Session Information
31 SES 07 B, Assessing Receptive Language Skills
Paper Session
Contribution
Reading is a crucial basis for participation in today’s society. For reading acquisition, vocabulary knowledge in the language of instruction is an important foundation. In children with a first language that differs from the language of instruction (L2 learners), this relation between vocabulary and successful reading acquisition is even stronger. Nation (1995/1996) perceives insufficient vocabulary knowledge as one of the major barriers to reading acquisition for L2 learners. Hence, challenges in the language of instruction can lead to problems in reading development (Herzog-Punzenberger & Schnell, 2012). These problems in reading development can lead to a higher risk for L2 learners suffer educational disadvantages compared to first language learners (L1 learners) (Esser, 2006).
Since vocabulary knowledge plays such an important role in education, backlogs should be identified early in order to foster vocabulary specifically in those children who need support. To identify potential problems in children’s vocabulary knowledge, instruments are needed. These instruments should be (a) easy to handle for educators, (b) not too time-consuming, (c) able to identify vocabulary issues at an early age (best before the child’s school career starts) and (d) statistically satisfying.
Frequently, instruments in the kindergarten setting rely on the observation of individual children. With these observation tools, educators need to observe and take notes for each child. The usage of group screenings to identify children with potential problems in vocabulary knowledge could save time and ease the workload for educators.
The GraWo (Grazer Wortschatztest: Seifert, Paleczek, Schwab, & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2017) is a screening instrument that was originally developed for usage in primary school settings (Grades 1-3; satisfying statistical criteria: rtt between .88 and .93; split-half-reliability .70-.87; standardized in a sample of more than 2400 students). It assesses receptive vocabulary skills, thus the processing of the form of a word presented (in this case) orally and the retrieval of its meaning (Nation, 2013). To our knowledge, there is no such instrument assessing vocabulary in a group screening in the German language for the kindergarten.
In the present study, following research questions were posed:
(1) Are educators satisfied with the current situation concerning instruments that focus on kindergarteners’ vocabulary knowledge?
(2) Is the usage of a group screening possible with kindergarteners?
(3) If so, which factors need to be considered (group size, group constellation, answering mode for the children in the group, duration, L1 and L2 learners, etc.)?
Method
To answer these research questions, three types of data gathering were used in different phases of the study. In a first step, to gain information about the needs of educators concerning vocabulary instruments, an online-survey was sent to all kindergartens in the federal state of Styria (in Austria). In the survey, questions about background information (age, experience as a kindergartener, first language, etc.) were asked. Additionally, the educators’ satisfaction with instruments currently used in kindergartens to gain knowledge about children’s vocabulary knowledge was addressed. Furthermore, we asked educators which settings and modes of conducting a group screening like the GraWo (choosing one out of four pictures that matches the word said) they could imagine as possible with kindergarteners in their last year of kindergarten. Overall, 129 educators (128 female and 123 with German as their first language), aged 42.17 years (SD = 10.73) with approximately 20.91 years of experience in kindergarten service (SD = 11.29) completely answered the questionnaire. In a second step, based on the answers obtained through the online survey, a piloting observation study was conducted with 13 children (7 female and 7 L1 learners). Three different settings and modes of conducting the group screening were implemented and observed to gain knowledge about advantages and disadvantages of the settings and modes proposed by the educators. In a third step, the setting that fit best for this age group was chosen to conduct the GraWo with groups of kindergarteners. This served for first validation purposes. Overall, 103 children (44 female, 64 L1 learners, aged 5.74) participated. They were asked to conduct three different tests: (a) the GraWo (b) another vocabulary test that was conducted in individual settings in order to test for convergent validation (SET 5-10: productive vocabulary subtest; Petermann, 2018) and (c) a test for mathematical competences in order to assure for divergent validation (ERT 0+: compare quantities subtest; Lenart, Schaupp & Holzer, 2014).
Expected Outcomes
The online survey revealed a tendency to dissatisfaction in educators (1=very satisfied to 8=not satisfied at all: M=4.49; SD=1.76) with existing observation instruments. When asked for the setting seen as most fit for conducting a group screening like the GraWo, educators were most likely to imagine group sizes of 2 to 4 children. They judged 10 to 15 minutes to be the maximum amount of concentration on the task for kindergarteners. When asked about the mode that could be used for kindergarteners to be best able to mark the target picture, they opted for either stamping or ticking the picture. In the piloting observation, group sizes of up to 6 children worked out well. Moreover, the marking mode of stamping the target image was favored as it was less distracting, less disheveling and less time consuming than using pens for ticking the target image. To check the validity, we analyzed the correlations between the GraWo and (a) the productive vocabulary subtest of the SET 5-10 and (b) the subtest of the ERT 0+ (compare quantities). As assumed, there was a relatively high correlation of r = .76 (p<.01) between the GraWo (receptive vocabulary) and the SET 5-10 (productive vocabulary) and a lower correlation of r = .60 (p<.01) between the GraWo and the ERT 0+ (compare quantities). The preliminary results will be discussed in the light of educators’ needs for improved and standardized screening assessments to identify L1 and L2 learners who need support in vocabulary skills at an early stage.
References
Esser, H. (2006). Migration, Sprache und Integration. Berlin: Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche Integration, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Hartmann, W., Stoll, M., Kneidinger, L., Hutz, M., Pfohl-Chalaupek, M., Hajszan, M. et al. (2009). Bildungsplan-Anteil zur sprachlichen Förderung in elementaren Bildungseinrichtungen. Im Auftrag des bmukk erstellt durch das Charlotte-Bühler-institut für praxisorientierte Kleinkindforschung. http://www.sprich-mit-mir.at/app/webroot/files/file/bildungsplananteilsprache.pdf Herzog-Punzenberger, B., & Schnell, P. (2012). Die Situation mehrsprachiger Schüler/innen im österreichischen Schulsystem – Problemlagen, Rahmenbedingungen und internationaler Vergleich. In B. Herzog-Punzenberger (Hrsg.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich, Band 2, Fokussierte Analysen bildungspolitischer Schwerpunktthemen (S. 229-268). Graz: Leykam. Lenart, F., Schaupp, H., & Holzer, N. (2014). Eggenberger Rechentest 0+ - ERT 0+. Diagnostikum für Dyskalkulie-Disposition für das Ende des Kindergartenalters bis Mitte der 1. Schulstufe. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Lewis. M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language teaching Publications. Nation, I.S.P. (1995/1996). Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning. EA Journal, 3(2), 7-15. Nation, I.S.P. (2013). Learning Vocabulary in another language. 2. Aufl. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Petermann, F. (2012). Sprachstandserhebungstest für Kinder im Alter zwischen 5 und 10 Jahren – SET 5-10. 2. Aufl. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Seifert, S., Paleczek, L., Schwab, S., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2017). Grazer Wortschatztest – GraWo. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.