Learning About Learning Disabilities || Assessment and Interventions for English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities

271Learning about Learning Disabilities© 2012 Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.2012

Assessment and Interventions for English Language Learners with Learning DisabilitiesEsther Geva1, and Katherine Herbert21Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V6 2Ministry of Children and Family Development of British Columbia, Victoria Child and Youth Mental Health, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8W 9S3

10

Chapter Contents

Introduction 271Historical Perspective 273Contextual Considerations 274Language Development 275

Cross-Language Transfer 275“BICS” vs. “CALP” 277Development of English Language Proficiency in ELLs 278

The Simple View of Reading 279ELLs’ Literacy Development in English 279

Word-Level Skills: Decoding and Spelling 280Text-Level Skills: Reading Comprehension and Writing 280Typically Developing ELLs 282

LD Subtypes in ELLs 282Poor Decoders 283Poor Comprehenders 284

Assessment 285The Assessment of Intelligence—Implications for L2/LD 285Assess in the L1 and/or in English? 287Assessing Oral Proficiency 289

Do L1-Based Interventions Work for ELLs? 289Conclusion 291References 292

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

With increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in global communities, research that may influence educational policy regarding multilingual

http://dx.doi.org/

Learning about Learning Disabilities272

youth is extremely pressing. In English speaking countries that absorb immigrants there is steady growth in the number of school children from an immigrant background whose first language is not the societal lan-guage. This trend is most noticeable, though not limited to, large metro-politan areas where newcomers tend to settle. English Language Learners (ELLs) may be the children of immigrant parents (second generation), they may have immigrated with their families when they were infants, or they may have arrived after having attended school in another country for a number of years. Recent estimates of school aged children speak-ing a home language other than English in the United States vary by region from 12 to 34% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2009). In Canada, 22% of the population reported speaking a mother tongue other than one of the country’s two official languages (English and French), with approximately 55% of school aged children in the large “gateway” cities of Vancouver and Toronto speaking English as a second language (Statistics Canada, 2006). In the United Kingdom, approximately 12 to 16% of students countrywide speak a home language other than English, with some urban schools in London recording figures as high as 75% (UK Department for Education, 2011). Australian statisti-cal reports suggest that approximately 1 in 5 of the total population speak English as a second language (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). These consistently high figures can leave little doubt that issues related to the education of ELLs are both timely and salient, and will become even more critical as continued immigration contributes to the increasing diversifica-tion of English speaking countries.

This chapter focuses on children and youth whose challenges navigat-ing English school systems in a second language (L2) are compounded by having learning disabilities (LD). English Language Learners (ELLs) with LD represent a vulnerable group of students, whose difficulties are frequently misunderstood, misattributed, or simply missed. This chap-ter introduces theoretical perspectives on L2 development, touching on topics such as cross-language transfer, and the development of basic vs. academic language proficiency. Research concerning LD subtypes in ELLs (i.e. “poor decoders” and “poor comprehenders”) is also discussed. Additionally, issues related to assessment are analyzed, focusing on how to tease apart expected L2 development from an ELL-LD profile. Lastly, clin-ical applications related to educational interventions for ELLs with LD are presented, and suggestions are offered for much needed future research. We argue that in spite of the challenges, ELLs who may have an LD should

Assessment and Interventions for English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities 273

be entitled to research based, well informed, culturally sensitive assessment that can lead to appropriate educational intervention.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In the school system, how to identify and provide essential supports to ELLs who have LD has been controversial due to problems related to both over-identification (Cummins, 1991) and under-identification (Limbos & Geva, 2001). Historically, students from ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities were over-represented in special education classes. In an effort to counteract this prejudice in the school system, classification criteria require ruling out social factors (e.g., lack of exposure to reading materials due to low socioeconomic status) in the identification of an LD (Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, 2002). In response to research, and in order to allow students time to acculturate and become proficient in English, many school districts introduced policies advocating delaying psy-choeducational assessments of ELLs for 5 to 7 years (Cummins,1984,1991). While this policy was well-intentioned, an unintended consequence was that ELLs with LD often waited an extremely long time to receive neces-sary assessment and special education services. One may imagine that after 5 to 7 years of struggling to read and write, ELLs who may actually have a LD may be so far behind their peers that it may be difficult for them to catch up. This may partially contribute to very high school dropout rates among ELLs (e.g., Brown, 2006; Ferguson, Tilleczek, Boydell, Rummens, & Roth-Edney, 2005; Watt & Roessingh, 2001).

Further, access to educational intervention services within schools is often reliant on referrals from classroom teachers. However, subjective teacher judgment may have limited effectiveness at differentiating typi-cal development of skills in ELLs from red-flags for reading disabilities among ELLs (Limbos & Geva, 2001). As many as 9 out of 10 ELLs with objectively measured indicators of reading problems may “fall through the cracks” if the access to service relies on teacher referrals alone, because classroom teachers tend to misattribute ELLs’ reading and writing difficul-ties to the fact that their oral language skills are not sufficient to enable them to perform at grade level (Limbos & Geva, 2001). Understanding the language, cultural, and literacy development of L2 learners is crucial to enhance sensitive, bias-free, and accurate assessment, and to provide appropriate instruction and program adaptations when the need arises (Gottardo, Collins, Baciu, & Gebotys, 2008; Hamayan & Damico, 1990).


CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

While this chapter emphasizes individual differences among students, it is important to acknowledge broad systemic factors that exert a signifi-cant influence on the developmental course of language and literacy skills in ELLs, but are outside the scope of the current discussion. For instance, contextual and community variables can exert an influence on academic achievement over and above individual- and family-level socio-economic indices (Gould, Lavy, & Paserman, 2003; Hart & Risley, 1999; Rumberger & Willms, 1992; Willms, 1999). Factors such as the extent to which ELLs live in homogenous communities where the first or home language (L1) is widely used, and there is less exposure to English, are related to rate of language attainment. Age of arrival in the host country is typically inversely related to children’s acquisition of English, while parental educa-tion is positively related (Garnett, 2010). Another important consideration is whether learning of the L1 or L2 was disrupted, as is often the case for children who are refugees, move schools frequently, or alternate between living in the country of origin and the host country. The educational chal-lenges faced by some immigrant children and youth may be exacerbated by poverty, social-emotional problems that might be related to accultura-tion, parents who may be stressed or have minimal education, cultural dif-ferences in the attributions that community members may have about the possible source of learning difficulties experienced by their children, and limited access to services.

