguistic skills and vocabulary. The authors specifically found that phonemic awareness in English accounted for unique variance in English vocabulary knowledge. In addition, McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow and Shu (2005) found that phonological awareness, phonological or rapid naming, and phonological memory predicted a portion of the variance in vocabulary knowledge. Bowey (2001) concluded that an overall phonological processing construct would sufficiently explain vocabulary knowledge in young children. In order to reflect the developmental aspects of reading, word reading was assessed in this study as a representation of the three types of phonological processing abilities or students’ decoding skills.

The Study

Statement of the Problem

Extensive research has been conducted regarding self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word reading. However, limited research

15

has been conducted in these areas that include ELLs. In addition, little to no research has been conducted to explore the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on word reading and native and second language vocabulary knowledge. Consequently, the overall purpose of the study was to determine, for this sample of ELLs, the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on vocabulary knowledge in English as mediators of the relationship between word reading in a second language (English) and vocabulary knowledge in a native language (Spanish) to vocabulary knowledge in a second language (English).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The aim of this study was to explore how self-efficacy and accuracy of

self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge in a second language (English) mediated the

relationship of word reading in a second language (English) and vocabulary

knowledge in a native language (Spanish) to vocabulary knowledge in a second

language (English). Path analysis causal models were used to determine the direct,

indirect, and causal relationships among the variables (see Figures 1 and 2).

16

Figure 1. Path analysis model of English word reading, Spanish vocabulary, self-efficacy, and English vocabulary.

Figure 2. Path analysis model of English word reading, Spanish vocabulary, accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary. This study was designed to answer the following questions:

Question 1: Are the models—which describe the effects among the variables

English word reading, self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English

English Word

Reading

Spanish

Vocabulary

Knowledge

Self-Efficacy

of English

Vocabulary

Knowledge

English

Vocabulary

Knowledge

English Word

Reading

Spanish

Vocabulary

Knowledge

Accuracy of

Self-Efficacy

of English

Vocabulary

Knowledge

English

Vocabulary

Knowledge

17

vocabulary knowledge, and Spanish and English vocabulary knowledge—consistent

with the observed relationships among these variables?

Hypothesis: The models would be consistent with the observed relationships

among English word reading, Spanish vocabulary knowledge, self-efficacy, accuracy

of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary knowledge.

Question 2: If the models are consistent, what are the direct, indirect, and

causal effects among the variables?

Hypothesis: English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge would

contribute directly to English vocabulary knowledge.

Hypothesis: English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge would

contribute directly to self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English

vocabulary knowledge.

Hypothesis: Self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English vocabulary

knowledge would contribute directly to English vocabulary knowledge.

Hypothesis: Self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between English word reading and Spanish vocabulary to English vocabulary.

Definitions of Terms

English language learner

The federal definition of an ELL is: one who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is in English or to participate fully in our society due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) was not born in the US or whose native

18

language is a language other than English and comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; 2) is a Native American or Alaska Native or who is a native resident of the Outlying Areas and comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on such individual’s level of English language proficiency; or 3) is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant. (Public Law 103-382, sec. 7501 as cited in Rhodes et al., 2005, pp. 1–2).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to a learner’s perceived capabilities, beliefs, or judgments for learning or performing actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is also defined as confidence in one’s ability to organize and implement the cognitive, behavioral, and/or social skills necessary for the successful performance of a task (Shell et al., 1995). Other literature has defined self-efficacy as the level of certainty or sureness that a person can successfully complete a task. In this study, self-efficacy was measured by asking the participants how well they thought they could describe different vocabulary words.

Accuracy of Self-Efficacy

Accuracy of self-efficacy is the match between a student’s judgment of her capability to perform and her actual performance (Pajares & Miller, 1997). The match between one’s judgment and performance represents the level of cognitive awareness one holds regarding the success or lack thereof one will have on a given task (Chen, 2002; Klassen, 2006). The accuracy of self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge was determined by administering the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) items that made up the self-efficacy measure to ascertain whether or not the participants knew the words.

19

The accuracy scores were calculated based on procedures suggested by Pajares and Graham 1999. First, the bias for each item was calculated. To calculate bias, each correct answer was scored as 3 and each incorrect answer as 1. These 1 and 3 scores correspond to the self-efficacy scores from 1 to 3. For example, a subject who expressed “not good” (1) regarding describing a word and did not know the word on the PPVT (1) received a bias score of 0 (1 – 1 = 0). Alternately, a subject who expressed “not good” (1) and who answered the PPVT correctly (3) received a bias score of −2, indicating under confidence. Thus, bias scores ranged from −2 to +2. To calculate accuracy, the absolute value of each bias score was subtracted from 2 (maximum amount of judgment error). Thus, accuracy scores ranged from 0 (complete inaccuracy) to 2 (complete accuracy). For data analyses, the mean score on all 36 items was calculated.

Word Reading

Wording reading is the ability to recognize or identify words in print. This ability can be determined by decoding ability, which, in turn, is determined by the following phonological processing abilities: phonemic awareness, phonological naming, and phonological memory. In addition, the ability to identify words in print progresses through the four developmental phases that occur as children learn to read words by sight: pre-alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic and consolidated alphabetic. Word reading was measured by administering the Word Identification subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, 1998).

20

Native Language Vocabulary

Native language or primary language is the language a person acquires first or earliest in childhood. Native language vocabulary refers to the knowledge of word meanings a person has acquired in their first language. Native language vocabulary was measured using the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP), which is an efficient measure of Spanish vocabulary knowledge based on the widely used PPVT-R (Dunn, Hugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1986).

Second Language Vocabulary

A second language is a language learned by a person after his or her native language. Second language vocabulary is the knowledge of word meanings a person has acquired in their second language. The second language in this study was English. English vocabulary knowledge was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007).

Significance of the Problem

Informed by the findings of previous research, the limitations of previous

studies, gaps in the research, and suggestions by researchers, there was a need for

further investigation of basic early reading skills and self-efficacy in ELLs.

Specifically, little to no research has been conducted to explore the influence of

self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on vocabulary knowledge. In addition,

limited research has been conducted in these areas that include ELLs. Thus, the

purpose of the present study was to address the gaps in the research and provide

additional information concerning the relationships among self-efficacy, vocabulary

21

knowledge, and word reading in ELLs. By addressing the gaps in the research, the

present study may help teachers, researchers, and school psychologists by providing

more specific information regarding how these basic processes unfold and are

influenced by affective and cognitive factors in ELLs. The results may inform

appropriate interventions and teaching methods in order to help ELLs succeed by

increasing their academic performance and closing the achievement gap.

22

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The research literature review integrates work from the fields of second language acquisition, self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word reading. In particular, the review focuses on the influence self-efficacy has in academic outcomes and specific research regarding the role of word reading and native language vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary knowledge. In addition, the review specifies the processes involved in second language acquisition. The research reviewed below provides support for the relationships among the topics regarding how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy can directly influence second language vocabulary knowledge, and act as a mediator between English word reading and native language vocabulary knowledge and second language vocabulary.

Second Language Acquisition

Durgunoglu et al. (1993) conducted one of the earliest studies that

investigated and found evidence for crosslinguistic transfer. The primary aim of the

study involved investigating the variables that affected the English word recognition

abilities of native Spanish speakers who were beginning readers in English. A total

of 31 first graders were individually administered various tests in two sessions.

23

During the first session, an English letter naming test, Spanish word recognition test,

English word recognition test, Spanish phonological awareness test, and Spanish oral

proficiency test were administered. During the second session, the following tests

were administered: English pseudoword training and reading, English word reading,

and English oral proficiency.

Using multiple regression, the authors found that native-language phonemic

awareness predicted significant variance in second language word reading.

Specifically, the results showed that the best predictors of performance on English

pseudoword reading and English word recognition were Spanish phonological

awareness and Spanish word recognition. Quiroga et al. (2002) replicated the

Durgunoglu et al. study and added phonological awareness assessments in English.

The authors also found support for the cross linguistic transfer of phonemic

awareness from the native language to the second language in first-grade students.

Subsequent studies by Dickinson et al. (2004), Lindsey et al. (2003), Manis et

al. (2004), and Swanson et al. (2004) found similar results. Moreover, these studies

found support for the crosslinguistic transfer of other resources such as phonological

memory, print concepts, and letter knowledge where these abilities in the native

language predicted various linguistic abilities in English such as phonemic

awareness, letter knowledge, and word reading.

One limitation of these studies is the focus on a select few component skills

such as phonological abilities, letter knowledge or word reading. Cárdenas-Hagan et

al. (2007) and Manis et al. (2004) proposed that research needs to look beyond these

skills and investigate other skills such as oral language abilities which include

24

vocabulary. Among a sample of Spanish-speaking ELLs in first through third grade,

Carlisle et al. (1999) investigated the development of the metalinguistic abilities in

reading. The aim of the study was to determine which native, second, and bilingual

language levels contributed to metalinguistic abilities in both languages and to

determine if metalinguistic development at the word level played a role in English

reading comprehension. Sixty-seven native Spanish speaking students in first,

second, and third grade were administered several tests: the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test-Revised, the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes

Peabody-Adaptacion Hispanoamericana, the Listening Comprehension, and the

Letter-Word Identification subtests of the Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational

Battery-Revised, the Test of Auditory Analysis Skills, the vocabulary task created

from the Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and the

Reading Comprehension subtest from the California Achievement Test.

Hierarchical regression analyses showed that the students’ native language vocabulary accounted for significant variance in English reading comprehension. More specifically, San Francisco et al. (2006) tested 102 kindergarten and first-grade children to explore influences on bilingual students’ phonological awareness by examining the role of language of instruction and vocabulary. The students individually completed the Spanish and English Picture Vocabulary subtests from the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery and a phonemic segmentation task. Analyses of variance were conducted to explore the relationships among language of instruction, English and Spanish vocabulary, and English phonological awareness.

25

The authors found that the amount of variation explained by English vocabulary depended on the students’ Spanish vocabulary.

The authors also emphasize that the understanding of the crosslinguistic transfer of vocabulary is developing, and it is important to continue to be examined in future studies. The authors state a few limitations of the study which include the sample itself since it is not representative of Spanish-English bilinguals as a whole, the sample could have differed on the level of language dominance, the students could have committed frequent errors on the segmentation task since they realized that all the items contained three phonemes and followed that pattern instead of doing an analysis of each item, and orthographic knowledge was not assessed. In light of the limitations, the authors emphasize that caution should be taken when interpreting and generalizing the results. This study incorporated Spanish vocabulary to further examine the impact it may have on English vocabulary knowledge.

Self-Efficacy

Regarding Krashen’s theory, McCann, Hecht, and Ribeau (1986) tested the

affective filter hypothesis or the notion that language input is blocked unless the

language learner has a low affective filter. A questionnaire was administered to 238

college students who were nonnative English speakers. Of the sample included in

the analyses, 126 Vietnamese and 45 were Spanish speaking. Results indicated that

second language input was negatively related to communication apprehension,

thereby supporting the affective filter hypothesis.

26

Researchers have investigated the influence of self-efficacy on academic

achievement since the seventies. In a meta-analysis, Multon et al. (1991)

investigated the relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes. This article

was the first to provide a more extensive analysis of the literature linking

self-efficacy to academic performance and persistence outcomes and to utilize

meta-analytic methodology as opposed to a commentary on the literature. The

authors utilized three techniques in order to find studies for the analyses: database

searches, reference list reviews of all articles found, and reviews of table of contents

of the journals containing articles that were found from the initial search.

