Russell Gersten, Ph'D'

1

RECENT RESEARCH On ENGLISH LEARNERS Screening,
Progress Monitoring Interventions

• Presented by
• Russell Gersten, Ph.D.
• Instructional Research Group
• Long Beach, CA
• rgersten_at_inresg.org

2
Research Trends

• Until recently, there has been a limited amount
  of scientific research on the instructional needs
  of ELL students.
• With Federal support, higher accountability
  demands, and interest in second language reading
  in Canada, U. S. and Holland, there has been a
  dramatic increase in research.
• Approximately a five-fold increase in the past
  two years.

3
Focus of this Presentation

• Contemporary research findings with relevance to
  reading instruction in K-3.

4
Approach

• Explain the type of research (briefly) and
  relevant findings.
• Explore possible implications.
• Will not over-extrapolate.

5
What Does the Research Say AboutEarly
Identification?

• For ELLs, as for Native speakers, Phonological
  processing measures are excellent predictors of
  potential at risk status.
• This is true if measures are administered in
  English.
• (It is also true for Spanish measures of phonemic
  awareness).
• Valid beginning end of K.
• Same true for letter naming measures.

6
What about Letter Naming Skill?

• Equally good predictor in English.
• A good idea to do in both languages when
  feasible.
• Letter knowledge unlike phonemic awareness does
  not transfer easily across languages.
• Naming speed/ability to remember abstract
  material does transfer (often called RAN).

7
Myth of Waiting until a Child Has English
proficiency

• Oral language proficiency measures (English) are
  poor predictors of subsequent reading
  performance.
• No need to wait!
• Geva and Wade-Wooley (1998) conclude
• No need to wait until students have good oral
  proficiency in English before teaching reading.
• No need to wait until students are proficient in
  English before screening for students who may
  need extra support.
• A child with weak English language and high PSF
  will (fill in).

8
Other Relevant Findings

• English language proficiency does play a strong
  role in Discourse Comprehension, also known as
  Listening Comprehension.
• This pays off in the long haul.

9
Replication of These Findings on Reading

• Chiappe, Siegel Wade-Wooley, 2002, Scientific
  Studies of Reading.
• Gersten, Baker, Haager Graves, 2005, Remedial
  and Special Education.
• Comparable research from Holland by Verhoeven and
  colleagues.

10
What does it mean if an ELL is below benchmark on
English language measures?
Issues -Assess in both native language and
English? -Align to language of reading
instruction?
11
Studies by Geva, Siegel and Chiappe

• Reading defined as accurate word reading and
  comprehension.
• Used full sample of teachers.
• Compared English Learners to native speakers
  (including Punjabi, Mandarin, Portuguese), often
  in multilingual classrooms.

12
Phonological Awareness Surprises

• Phonological processing of ELL students can
  develop at a higher performance level than their
  English-speaking peers.
• ELL students tend to attack sounds in a more
  strategic fashion, possibly because they have a
  heightened attention to sound (Morris et al., in
  preparation).

13
Big Picture

• -In general reading achievement in K-2 is similar
  for English learners and others if instruction
  covers the full array of critical skills
  systematically.

14
Reading First ELL vs. Non-ELL Students1st Grade
Spring ORF Benchmark Rates by Fall NWF Risk
Status Group
ns
ns

15
The Upper Elementary Grades

• Beginnings of A Knowledge Base

16
Correlates of Reading Comprehension

• Study of Grades 3 and 5 ELLs.
• Wiley Deno, 2005, RASE.
• Looked at predictive validity of oral reading
  fluency measure.
• Only included lowest half of students (it is an
  underestimate).

17
Correlations between Oral Reading Fluency and
State Reading Assessment
18
What are the Correlates of Fourth Grade
Reading?(all administered in English)ALL GIVEN
THE SAME TIME

• Listening Comprehension
• Vocabulary
• What measures are not directly related to reading
  comprehension
• Alphabetic Knowledge
• Word reading fluency
• Note Students topped out in alphabetic knowledge
  and were not given a measure of fluency with
  connected text.

19
Think-Pair-Share 1

• Why are screening measures such as PSF
  administered in English valid for English
  learners in reading even if a student knows
  little English?
• Develop a gist statement for screening English
  learners in K and first.

20
Interventions for Struggling Readers

• Converging Evidence

21
Acknowledgments

• Based in part on materials developed by
• Sylvia Linan-Thompson,
• PhD, University of Texas-Austin
• Research conducted by
• Sharon Vaughn Colleagues
• Carolyn Denton Colleagues
• Barbara Gunn Colleagues

22
Assumptions Underlying the Studies

• Much of what we know about teaching reading to
  native English speaking struggling readers
  applies to teaching native Spanish speaking
  struggling readers.
• Oral language development and ESL strategies are
  critical additions to reading interventions for
  Spanish speaking students.