Specifically, newcomers’ ability to access services may be affected by the city or area in which they settle. There are large discrepancies in the support available for ELLs in various jurisdictions (e.g., Provinces, States), due to differences in policies and professional training relating to the pro-vision of appropriate educational accommodations and modifications for ELLs. A recent policy paper (Geva, Gottardo, Farnia, & Byrd Clark, 2009) revealed differences among Canadian provinces in the amount of funding available to support ELLs. This in turn can affect the duration and qual-ity of educational support. The policy paper also highlighted that most jurisdictions do not have clear policies about the education of ELLs who also have a LD, a problem that is compounded by the fact that traditional, standardized assessment methods may not be valid for many of these chil-dren. Similar concerns have been voiced in other recent reviews (e.g., Durgunoglu, 2002; Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Lipka, Siegel, & Vukovic, 2005; McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & Leos, 2005). It is important


to underscore that although the contextual factors mentioned here do not cause LD, they may exacerbate the struggle with LD.

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENTCross-Language TransferFrequently, in the context of considering the potential relationships and influences between the L1 and L2, the concept of cross-language transfer emerges. Theoretical and applied questions often asked by researchers and educators concern the extent to which the learner’s home language may enhance the process of learning to comprehend, communicate, read, and write in the L2 (i.e., “positive transfer”), or whether features of the tar-get language or the L1 hamper the acquisition of the L2 (i.e., “negative transfer”). Cross-language transfer has been considered from four theoreti-cal orientations: L1-L2 interdependence (Cummins, 1984; Geva & Ryan, 1993), L1-L2 contrastive perspective (Lado, 1964), target-language influ-ences (Dulay & Burt, 1974), and interlanguage (Selinker, 1972). For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the interdependence hypoth-esis and the contrastive perspective due to their prominence and relevance to a discussion of ELL-LD.

The interdependence hypothesis, formulated by Cummins (1981, 2000) postu-lates that the acquisition of L1 and L2 skills is interdependent, and that devel-opment of the L1 can influence and facilitate development of the L2. This framework has been highly influential in the literature on L2 literacy develop-ment (Genesee & Geva, 2006). According to this framework, not all aspects of L1 development are expected to be equally facilitative of L2 development. Instead, two dimensions—the extent of contextual support and the cogni-tive demands of communication—create situations that vary in terms of how facilitative existing L1 skills may be for L2 learning. Cummins (2000, p. 173) hypothesizes that “academic proficiency transfers across languages such that students who have developed literacy in their first language will tend to make stronger progress in acquiring literacy in their second language” because the academic language skills are developmentally linked to common underlying proficiencies across the languages. For example, L2 learners can use knowledge or learning strategies acquired in one language when they read in another lan-guage (Cummins, in press; Royer & Carlo, 1991). It follows that clinicians may be able to gain important insights into what ELLs can do by exploring rel-evant or parallel conceptual knowledge in the L1, or by allowing the learner


to respond in the L1. In line with this theory, clinicians should gather detailed information about the learner’s academic performance in L1 in the home country, because pre-existing academic difficulties may suggest an ELL-LD profile. In contrast, lack of exposure to formal schooling (e.g., refugees who did not have the opportunity to attend school consistently and are not literate in the L1), may display academic troubles stemming from a lack of opportu-nity to learn rather than an LD.

Theoretically linked to the interdependence hypothesis is the central processing framework. While the interdependence hypothesis framework tends to focus on higher order academic skills that may be related cross-linguistically, the central processing framework highlights common underly-ing cognitive processing across languages that can help to understand the relationships between L1 and L2 reading components (Geva & Ryan, 1993). These underlying abilities are thought to account for individual differences in the rate and success of language and literacy skills development whether in the L1 or L2. Processes such as working memory, phonological short-term memory, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming are thought to be part of one’s general innate cognitive endowment. As dis-cussed in more detail below, the research literature suggests that, unlike the higher level cognitive skills and strategies that Cummins has articulated as being transferrable (provided that the learners have attained a sufficient level of proficiency in the L2), the performance of ELLs on underlying cognitive processing skills is “hard wired” and therefore is less dependent on having developed high levels of proficiency in the L2. Deficits in these cognitive processes therefore tend to be reliable indicators of LD.

The contrastive framework (Lado, 1964) focuses on structural similarities and differences between the L1 and L2 that may enhance or impede the acquisition of specific language or reading elements in the L2. Languages that are typologically similar (e.g., English and French) share more struc-tural features than languages that are typologically distant (e.g., English vs. Arabic or Japanese). Employing a contrastive stance adds nuance to under-standing how ELLs from different L1 backgrounds develop their language and literacy skills in English. For example, specific errors in the phono-logical awareness or decoding skills of ELLs may reflect negative transfer from the home language when the distance between the two languages is larger (e.g., Bialystok, Majumder, & Martin, 2003; Wang & Geva, 2003). Typological effects may delay the development of accurate and fluent decoding skills in English due to the “deep” or less “transparent” nature of the rules that govern phoneme to grapheme correspondences, as opposed


to “shallow” or “regular” orthographies such as Spanish, Dutch, or voweled Hebrew (Share, 2008).

Evidence of typologically-related negative transfer in the emergence of spelling skills in the L2 comes from studies that applied error-analysis to the spelling of novel phonemes in the L2 (e.g., Fashola, Drum, Mayer, & Kang, 1996; Mumtaz & Humphreys, 2002; Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000; Wang & Geva, 2003b). For example, Wang and Geva (2003) tracked the spelling development of ELLs whose first language was Cantonese and of monolin-gual English-speaking controls over two years. A fine-grained error-analysis revealed that at the beginning of Grade 1, the ELLs experienced difficul-ties in spelling specific phonemes that do not exist in Cantonese (e.g., /th/ in the word “teeth”). However, as their language proficiency and exposure to literacy skills increased these difficulties disappeared, and by the end of Grade 2 these Cantonese-as-L1 learners had acquired the /th/ phoneme and were able to spell it correctly in various words.

The implication for assessment of reading disability in ELLs may be that on the surface, students may not have a known history of decoding or spelling problems in the language (L1 or L2) that is associated with a more shallow orthography such as Spanish, but some students might show dif-ficulties in developing decoding or spelling skills in English because it has a “deep” orthography (see Frost, 1994; Katz & Frost, 1992). However, even when ELLs with LD are able to benefit from the regularity of the orthog-raphy and decode with accuracy, they typically are less able to read with fluency. Clinically, it is very useful to examine and analyze error patterns. However, the interpretation and conclusions based on this analysis needs to be based on a consideration of developmental and typological factors.