In total, these searches found 68 published and unpublished studies. In order

to be included in the meta-analyses, the studies had to meet the following criteria:

contain a measure of self-efficacy, contain a measure of academic performance or

persistence, and contain enough information to calculate effect sizes. After applying

these criteria, 39 studies were used for the analyses. For the performance

meta-analysis, the authors used 38 samples from 36 studies, which included

approximately 5,000 subjects, a majority of elementary students, and 19 different

measures of academic performance. The performance measures were categorized

into standardized achievement tests, classroom based measures, and basic skills

tasks. The results showed a positive, significant relationship between self-efficacy

and academic performance. In addition, the authors found that self-efficacy effects

were stronger in lower achieving students suggesting that self-efficacy plays a bigger

role in these students’ academic outcomes. The authors note that the latter findings

may be due to the analyses involving the lower achieving students being based on

27

post-treatment results. Overall, the authors caution that their results are slightly

compromised because of the “less than optimal data reporting practices in the

literature.”

In 1992, Zimmerman et al. investigated the role of self-efficacy beliefs in

self-motivation and academic attainment. One hundred and two ninth and tenth

graders participated in the study from a large Eastern city from a lower middle class

neighborhood. The students completed two subscales from the Children’s

Multidimensional Self-Efficacy Scales: self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and

self-efficacy for academic achievement. The students’ grade goals were also

obtained. Using path analysis, the authors found that students’ self-efficacy

predicted final course grades and that academic self-efficacy influenced achievement

directly. The predictive and influential role of self-efficacy has been supported in

the research from diverse areas, and, in 1996, Graham and Weiner (as cited in

Pajares, 2003) boldly remarked that because of the depth and breadth of support of

self-efficacy it can be concluded that self-efficacy is a more consistent predictor of

outcomes than other self-beliefs.

Many researchers have linked self-efficacy to reading achievement (Ehrlich et

al., 1993; Schunk & Rice, 1991; Shell et al., 1989). Shell et al. (1995) investigated

self-efficacy, grade, and achievement in reading and writing in 364 fourth-, seventh-,

and tenth-grade students. In order to measure self-efficacy, the authors created a

measurement based on the research. Students were asked to rate how sure they were

that they could do several reading and writing tasks on a five point scale. Reading

and writing was measured by using students’ scores on the California Achievement

28

Test. In order to gain a holistic writing score, students completed an essay that was

scored by raters since the California Achievement Test does not contain a subtest

where writing is performed. For the analyses, the students were also categorized into

high, average, and low achievement groups using the students’ scores on the study’s

measures. Using a multivariate analyses of variance, the authors found that overall,

for all grade levels, higher achievement was associated with higher self-efficacy.

In addition, Baker and Wigfield (1999) found that self-efficacy is related to

reading achievement. From a large mid-Atlantic city, 371 fifth- and sixth-grade

students participated in the study. The students completed the Motivation for

Reading Questionnaire, the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, a reading activity

adapted from the Reading Activity Inventory, a performance assessment, and the

Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. The authors found that the self-efficacy

subscale of the motivation scale related significantly to the reading section of the

Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills and the performance assessment for reading.

Specifically, Lynch (2002) and Wilson and Trainin (2007) found that

children’s perceptions of their reading ability significantly related to reading

achievement. The aim of Wilson and Trainin’s study, in 2007, was to determine

how to reliably measure attributions, perceived competence and self-efficacy in

young children, how well young students differentiate among their perceived

abilities in various domains, and how well the data fit their proposed model. One

hundred and ninety-eight first-grade students from a large southern California school

district were administered the Early Literacy Motivation Scale. Scores from the

Scholastic Unit Test were used to obtain data on decoding, vocabulary and

29

comprehension. Another reading score was obtained using the Reading Running

Records and writing was assessed using a rubric developed by the school district. To

determine how self-efficacy related to the different literacy tasks, a

repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. The authors found that the students

were able to differentiate their self-efficacy among the different literacy tasks. In

addition, the analyses show the data is a good fit to the model which showed

self-efficacy influencing literacy achievement. One limitation of the study is Early

Literacy Motivation Scale being utilized for the first time in this research. In order

to reliably interpret the results, the authors urge the study to be replicated in further

studies with first graders.

Since reading achievement is comprised of numerous basic and critical skills such as decoding (e.g. word reading) and comprehension (e.g. vocabulary), Pajares (1996a) posited that measures of self-efficacy need to match the particular domain being assessed. In the present study, this necessitated that vocabulary be isolated as the specific task being assessed. Currently, there are no articles examining the effects self-efficacy has on basic skills of reading such as vocabulary. Based on the literature reviewed, beliefs a student possesses concerning how well they can derive the meaning of a word may mediate and significantly affect their performance on vocabulary assessments.

Accuracy of Self-Efficacy

To investigate the relationship between performance and calibration, Pajares and Miller (1997) tested 327 eighth-grade students in a southern state. The following instruments were individually administered a math self-efficacy task and

30

a math performance test. Using a MANOVA, the authors compared students in algebra and pre-algebra and students who took a multiple choice test and students who were given an open-ended question math test. The results showed that the students who were given open ended test were overconfident and had low accuracy and the students in pre-algebra had lower accuracy scores as well even though there was no difference in self-efficacy scores when compared to students in the algebra class. Overall, the authors found that the more capable students were more accurate in the judgment of their ability since they seem to better understand what they knew and did not know. Pajares (1996b) conducted a study to determine the predictive and mediational role of math self-efficacy in gifted students and to determine if math related measures, especially calibration, varied by group membership and/or gender. A math self-efficacy, math performance and math anxiety measure were administered to 297 eighth-grade students in a southern state. Cognitive ability was determined by scores on the California Achievement Test of Cognitive Skills. Using a MANOVA, the authors found the gifted students were more accurate in their performance than the regular education students. Accordingly, more accurate assessments of one’s ability have related to more efficient study habits and higher test scores in college students (Hacker et al., 2000).

A review of the calibration literature did not yield an investigation

concerning the accuracy of self-efficacy in students younger than fifth grade. Ramdass and Zimmerman (2008) conducted a study to determine whether training students to utilize a self-correction strategy would facilitate greater self-efficacy and

31

accuracy in their performance. Using a pretest-posttest design, 42 students in fifth and sixth grade were assigned to experimental and control groups with students in the experimental group receiving the self-correction strategy training. The task consisted of students completing four math problems that were aligned with the curriculum. The study was divided into four phases: in phase one, students completed the pretest; in phase two, students in the experimental group received the training as both groups were taught how to solve long division problems; in phase three, students in both groups completed the math problems with students in the experimental group receiving a self-correction checklist; and in the fourth phase, all students rated their ability to solve the problems. Using a MANCOVA analysis, the authors found that the training significantly improved the students’ self-efficacy and math performance. To further analyze the data, the authors used an ANCOVA and found that students in the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher accuracy and lower bias. Finally, overall, the students’ self-efficacy and accuracy scores significantly predicted math performance. In this study, the match between a student’s self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge and her actual vocabulary knowledge was measured, and the impact that accuracy of self-efficacy may have on vocabulary knowledge was investigated.

Vocabulary

One of the first meta-analyses conducted concerning vocabulary was

completed by Stahl and Fairbanks (1986). They conducted a meta-analysis with

studies concerning word meanings and comprehension to determine if vocabulary

instruction has a significant influence on comprehension and which types of

32

vocabulary instruction are most effective. They identified 52 studies through

searches on ERIC, past reviews, and bibliographies and meeting two criteria: the

studies had to include one of two types of control groups (no exposure or no

instruction) and the studies must provide statistical information to obtain an effect

size. Using ANOVAs and t-tests, the mean effect for the variables was determined

as well as its significant difference from zero. The authors found that vocabulary

instruction has a significant effect on comprehension and teaching methods that

include definitional and contextual information, involve deeper processing, and

permit more than one or two exposures to the words significantly impact students’

learning of word meanings.

Guided by this study and two other meta-analyses that support the

significance of vocabulary (Fukkink & de Glopper, 1998; Klesius & Searls, 1991),

the National Reading Panel conducted their own review of the literature in 2000.

Through database searches, 50 studies from 1979 to the late 1990s were reviewed

that met the panel’s strict criteria. While a formal meta-analysis was not possible,

the researchers on the panel scrutinized each study and determined that the role of

vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension is crucial and necessary to make

gains in reading comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2000).

Compared to their native English speaking counterparts, ELLs are

dramatically behind in the number of English vocabulary words they have acquired

when they enter kindergarten because of more limited exposure to English, which

inhibits them from building sufficient English oral vocabulary (Tabors & Snow,

33

2001). Biemiller and Slonim (2001) discovered that native English speaking

students know approximately 5,000 to 7,000 words before they begin formal reading

instruction. This is not the case for second language learners. Umbel, Pearson,

Fernandez, and Oller (1992) tested the receptive vocabulary of 105 native Spanish

speaking first-grade students. The students were administered the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test and the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes. Results were analyzed

by comparing two groups: students who spoke both English and Spanish at home

and students who only spoke Spanish at home. The authors found that both groups

scored significantly below the mean on the English vocabulary measure with the

only Spanish at home group scoring even lower.

In addition, August et al. (2005) discovered that ELLs have acquired less

information regarding the meanings of words. Verhallen and Schoonen (1993)

investigated the depth of vocabulary knowledge of second language learners in third

and fifth grades using a word association task. The results showed a delay in the

acquisition of the depth of word knowledge for second language learners. August,

Carlo, Lively, Lippman, McLaughlin, and Snow (1999) found similar results. They

compared the vocabulary performances between over 200 native English speaking

fourth and fifth graders and over 100 native Spanish speaking English language

learners. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was used to determine the breadth of

vocabulary knowledge. The results showed a large gap between the native English

speakers and the native Spanish speakers with the native English speaking students

scoring higher.

To determine the depth of vocabulary knowledge, the students completed to

34

tasks that measured their knowledge of the multiple meaning of words. Compared to the native English speakers, the native Spanish speakers performed lower. This study also showed evidence that this gap did not decrease over the course of the school-year. Unless addressed, research and statistics provide evidence that these gaps in vocabulary knowledge and their negative effects on the academic performance of ELLs is persistent through the school years (August et al., 2005). Since most current research focuses on effective instructional methods for teaching ELLs vocabulary, it is necessary to examine the influence cognitive and affective variables may have in the vocabulary acquisition of ELLs.

Word Reading

Share et al. (1984) conducted a study with over 500 kindergarteners

representing a range of socioeconomic status from several schools in Australia. The

authors obtained information about the home educational environment from a short

questionnaire that parents completed. Questions sought information about literacy at

home, the quantity and quality of television viewing and the parents’ educational

aspirations. The students were administered five measures of early literacy, six

measures of oral language ability, and measures of motor skills and social behavior.

The authors performed multiple regression analyses and found that phonemic

awareness and letter knowledge were the two best school predictors of how well

children will learn to read during the first two years of schooling. Based on these

findings, the authors argue that phonological processing skills are a significant

source of individual differences in reading achievement.

35

A more thorough investigation of the role of phonemic awareness was

conducted by the National Reading Panel (2000). The panel performed a

meta-analysis on research regarding phonemic awareness and its relation to reading

acquisition, including the large number of studies investigating the effectiveness of

phonemic awareness training. Fifty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis

from which 96 comparisons of treatment and control were selected. The findings

showed that training students in phonemic awareness was highly effective for a

variety of learners, ages, grades, and in diverse teaching conditions. The National

Reading Panel’s analysis also found that teaching phonemic awareness to students

significantly increased their reading when compared to teaching that does not

incorporate phonemic awareness.

