identifying english learners with dyslexia

18
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013 CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 1 MINI SKILLS SESSION: IDENTIFYING ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA Dr. Catherine Christo, Megan Sibert, & Natasha Borisov Why Focus on EL Students? Growing Numbers of ELs in U.S. Schools From 1997-98 to the 2008-09 school years, the number of EL students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, a 51 percent increase (Batalova & Terrazas, 2010). Uneven Literacy Performance 30% of EL 4 th graders reaching basic reading competency compared to 70% for non-EL 29% of EL 8 th graders compared to 77% of non-EL Why Focus on EL Students? cont. The dropout rate for EL students is 15 to 20 percent higher than for the general student population (Sheng, Sheng, & Anderson, 2011). EL students are overrepresented in special education programs (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008). ELL students have lower academic achievement as compared to non-ELL students (Brooks, Adams, & Morita- Mullaney, 2010). There is a lack of research, best practice guidelines, or “definitive“ protocol for this population Ethical/Legal Standards NASP Guidelines School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy, counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into account individual characteristics… Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of students, families,… School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively pursue knowledge of the student’s disabilities and developmental, cultural, linguistic, and experiential background,… Ethical/Legal Standards, cont. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Address issues of language, appropriateness of norms and cultural as well as linguistic differences… IDEA “….findings are not primarily the result of … cultural factors or environmental or economic disadvantage” Presentation Outline 1. Learning Trajectory for EL students 2. Learning to Read 3. Dyslexia Defined 4. Current Assessment Methods 5. Suggestions for Assessment 6. Case Studies 7. Interventions 8. Q & A

Upload: ceanlia-vermeulen

Post on 09-Dec-2015

26 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Identify English Learners with Dyslexia

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

1

MINI SKILLS SESSION:

IDENTIFYING ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA

Dr. Catherine Christo, Megan Sibert, & Natasha Borisov

Why Focus on EL Students?

Growing Numbers of ELs in U.S. Schools From 1997-98 to the 2008-09 school years, the number of

EL students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, a 51 percent increase (Batalova & Terrazas, 2010).

Uneven Literacy Performance 30% of EL 4th graders reaching basic reading competency

compared to 70% for non-EL

29% of EL 8th graders compared to 77% of non-EL

Why Focus on EL Students? cont.

The dropout rate for EL students is 15 to 20 percent higher than for the general student population (Sheng, Sheng, & Anderson, 2011).

EL students are overrepresented in special education programs (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).

ELL students have lower academic achievement as compared to non-ELL students (Brooks, Adams, & Morita-Mullaney, 2010).

There is a lack of research, best practice guidelines, or “definitive“ protocol for this population

Ethical/Legal Standards

NASP Guidelines

School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy, counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into account individual characteristics…

Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of students, families,…

School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively pursue knowledge of the student’s disabilities and developmental, cultural, linguistic, and experiential background,…

Ethical/Legal Standards, cont.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Address issues of language, appropriateness of norms and

cultural as well as linguistic differences…

IDEA “….findings are not primarily the result of … cultural factors or

environmental or economic disadvantage”

Presentation Outline

1. Learning Trajectory for EL students

2. Learning to Read

3. Dyslexia Defined

4. Current Assessment Methods

5. Suggestions for Assessment

6. Case Studies

7. Interventions

8. Q & A

Page 2: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

2

Resources

What Works Clearinghouse: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx For practice guides and reviews of intervention

programs

Reading Rockets English Language Learners resources Parent friendly

Dr. Cristina Griselda Alvarado www.educationeval.com/.../Evidence-

Based_Bil_ed_Programs.

Learning Trajectory for EL Students

Expected Trajectory: BICS vs. CALP

Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) Typically acquired in 1-2 years

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) Typically acquired in 2-7 years

Source: Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-624.

L2 Acquisition Stages

• Increased comprehension • Using simple sentences• Expanded vocabulary• Continued grammatical

errors

• Improved comprehension• Adequate face-to-face

conversational proficiency • More extensive vocabulary • Few grammatical errors

• Focusing on comprehension

• Using 1-3 word phrases

• May be using routine/formulas (e.g., “gimme five”)

• Silent Period• Focusing on

Comprehension

Stage 1: Preproduction

(first 3 months)

Stage 2: Early

Production(3-6 months)

Stage 3: Speech

Emergence(6 months – 2

years)

Stage 4: Intermediate

Fluency (2-3 years)

Source: Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005).

Possible Factors Contributing to Delayed L2 Acquisition

Delayed Second

Language Acquisition

Cultural Factors

Personal and Intrinsic Factors

Environmental Factors

L1 Schooling Quality and

Quantity

Family Factors

Deficits in Phonological

Skills

But sometimes, it’s due to:Mostly, it’s due to:

Factors Contributing to Delayed L2 Acquisition

Poor self-concept Withdrawn Personality Anxiety Lack of Motivation Traumatic Life Experience Difficult Family Situation Different Cultural Expectations Limited Literacy of Parents in Native

Language Poor Instructional Match Unaccepting Teachers and/or School

Community

Page 3: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

3

Importance of Home Support… Factors Contributing to Delayed L2 Acquisition, cont.