“BICS” vs. “CALP”In considering the course of language development, the distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) offered by Cummins (1984) is important to consider, particularly with regard to the general issue of ELL/LD. Cummins’ framework highlights the importance of distinguish-ing between everyday or social knowledge and academic or conceptual knowledge, and the conditions under which the learner can communicate this knowledge. BICS involves context-embedded, daily communication such as the language shared by family members at the dinner table. CALP refers to the language one needs for academic and higher-order cogni-tive purposes. CALP is the kind of language one may use in discussing


topics where high-level, subject-specific vocabulary is required, such as a discussion about the theory of evolution. It is useful to think of BICS and CALP as relative points along a continuum.

The distinction between BICS and CALP is important because even though ELLs may understand conversational English well, express-ing themselves with fluency (and perhaps even with no “foreign” accent) when communicating about everyday topics (i.e., BICS), ELLs are likely to struggle with the language of academic text and higher level, school-like language (i.e., CALP). Therefore, ELLs may appear fluent, but in fact, their command of the L2 may not enable them to fully understand and participate when language demands are higher. The challenge when work-ing with ELLs is to be able to distinguish between these different levels of proficiency and consider the extent to which ELLs’ language skills reflect lack of opportunities to develop CALP or (perhaps in addition) an under-lying and persistent difficulty in developing language skills. This discussion underscores the caution needed to avoid erroneously assuming that ELL-status is not an issue and that test norms developed on the basis of mono-lingual samples can be used to interpret performance when in fact the learner’s language skills are still developing.

Development of English Language Proficiency in ELLsDespite rapid development in many areas, typically developing ELLs take longer to achieve native-like English language proficiency than do mono-lingual peers. ELLs tend to lag behind their monolingual peers on various aspects of English oral language proficiency, including vocabulary breadth (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Bialystok & Feng, 2009; Farnia & Geva, 2011; Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010; Roessingh & Elgie, 2009), academic vocabulary (Jean & Geva, 2009), morphological skills (e.g., Pasquarella, Chen, Lam, Yang, & Ramirez, 2011; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010), and listening comprehension (e.g., Geva & Farnia, 2011; Lesaux, Rupp, & Siegel, 2007; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Such language skills are related to each other and are all essential for coping with the school curricula. For example, a longitudinal study in which the development of vocabulary in ELLs and monolinguals was tracked has shown that the gap in vocabulary depth and breadth does not disappear even after six years of attending school in English (Farnia & Geva, 2011; Jean & Geva, 2009). Consequently, when assessing ELLs, one might expect to see somewhat lower scores on aspects of English language proficiency. However, this lower performance does not necessarily reflect a disability,


and should be mild only. More significant delays and lack of improve-ment may be due to an underlying disorder and should warrant further investigation.

THE SIMPLE VIEW OF READING

Before we turn to describing the research on ELLs with LD it is impor-tant to briefly mention a prominent theory that has received much attention in the reading research literature—the Simple View of Reading (SVR), which can help in conceptualizing subtypes of reading disabilities. According to the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) reading comprehension is made up of two interacting sets of skills: decoding (word reading) and language comprehen-sion. Decoding involves the visual and visual-phonological mapping skills needed to derive word meanings from print with both accuracy and fluency (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Language comprehension involves a variety of language skills including vocabulary, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The SVR provides a general framework for explaining how dif-ferent types of reading difficulties (i.e., poor decoding vs. poor comprehend-ing) can occur as an outcome of a breakdown in the ability to decode, the ability to comprehend language, or both.

A number of recent studies suggest that the SVR framework is ade-quate for understanding the factors that contribute to the reading com-prehension of ELLs as well (e.g., Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, 2004; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005; Yaghoub Zadeh, Farnia, & Geva, 2010). Some researchers have critiqued the SVR and offered ways in which it can be improved, however a discussion of these aspects is beyond the scope of this chapter (for a critique and sugges-tions for expansion to the SVR see Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, 2004; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Kirby & Savage, 2008). On the whole, a rather con-sistent finding is that word reading skills and language skills in English pre-dict reading comprehension in ELLs.

ELLs’ LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLISH

The question of the relationship between language proficiency and lit-eracy is crucial to understanding expected developmental trajectories for ELLs, thereby shedding light on whether reading/writing difficulties can be attributed to insufficient command of the language, or whether they may reflect a LD.


Word-Level Skills: Decoding and SpellingIsolated word reading is modular and relatively self-contained (Perfetti, 1999; Share & Leikin, 2004). Children with “dyslexia” have difficulties with word reading and spelling skills, including the ability to recognize words and decode/spell new words. One of the key underlying character-istics of monolingual children and ELLs with “dyslexia” is their difficulty with phonological awareness (e.g., Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Ehri, 1998; Elbro, 1996; Geva et al., 2000; Scarborough, 1990; Shankweiler, 1999; Torgesen, 1999). Phonological awareness refers to chil-dren’s understanding of the relevant phonemic units in words, and involves the ability to break words into units such as syllables, onsets-rimes, and phonemes (Durgunoglu et al., 1993). Phonological awareness measured prior to or at the onset of formal schooling and reading instruction pre-dicts later word recognition and spelling, and subsequent reading and writing development. Research has shown that performance on phono-logical awareness tasks predicts word reading and spelling in L1 and L2 for bilingual children (e.g., Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Guron & Lundberg, 2003; Jared, Cormier, & Wade-Woolley, 2011; MacCoubrey, Wade-Woolley, Klinger, & Kirby, 2004; Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2007).

Of high relevance to the topic of ELL-LD is the finding that ELL sta-tus does not undermine the ability of ELLs to perform with accuracy on cognitive processing tasks such as phonological awareness, naming speed, and verbal working memory, which are causally related to word level reading and spelling skills (for a review see Geva, 2006; see also Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). These “hard-wired” processing skills may be less dependent on language proficiency, meaning that ELLs should be able to score in the normal range on measures of these skills very early on (Genesse & Geva, 2006).