As a follow up, Ehri et al. (2001) reproduced the study and obtained

consistent findings. In a search of two electronic databases (ERIC and PsychInfo),

the authors found slightly over 2,000 articles. Studies had to meet five criteria in

order to qualify for data analyses: (a) include an experimental or quasiexperimental

design, (b) appear in a refereed journal, (c) test the hypothesis that instruction in

phonemic awareness improves reading performance over other forms of instruction

or no instruction, (d) provide instruction in phonemic awareness, and (e) report

statistics that allowed the calculation of effect sizes. Fifty-two studies met the

authors’ criteria. From those 52 studies, 96 cases included comparisons of

individual treatment and control groups. The authors focused their attention on

controlled experiments since these provide the most solid scientific evidence that

36

supports causal conclusions about the effect of phonemic awareness instruction on

learning to read.

The primary outcomes were phonemic awareness, reading and spelling. After

thoroughly analyzing effect sizes between treatment and control groups, the authors

found repeatedly across multiple studies that phonemic awareness instruction is

more effective than alternate forms or no instruction at all in teaching phonemic

awareness and facilitating children’s acquisition of reading and spelling skills. Other

results included finding that mid to high socioeconomic status (SES) children

benefitted from phonemic awareness instruction as much as low SES students,

children who were taught one or two phonemic awareness skills showed stronger

phonemic awareness ability and transfer to reading than children who were taught

three or more phonemic awareness skills, and phonemic awareness instruction

helped improve students’ reading comprehension.

The authors state that other variables that may have had an impact on results

but were not included in the meta-analysis were dialect and whether English was the

first or second language. Moreover, limitations of the study include using

correlations between studies as comparisons, not all of the studies contributed to all

of the effect sizes, and phonemic awareness is not the sole key to learning how to

read. The authors emphasize that instruction should include all of the skills

necessary in learning how to read such as letter naming, site word learning, and

vocabulary.

Regarding the important role of phonemic awareness in learning English as a

second language, McBride-Chang et al. (2006) explored the role English phonemic

37

awareness may play in English vocabulary among young Chinese students learning

English as a second language. The authors recruited 217 kindergarteners from three

classrooms in Hong Kong. The children were administered syllable deletion, onset

deletion, word reading, and vocabulary knowledge in both English and Chinese.

Other measures included Chinese morphological awareness and construction and the

Raven’s Progressive Matrices in English. In order to assess the extent to which

phonemic awareness explained variability in English vocabulary knowledge,

regression analyses were conducted. The results showed that English phonemic

awareness explained unique variance in English vocabulary as well as onset deletion

in English. These results suggest that in learning English as a second language,

sensitivity to English phonology facilitates acquiring new vocabulary in English.

The authors recommend that training in phonemic awareness may aid in learning the

vocabulary of a second language.

In a longitudinal study, de Jong and van der Leij (1999) explored how the

various phonological abilities influence reading achievement. One hundred and

sixty-six students were followed from their first year in kindergarten to the end of

second grade. Students were recruited from four major cities in the Netherlands.

The students were individually administered block design, figural exclusion,

receptive vocabulary, productive vocabulary, rhyme categorization, first-sound

categorization, last sound categorization, word span, interference span, nonword

repetition, rapid naming, receptive and productive letter knowledge, word and

nonword decoding speed, and addition and subtraction calculation speed.

38

The authors conducted hierarchical regression analyses to determine the

specific contribution of phonological abilities to reading acquisition. The results

demonstrated that rapid naming was not strongly correlated to phonological

awareness and phonological coding. Furthermore, the authors found that rapid

naming, in isolation, impacted later reading achievement in kindergarten. After a

few additional months of reading instruction, phonological awareness and working

memory contributed to subsequent reading achievement. In first and second grade,

rapid naming also had an independent effect on further reading acquisition. These

findings highlight the difference and importance of being able to access information.

Overall, during the first year of reading acquisition, the contribution of phonological

abilities on reading achievement increased and then continued to contribute from

first grade on.

Manis et al. (1999) found similar results in their study investigating rapid

naming in the prediction of reading skills from first grade to second grade. The

authors recruited 85 students from two public elementary schools in a suburb of Los

Angeles. The children represented the full range of reading abilities at the schools.

They were tested with a battery of tests in the spring of first grade and the spring of

second grade. The tests included word identification, vocabulary, rapid naming,

phonological awareness, orthographic skill, and exception word reading. Using

regression analyses, the authors found that rapid naming and phonemic awareness

accounted for independent variance in reading scores.

Moreover, the authors found that rapid naming was predictive of reading

achievement. Several findings such as these prompted Wolf and Bowers (1999) to

39

review the literature to determine whether or not an alternate explanation to dyslexia

was necessary. The authors established that naming speed and phonemic awareness

are mutually exclusive regarding their influence on reading acquisition. From these

findings, the authors founded the double deficit hypothesis, which underscores that

problems with reading stem from a student struggling with phonemic awareness and

naming speed.

Gathercole and Baddeley (1989) found evidence of a connection between

phonological memory and vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, Gathercole and

Baddeley (1990) investigated the plausibility of a causal relationship between

phonological memory and vocabulary acquisition. The authors divided the 118 five-

and six-year-olds into two groups: low repetition and high repetition. The nonword

repetition test was created to provide a more simple test of immediate memory skills

that was developmentally appropriate for preschool and early school age children.

The test included 40 nonwords with equal numbers of one, two, three, and four

syllable items. Group membership was determined by the number of correct

repetitions. Twenty children from the low repetition and 20 children from the high

repetition group were chosen. The children in the two groups were matched as

closely as possible using the scores from their performance on the Raven’s

Progressive Coloured Matrices.

Once the groups were determined, the children participated in two learning

sessions. The task in each session was to learn the labels randomly assigned to toy

monsters that were unfamiliar to the children. The toys were divided into two sets,

A and B with two sets of labels, names and non-names. The names consisted of two

40

syllables since the children performed best on the two syllable nonwords in the

nonword repetition test. One half of the children in each group received the A toys

and the other halves received the B toys as well as one half learning names with the

toys and the other halves learning non-names to the first set of toys. In the second

learning session, the children learned with the other toys and names. The children

were taught each name with the toy. On the recall task, the children were tested until

they correctly named all four toys on two successive trials or to the maximum of 15.

The children then were tested on the names of the toys 24 hours later.

An ANOVA was conducted on the mean number of trials as a function of

group and label type. The high repetition group learned more quickly and learned

names more quickly than non-names. In addition, the high repetition children were

faster at learning non-names than the low repetition group. The results show support

for the notion that phonological memory skills contribute to the long term

acquisition of unfamiliar phonological material. The authors also performed

regression analyses to determine whether or not vocabulary and reading scores

accounted for the differences in performance between the high and low group. The

results showed that vocabulary and reading differences across the groups accounted

for the differences in learning speed for non-names and name labels.

One final statistical procedure was performed to further assess that learning

speed differences were not influenced by group differences. The ANCOVA also

supported the independence of learning speed. Regarding the delayed memory

recall, the high repetition group scored significantly higher than the low repetition

group. Names were also retained better than non-names. The authors caution,

41

however, that the difference in retention between the high and low groups may also

reflect the level of initial learning. Overall, these results show the long term

retention of new vocabulary material was more difficult for the children in the low

repetition group suggesting that phonological memory plays a role in long term

phonological learning. The authors concluded that their research shows causal

evidence for nonword ability, rather than vocabulary knowledge or reading

knowledge, contributing to the learning of new vocabulary. Further research shows

support for phonological memory significantly predicting vocabulary knowledge

(Baddeley et al., 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole et al., 1992).

Furthermore, researchers discovered that phonological memory significantly

affects second language acquisition (Cheung, 1996; Service, 1992; Swanson et al.,

2004). Service (1992) assessed working memory and investigated its relationship to

foreign language learning. Forty-four students, aged nine to ten years old, learning

English as a second language from a Finnish primary school participated in the

research study. Students were administered 10 pseudowords: five reflected Finnish

phonology and phonotactics and the remaining five reflected English sounding

pseudowords which were created by switching the first and last syllables of real

English words. Half of the list had two syllables and the remaining half consisted of

four syllables. The subjects participated in four test sessions. The subjects received

one Finnish list and one English list in each session with half hearing the Finnish list

first and the other half the English list first. Scores were obtained by rating the

number of syllables that had been correctly repeated. English proficiency was

obtained from the teacher completing an overall rating that is used for Finnish school

42

reports. The authors found a significant correlation between the accuracy of English

pseudoword pronunciation and learning English as a second language. In addition,

the regression analyses showed that the repetition task accounted for a large portion

of variation and was a significant predictor of learning English as a second language.

Cheung (1996) expanded on the previous research to determine if

phonological memory facilitated the learning of second language vocabulary,

specifically. The author recruited 84 seventh-grade students in Hong Kong learning

English as a second language. The students were administered the Crichton

Vocabulary Scale as a measure of English vocabulary, four passages and questions

to measure English reading comprehension, Advanced Progressive Matrices,

nonword span test consisting of 62 two-syllable nonwords reflecting English

phonology, and a simple word span consisting of 62 two-syllable English words.

The number of vocabulary learning trials was recorded for each student in learning

three English words by learning both the English pronunciation and Cantonese

translation of each word. For training, students were shown the English word on a

flash card. The investigator stated aloud the English pronunciation and Cantonese

translation. The students had to repeat both the English pronunciation and

Cantonese translation. Training was repeated until the students did not produce any

errors when the set of three words was presented to them. The final number for the

learning trials equaled the trial number at which training stopped minus three.

The author used multiple regression to analyze the data. The results showed

the nonword span was a significant predictor of the number of vocabulary learning

trials. To investigate the relationships between phonological memory and long-term

43

phonological knowledge, long-term phonological knowledge was represented as the

students’ English vocabulary scores. The students were split into a high vocabulary

(high long-term phonological knowledge) group and low vocabulary (low

phonological knowledge) group. For the low vocabulary/low long-term

phonological knowledge subgroup, nonword span account for significant variance in

vocabulary learning. As expected, a significant contribution was not found in the

high vocabulary/high phonological knowledge group which suggests a shift from the

utilization of phonological memory for vocabulary acquisition to utilization of

long-term knowledge for vocabulary acquisition in more proficient students. The

author concludes that phonological memory is linked to word learning in a second

language.

Overall, research supports the influential role of the various phonological processing skills (phonemic awareness, phonological/rapid naming, and phonological memory) on vocabulary knowledge among native English speaking children (Avons et al., 1998; Bowey, 2001; Gathercole et al., 1999; Gathercole et al., 1992; McBride-Chang et al., 2005; Metsala, 1999). Such support led Bowey (2001) to propose the notion that a comprehensive phonological processing construct would adequately explicate vocabulary knowledge in young children. In order to reflect the developmental aspects of reading, word reading was measured as a representation of students’ decoding or phonological processing abilities.

