This experimental/comparison study of secondary-level, small-group instruction included 318 first- and second-grade students (170 ELL and 148 English-only) from six elementary schools. All schools served high numbers of ELL students with varying school SES in urban and suburban communities. Experimental schools implemented a three-tier model of intervention. In addition to primary-tier reading instruction, the second-tier, small-group experimental interventions included use of (a) evidence-based direct instruction reading curricula that explicitly targeted skills such as phonological/phonemic awareness, letter-sound recognition, alphabetic decoding, fluency building and comprehension skills; and (b) small groups of 3 to 6 students. Students at comparison schools were not exposed to a three-tier reading program but received (a) an ESL intervention using balanced literacy instruction with a focus on word study, group and individual story reading, and writing activities; and (b) small groups of 6 to 15 students. The ESL/balanced literacy intervention was generally in addition to primary reading instruction. Results indicated generally higher gains for ELL students enrolled in direct instruction interventions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
References
1.
AdamsG. L.EnglemannS. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.
3.
AndersonM.BeardK.DelgadoB.KeaC.RaymondE.SinghN.SugaiG.TownsendB.VoltzD.Webb-JohnsonG. (1998). Working with culturally and linguistically diverse children, youth, and their families: Promising practices in assessment, instruction and personnel preparation (A White Paper by the Multicultural Concerns Task Force Council for Children with Behavior Disorders). Reston, VA: CCBD, a Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.
4.
Arreaga-MayerC.UtleyC. A.Perdomo-RiversGreenwoodC. R. (2003). Ecobehavioral assessment of instructional contexts in bilingual special education programs for English language learners at risk for developmental disabilities, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 28–40.
5.
BakerS.GerstenR. (1997). Exploratory meta-analysis of instructional practices for English-language learners (Tech Rep. No. 97-01). Eugene, OR: Eugene Research Institute.
6.
BeckerW. C.GerstenR. (1982). A follow-up on Follow Through: The later effects of the Direct Instruction model on children in fifth and sixth grades. American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 75–92.
7.
FoormanB.FrancisD.FletcherJ.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
8.
FrancesD.ShaywitzS.SteubingK.ShaywitzB.FletcherJ. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
9.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). New directions in research, introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
10.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.YoungC. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 157–171.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219
12.
GarciaG. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 813–834). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
GerstenR. (1985). Structured immersion for language minority students: Results of a longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187–196.
14.
GerstenR.GevaE. (2003). Teaching reading to early language learners. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 44–49.
15.
GerstenR.JimenezR. (1998). Modulating instruction for language minority students. In KameenuiE. J.CarnineD. W., Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 161–178). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
16.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.SmithS.B. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 45–56.
17.
GunnB.BiglanA.SmokowskiK.AryD. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.
18.
HaagerD.WindmuellerM. (2001). Early literacy intervention for English language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 235–250.
19.
IhnotC. (1991). Read Naturally. St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally.
20.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
21.
KaminskiR. A.GoodR. H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113–142). New York: Guilford.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.PraterK.CirinoP. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 390–398.
24.
MathesP.TorgesenJ. (2005). Early interventions in reading. New York: McGraw Hill/SRA.
25.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
StebbinsL. B.St. PierreR. G.ProperE. C.AndersonR. B.CervaT. (1997). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model, Vol. IV-A. An evaluation of Follow Through. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
29.
TorgesenJ. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 53–65.
30.
TorgesenJ.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.KytjaK. S.VoellerK.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
31.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–2000 “Public School Questionnaire” and “Charter School Questionnaire.”Washington, DC: Author.
33.
VaughnS.FuchsL.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
34.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.Hickman-DavisP. (2003). Response to treatment as a means for identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–410.
35.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsoneS.MathesP. G.CirinoP.CarlsonC.FrancisD. (in press). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
36.
VaughnS.MathesP. G.Linan-ThompsonS.FrancisD. (2005). Teaching English language learners at-risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 58–67.
37.
WoodcockR. W. (1991). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised. Chicago: Riverside.