Deficit in phonological skills (both for L1 and L2) is indicative of dyslexia

Later exposure to L2 Research shows that children who are

exposed to L2 before age 3 have better reading performance than children exposed to L2 in 2nd and 3rd grade.

Importance of Native Language Literacy

In U.S. schools where all instruction is given in English, EL student with no schooling in their first language take 7-10 years or more to reach age and grade-level norms of their native English-speaking peers.

Immigrant students who have had 2-3 years of first language schooling in their home country before they come to the U.S. take at least 5-7 years to reach typical native-speaker performance.

Source: Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in Language and Education, 1(4).

Importance of Native Language Literacy cont.

Neural mechanisms within parieto-temporal regions of impaired readers in second

language learning are similar to that of the impaired reading in a mother language.

Whenever possible, look for patterns of language acquisition difficulties in student’s

native language.

Review records, interview parents, etc.

Good to Know…

Studies show that students whose primary language is alphabetic with letter-sound correspondence (e.g., Spanish) have an advantagein learning English as opposed to students who speak non-alphabetic languages (e.g., Chinese).

Page 4: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

4

Cross-Language Transfer

If students have certain strengths in their L1, and those strengths are known to transfer across languages, then we can expect that the students will develop those proficiencies in their L2 as their L2 proficiency develops

Domains of Cross-Linguistic Transfer: Phonological Awareness

Syntactic Awareness

Functional Awareness

Decoding

Use of Formal Definitions and Decontextualized Language

Learning to Read

Basic Assumptions(Regardless of Language Status) Simple model of reading (Tumner and Gough)

Competent reading rests on the development of basic skills The “hands and feet of genius”

Multiple components of reading must be taught in a systematic, explicit manner that also immerses children in language and text

Decoding Comprehension Reading

It’s All About the Word

Children must learn how visual information is linked to speech – the words and sounds they know.

“The first steps in becoming literate, therefore, require acquisition of the system for mapping between print and sound” Ziegler and Goswami, 2006

Page 5: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

5

Well… Maybe Not All

Story structure

Language

Background knowledge

Comprehension

Word Reading Must Become:

Automatic (Almost)

Effortless

Fast Accurate This is true in any language and the

crux of the problem in dyslexia across

languages.

Integrate Multiple Systems

1. Visual system

2. Phonology

3. Working memory

4. Language

5. Orthographic

6. Phonological

7. Context

8. Meaning

For EL student, each of these areas must be considered!

Bilingual Environments

Concepts learned well in one language can be transferred to another

Knowledge of phonemes may be absent for English Learners Training helps Children with no phonological

problems catch up with their peers in phonological processing in 1 to 2 years

National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children Profiles of both groups with

reading problems are very similar

Dyslexia

Definition of Dyslexia: NICH and IDA

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.

These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of languagethat is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.

Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.

Page 6: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

6

Characteristics of Students With Reading Problems

Most reading problems have to do with decoding and spelling

Some readers may understand the system but lack fluency

Some readers have trouble with comprehension

Each of these reading problems require different interventions!

Possible Causes

Visual processing Temporal processing Phonological

processing Rapid Naming

speed Orthographic

processing

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Different writing systems Alphabetic

Logographic

Syllabic

Directionality of print

Can transfer knowledge learned in one language to another

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

Alphabetic languages differ Similar or different alphabet Opaque vs. transparent

orthographies For example – Spanish

consonants but not vowels

Common manifestation is lack of rapid word recognition.

Grain size theory

Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages

In more consistent orthographies dyslexia manifests as problems in fluency rather than accuracy. Children become accurate decoders

by first grade

Phonological processing, Rapid naming, Orthographic processing Results have inconsistent results

Spanish – all three predicted reading in kindergarteners

Current Methods of Assessment

Page 7: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

7

Who are EL Students?

