Reading Interventions for English Language Learners

1
Reading Interventions for English Language
Learners

• Sylvia Linan-Thompson
• The University of Texas at Austin
• OSEP Project Directors Meeting
• August 2006

2
Acknowledgements

• Oracy/Literacy Development Spanish-Speaking
  Children 1 P01 HD39521-01
• Sharon Vaughn, PhD, University of Texas-Austin
• Sylvia Linan-Thompson, PhD, University of
  Texas-Austin
• Patricia Mathes, PhD, Southern Methodist
  University
• Sharolyn Duradola, PhD, Texas a M University
• Elsa Cardenas-Hagan, University of Houston
• David Francis, PhD, University of Houston
• Paul Cirino, PhD, University of Houston
• Coleen Carlson, PhD, University of Houston

3
Background

• Some Spanish speaking children will struggle to
  become readers, regardless of the language of
  instruction (English or Spanish)
• Much of what we know about teaching reading to
  native English speaking struggling readers
  applies to teaching native Spanish speaking
  struggling readers
• Thus, interventions designed to teach reading
  should be effective in either Spanish or English
• Oral language development and ESL strategies are
  critical additions to reading interventions for
  Spanish speaking students

4
Intervention Framework

• Prevention and intervention are viewed as a
  continuum
• Basic concepts and foundational skills taught are
  the same
• The level of intensity varies
• Progress monitoring is used to chart student
  progress

5
We included principles of

• Direct Instruction (Carnine, Silbert, Kameenui,
  1997)
• Effective instruction
• Grouping format
• Multiple opportunities for practice
• Teaching to mastery
• Teaching procedures
• English as a Second Language

6
Instructional Design Integrated Strands
Vocabulary and Concept Knowledge
Encoding
Phonemic Awareness
Letter-Sound Recognition
Word Recognition
Repeated Connected Text Reading
Comprehension Strategies
7
Intervention Design

• 50 minutes per day October-May
• 14 Teacher to Student ratio
• Provided in addition to normal language arts
  instruction
• Explicit instruction in synthetic phonics, with
  emphasis on fluency
• Integrates decoding, fluency, and comprehension
  strategies
• 100 decodable text English)
• Carefully constructed scope and sequence designed
  to prevent possible confusions

8
Lesson Cycle

• Reading Lesson (_at_ 35 minutes)
• Embedded Language Support
• (_at_ 5 minutes)
• Story Retell (_at_ 10 minutes)

9
Research Design

• The language of the intervention was matched to
  the language of the students core reading
  instruction.
• Spanish
• Cohort 1
• 33 students received supplemental intervention
• 34 students received classroom instruction only
• Cohort 2
• 42 students received supplemental intervention
• 47 students received classroom instruction only
• English
• Cohort 1
• 25 students received supplemental intervention
• 25 students received classroom instruction only
• Cohort 2
• 45 received supplemental intervention
• 49 received classroom instruction only

10
Results for Spanish InterventionCohort 1
Statistically significant differences in favor of
Spanish Intervention treatment group for outcomes
in Spanish. Time ? Treatment Interaction effects
for

• Letter sounds
• Blending phonemes words and non-words
• Word attack
• Oral reading fluency Spanish
• Passage comprehension
• Overall language development

11
Results for Spanish InterventionCohort 2
Statistically significant differences in favor of
Spanish Intervention treatment group for outcomes
in Spanish. Time ? Treatment Interaction effects
for

• PA composite
• Letter sound identification
• Word attack
• DIBELS, BOY

12
Results for English Intervention Cohort 1

• Statistically significant differences in favor of
  English Intervention treatment group for outcomes
  in English. Time ? Treatment Interaction effects
  for
• Letter naming fluency
• Letter sound identification
• Phonological composite (sound matching, blending
  words, blending non-words, segmenting words,
  elision)
• Word attack
• Dictation
• Passage comprehension

13
Results for English InterventionCohort 2

• Statistically significant differences in favor of
  English Intervention treatment group for outcomes
  in English. Time ? Treatment Interaction effects
  for
• Letter sound identification
• Letter word identification
• Phonological composite
• Word attack
• DIBELS, BOY

14
Benchmark-Comparison
End of 1st grade End of 2nd grade
T C T C
Both WA PC above SS 95 29/40 31/46 72 67 26/40 23/46 65 50
Both WA PC above SS 95 and ORF (40/70) 7/40 9/46 17 19 9/40 11/46 22 23
15
Gain-Comparison
End of 1st grade End of 2nd grade
T C T C
2 words/week gain 2/40 3/46 5 6 0/40 0/46 0 0
No discrepancy w/longitudinal sample 26/40 20/46 65 43 23/40 22/46 57 47
16
Summary

• Use of just SS on WA and PC seems to over
  identify responders.
• When looking at gains on cwpm on ORF, at-risk
  students can match longitudinal sample but not
  set criterion.
• Few students are meeting ORF benchmark.
• Few differences between treatment and control
  except on gain when compared to longitudinal
  sample

17
Benchmark-Comparison
End of 1st grade End of 2nd grade
T C T C
Both WA PC above SS 95 16/40 11/36 40 30 13/40 9/36 32 25
Both WA PC above SS 95 and ORF (40/70) 3/40 2/36 7 5 8/40 4/36 20 11
18
Gain-Comparison
End of 1st grade End of 2nd grade
T C T C
2 words/week gain 2/40 1/36 5 2 7/40 3/36 17 8
No discrepancy w/longitudinal sample 4/40 4/36 10 11 16/40 10/36 40 27
19
Summary

• Second year of instruction seems to be
  critical--possibly students need the time to
  acquire more English skills and more practice
  reading.
• Treatment group performs better than control at
  second grade.
• Use of just SS on WA and PC seems to over
  identify responders.
• Mix between standard and comparison to peers in
  terms of how many students meet criteria.