Summary

The literature review above discussed the research on second language acquisition, self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, and word

44

reading. The review focused on the role self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy plays in academic outcomes, the influence word reading and native language vocabulary have on second language vocabulary knowledge, and the processes involved in second language acquisition. Based on the self-efficacy literature, beliefs a student has regarding how well they can perform in school and the accuracy of their judgment significantly influences their academic outcomes. Specifically, the accuracy of and the beliefs students hold regarding how well they can derive the meaning of a word may mediate and significantly influence their performance on vocabulary knowledge. Regarding word reading, research supports the influential role of the various phonological processing skills (phonemic awareness, phonological/rapid naming, and phonological memory) in acquiring English vocabulary. In order to reflect the developmental aspects of reading, word reading was assessed as a representation of students’ phonological processing abilities. Research concerning native language resources showed that the skills a person possesses in his or her native language are transferable to a second language. In addition, affective variables strongly influence the acquisition of a second language. In light of suggestions for future research, the present study investigated the influence of native language vocabulary knowledge on second language vocabulary knowledge as well the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on the relationship between native and second language vocabulary.

45

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The aim of this study was to explore how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge in a second language mediated the relationship of word reading in a second language and vocabulary knowledge in a native language to vocabulary knowledge in a second language. Eighty participants were necessary for the study, and all participants completed five measures.

Participants

A minimum of 20 subjects per predictor has been typically recommended to

provide adequate statistical power in regression analyses (Miles & Shevlin, 2005).

As such, a minimum number of 60 subjects was needed for analyses in this study. In

order to determine the optimal number of subjects needed for this study, a power

analysis was conducted. In order to perform the power analysis, the following

information was used: the number of predictors, the significance level being used

(alpha), the effect size, and the appropriate level of power. For this study, the

following was used: three was the number of predictors, .05 was the alpha level, .13

was the effect size (medium effect size), and the power was .80 (Cohen, 1987; Miles

46

& Shevlin, 2005). Therefore, the optimal sample size was 80 and the optimal sample

size of 80 was obtained.

The participants consisted of second-grade intermediate and advanced English

language learners whose native language is Spanish. The participants were from five

elementary schools in New York City in areas of low socioeconomic status. English

language learning status was determined by the district’s method and criteria

consisting of information obtained on the Home Language Survey, performance on

the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test

(NYSESLAT), and academic performance. There were 49 females and 31 males.

The mean age was 8 years, and all participants were Hispanic.

Second-grade students were chosen as participants for this study based on Chapman and Tunmer’s (1997) finding that the interaction between self-perceptions and early reading skills and reading performance began to occur during second and third grade. In addition, Wilson & Trainin (2007) discovered that relatively few studies incorporate students in kindergarten through second grade when investigating the effects of self-efficacy. In addition, numerous studies investigating basic early reading skills incorporate students in pre-kindergarten through second grade, including ELLs, since early reading skills such as word reading are most predictive of reading achievement in these grades and early intervention is emphasized.

Measures

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4)

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) Form B was

used to assess the students’ second language vocabulary knowledge. The PPVT-4 is

47

a norm-referenced test used for measuring the receptive (hearing) vocabulary of

children and adults. Enlarged and colorized, this PPVT edition is available in two

forms (Form A and Form B) that are administered individually. Each form contains

training items and 228 test items where each item consists of four full-color pictures

as response options on a page. For each item, the examiner says a word, and the

examinee responds by selecting the picture that best illustrates that word’s meaning.

The items cover 20 categories of content and parts of speech. Three-fourths of the

items are from the previous edition (PPVT-III) and one-fourth is new. Many easier

items were added to improve measurement of low-functioning preschool-age

children. Items were reviewed and empirically analyzed for difficulty, validity

(discrimination), and freedom from bias with respect to sex, ethnicity, geographic

region, and SES. All illustrations were evaluated to ensure they could be perceived

by individuals with color blindness. The two forms are closely matched in item

content and difficulty (Dunn & Dunn, 2007).

Standard scores, percentiles, normal curve equivalents (NCEs), and stanines are provided. The test also provides age equivalents and grade equivalents. The age-norm and grade-norm samples were designed to resemble the English proficient population from ages two years and six months to 90+, and closely match the 2004 Census data for demographic variables. The age norm sample ranged in ages from two years and six months to 90 years and older, and the grade norm sample range from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Internal consistency and reliability scores are as follows: (a) by age: Split-Half Form A is .94 and Split-Half Form B is .94 and (b) by grade: Split-Half Form A is .95 and Split-Half Form B is .94. The alternate-form

48

reliability is .89 by age, and the test-retest reliability is .93 by age (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). By age and grade refers to an average across those included in the norm.

Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP)

The Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) was used to assess

students’ native language vocabulary knowledge. It is an efficient measure of

Spanish vocabulary based on the widely used PPVT-R. The TVIP contains 125

translated items to assess the vocabulary of Spanish-speaking and bilingual students

from ages two and a half to 18 years. Items were carefully selected through rigorous

item analysis for their universality and appropriateness to Spanish-speaking

communities. The TVIP is easy to administer and score and does not require

reading, verbal, or written responses. To administer an item, simply show a plate in

the test easel and say a corresponding stimulus word. The student responds by

pointing to one of the pictures. The manual is available in English and Spanish.

Norms are available for both combined and separate Mexican and Puerto Rican

standardization samples (Dunn, Hugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1986).

The norming sample consisted of monolingual, Spanish-speaking students in Latin America with 1,219 children from public schools in Mexico and 1,488 children from Puerto Rico. To correct for unevenness of socioeconomic status (SES) representation, a weighting system was used to increase or decrease the contributions of each individual's score at each age, so as to fit the SES ratios established by the U.S. census statistics. The internal consistency reliability (split-half reliability), corrected using the Spearman-Brown formula, is .93. For the concurrent validity, the correlations ranged from .25 to .59 between scores on the TVIP and the

49

Kaufmann-ABC Global Scales and from .28 to .69 between the TVIP and the Kaufman-ABC Achievement Scale Subtests among children from ages three to six. The correlation between TVIP and the Habilidad General Ability test was .44 among children attending an urban private school in Puerto Rico (Dunn et al., 1986).

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised-Normative Update (WRMTRNU)

The students’ second language word reading was measured using the Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests which requires the subject to read aloud isolated words that appear in large type on the subject pages in the test easel. This subtest was used as a test of word-decoding skills. The test provides thorough coverage of reading readiness, basic skills, and comprehension and is individually administered. It consists of two forms and tests a wide age range from young children to older adults (5–75). Based on a national sampling of over 3,000 people, WRMT-R provides accurate score comparisons for reading decoding and reading comprehension with the other achievement batteries with which it was conormed: K-TEA/NU and PIAT-R/NU. The test provides standard scores, NCEs, grade equivalents, age equivalents, Relative Performance Indexes, percentile ranks, and confidence bands at 68% and 90% confidence levels. The internal reliability is as follows: Split-half Tests are .91 (range: .68 to .98), Clusters are .95 (range: .87 to .98), and Total is .97 (range: .86–.99) (Woodcock, 1998).

Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure

A review of the literature did not yield an established measure of self-efficacy for vocabulary knowledge in a second language. The measure of self-efficacy for

50

vocabulary knowledge is based on the measurements found in the research literature concerning the self-efficacy of math performance (Schunk, 1981, 1982, 1996; Schunk & Rice, 1993) and the self-efficacy of reading and writing (Shell et al., 1995). Based on the research literature, this measure was developed and pilot tested by the author. The measure was pilot tested on 12 ELLs to ensure variability of results and appropriateness of directions, words, and questions. The pilot data revealed that there was variability in the results regarding subjects choosing among options 1, 2, and 3 from the Likert scale. In addition, pilot testing revealed that the directions and questions had to be adjusted to better convey the purpose of the measure for the subjects’ developmental level. Lastly, it was found that the subjects knew a majority of the words. As such, more difficult words were added. Thirty-six vocabulary words were chosen from the PPVT-4 Form A. The test is a Likert scale ranging from one to three. Students were asked to tell the examiner if they thought they knew the meaning of the word based on a three point scale (1 = not good; 2 = kind of/little good; 3 = really/a lot good). Careful instructions were given to ensure the students knew the scale direction. The students were also given practice items. The test was individually administered. Items were presented in random order of difficulty to avoid test fatigue. Self-efficacy scores were computed by calculating the mean score on all 36 items as indicated in the research above.

Accuracy of Self-Efficacy

The accuracy of self-efficacy of vocabulary knowledge in a second language was determined by administering the PPVT-4 items that make-up the self-efficacy

51

measure to ascertain whether or not the participants knew the words. The accuracy scores were calculated based on procedures suggested by Pajares and Graham (1999). First, the bias for each item was calculated. To calculate bias, each correct answer was scored as 3 and each incorrect answer as 1. These 1 and 3 scores correspond to the self-efficacy scores from 1 to 3. For example, a subject who expresses “not good” (1) regarding describing a word and does not know the word on the PPVT (1) will receive a bias score of 0 (1 – 1 = 0). Alternately, a subject who expresses “not good” (1) and who answers the PPVT correctly (3) will receive a bias score of −2, indicating under confidence. Thus, bias scores ranged from −2 to +2. To calculate accuracy, the absolute value of each bias score was subtracted from 2 (maximum amount of judgment error). Thus, accuracy scores ranged from 0 (complete inaccuracy) to 2 (complete accuracy). For data analyses, the mean accuracy score on all 36 items was calculated.

Ethical Considerations with Human Subjects

The present study was conducted under the approval of Fordham

University’s and New York City’s Internal Review Board (IRB). The Proposal

Review Committee from New York City reviewed the study according to the study’s

purpose, procedure, design, and ethical treatment of human subjects. This review

process ensured that the study adhered to IRB standards and ethical guidelines, and

New York City’s specifications.

Written consent (Appendix A) was obtained from principals and parents and verbal assent from child participants. Written consent forms explained the research study’s purpose, procedures, risks and benefits, confidentiality, withdrawal

52

procedures, and contact numbers for further information. The written consent form informed each potential participant that there were no repercussions for not participating in the study and that participation was voluntary. Child assent to participate in the study was obtained by the researcher. Each child was informed that he or she could withdraw from the study at any time. Data collected in this study were kept confidential, with the exception of the researcher who had access to data and participants. Each participant received an identification number to protect his/her identity. All test protocols and data were kept locked in a file cabinet.

Procedures

Applications to Fordham’s Institutional Review Board and New York City’s

Proposal Review Committee were submitted to obtain approval to conduct the study.

Committees from Fordham and New York City reviewed the study according to the

study’s purpose, procedure, design, and ethical treatment of human subjects. Once

IRB approval was obtained from Fordham and New York City, approval was

obtained from the principals of the schools to participate. After approval was

received, the researcher sent consent forms home to the parents/guardians with the

student. When a sufficient number of parental/guardian permission forms were

received, the researcher obtained the level of English proficiency of the students

based on the district’s criteria.

A native Spanish speaking bilingual graduate assistant was used to help

administer the measures for this study, especially the TVIP. There was a training

session prior to starting the study in order to insure the quality of administration,

standardization of administration, and confidentiality. The researcher discussed the

53

details of the study with the assistant, practiced administering the measures, and

discussed the confidentiality of participants’ responses.

Once participants had been identified, they met individually with the research or graduate assistant and the following measures were administered in one day to the students during school hours: Word Identification, TVIP, PPVT, and the self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy measures. The measures were administered in the following order: Word Identification, Self-Efficacy, Accuracy of Self-Efficacy, TVIP, and PPVT, with the TVIP and PPVT being counterbalanced. Administration of these measures took approximately 35 minutes. Directions and, where appropriate, items for each measure were read aloud to the children to ensure that their reading ability did not affect their answers. When all of the data were collected, the data were scored, entered into SPSS and AMOS, and analyses were performed.