Text-Level Skills: Reading Comprehension and WritingUnlike word-level skills, text-level skills such as reading comprehension and writing are complex and multifaceted constructs that require multiple levels of knowledge, ranging from basic linguistic knowledge to higher-level cognitive and language processes and relevant background knowl-edge. ELLs, by definition, have less well-developed oral language skills than their monolingual counterparts. They also tend to perform more poorly than their monolingual peers on reading comprehension tasks


(e.g., Aarts & Verhoeven, 1999; Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999; Geva & Farnia, 2011; Hutchinson, Whiteley, Smith, & Connors, 2003; Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008). Various oral language skills, including vocabulary knowledge, listening comprehension, and syntactic and mor-phological skills have been shown to be strongly related to reading com-prehension and reading fluency of ELLs (e.g., Carlisle et al., 1999; Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Geva & Farnia, 2011; Lesaux et al., 2007; Miller, Heilmann, Nockerts, Iglesias, Fabiano, & Francis, 2006; Nakamoto et al., 2008; Proctor et al., 2005; Yaghoub Zadeh et al., 2010). It is interesting to point out that language comprehension plays a more substantial role in reading comprehension in higher grades than in the lower grades. The reason for this differentiation is that much of the emphasis in the lower grades is on developing accurate and fluent decoding skills but that atten-tion shifts to comprehension later on (e.g., Catts, Adlof, & Ellis-Weismer, 2006).

There is growing evidence that reading fluency, the ability to recog-nize printed words with accuracy and automaticity, contributes to read-ing comprehension in both monolingual students and ELLs. The ability of ELLs to read isolated words with fluency, that is the ability to read words with accuracy and speed, may be less dependent on having well developed English oral proficiency (Geva & Yaghoub Zadeh, 2006; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Yet, ELLs’ fluent reading of texts is more closely linked to their English oral proficiency (e.g., Al Otaiba, Petscher, Pappamihiel, Williams, Drylund, & Connor, 2009; Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Geva & Farnia, 2011; Nakamoto et al., 2008). In other words, typically developing ELLs who have better developed English language skills can read texts with more fluency than their peers whose language skills are developing at a slower pace (Geva & Yaghoub Zadeh, 2006). This means that when the reading of ELLs is consistently dysfluent it is important to find out whether the source of the difficulty resides in having decoding difficulties, lack of lan-guage skills, or both.

As is the case for reading comprehension, in addition to having well developed aspects of language proficiency, to become good writers ELLs need to be able to draw on other knowledge and skills, such as spelling, familiarity with cohesive devices, audience awareness, familiarity with writing various text genres, having relevant background knowledge, and writing skills in the L1 (Cummins, in press). There is a dearth of research on the writing development of ELLs (Geva & Genesse, 2006). One avail-able study suggests that ELLs who begin school at a young age in Grade 1


are able to achieve story-writing skills within age and grade expectations by Grades 4 to 6 (Ndlovu, 2010). Results indicated that verbal short-term and working memory, word-level literacy skills (i.e., reading and spelling), and reading comprehension were the strongest predictors for ELL’s story-writing development over time, supporting theories which suggest that writing requires the successful coordination of multiple systems and skills (e.g., Berninger, 2009).

Typically Developing ELLsIt is important to remember that unlike monolingual children, ELLs need to learn spoken and written language simultaneously. Canadian research suggests that typically developing ELLs who begin school in English at a young age should be doing well academically by the time they are in Grades 3 or 4 (Geva, Yaghoub Zadeh, & Schuster, 2000; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003; Ndlovu, 2010). This body of research has demonstrated that these young ELLs matched their EL1 peers in multiple intellectual (e.g., non-verbal intelligence), cognitive-linguistic (e.g., phonological processing, verbal memory, rapid automatized naming), and literacy skills (e.g., real- and nonsense-word reading, reading fluency, spelling, written syntax, and story-writing). This means that staff conducting classroom and/or psy-choeducational assessments of ELLs can expect students to perform at a similar level to their first language peers in these areas after a few years of school in English, particularly if they began language instruction at a young age and benefitted from consistent instruction. On the whole, much less is known about the development of ELLs who begin school in English as adolescents, but they tend to have lower language and literacy skills than their monolingual counterparts (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2011 ).

LD SUBTYPES IN ELLs

Thanks to research advances it is now possible to begin to discuss subtypes of LD in ELLs, thereby allowing for more refined theoretical frameworks, and for more sensitive and informed assessment and intervention for ELLs with LD. In general, the research conducted to date suggests that the sub-type classification for reading disorders into “poor decoders” and “poor comprehenders” (or “unexpected poor comprehenders”) is applicable to ELLs as well. In what follows we briefly describe these groups in relation to recent research findings.


Poor DecodersAs we have discussed earlier, longitudinal and cross-sectional research has shown that young, typically developing ELLs make rapid progress in terms of their English word-level decoding and spelling skills in the early grades, in spite of being behind in their English oral language skills. Children who have poor decoding skills constitute a group of students that has more tra-ditionally been thought of as having reading disorders, or “dyslexia”. As discussed above, the best indicators of underlying word-based learning dis-abilities in ELLs are persistent weaknesses in decoding and phonological skills. In general, as is the case with monolinguals, phonological aware-ness, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and working memory have been shown to be sources of individual differences associated with word level reading and spelling skills in ELLs (e.g., Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Everatt, Smythe, Adams, & Ocampo, 2000; Geva et al., 2000; Gottardo, Chiappe, Yan, Siegel, & Gu, 2006). ELL and EL1 at-risk readers with low phono-logical processing skills have very similar learning profiles on many cogni-tive and linguistic measures (Geva et al., 2000; Ndlovu, 2010; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003).

Recent research from a Canadian longitudinal study tracking EL1 and ELLs from Grade 1 to 6, demonstrated that poor decoders can be reliably and fairly identified regardless of home language (Ndlovu, 2010). These researchers used a cut-off point of the 30th percentile on a standardized test of word reading and demonstrated that all language groups were proportionally represented, suggesting that ELLs were nei-ther over- nor under-identified as being poor decoders. The profiles of ELL and EL1 participants who were designated as poor decoders were characterized by phonologically-based difficulties, weaknesses in short term and working memory, more limited vocabulary and syntac-tic skills, as well as some difficulties in listening comprehension. ELL and EL1 poor decoders had significant delays in literacy development, showing marked difficulties in both word- and text-level reading and writing.

The conclusion from the available body of research is that it is possible to reliably assess phonological processing skills in young ELLs, and that poor performance on tasks assessing phonemic awareness, rapid automa-tized naming, and verbal memory predict word-level reading and spelling difficulties in ELLs as well.


