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