Statistical Analyses

SPSS and AMOS 18 were used to analyze the data obtained from this study.

To test the hypotheses, path analyses were performed to explore direct effects of

second language (English) word reading and native language (Spanish) vocabulary

knowledge on second language (English) vocabulary knowledge and how

self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy mediated the relationship of English word

reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge by

examining the data and determining if the model matched the data.

54

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The overall purpose of the study was to determine the influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy on vocabulary knowledge in a second language as mediators of the relationship between word reading in a second language and vocabulary knowledge in a native language to vocabulary knowledge in a second language. Specifically, path analyses were performed to explore direct effects of English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge on English vocabulary knowledge and how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English vocabulary knowledge mediated the relationship of English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge. There were three predictors per model: English word reading, Spanish vocabulary knowledge, and English self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy, where accuracy of self-efficacy replaced self-efficacy in the second model. The outcome variable was English vocabulary knowledge. This section begins with a description of pre-analysis data screening and description of means, standard deviations, and correlations among the main constructs used in this study. The final section contains the results addressing the research questions and hypotheses.

55

Pre-Analysis Data Screening

Prior to conducting analyses, the assumptions for a path analysis were

examined. Data were screened for univariate and multivariate outliers and

multicollinearity, and tested for violations of normality, linearity, and

homoscedasticity. Univariate outliers were determined by examining skewness,

kurtosis, and histograms as well as calculating the z-score for each variable. The

z-score was calculated by dividing the skewness statistic by the Standard Error of

skewness. If the z-score exceeded plus or minus three, the variable was analyzed to

determine if a transformation was needed. Among English word reading, Spanish

vocabulary, self-efficacy, and accuracy of self-efficacy, English word reading was

the only variable significantly skewed (z = −3.49). As a result, the variable was

transformed using the square root method. In an effort to understand the impact of

the transformation, the analyses were conducted twice with and without the

transformed variable. Because the results were the same, the untransformed variable

was kept in order to facilitate the interpretation.

There were no multivariate outliers as determined by the Mahalanobis

distance. No cases exceeded the χ2 critical value of 16.266, df = 3, p < .001. The

variance inflation factor, tolerance, and condition index values from a regression

analysis were examined to evaluate multicollinearity among variables.

Multicollinearity among variables was not evident because variance inflation factor

was less than 10, the tolerance was greater than .10, and the condition index was less

than 30. Linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity were determined by examining

the residuals. The residuals were calculated by subtracting the predicted scores from

56

the observed scores resulting in a mean of zero. Linearity, normality, and

homoscedasticity were not violated as evidenced by the scatterplot matrix (see

Figure 3). The residuals are randomly distributed around zero, there are not more

on one side or the other, and there is no curvilinear or cone shaped pattern. The

results show that the data were linear, normally distributed, and there was

homoscedasticity.

Figure 3. Scatterplot for English Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, Self-Efficacy, and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy.

Descriptive Statistics

All participants were Hispanic, all were in second grade, and there were 49

females and 31 males. The average age of the 80 participants was 8 years (SD =

0.41). Descriptive statistics were calculated for English word reading, Spanish

vocabulary, self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary (see

Table 1). The following were the skewness statistics: English word reading (−.83,

SD = 10.15), Spanish vocabulary (.09, SD = 14.09), self-efficacy (.03, SD = 0.28),

57

accuracy of self-efficacy (.02, SD = 0.21), and English vocabulary (.01, SD = 8.28).

For English word reading, Spanish vocabulary, and English vocabulary, standard

scores were reported. Regarding self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy, a score

of 1 or 0, 2 or 1, and 3 or 2, respectively, were labeled as low, moderate and high.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Independent and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 80)

Measure M SD Range Skewness SE

English Word Reading* 100.70 10.15 73.00–122.00 −.83 .27

Spanish Vocabulary TVIP* 85.59 14.09 52.00–127.00 .09 .27

English Vocabulary PPVT-B*

Self-Efficacy**

82.01

2.27

8.28 61.00–99.00 .01 .27

0.28 1.56–2.89 −.32 .27

Accuracy of Self-Efficacy** 1.31 0.21 .61–1.78 −.41 .27

Age in years 7.98 0.41 7.25–9.25 .74 .27

* Standard Score. ** raw score

Descriptive analyses were also conducted on information related to accuracy

of self-efficacy in order to provide more information about the sample. The data for

bias, number of accurate items, number of correct items and number of incorrect

items are presented in Table 2. Bias refers to the degree of confidence. The

potential minimum and maximum range of values were from −2 to 2 with lower

scores indicating underconfidence and higher scores indicating overconfidence. The

number of accurate items represents the total items the participants answered

correctly on the vocabulary test created from items on the PPVT-A that they

expressed they felt they knew well on the corresponding self-efficacy measure and

the items they answered incorrectly that they felt they did not know well. Incorrect

58

and correct items refer to questions they answered right and wrong on the vocabulary

test using the same vocabulary test created from the PPVT-A.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Variables Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 80)

Measure M SD Range Skewness SE

Bias

Accurate Judgment

−.19

25.24

0.34 −1.17–.61 −.33 .27

4.62 8.00–33.00 −.78 .27

Incorrect Items

Correct Items

9.58

26.43

4.69 2.00–23.00 .66 .27

4.69 13.00–34.00 −.66 .27

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Independent and Dependent Variables and Age (N = 74)

Measure M SD Range Skewness SE

English Word Reading* 102.19 8.94 73.00–122.00 −.98 .28

Spanish Vocabulary TVIP* 87.19 13.24 59.00–127.00 .15 .28

English Vocabulary PPVT-B*

Self-Efficacy**

82.81

2.28

7.81 64.00–99.00 .18 .28

0.29 1.56–2.89 −.37 .28

Accuracy of Self-Efficacy** 1.32 0.21 .61–1.78 −.48 .28

Age in years 7.93 0.38 7.25–9.25 .88 .28

* Standard Score. ** raw score

Upon examining the data, it was determined that there were six cases that

needed to be excluded from the analyses that were lower than one standard deviation

from the mean on English word reading and Spanish vocabulary. The descriptive

statistics for the 74 participants that were used in all remaining analyses are

59

presented in Table 3. The data related to accuracy of self-efficacy is presented in

Table 4. For English word reading, Spanish vocabulary, and English vocabulary,

standard scores were reported. Regarding self-efficacy and accuracy of

self-efficacy, a score of 1 or 0, 2 or 1, and 3 or 2, respectively, were labeled as low,

moderate and high.

Table 4

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Standard Errors of Skewness for Variables Related to Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N = 74)

Measure M SD Range Skewness SE

Bias

Accurate Judgment

−.19

25.38

0.34 −1.17–.61 −.34 .28

4.74 8.00–33.00 −.85 .28

Incorrect Items

Correct Items

9.43

26.57

4.77 2.00–23.00 .74 .28

4.77 13.00–34.00 −.74 .28

Correlations

Correlation coefficients were calculated for English word reading, Spanish

vocabulary, self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary (see Table 5). There were two statistically significant correlations at the .01 level. There was a significant correlation between English word reading and English vocabulary of .37 (p < .01), and self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy had a significant correlation of .60 (p < .01). Additional correlations were calculated between age and the number of incorrect items, accurate items, self-efficacy, and accuracy of self-efficacy. There were no significant relationships (see Table 6).

60

Table 5 Intercorrelations Among Independent and Dependent Variables (N=74) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. Word Reading — .11 −.12 .05 .37**

2. Spanish Vocab — −.04 .01 .05 3. Self-Efficacy — .60** .07 4. Accuracy of SE — .12 5. English Vocab — ** p < .01. Table 6 Intercorrelations Between Age and Incorrect Items, Accurate Items, Self-Efficacy and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy (N=74) Variable Age Incorrect Items −.08

Accurate Items .18

Self-Efficacy .10

Accuracy of SE .16

Path Analysis

A path analysis was conducted to determine the causal effects among the

variables of English (L2) word reading, Spanish (L1) vocabulary, self-efficacy,

accuracy of self-efficacy, and English (L2) vocabulary. Two path models were

specified, corresponding to the two mediating variables of interest, self-efficacy and

accuracy of self-efficacy. To run the analyses, correlations were not estimated

among any variables. In addition, all error terms were assumed to be uncorrelated.

Three types of fit indices were used to assess the overall fit of the models: the

goodness of fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean

61

square error of approximation (RMSEA). The GFI shows what proportion of the

variance in the sample variance-covariance matrix is accounted for by the model.

The CFI estimates the relative fit of the target model in comparison to a baseline

model where all variables in the baseline model are uncorrelated. The values of the

GFI and CFI range from 0 to 1 with values greater than or equal to .9 indicating an

acceptable model fit. The RMSEA is an index that takes model complexity into

account. A RMSEA value of .05 or less is considered to be a reasonable fit.

Both models, presented in Figures 4 and 5, fit the data well (GFI = .99, CFI =

1.00 and RMSEA = .00). In addition, for both models, the only significant path was

between word reading and English vocabulary. The direct, indirect, and total effect

of English word reading on English vocabulary knowledge was .38, −.01, and .37

respectively. The direct, indirect, and total effect of Spanish vocabulary knowledge

on English vocabulary knowledge was .01, −.003, and .01. Lastly, the initial model

accounted for 15% in variance for English vocabulary knowledge. For the second

model, the direct, indirect, and total effect of English word reading on English

vocabulary knowledge was .36, .005, and .36. The direct, indirect, and total effect of

Spanish vocabulary knowledge on English vocabulary knowledge was .01, .001, and

.01. Lastly, the second model accounted for 15% of the variance for English

vocabulary knowledge.

62

Figure 4. Model of self-efficacy with standardized coefficients. Continuous lines note non-significant paths. Dashed lines note significant path. ** p < .001.

Figure 5. Model of accuracy of self-efficacy with standardized coefficients. Continuous lines note non-significant paths. Dashed lines note significant paths. ** p < .001.

Due to the lack of significant relationships between the variables, a simultaneous regression analysis was conducted to further ascertain the nature of the relationships among the variables. For the first model, regression results indicated that the overall model significantly predicted English vocabulary knowledge (R2 = .15, R2

adj = .12, F = 4.15, p < .01). This model accounted for 15% of the variance in predicting English vocabulary knowledge. A summary of regression coefficients is presented in Table 7, indicating that only word reading contributed significantly to the model. For the second model, regression results indicated that the overall model significantly predicted English vocabulary knowledge (R2 = .15, R2

adj = .11, F = 4.03, p < .05). This model accounted for 15% of the variance in

English Word

Reading

Spanish Vocabulary Knowledge

Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary

Knowledge English

Vocabulary Knowledge

.38**

.1

.0

1

−.12

−.02

English Word

Reading

Spanish Vocabulary Knowledge

Accuracy of Self-Efficacy of

Vocabulary Knowledge

English Vocabulary Knowledge

.36**

.1

.0

1

.0

.0

63

predicting English vocabulary knowledge. A summary of regression coefficients is presented in Table 8, indicating only word reading contributed significantly to the model. Overall, regression results were consistent with the results from the path analysis. Lastly, interaction effects were investigated for word reading and self-efficacy, word reading and accuracy of self-efficacy, Spanish vocabulary and self-efficacy, and Spanish vocabulary and accuracy of self-efficacy in predicting English vocabulary knowledge. Results showed that there were no significant interaction effects in predicting English vocabulary knowledge. Table 7 Simultaneous Regression Analysis Relating Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary, and Self-Efficacy to English Vocabulary (N=74) Variable B SE B β Word Reading .34 .10 .38* Spanish Vocabulary .01 .07 .01 Self-Efficacy 3.29 3.03 .12 * p < .01. R2 = .15. R2

adj = .12. Table 8 Simultaneous Regression Analysis Relating Word Reading, Spanish Vocabulary,and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy to English Vocabulary (N=74) Variable B SE B β Word Reading .32 .10 .36* Spanish Vocabulary .01 .07 .01 Accuracy of SE 3.81 4.10 .10 * p < .01. R2 = .15. R2

adj = .11.