Identifying EL students NCLB definition: 1) Age 3-21 2) Enrolled or preparing to

enroll in elementary or secondary school

3) Not born in the U.S., native language other than English, comes from an environment where English isn’t the dominant language

4) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English may deny him the ability to meet the state’s proficiency level to be successful in an English-only classroom

Factors Contributing to Difficulties when Assessing ELs with LD

Typical EL students and EL’s with LD sharemany characteristics: Poor comprehension Difficulty following directions Syntactical and grammatical errors Difficulty completing tasks Poor Motivation Low Self-Esteem Poor Oral Language Skills

It has been suggested that linguistic diversity may increase assessment errors and reduce the reliability of assessments

Lack of teachers trained in bilingual and multicultural education to meet and assess EL students’ needs

Mistaking basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) for cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)

Assessment in English

Pro’s: Accommodations can be made

(to test itself or to test procedure) to provide a more valid picture of the ELL student’s abilities:

Provides information about the student’s level of functioning/ability in an English-speaking environment

Con’s: Student’s may not thoroughly

understand task instructions or particular test items due to limited English proficiency

Compromises test validity: Student not represented in the norm

group Changing/simplifying language to

improve understanding of test instructions breaks standardization

Students demonstrate slower processing speeds and are more easily distracted during assessments conducted in a language with which they are less familiar

Assessment in English

Checklist of Test Accommodations

Before Conducting the Test:

Make sure that the student has had experience with content or tasks assessed by the test

Modify linguistic complexity and text direction

Prepare additional example items/tasks

During the Test:

Allow student to label items in receptive vocabulary tests to determine appropriateness of stimuli

Ask student to identify actual objects or items if they have limited experience with books and pictures

Use additional demonstration items

Record all responses and prompts

Test beyond the ceiling

Provide additional time to respond/extra testing time

Reword or expand instructions

Provide visual supports

Provide dictionaries

Read questions and explanations aloud (in English)

Put written answers directly in test booklet(modified from Szu-Yin & Flores, 2011)

Assessment in Native Language

Pro’s: May provide a more

accurate inventory of student’s knowledge and skills

Interpreters can be utilized to facilitate testing if psych doesn’t speak student’s native language

Con’s: Language-specific

assessment for each and every student are not available

If they are unfamiliar with the educational context, using interpreters may compromise test validity

Page 8: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

8

Nonverbal Assessment

Pro’s: Attempts to eliminate

language proficiency as a factor in the assessment

May provide a better/more accurate estimate of student’s cognitive abilities

Con’s Often does not fully eliminate

language Offers a limited perspective

of a student’s academic potential

Fails to provide information about linguistic proficiency in student’s native language or in English

Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Strengths of this method: Widely used and understood Provides fairly clear-cut criteria for which students have and do not have

SLD/Dyslexia Uses norm or criterion-referenced standardized tests

Weaknesses of this method: IQ scores based on tests administered in English lack validity and

reliably for bilingual children whose language proficiency in English is still developing

IQ is likely to be underestimated when tests are given in English, lessening likelihood of identification of SLD in ELL students

Gap between scores of immigrant and indigenous children on IQ tests becomes smaller the longer the immigrant student has been in the English-speaking country (Ashby et al.)

Content of IQ tests may lack any overlap with content covered in or important to the academic context

Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

RTI/CBM Strengths:

Uses multiple measures of functioning/ability (CBM) and monitors students to ensure they are progressing or are identified as needing more support

Focuses more on supporting students’ needs and less on labeling their challenges

Ensures appropriate and effective curricula are being implemented with fidelity and integrity

Weaknesses: Doesn’t consider many ecological variables Doesn’t provide scientifically based research on the varying population

that RTI is purported to benefit

Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

CBM- continuedStrengths: CBM reading measures have been found to be a sensitive measure of

reading progress for bilingual Hispanic students Direct link between assessment and instruction Found to be very useful for native English-speaking students Data-based decision making about placement

Weaknesses: Very little research done regarding use of CBM specifically with bilingual

students Relationship between reading fluency and reading proficiency in ELL’s

learning to read in English is not clear Curriculum being taught is not necessarily culturally unbiased or sensitive

Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths:

Focuses on individual student’s performance pattern Can interpret pattern of scores in comparison to typical

pattern of English Learners Provides information that may be helpful in designing

interventions

Weaknesses: Doesn’t consider many ecological variables Limits of using cognitive processing measures with English

Learners

Page 9: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

9

Depends on the system your school follows: RTI, PSW or discrepancy approach?

Source: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/bilingual/CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf

When Should You Refer EL’s for Special Ed? Questions to Consider

Are the instruments being used appropriate for the student? Will a variety of tests, instruments, or procedures be used to

determine if a child is a child with a disability? Will actual test scores be provided or will the test results be

reported descriptively? Will the student be evaluated in his or her native language? Why or

why not? Are bilingual personnel available to complete the evaluation? If there are no bilingual personnel available, will interpreters be

used to evaluate the child? Will the student be evaluated in the language of instruction? Has the assessment process been explained to the parents in their

native language if necessary?

Assessment and Diagnosis

Recommendations for Best Practice

Assess students in both native language and English

Thorough analysis of language proficiency using a broad range of test results and observation (multiple data sources)

Provide information on: best educational placement for the student type of instruction that would be most

beneficial the point at which student will be ready to

transition from bilingual education to English-only education (APA, 1985; IDEA, 1990, 1997)

Recommendations for Best Practice

Use of observations and interviews in multiple settings, times, and events

Assessment of portfolios, work samples, projects, criterion-referenced tests, informal reading inventories, and language samples.

