Presentation on theme: "Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners Elizabeth Arellano Catherine Tung Mike Vanderwood, Ph.D. University of."— Presentation transcript:
Early Literacy Interventions with Spanish Support for English Language Learners Elizabeth Arellano Catherine Tung Mike Vanderwood, Ph.D. University of California, Riverside
Agenda Review research in areas of early literacy and English language learners (ELLs) Examine results of a recent literacy intervention study with ELLs Discuss implications for practice
ELLs in Schools Increasing number of ELLs in schools (National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition, 2007) By 2030, ELLs expected to represent 40% of students (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2003). 79% are Spanish-speaking (Kindler, 2002)
Early Literacy Early literacy skills are critical for reading success (Torgesen, 2002). Poor readers in primary grades have a high probability of remaining poor readers in later grades (Felton & Wood, 1992; Juel, 1988). Poor readers tend to struggle in other subject areas (Gersten, Clarke, & Mazzocoo, 2007; Juel, 1988). Lack of proficiency in reading associated with negative social outcomes, including school withdrawal & delinquent behavior (Bennett, Brown, Boyle, Racine, & Offord, 2003; Slavin, Karweit, & Wasik, 1994).
Early Literacy & ELLs ELLs have much lower literacy skills than native speakers (NAEP, 2007) 70% of 4th grade ELLs are below basic in reading compared to 31% of native speakers (NAEP, 2007) ELLs among those most at risk for reading difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) & placements into special education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005)
Response to Intervention (RTI) Prevention model that uses a problem solving approach designed to improve academic outcomes for all students (Hollenbeck, 2007) Focuses on prevention & early intervention Uses research-based instructional practices Frequent progress monitoring Data-based decision making to improve student performance
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Standardized general outcome measures that have been shown to be highly reliable, valid, sensitive to student growth, & capable of developing growth standards (Deno, 1985) Effective for screening & progress monitoring both native English speakers & ELLs (Baker, & Good, 1995; Busch & Reschly, 2007; Deno, 2005)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Technically adequate measures for screening & progress monitoring at-risk students (Kaminski, Cummings, Powell-Smith, & Good, 2008). Indicators of basic early literacy skills: Phonological awareness (PSF), alphabetic principle (NWF), fluency (ORF), & comprehension (Maze) Risk status: low risk/established, some risk/emerging, or at risk/deficit
DIBELS - English Speakers & ELLs PSF & NWF effective measures for native English speakers (Felton & Pepper, 1995; Torgesen, Wagner, & Roshotte, 1994) PSF & NWF just as effective & predictive with ELLs (Vanderwood, Linklater, & Healy, 2008)
Phonological Awareness Levels of PA: Rhyming, recognizing patterns of rhymes, blending phonemes, segmenting phonemes, & manipulating phonemes (Adams, 1990) Strong predictor of early reading proficiency for English speakers (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994) & ELLs (Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993) Transfers between languages (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003)
Early Literacy Interventions Significantly improves reading levels among ELLs (Slavin & Cheung, 2003), particularly those that target phonological awareness (Phillips, McNaughton, & MacDonald, 2004) Some research has indicated that ELLs maintain their acquired reading skills long after intervention (Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005) However, other research has indicated otherwise (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Hickman-Davis, 2003)
Early Literacy Interventions Linan-Thompson et al. (2005) examined the effects of a supplementary Spanish intervention among kindergarteners at risk for reading problems. Intervention components: Phonological awareness, phonics, word reading, sentence reading, writing, & spelling. Mixed Results
Purpose of Present Study To examine the outcomes of a targeted PA intervention for first grade ELLs with low English proficiency. To examine the outcomes of an added Spanish component on the effects of the intervention.
Methods – Participants Inclusion criteria Spanish speaking ELLs (California English Language Development Test level 1 or 2) Below 25 th percentile on both PSF & NWF during fall screening Sample characteristics Original sample of 18 participants (1 moved, 1 removed due to behavior difficulties) Final sample of 16 (10 males, 6 females) from 6 first grade classrooms
Methods – Measures DIBELS early literacy measures were used for screening and progress monitoring. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) Other measures California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Assessment of English language proficiency.