Poor ComprehendersPoor comprehenders who are fluent decoders are attracting an increasing amount of attention in recent research with monolingual EL1 populations. Poor comprehenders represent a vulnerable group because their difficul-ties tend to be overlooked by teachers in the classroom due to their flu-ent oral reading (Leach, Rescorla, & Scarborough, 2003; Nation, Snowling, & Clark, 2007). The fact that this group of learners tends to have below average oral language proficiency has been observed with various aspects of oral language, including vocabulary, listening comprehension, semantics, morphosyntax, and oral story-telling (Cain, 2003; Catts et al., 2006; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, & Parilla, 2011). Poor comprehenders have problems with higher level and metacogni-tive skills such as inference making and comprehension monitoring (Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, 2004). They also tend to have below average cogni-tive abilities, and deficits in short-term verbal memory (Catts et al., 2006; Nation, Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004; Swanson, Saez, & Gerber, 2006).

Given their weaknesses in oral language, there is some debate as to whether poor comprehenders have “Specific Language Impairments” (SLI). There is some overlap between poor comprehenders’ skill deficits and those of SLI (Nation et al., 2004), but researchers point out that poor comprehenders typically have intact phonological awareness, whereas stu-dents with SLI do not, and that this distinction might affect the focus of intervention (Bishop & Snowling, 2004).

It may be rather complex to identify ELLs who are poor compre-henders, or what Kirby et al (2011) refer to as “unexpected poor com-prehenders”, for a number of reasons. First, like their EL1 counterparts, the difficulties that ELLs who are poor comprehenders may have are less likely to be recognized, especially in the lower grades, because they are often able to read with relative fluency and have good decoding skills. In addition, as discussed above, ELLs with LD often have their difficul-ties misattributed to their second language status (Limbos & Geva, 2001). Furthermore, typically developing ELLs can be expected to have less well developed oral language skills than their monolingual peers. This means that teasing apart poor language and reading comprehension skills that are related to normal L2 developmental trajectories from language and reading comprehension difficulties that reflect a “true” LD and perhaps a language impairment is challenging. Sensitive assessment is needed to determine whether the reading comprehension difficulties of ELLs are in excess of what would be expected from normally developing ELLs.


The task is also complicated by the fact that to date there are no available yardsticks for determining what ‘normal’ reading compre-hension is for ELLs coming from different learning and demographic contexts. One way to overcome this challenge is to define ELLs who appear to have persistent difficulties in reading comprehension rela-tive to their own language group. This approach was used in two recent studies, based on the same longitudinal research project (Ndlovu, 2010) in which the performance of ELLs and EL1 students in Grades 4 to 6 was compared on various language and reading measures. These studies highlighted the distinct profiles of three reading groups: poor decod-ers, poor comprehenders who had average decoding skills, and typically developing students who had average word reading and reading com-prehension skills. Importantly, in order to disentangle ELL status from LD, the designation of poor comprehenders was done relative to the ELL/EL1 language groups. Due to the fact that ELLs had lower read-ing comprehension scores as a whole group, the relative cut-off point of the 30th percentile on a test of reading comprehension represented a lower raw score than that used for EL1s. This procedure minimized over-identification of ELLs as poor comprehenders. The EL1 students and ELLs who were poor comprehenders exhibited similar and pervasive difficulties in comprehending and producing oral language. They were especially challenged when the tasks demanded higher-level semantic and syntactic processing, the integration of factual information, or the ability to draw inferences. In terms of their literacy development, while poor comprehenders had intact word-level skills, their text-level skills (i.e., reading comprehension and story writing) were severely compro-mised (Ndlovu, 2010). Of particular concern is the fact while some EL1 poor comprehenders who were identified in Grade 4 had improved their reading comprehension by Grade 6, the majority of the ELL poor comprehenders showed little, if any, improvement. On the whole, these studies suggested that poor comprehenders experienced persistent dif-ficulties with various aspects of oral language proficiency and literacy skills, regardless of L2 status.

ASSESSMENTThe Assessment of Intelligence—Implications for L2/LDMuch has been written about the (in)appropriateness of assessing intel-ligence in minority children. The difficulties in the use of standardized


intelligence measures with linguistically diverse populations has usu-ally been presented with regard to serious questions about the validity of obtained scores. A discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this chapter. For an excellent overview of the theoretical perspectives read-ers are referred to: Hamayan and Damico, (1991); Sattler (2008); Scientific American, (1998).

We do wish to address, however, one specific aspect of intelligence testing that pertains to the diagnosis of LD in ELLs. It has to do with the practice of establishing a significant discrepancy between assessed intel-lectual functioning and academic achievement in order to qualify for a diagnosis of a learning disability. Among monolinguals, children who experience reading difficulties that are commensurate with their intelli-gence are often referred to as “garden-variety” poor readers (Stanovich, 1988). They may therefore not be eligible for special education services that are offered to children who meet the discrepancy criteria and are therefore deemed to be LD. The discrepancy requirement has been under attack by researchers. In particular it has been shown that the symptoms associated with a reading disability such as dyslexia in young children are identical for both discrepant and nondiscrepant poor decoders, and it appears that the same root causes (i.e., impaired phonological processing) underlie that difficulty (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994).

Phonological processing skills show a very strong, causal relationship with decoding skills, while intelligence is only weakly associated with the acquisition of basic decoding skills in EL1s (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994) and in ELLs (e.g., Geva et al., 2000). Moreover, for ELLs there is another strong argument for avoiding the use of the discrepancy criterion to estab-lish a reading disability. In addition to concerns about the validity of the obtained intelligence scores it is important to consider the fact that for ELLs who are in the process of developing proficiency in English, it may be difficult to obtain a verbal intelligence score that is high enough to establish a discrepancy. Some might argue that to avoid this vicious cir-cle it maybe preferable to rely on nonverbal intelligence to establish the discrepancy. However, concerns about the application of L1 norms to an L2 population remain. Furthermore, nonverbal intelligence tests do not have predictive validity for decoding skills in L2 learners (Geva & Siegel, 2000; Geva et al., 2000). It is also important to remember that global fac-tors such as oral language proficiency and general intelligence may be more subject to the influences of cultural knowledge, socioeconomic fac-tors, and the social context of language acquisition. Instead of relying on


the possibly erroneous measurement of such global factors, it may be pru-dent to target the underlying cognitive processes such as working mem-ory, phonological short-term memory, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming, which, as discussed, have been shown to be impor-tant sources of individual differences in ELLs’ reading acquisition for early identification and intervention.

