59
ON E DY
I KUD
NOT RED A BOOK
BOT NAW I C A N
One English Learner’s Progress
Steve Amendum
■
Emily Amendum
■
Pamela Almond
How can we support our English learners’ reading development?
This question is posed daily in elementary schools. This article
describes a yearlong intervention and one English learner’s journey to
grade-level reading.
I
n the current educational climate, an important
shift has occurred calling for research situated
in practice. Researchers and practitioners must
conduct research together that directly benefits
schools and students (see Easton, 2010). To that end,
within the literacy field, our work together must
inform a multitude of literacy-related constructs,
including reading instruction. This article describes
how a university researcher (Steve), reading specialist
(Emily), and first-grade teacher (Pam) partnered to
attain such a goal, focused on reading intervention.
During our work together on the research project,
as has been the case for other researchers (see
Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 1996), a student, Marisa
(a pseudonym), garnered our attention as a valuable
case of literacy teaching and learning.
Marisa entered kindergarten speaking Spanish,
her native language. According to Pam, during
kindergarten Marisa slowly acquired conversational
English and interacted with peers and teachers.
After the summer break, Marisa moved to first
grade with Pam, who changed grade levels. After
the first three weeks, Pam identified Marisa as
The Reading Teacher
trtr_1183.indd 59
Vol. 67
Issue 1
pp. 59–69
the student who needed the most support in
her classroom. In the remainder of this article,
we describe how Emily and Pam used reading
intervention strategies to support Marisa as she
developed into a reader during her first-grade year.
Context
Project Description
During Marisa’s first-grade year, Pam and the
first-grade teaching team participated in a project
on professional development and early reading
intervention, called ENRICH (Amendum, in press),
adapted from research conducted with rural schools
(e.g., Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, & Ginsberg, 2011).
The team included six classroom teachers and four
Steve Amendum is an assistant professor at North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Emily Amendum is a lecturer at North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
USA; e-mail [email protected].
Pamela Almond teaches in the Wake County Public School System,
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA; e-mail [email protected].
DOI:10.1002/TRTR.1183
© 2013 International Reading Association
R T
8/9/2013 2:36:44 PM
60
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
support teachers (who worked across
grades K–5), including Emily, a reading
specialist. Steve and an ENRICH project
coach worked with the teaching team
as they learned the instructional model
for providing reading intervention
within the context of the classroom (see
Figure 1 for an intervention overview).
At the same time, teachers received
embedded professional development
in early reading development and
instruction through ongoing weekly
coaching from the project coach, which
occurred in real time while each teacher
provided intervention for a student
during the school day.
To provide additional context,
Table 1 compares features of ENRICH
with other well-known interventions.
For example, a comparison with
Reading Recovery (RR; Clay, 1993)
shows that the two interventions
appear conceptually similar; however,
differences arise in who delivers the
intervention (classroom teacher or
specialist vs. RR specialist), length
of intervention (15 vs. 30 minutes),
word study (systematic vs. individual
Pause and Ponder
■
What are some key instructional features
of supplemental reading instruction for
young English learners?
■
With all the responsibilities that classroom
teachers have, how can they make time
for one-on-one instruction with selected
students?
■
Are there ways that classroom teachers
and literacy specialists/coaches can
increase communication around specific
students’ instructional needs and
progress?
R T
trtr_1183.indd 60
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 67
Figure 1 Overview of the Major Components of the ENRICH Project
text-driven), and cost ($113 vs. $4,000
per student).
Through the project, teachers
implemented explicit, diagnostic
instructional strategies with
struggling students. Emily began
the year working as the intervention
teacher with Marisa, and later in
the school year, as Marisa’s reading
performance increased, intervention
instruction transitioned from Emily to
Pam. Through the project participation
of both Pam and Emily, we were able
to ensure continuity of intervention
instruction for Marisa across the
school year.
Intervention Overview
Teachers delivered the intervention
approximately 4 days per week, in
1-on-1, 15–20-minute sessions in
3 parts: (1) Familiar Rereading, (2)
Word Study, and (3) Teacher-Guided
Issue 1
Reading with a writing extension.
The total intervention time varied for
each student, depending on his or her
reading progress. Each of these three
components is explicated later, using
Marisa’s case as the example. Teachers
had complete autonomy in planning
when to conduct intervention sessions,
and they selected times that included
arrival time, literacy instructional
time, before/after lunch, or during
preparation for dismissal.