23
Commonalities

• Basic principles of explicit instruction used in
  all.
• All were scripted or semi-scripted.
• All were English language reading interventions.
• All used small group instruction (3-5) daily.

24
Components Underlying the Reading and Pre Reading
Lessons

• Explicit systematic instruction in phonics,
  phonemic awareness as well as
• Activities that build fluency in reading
  connected text are critical.
• Reading decodable texts and preteaching, and
• Intensive work on vocabulary and comprehension.

25
The Nature of the Studies

• All were English Learners.
• Two addressed grade 1 students who scored below
  25th percentile in Woodcock Word Reading in both
  English and Spanish.
• One addressed students in grades 2-5 reading at
  first grade level.
• One addressed students in grades 2-4 with
  significant reading difficulties.

26
The Three Specific Interventions

• SRA Reading Mastery/ Corrective Reading.
• Read Well.
• Enhanced Proactive (including ELD activities).

27
Research Designs

• All used randomized trials/ high quality designs.
• All assessed implementation.
• All were done only in English to increase
  generalizablitiy.
• All will soon be posted on What Works
  Clearinghouse website.
• Two included follow-up of students.
• Lasted two years (SRA) or one full school year.

28
Results
29
Follow-up One Year Later
Effects for Proactive appear to be maintained one
year later.
30
Impact on Early Language Development
31
All Included Principles of

• Direct Instruction (Carnine, Silbert, Kameenui,
  1997).
• Grouping format (3 to 5).
• Multiple opportunities for practice KEY.
• Teaching to mastery.
• Corrective feedback.

32
Instructional Design of Proactive Integrated
Strands (about 4 days)
Vocabulary and Concept Knowledge
Phonemic Awareness
Encoding
Letter-Sound Recognition
Word Recognition
Repeated Connected Text Reading
Comprehension Strategies
33
Intervention Design Proactive

• 50 minutes per day October-May.
• 14 Teacher to Student ratio.
• Probably closer to what we would call Tier 3
  intervention.
• First graders were below 25th percentile in
  Letter-Word ID in both English and Spanish.

34
Lesson Cycle

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

35
Research Design Enhanced Proactive

• Random assignment of students in four schools
• Cohort 1
• 25 students received intervention.
• 25 students classroom instruction only.
• Cohort 2
• 45 supplemental intervention.
• 49 classroom instruction only.

36
Interventions

• Comprehensive reading interventions that include
• -Phonological awareness (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson
  et al. in press Vaughn, Mathes et al. in press).
  
• -Word attack (Denton et al., 2004 Vaughn,
  Linan-Thompson et al. in press Vaughn, Mathes et
  al. in press).
• -Fluency (Gunn et al., 2000 Vaughn,
  Linan-Thompson et al. in press).
• -Comprehension (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson et al. in
  press Vaughn, Mathes et al. in press).

37
Instructional Practices

• Grouping format.
• Multiple opportunities for practice.
• Teaching to mastery.
• Teaching procedures.
• Fast paced
• Explicit
• Built in review

38
(No Transcript)
39
Phonics

• Systematic instruction in
• letter-sound correspondences,
• decoding, and
• English language use
• Practice in using sounds to spell.

40
Fluency

• Opportunities to participate in choral reading.
• Opportunities to practice fluent reading with a
  partner.
• Opportunities to monitor own timed readings.

41
Vocabulary

• Focused on a small number of critical words prior
  to reading.
• Taught critical instructional words.
• Taught the meaning of words used during
  instruction.
• Used a variety of methods to teach vocabulary
  such as visually presenting words, defining them,
  using gestures, and realia to illustrate key
  features prior to reading.

42
Comprehension

• Taught comprehension strategies explicitly
• predicting
• summarizing
• making inferences
• Built background knowledge before reading.

43
Research-based Practices Incorporated within the
Read Aloud/Story Retell Procedure

• Activate Relevant Background Knowledge
• Activate and utilize students background
  knowledge within the storys content as a support
  for comprehension and vocabulary retention
  (Schifini, 1994 Ulanoff Pucci, 1999).
• Keep it brief snappy and RELEVANT.

44
Integrate New Knowledge with Prior Knowledge

• Integrate the teaching of word meanings within
  the content and context of the story, rather than
  relying on a separate list of vocabulary words.
  Show connections between words (e.g., word
  families, etc.) (Au, 1993 Nagy, 1988).

