early literacy interventions with spanish support for english language learners elizabeth arellano...
TRANSCRIPT
Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners
Elizabeth ArellanoCatherine Tung
Mike Vanderwood, Ph.D.University of California, Riverside
Agenda
Review research in areas of early literacy and English language learners (ELLs)
Examine results of a recent literacy intervention study with ELLs
Discuss implications for practice
ELLs in Schools
Increasing number of ELLs in schools (National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition, 2007)
By 2030, ELLs expected to represent 40% of students (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2003).
79% are Spanish-speaking (Kindler, 2002)
Early Literacy
Early literacy skills are critical for reading success (Torgesen, 2002).
Poor readers in primary grades have a high probability of remaining poor readers in later grades (Felton & Wood, 1992; Juel, 1988).
Poor readers tend to struggle in other subject areas (Gersten, Clarke, & Mazzocoo, 2007; Juel, 1988).
Lack of proficiency in reading associated with negative social outcomes, including school withdrawal & delinquent behavior (Bennett, Brown, Boyle, Racine, & Offord, 2003; Slavin, Karweit, & Wasik, 1994).
Early Literacy & ELLs
ELLs have much lower literacy skills than native speakers (NAEP, 2007)
70% of 4th grade ELLs are ‘below basic’ in reading compared to 31% of native speakers (NAEP, 2007)
ELLs among those most at risk for reading difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) & placements into special
education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005)
Response to Intervention (RTI) Prevention model that uses a problem solving
approach designed to improve academic outcomes for all students (Hollenbeck, 2007)
Focuses on prevention & early intervention
Uses research-based instructional practices
Frequent progress monitoring
Data-based decision making to improve student performance
RTI
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Universal
Targeted
Intensive
10-15%
5-10%
75-85%
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Standardized general outcome measures that have
been shown to be highly reliable, valid, sensitive to student growth, & capable of developing growth standards (Deno, 1985)
Effective for screening & progress monitoring both native English speakers & ELLs (Baker, & Good, 1995; Busch & Reschly, 2007; Deno, 2005)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
Technically adequate measures for screening & progress monitoring at-risk students (Kaminski, Cummings, Powell-Smith, & Good, 2008).
Indicators of basic early literacy skills: Phonological awareness (PSF), alphabetic principle (NWF), fluency (ORF), & comprehension (Maze)
Risk status: low risk/established, some risk/emerging, or at risk/deficit
DIBELS - English Speakers & ELLs
PSF & NWF effective measures for native English speakers (Felton & Pepper, 1995; Torgesen, Wagner, & Roshotte, 1994)
PSF & NWF just as effective & predictive with ELLs (Vanderwood, Linklater, & Healy, 2008)
Phonological Awareness
Levels of PA: Rhyming, recognizing patterns of rhymes, blending phonemes, segmenting phonemes, & manipulating phonemes (Adams, 1990)
Strong predictor of early reading proficiency for English speakers (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994) & ELLs (Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993)
Transfers between languages (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003)
Early Literacy Interventions
Significantly improves reading levels among ELLs (Slavin & Cheung, 2003), particularly those that target phonological awareness (Phillips, McNaughton, & MacDonald, 2004)
Some research has indicated that ELLs maintain their acquired reading skills long after intervention (Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005)
However, other research has indicated otherwise (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Hickman-Davis, 2003)
Early Literacy Interventions
Linan-Thompson et al. (2005) examined the effects of a supplementary Spanish intervention among kindergarteners at risk for reading problems.
Intervention components: Phonological awareness, phonics, word reading, sentence
reading, writing, & spelling. Mixed Results
Purpose of Present Study
To examine the outcomes of a targeted PA intervention for first grade ELLs with low English proficiency.
To examine the outcomes of an added Spanish component on the effects of the intervention.
Methods – Participants
Inclusion criteria Spanish speaking ELLs (California English Language
Development Test level 1 or 2) Below 25th percentile on both PSF & NWF during fall
screening
Sample characteristics Original sample of 18 participants (1 moved, 1
removed due to behavior difficulties) Final sample of 16 (10 males, 6 females) from 6 first
grade classrooms
Methods – Measures
DIBELS early literacy measures were used for screening and progress monitoring. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)
Other measuresCalifornia English Language Development
Test (CELDT): Assessment of English language proficiency.
Methods – Intervention
Uses instructional practices recommended for English language learners (Gersten & Geva, 2003): Explicit instruction, interactive teaching, opportunities to respond, and corrective feedback.
Consists of 12 sessions of approximately 30 minutes of phonological awareness instruction.
Methods – Intervention Session format
Vocabulary Phoneme Production/Replication Phoneme Segmentation and Counting Phoneme Blending Phoneme Isolation Rhyming
Spanish component Additional 15 minutes of instruction in Phoneme
Segmentation & Counting, Phoneme Blending, & Phoneme Isolation.