The project coach observed or
participated in teacher–student
intervention sessions weekly and
gave feedback about each teacher’s
instructional strategies as well as the
child’s observed instructional needs,
applying recommendations about the
importance of direct work with teachers
through ongoing coaching (e.g., L’Allier,
Elish-Piper, & Bean, 2010). Each daily
session for Marisa was planned on
September 2013
8/9/2013 2:36:44 PM
61
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
Table 1 Comparing ENRICH and Three Reading Interventions—Reading Recovery, Book Buddies, and Reading Mastery
ENRICH
Reading Recovery (Clay, 1993)
Book Buddies (Invernizzi, Rosemary,
Juel, & Richards, 1997)
Reading Mastery (McGraw-Hill
School Education Group, 2008)
Teacher as professional decision
maker
Specialist as professional decision
maker
Coordinator as professional decision
maker
Structured scope and sequence
Embedded, individualized weekly
professional development and
coaching
Extensive, individualized professional
development and coaching
3-day workshop provided for tutors
4–8 hours of training
Classroom teacher and/or reading
specialist is intervention teacher
Specialist is intervention teacher
Volunteers are trained as tutors to
provide intervention
Teachers or paraprofessionals are
intervention teachers
15–20-minute lesson
30-minute lesson
60-minute lesson
35–90-minute lessons
Diagnostic, individualized instruction
matched to students’ current needs
Diagnostic, individualized instruction
matched to students’ current needs
Diagnostic, individualized instruction
matched to students’ current needs
Individualized or small-group
instruction driven by scope and
sequence of lessons
Systematic, individualized,
multisensory word study integrating
the alphabetic principle, phonemic
awareness, phonics knowledge,
and blending and segmenting
within real words
Individual word study driven by the
text used
Individualized developmental word
study based on Words Their Way
word study (Bear et al., 2011)
Word study driven by the
structured scope and sequence
Cost per student = $95–$113
Cost per student = $4,000
(Shanahan & Barr, 1995)
Cost per student = $595 (Invernizzi
et al., 1997)
Cost per student = $102.97–
$170.67 (National Center on
Response to Intervention, 2012)
the basis of the previous session using
diagnostic evidence gathered from the
instructional strategies matched to
Marisa’s instructional needs (cf. Clay,
1993).
Our work with Marisa predated
the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative
(National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010) in
our state; however, readers will likely
notice that many of the instructional
strategies addressed key CCSS. For
example, as part of intervention,
students work through increasingly
complex texts and address many of the
CCSS Foundational Skills.
To fully illustrate for readers the
instructional components of ENRICH,
we use Marisa as our example. We first
provide background information about
Marisa. Next, we briefly contextualize
our example related to Marisa with a
discussion of research findings related
to reading development and instruction
for English learners (ELs). Finally, we
provide detail about the instruction
Marisa received and her progress across
the school year.
What Happened for Marisa?
Background
In August, Marisa entered kindergarten
shy and reserved, spoke little English,
and seldom smiled (all descriptive
and assessment information provided
comes from Pam’s reports as Marisa’s
classroom teacher). Because she was
an EL, Pam did not administer the
initial kindergarten assessment per
her district’s policy. In school, Marisa
was fully immersed in English,
and with plenty of individual help
from Pam, Marisa slowly made
academic progress. Table 2 shows
Marisa’s literacy progress across her
kindergarten year. Although she
had made great gains in her English
language and literacy acquisition, she
did not meet the end-of-kindergarten
district benchmarks.
The next year, Pam moved to first
grade with many of her kindergarten
students. Over the summer, Pam
reported that Marisa likely did not
have the opportunity to practice
reading or speaking in English. At
the same time, during the summer
Marisa was fully immersed in her
native Spanish language at home.
(It is important to note that although
we all support students’ bilingual/
biliteracy development, our state
requires that ELs receive assessment
and instruction in English.)
www.reading.org
trtr_1183.indd 61
R T
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
62
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
Table 2 Marisa’s Kindergarten Literacy Progress
Capital letters (out of 26)
Lowercase letters (out of 26)
Letter sounds (out of 26)
Print concepts (out of 20)
Sight words
Text level
End of 1st
quarter
6
4
0
4
0
None
End of 2nd
quarter
8
11
0
6
1
None
Therefore, when assessed near
the beginning of first grade, Marisa
had regressed, reading below level
A. She was not able to recognize all
of the alphabet letters, nor did she
recognize any letter sounds. She
required significant individual help
to complete learning tasks. When
attempting to read, Marisa relied
heavily on illustrations and the few
sight words she knew.
Prior Research Findings
To consider what happened for Marisa,
it is important to consider how her
experience relates to the wider field of
reading development and instruction
for young ELs. Based on reviews of
young ELs’ reading development (see
Amendum & Fitzgerald, 2011; August
& Shanahan, 2006), three key findings
about EL reading development and
instruction frame the discussion.