64

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of the study was to explore how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy of English vocabulary knowledge could directly influence English vocabulary knowledge and act as a mediator between English word reading and Spanish vocabulary knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge in native Spanish speaking ELLs. Findings were interpreted by integrating theories and research in the areas of self-efficacy, vocabulary knowledge, word reading, and second language acquisition.

Conclusions

The descriptive analyses demonstrated, overall, that the participants exhibited

a moderate to high level of self-efficacy as well as accuracy of self-efficacy. The

students seemed to be fairly confident regarding how much they knew about the

meaning of a word and how well they could define it. Furthermore, despite low

performance on English vocabulary knowledge, students exhibited moderate to high

self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy in their assessments about their

knowledge of English vocabulary. Perhaps the words chosen for the self-efficacy

measure were mostly familiar with the students and did not adequately reflect their

65

overall English vocabulary knowledge; therefore, their self-efficacy and accuracy

scores were slightly inflated.

While research has supported that higher self-efficacy or confidence leads to

better performance in schools, a question that arose from this research was whether

students were accurate in the assessment of their own ability and what effect this

may have on academic outcomes. Researchers found, even in students as young as

fifth grade, that when students were not accurate about their ability, academic

outcomes were negatively impacted (Dunning et al., 2004; Garavalia & Gredler,

2002; Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008), but, when students were accurate about their

abilities, their grades were positively impacted (Hacker et al., 2000). The students in

this study were fairly accurate regarding the assessment of their own ability. For the

words they thought they knew well, they answered them correctly; for the words the

students thought they did not know well, they answered them incorrectly. Results

also indicated that the students did not demonstrate bias regarding their abilities.

They did not lack confidence or exhibit overconfidence in the assessment of their

own abilities, which is consistent with the previous results concerning their accuracy.

To determine the relationships among English word reading, Spanish

vocabulary, self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy, and English vocabulary

correlation analyses were conducted. The results indicated that there were

significant relationships among English word reading and English vocabulary

knowledge and self-efficacy and the accuracy of self-efficacy. In addition,

regression and path analyses revealed the significant contribution of English word

reading to English vocabulary knowledge. These results are consistent with findings

66

in the literature. Learning to read unfolds developmentally where more basic skills

(word reading) are acquired initially, which facilitate the acquisition of more

complex reading skills (vocabulary knowledge). As children advance in their

reading ability, basic skills and more complex skills become more closely related

and begin to influence each other in a cyclical way where word reading continues to

facilitate the acquisition of vocabulary and the more vocabulary acquired further

influences word reading. Self-efficacy and the accuracy of self-efficacy were

significantly related possibly due to the significant overlap in their concepts with

accuracy of self-efficacy being a characteristic of self-efficacy.

To determine the influences of self-efficacy and the accuracy of self-efficacy

on second language vocabulary knowledge, a path analysis was conducted for both

models. Overall, the results showed that both models fit the data well, which

indicated that the models were consistent with the observed relationships.

Specifically, English word reading contributed directly to self-efficacy, accuracy of

self-efficacy, and English vocabulary knowledge with small to moderate effects.

Spanish vocabulary contributed directly to self-efficacy, accuracy of self-efficacy,

and English vocabulary knowledge with small effects. Finally, self-efficacy and the

accuracy of self-efficacy contributed directly to English vocabulary knowledge with

small effects in addition to mediating the relationships from English word reading

and Spanish vocabulary knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge.

For both models, English word reading contributed significantly to and had a

stronger effect on English vocabulary knowledge compared to Spanish vocabulary.

This may be due to the fact that, in order for native language vocabulary knowledge

67

to have an influence on second language vocabulary knowledge, more active and

effective direct instruction needs to occur for students to efficiently and successfully

utilize their native language resources. Perhaps the transfer of native language

vocabulary skills requires more metacognitive awareness and therefore more direct

teaching and learning than the more inherent transfer of phonological processing

abilities. The students could also be experiencing subtractive bilingualism where the

second language slowly replaces the native language (San Francisco et al., 2006).

The relationship from English word reading to self-efficacy and accuracy of

self-efficacy was marginally stronger than from Spanish vocabulary knowledge to

self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy and the accuracy of

self-efficacy may have not been affected by Spanish vocabulary as strongly due to

overall weaknesses in the students’ native language skills. The results showed that

the mean score for Spanish vocabulary knowledge was low (M = 82.81) indicating

insufficient functioning in the native language. The weaker relationship could also

be accounted for by subtractive bilingualism where the participants’ evolving second

language proficiency, especially when not receiving native language instruction, is

more predictive and more strongly related to functioning in the second language.

The results also indicated that English word reading had an indirect effect on

English vocabulary knowledge where self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy

partially mediated the relationship, which suggested that these variables partly

explained and accounted for the connection from English word reading to English

vocabulary knowledge. Even though these findings demonstrated partial mediation

with small effects, they are notable. The results support Chapman and Tunmer’s

68

(1997) study that found evidence of emerging characteristics of self-concept

including self-efficacy in students younger than eight years of age. Prior to their

findings, research findings led to the view that children younger than eight years old

were not capable of forming achievement related self-perceptions due to the strong

emphasis and focus on developing basic skills in younger elementary school students

(Nicholls, 1978, 1979; Stipek, 1993).

The results of the current study also support the linkage between

self-perceptions and reading performance. Specifically, the results provide evidence

that the underlying psychological and affective factor of self-efficacy and the

cognitive awareness of accuracy in the judgment of one’s ability may play a

significant role in English vocabulary knowledge. As Chapman and Tunmer (1997)

stated, an important factor in the development of children’s reading skills is the

evolving self-system of the student, which includes self-efficacy. Self-efficacy and

accuracy of self-efficacy influences reading skill development by determining if

students will simply take advantage of opportunities to read or not, the amount of

effort expended during reading, persistence exhibited when determining the meaning

of what is being read, and degree of willingness to accept feedback concerning their

reading performance.

Furthermore, the findings support the need to look at the accuracy of

students’ judgments about their abilities in addition to their beliefs on account of the

distinct effect accuracy has on performance. Chen (2002) found that middle school

students’ accuracy had a significant and distinct direct effect on math performance

separate from that of self-efficacy. The accuracy research demonstrates that, like

69

self-efficacy, a poor awareness of one’s abilities will cause misperceptions regarding

the level of effort required to complete a task and the receptiveness of feedback

(Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008). Since a review of the literature did not yield a

study investigating the influence of the accuracy of self-efficacy in students younger

than grade five, this investigation is unique in that manner. It highlights the prospect

that students as young as second grade possess a high level of metacognition

concerning their abilities and this awareness influences performance.

The emergence and development of self-efficacy in second grade may have

also led to the partial mediating effect of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy

on English vocabulary knowledge. Perhaps self-efficacy and the accuracy of

self-efficacy did not play as much of a role as it would have if the students had been

older. With younger students, especially emerging language learners, it is feasible

that self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy does not determine and influence

outcomes as much as simply having the knowledge may. Possessing the skills may

account more for outcome achievement more than psychological and cognitive

factors. This finding supports the skill development view of academic self-concept

development where, at this young age, self-efficacy forms in response to the mastery

of skills. This aligns with the idea that the relationship between self-efficacy and

achievement may follow a developmental trend where, in elementary school, skill

mastery takes precedence over self-efficacy, the relationship is more reciprocal in

middle skill, and, finally, in high school, self-efficacy takes precedence over skill

mastery (Chapman & Tunmer, 1997).

70

Spanish vocabulary knowledge did not have an indirect effect on English

vocabulary, suggesting that self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy did not

intervene in the effects of Spanish vocabulary on English vocabulary. Since the

results showed that it seems the transfer of skills from Spanish vocabulary

knowledge to English vocabulary knowledge may need more direct instruction and

metacognitive awareness, self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy may not play a

role until those skills are more developed.

A closer look at the data revealed interesting trends. Scores obtained for

Spanish vocabulary knowledge by and large corresponded with English vocabulary

knowledge. If the students received a low score on English vocabulary knowledge,

they received a corresponding low score on Spanish vocabulary knowledge. In

comparison to their English word reading scores, there was much more variability.

Overall, average and above average scores on English word reading corresponded

with low scores on Spanish and English vocabulary knowledge. The small

difference in means between English and Spanish vocabulary and the adequate

scores on English word reading could potentially reflect the current and strong

emphasis on teaching phonemic awareness and decoding skills in reading curricula

in the early grades and the paucity of attention concerning the acquisition of

vocabulary knowledge in English. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) highlight

that there is little emphasis on learning vocabulary in school curricula as well as

ineffective ways of teaching it both of which lead to weak vocabulary knowledge.

Furthermore, the variability in the participants’ results highlights the need to continue to examine the effect that the different types of bilingual programs may be

71

having on ELLs’ learning and academic performance in both English and Spanish. There are three types of bilingual education programs: transitional/early exit, maintenance/late-exit/developmental, and two-way/dual-language; and there are two types of ESL programs: content-based ESL/sheltered English and Pullout ESL (Rhodes et al., 2005). Regarding the effectiveness of the different programs, the most comprehensive study was conducted by Thomas and Collier (1997). They compared six programs: dual language, maintenance, transitional bilingual with content-based ESL, transitional bilingual with pullout ESL, content-based only, and pullout only. The authors found that the students in the dual language program performed the highest on standardized tests for ELLs followed by maintenance as the second best program. The students in the immersion programs (transitional and ESL) performed the lowest.

Limitations and Future Studies

A few limitations of the study must be presented. The first potential limitation

that must be taken into consideration is the inclusion of different levels of English

proficiency of the ELLs. The study included intermediate to advanced ELLs. The

different levels of English proficiency may have caused the variability in the data. A

future study could include a set amount of intermediate and advanced ELLs and

compare the two groups to further discern the relationships among variables and how

the effects may differ between the two groups regarding the degree of strength in the

native language and second language.

It would also be interesting to investigate the role self-efficacy plays among

variables that only tap into ELLs’ second language instead of including

72

measurements that tap into both the native language and second language. In the

current study, it was possible that, compared to phonological abilities, vocabulary

knowledge in the native language was a complex ability where students needed to be

made more aware of how to use their native language vocabulary resources to

facilitate acquiring vocabulary in the second language for a significant relationship

to be established. Future studies should continue to explore the relationship between

native language and second language vocabulary and possibly included comparisons

between groups that receive native language instruction and those that do not.

Another limitation may be due to the self-efficacy measure. Overall, the

participants exhibited confidence and accuracy in their assessments about their

knowledge of English vocabulary. Perhaps the words chosen were mostly familiar

to the students and did not adequately reflect their overall English vocabulary

knowledge causing their self-efficacy scores to be slightly inflated. Future studies

can compare different categories of words as well as more spoken language versus

more academic language. Future research can also investigate the role self-efficacy

plays in ELLs native language.