Best Practice Guidelines (Cline, 1995)

The active involvement of EL and bilingual support teachers at every stage

Recording and reviewing information on a student’s knowledge and use of native language and of English

Setting and reviewing of specific educational goals that include language and cultural needs

Arrangement of appropriate language provision

Investigation of social, cultural, and language isolation and peer harassment

Using interpreter when appropriate Placing student performance in context

Page 10: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

10

Models for Assessing CLD/Bilingual Students

Ortiz, Ochoa, Dynda (2012) Contemporary Intellectual Assessment MAMBI C-LIM

Guajardo Alvarado www.educationeval.com Best Practices in Special

Education Evaluation of Students Who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Bilingual Special Education Eval … Woodcock Test

2013

Multidimensional Assessment Model for Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI)

A grid that provides nine profiles for a practitioner to choose from and takes into consideration 3 major variables about the student: Current grade Type of educational program Proficiency in both L1 and L2

Once these variables are accounted for, the practitioner is left with the method of evaluation most likely to yield valid results: Nonverbal Assessment Assessment primarily in L1 Assessment primarily in L2 Bilingual assessment both in L1 and L2

PATTERN OF EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Available in Flanagan, Ortiz, and Alfonso: Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment

LOW MODERATE HIGH

LO

W PERFORMANCELEAST AFFECTED

INCREASING EFFECT OFLANGUAGE DIFFERENCE

MO

DE

RA

TE

HIG

H INCREASING EFFECT OFCULTURAL DIFFERENCE

PERFORMANCEMOST AFFECTED

(COMBINED EFFECT OFCULTURE & LANGUAGE

DIFFERENCES)

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND

DE

GR

EE

OF

CU

LTU

RA

L L

OA

DIN

G

Alvarado’s 4 Steps to Bilingual Special Education Evaluation

1. Gathering of student information

2. Oral language proficiency and dominance testing

3. Achievement testing

4. Cognitive testing

The language or languages of each step is dictated by the individual student’s language exposure, language dominance, and academic background and by the objective of the assessment.

Determining Language Dominance

Alvarado’s model for determining language dominance:

Using a test that has two language forms that have been statistically equated in order to allow comparison of abilities and skills between those two languages.

Two steps are proposed: 1: the core language of the cognitive battery is

determined on the basis of the student’s dominant language

2: the appropriate scale is selected on the basis of the student’s language status in his/her dominant language

In the Woodcock tests, the Batería III COG is statistically equated to the WJ III COG. Likewise the Batería III APROV is statistically equated to the WJ III ACH.

Informal Ways to Assess Language Dominance

Language student prefers talking in

Which language produces better phrasing

Speech therapists can test

What movies do they watch (English or Spanish)

Friends on playground

Page 11: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

11

Considering Contexts, Academic Variables, & Processing

Context

Processing

Current Academic Variables

Ethnicity

Birthplace

Number of years in the U.S.

Parent Education (where, what level, quality, in L1/L2)

Context: CultureContext

Context: Language

Proficiency in L1 & L2

Student’s primary/dominant language

CELDT scores

Language(s) spoken at home

Primary language of parent(s) and sibling(s)

Parent language proficiency in L1 & L2

Exposure to English

School

Family

Media

Context

Context: Education

Schooling in another country

Duration

Quality

Years of formal school

In L1 & L2

Curriculum used

EL program or other special education/intervention program

Educational progress

Previous work samples

Prior language proficiency levels/CELDT scores

Context ContextCultural/Linguistic Factors

Impact of poverty –environmental and neurological

Dyslexia may manifest in one language and not another

Understanding of text structure

Nature of first language may impact how quickly students learn second Phonetic may be easier to transfer

Language loss for native language

Semi-lingualism

Process and conditions of learning second language

Page 12: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

12

Current Academic Variables:Teacher/Classroom/School

Curriculum Teacher training in

teaching EL students Teaching strategies

used Direct & systematic Use of visuals,

concrete objects Opportunities for

hands-on learning Scaffolding

techniques Varied instructional

grouping Interventions Frustrational/instructio

nal/mastery levels Progress monitoring

data Research/evidence-

based? Rate of improvement Minutes of ELD per

day Language use in

classroom

CurrentAcademic Variables

Rule Out Lack of Instruction

Has child had adequate reading instruction. IDEA 2004 explicit on this As defined in NCLB

Contain the 5 areas noted in National Reading Panel

Has child had high quality, research based interventions? School history Data from an RtI model

Types of interventions Progress made

Sources of information History Direct observations Performance of other students Interviews with teachers/parents to further

clarify problem

CurrentAcademic Variables

Current Academic Variables: Student Variables

Current level of performance (compare to EL & non-EL peers)