Methods – Intervention Uses instructional practices recommended for English language learners (Gersten & Geva, 2003): Explicit instruction, interactive teaching, opportunities to respond, and corrective feedback. Consists of 12 sessions of approximately 30 minutes of phonological awareness instruction.
Methods – Intervention Session format Vocabulary Phoneme Production/Replication Phoneme Segmentation and Counting Phoneme Blending Phoneme Isolation Rhyming Spanish component Additional 15 minutes of instruction in Phoneme Segmentation & Counting, Phoneme Blending, & Phoneme Isolation.
Methods – Procedures Students randomly assigned to intervention conditions 2 groups of English-only (6 males & 2 females) 2 groups of English + Spanish (4 males & 4 females) Intervention conducted 5 days per week for 11 weeks English intervention: 30 minute sessions for all 4 groups Spanish component:15 minutes for 2 of the 4 groups twice per week Exit criteria: PSF > 35 & NWF > 50 Students progress monitored weekly using PSF & NWF
Results Based on progress monitoring data, 88% of the intervention students met benchmark ( > 35) on PSF and 62.5% met the benchmark ( > 50) on NWF. PSF (Fall & Winter)NWF (Fall)NWF (Winter) 0 - 9Deficit0 - 12At Risk0 - 29Deficit Emerging Some Risk Emerging > 35Established> 24Low Risk> 50Established
Results A dependent samples t-test revealed significant differences between pre-intervention scores and post- intervention scores on both PSF (t = 9.91; p <.00) and NWF (t = 8.61; p <.00). All Participants (PSF)All Participants (NWF) BeforeAfter BeforeAfter Deficit37.5% (6)6% (1)At-Risk / Deficit25% (4)12.5% (2) Emerging62.5% (10)6% (1)Some Risk / Emerging44% (7)25% (4) Established0%88% (14)Low Risk / Established31% (5)62.5% (10)
Results An independent samples t-test revealed no significant differences between the English only intervention group and the English + Spanish intervention group on PSF (t =.71; p =.62). English Only (PSF) BeforeAfter Deficit37.5% (3)12.5% (1) Emerging62.5% (5)0% Established0%87.5% (7) English + Spanish (PSF) BeforeAfter Deficit37.5% (3)0% Emerging62.5% (5)12.5% (1) Established0%87.5% (7)
Results A independent samples t-test revealed no significant differences between the English only intervention group and the English + Spanish intervention group on NWF (t =.73; p =.53). English + Spanish (NWF) BeforeAfter At-Risk / Deficit25% (2)12.5% (1) Some Risk / Emerging50% (4) Low Risk / Established25% (2)37.5% (3) English Only (NWF) BeforeAfter At-Risk / Deficit25% (2)12.5% (1) Some Risk / Emerging37.5% (3)0% Low Risk / Established37.5% (3)87.5% (7)
Follow up – PSF Group*Time: F(2, 108) = 8.20, p <.00 Simple Effects: UCR: t= 5.13, p <.00 School: t = 2.71, p <.01 No intervention: t = -3.05, p <.00 No intervention FallWinter School intervention (Ticket to Read) UCR intervention
Follow up – NWF Group*Time: F(2,108) = 3.21, p <.04 Simple Effects: UCR: t= 3.63, p <.00 School: t = 8.60, p <.00 No intervention: t =8.47, p <.00 No intervention FallWinter School intervention (Ticket to Read) UCR intervention
Follow up – PSF English Only English + Spanish WinterFall Group:F(1,11) =.55, p <.47 Time: F(1,11) = 25.42, p<.00 G*T: F(1,11) = 1.02, p <.34
Follow up – NWF Group: F(1,11) =.34, p <.57 Time: F(1,11) = 12.12, p <.01 G*T: F (1,11) =.44, p <.52 English Only English + Spanish WinterFall
Conclusions A phonological awareness intervention has a significant effect on the phonological awareness and phonics performance of first-grade Spanish-speaking ELLs. This study provides preliminary evidence that adding a Spanish component has no significant effect on the effectiveness of a phonological awareness intervention for Spanish-speaking ELLs.
Limitations Comparison groups did not start at the same level. UCR intervention started much lower. Possible ceiling effect (lower students had more room to grow). Results cannot be generalized to all ELLs due to the small sample size. Further research is needed in order to examine the effects of adding a Spanish component to literacy interventions.