Certain constructs not examined in this study that also affect self-efficacy and vocabulary knowledge may be another limitation. For example, motivation and self-regulation are other processes that have been shown to affect academic performance. In addition, language learning anxiety is another construct that may affect self-efficacy and language acquisition. Future studies can include these variables to determine the different roles those variables may play. As with other self-efficacy research, it would be interesting to conduct a study where students’

73

self-efficacy was increased through an intervention and outcomes analyzed. Other studies could consider comparing the performance of students in different types of bilingual programs. Lastly, since self-efficacy is a construct that begins to emerge and develop in second grade, it would be interesting to conduct the same study with older students whose self-efficacy is more developed. Perhaps with younger ELLs, self-efficacy does not determine outcomes as much as simply having the knowledge may.

Implications for Practice

Regarding the data matching the observed relationships, the findings of the

study supported the models proposed, which suggests that the results have practical

implications that are important to consider. The results further substantiated the

effect psychological, affective, and cognitive variables such as self-efficacy and

accuracy of self-efficacy can have on learning. The results also demonstrated that

self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy may play a similar role in academic

outcomes for ELLs as it does with monolingual native English speaking students.

The influence of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy has important

implications for students struggling with learning to read and vocabulary acquisition.

Students who experience difficulty with reading and learning in the beginning may

develop negative self-beliefs which will negatively affect the students. For these

students, reading and learning may become less rewarding resulting in the students

possibly avoiding opportunities to increase their skills or inhibiting them from

putting forth the effort necessary to determine the meaning of words.

74

In light of the Matthew effect where early reading successes beget more

success and early failures occasion future failures and research supporting that low

vocabulary knowledge persists through the school years, it is important to aware of

the role self-efficacy plays in younger students even though skill mastery seems to

dominate during the early elementary school years. Since self-efficacy is influenced

by performance, modeled experiences, forms of persuasion such as feedback and

physiological reactions (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007), it is important to know

which students are struggling with self-efficacy in order to develop appropriate

strategies or interventions to help increase their self-efficacy which may increase

their learning and academic performance.

Concerning the accuracy of self-efficacy, the data showed that the students

seem to be in the ideal “mentality” for learning. If the students showed

overconfidence and inaccuracy, it is possible that feedback would not facilitate

improvement in academic performance since these types of students often believe

they do not need to be receptive to feedback since they feel they know the material

well. Schunk (1991) stated that high self-efficacy beliefs will not increase

performance if the students lack the skills. On the other hand, the students who lack

confidence and who are inaccurate might need much more feedback, encouragement,

and chances to succeed in order for learning to be improved. Knowing whether or

not a student is accurate in his or her assessment of him/herself could be a key piece

of information in order to develop the best strategy to improve the learning and

performance of a student. Lastly, the results of this study provided evidence that

early elementary grade students possess metacognitive abilities concerning their

75

performance; therefore, teachers can be confident that young students can tolerate

direct and explicit feedback regarding their academic performance.

While word reading skills seemed to be well-developed on average, the data

did not demonstrate well-developed vocabulary knowledge among the students. In

addition to providing intense direct instruction regarding phonemic awareness in

ELLs, it also seems important to continue to provide more instruction regarding

vocabulary to increase the development of students’ knowledge of word meanings in

English and how to use native language vocabulary knowledge to learn second

language vocabulary. Lastly, it is imperative to continue to assess the effectiveness

of bilingual programs and adapt the curricula as necessary. While dual language

programs appear to be most effective, they are not the most common. Transitional

programs are more readily established. With the range of language abilities in a

transitional classroom, it is appropriate to expect consistent monitoring of progress

and learning in order to determine the needs of the students for delivering the most

effective teaching and determining best practices.

76

REFERENCES

77

Anthony, J. L., Williams, J. M., McDonald, R., & Francis, D. J. (2007). Phonological processing and emergent literacy in younger and older preschool children. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 113–137.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. August, D., Carlo, M., Lively, T., Lippman, D., McLaughlin, B., & Snow, C. (1999,

April). Enhancing vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension in English language learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Avons, S. E., Wragg, C. A., & Cupples, L. (1998). Measures of phonological short- term memory and their relationships to vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 583–601. Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173. Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust

vocabulary instruction. New York and London: The Guilford Press. Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520. Bowey, J. A. (2001). Nonword repetition and young children’s receptive vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 441–469. Bus, A. G., & van Ijezendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414.

78

Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D. (2007). The cross- linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 Skills and Language of Instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 249–259. Cardoso-Martins, C., & Pennington, B. F. (2004). The relationship between

phoneme awareness and rapid serial naming skills and literacy acquisition: The role of developmental period and reading ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 27–52.

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, L. S., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459–478. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1997). A longitudinal study of beginning reading achievement and reading self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 279–291. Chen, P. P. (2002). Exploring the accuracy and predictability of the self-efficacy

beliefs of seventh grade mathematics students. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 77–90.

Cheung, H. (1996). Nonword span as a predictor of second-language vocabulary learning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 867–873. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (1999). Specific contribution of phonological abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450–476. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Clark-Chiarelli, N., & Wolf, A. (2004). Cross- language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 323–347. Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Minneapolis: NCS Pearson, Inc. Dunn, L. M., Hugo, D. E., Padilla, E. R., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody. Minneapolis: NCS Pearson, Inc.

79

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J.M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69–106. Durgunoglu, A., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theories, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, S., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287. Ehrlich, M. F., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Loridant, C. (1993). Cognitive and motivational determinants of reading comprehension in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 365–381. Frost, J., Madsbjerg, S., Niedersoe, J., Olofosson, A., & Sorensen, P. M. (2005). Semantic and phonological skills in predicting reading development: From 3- 16 years of age. Dyslexia, 11, 79-92. Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68, 450–469. Garavalia, L. S., & Gredler, M. E. (2002). An exploratory study of academic goal setting, achievement calibration, and self-regulated learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 221–230. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200–213. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning arbitrary names of toys. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 439–454. Gathercole, S. E., Service, E., Hitch, G. J., Adams, A., & Martin, A. J. (1999). Phonological short term memory and vocabulary development: Further evidence on the nature of the relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 65–77.

80

Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Phonological memory and vocabulary development during the preschool years: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 28, 887–898. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gough, P. H., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Horgan, D. D. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170. Hackett, G. (1985). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47–56. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self- efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261–273. Klassen, R. M. (2006). Too much confidence? The self-efficacy of adolescents with

learning disabilities. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 181–200). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Klesius, J. P., & Searls, E. F. (1991). A meta-analysis of recent research in meaning vocabulary instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 226–235. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall. Leafstedt, J. M., & Gerber, M. M. (2005). Crossover of phonological processing skills: A study of Spanish-speaking students in two instructional settings. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 226–235. Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade

reading in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 482–494.

Lynch, J. (2002). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender, children’s reader self-perceptions, reading achievement, and gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 54–67.

81

Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K-2 in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 214–224. Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., & Doi, B. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid naming

and the longitudinal prediction of reading subskills in first and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 129–157. McBride-Chang, C. (1996). Models of speech perception and phonological processing in reading. Child Development, 67, 1836–1856. McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., Chow, B. W. Y., Chow, C. S. L., & Choi, L.

(2006). Metalinguistic skills and vocabulary knowledge in Chinese (L1) and English (L2). Reading and Writing, 19, 695–716.

McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The role of morphological awareness in children’s vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415–435. McCann, L. D., Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1986). Communication apprehension

and second language acquisition among Vietnamese and Mexican immigrants: A test of the affective filter hypothesis. Communication Research Reports, 3, 33–38.

Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Applying regression & correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1998). ‘Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read’: Erratum. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 3–27. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

82

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concept of effort and ability, perceptions of academic attainment, and the understanding the difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800–814.

Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal

attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 94–99.

Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in

Mathematical problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 426-443. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1997). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematical problem solving: Implications of using different forms of assessment. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 213–228. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. ( 2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 71–93. Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85–111. Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Effects of self-correction strategy training

on middle-school students’ self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics division learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 18–41.

83

Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York: The Guilford Press. San Francisco, A., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2006). The role of language of instruction and vocabulary in the English phonological awareness of Spanish-English bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27,

229–246. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93–105. Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,

548–556. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational

Psychologist, 26, 207–231. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s

cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.

Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2 ed., pp. 125–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23,

351–364. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 257–276. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25. Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 45A, 21–50.

84

Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309–1324. Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade level and achievement level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398. Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91–100. Snow, C. E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6,

5–10. Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model- based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological core variable difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53. Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to Practice (2nd ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Sunseth, K., & Bowers, P. G. (2002). Rapid naming and phonemic awareness: Contributions to reading, spelling, and orthographic knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 401–429. Swanson, H., Saez, L., Gerber, G., & Leafstedt, J. (2004). Literacy and cognitive functioning in bilingual and non-bilingual children at or not at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 3–18. Tabors, P., & Snow, C. (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early

literacy research (pp. 159–178). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority

Students (NCBE Resource Collection Series No. 9). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63,

1012–1020.

85

Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1993). Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children. Applied Linguistics, 14, 344–363. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73–87. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Child development and emergent

literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2007). First-grade students’ motivation and achievement for reading, writing, and spelling. Reading Psychology, 28,

257–282. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438. Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised Normative Update. Minneapolis: NCS Pearson, Inc. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.

86

APPENDIX A

SELF-EFFICACY OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE MEASURE

87

Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary

I’m going to ask you about some words today. Some words you may know. Some you may not know. That’s okay. There is no right or wrong. I’m going to ask you if you can tell me about those words. I’m going to have you pretend to tell me what something is, then you’ll tell me if you can do a good job or not. Just try your best. (Circle the child’s response.) Practice A) Think about a penguin. If you had to tell me about a penguin, how good of a job do you think you can do? 1 not good means you think you know nothing about the word 2 little good means you think you know a little about the word 3 a lot good means you think you know a lot about the word B) Think about a squash. If you had to tell me about a squash, how good of a job do you think you can do? 1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good C) Think about a peninsula? If you had to tell me about a peninsula, how good of a job do you think you can do? 1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good Begin Test 1) Think about a hyena. If you had to tell me about a hyena, how good of a job do you think you can do? 1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good 2) Think about a river. If you had to tell me about a river, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

3) Think about a vegetable. If you had to tell me about a vegetable, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

4) Think about a pigeon. If you had to tell me about a pigeon, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good 5) Think about a harp. If you had to tell me about a harp, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

88

6) Think about a globe. If you had to tell me about a globe, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

7) Think about a farm. If you had to tell me about a farm, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

8) Think about an arrow. If you had to tell me about a arrow, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

9) Think about a ruler. If you had to tell me about a ruler, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

10) Think about a tunnel. If you had to tell me about a tunnel, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good 11) Think about a group. If you had to tell me about a group, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

12) Think about a wrench. If you had to tell me about a wrench, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

13) Think about a violin. If you had to tell me about a violin, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

14) Think about a branch. If you had to tell me about a branch, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good 15) Think about a swamp. If you had to tell me about a swamp, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

16) Think about a boulder. If you had to tell me about a boulder, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

17) Think about a cactus. If you had to tell me about a cactus, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

89

18) Think about a roof. If you had to tell me about a roof, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

19) Think about a claw. If you had to tell me about a claw, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

20) Think about a dentist. If you had to tell me about a dentist, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

21) Think about a cobweb. If you had to tell me about a cobweb, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

22) Think about a reptile. If you had to tell me about a reptile, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

23) Think about an ax. If you had to tell me about an ax, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

24) Think about a gift. If you had to tell me about a gift, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

25) Think about a panda. If you had to tell me about a panda, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

26) Think about a chef. If you had to tell me about a chef, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

27) Think about a fountain. If you had to tell me about a fountain, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

28) Think about a diamond. If you had to tell me about a diamond, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

29) Think about a canoe. If you had to tell me about a canoe, how good of a job do you think you can do?

