English Language Learners Who Struggle with Reading: Language Acquisition or Learning Disabilities?

Janette KlingnerUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108-128.

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).

The majority of ELLs with special needs have LD with reading difficulties (56%) (USDOE & NICHD, 2003).

The majority of ELLs with disabilities tend to receive special education services in segregated contexts (Zehler et al., 2003).

ELLs are both over- and underrepresented in LD programs, depending on the state or district (Donovan & Cross, 2002).

A Limited Knowledge Base

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?

Are literacy skills and deficits acquired in the first language directly transferred to the second, and, if so, under what conditions (August & Hakuta, 1997)?

Challenges Limited data on critical variables (e.g.,

language proficiency levels, generational status, opportunity to learn).

Difficulties determining language proficiency. Lack of conceptual clarity: Definition and

identification procedures for ELLs vary substantially across states and school districts (USDOE & NICHD, 2003).

Purpose and Research Question Review empirical research on ELLs who

struggle to learn to read and who may or may not have learning disabilities. The overarching question we sought to address is:

What can we learn from research to help us better differentiate between ELLs who struggle to acquire literacy because of limited proficiency in English and ELLs who have actual learning disabilities?

Methods Search procedures:

Comprehensive search for research on ELLs who are struggling readers and ELLs determined to have learning disabilities.

Four modes of searching: subject indexes citation searches consultation browsing

Criteria for selection of studies: Original data K-12 population Focus on students acquiring English as a

second or additional language rather than English as a foreign language

Focus on ELLs with LD or ELLs who are struggling readers

Analysis procedures:1. Assemble set of articles

2. Read articles

3. Identify:• Study’s purpose• Participants• Methodology• Key findings

4. Categorize articles according to broad themes:a) subpopulations of ELLs who struggle to read, b) the role of context in helping us understand ELLs’

struggles, c) referral issues with ELLs who struggle to read, d) assessment practices with ELLs who may have LD, e) predictors of reading achievement, f) instructional interventions for ELLs who struggle to

read or who have LD, and g) the process of becoming literate in a first and a

second language.

Findings and Discussion

Altogether we reviewed 42 research studies. Not all studies we reviewed are described in

this presentation.

What Do We Know about Population Characteristics and Subtypes?

Some subpopulations appear to be particularly vulnerable to placement in special education (Artiles et al., 2005; Artiles et al., 2002). Overrepresentation found in grades 5 through 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.

ELLs in English immersion classrooms were more likely to receive special education than their peers in Modified English immersion or bilingual programs.

ELLs can have temporary difficulties while acquiring English, which can lead to mis-identification as disabled (Schiff-Myers et al., 1994).

In an early study with Mexican-American students, ELLs identified as having severe reading disabilities exhibited the same profile of strong visual processing but weak auditory processing (Jorstad, 1971).

In sum, some ELL subpopulations seem particularly vulnerable to placement in special education, whether or not they have true disabilities. Yet more data are needed.

What Do We Know about the Role of Context? Limited opportunities to learn in general education

classrooms (Arreaga-Mayer & Perdomo-Rivera, 1996), without consideration of context or classroom ecology by referral or placement teams (Harry & Klingner, 2006).

Importance of culture: Trueba (1988) found cultural conflict to be a key factor in

explaining the problems faced by ELLs with LD. Cultural conflict and affective considerations appear to be

of critical importance, yet seem to have been studied infrequently.

ELLs can appear to be competent in one context but not another (Ruiz, 1995) and can appear very different across different educational contexts (Lopez-Reyna, 1996).

These studies have important implications for those making eligibility decisions, and point to the need to observe students across settings and in varied contexts.

What Do We Know about Pre-Referral and Referral Issues? Pre-referral strategies implemented sporadically at best

(Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1997; Harry & Klingner, 2006). Teachers were concerned about students’ struggles and

believed they had already done all they could (Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1997; Harry & Klingner, 2006).

Although many suggestions have been offered for enhancing the referral process (e.g., 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.

What Do We Know about Assessment Practices? Language and culture not adequately

considered during the assessment process (Barrera Metz, 1988; Harry et al., 2002; Maldonado-Colon, 1986; Ochoa et al., 1997).

Psychologists and others tend 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.

English language tests 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.

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.

What Do We Know about Predictors of Reading Achievement? Spanish word recognition and phonological

awareness were better predictors of English reading than English or Spanish oral proficiency or English word recognition (Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993).

Predictions form Spanish to English were generally as strong as Spanish to Spanish predictions, with letter knowledge one of the strongest predictors. The lowest readers in both languages had the slowest rapid naming times and lowest print awareness (Lindsay, Manis, & Bailey, 2003).

ELLs performed more poorly than native English speakers on most measures of phonological and linguistic processing, but developed in a similar manner. For ELLs, alphabetic knowledge may precede and facilitate the acquisition of phonological awareness in English (Chiappe, Siegel, & Gottardo, 2002).

Reading and phonological processing were related within and across languages. The strongest predictors of English word reading were native language and English phonological processing, native language reading, and English vocabulary (Gottardo, 2002).