First, simply, children tend to learn
what they are taught. If young ELs
tend to learn what they are taught,
and as teachers we strive to develop
a wide array of reading processes
(e.g., phonological awareness, phonics
knowledge, word recognition,
vocabulary development, text fluency,
text comprehension), it is important
for teachers to conceptualize a wide
variety of reading strategies and skills
for instruction (e.g., Vaughn et al.,
R T
trtr_1183.indd 62
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 67
Issue 1
End of 3rd
quarter
24
24
0
13
8
Level A
End of 4th
quarter
26
25
3
15
8
Level A
2006). In addition, teachers might
consider other sociocultural factors
related to students’ development,
including school factors and students’
motivation and attitudes (August &
Shanahan, 2006).
Second, on average, when learning
to read in English, young ELs tend to
have similar developmental patterns to
native English-speaking students (e.g.,
Fitzgerald, Amendum, & Guthrie, 2008).
Teachers who understand students’
typical overall reading development will
be more likely to understand students’
current phase of reading development,
understand how to support students
to move from one phase to the next,
and know which critical instructional
features to emphasize at each phase
of reading development (Amendum &
Fitzgerald, 2011).
Additionally, if ELs’ reading
development can parallel that of
native English-speaking students’,
then teachers can implement, adapt,
and adjust similar reading instruction
practices used with native Englishspeaking students (e.g., Silverman,
2007). In making these adjustments,
it is important that teachers carefully
modulate effective instructional
practices often used with native Englishspeaking students. Practices might
include modifying the pace of selected
lessons or emphasizing certain aspects
of instruction, such as providing a focus
on English speech sounds not found in
students’ first language or identifying
cognates (words in two languages
with a common origin) in English and
students’ first language (Amendum &
Fitzgerald, 2011; August & Shanahan,
2006).
Third, at least for the youngest
children, oral English development may
not be an essential precursor for English
reading development. Therefore, it is
important that teachers not withhold
reading instruction from ELs until
they reach some baseline level of oral
English. Instead, reading instruction
provides a context in which students’
oral language can develop (Amendum &
Fitzgerald, 2011).
Intervention Framework
Marisa’s lessons followed the threepart structure throughout the time she
received intervention. Marisa’s first
lesson with Emily was near the end
of October, and her last was near the
end of February. During this almost
4-month period, Marisa participated in
43 lessons, and her text-level reading
abilities improved steadily. Marisa went
“Reading instruction provides
a context in which students’ oral language
can develop.”
September 2013
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
63
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
from a prereader (no text level obtained)
to successfully reading text at the mid–
first-grade level.
From March through the middle
of May, Marisa worked with Pam
approximately twice per week, and she
received approximately 16 additional
intervention lessons with Pam and
ended the year reading on gradelevel text. A detailed description of
each intervention component follows.
For each component, we first provide
a description of the component as
typically implemented. Then, we
provide a detailed example description
using Marisa’s instruction.
Familiar Rereading. In the first
ENRICH component, Familiar
Rereading, a student rereads text at an
independent reading level (Samuels,
1979) to experience reading success
and develop automaticity in word
identification and beginning reading
fluency. During this component, a
teacher might also model fluent and
expressive reading with some or all
of the text, engage in choral reading,
or just listen to the student read. Such
instruction supports multiple CCSS,
particularly those Foundational Skills
dealing with fluency and accuracy.
For Marisa, each of the intervention
sessions began with Familiar Rereading
for approximately three to four minutes.
During this component, Marisa started
by rereading a text she had read in
previous sessions (Kuhn & Stahl,
2003). These books were kept for a
number of sessions so that Marisa was
able to select a favorite book or two to
experience successful fluent reading to
build fluency and automaticity (LaBerge
& Samuels, 1974).
In addition, Emily and Pam always
had a brief discussion with Marisa
about each book to reinforce her
comprehension and English vocabulary.
“Marisa went from a prereader to
successfully reading text at the mid-first
grade level.”
She also chose three to four of these
books to take home each night to
practice, and because Marisa’s native
language was Spanish, it was important
that she knew the books she brought
home. In using known books for
rereading practice, Marisa was able to
develop her fluency skills, automaticity,
and English vocabulary.
Word Study. The second component of
ENRICH, Word Study, provides teachers
with a systematic set of diagnostically
driven strategies to promote students’
opportunities to manipulate; say;
and write letters, sounds, words,
and text with the ultimate goal of
decoding or sight word recognition.
