INTERVENTIONS STRATEGIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY FOR

CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES? SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

EDPS 664: RESEARCH SEMINAR

Ayuuba Gibrilla

OUTLINE

Background Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Used in Special

Education The Big Questions in Educating CLDs/ELLs With

Disabilities Objectives of the Review Method Search Findings Summary Information of studies reviewed Analysis Implication of the findings in teaching ELLs Conclusion

BACKGROUND

U.S Public schools serve 52 million children and youth.

45% are from racial groups 21% are from CLD households.

(Aud et al., 2010)

BACKGROUND ELLs as “triple threat students” “Three Strikes” against them:a. Disabilityb. Limited English Proficiencyc. Lower Socioeconomic Status ELLs perform below their English proficient peers

(Abedi, 2006)

RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION (RTI) USED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Meeting the needs of CLD students must be done

within a context Response-to-Intervention (RTI) RTI? It is a proposed comprehensive model of

instruction that includes both regular and special education (SOURCE)

RTI uses Three Tiers of Instruction

RTI- THREE TIERS OF INSTRUCTION

INEFFECTIVENESS OF RTI

Culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds students do not respond to intervention treatments

(Bennett et al., 2004; Conchas & Noguera, 2004; Sanders, 2000)

THE BIG QUESTIONS IN EDUCATING CLDS/ELLS WITH DISABILITIES

1. What are the factors or potential variables that contribute to the ineffectiveness of RTI and other instructional strategies when implemented on CLD/ELLs population?

2. Can teachers realistically and effectively teach these students in the absence of research based teaching grounded in cultural responsive interventions?

3. Are teachers providing the right services to the CLD population?

OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

Objective 1: To find out what make these students resist RTI and instructional strategies.

Objective 2: To find out if the interventions used are carried out within the context of RTI.

Objective 3: To find out if there are research based culturally and linguistically responsive interventions in special education service delivery.

METHOD Inclusion criteriaPeer reviewed publications from: Google scholar RTI State Database CEC database The review included research articles published in

English from 2008 - present

Key search terms: Response to intervention Response to instruction Intervention strategies, disabilities Culturally and linguistically diverse Students English Language Learners

SCREENING PROCESS

Two steps screening process

Step 1: Searching by title and abstract, Step 2: Reading of the full text .

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Characteristics of studies included:

Studies Published in peer-reviewed journals Studies had to include ELLs. Study had to be grounded in an RTI framework &

instructional strategies

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Narrative reviews, Editorials, commentaries, Unpublished manuscripts & dissertations, Government reports, book chapters, conference

proceedings, meeting abstracts, lectures and addresses.

Non-systematic Research design Studies that did not report methods. Research population that are native English

language speakers

SEARCH FINDINGS

Over 15 studies used some elements of RTI model

Reviewed 4 that make reference to cultural factors

SUMMARY INFORMATION OF STUDIES REVIEWEDCitation /Study Setting Participants

descriptionIntervention description; duration

Criteria for students’inclusion in intervention

Intervention implemented

Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C., & Glutting, J. (2013).

kindergarten classes infive schools serving high-risk children from low-incomeurban families.

121 participants,52 were girls and 69 were boys. 67 were identifiedas African American , 45 as Hispanic (37%), 7 asCaucasian, 1 as Asian, and 1 as biracial

8-week number sense intervention, 30-min sessions, 3 days per week, for a total of24 sessions.

Participants were recruited from kindergarten classes in five schools serving high-risk children from low-incomeurban families.

Representations (primarily chips, black dots, and fingers)

Lovett et al. (2008) 16 schools from a diverse,urban school district inToronto

76 CLDS, 90 non-ELLs

1 hour of daily instruction basic word identification and decoding skills for 4 to 5 days per week.Intervention classestaught by certified specialeducation teachers,grouped by reading level5 weeks, totaling 105 hr.

Average standard score<85 on 3 readingachievement tests

Tier 2

SUMMARY OF STUDIES REVIEWED (CONTD.)Koutsoftaset al.(2009)

3 public school classroomsand 2 Head Start classrooms

Spanish; preschool Direct instruction inphonemic awarenessskills twice per week for2 weeks, 20–25 min each

<4 out of 8 points onTrophies Pre-KBeginning SoundAwareness CBM

Tier 2

Kamps et al.(2007)

16 Kansas schools over a5-year period

170 CLDS and 148 English onlystudents; first andsecond grade

Groups of 3–6 studentsusing Reading Mastery,Early Interventions inReading, Read Well, orReading Naturally bygeneral educationteachers or readingspecialists

Failure to reach benchmarkon DIBELSNonsense WordFluency and OralReading Fluency

Tier 1 and 2

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the discussions of the studies reveal the following: Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010).

Deficits-based approach of RTI, Misalignmentin Instruction and Assessment, Negative Schooling Culture, Inadequate Teacher Preparation, are part of the reasons why ELLs do not respond to intervention treatments. Vaughn et al. (2005)

29% of the children did not respond to intervention treatments due to lack of L2 competence

ANALYSIS (CONTD.) Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn,

S. (2007). 80% of the students did not meet any criteria in either year due to the lack of culturally and linguistically responsive intervention. Koutsoftas et al. (2009)Cultural factors that learners bring to the classroom are not built upon

IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS IN TEACHING ELLS

Teachers trained in the instruction of ELLs. The use of explicit instruction, frequent

opportunities to practice new skills, and collaborative learning activities.

Curriculum modification anchored in vocabulary development

Understand that second language acquisition takes time and that ELLs can follow different learning trajectories than their mainstream peers

View families as valued partners

CONCLUSION

For RTI to work with ELLs it must be Culturally and Linguistically Responsive

Best Practice for ELLs should be based on scientific research findings

REFERENCES Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in ELL assessment and special

education eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108, 2282 – 2303

Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C. & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income Kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 46(2), 166-181.

o Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Gray, S.(2009). The effect of Tier 2 intervention for phonemic awareness in a response-to-intervention model in low-income preschool classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 116 – 130.

Linán-Thompson, S. and Ortiz, A. A. 2009. Response to intervention and English-language learners: Instructional and assessment considerations. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(2): 105–120.

Kamps , D. , Abbott , M. , Greenwood , C. , Arreaga-Mayer , C. , Wills , H. , Longstaff , J. , Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 153 – 168.

Lovett , M. W. , De Palma , M. , Frijters, J. , Steinbach , K. , Temple , M. , Benson , N. , & Lacerenza, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333 – 352.