In conclusion, factors that correlated with later reading achievement, whether in English or the native language, included phonological awareness, print awareness, alphabetic knowledge, rapid naming, and English vocabulary.

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.

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 and English second-language reading: Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, and Spharim (1999) determined

how ELLs’ native and second language proficiencies were related to their metalinguistic development in both languages and their achievement in English reading comprehension. Even though students tended to have limited vocabularies in both languages and to be underachieving as a group in English reading comprehension, a significant portion of the variance in their reading comprehension was explained by the extensiveness of their vocabularies in the two languages, and by phonological awareness.

Differences between more and less proficient second language readers: In analyses of ELLs’ miscues:

Miramontes (1987, 1990) found that mixed dominant students exhibited various areas of strength, yet were perceived by teachers to all have similar limitations and to be weak in all skills.

Avalos (2003) found that students’ “errors” involved limited knowledge of phonetics, graphemes, semantics, syntax, and vocabulary (including false cognates), and that oral language proficiency in English was an inadequate predictor of “correct” comprehension of English texts.

In analyses of ELLs’ use of comprehension strategies using think alouds:

Hardin (2001) and Langer et al., (1990) found that less able readers focused on surface aspects of reading rather than meaning-making and used fewer comprehension strategies than more proficient readers. Students’ level of second language proficiency played a less prominent role in second language reading than did the level of their strategy usage in their first language.

Ammon (1987) administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) to 100 3rd-5th ELLs and found that unknown vocabulary and a lack of schema were main factors affecting students’ achievement test scores.

Differences between second language readers and native English readers: Third- through fifth-grade ELLs used fewer metacognitive

strategies than native English speakers in two studies by Padrón and colleagues (Knight, Padrón, & Waxman, 1985; Padrón & Waxman, 1988). Knight, Padrón, and Waxman found that ELLs selected strategies

with different relative frequencies than native English readers.

Padrón and Waxman noted that students’ perceptions of the cognitive strategies they used had predictive validity for their reading comprehension.

The authors concluded that the use of inappropriate cognitive strategies may be an additional reason ELLs generally score lower than English monolingual students on reading achievement tests.

Conclusions

Our review of the literature strongly suggests that additional research is warranted to help us understand the characteristics, development, and learning processes of ELLs who struggle to learn to read or who have LD. Yet there are significant challenges to doing this work.

Lessons can be derived from this review for research in various domains.

Research: Refine language proficiency assessment procedures so that

more precise and complete information can be collected about students’ levels of language proficiency in English and in their first language.

Use multiple measures to determine language proficiency (e.g., test results as well as natural language samples).

Continue to investigate language acquisition processes, in particular for students who grow up speaking two or more languages (i.e., simultaneous bilinguals).

Implications for Research and Practice

Describe ELL research participants in more detail, with information about language proficiencies, ethnicity, socio-economic level, school history, and family circumstances (e.g., generation in the U.S., whether families are migrant workers).

Develop detailed profiles of students who struggle with literacy and who may or may not have LD. These profiles should include descriptions of students’ instructional programs, learning contexts, the quality of interventions, and history of their opportunities to learn, as well as student characteristics.

Collect additional information about subgroups of ELLs who struggle with reading and are placed in special education to assess potential differential effects of interventions efforts.

Pre-referral and referral practices:

Provide early interventions to students who show signs of struggling with reading, before initiating a referral to special education (e.g., Response to Intervention models).

Implement meaningful pre-referral strategies within general education as part of the referral process.

Include experts in language acquisition in all phases of instructional, referral, and assessment processes, particularly when students seem to be delayed in acquiring both their first language and English.

Consider contextual features, socio-cultural factors, school and program characteristics, and students’ opportunities to learn in all phases of instructional, referral, and assessment processes.

Assessment practices and eligibility decisions:

Use alternative ways of assessing students’ strengths to determine the upper limits of their potential.

Conduct observations of students in different settings as part of any evaluation.

Pay greater attention to cultural and affective considerations when evaluating students (e.g., sources of potential conflict, motivation).

Give greater attention to students’ native language and the role of language acquisition when determining whether a student may have LD.

Consider that weak auditory processing skills could indicate language acquisition rather than a processing disorder or LD.

Evaluate students in their first language as well as English to determine predictors of reading achievement.

Instructional interventions:

Combine phonological awareness with other reading and English language development activities (whether instruction is in the student’s first language or English).

Provide explicit vocabulary instruction to facilitate reading comprehension in L1 and L2.

Teach and encourage the use of reading comprehension strategies in L1 and L2.

Help students develop a strong foundation in their first language as a way to promote literacy in both the native language and English.

In Closing… The fields of special education, bilingual/multicultural special

education, and literacy continue to evolve. The research base in each is growing, yet remains incomplete. Although on the one hand more research is needed to help us differentiate between language acquisition and LD, on the other hand much is already known about teaching, assisting, and assessing ELLs who struggle to become literate in their first language and English. Yet it appears not enough of this knowledge is utilized in practice. Thus, we not only need more basic research, but also more field-based research to help us better understand the challenges associated with applying what we know in school settings and the resources needed to carry out preferred practices.