90

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good 30) Think about a timer. If you had to tell me about a timer, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

31) Think about a uniform. If you had to tell me about a uniform, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

32) Think about a buckle. If you had to tell me about a buckle, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

33) Think about a chimney. If you had to tell me about a chimney, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

34) Think about a shoulder. If you had to tell me about a shoulder, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

35) Think about an athlete. If you had to tell me about a athlete, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good

36) Think about a vase. If you had to tell me about a vase, how good of a job do you think you can do?

1 not good 2 little good 3 a lot good Mean Score:__________ (Add all then divide by 36)

91

APPENDIX B

PRINCIPAL AND PARENT PERMISSION LETTERS

92

Dear Principal,

This spring I am conducting a research study entitled “Self-Efficacy, Vocabulary Knowledge, and Word Reading in English Language Learners.” This research is designed to explore the relationships among word reading, Spanish vocabulary and self-efficacy in predicting English vocabulary knowledge in English Language Learners.

The children who participate in this program will complete six measures:

Phonological Awareness Skills Program (PASP), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4), Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP), Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised-Normative Update (WRMTRNU), Self-Efficacy of Vocabulary Knowledge Measure, and Accuracy of Self-Efficacy. One test will have the students rate how sure they are that they know the meaning of a word. Three tests will measure the students’ vocabulary knowledge in English and Spanish. The two other tests will measure how well the students hear the sounds in words and how many words the students can read from a list. Students’ participation will be approximately 30 minutes. Students will be tested at a time convenient to the teacher. Before the completion of the measures, I will obtain permission from the parents for the participation of their children to work with me.

All information gathered in the program will remain confidential to all except

myself and my dissertation committee. In addition, no names will be used in reporting the findings of the study and no one in the children’s school will have access to specific information about the children's results in my study. All information from the study will be kept at Fordham University in a locked file cabinet accessible only to the researchers.

Parents and children will be told that participation in the study is entirely

voluntary and that there will be no penalty for not participating. All children for whom parent consent is obtained will be asked if they wish to participate and only those whose parents agree will be allowed to participate. I also understand that there are no foreseeable risks to participating in the program but, nonetheless, children and parents will be free to stop taking part in the study at any time. The benefits of the study are that the results of the study may contribute to the current knowledge of how to best help English Language Learners learn English vocabulary, an area where they naturally lack and one that significantly impacts their academic achievement. The aggregate results of the study can be shared with the teachers via a presentation to help them understand how to utilize the information in order to inform best practices in the classroom to aid in increasing vocabulary knowledge among ELLs.

As a thank you, each child will receive a small token gift (e.g., stickers, pencil). Should parents have any questions about the study, they will be instructed to

contact Tricia Mase at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. If they have questions about their rights as participants, they will be told they may contact Dr. E. Doyle McCarthy,

93

Chairperson, Fordham University Institutional Review Board at (212) 636-7946. If you give me permission, please sign one copy of this form and keep the duplicate for your records. I have read the above permission letter and I give you permission to conduct your research at my school. ____________________________________________________________________ Print Name and Position Signature Date

94

Dear Parent or Guardian,

This spring I am beginning a research study to explore the influences of self-confidence on vocabulary knowledge for students learning English. Your child has been identified as one of a group of children who may benefit from this study. I am writing to ask you for your permission to allow your child to participate in my study. After you give me permission for your child to participate, I will also obtain your child’s permission to participate.

Children who know the meaning of many words when they start school and

during the early grades have an advantage when it comes to learning to read. Also, children who believe they will do well in school do in fact perform better in school. In my study, I am trying to find out if students who think they know the meaning of many words have a more extensive vocabulary with greater understanding and success in school. The information gathered from this study may aid us in determining what else can help students learn vocabulary words in English. Students in this study will complete six tests. One test will have your child rate how sure they are that they know the meaning of a word. Three tests will measure your child’s vocabulary knowledge in English and Spanish. The two other tests will measure how well your child hears the sounds in words and how many words your child can read from a list. The tests will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The tests will also be completed at a time identified as best by the teachers so that the students will not miss academic instruction.

All of the information I gather will remain confidential to all except the research

group. In addition, no names will be used in reporting the findings from the study and none of the faculty in your child’s school will have access to information about your child’s performance in my study. All information from the study will be kept at Fordham University in a locked file cabinet accessible only to the researchers.

Participation in the study is entirely voluntary and there will be no penalty for

not participating. All students for whom we have parental consent will be asked if they wish to participate and only those who agree will enter the study. There are no foreseeable risks to participating in the study and your child will be free to stop taking part in the study at any time. The benefits of the study are that the results of the study may contribute to the current knowledge of how best to help English Language Learners learn English vocabulary. During the study, your child will receive small prizes for working cooperatively with us. When offered, your child will choose from a list of prizes that may include such items as special pencils, stickers, key rings, and sketch pads.

For questions about the study in English, please call me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX

or email me at mase@fordham.edu. For questions about the study in Spanish, please call Melissa at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. If you would like to learn more about your child’s rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. E. Doyle McCarthy at Fordham’s Institutional Review Board at (212) 636-7946.

95

If you give permission for your child to participate, please sign one copy of this letter and have your child return it to his or her teacher. Please keep the duplicate letter for your records. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Tricia Mase, Graduate School of Education, Fordham University

CONSENT I have read the above informed consent letter and I agree to have my child participate in this study. Child’s Name (please print) Parent’s or Guardian’s Name (please print) ____________________________________________________________________ Parent’s or Guardian’s Signature Date

96

Estimado Padre o Guardian,

Esta primavera estoy empezando un estudio de investigación para explorar las influencias de la confianza en el conocimiento del vocabulario para estudiantes aprendiendo el Ingles. Su hijo/hija ha sido identificado/a como uno de los estudiantes de un grupo seleccionado para beneficiarse de este estudio. Escribo para pedir su permiso para que participe su hijo/a en el estudio. Además del permiso de su hijo/a también necesito el consentimiento de usted para que participe su hijo/a.

Estudiantes que entienden más palabras cuando entran a la escuela primaria

tienen una ventaja cuando aprenden a leer. También, estudiantes que piensan que pueden tener éxito en la escuela en realidad podrán tener más éxito. En mi estudio, estoy tratando de comprobar si estudiantes que creen que saben el significado de un gran número de palabras podrán tener un vocabulario más extensivo y con mayor entendimiento y éxito. Los resultados del estudio nos darán información para determinar qué podemos hacer para ayudar a sus hijos aprender vocabulario en inglés. Los estudiantes que participan en el estudio completarán seis exámenes. Para un examen, su hijo/a dirá que tan seguro conoce el significado de una palabra. Tres pruebas medirán el conocimiento del vocabulario de su hijo/a en Inglés y Español. Las otras dos pruebas miden si su niño/a oye los sonidos de las palabras y cuántas palabras el/ella puede leer de una lista. Estos exámenes tomarán aproximadamente 30 minutos para completar. Las pruebas se completaran en un momento designado por el instructor/la instructora para que los estudiantes no faltan instrucción académico.

Toda la información adquirida será para el propósito de este estudio y se

mantendrá confidencialmente excepto para el grupo conduciendo el estudio. No se utilizaran nombres cuando se reporten los resultados. Ningún empleado de la escuela tendrá acceso a esta información sobre su hijo/a. Toda la información se mantendrá en los archivos y bajo llave de la Universidad de Fordham. Esta información será accesible solamente por el personal de la Universidad.

Participación en el estudio es completamente voluntario y no habrá castigo

ninguno por no haber participado. Solamente los estudiantes que tienen el consentimiento de los padres se les pedirá su participación y solamente esos estudiantes cuyos padres estén de acuerdo podrán participar. No hay riesgos para participar y su hijo/a será libre de desistir de esta participación en cualquier momento. Como beneficios, los resultados del estudio pueden contribuir al conocimiento actual de la mejor manera de ayudar a Estudiantes del Idioma Inglés aprender vocabulario Inglés. Durante el estudio, su hijo/a recibirá algún premio pequeño por participar. Los premios pueden consistir de lápices, calcomanías, llaveros y libretos.

Para preguntas sobre el estudio en Inglés, por favor llámeme al (XXX) XXX-

XXXX o mandame un email en mase@fordham.edu. Para preguntas sobre el estudio en Español, favor de comunicarse con Melissa en (XXX) XXXX-XXXX. Si

97

quiere aprender más sobre los derechos de su hijo/a al participar en este estudio, se puede poner en contacto con la Dra. E. Doyle McCarthy en el departamento de Fordham’s Institutional Review Board al número 212-636-7946.

Si quiere dar el permiso para que su hijo/a participe en este estudio, por

favor firme esta carta y regrésela a la maestra/o de su hijo/a. Por favor quédese con una copia para sus archivos. Gracias en adelantado por su consideración. Sinceramente, Tricia Mase, Universidad de Fordham

CONSENTIMIENTO He leído la carta sobre el consentimiento informado y estoy de acuerdo en que mi hijo/a participe en este estudio. Nombre de Hijo/a (con letra de imprenta) Nombre del Padre o Guardian (con letra de imprenta) ____________________________________________________________________ Firma del Padre o Guardian Fecha

98

ABSTRACT

99

SELF-EFFICACY, WORD READING, AND VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE

IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Tricia Florence Mase, PhD

Fordham University, New York, 2011

Mentor: Joanna K. Uhry, PhD

English language learners (ELLs) are dramatically behind in the number of

English vocabulary words they have acquired when they enter kindergarten.

Research that has been conducted on early reading skills and vocabulary knowledge

in ELLs focuses almost exclusively on instruction despite the fact that student

characteristics such as self-efficacy play a significant role in academic outcomes.

The aim of this study was to explore how self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy

of vocabulary knowledge in a second language mediated the relationship of word

reading in a second language and vocabulary knowledge in a native language to

vocabulary knowledge in a second language.

Participants consisted of 80 second-grade native Spanish speaking ELLs

from public schools in low socioeconomic urban neighborhoods. Standardized tests

and self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy measures were administered to each

participant. The results suggested that the participants demonstrated a moderate to

high level of self-efficacy as well as accuracy of self-efficacy. The results also

100

showed significant relationships between English word reading and English

vocabulary knowledge and between self-efficacy and the accuracy of self-efficacy.

Path analyses demonstrated an adequate model fit. Results also showed partial

mediating effects of self-efficacy and accuracy of self-efficacy, which suggests that

self-efficacy and accuracy in the judgment of one’s ability may not have such a vital

function in learning English vocabulary knowledge during the early elementary

school years for ELLs. These findings endorse the skill development view of

academic self-concept development where, at this young age, self-efficacy forms in

response to the mastery of skills and possessing the abilities may be more important

than the influence of psychological and cognitive factors on those same abilities.

101

VITA

102

VITA

TRICIA FLORENCE MASE

Date of Birth October 29, 1979 Place of Birth New Haven, CT High School North Branford High School North Branford, CT Conferred June 1997 Bachelors of Science Trinity College Psychology Hartford, CT Conferred May 2001 Master of Science Fordham University in Education New York, NY Bilingual School Psychology Conferred May 2009 Doctor of Philosophy Fordham University School Psychology New York, NY Conferred May 2011 Current Position Intern Pleasantville, NY