Assess in the L1 and/or in English?There are ongoing debates about the extent to which it is useful to exam-ine both L1 and L2 reading and language skills. This clinical question is motivated by theoretical questions about the extent to which it is possible to predict performance on literacy measures in L2 by considering perfor-mance in the L1 and the L2. From a theoretical perspective the underlying argument here is whether linguistic processes are universal or language-specific (Geva & Siegel, 2000). These discussions are related to the inter-dependence and typology frameworks discussed above. It is important to remember, however, that these two perspectives are not mutually exclu-sive and their realization may depend on the specific language or read-ing features that are considered. For example, phonological awareness is a metalinguistic skill that is acquired in the process of developing language and literacy skills. It has been argued that once acquired it does not have to be learned again in the context of another language. This means that phonological awareness in one language is likely to correlate positively and significantly with phonological awareness in another language (e.g., English, the L2). Indeed, there is ample research to support this observa-tion with typically developing children (Comeau et al., 1999; Jared et al., 2011; MacCoubrey et al., 2004; Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2007) as well as in studies of children with learning difficulties (Durgunoglu, 2002; Guron & Lundberg, 2003; Marinova-Todd & Zhao, & Bernhardt, 2010; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2010).

Other aspects of language such as morphological or syntactic skills may be somewhat more closely aligned with L2 language proficiency. For example, Saigh-Haddad and Geva (2008) have shown in a study of pri-mary school children that the correlation between phonological awareness in English and Arabic was positive and significant, while the correlation between morphemic awareness in English and Arabic was not. Saigh-Hadded and Geva explain that these children were able to carry out the phonological awareness tasks in both languages because language profi-ciency in either language did not exert a toll. Yet, having well developed


morphological skills in English could not be used to perform the task in Arabic. Typological differences between different languages exert an influence when it comes to morphological skills, as does language profi-ciency. Morphological awareness requires linguistic knowledge and chil-dren whose L2 proficiency is minimal may not be able to “transfer” their morphological knowledge from one language to the other if the two lan-guages are very different from each other, as is the case in the English-Arabic dyad for example. This typological effect has also been illustrated in other studies that compared morphological skills across languages with different structures (e.g., Pasquarella et al., 2011).

The implications for assessment are clear; one should be cautious about attributing difficulties to a learning disability when the difficulty is con-tained to the L2, and is not noted when other linguistic elements that are common to both the L1 and L2 are involved. In contrast, one may con-clude not only that the learner is thwarted by negative transfer from the L1, but that the learner’s performance is considerably delayed if their per-formance is low relative to other students with similar home language and instructional experiences.

Some have argued that children’s performance should be assessed in both the L1 and L2 because limiting assessment to the L2 only (as is often the case when working with ELLs) may underestimate the learners’ lin-guistic ability (e.g., Oller & Pearson, 2002) and other sources of knowl-edge (Cummins, 1984, in press; Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2009). For example, learners may be familiar with the meaning of words in their L1 but not in the L2. They may also be able to use higher-level reading and writing strategies in their “better” language (Cummins, in press). Even in the domain of phonological awareness research has shown that although phonological processes assessed in the L1 and L2 corre-late positively with each other (i.e., there is a lot of overlap), L1 and L2 phonological processes may load on different factors (e.g., Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Manis et al., 2004; Swanson, Saez & Gerber, 2006).

Assessing only in the L2 may be related to bias in assessment that may reflect injudicious reliance on test norms developed on the basis of monolingual speakers, unfamiliarity with testing procedures, and so on. Therefore, from an equity perspective it is useful to gather informa-tion on parallel skills in the L1 and L2 where this is feasible, or at least gather information about past performance in the L1. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge a myriad of challenges to the assessment


and interpretation of tests administered in the L1 as well. These challenges include factors such as: lack of appropriate tests in children’s L1, lack of qualified personnel who can administer tasks in the L1, and the inappro-priateness of L1 norms for ELLs who have begun to lose their L1 due to the fact that their schooling may be occurring entirely, or primarily, in the societal language (Geva & Wade Woolley, 2004).

On the whole, we suggest that where possible assessment should be carried out in both the L1 and L2, and gathering information about per-formance in the L1 and L2 is useful. In principle, one would be looking for consistent information in the L1 and L2. However, the interpretation of performance should be carried out with caution, and with full aware-ness of possible mitigating factors. In this respect it is important to remember that comparison of performance with that of siblings or with other learners with a similar background is highly informative.

Assessing Oral ProficiencyAssessing the oral language skills of ELLs is a complex task that requires a good understanding of language development in various domains includ-ing phonology, semantics, morphosyntax, discourse comprehension, and pragmatics. It is also important to be cognizant of within-child, typologi-cal, demographic and contextual factors that influence L2 language and literacy development. These factors may impact decision making with regard to possible language impairment or learning disability. Within-child factors include the previously discussed underlying, “hard-wired” skills, such as rapid automatized naming or phonological short-term memory. Individual differences in such skills are related to language and literacy development in L1 and L2. The challenge is to figure out whether poor performance reflects lack of opportunities to learn and dearth of appro-priate educational exposure, or whether it reflects an underlying disability. The approach that we take to untangling this challenge is two-pronged. It involves adopting a developmental perspective that considers chil-dren’s response to instruction and opportunities to learn, and compar-ing struggling learners to peers with similar linguistic and demographic background.

DO L1-BASED INTERVENTIONS WORK FOR ELLs?

Only a handful of studies have systematically examined the impact of research-based interventions on ELLs at-risk for having a learning


disability and the majority of those have focused in on enhancing pho-nological awareness. An important and well designed series of studies has been conducted in Texas. For example, Cirino et al. (2009) report on the outcomes one year post-intervention of ELLs at-risk for reading problems. Reading performance was evaluated at the end of Grade 2 for ELLs from a Latino/a background, who were at-risk at the beginning of Grade 1, and were assigned to an intervention or a comparison group either in English or Spanish, depending on the language in which they were receiv-ing reading instruction. The intervention focused on explicit phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, application of this knowledge to reading at the word and text levels, and meaning making strategies. The intervention was further enhanced by including an oral and vocabulary component, and by emphasizing language support activities. Students who received the intervention in Grade 1 in English showed improvement in English oral language, decoding, comprehension, reading fluency, and spelling, with modest effect sizes. This was generally also true for the students who received the parallel intervention in Spanish (i.e., the home language). Participants made and sustained gains regardless of whether the interven-tion was delivered in Spanish or English. However, there was very little evidence of transfer between English and Spanish. One wonders whether evidence of transfer would have emerged by lengthening the treatment period or with explicit teaching to transfer.