These instructional activities address
students’ performance on additional
CCSS Foundational Skills dealing with
phonemic awareness, phonics, and
decoding. Rather than a bottom-up
instructional scope and sequence
design, ENRICH Word Study strategies
facilitate the explicit connection between
each instructional activity and the
ultimate purpose of reading meaningful
words and text through integration of
multiple word-identification processes.
Marisa began the Word Study
component of the intervention session
with a sight word strategy for about two
minutes. The strategy was designed
to have Marisa learn new sight words
that often appear in texts for beginning
readers, such as the, is, in, on, and I and
later here, then, and they (cf. Ehri, 2005).
Emily and Pam often intentionally chose
words that Marisa would encounter
in the books she read during teacherguided reading. For each new word,
Emily or Pam would often have Marisa
locate and read the word in connected
text as well as in isolation.
Next, Emily or Pam, along with
Marisa, cocreated a phrase containing
the target word on an index card with
the target word emphasized in print.
Each card was reviewed for several
sessions until the target word became
part of Marisa’s known reading
vocabulary. Ultimately, the purpose was
for Marisa to learn and practice common
sight words as they would appear in
connected text (cf. Rasinski, 2003),
rather than in isolation.
The remainder of the Word Study
component lasted approximately five to
seven minutes and employed a handful
of strategies. Emily initially focused
on Marisa’s phonological awareness
skills of blending and segmenting
(National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development [NICHD],
2000). She also worked to extend the
phonics knowledge she had control over
so that she could quickly use sound/
symbol correspondences as one source
to problem solve unknown words when
reading. At the beginning levels, Emily
and Marisa always used phonetically
regular three- and four-sound words
with one short vowel (e.g., map, pest,
snack). Initially, the sounds were only
represented by one letter symbol, but
as she progressed within Word Study,
Marisa was exposed to more advanced
phonics knowledge, such as consonant
diagraphs.
www.reading.org
trtr_1183.indd 63
R T
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
64
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
“Marisa was able to understand that
she was using these skills to read
meaningful words.”
Specifically, in the initial lessons,
one of the strategies that Emily used
required Marisa to segment sounds
within a word (McCandliss, Beck,
Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003). In this
activity, Emily orally named a target
word for Marisa and showed her the
corresponding letters in random order at
the top of a Word Study board (the back
of an individual dry-erase board). Emily
asked her to isolate each sound she
heard in the word and to “pull down”
the corresponding letter symbol. Emily
gave feedback to Marisa at the sound
level; if Marisa selected an incorrect
letter symbol (e.g., m for n), Emily
gave immediate feedback by saying
something like, “Actually that says
/m/. Remember, we are looking for /n/.
Which of these is /n/?”
Once Marisa had built the target
word, she always looked at the word,
ran her finger under it, and said it
slowly while blending the sounds. It
was important to end the segmenting
of each word by blending the sounds
together to articulate the whole
word as a unit and contextualize
the phonological skill practice into a
meaningful unit. By adhering to the
principle of embedding skill practice
within meaningful words and texts,
Marisa was able to understand that
she was using these skills to read
meaningful words. Notably, Emily kept
a picture dictionary and other resources
handy at all times to be sure Marisa
associated meaning with the individual
words (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short,
2010).
R T
trtr_1183.indd 64
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 67
Issue 1
By mid-January, Marisa was ready
to transition to more advanced Word
Study—to develop an understanding
of long vowel sounds, r-controlled
vowels, and selected diphthongs (Bear,
Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnson, 2011).
Emily designed instruction to help
Marisa develop the ability to flexibly use
visual information in text. Building on
Marisa’s earlier learning, these lessons
were again sound focused. In the initial
lessons, Emily worked to get Marisa to
understand that the vowel patterns ai,
ay, a, eigh, and a-e could all make the /ā/
sound.
One of the instructional strategies
Emily used at this level of Word Study
required Marisa to examine specific
words, identify a target sound (e.g.,
/ā/), sort the words (Bear et al., 2011),
and write each word while saying the
sounds. Emily began by writing a word
on an individual dry-erase board (e.g.,
train) and asked Marisa to read it, with
coaching assistance if necessary. Then
Marisa identified the pattern that made
the /ā/ sound by circling the targeted
pattern within the word on the dryerase board. Next, Marisa listed this
pattern (ai) on a graphic organizer and
wrote the word train under it. She said
the sound of each sound (/t/ /r/ /ā/ /n/) as
she wrote the representative symbol(s)
(t-r-ai-n).
When done, she again read the
whole word, contextualizing the word.