Math ELA Peer groups, quality

of peer interaction, behavior

Classrooms Playground

Home History Interaction with

adults School Home History Personality

CurrentAcademic Variables

How CBM Can Help EL Students

Determine whether instructional programs are addressing needs of EL population as a whole

Inform instructional decisions for struggling EL readers Compare target students to peers

Current Academic Variables

Problems With CBM and ELs

Difficulty in determining: benchmarks

expectations

appropriate growth

Lack of growth can be due to variety of factors, such as: Language

SES

Instruction

CurrentAcademic Variables

Using CBM with ELs

Used to: Screen for students at risk of learning difficulties

Monitor progress of all students

Monitor progress of selected students

Determine whether instruction/intervention is effective

Making special education decisions

CurrentAcademic Variables

Page 13: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

13

Using CBM with ELs

DIBELS found to better predict low risk than at risk Classifies EL at risk better than

non-EL

ELs have different growth rates than non-ELs

Start lower so even with same slope don’t catch up

Fluency probes over-predict reading scores

Have weaker relationship with future reading than for non-EL

CurrentAcademic Variables

Using CBM with ELs

Useful but need more research Relationship between oral

reading fluency and comprehension More extraneous variables that

can lead to measurement error

Kindergarten phonemic segmentation fluency poor predictor of later decoding

Oral reading fluency may be better than maze fluency for predicting later comprehension

Diversity of ELs IDELS: Spanish version of DIBELS AIMSweb Spanish reading

CurrentAcademic Variables

RTI with ELs

How to determine underachievement In comparison to peers

In comparison to self

Appropriate instruction/intervention Lack of research on effective

intervention

Targeted intervention

CurrentAcademic Variables

Reading Components and Processing

National Reading Panel Phonemic Awareness in L1

and L2 Phonics in L1 and L2 Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension

Other processes related to reading Rapid naming Working memory

Oral Language

Processing

Weakness in Cognitive ProcessRelated to Reading

Phonological Processing Most common for English only

Associated with reading deficits in most languages but strength of relationship varies

Phonological processing in English predicts reading for EL reading disabled. Difficult to determine directionality and

causality

Cross language impact

Spanish phonological processing linked to English reading

ProcessingNew Directions

Basing assessment in phonological skills Less culturally biased than IQ testing Phonological processing skills

relevant to alphabetic literacy can be developed by exposure to any language

Phonology is a surface feature of language and “native-like” familiarity in the phonology of a new language should be developed more quickly than CALP skills (2 years vs. 5-7 years)

(Frederickson and Frith, 1998)

Processing

Page 14: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

14

Cognitive Processes

Swanson et al (2012) ELs and bilinguals w/w/o RD Short term memory (core phonological loop) problem or

Working memory deficit impacting controlled attention

Reading disabled students who are EL and bilingual have similar cognitive profiles

Phonological processing Spanish and English

Naming speed – English Strongest measures

Spanish working memory and word reading English phonological processing and naming speed

Processing Cognitive Processes

May also be Naming speed,

Orthographic processing

Working memory

Consider CHC factors,

Berninger (PAL II)

Processing

Available Tests

Some in Spanish WJ Bateria Phonological

processing Long term storage

and retrieval Some working

memory

Some rapid naming

TOPPS (researcher developed version of CTOPP)

CELF WISC IV TAPS

DAS II ROWPVT, EOWPVT Woodcock Munoz

Language Survey-R BVAT-NU

Processing

Case Example

Ling-lee, 11 years, 6th grade

Adopted from China at age 10 years She lives with her parents and younger sister, who

is also from China Has low vision and she began to wear glasses

after coming to the U.S. Parents have limited information about her early

health history Currently in good health with the exception of

seasonal allergies Problem behaviors when Ling-lee first arrived

are mostly gone and she does well socially Attends Chinese school and hip-hop dance Ling-lee states likes math best – also language

arts because it makes you think and learns something new every day. Likes social studies least but learns interesting things - doesn’t get it sometimes.

Reasons for Referral

Does Ling-lee have dyslexia?

Does Ling-lee have dyscalculia?

How can the school and her parents best help Ling-lee to learn?

Page 15: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

15

Educational History

Attended school through 2nd grade in China; picked up English quickly upon coming to the United States.

Chinese School teacher said that her skills in reading and writing in Mandarin where at the 4th grade level. Currently she is receiving A’s and B’s in her classes at Chinese School.

