1 / 12

Presented by Randal I. Queen Radford University

A Meta-Analysis of Studies Examining the Effect of Whole Language Instruction on the Literacy of Low-SES Students William H. Jeynes Stephen W. Littell. Presented by Randal I. Queen Radford University. Whole Language vs. Basal Instruction. Whole Language Whole pieces of literature

federico-jara
Download Presentation

Presented by Randal I. Queen Radford University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Meta-Analysis of Studies Examining the Effect of Whole Language Instruction on the Literacy of Low-SES StudentsWilliam H. JeynesStephen W. Littell Presented by Randal I. Queen Radford University

  2. Whole Language vs. Basal Instruction • Whole Language • Whole pieces of literature • Functional language • Basal Instruction • Abridged or segmented texts • Direct instruction in isolated skills • Phonics • Child centered vs. teacher centered

  3. Purpose • To determine if whole language reading instruction is beneficial for increasing reading achievement among primary school students with low SES. • Decreasing reading achievement, especially in states that have implemented whole language • Low SES students receive little attention from Whole language advocates

  4. Importance • Accountability • “No Child Left Behind” • IDEA • Targeting low SES students • Determines success of educational program • Mathew Effect

  5. Literature Review • 1966-1994 • Method • Electronic Sources • PsychInfo • ERIC • Sociological Abstracts • Dissertation Abstracts • Studies • 16 • Reported using 14 • Data for 16 (1 w/out effect size) in table

  6. Studies & Statistical Methods • Empirical studies • Kindergarten to third-grade students w/ low SES • Statistics • Means and sd’s • T-test • F-test statistic • Pre and posttest scores • Effect Size (d) • Hedge’s “g” (pooled standard deviation)

  7. Potential Moderators • Reading Instruction • Definitional Purity • Pure, specific, broad, eclectic • Quality, duration, and year of study • Standardized vs. non-standardized outcome measures

  8. Results

  9. Standardized vs. Non-Standardized Tests

  10. Conclusions • Basal Approach is better than Whole Language for low-SES students • Especially when using standardized outcome measures • Whole language should not be totally counted out • Some positive results in purest form • More research needed

  11. Cont…… • Who wins? • Extremely political • How bout’ a little of both!!!!

  12. Criticisms • Explain more!!! • Discrepancy between written text and tables • Hard copy vs. Electronic version

More Related