Final Report: Implementation and Pilot Study
37
PKOMW DLL Students (n = 9)
Comparison DLL Students (n = 9)
Overall DLL Sample (N = 18)
9th grade- 12th grade no diploma
11.10%
11.10%
11.10%
High school graduate or GED
33.30%
44.40%
38.90%
Some college but no degree
22.20%
22.20%
22.20%
Associates degree (AA or AS)
0
11.10%
5.60%
Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, or AB)
11.10%
11.10%
11.10%
Graduate or professional degree
0
11.10%
5.60%
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Average number of students enrolled in class
17.10
6.56
23.67**
.49
19.48
1.06
English Screener
14.78
7.65
18.78
1.71
16.78
5.76
Note. Demographic information is missing for one child. † marginally higher, p <.10
*significant difference, p < .05 **significant difference p < .01 ***significant difference, p < .001
Examination of Group Differences in the DLL Sample Accounting for Key Contextual Factors .
For this set of ANCOVA analyses, we restricted the sample to only include DLL students in the PKOMW and comparison classrooms. In these analyses, we controlled for income, parents’ highest level of education, and number of students in classrooms. We also controlled for students ’ language screener score because the DLLs in this sample demonstrated a range of English language abilities, as demonstrated by their performance on the English screener. All analyses used students ’ English assessment scores, thus controlling for DLL students ’ English level helps partition out the variance in outcomes that can be attributed to language proficiency. In these analyses, we found that DLL students in the PKOMW classrooms performed higher in expressive and receptive vocabulary and math than DLLs in the comparison group, (See Table 8).
Table 8. Comparisons Between DLL PKOMW and Comparison Students Accounting for Contextual Variables
PKOMW DLLs (n = 9)
Comparison DLLs (n = 9)
M
SD
M
SD
Receptive Vocabulary
86.20***
19.76
72.00
4.07
Expressive Vocabulary
98.13*
9.93
83.13
3.83
Literacy
94.60
15.12
89.25
12.85
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs