ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 1

Evidence­Based Practices for Teaching ELLs

With a Specific Learning Disability in Reading

Sarah Silverman

SERP 504

University of Arizona

December 7, 2014

Author Note

Sarah Silverman is pursuing a Masters degree in Cross­Categorical Special Education

at the University of Arizona. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to

ssilverman@email.arizona.edu

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 2

Evidence­Based Practices for Teaching ELLs

With a Specific Learning Disability in Reading

Growing ELL Population in Schools

According to the US Department of Education (USDOE), among people in the US over

the age of 5, 20% speak a language other than English at home. By the year 2030, about

40% of the school population will speak English as a second language. (ESL; USDOE &

NICHD, 2003 as cited in Klinger et al, 2006, p. 108). As populations of ELLs continue to rise

in schools, it stands to reason that ELLs with disabilities will also continue to rise

proportionally. Although we don't have much data regarding ELLs with special needs,

according to the data we do have, 56% have a specific learning disability (SLD) in reading

and 24% have a speech­language impairment (SLI).

In spite of these facts, educators and researchers understand little about best

practices for teaching and identifying ELLs with LD due to the lack of research in this area.

(Klinger et al, 2006, p. 108) This lack of understanding can lead to underrepresentation of

ELLs in special education in grades K­2, and overrepresentation in grades 3 and above, thus

depriving ELLs with special needs of critical early interventions. Samson and Lesaux explain

this phenomenon by suggesting that teachers, who are untrained in recognizing the difference

between language acquisition difficulties and learning disabilities, might have trouble

identifying a disability in someone who has LEP (2008, p. 150).

The research suggests that teachers and schools might also be untrained and

unaware of how best to provide support for ELLs with special needs. Although many ELLs

with special needs struggle with language related disabilities (SLD and SLI), ELLs actually

receive fewer language support services than ELLs without disabilities. They are also more

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 3

likely to be instructed only in English. Although more research is called for, some research

has given teachers and schools a starting point for best instructional and school­wide

practices when working with ELLs with special needs. This paper will summarize those best

practices and critically analyze the ways teachers and schools can best support ELLs with

reading disabilities.

Screening/Identification

In order to better serve ELLs with special needs, schools must first make sure that

they are accurately identifying ELLs with special needs. Neurological studies have confirmed

that reading disabilities occur at approximately the same rate across a wide variety of

languages. Furthermore, as Pugh et al. point out, “the broad principles of brain organization

for speech and reading appear to be largely uniform across languages.” (Pugh, et al., 2005, p.

26) Therefore, ELLs should be represented in special education at the same rate as their

native­English speaking peers. This means that inaccurate identification and/or ineffective

teaching must explain ELLs’ over­ or under­ representation in special education.

Over­/Under­representation: Inaccurate identification

ELLs are underrepresented in both kindergarten and first grade, as compared to their

L1 peers. By third grade, however, ELLs are slightly overrepresented in special education.

These trends suggest that ELLs with disabilities are not identified as early as their native

English­speaking (L1) peers, thus depriving them of access to extra support in the crucial

years for reading development between kindergarten and third grade. According to Samson

and Lesaux, in kindergarten, 4.03% of ELLs are identified for special education (as compared

to 5.50% for L1 peers), in first grade, 8.48% of ELLs are identified for special education (as

compared to 8.99% for L1 peers), and by third grade, 16.31% of ELLs are identified for

special education services (as compared to 12.76% for L1 peers). (Samson and Lesaux,

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 4

2008, p. 155) It’s likely that teachers have trouble distinguishing between learners that have a

learning disability (especially in the areas of language) and those who are simply struggling to

acquire a second language. As a result, they refer children to special education less

frequently than expected because they believe the child is only struggling with a new

language, not with a disability in addition. By third grade, however, those ELLs with learning

disabilities are struggling so much, it’s easier to recognize their disability.

Predictors of SLD in Reading in ELLs

ELL status, reading proficiency, and teacher rating of language and literacy

skills. Samson and Lesaux’s studied ELLs in grades K­3 in order to determine what factors

could best serve as an early predictor of a child’s ultimate placement in special education.

They specifically looked at the following factors: status as an ELL, reading proficiency,

teacher rating of language and literacy skills. Samson and Lesaux found that all of those

variables have a strong correlation to eventual placement in special education although ELL

status was least correlated to placement in special education. Reading proficiency and

teacher ratings were most correlated to placement in special education. (Samson and

Lesaux, 2008, p. 156)

When literacy profiles of ELL students placed in special education are compared to L1

students placed in special education, the profiles are quite similar. In both groups’ profiles,

students struggled with phonological awareness and reading lists of words (out of the context

of a story or text). When ELLs in special education are compared to ELLs not in special

education, however, they are actually quite different. Although many LM learners not in

special education struggle in reading, most are able to develop typical phonological

awareness and read grade level lists of words out of context. (Samson and Lesaux, 2008, p.

158)

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 5

Given this research, teachers could make more accurate referrals to special education

if they based their decisions to refer on their own ratings of their students’ skills and their

students’ reading proficiency according to standardized tests (i.e. if they referred ELLs with

the same frequency as L1 learners that have language proficiency profiles that match). If

teachers followed this protocol, they could make more objective referrals and help their ELLs

with learning disabilities access support services earlier. This protocol would also help

eliminate special education referrals for ELLs that do not have special needs.

Functional Neuroimaging. Functional neuroimaging can also be a useful and

accurate indicator of a reading disability. This type of indicator would be especially useful with

ELL populations since teachers have trouble distinguishing between LEP and a reading

disability. According to Pugh, et al. (2005, p. 26), reading disabilities in monolingual readers

in several different languages share a common biological signature. This evidence combined

with other research outlining the development of reading circuitry in skilled bilingual readers

seems to suggest that reading disabilities disrupt functional brain organization in the same

ways for monolingual or bilingual readers. In other words, if reading disabilities look the same

in monolingual and bilingual brains from a range of backgrounds, reading disabilities across

languages and cultures could possibly be detected using neuroimaging.

What does a reading disability look like in the brain? In brains of people with a reading

disability, the reading disability disrupts certain areas of the brain connected to decoding and

weakens the connections between the several parts of the brain the contribute to fluent

reading, especially those in the left hemisphere. This disruption in the decoding part of the

brain is a good early indicator for students that will eventually develop a reading disability.

This correlation between reading disabilities and disrupted decoding and fluency centers in

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 6

the brain corresponds to well­researched understanding that reading comprehension is

strongly tied to phonemic awareness and fluent decoding. (Pugh, et al., 2005, p. 27).

How can we use that knowledge to identify ELLs with a potential reading disability? In

other words, even without a brain scan, teachers could detect a reading disability by seeing if

the normative trajectory for phonemic awareness and word reading fluency is disrupted.

Because the normative pattern of development is the same across languages, a disruption in

that pattern would be detectable across languages as well. Educators could compare

students’ phonemic awareness and fluency skills to normed benchmarks in order to determine

which students, including both ELLs and L1 learners, should be referred to special education

for additional evaluations.

Classroom Best Practices

After educators ensure that they are using evidence­based practices to identify and

refer ELLs with special needs, they must also ensure that they are using evidence­based

practices to instruct ELLs with special needs. Some of those practices include: explicit,

systematic, and intense instruction; using common ESL best practices; teacher knowledge of

ELLs’ L1; vocabulary development; and phonemic awareness development.

Explicit, Systematic, and Intense Instruction

Most of the interventions currently used with ELLs have been based on the

interventions we would use for struggling monolingual readers, so Vaughn, et al. (2005) set

up a study to isolate which strategies most benefit ELLs with reading disabilities. According to

that study, ELLs with reading disabilities most benefitted from interventions that were explicit,

systematic, and intense (i.e. small groupings or one­to­one). Vaughn et al. implemented

intervention programs that included word study, phonics instruction, listening comprehension,

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 7

fluency, and repeated readings. The study concluded that many of the best practices for

ELLs with reading disabilities were also best practices for monolingual readers.

Although many of the same best practices can be applied to good effect for both

bilingual and monolingual struggling readers, research suggest that ELLs with reading

disabilities also benefit from interventions and strategies specific to their needs as ELLs.

Common ESL Best Practices

According to Vaughn et al., ELLs with reading disabilities also responded well to

common ESL best practices including repetitive language and routines, modelling new

information, ample opportunities for dialogue, and ample practice time (2005, p. 66).

Research on neurological implications of reading disabilities in ELLs from Pugh et al.,

supports the use of the above ESL strategies. According to Pugh, spoken language

proficiency in L2 could impact the way the reading circuits in the brain develop, so it makes

sense that lots of oral practice would improve outcomes in reading (Pugh, et al., 2005, p. 27).

Teacher’s Knowledge of ELLs’ L1

According to research by Panneque and Babbetta (2006), teacher efficacy is defined

as “a teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action to

successfully accomplish specific instructional tasks” (171). Panneque and Babbetta argue

that teacher efficacy when serving ELLs with learning disabilities is correlated to a teacher’s

ability to work longer with students who are struggling and try new ideas and strategies to

better meet students’ diverse needs. Their research also suggested that special education

teachers who had the highest efficacy also had language skills in their learners’ L1. It is likely

that the linguistic and implied cultural understanding that comes along with any language

helped the teachers feel more confident when assessing their learners’ needs and

communicating with parents and others in the learning community. (Panneque and Babetta,

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 8

2006, 171­175). In other words, according to research, teachers can improve the

effectiveness of their instruction by increasing their familiarity with their students’ native

languages and cultures.

L1 and L2 Vocabulary Development

In order to support ELLs specifically, the Vaughn, et al.’s study provided interventions

to support vocabulary and concept development in ELLs’ L1 as well as their L2 (Vaughn, et

al., 2005). Pugh et al.’s research also supports this idea, indicating that reading disabilities

can weaken the connection between the decoding part of the brain in the right hemisphere

and the parts of the brain in the left hemisphere that integrate spelling, sound, and meaning

(Pugh, et al., 26­27). In other words, ELLs with reading disabilities not only struggle to

develop vocabulary (i.e. “integrate spelling, sound, and meaning”) in English, they also

struggle in their home language.

Denton et al. (cited in Klinger, Antiles, and Barletta) studied one systematic reading

fluency/comprehension program that was taught in English only, and De La Colina studied the

same program, but with some Spanish materials and language. Although De La Colina

showed significant gains in fluency and comprehension, Denton et al.’s study using the same

program in English only did not show significant gains. Another researcher found that

students who were able to discuss English texts in Spanish or English with their peers were

able to improve their comprehension of English texts. (Kilinger, Antiles, and Barletta, 2006, p.

118­119) Based on evidence from Klinger, et a;., Pugh, et al., and Vaughn et al., for ELLs

with reading disabilities, teachers should focus on developing vocabulary in both languages

simultaneously. This intervention will strengthen the parts of the brain the reading disability

disrupts, will activate more of the students’ prior knowledge and cultural background, and will

make the learning more durable.

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 9

Phonemic Awareness

Neuroimaging studies lend strong support for strengthening ELLs’ phonemic

awareness if they do indeed have reading disabilities. As the research suggests, the

decoding part of the brain is the part most directly disrupted by a reading disability, therefore

we need to directly and explicitly try to develop that area in order to overcome the disruption

(Pugh, et al., 2005, p. 27). Kilinger, Antiles, and Barletta (2006) also recommend this

practice, citing several studies that show how improved phonological awareness (in English

as well as student’s native language) can lead to gains in reading achievement.

School­Wide Best Practices

Although classroom teachers and special educators can help ELLs with reading

disabilities in powerful ways using the interventions listed previously, school­level intervention

programs can also be of great assistance in making sure ELLs receive quality instruction

aimed at their needs. After reviewing many of the research on best classroom practices for

this population, Samson and Lesaux pointed out that,

“The findings of the research to date suggest a need for a shift in both policy and

practice toward a model of early identification and intervention for all children,

including LM learners [ELLs]. As with L1 speakers, LM [ELL] learners at risk for

reading difficulties who are not identified in the primary grades are at a major

disadvantage in being able to overcome their reading difficulties through remedial

services following the primary grades...Third grade is much too late to begin to provide

services to augment their skills and address the gaps in their backgrounds.” (Samson

and Lesaux, 2008, pp. 158­159)

The research presented by the authors cited in this paper, as Samson and Lesaux

point out, shows strong support for the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. And according

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 10

to Linan­Thompson and Vaughn (2007), RTI has been shown to increase academic gains for

ELLs at a higher rate than ESL instruction alone. RTI is a school­wide evidence­based

program that quickly and accurately identifies which students need more intensive academic

support. High quality instruction in the general education setting is the first tier of support,

more intensive small group interventions is the second tier of support, and special education

services are usually included in the third tier of support. Implementing RTI with fidelity,

however relies on comprehensive training of all staff on how to implement high­quality

instruction, how to consistently collect and monitor classroom data, and how to decide when

to refer students to the next most intensive level of support.

Since many ELLs respond well to the same types of high quality instruction as L1s,

some ELLs’ failure to respond to Tier 1 interventions could be one indicator that an ELL is at

risk for a learning disability, although more research is required. (Linan­Thompson and

Vaughn, 2007, p. 2) Although measurements of “response” and cut points vary from school to

school, Rinaldi and Sampson have created a table (see Appendix A) with questions educators

should ask before referring an ELL to the next most intensive tier.

Rinaldi and Sampson conclude their thoughts on using RTI with ELLs at risk for

reading disabilities with the following thought:

The most salient difficulty in assessing ELL students who exhibit academic difficulties

is identifying whether the problem is one of English proficiency or of a learning

disability. In many cases the symptoms are shared and difficult to disentangle, but

obtaining a comprehensive picture of the child is vital for disability eligibility (Rhodes,

Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Salend & Salinas, 2003). The RTI model provides an additional

source of information during the special education referral process, using data­driven

CBA in conjunction with scientifically based instruction. All school professionals

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 11

addressing the needs of children who are having academic difficulties will be involved

in more meaningful ways during progress monitoring and evaluation of eligibility for

special education.

In other words, decisions about placing ELLs in special education need to be data­driven;

although this is true for any student admitted to special education, this is an even more critical

element for ELLs since the “symptoms” are so hard to “disentangle”. RTI, implemented with

fidelity, provides ample data to support this process of determining a child’s eligibility for

special education and oftentimes reduces the time it takes for a child to be identified.

Conclusion

Although more research on this topic is called for, current research does suggest that

earlier identification could be one of the most beneficial interventions for ELLs with learning

disabilities. Furthermore, teachers can look to key symptoms of a reading disability which

occur across languages and culture: delayed development of phonemic awareness and

reading fluency rates that are lower than the normative grade­level benchmarks.

Teachers can also implement some known best practices in their classrooms that will

support ELLs with reading disabilities. Some of those interventions include:

use explicit, systematic, and intense instruction

use common ESL best practices including repetitive language and routines, modelling

new information, ample opportunities for dialogue, and ample practice time

develop better knowledge of ELLs’ L1

develop learners’ vocabulary in L1 and L2

focus on phonemic awareness

Finally, implementing a school­wide RTI model is one of the best ways to identify ELLs

with learning disabilities earlier and more accurately. Furthermore, should a child be referred

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 12

to special education as an ELL with a reading disability, this practice provides reliable and

consistent data that can be used when making decisions about a child’s eligibility and

designing his/her IEP.

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 13

Appendix A

(Rinaldi & Samson, 2008)

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 14

References

Paneque, O. M., & Barbetta P. M. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education

teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal,

Volume 30 (Spring). Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2006.10162871

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan­Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English

Language Learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: putting research into

practice.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), pages 58­67.

Pugh, K. R., Sandak, R., Frost, S. J., Moore, D. and Mencl, W. E. (2005), Examining Reading

Development and Reading Disability in English Language Learners: Potential

Contributions from Functional Neuroimaging. Learning Disabilities Research &

Practice, 20: 24–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1540­5826.2005.00117.x

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006, 12). English Language Learners Who

Struggle With Reading: Language Acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities,

39(2), 108­128. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390020101

Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008, 12). Language­Minority Learners in Special Education:

Rates and Predictors of Identification for Services. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

42(2),

ELLs WITH AN SLD IN READING 15

148­162. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326221

Linan­Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English Language

Learners' Response to Intervention: Questions and Some Answers. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 30(3), 185­195.

Rinaldi, C., & Samson, J. (2008). English Language Learners and Response to Intervention:

Referral Considerations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6­14.