In a Canadian study, Lovett et al. (2008) examined the extent to which struggling readers from different ELL backgrounds could benefit from a phonologically based intervention. Reading and reading related outcomes of 166 participants were assessed before, during, and following an intervention of 105 hours. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interven-tions, or to a special education reading control program. The research-based interventions were more effective than the special education reading con-trol program on reading outcomes, and rate of growth. Of high relevance in the present context was the finding that there were no differences between ELLs and EL1s in terms of responsiveness to the treatments.

In another study, Wise and Chen (2010) identified French Immersion children in Grade 1 who were at-risk for reading disability. Those at-risk students received a systematic intervention designed to improve phono-logical awareness skills. The intervention program was first delivered in English (children’s L1) but then there was a shift to French, the language of instruction at school. This intervention study also yielded significant improvement in reading.


These studies vary in the methodology used and the procedures used to identify learning disabilities. Nevertheless they point to the merit of providing L2 learners who are at-risk for a reading disability or who were identified as LD with rigorous and timely interventions that are research-based. The available research suggests that L2 learners, like their mono-lingual peers, can benefit from such interventions, particularly when common underlying processes such as phonological awareness are tar-geted. However, various questions still remain when one considers the impact of interventions applied to ELLs who have LD. Additional research is needed that explores the conditions that might enable L1-L2 transfer of training and intervention in subgroups of ELLs with LD. More is known about what may be helpful for poor decoders, while very little research is available on how to intervene with ELLs who are poor comprehenders. The effects of assessment and intervention with ELLs who enter school in English in adolescence and may have an LD is another “unchartered ter-ritory”, as is research on the efficacy of training clinicians and educators to identify and tailor interventions that are sensitive to the needs of ELLs with different profiles.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided an overview of recent research on language and literacy development in typically developing ELLs and those who might have an LD. Due to the implications for assessment, special attention was given to a discussion of reading domains that are more closely related to L2 language proficiency, and those hard-wired, modularized aspects of word reading that are less closely aligned with language proficiency. Additional sections provided a review of other complementary factors that pertain to the development of language and literacy skills in typically developing ELLs and those with LD. These include the contribution of contextual and family factors, cross-language transfer and its relevance to L2 learning, the contribution of typological linguistic factors, and within-child, processing factors. We have shown that the cognitive and linguistic profiles of monolingual and ELL poor decoders (dyslexics) are rather simi-lar to each other, as are the profiles of monolingual and ELL students who are “unexpected” poor comprehenders.

Recommendations for assessment and for students at-risk for decod-ing and/or reading comprehension problems include: taking a devel-opmental approach that considers response to instruction, fine-grained


error-analysis, the importance of assessing in both the L1 and L2 where possible, and of gathering detailed information about past academic per-formance in the L1. Other recommendations involve the need for cau-tion in using standardized norms and intelligence testing, and the value of comparing students’ progress to that of students with similar backgrounds such as siblings. The available research on educational interventions for ELLs with LD suggests that research-based instructional programs work equally well for monolinguals and ELL.

Understanding the course of language and literacy development of ELLs in elementary and secondary school is important because recent research indicates that too many of the ELLs who have an LD are not identified and are therefore denied proper program adaptation and inter-vention. School staff who are hesitant to refer ELLs are likely trying to be sensitive to their students’ need for time to learn English and acculturate. However, as this chapter suggests, tools are available for sensitively assessing ELLs and ensuring they receive appropriate intervention if necessary. It appears that systematic, research-based teaching methods that work when applied to monolingual learners should also work when applied to ELLs. To minimize the drop-out rate of ELLs with LD it is vital that schools support students with LD, regardless of whether they speak English as a first or second language.

REFERENCESAarts, R., & Verhoeven, L. (1999). Literacy attainment in a second language submersion

context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 377–393.Al Otaiba, S., Petscher, Y., Pappamihiel, N. E., Williams, R. S., Drylund, A. K., & Connor, C.

M. (2009). Modeling oral reading fluency development in Latino students: A longitudi-nal study across second and third grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 315–329.

Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological process-ing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 140–147.

August, S., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary devel-opment for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). 2006 Census QuickStats: Australia. Retrieved <www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/>.

Berninger, V. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(2), 9–80.

Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2009). Language proficiency and executive control in proactive interference: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual children and adults. Brain and Language, 109, 93–100.

Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27–44.

Bishop, D., & Snowling, M. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impair-ment: same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858–886.

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/


Brown, R. (2006). The grade 9 cohort study: A five-year analysis, 2000-2005. Toronto District School Board Research Today, 2(1) Retrieved from <www.tdsb.on.ca/>.

Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, H. L., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459–478.

Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.

Cirino, P. T., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 744–781.

Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 29–43.

Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475–494.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. California: College-Hill Press.

Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. In J. H. Hulstijn & J. F. Matter (Eds.), Reading in two languages (pp. 75–89). Amsterdam: Free University Press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (In press). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the devel-opment of reading comprehension among bilingual students. To appear in Reading and Writing, E. Geva & X. Chen-Bumgardner (Eds.), Special Issue: Socio-Cultural Factors in Reading Comprehension of Immigrant Children.

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.

Da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic and working memory skills of bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 139–153.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). National sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.

Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 189–204.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 453–465.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.

Ehri, L. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elbro, C. (1996). Early linguistic abilities and reading development: A review and a hypoth-esis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 453–485.

Everatt, J., Smythe, I., Adams, E., & Ocampo, D. (2000). Dyslexia screening measures and Bilingualism. Dyslexia, 6, 42–56.

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/


Fashola, O. S., Drum, P. A., Mayer, R. E., & Kang, S. J. (1996). Predicting spelling errors in bilingual children. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 825–843.

Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 711–738.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2009). America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2011. Retrieved from <www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2011/ac_11.pdf>.

Ferguson, B., Tilleczek, K., Boydell, K., Rummens, A., & Roth-Edney, D. (2005). Early school leavers: Understanding the lived reality of disengagement from secondary school. Toronto, ON: Hospital for Sick Children, Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved from <www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/reports.htmlh>.

Frost, R. (1994). Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shal-low orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1–16.

Garnett, B. (2010). Toward understanding the academic trajectories of ESL youth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(5), 677–710.

Genesee, F., & Geva, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phono-logical processes, and oral language. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 175–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geva, E. (2006). Second-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 123–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2011). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. To appear in X. Chen & E. Geva (Eds), Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Special Issue.

Geva, E., Gottardo, A., Farnia, F., & Byrd Clark, J. (2009). National Literacy Strategy Background/Policy Paper: Children for whom English/French is not the first language. Retrieved from <http://docs.cllrnet.ca/NSEL/Current/NSEL_FirstLanguage.pdf>.

Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and memory correlates of academic skills in first and second languages. Language Learning, 43, 5–42.

Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent devel-opment of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1–30.

Geva, E., & Wade-Woolley, W. (2004). Issues in the assessment of reading disability in sec-ond language children. In I. Smythe, J. Everatt, & R. Salter (Eds.), International Book of Dyslexia: A cross language comparison and practice guide (pp. 195–206). Chichester: John Wiley.

Geva, E., & Yaghoub Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31–57.

Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 123–154.

Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among english learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Gottardo, A., Chiappe, P., Yan, B., Siegel, L., & Gu, Y. (2006). Relationships between first and second language phonological processing skills and reading in Chinese-English speakers living in English-speaking contexts. Educational Psychology, 26, 367–394.

Gottardo, A., Collins, P., Baciu, I., & Gebotys, R. (2008). Predictors of Grade 2. Word Reading and Vocabulary Learning from Grade 1. Variables in Spanish-Speaking Children: Similarities and differences. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(1), 11–24.

http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2011/ac_11.pdf

http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2011/ac_11.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/reports.htmlh

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/reports.htmlh

http://www.docs.cllrnet.ca/NSEL/Current/NSEL_FirstLanguage.pdf


Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predict-ing second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 330–344.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.

Gould, E., Lavy, V., & Paserman, D. (2003). Immigrating to Opportunity: Estimating the effect of school quality using a natural experiment on Ethiopians in Israel. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(2), 489–526.

Guron, L. M., & Lundberg, I. (2003). Identifying dyslexia in multilingual students: Can pho-nological awareness be assessed in the majority language? Journal of Research in Reading, 26(1), 69–82.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Hamayan, E. V., & Damico, J. S. (Eds.). (1990). Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual stu-dents. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hutchinson, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 19–32.

Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2011). Early predictors of biliteracy development in children in French immersion: A 4-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 119–139.

Jean, M., & Geva, E. (2009). The development of vocabulary in English as a second language children and its role in predicting word recognition ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 153–185.

Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, mor-phology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland Press.

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (in press). Morphing into adolescents: Active word learning for English language learners and struggling readers in middle school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.

Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128.

Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw Hill.Leach, J., Scarborough, H., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211–224.Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (2002). Official Definition of Learning Disabilities.

Retrieved from <www.ldac-taac.ca/Defined/defined_new-e.asp>.Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from

diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 821–834.

Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1005–1019.

Lipka, O., Siegel, L. S., & Vukovic, R. (2005). The literacy skills of English language learners in Canada. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 39–49.

Limbos, M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of ESL children at-risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 136–151.

Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., et al. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333–352.

http://www.ldac-taac.ca/Defined/defined_new-e.asp


MacCoubrey, S., Wade-Woolley, L., Klinger, D., & Kirby, J. (2004). Early identification of at-risk L2 readers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(1), 11–28.

Manis, F., Lindsey, K., & Bailey, C. (2004). Development of reading in Grades K-2 in Spanish-Speaking English-Language Learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 214–234.

Marinova-Todd, S. H., Zhao, J., & Bernhardt, B. (2010). Phonological awareness skills in the two languages of Mandarin-English bilingual children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 24(4-5), 387–400.

McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). English language learners and learning disabilities: Research agenda and implications for practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 68–78.

Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30–43.

Mumtaz, S., & Humphreys, G. (2002). The effect of Urdu vocabulary size on the acquisition of single word reading in English. Educational Psychology, 22, 165–190.

Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of English language learners’ reading comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 351–371.

Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impair-ments in children: parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 47, 199–211.

Nation, K., Snowling, M., & Clarke, P. (2007). Dissecting the relationship between language skills and learning to read: Semantic and phonological contributors to new vocabulary learning in children with poor reading comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(2), 131–139.

Ndlovu, K. (2010). Story-Writing Development from Grades 4 to 6: Do language status and reading pro-file matter? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, OISE-University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Oller, D. K., & Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: A background. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 3–21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2010). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Lam, K., Yang, L., & Ramirez, G. (2011). Cross-language transfer of morphological awareness in Chinese-English bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 23–42.

Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). Oxford University Press.

Proctor, C., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.

Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-English bilingual children: Within and cross-language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing, 23, 337–358.

Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among English language learners: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study. TESL Canada Journal, 26, 24–25.

Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 450–455.


Rumberger, R., & Willms, J. D. (1992). The Impact of Racial and Ethnic Segregation on the Achievement Gap in California High Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 377–396.

Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Geva, E. (2007). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and reading in English-Arabic bilingual children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 481–504.

Sattler, J. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher Inc.

Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development, 61, 1728–1734.

Scientific American. (1998). Exploring Intelligence. Retrieved from <www.sciamdigital.com/>.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231.Shankweiler, D. (1999). Words to meanings. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 113–127.Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice:

The perils of over reliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615.

Share, D. L., & Leikin, M. (2004). Language impairment at school entry and later reading disability: Connections at lexical and supra-lexical levels of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 87–110.

Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term crosslinguistic trans-fer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable difference modes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–612.

Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression based test of the phonological core variable difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24–53.

Statistics Canada. (2006).Language, 2006 Census. Retrieved from <www.statcan.gc.ca/>.Swanson, H. L., Saez, L., & Gerber, M. (2006). Growth in literacy and cognition in bilingual

children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 247–264.Tong, X., Deacon, H., Kirby, J. R., Cain, K., & Parrila, R. (2011). Morphological awareness:

A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 523–534.

Torgesen, J. K. (1999). Phonologically based reading disabilities: Toward a coherent theory of one kind of learning disability. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Spear-Swerling (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 231–262). New Haven: Westview Press.

UK Department for Education. (2011). Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics, January 2011. Retrieved from <www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001012/sfr12-2011.pdf>.

Wade-Woolley, L., & Geva, E. (2000). Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 295–311.

Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325–348.

Willms, J. D. (1999). Quality and inequality in children’s literacy: The effects of families, schools and communities. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 72–93). New York: Guilford Press.

Wise, N., & Chen, X. (2010). At-risk readers in French immersion: Early identification and early intervention. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 128–149.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/

http://www.sciamdigital.com/

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/

http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001012/sfr12-2011.pdf

http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001012/sfr12-2011.pdf


Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–238.

Yaghoub Zadeh, Z., Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2010). Toward modeling reading comprehension and reading fluency in English language learners. Reading and Writing Retrieved <www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11145-010-9252-0>.

http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11145-010-9252-0

http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11145-010-9252-0

Documents

Learning About Learning Disabilities || Assessment and Interventions for English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities