English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities: A Critical Review of the Literature

1. English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities:A Critical Review of the Literature Janette KlingnerUniversity of Colorado at Boulder Alfredo J. ArtilesArizona State University Laura Méndez BarlettaUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

2. The Demographic Imperative • 20% of students 5 years old and older speak a language other than English at home. • 77% of the ELL population speaks Spanish (Zehler et al., 2003). • By 2030, about 40% of the school population will speak English as a second language (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). • In 2002, 43% of the nation’s teachers had at least one ELL in their classrooms (USDOE & NICHD, 2003).

3. Educational Challenges & The Knowledge Base • Lower academic achievement and other negative educational outcomes (e.g., grade repetition, school drop out) • What is the nature of the relationship between language proficiency and literacy skill? Is that relationship the same across and within languages? Is there a level of oral language knowledge that is prerequisite to successful literacy acquisition? Is the level the same for learners of different first-language backgrounds, of different ages, of different levels of first-language literacy? (August & Hakuta, 1997)

4. Educational Challenges & The Knowledge Base • Is literacy knowledge represented the same way for monolingual and bilingual populations? Are literacy skills and deficits acquired in the first language directly transferred to the second, and, if so, under what conditions? (August & Hakuta, 1997)

5. Institutional & Professional Factors • Limited infrastructure • Placement data and other critical variables (e.g., generational status, language proficiency, opportunity to learn). • Lack of conceptual clarity: Definition and identification procedures for ELLs vary substantially across school districts (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). • Consequences and links to other professional practices such as referral to special education, assessment for disability diagnosis, and provision of specialized instruction.

6. Institutional & Professional Factors • General education teachers might hesitate to refer ELLs to special education because they cannot determine if ELLs’ learning difficulties are due to L2 acquisition issues or disabilities (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). • Timing of referral and identification

7. Premise • It is urgent to make systematic efforts to synthesize and critique the emergent empirical knowledge base on ELLs who are struggling to learn by accounting for both individual and institutional forces.

8. Purpose • Review empirical research on ELLs who struggle with reading • Distinguish between LDs and the “normal” language acquisition process.

9. Questions • What does the research tell us about • subpopulations of ELLs who struggle to read? • referral issues with ELLs who struggle to read? • identification and assessment of ELLs with LDs? • instructional issues with ELLs who struggle to read? • What do we know about the processes of becoming literate in a first and in a second language that can inform eligibility decisions?

10. Methods • Selection of studies • Studies selected on a two-step procedure. • Comprehensive search for research on distinguishing between learning disabilities and language acquisition, and struggling readers. • Four modes of searching: subject indexes, citation searches, consultation, browsing.

11. Methods • Analysis procedures • Assembled set of articles • Read and coded articles: • Purpose of study • Participants • Methodology • Key findings • Categorized the articles according to themes and sub-themes

12. Findings and Discussion • Altogether we reviewed 55 research studies. • We added references to other important works in our discussions of these studies. • Not all studies we reviewed are described in this presentation.

13. What Do We Know about Population Characteristics and Subtypes? • Population subtypes: • Some subpopulations appear to be particularly vulnerable to placement in special education (Artiles et al., in press; Artiles et al., 2002). • Overrepresentation found in grades 5 though high school, but not K-4. • ELLs who tested as limited in their native language and English showed the highest rates of identification in special education. • Students can appear to be competent in one context but not another (Ruiz, 1995). • This research has important implications for those making eligibility decisions, and points to the need to observe students across settings and in varied contexts.

14. Importance of culture: • Trueba (1988) found cultural conflict to be a key factor in explaining the problems faced by ELLs. • Cultural conflict and affective considerations appear to be of critical importance, yet seem to have been studied infrequently.

15. What Do We Know about Pre-Referral and Referral Issues? • Pre-referral strategies seem to be implemented sporadically at best (Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1997; Harry & Klingner, in press). • The referral process seems to be a subjective one designed to push students towards testing (Mehan et al, 1996; Mehan, 1991; Harry et al., 2002). • Although many suggestions have been offered for enhancing the referral process (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Ortiz & Yates, 2001; Salend & Salinas, 2003; Serna, Forness, & Nielsen, 1998), few research studies have been conducted on the referral process with ELLs. Clearly more work is needed in this area.

16. What Do We Know about Assessment and Identification Issues? • Assessment practices: • Barrera Metz (1988), Harry et al., (2002), Maldonado-Colon (1986), and Ochoa et al., (1997) found that language and culture were not adequately considered during the assessment process. • Psychologists and others tended to ignore or give insufficient attention to students’ native languages, sometimes relying on a teacher’s or other’s opinion of the English proficiency of the student.

17. English language tests were often used exclusively even when the student’s background warranted bilingual testing. • Whether or not the unexpected underachievement of ELLs could be explained by their limited English proficiency was not given adequate consideration. • This phenomenon of paying insufficient attention to students’ native languages appears to be a theme that runs across studies conducted over the last 20 years.

18. Phonological awareness and other predictors of reading achievement: • Factors that correlated with later reading achievement included phonological awareness and alphabetic knowledge. • For ELLs, alphabetic knowledge may precede and facilitate the acquisition of phonological awareness in English (Chiappe, Siegel, & Gottardo, 2002). • Yet more research is needed to better understand the interactions of these factors with other aspects of first and second language acquisition, as well as the most valid ways of assessing language and literacy skills in both languages.

19. We still need to develop better ways of assessing students’ language and literacy skills. • Experts have recommended several alternative procedures (Barrera, 2003; Brown, Campione, Webber, & McGilly, 1992; Gonzalez, Brusca-Vega, & Yawkey, 1997; Haywood, 1988; Mercer, 1989; Rueda, 1997): • portfolios and authentic assessment procedures, • curriculum based measurement, • dynamic assessment, • learning potential assessment, • testing-the-limits approaches, mediated assessment, evaluation of the zone of proximal or potential development, and assessment via assisted learning and transfer.

