Nancy E. Marchand-Martella, Ph.D.,
Janette K. Klingner, Ph.D.,
and Ronald C. Martella, Ph.D.
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for
English Language Learners
SUMMARY
In the U.S. today, we are faced with an increasingly diverse student population.
ELLs make up a growing majority of these students. A disproportionate number
of these students struggle to learn to read and qualify for special education. Best
practices for ELLs are sought. Teachers who incorporate culturally responsive teaching
with an emphasis on explicit instruction typically see major improvements in reading
performance. When this type of reading instruction is provided, it should focus on
the elements of effective reading instruction known to have strong evidence of
success. These elements include (a) screening for reading problems and monitoring
progress (strong); (b) providing intensive small-group reading interventions (strong);
(c) providing extensive and varied vocabulary instruction (strong); and (d) scheduling
regular peer-assisted learning opportunities (strong). Other recommendations to
improve reading performance for ELLs include an emphasis on comprehension
strategies before, during, and after reading, with rich discussion and collaboration
evident. Vocabulary instruction, provided in an explicit fashion and often with the
use of technology, can prove helpful for this population. Content-rich reading that
challenges ELLs to do more is also advocated, again with explicitly taught strategies
on how to best handle this type of text. Among the most promising interventions
reviewed by Cheung and Slavin (2012) in their synthesis of research for Spanishdominant ELLs, a common theme emerged—interventions that included extensive
use of cooperative learning were found to impact reading acquisition in a positive
manner. This finding was noted by Cheung and Slavin (2005) in a previous review
of effective reading programs for ELLs. Finally, reading interventions must include
an emphasis on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text
comprehension to make a difference in reading performance.
2
SRA FLEX Literacy™
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to describe how educators can best meet the needs
of English Language Learners (ELLs) who require strategic or intensive intervention
in English-based reading. An overview of ELLs is provided along with a discussion
of culturally responsive instruction and explicit instruction. Further, use of culturally
responsive, explicit instruction within a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework
is highlighted along with the elements of effective reading interventions for this
population. How best to teach ELLs to read (native language first, then in English;
the two in combination; or English only) is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead,
we focus on best practices in strategic and intensive reading interventions for these
students.
WHO ARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS?
The term English language learner (ELL) is defined as “an active learner of the
English language who may benefit from various types of language support programs.
This term is used mainly in the U.S. to describe K–12 students” (National Council
of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2008, p. 2). The number of ELLs who enter school
speaking a primary language other than English is increasing. In fact, this number
is accelerating at a much more rapid pace than the overall preK–grade 12 student
population (Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, 2011).
Educators are increasingly “challenged to help these children reach the level
of proficiency required for learning sophisticated academic content through
English” (Dixon et al., 2012, p. 6).
Of all ELLs, Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S.
population (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011); they total about 16.5% of our
population, about 50 million people (Fry & Lopez, 2012). Roughly 25% of
the public elementary school population and about 21% of the high school
population is Hispanic (Fry & Lopez, 2012). Rotherham (2011) notes that the Census
Bureau estimates that the percentage of Hispanics will be 30 or more by 2050.
Further, some states, such as Texas (Smith, 2012) and California (Kane, 2010), at this
time have a majority of Hispanic students in their state’s public schools.
Research shows that Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking homes
disproportionally live in poverty, drop out of school, and perform more poorly on
measures of reading comprehension (see Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 and 2011,
for details). For example, roughly 76% and 73% of fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic
public school students, respectively, qualify for free or reduced price school lunch. The
figures for White public school students show that 29% and 24% in fourth and eighth
grade, respectively, qualify (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). Hispanic students were
less likely to graduate from high school than Whites in all but two states (Maine and
Hawaii) in the 2010–2011 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Consider
the following from the Alliance for Excellent Education (2012):
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
3
Nationally, millions of students in grades 7–12 are at risk of
dropping out of high school because of low literacy skills,
poor attendance, and class failure. Unfortunately, many of
these students come from groups that are underserved and
underrepresented: students of color, high-mobility students
(including foster, migrant, and homeless students), English
language learners, students with disabilities, and low-income
students. (p. 1)
Hispanic students are considered to be underachievers, not achieving up to their
potential. For example, there appears to be a 25-point discrepancy between Whites
and Hispanics in fourth-grade reading achievement scores, with Whites scoring
significantly higher; the gap at eighth grade is 24, again favoring Whites (Hemphill
& Vanneman, 2011). On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2011), fourth graders who scored below the 25th
percentile include 33% Whites, 35% Hispanics, 74% qualified for free or reduced
price lunch, and 24% ELL; conversely, above the 75th percentile, 71% were White,
11% were Hispanic, 23% were qualified for free or reduced price lunch, and 2% were
ELL. Similar findings were noted at the eighth grade. A recent analysis of vocabulary
performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2012) revealed that 24% of ELLs scored below the
25th percentile at fourth grade, with only 2% scoring above the 75th percentile.
Vocabulary instruction is touted as one of the most important elements of teaching
all students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds who experience slow
vocabulary development (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Blachowicz, Fisher, &
Watts-Taffe, 2005; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007).