Emily repeated this procedure with
Marisa, examining multiple words
that contained the target pattern until
multiple common patterns for /ā/ were
represented on the graphic organizer
(e.g., clay, fake, eight). Each day Emily
and Marisa sorted four or five words to
the appropriate columns on the graphic
organizer, continuing until Marisa
demonstrated ease of understanding
and flexibility in decoding words with
various /ā/ patterns when reading
continuous text.
Teacher-Guided Reading. During
the third component of ENRICH,
Teacher-Guided Reading, teachers
use instructional strategies to guide
and support students’ oral reading
of an instructional-level text
(cf. Clay, 1993). Specifically, during
the Teacher-Guided Reading, the goal
is to provide instruction and support
in both comprehension and vocabulary
strategies, addressing multiple
comprehension-related CCSS included
in Reading Standards for Literature and
Reading Standards for Informational
Text.
In addition, teachers aim to support
word-identification skills and strategies
initiated during the Word Study
component. Teachers pay specific
attention to supporting students’
“Meticulous attention was paid to text selection
and choice of instructional strategies to facilitate
an instructional match with Marisa’s current
instructional needs and interest.”
September 2013
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
65
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
abilities to summarize, predict, make
connections, and make inferences
through interactive coaching before,
during, and after the reading (Morris,
2005; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000).
To end Teacher-Guided Reading,
teachers and students engage in a
sentence-writing task (cf. Morris et al.,
2000).
Emily and Pam viewed the TeacherGuided Reading component of the
broader lesson as most important, and
meticulous attention was paid to text
selection and choice of instructional
strategies to facilitate an instructional
match with Marisa’s current
instructional needs and interest (Morris
et al., 1996). Emily noted that in this
portion of the lesson, Marisa would
“take the work from previous sections
of the lesson” (sight word work using
words in phrases from Word Study,
decoding skills of blending/segmenting
and phonics knowledge from Word
Study, and fluency work from Familiar
Rereading) “and apply it in new text.”
She went on to note:
It was my job...to carefully select a text
based on her current instructional level,
background knowledge, and language
and vocabulary development. I also had
to work to implant unknown English
language structures and vocabulary as
Marisa previewed the text... I not only
focused on Marisa’s reading success,
but, I was using the book to support the
development of her English language
structures and vocabulary at the same
time.
When Emily began the initial work
with Marisa, her recent assessment
data portrayed her as a “nonreader”
(a status we did not agree with based
on Marisa’s emergent literacy skills,
but a designation provided by district
assessments). Emily began TeacherGuided Reading with Marisa through
work on level 1 and level 2 texts
(beginning of kindergarten level).
“I was using the book to support the development
of her English language structures and
vocabulary at the same time.”
For example, in their very first
lesson, Emily worked with a text titled
Reading Buddies (Dufresne, 2005). She
selected this particular text because it
contained selected sight words that were
known, or close to known, for Marisa
(e.g., I, can, to, my, me) and followed a
predictable pattern (“I can read to my
mom. I can read to my dad. I can read to
my teacher.”). However, on the last two
pages of the text, the pattern changed
(“I can read to Spaceboy. Spaceboy can
read to me.”).
Because Marisa’s district assessment
performance indicated an emergent
reading level, Emily modeled the
language pattern of the book for Marisa
while they previewed page by page.
Then, as they progressed, Emily asked
Marisa to use the modeled language
pattern to discuss what she saw on each
page. This preview served not only to
build Marisa’s background knowledge,
but also provided an opportunity for her
to be introduced to, and actually use,
English language structures from the
book (Echevarría et al., 2010).
Then, Emily modeled how the
language pattern changed on the last
two pages. Once Marisa understood
the language pattern in the book, she
demonstrated a solid understanding
of concept of word by pointing to each
word while reading using left-toright directionality. However, Emily
noted that even though Marisa was
pointing to words using one-to-one
correspondence, she was not visually
attending to the words as she “read”
them.
Emily made an intentional choice of a
text with a language pattern change. She
noticed that Marisa was memorizing
the language pattern in other texts and
not attending to print; in other words,
Marisa relied on the meaning provided
by the pictures and the memorized
structure, but did not use the print
or visual information, even though
she knew selected sight words. Emily
wanted Marisa to quickly understand
that she also needed to attend to print
and use visual information when
reading.
Thus Emily’s main goal at this point
was to develop Marisa’s ability to locate
known words in text. Emily wanted
her to use known sight words to track
her place in text as well as to decode
unknown words by looking at picture
cues along with visual sound cues. In
addition, as always, Emily targeted
development of Marisa’s vocabulary and
English language structures.