45
Select Rich, Descriptive Vocabulary

• Focus on basic vocabulary that is difficult to
  visualize as well as vocabulary that is rich and
  descriptive as a means of increasing student
  challenge and maintaining engagement (Anderson
  Roit, 1998 Gersten Baker, 2000).
• E.g. Terrain, adjust, enrage, challenge (use
  pictures to show array of examples).

46
How About Tier I Words They Dont Know?

• This is where teaching ELLs is different than
  native speakers
• Include critical Tier I words.
• Use pictures, demonstrations, synonyms.
• Ask for and provide definitions.
• Let kids teach them to each other.
• Model and ask students to provide sentences.

47
Extended Discourse

• Encourage/coax/request higher level, elaborated
  responses with regard to vocabulary, syntax, and
  usage (Anderson Roit, 1998 Au, 1993).
• Use elaborated language to children (e.g. instead
  of put this here, say put the scissors in the
  box in the back of the room).

48
Story Retell Procedures

• Preview the book and assess prior knowledge.
• Introduce reinforce 2-4 vocabulary words.
• Read the book aloud.
• Students retell what was read.
• System Child 1 retells, child 2 makes addition,
  Child 3 integrates the high points.

49
Through the Story Retell Activity

• Taught difficult vocabulary prior and used the
  words in context.
• Structured opportunities to speak English in
  sophisticated ways.
• Used these stories for ELD.
• Comfortable small group atmosphere.

50
Conclusion Strength of Studies

• Specific factors that appear to have contributed
  to the success of the intervention are
• the use of comprehensive reading instruction that
  explicitly and systematically builds English
  language skills during reading instruction.
• explicit teaching of English letter/sound
  correspondences, word patterns and spelling
  rules.
• introduction of skills in isolation and practice
  in context.

51
Conclusion

• Vocabulary development and emphasizing the
  relationships between and among words to build
  oral language skills.
• Story retells that target both comprehension and
  language development.
• This area needs further development.

52
Think Pair Share 2

• What feature of the first grade reading
  interventions seems most important to your group?
  Why?
• What does the data suggest about intensive early
  interventions in terms of the various areas of
  reading word reading, fluent reading of
  connected text, vocabulary and comprehension
  (Gist statement)?

53
References

• www.whatworkshelpdesk.ed.gov
• Denton, C.A. (2000). The efficacy of two english
  interventions in a bilingual education program.
  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas AM
  University, College Station.
• Denton, C.A., Anthony, J.L., Parker, R.,
  Hasbrouck, J.E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring
  programs on the english reading development of
  Spanish-English bilingual students. The
  Elementary School Journal, 104, 289-305.
• Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., Ary, D.
  (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction
  in decoding skills for hispanic and non-hispanic
  students in early elementary school. The Journal
  of Special Education, 34, 90-103.
• Gunn, B. Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A. Black, C.
  (2002). Supplementary instruction in decoding
  skills for hispanic and non-hispanic students in
  early elementary school A follow-up. The Journal
  of Special Education, 36, 69-79.
• Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S.,
  Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Cardenas-Hagan,
  E., Fletcher, J., Francis, D. (in press).
  Effectiveness of a spanish intervention and an
  english intervention for english language
  learners at risk for reading problems. American
  Educational Research Journal.
• Vaughn S., Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S.,
  Cirino, P.T., Carlson, C.D., Pollard-Durodola,
  S.D., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D.J. (in
  press). Effectiveness of an english intervention
  for first-grade english language learners at-risk
  for reading problems. Elementary School Journal.

54
References

• Baker, S., Gersten, R., Haager, D., Goldenberg,
  C., Dingle, M. (In press). The relationship
  between observed teaching practice and growth in
  reading in first graders who are English
  learners. Elementary School Journal.
• Chiappe, P., Siegel, L., Wade-Wooley, L.
  (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development
  of reading skills A longitudinal study.
  Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369-400.
• Droop, M., Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language
  proficiency and reading ability in
  first-and-second-language learners. Reading
  Research Quarterly, 38, 78-103.
• Gersten, R., Baker, S., Haager, D., Graves A.
  (2005). Exploring the role of teacher quality in
  predicting reading outcomes for first grade
  English learners An observational study.
  Remedial Special Education, 26, 197-206.
• Geva, E., Wade-Wooley, L., Shany, M. (1993).
  The concurrent development of spelling and
  decoding in two different orthographies. Journal
  of Reading Behavior, 25, 383-406.
• Wiley, H.I., Deno, S.L. (2005). Oran reading
  and maze measures as predictors of success for
  English learners on a state standards assessment.
  Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.