1 / 34

Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners

Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners. Elizabeth Arellano Catherine Tung Mike Vanderwood, Ph.D. University of California, Riverside. Agenda. Review research in areas of early literacy and English language learners (ELLs)

lorne
Download Presentation

Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners Elizabeth Arellano Catherine Tung Mike Vanderwood, Ph.D. University of California, Riverside

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. 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).

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. RTI Tier 1 5-10% Tier 3 Intensive 10-15% Tier 2 Targeted 75-85% Universal

  8. 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)

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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)

  12. 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)

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. Methods – Measures • DIBELS early literacy measures were used for screening and progress monitoring. • Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) • Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) • Other measures • California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Assessment of English language proficiency.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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).

  23. 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).

  24. 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).

  25. No intervention School intervention (Ticket to Read) UCR intervention Fall Winter 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

  26. No intervention School intervention (Ticket to Read) UCR intervention Fall Winter 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

  27. English Only English + Spanish Fall Winter Follow up – PSF Group:F(1,11) = .55, p < .47 Time: F(1,11) = 25.42, p<.00 G*T: F(1,11) = 1.02, p <.34

  28. English Only English + Spanish Fall Winter 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

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. Implications • RTI • Screening • Targeted intervention • Progress monitoring

More Related