Attended private school for 4th grade. She began at Ivy in 5th and is currently in 6th

Outside tutoring in Barton based reading and math Able to decode but struggles with comprehension (mother notes in both

oral and written) Problems with directionality in math and reading CST 2011 Far Below Basic; CELDT scores Early Intermediate in Listening,

Speaking and Reading and Beginning in writing. Special Education evaluation on 10/2011

Placed due to academic underachievement in reading, writing and math and processing disorder in attention. Goals in math, reading, written language

Previous Evaluations

Academic: WJ-III (10/2011) Math Calculations & Math Fluency

= Average Range Reading

Word Identification = 14th

percentile Fluency & Reading Comprehension

= Well Below Average Written Language = Below Average

Spelling weakest

Cognitive: K-ABC II (4/2010) Long-Term Retrieval = Average All other scores in the Below

Average range

WISC IV SS=85, 16th percentile; VCI = 3rd

percentile; WM = 4th percentile; PS = 24th percentile

WRAML 2 Verbal =16th percentile; Visual =

27th percentile; Attention/Concentration = below average

TAPS 3 Phonological Processing, Visual

Motor Skills, & Memory = Average Language Understanding very

weak

BASC-2 Mother: Clinically Significant

Hyperactivity, Conduct Problems, Depression

Teacher: No clinically significant areas

Behavior During Testing

Friendly, conversed with the examiner regarding topics such as vacations, friends and family pets… responded appropriately in conversations but did little reciprocal questioning or expansion on topics.

Generally Ling-lee worked quickly… difference between her response pattern, depending on the area being assessed… math… consider and monitor her response much more than in written language.

Ling-lee did not display signs of inattention as has been noted in previous testing, though she was eager to complete the testing so that she could do other things.

Occasionally language issues were noted; for example, in asking for repeated instructions when the instructions were complex.

Assessment Results

TEST OF WORD READING EFFICIENCY

Standard Score (Range)

Sight Word Efficiency

92

Phonemic Decoding Efficiency

90

GRAY ORAL READING TEST 5Composite Standard

ScorePercentile

Rate 7 16th

Accuracy 8 25th

Fluency 7 16th

Comprehension 7 16th

KAUFMAN TEST OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEEMENT II Cluster/Subtest Subtest Score

(mean=100)Percentile

READING Letter and Word Recognition 92 30th

WRITTEN LANGUAGE Written Expression 61 <1st

READING RELATED SUBTESTS Nonsense Word Decoding 92 30th

PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNER – II (PAL-II)

Skills Composite/Subtest

Scaled Score Related Processes Composite/Subtest

Scaled Score

Phonological Orthographic Coding COMP. 8Pseudoword Fluency 8 Receptive 9Pseudoword accuracy 7 Expressive 8

Morphological Decoding Phonological Coding 5Find the Fixes 9 Syllables 5Morph Decoding Fluency 6 Phonemes 5Morph. Decoding Accuracy 7 Rimes 7

Silent Reading Fluency Morphological/syntactic Coding 4

Sentence Sense Accuracy 4 Are They Related 10Sentence Sense Fluency 3 Does It Fit 3Orthographic Spelling Sentence Structure 2Word Choice Accuracy 12 Rapid Automatic Naming/

Switching Total11

Word Choice Fluency 12 Letters 11Letter groups 12Words 9

Verbal Working Memory Letters 6Words 3Sentences/Listening 9Sentences/Writing 10

Assessment Results, cont.

KEYMATH 3 Cluster/Subtest Standard Score

(mean=100)Scaled Score (mean=10)

Percentile

BASIC CONCEPTS 78 (73-82) 7TH

Numeration 8Algebra 7

Geometry 6Measurement 6

Data analysis 6OPERATIONS 92 (86-98) 30th

Mental Computation 10Addition/Subtraction 9

Multiplication/Division 8APPLICATIONS 78 (69-97) 7th

Foundations of Problem Solving 7Applied Problem Solving 5

Page 16: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

16

Carlos, 8 years, 3rd grade

Latino boy, resides in San Francisco with his mother, father, twin sister, and older brother (20)

Hearing and vision are within normal limits. Carlos was born in San Francisco to parents

of Mexican descent. Spanish is primary language, though some

English is spoken in the home, as well. Primary language of instruction is Spanish,

though he receives some instruction in English, and he often prefers to speak English in informal conversation.

Carlos reports that his English is “not really good,” and that Spanish is all he speaks at home.

Background Information

Carlos is currently a 3rd grade student at Elementary School in San Francisco, in the Bilingual Pathway. Most academic instruction is delivered in Spanish

Receives daily English Language Development (ELD) support.

His teacher reports that his reading, writing, and math skills are improving, but that he continues to require additional support.

He received speech/language therapy in the past, but was exited from those services following his last triennial evaluation.

Attends the afterschool program. Described as a very sweet, motivated, and

cooperative young boy. His teacher states that Carlos is very intelligent,

respectful, and has high self-esteem.

