|
...more correct words per minute (CWPM) on oral reading fluency; (b) discrepancy benchmark criteria, with performance on these measures at or above the mean of not-at-risk peers; and (c) discrepancy slope criteria, with growth during grade 1 on these measures at or above the mean of not-at-risk peers. The sample consisted of 81 students (41 intervention, 40 comparison) who were bilingual (Spanish/English) and were part of a supplemental reading instruction study during first grade. The three grade 1 criteria were evaluated in relation to a set benchmark criteria in grade 2. Results indicated that approximately 80% of the students did not meet any criteria in either year, but that the discrepancy slope criteria in grade 1 were most predictive of set benchmark criteria in grade 2. Recognizing that we applied highly stringent criteria, implications and issues are presented related to using RTI with ELLs to facilitate decision making about further intervention and referral for special education.
**********
A longstanding concern in special education has been the over- and under-representation of students from linguistically diverse groups in special education due to inappropriate assessment and instruction (Donovan & Cross, 2002). These concerns have not been unfounded. Disenchantment with the use of IQ-achievement discrepancy to identify children with learning disabilities (LD) has been growing, as increasing evidence has emerged that it does not discriminate between IQ-discrepant and nondiscrepant low achievers and other subgroups of low-performing students (Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). Furthermore, consensus reports (Donovaan & Cross, 2002; Fletcher et al., 2002; President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002) agree that learning problems are common in schools, and that lack of appropriate instruction can lead to identification for disability in students. Minority students and English language learners (ELLs) are at greater risk since many also live below the poverty level--another factor that increases risk for academic failure. Combined these factors have contributed to the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education.
In the case of ELLs, additional factors that must be considered in making instructional and eligibility decisions are language of instruction and opportunity to learn English as well as opportunity to learn in general. Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), there is now an emphasis on doing what is effective based on scientific research and on the academic progress of every child, including those learning English. To ensure that ELLs are making progress, students are assessed in reading and mathematics and are assessed annually to measure how well they are learning English (NCLB, 2002).
After several years of increased funding for research focusing on ELLs, the knowledge base on their instructional needs has grown exponentially. In particular, the field has made strides in identifying effective instructional and assessment practices (see Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kiefer, & Rivera, 2006). Therefore, we are now better poised to provide ELLs receiving English reading instruction in the early grades instruction that is research-based.
Research-Based Reading Instruction and ELLs
Various intervention studies with ELLs have provided findings showing that these students benefit from instruction that includes (a) the essential components of reading, (b) features of effective instruction, and (c) development of English language skills (Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004; Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, & Black, 2002; Vaughn, Mathes et al., 2006). Effective interventions are comprehensive when they appropriately address reading components based on students' grade and learning needs: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency building, vocabulary and comprehension.
In intervention studies that provided additional reading instruction to ELLs, students who received comprehensive instruction had better outcomes than students in comparison conditions in at least one area of reading. If, on the other hand, instruction focused on just one element such as fluency building, there were no differences with comparison students (Gersten et al., 2006).
Second, instructional elements common to all the interventions included explicit and systematic instruction that incorporated elements of direct instruction. Additionally, instruction provided enough practice items so that students had multiple opportunities to use the target skill and receive feedback as needed prior to independent practices. Instruction at the letter, word, and connected text level was fast-paced to build automaticity. It also included both decoding and encoding practice. Ensuring that students mastered instructional elements provided them a foundation of reading knowledge and skills. Finally, interventions had built-in review of all elements taught.
Third, in interventions that interspersed language support activities to build oral language improvement intervention, students outperformed comparison students on several reading measures (Gersten et al., 2006).
Assessment and ELLs
There is also evidence that many of the basic reading assessments and procedures for identifying ELLs at risk for reading disabilities are valid and reliable. The most persuasive research has addressed measures that focus on foundational literacy skills. These are the measures most useful in identifying students early who will benefit from supplemental instruction associated with the prevention of later reading difficulties. Measures of phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, and word reading are particularly useful. Identification in a prevention model does not indicate that students have a learning difficulty but that they need additional instruction to develop early literacy skills (Francis et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2006).
Prior research with ELLs has identified reading interventions that are effective in improving reading outcomes (Denton et al., 2004; Gunn et al., 2000; Gunn et al., 2002; Vaughn, Mathes et al., 2006). In these studies, the effect of the intervention was determined by comparing differences on outcome measures between students receiving a treatment and a comparison group. Outperforming a comparison group provides relevant information about the effectiveness of the overall intervention; however, questions regarding the number of students who continue to be at risk and procedures for determining the risk status of students are understudied and not specified for ELLs. Thus, the use of RTI as a prevention model and a data source for informing identification of ELLs requires further investigation.
Response to Intervention
RTI as a preventive approach includes the use of students' learning rate and level of performance to make instructional decisions. Students exhibiting difficulty in learning to read are provided intervention and given time to acquire reading skills before they are referred for special education. Under the recent reauthorization of IDEA, eligibility and identification criteria now include the following: "The LEA may use a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation" (IDEA, 2004). However, there is no guidance on how to measure RTI, and to date little research has addressed this issue with ELLs (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater, & Cirino, 2006).
How Do We Determine RTI?
Despite an examination of this question by various researchers (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; McMasters, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005), currently, there is no consensus on how to determine response or which measures are most effective for discriminating responders from nonresponders. In the absence of consensus on this issue, performance level, most often...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
%20%20&position=1)