The last portion of Teacher-Guided
Reading was sentence writing. In this
part of the lesson, Emily would engage
Marisa in writing a sentence and coach
her through the writing (cf. Morris
et al., 2000). Typically the sentence
they generated was related to the text
they read. The writing task was a good
way to reinforce both the meaning of
the story as well as Marisa’s phoneme
segmentation when writing and spelling
words.
When possible, Emily tried to ensure
that the targeted sight word (practiced
in phrases) from earlier in the lesson
was included in the sentence so that
www.reading.org
trtr_1183.indd 65
R T
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
66
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
“Marisa made significant progress in her reading
development during her first-grade year when
she received intervention.”
Marisa would make the link between
reading and writing the target word.
Emily noted that Marisa demonstrated
strong ability to segment, hear, and
record sounds in words from the very
beginning of her program. Although she
was considered a “nonreader,” in lesson
1, with substantial coaching, she wrote,
“I can red.” (I can read).
Approximately six weeks later (end
of November), Emily and Marisa were
using level 5 texts (end of kindergarten)
during Teacher-Guided Reading. At this
point Marisa was consistently locating
known words to monitor her reading
and self-correct when needed. She also
used visual letter–sound cues along
with meaning cues, such as pictures,
to problem solve unknown words.
However, as soon as Marisa made an
attempt or encountered trouble, she
looked to Emily, rather than the text, for
confirmation.
In addition, Emily was worried that
Marisa relied too heavily on segmenting
the sounds when problem solving,
rather than blending sounds together.
Therefore, we decided that the main
objective for Marisa needed to be to
independently cross-check with multiple
cues to confirm her attempts, and selfcorrect as needed, which became the
focus of Emily’s instruction. By this
point in November, Marisa wrote
sentences such as, “I am Ok. I feL DaLn
on the gorD.” (“I am OK. I fell down on
the ground.”).
By the end of January, Emily and
Marisa transitioned to level 7 texts
R T
trtr_1183.indd 66
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 67
Issue 1
(approximately end of first quarter
in first grade). Marisa had developed
confidence in her ability to decode
unknown words and was able to make
attempts without Emily’s confirmation.
She also had learned to use other
sources of information to confirm initial
attempts of unknown words. She often
independently self-corrected initial
miscues. By this time Marisa began to
encounter longer, multisyllabic words.
Often when Marisa read these words,
she did not always visually scan through
the end of the word or monitor for
meaning. This became Emily’s next
primary objective.
In addition, Emily began to
encourage Marisa to look for chunks
of information within words rather
than decoding them letter by letter to
develop more efficient print processing.
With respect to sentence writing, in
mid-January Marisa wrote: “‘They wll
not zip me up,’ sod Litw fox.” (“‘They
will not zip me up,’ said Little Fox.”).
By the third week of February, Marisa’s
instructional reading level (level 8;
approximately mid-first grade) was on
par with a group of peers, and Marisa
transitioned away from the daily oneto-one intervention.
Summary and Progress
During the one-to-one intervention,
Emily met with Marisa 4 or 5 times a
week for about 20 minutes each time.
Although intervention lessons typically
lasted 15 minutes for other students,
Marisa’s lessons tended to last for
20 minutes because Emily worked to
develop Marisa’s English vocabulary
and language structures during their
time together, using the books that they
read to support this goal.
Marisa’s intervention lasted for
approximately four months. After this,
Marisa received intervention lessons one
or two times per week from Pam. Emily
continued to read with Marisa twice
per month to check her progress and to
maintain their relationship. Pam used
the same instructional framework that
Emily used with Marisa—conducting
lessons in a one-to-one format using the
same instructional components. Pam
worked with Marisa from the beginning
of March through the middle of May.
Marisa made significant progress
in her reading development during
her first-grade year when she received
intervention (see Table 3). She began as
a nonreader and had a few known sight
words and a bank of sound–symbol
correspondences, but she was unable to
apply this knowledge within the context
of text. Throughout the course of her
intervention, Marisa learned how to
locate known words; locate unknown
words; monitor her understanding;
cross-check with multiple cues; selfcorrect her miscues; and problem solve
when she came to an unknown word
by using multiple cues, blending skills,
orthographic patterns, and processing
chunks of visual information.
Marisa ended first grade meeting the
required district reading benchmarks.
She had developed a large bank of
known sight words and read fluently.
She had increased her language and
vocabulary skills, but we knew she
needed continued development. As a
result, she was a confident reader who
knew how to search, monitor, crosscheck, and self-correct. Most important,
she knew that the reason to read was to
create meaning from a text.
September 2013
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
67
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
Table 3 Marisa’s Progress Across the Intervention Year
Intervention
component
Intervention
time/teacher
Familiar
rereading
Aug–Sept
Word study
Teacher-guided
reading
Below
Level A
Oct
Nov
Dec
Level 1
Level 5
Short vowel, 3sound words
Short vowel,
4-sound
words
Short vowel,
4- and 5sound words
Level 2
Level 5
Level 6
Emily
Level 6
Jan
Feb
Mar
Level 7
Level 8
Level 11–12
Long-vowel
patterns
Level 7
Level 8
Apr
Pam
Level 13–14
Long-vowel patterns,
r-controlled vowels
Level 11–12
May
End-of-year
text level:
15/16
Level 13–14
Note. Level 1 = beginning of kindergarten; Level 4/5 = beginning of first grade; Level 15/16 = end of first grade.
The intervention served to accelerate
Marisa’s reading progress so that she
was able to benefit from classroom
instruction and meet first-grade
benchmarks. We knew it, and so did
Marisa, as was evident by the sentence
she wrote with Emily during a check-in:
“One dy I kud Not red a book Bot naw I
can.” (see Figure 2). Not only did Marisa
leave first grade on benchmark, but she
also maintained these abilities during
the summer months, and she began
second grade ready for grade-level
instruction.
Lessons Learned
In considering Marisa’s case, it is vital
to consider what we learned from our
experience. Although we recognize that
Marisa’s case was an individual one,
and specific to the context in which it
Figure 2 Marisa’s Writing Sample From
March
occurred, it is possible that there are
wider lessons to be learned.
Collectively we learned that it is
possible to accelerate a young EL’s
reading development and allow her to
reach grade-level reading achievement
using a cost-effective intervention
model. National assessments of ELs’
early progress in reading suggest that,
on average, Latino students’ reading
achievement lags behind their Caucasian
peers at fourth and eighth grades (U. S.
Department of Education, 2009). Such
results demonstrate the importance of
attention to young ELs’ early reading
development. Helping students such as
Marisa reach grade-level performance in
the primary years of schooling bode well
for their future achievement.
Marisa’s accelerated progress was due
to sustained, high-quality intervention.
Marisa received intervention based
on sound, evidence-based reading
intervention. Emily and Pam dedicated
instructional time to reading fluency,
word study, and contextual reading—
all important aspects of early reading
development (NICHD, 2000). Through
this intervention, Marisa developed
many reading skills that addressed the
CCSS—working through increasingly
complex texts and mastering many of
the foundational skills required for firstgrade students.
In addition, within the context of
English reading instruction, Emily
and Pam paid particular attention to
supporting and developing Marisa’s
knowledge of English vocabulary and
academic language structures. This
specific development and support of
vocabulary and language structures
likely supported Marisa’s English
reading development and is a key feature
of reading instruction for young ELs.
In addition, Pam and Emily provided
Marisa with true intervention—almost
daily instruction provided in addition to
regular classroom literacy instruction,
which included a comprehensive
approach and guided reading lessons.
Marisa’s reading development
was also a result of hard work and
smart work. Reading intervention
requires intensive daily planning,
instruction, and reflection (Morris et
al., 1996). Providing daily instruction,
in addition to regular classroom
instruction, is challenging with the
many responsibilities that teachers have.
www.reading.org
trtr_1183.indd 67
R T
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
68
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
In addition to working hard each day,
Pam and Emily worked smart to address
Marisa’s needs. For example, a feature of
each intervention session was “diligent
unrelenting attention to instructional
level” (Morris et al., 1996, p. 375).
Beyond instructional level, Emily
and Pam worked smart to match each
text to Marisa’s needs—considering her
English language needs, vocabulary
needs, and which texts would support
a particular reading strategy or skill.
They used any and all resources
available to them, (e.g., digital
videos, picture dictionaries) to build
Marisa’s background knowledge and
support her vocabulary and language
development.
Finally, with targeted support and
sustained high-quality instruction,
young ELs who begin a school year
TA K E AC T I O N !
Many steps composed the process for
systematic intervention provided to Marisa
by Emily and Pam. The first step to take
action is to conduct a feasibility assessment.
Ideally this is done through discussion among
classroom teachers, literacy specialists and
coaches, and administrators. After the feasibility
assessment, a team can create a systematic,
evidence-based intervention protocol that will
be used by literacy specialists and classroom
teachers. As in the case of Marisa, classroom
teachers and literacy specialists were able to
implement a common protocol, which allowed
for increased communication and consistency.