Assessment Results: DAS-IIComposite/Cluster Standard Score Percentile Descriptor

Special Nonverbal Composite

98 45th Average

Nonverbal Reasoning97 42nd Average

Spatial Cluster 100 50th Average

Clusters/Subtests T-Score Percentile Descriptor

Nonverbal Reasoning Cluster

Matrices 48 42nd Average

Sequential &Quantitative Reasoning 48 42nd Average

Spatial Cluster Subtests

Recall of Designs 50 54th Average

Pattern Construction51 54th Average

Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests-Normative Update (BVAT-NU)

Cluster/Subtest Standard Score Percentile Descriptor

Bilingual VerbalAbility

89 23rd Below Average

English Language Proficiency

86 18th Below Average

Picture Vocabulary

86 17th Below Average

Oral Vocabulary 95 37th Average

Verbal Analogies 88 21st Below Average

*Norms based on age

Test of Auditory Processing Skills-3 (TAPS 3)Index Standard Score Percentile Descriptor

Phonologic 90 25th Average

Memory 83 13th Below Average

SubtestScaled Scores

Percentile

Phonologic

Word Discrimination 9 37th

Phonological Segmentation 8 25th

Phonological Blending 7 16th

Cohesion

Auditory Comprehension 4 2nd

Memory

Number Memory Forward 7 16th

Number Memory Reversed 9 37th

Word Memory 2 <1st

Sentence Memory 8 25th

Test of Auditory Processing Skills 3: Spanish Bilingual Edition (TAPS-3: SBE)

Subtest Scaled Score Percentile

Memory

Word Memory 9 37th

Sentence Memory 7 16th

Cohesion

9 37th

Page 17: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

17

Test of Visual Perceptual Skills 3 (TVPS-3)

Cluster Standard Score Percentile Descriptor

Overall 76 5th Low

Basic Processes 80 9th Below Average

Sequencing 65 1st Very Low

Complex Processes 75 5th Low

ClusterScaled Scores

Percentile

Basic Processes

Visual Discrimination 5 5th

Visual Memory 5 5th

Spatial Relations 8 25th

Form Constancy 6 9th

Sequencing

Sequential memory 3 1st

Complex Processes

Figure Ground 5 5th

Visual Closure 5 5th

VMI: 112, 79th

Percentile

Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII)-Test of Achievement (Norms based on age)

Cluster areas for determining Specific Learning Disability according to IDEA

MATH REASONING 83/12th

ORAL EXPRESSION 71/3rd

LISTENING COMPREHENSION 80/10th

WRITTEN EXPRESSION 87/20th

BASIC READING SKILLS 93/31st

READING FLUENCY 91/28th

MATH CALCULATION 114/83rd

READING COMPREHENSION 77/6th

READING FLUENCY 91/28th

Subtests SS/PercentileStory Recall 86/18thPicture Vocabulary 71/3rdUnderstanding Directions 73/3rdOral Comprehension 93/31stWriting Fluency 88/21stWriting Samples 89/23rdLetter-Word Identification 88/21stWord Attack 99/48thPassage Comprehension 77/6thReading Vocabulary 87/19thCalculation 121/92ndMath Fluency 96/39thApplied Problems 79/8thQuantitative Concepts 91/27thReading Fluency 91/28th

Bateria III Pruebas De Aprovechamiento(Norms based on age)

Bateria III Tests of Achievement:Bateria III Cluster areas for determining Specific Learning Disability according to IDEA Rememoracion de cuentos 87/20th Vocabulario sobre dibujos 66/1st EXPRESION ORAL 68/2nd Comprension de indicaciones

62/1st Comprension Oral 73/3rd COMPRENSION AUDITIVA

59/<1st Fluidez en la escritura 87/19th Muestras de redaccion 98/45th EXPRESION ESCRITA 92/31st

Identificacion de letras y palabras 111/77th

Analisis de palabras 109/73rd DESTREZAS BASICAS en LECTURA

112/78th Comprension de textos 87/19th Vocabulario de lectura 81/11th COMPRENSION de LECTURA

80/9th Problemas Aplicados -- Conceptos cuantitativos 88/22nd RAZONAMIENTO en

MATEMATICAS -- Fluidez en la lectura 47 FLUIDEZ

en la LECTURA 47

Interventions

Interventions

The following reading interventions are recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for use with ELL students: Enhanced Proactive Reading Read Well SRA Reading Mastery/SRA Corrective Reading

Common elements in the above intervention programs: formed a central aspect of daily reading instruction between 30 and 50 minutes to implement per day intensive small-group instruction following the principles of

direct and explicit instruction in the core areas of reading extensive training of the teachers and interventionists

Interventions

AIM for the BESt: Assessment and Intervention Model for the Bilingual Exceptional Student

Incorporates pre-referral intervention, assessment, and intervention strategies

Uses nonbiased measures Aims to improve academic performance for culturally and

linguistically diverse students and aims to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education How?

