Transcript Promoting Literacy Development for English Learners

Promoting Literacy Development for English Learners
Learning in English: A Case for Explicit Instruction
Diane Haager, Ph.D.
Michelle Windmueller, Ph.D.
California State University, Los Angeles
Reading First and other state and federal
reading initiatives call for “scientifically based
reading research” to guide reading instruction. It
is difficult to argue with the notion of putting
research-validated practices into place.
However, what of these practices are validated
for EL students? What evidence do we have to
guide beginning reading instruction for ELs?
To walk into a classroom exhibiting
scientifically based reading research, one
would expect to see:
 Activities to develop students’ phonological
awareness
 Systematic explicit instruction in phonetic
decoding strategies and spelling
 Activities that build fluency in both word reading
and reading of connected text
 Explicit introduction of strategies for text
comprehension
 A variety of vocabulary building activities
Are these practices validated for ELs?
School personnel are challenged to find
effective methods for schooling EL students,
particularly if bilingual instruction is not an
option, due to the lack of bilingual teachers or
policy mandates limiting native language
instruction. The knowledge base regarding
effective reading instruction for ELs is
incomplete, fragmented and fraught with
philosophical and policy-oriented discourse.
• A recent report by the National Academy of
Sciences concluded that the best venue for
reducing disproportionate representation in both
special education and gifted education programs
is improvement in the core elements of classroom
instruction in the early grades (Donovan & Cross,
2002).
• This report makes a strong recommendation for
research and development to “carry promising
practices and validated practices through to
classroom applicability (p. 382)” including
research “on educational improvement,
particularly in schools with large numbers of
children from low-income families (p. 383).”
Purpose
• What are early predictors of reading
achievement for EL students?
• What are critical classroom reading practices
for EL students?
• How do we implement systematic reading
intervention to prevent reading failure and
disproportionate representation?
Predictive Studies
Predictors for Native English
Speakers
• Phonological Awareness
• Rapid Automatized Naming
– Letter Naming
– Colors, digits, pictures
• Letter-sound recognition
How do these predict later reading for ELs?
Kindergarten Predictors
(Oh, Haager & Windmueller, submitted)
• Predictors of nonsense word reading at end
of K
– Letter Naming Fluency (Fall r = .32; Wtr r = .49)
– Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (Wtr r = .36)
– Word Use Fluency (Fall r = .19; Wtr r = .21)
What happens to these predictors in a
regression model?
– See path model, next slide.
.342***
Letter
Naming
Fluency
Time 1
-.082***
.181***
.116***
.215**
.186***
Word Use
Fluency
Time 1
.226***
.362***
Letter
Naming
Fluency
Time 2
R2=.036***
N=435
e=.982
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency
Time 2
R2=.099***
N=383
e=.949
Word Use
Fluency
Time 2
R2=.159***
N=383
e=.917
.026
**p<.01, ***p<.001
.428***
.154**
-.094
Nonsense
Word
Fluency
Time 3
R2=.335***
N=370
e=.815
First Grade Predictors
(Dingle, 2001)
• What language and reading variables predict
end of 1st grade Oral Reading Fluency?
– LNF, NWF signficant direct and indirect effects;
PSF significant, but less powerful than LNF and
NWF
– Home Oral Language, Primary Language Ability
small, significant effect
– English Language level direct and indirect effects
First to Third Grade Predictors
(Windmueller, 2004)
• Complex web of relationships among
language, reading, writing and demographic
variables
– NWF Fall of 1st grade, ORF mid-1st grade were
best predictors of end of 3rd grade
– Gender and attendance had direct effects on
reading and language variables at different points
in time
– LNF predicted 2nd grade reading and 3rd grade
oral language
– PSF predicted 3rd grade writing directly and
indirectly (through 2nd grade NWF)
Figure 4. Full Structural Equation Model Using LISREL
.00
.79
-.38* .10
.03
.01
-.39
-.17* -.04
.17*
.13
-4.93
-.29* .14*
-.05 .06
.02
.13
Letter Naming
Fluency
-7.52*
Gender
-.05
Attendance
.03
-.08
-7.84*
-5.42
-3.12
.14*
.09*
.13*
.10*
.11*
.76
Track
.07
-.22
ELD1
-.88*
-.80*
-5.25
-.03
-.67*
.01
S-Nonsense
Word Fluency
-.53*
-.25
Phoneme
Segmentat ion
F-Nonsense
Word Fluency
2.98
.70
-2.82
-.81
2.28*
.63 1.96*
2.86*
.44*
1.31*
F-Oral
Reading Fluency
.00
.17*
S-Oral
Reading Fluency
.65*
F-Word
Use Fluency
-5.97
4.22
.27*
.12
-.56
1.06
.45*
.70*
-.90
-4.69*
-.04
-.03
1.10*
.94*
.11*
.06
.50*
-3.26 .10*
-1.57 2.46*
ORAL
.53
-.01
.04 -1.13*
CELDT
-6.32 .17*
-3.87 4.07
-.00
-.13
.30
WRITE
-.04*
.31*
-.02
-0.19*
1.83*
-2.71 .06*
-.63 2.23*
.02
-.01
.46*
1.03*
READ
S-Word
Use Fluency
.11*
-.46*
Defining Teacher Quality:
Observation Studies of EL Reading
Instruction
Defining Effective Beginning Reading
Instruction from Observation Studies
• Series of observational studies in first grade
classrooms where >50% of students were
ELs (Gersten, Baker, Haager, Graves,
Goldenberg, Dingle)
• Instructional quality measured by English
Language Learner Classroom Observation
Instrument, developed by research team.