20. Harry et al. (2002) suggest acknowledging the arbitrariness of the assessment process and identification decisions as a starting place for discussions about more useful and valid ways of determining how best to help students.

21. What Do We Know about Instructional Issues? • Bilingual special education: • Lopez-Reyna (1996) noted how differently children can look in different educational contexts. • The implications from this study are similar to those from Ruiz (1995) about how students can appear very competent in one instructional setting but not another. • Additional research is needed in special education classrooms that serve culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Once students are placed in special education, what types of programs and interventions are optimal?

22. Opportunity to learn in general education classrooms: • Arreaga-Mayer & Perdomo-Rivera (1996) and Harry & Klingner (in press) concluded that instructional environments and teacher variables vary widely and have a profound impact on students’ academic behaviors and language usage. • Harry & Klingner were quite concerned that despite these variations in students’ opportunities to learn, no consideration seemed to be given to classroom ecology by members of referral or placement teams.

23. Intensive reading interventions in students’ native language or in English: • De La Colina et al., (2001), Haager & Windmueller (2001), Linan-Thompson et al., (2003), and Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, and Buckley (2003) all showed promising results. • More research is needed on general education programs and early interventions for ELLs that best support students who show initial signs of struggling. • We still need to know much more about what works best with whom, and under what circumstances. • Future research efforts should take into account the socio-cultural contexts in which students learn, and affective variables such as motivation.

24. What Do We Know about Becoming Literate in a First Language and in a Second Language that Can Inform Eligibility Decisions? • The relationships among first and second language oral proficiency, native language reading, and English second-language reading: • English second-language oral proficiency, native-language reading, and English second-language reading are positively related (Fitzgerald, 1995; Garcia-Vasquez, 1995; Gottardo, 2002; Tregar & Wong, 1984). • Predictors vary by grade level, and whether or not students are proficient readers in their first language. Tregar and Wong found that the best predictor of English reading at grades 3 through 5 was native-language reading ability, but in grades 6 through 8 the best predictor was oral English proficiency.

25. Metalinguistic development and reading comprehension: • A significant portion of the variance in the reading comprehension of the ELLs in Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim’s (1999) study was explained by the extensiveness of their vocabularies in the English and their native language, and by phonological awareness.

26. Differences between more and less proficient second language readers: • In her analyses of ELLs’ miscues, Miramontes (1987, 1990) found that mixed dominant students exhibited areas of strength, yet were perceived by teachers to all have similar limitations and to be weak in all skills. • In comparison with more proficient readers, less proficient readers tended to (Ammon, 1987; Garcia, 1991; Hardin, 2001; Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1995; Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1996; Langer, Bartholome, Vasquez, & Lucas, 1990): • focus more on surface aspects of reading, • use fewer and less effective comprehension strategies, • tap into schematic knowledge less, • and have more limited vocabularies.

27. Less successful readers used fewer strategies and were less effective resolving comprehension difficulties in either language. • Yet it is significant that students were able to transfer strategies applied in their native language to English reading. • Also, as Jiménez’ (1997) and Klingner and Vaughn’s (1996) work would suggest, less proficient readers can successfully be taught comprehension strategies, and that when they use these strategies, their comprehension improves.

28. Differences between second language readers and native English readers: • It appears there are key differences between learning to read in one’s first and a second language. • A significant finding seems to be not only the importance of phonological awareness in predicting second language reading achievement, but also vocabulary. This finding was replicated across several studies. • Vocabulary knowledge is strongly related to effective text comprehension and appears to be a highly significant variable in second language readers’ success (Fitzgerald, 1995; National Reading Panel, 2000).

29. Also, findings suggest that second language readers tend to focus more on word meanings than native language readers (Jiménez et al., 1995; Jiménez et al., 1996). • Translation, cognate awareness, and information transfer (across languages) are all strategies that seem to be unique to bilingual readers. • Finally, the extent to which students identify with the culture associated with their second language may affect their motivation and the ease with which they learn to read in that language (Verhoeven, 1990).

30. Conclusions • More research is warranted in each of the areas we reviewed to help us understand the strengths and learning needs of ELLs who are struggling to learn.

31. Lessons can be derived from this review of research in various domains. • First, research efforts must be intensified to better define population and subpopulation parameters in LDs and ELLs. As definitions of LDs are refined to take into account the role of response to interventions, it will be critical to account for the role of cultural and linguistic factors. • Similarly, additional research should be conducted on the regularities of second language development in both ELLs and ELLs with LD; the role of factors related to first language and literacy development should be a key component of such studies (e.g., account for the complexities involved in becoming literate in another language).

32. The insights obtained from population research, in turn, will assist the research community to develop more accurate identification tools and procedures. • It is critical that future investigations on identification and assessment not only address the accurate differentiation between subgroups of ELLs with and without disabilities (e.g., who should qualify for special education and why some students who do not have LD still struggle with literacy and language acquisition), but also enhance our understandings of the social and cultural contexts of professionals’ assessment practices. • Indeed, considering the strong association between ELLs’ socioeconomic backgrounds and school infrastructural forces (e.g., teacher quality, school climate, resources), it is important to examine how factors such as opportunity to learn mediate ELLs’ learning difficulties.

33. Although we know something about optimal pre-referral interventions and referral procedures, less is known about how to put these into practice, particularly with ELLs. • Likewise, a systematic research program is needed on the impact of interventions depending upon key aspects such as the timing of delivery, with various subpopulations, across contexts, grade levels, and time.