Use of instructional strategies proven to be effective with language-minority students

Allows teachers flexibility to modify instruction for struggling students Supports teachers with a team of professionals Uses CBM and criterion-referenced tests to assess in addition to standardized

test data

Model holds promise for improving educational services provided to limited English-proficient students(Ortiz et al., 1991)

Page 18: Identifying English Learners With Dyslexia

NASP CONVENTION 2013  2/10/2013

CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT 

18

References

Alvarado, C.G. (n.d.). Bilingual special education evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals using Woodcock tests.

Ashby, B., Morrison, A. & Butcher, H.J. (1970). The abilities and attainments of immigrant children. Research in Education, 4, 73-80.

Ascher, C. (1991). Testing Bilingual Students. Do We Speak the Same Language? PTA Today, 16(5), 7-9.

Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1994). Curriculum-Based Measurement Reading with Bilingual Hispanic Students: A Validation Study with Second-Grade Students.

Batalova, J., & Terrazas, A. (2010). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=818#1a

Becker, H., & Goldstein, S. (2011). Connecticut administrators of programs for English language learners: English language learnes and special education: A resource handbook. Retrieved from CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf.

Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusivelearning communities for ELL students: Transforming school principals'perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-151.

Christo, C. Crosby, E. Zoraya, M. (In press). Response to Intervention and Assessment of the Bilingual Child. In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications

Clinton, A. (in press) Semi-lingualism: What neuroscience tells us about the complexities of assessing the bilingual child from low socio-economic backgrounds. In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications

Cline T (1998) The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children British journal of Special

References, cont.

Cline, T. (1998). The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children. British journal of Special Education, 25 (4), 159-163.

Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in Language and Education, 1(4).

Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities. Clearing House: A Journal Of Educational Strategies, Issues And Ideas, 84(6), 244-248.

Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H.-K., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: a cross-linguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. [Article]. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 372-392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x

de Ramírez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Evaluation of Reading Skills of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners in Bilingual Education Classrooms. [Article]. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 356-369

Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological Testing of Linguistic-Minority Students: Knowledge Gaps and Regulations. Exceptional Children, 56(2), 145-52.

Frederickson, N.L. & Frith, U. (1998). Identifying dyslexia in bilingual children: A phonological approach with Inner London Sylheti speakers. Dyslexia, 4, 119-131.

Linan-Thompson, S., & Ortiz, A. A. (2009). Response to Intervention and English-Language Learners: Instructional and Assessment Considerations. [Article]. Seminars in Speech & Language, 30(2), 105-120.

Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English learners response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185-195.

References, cont.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: Apolicy brief. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchBrief.pdf

O'Bryon, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2010). Bilingual school psychologists' assessment practices with English language learners. [Article]. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1018-1034. doi: 10.1002/pits.20521

Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y.-J., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The Role of Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special Education: Implications for Response to Intervention. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316-333. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2011.628608

Ortiz, S. O., Ochoa, S. H., & Dynda, A. M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations: Moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L., (3rd Edition), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (p. 526-552). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Considerations in Implementing Intervention Assistance Teams to Support English Language Learners. Remedial And Special Education, 27(1), 53-63.

Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A Framework for Serving English Language Learners with Disabilities. Journal Of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 72-80.

Petitto, L.A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span: Implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 185-197.

Pollard-Durodola, P., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Tong, F. (In press). Implications of bilingualism in reading assessment. . In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications

Ramus F, Rosen S, Dakin SC, Day BL, Castellote JM, White S, Frith U. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126, 841–865.

References, cont.

Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005). 'Bilingual Education and Second-Language Acquisition'. In Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. New York: The Guildford Press.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & O'Hanlon, L. (2005). Nonbiased Assessment of English Language Learners: A Tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(3), 178-185.

Sandberg, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2011). English Learners: Challenges in Assessment and the Promise of Curriculum-Based Measurement. [Article]. Remedial & Special Education, 32(2), 144-154. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361260

Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2012). Cognition and Literacy in English Language Learners at Risk for Reading Disabilities. [Article]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 202-320. doi: 10.1037/a0026225

Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Fulbright RK, Skudlarski P, Todd-Constable R, Marchione KE, Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Gore JC. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52,101–110

Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. J. (2011). Dropping out of school among ELL students: Implications to schools and teacher education. Clearing House, 84(3), 98-103.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census population profile maps. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_main.html

Wilda, L.-R., Ochoa, S. H., & Parker, R. (2006). The Crosslinguistic Role of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency on Reading Growth in Spanish and English. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 87-106

You, H., Gaab, N., Wei, N., Cheng-Lai, A., Wang, Z., Jian, J., & Ding, G. (2011). Neural deficits in second language reading: fMRI evidence from Chinese children with English reading impairment. Neuroimage, 57(3), 760-770.