Methods – Procedures
Students randomly assigned to intervention conditions 2 groups of English-only (6 males & 2 females) 2 groups of English + Spanish (4 males & 4 females)
Intervention conducted 5 days per week for 11 weeks English intervention: 30 minute sessions for all 4 groups Spanish component:15 minutes for 2 of the 4 groups
twice per week Exit criteria: PSF > 35 & NWF > 50 Students’ progress monitored weekly using PSF & NWF
Methods – Procedures
Treatment fidelity 98% fidelity for 76% of the sessions
Interventionist 1 (Eng): 95% Interventionist 2 (Eng): 97% Interventionist 3 (Eng): 98% Interventionist 4 (Eng): 99% Interventionist 5 (Span): 98% Interventionist 6 (Span): 99%
English: outside observer Spanish: self-checklist
Interrater reliability 91% reliability for 10% of DIBELS administrations
Results Based on progress monitoring data, 88% of the
intervention students met benchmark ( > 35) on PSF and 62.5% met the benchmark ( > 50) on NWF.
PSF (Fall & Winter) NWF (Fall) NWF (Winter)
0 - 9 Deficit 0 - 12 At Risk 0 - 29 Deficit
10 - 34 Emerging 13 - 23 Some Risk 30 - 49 Emerging
> 35 Established > 24 Low Risk > 50 Established
Results A dependent samples t-test revealed significant
differences between pre-intervention scores and post-intervention scores on both PSF (t = 9.91; p < .00) and NWF (t = 8.61; p < .00).
All Participants (PSF) All Participants (NWF)
Before After Before After
Deficit 37.5% (6) 6% (1) At-Risk / Deficit 25% (4) 12.5% (2)
Emerging 62.5% (10) 6% (1) Some Risk / Emerging 44% (7) 25% (4)
Established 0% 88% (14) Low Risk / Established 31% (5) 62.5% (10)
All Participants (PSF)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Deficit Emerging Established
DIBELS Status
% S
tud
en
ts
Before
After
All Participants (NWF)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
At-Risk / Deficit Some Risk /Emerging
Low Risk /Established
DIBELS Status
% S
tud
en
ts
Before
After
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
Variables M SD M SD
PSF 14.88 12.52 47.81 17.11
NWF 19.13 11.24 47.00 14.95
Results An independent samples t-test revealed no
significant differences between the English only intervention group and the English + Spanish intervention group on PSF (t = .71; p =.62).
English Only (PSF)
Before After
Deficit 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1)
Emerging 62.5% (5) 0%
Established 0% 87.5% (7)
English + Spanish (PSF)
Before After
Deficit 37.5% (3) 0%
Emerging 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1)
Established 0% 87.5% (7)
English Only (PSF)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Deficit Emerging Established
DIBELS Status
% S
tude
nts
Before
After
English + Spanish (PSF)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Deficit Emerging Established
DIBELS Status
% S
tude
nts
Before
After
Results A independent samples t-test revealed no significant
differences between the English only intervention group and the English + Spanish intervention group on NWF (t = .73; p = .53).
English + Spanish (NWF)
Before After
At-Risk / Deficit 25% (2) 12.5% (1)
Some Risk / Emerging 50% (4) 50% (4)
Low Risk / Established 25% (2) 37.5% (3)
English Only (NWF)
Before After
At-Risk / Deficit 25% (2) 12.5% (1)
Some Risk / Emerging 37.5% (3) 0%
Low Risk / Established 37.5% (3) 87.5% (7)
English Only (NWF)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
At-Risk / Deficit Some Risk /Emerging
Low Risk /Established
DIBELS Status
% S
tude
nts Before
After
English + Spanish (NWF)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
At-Risk / Deficit Some Risk /Emerging
Low Risk /Established
DIBELS Status
% S
tude
nts
Before
After
Follow up – PSF
Group*Time: F(2, 108) = 8.20, p < .00
Simple Effects:
UCR: t= 5.13, p < .00
School: t = 2.71, p < .01
No intervention: t = -3.05, p < .00
No intervention
Fall
Winter
School intervention (Ticket to Read)
UCR intervention
Follow up – NWF
Group*Time: F(2,108) = 3.21, p <.04
Simple Effects:
UCR: t= 3.63, p < .00
School: t = 8.60, p < .00
No intervention: t =8.47, p < .00
No intervention
Fall
Winter
School intervention (Ticket to Read)
UCR intervention
Follow up – PSF
English Only
English + Spanish
WinterFall
Group:F(1,11) = .55, p < .47
Time: F(1,11) = 25.42, p<.00
G*T: F(1,11) = 1.02, p <.34
Follow up – NWF
Group: F(1,11) = .34, p < .57
Time: F(1,11) = 12.12, p < .01
G*T: F (1,11) = .44, p < .52
English Only
English + Spanish
WinterFall
Conclusions
A phonological awareness intervention has a significant effect on the phonological awareness and phonics performance of first-grade Spanish-speaking ELLs.
This study provides preliminary evidence that adding a Spanish component has no significant effect on the effectiveness of a phonological awareness intervention for Spanish-speaking ELLs.
Limitations Comparison groups did not start at the same level.
UCR intervention started much lower. Possible ceiling effect (lower students had more room to grow).
Results cannot be generalized to all ELLs due to the small sample size.
Further research is needed in order to examine the effects of adding a Spanish component to literacy interventions.
Implications
RTIScreeningTargeted interventionProgress monitoring