• Reading gains measured by DIBELS,
additional comprehension measure
Six Clusters of Observed Teaching Practices
Correlations Between Subscales of Observation Instrument
and Composite Reading Scores
Subscale
Correlation
1. Explicit Teaching/ Art of Teaching
.62
2. Instruction Geared Toward Low Performers
.65
3. Sheltered English Techniques
.49
4. Interactive Teaching
.57
5. Vocabulary Development
.51
6. Phonemic Awareness and Decoding
.63
*All correlations significant, moderate to strong
Explicit Teaching/ Art of Teaching
 Models skills and strategies
 Makes relationships overt
 Emphasizes distinctive features of new
concepts
 Provides prompts
 Length of literacy activities is appropriate
 Adjusts own use of English during lesson
Instruction Geared Toward Low
Performers
 Achieves high level of response accuracy
 Ensures quality of independent practice
 Engages in ongoing monitoring of student
understanding and performance
 Elicits responses from all students
 Modifies instruction for students as needed
 Provides extra instruction, practice and
review
 Asks questions to ensure comprehension
Phonemic Awareness and
Decoding
 Provides systematic instruction in phonemic
awareness
 Provides systematic instruction in letter-sound
correspondence
 Provides systematic instruction in decoding
Interactive Teaching
 Secures and maintains student attention
during lesson
 Extent to which students are “on task” during
literacy activities
 Selects and incorporates students’
responses, ideas, examples and experiences
into lesson
 Gives students wait time to respond to
questions
Vocabulary Development
 Teaches difficult vocabulary prior to and
during lesson
 Structures opportunities to speak English
 Provides systematic instruction to vocabulary
development
 Engages students in meaningful interactions
about text
Sheltered English Techniques
 Uses visuals or manipulatives to teach
content
 Provides explicit instruction in English
 Encourages students to give elaborate
responses
 Uses gestures and facial expressions in
teaching vocabulary and clarifying
High-Gain v. Low-Gain Classrooms
• Significant difference on all subscales, except
Sheltered English Techniques, with high-gain
teachers receiving higher quality ratings
• To make significant reading gains, EL
students need for their teachers to be using
effective instructional techniques in all six
areas
Qualitative Descriptors of High-Gain
Classrooms
• Teachers integrated vocabulary and language
fluidly, spontaneously and explicitly
throughout instruction
• Teachers stopped to explain and demonstrate
vocabulary critical to the lesson or story
• Teachers also taught basic words that a
typical first grader would not need explicit
instruction for; e.g. “above” and “below”
Qualitative Descriptors of High-Gain
Classrooms
• Teachers integrated writing instruction into
reading lessons
• Teachers used writing instruction to:
– reinforce vocabulary
– Reinforce language concepts
– Practice spelling and decoding concepts
• Teachers were adept at keeping students
engaged and focused
Implementing Reading Intervention
for Struggling EL Readers
PLUS: Promoting Literacy in Urban
Schools
Haager & Windmueller
• “A response to intervention approach to
eligibility determination [for special education]
identifies students as having a LD [learning
disability] if their academic performances in
relevant areas [i.e., reading] do not change in
response to a validated intervention
implemented with integrity (Gresham, 2002,
p. 480-81).”
Three Tiers of Reading Intervention
Tier 3: Special
Education
Project PLUS
Tier 2: Classroom
Intervention
Tier 1: Primary Instruction
Project Goal: Sustainability
• Because schools and districts are constantly juggling
budget constraints, we felt it would be more
sustainable if we could design a model that could be
implemented with low cost, using existing personnel
to provide intervention.
• Therefore, we provided extensive professional
development to school administrators, general
education teachers, and special education teachers.
PLUS provides a second tier of reading intervention
for these schools, where intervention is provided by
classroom teachers within the context of general
education reading instruction. At this time, Tier Three
is provided by special education personnel.
Lessons Learned
• Implementation is the critical element to
success. If this is not done well, the initiative
will drop by the wayside.
–
–
–
–
–
Administrator support
Extensive PD
Competing mandates
Value of ongoing systematic assessment
Importance of ongoing, collaborative grade level
meetings
Recommendations
1. Focus on the “Big Ideas” of reading,
providing systematic, explicit instruction in
key areas.
2. Integrate English language development
with basic reading instruction.
3. Develop tiered reading intervention models
in schools serving EL students.