Then, classroom teachers, literacy specialists,
and administrators can identify students who
would benefit from intervention and work
out logistics for providing intervention.
R T
trtr_1183.indd 68
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 67
Issue 1
behind their peers can catch up and read
at grade level. As Pam noted:
The effects for Marisa were amazing! As
the days went by and she met daily for
15–20 minutes individually with Emily
and in a small guided reading group with
me, her self-confidence began to blossom
and grow... she felt like she was in the
spotlight—she was special because she
was able to work with Emily and then
with me. I saw her just light up, loving
to read... she’s more independent now
because she has those strategies; she
knows how to read!
R E F E R E NC E S
Amendum, S.J. (in press). Embedded
professional development and classroombased early reading intervention: Early
diagnostic reading intervention through
coaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly.
Amendum, S.J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2011). Reading
instruction research for English-language
learners in kindergarten through sixth grade:
The last fifteen years. In R. Allington & A.
McGill-Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Disabilities Research (pp. 373–391). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Amendum, S.J., Vernon-Feagans, L., &
Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The effectiveness of a
technologically-facilitated classroom-based
early reading intervention: The targeted
reading intervention. The Elementary School
Journal, 112(1), 107–131. doi:10.1086/660684
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006).
Executive summary. Developing literacy
in second-language learners: Report of
the National Literacy Panel on languageminority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., &
Johnson, F. (2011). Words their way: Word
study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling
instruction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Clay, M.M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook
for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Easton, J.Q. (2010). Out of the tower, into the
schools: How relevant research can transform
school practice and shape education policy.
Sulzberger Distinguished Lecture, Duke
University, Durham, NC. Available at www
.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/events_
detail.php?id=52
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. (2010).
Making content comprehensible for elementary
English learners: The SIOP model (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words:
Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. doi:10.1207/
s1532799xssr0902_4
Fitzgerald, J., Amendum, S.J., & Guthrie,
K.M. (2008). Young Latino students’
English-reading growth in all-English
classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1),
59–94.
Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C., &
Richards, H.C. (1997). At-risk readers and
community volunteers: A 3-year perspective.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 277–300.
doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_6
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003).
Fluency: A review of developmental
and remedial practices. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3
L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R.M.
(2010). What matters for elementary
literacy coaching? Guiding principles for
instructional improvement and student
achievement. The Reading Teacher, 63(7),
544–554. doi:10.1598/RT.63.7.2
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward
a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology,
6(2), 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)
90015-2
McCandliss, B., Beck, I.L., Sandak, R., &
Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on
decoding for children with poor reading
skills: Design and preliminary tests of
the word building intervention. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 7(1), 75–104. doi:10.1207/
S1532799XSSR0701_05
McGraw-Hill School Education Group.
(2008). Reading mastery signature edition
2008. Retrieved February 26, 2013,
from www.mheonline.com/program/
view/1/1/21/0076181936
Morris, D. (2005). The Howard Street tutoring
manual (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996). A case
study of middle school reading disability. The
Reading Teacher, 49(5), 368–377.
Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early
steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade
reading intervention program. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(4), 681–693.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.681
National Center on Response to Intervention.
(2012). Reading mastery implementation
table. Retrieved February 26, 2013,
from www.rti4success.org/tools_charts/
popups_instruction/reading_mastery_
gunn_info.php
National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards
for English language arts. Washington, DC:
Authors. Retrieved February 26, 2013,from
www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA
Standards.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel. Teaching children
to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature of reading and its
implications for reading instruction: Reports
of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The fluent reader. New York:
Scholastic.
September 2013
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM
69
ON E DY I K U D NO T R E D A B O OK B O T N AW I C A N: ON E E NG L I S H LE A R N E R ’S P RO G R E SS
Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of
repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4),
403–408.
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading
Recovery: An independent evaluation
of the effects of an early instructional
intervention for at-risk learners. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958–996.
doi:10.2307/748206
Silverman, R.D. (2007). Vocabulary
development of English-language and
English-only learners in kindergarten. The
Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383.
doi:10.1086/516669
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). The
nation’s report card: Reading 2009. (NCES
2010-458). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved February 26, 2013,
from nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo
.asp?pubid=2010458
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S.,
Cirino, P.T., Carlson, C.D., Pollard-Durodola,
S.D., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of an English
intervention for first-grade English language
learners at risk for reading problems. The
Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153–180.
doi:10.1086/510653
L I T E R AT U R E C I T E D
Dufresne, M. (2005). Reading buddies.
Northhampton, MA: Pioneer Valley.
www.reading.org
trtr_1183.indd 69
R T
8/9/2013 2:36:47 PM