IN SPITE OF THE
DIFFERENT LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND OF STUDENTS’ TWO LANGUAGES, THE
PLANNING AND WRITING
STRATEGIES ACQUIRED IN FIRST LANGUAGE ARE TRANSFERABLE
TO SECOND LANGUAGE AMONG BILINGUAL
STUDENTS.
FINDINGS: NAPLAN RESULTS
The children‘ s achievements in English literacy were tested with the NAPLAN test. The literacy assessment task measures student achievements in reading, writing and language conventions. The results are reported on a scale from Band 1 to Band 10. Children from Year 3 are reported across the range of Band 1 to Band 6. The minimum expected level( benchmark) for Year 3 students is Band 2( VCAA, 2008). Figure 1 below shows the results from the six children who participated in this study. The dot in the table presents the child’ s achievement.
As can be observed from the diagrams in Figure 1, Damian is the only child who is merely at the benchmark level for the national average for general writing skills. Ivana and Simon are in the range of achievements for the middle 60 % and Angela, Maria and Petar are in the range of achievements well above the expected benchmark level, 75 % to 80 %.
Spelling is an area where Ivana and Angela are below the national benchmark level, but Angela is still in the range of achievements around the middle 60 % of Year 3 students.
Simon, Maria and Damian are also in the range of 60 %, but they are above the Year 3 student benchmark level. Petar is the only student who is well above the national benchmark level.
Another area assessed in NAPLAN is Grammar and Punctuation. Damian and Simon are below the national benchmark level. This is similar to the findings for their Macedonian writing as well, where Damian’ s sentence structure and punctuation were the weakest area. Maria is at the benchmark level and Ivana, Angela and Petar are well above the benchmark level.
In conclusion it can be said that in general the children are at or above the national benchmark level. It can also be argued that the children who showed lower levels for some areas in the NAPLAN are also weaker in Macedonian writing as well. Although spelling is an area of concern where children display confusion, it can be said that this behaviour is temporary and would gradually disappear with development of English. Baker( 1996, p. 113) argues that bilingual children will move steadily away‘ from language mixing to language compartmentalisation’ and will
Key: National Distribution
80th percentile mean 20th oercentile
Angela |
|
Maria |
|
Band 6 5 4 3 2 1 |
R W S GP N |
Band 6 5 4 3 2 1 |
R W S GP N |
Petar |
|
Ivana |
|
Band 6 5 4 3 2 1 |
R W S GP N |
Band 6 5 4 3 2 1 |
R W S GP N |
Simon |
|
Damian |
|
Band |
|
Band |
|
6 |
|
6 |
|
5 |
|
5 |
|
4 |
|
4 |
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
1 |
R W S GP N |
1 |
R W S GP N |
Figure 1: Participants’ NAPLAN results Note to figure: R = Reading, W = Writing, S = Spelling, GP = Grammar and Punctuation, N = Numeracy
22 BABEL