Finally, in many states and districts, ELLs disproportionally qualify for special
education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Klingner & Artiles, 2006;
Sullivan, 2011). When examining national means, there is little overrepresentation;
yet there is a great deal of variation across and within states and districts. Artiles et
al. emphasized that it is important to look at subpopulations of ELLs. They did not
find overrepresentation among younger students across several school districts in
southern California, but they did find disproportionality among older students (from
fifth grade through high school). They also found that ELLs in English immersion
classrooms were more likely to receive special education than their peers in modified
English immersion or bilingual programs. In an examination of special education
placement rates in Arizona since the passage of an English-only bill, Sullivan found
that ELLs were increasingly likely to be identified as having LD or intellectual
disabilities and less likely to be served in the least restrictive educational environment
relative to their White peers. Multiple issues surround the labeling of ELLs for special
education services, including the appropriateness of the diagnosis given identification,
assessment, language, and instructional factors (Klingner, Artiles, & Méndez Barletta,
2006; McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & Leos, 2005; Skiba et al., 2008). These factors and
the issues they raise are beyond the scope of this paper.
The underachievement of ELLs is due in part to inappropriate, ineffective
instruction that is developed and/or implemented without keeping in mind the
specific language and learning needs of these students. Clearly, solid instructional
4
SRA FLEX Literacy™
programs designed to help all students who struggle in reading are needed. In
particular, effective reading instruction targeted to meet the needs of struggling ELLs
is warranted given that these students drop out of school at higher rates than their
peers and score significantly lower on standardized reading assessments.
WHAT IS CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTION?
“I want the same thing for everyone else’s children as I want for mine” (Delpit,
2006, p. 28). Most educators would probably agree with this statement. However,
many of these educators are ill prepared to deal with the unique needs of students
from culturally diverse backgrounds and ELLs. According to Gay (2010), “You can’t
teach what and who you don’t know” (p. 1). Gay advocates that teachers must be
aware of student backgrounds in order to enhance student learning experiences.
She uses the term culturally responsive teaching to describe best practices—teachers
create a classroom culture that facilitates and supports the achievement of all
students, including those from diverse backgrounds. This type of pedagogy uses
knowledge of culture, past experiences, and frames of reference to make learning
more relevant and effective; it validates and affirms students, is comprehensive and
multidimensional, is empowering and transformative, and is emancipatory (Gay,
2010). Culturally responsive teachers have high expectations for their students, value
diverse perspectives, and build close relationships with their students, students’
families, and the communities in which they teach. They are experts at making
sure new learning is relevant and meaningful for students and connects
with their prior knowledge. (For more information on culturally responsive
teaching, see Bakken & Smith, 2011; Barnes, 2006; Brown, 2007; Cartledge &
Kourea, 2008; Cheesman & DePry, 2010; Delpit, 1988; Ford & Kea, 2009; Gay,
2002a/2002b; Gonzalez, Pagan, Wendell, & Love, 2011; Huerta, 2011; Kea,
Campbell-Whatley, & Richards, 2006; Montgomery, 2001; Richards, Brown, &
Forde, 2007; Shevalier & McKenzie, 2012; Terry & Irving, 2010; Trent, Kea, &
Oh, 2008; Villegas & Lucas, 2007; White, Zion, Kozleski, & Fulton, 2005.) Many of
the research studies that support culturally responsive teaching have been qualitative
studies conducted by observing in effective teachers’ classrooms (see Huerta, 2011, for
examples with ELLs, and Ladson-Billings, 1994, for examples with African American
students), and in effective schools. For two studies on successful schools for ELLs, see
Lockwood & Secada, 1999, and Lucas, Henz, & Donato, 1990.
Best Practices in Culturally Diverse Classrooms
Best practices for culturally diverse classrooms include the following:
(a) differentiated intensive instruction on the most critical skills to teach
(Cartledge & Kourea, 2008);
(b) modeling and dialogue, such as in literature circles (Shevalier & McKenzie,
2012; Vialpando, Yedlin, Linse, Harrington, & Cannon, 2005);
(c) technology-based learning in a universal design format (Bakken & Smith,
2011; Curry, 2003) as well as visual supports such as videos to engage
learning (Gonzalez et al., 2011);
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
5
(d) reflective thinking, making connections, and writing activities and projects
(Kea et al., 2006; Meltzer & Hamann, 2004; Montgomery, 2001; Richards et
al., 2007; Vialpando et al., 2005);
(e) instructional formats that include ample academic responding opportunities,
brisk pacing, positive reinforcement, and corrective feedback (Cartledge &
Kourea, 2008);
(f) peer-mediated learning, cooperative learning, and pair-shares (Au,
2009/2010; Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Vialpando et al., 2005);
(g) progress monitoring on a frequent basis (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008) and
cloze procedure assessments (Vialpando et al., 2005);
(h) high expectations and affirmation of students as capable learners (Brown,
2007; Callins, 2006; Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Cheesman & DePry, 2010;
Pitts, 2012; Villegas & Lucas, 2007);
(i)
focus on teach, model, practice, and apply (explicit instruction) along
with think-alouds and carefully constructed scaffolding, feedback, and
repetition (Brown, 2007; Gonzalez et al., 2011; Handsfield & Jiménez, 2008;
Montgomery, 2001);
(j)
focus on what students can do versus a deficit model (Terry & Irving, 2010);
(k) collaboration with families (Harry, 2008), capitalizing on funds of knowledge
within families and the community (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992);
(l)
rich, culturally diverse literature and materials (Barnes, 2006; Gay, 2002a,
2002b, 2010; Richards et al., 2007); and
(m) graphic organizers (Vialpando et al., 2005). Although not all of these
practices have been researched with ELLs, many have been.
WHAT IS LINGUISTICALLY RESPONSIVE
INSTRUCTION?
Teachers who work with ELLs should be responsive to their students’ linguistic
needs as well as their cultural needs. They should understand and be knowledgeable
about: (a) the second-language acquisition process, (b) how learning to read in a
second or additional language is similar to and different from learning to read in
a first language, (c) how to make sure instruction is comprehensible for their ELLs,
(d) how to differentiate instruction to meet diverse students’ needs, and (e) how to
use assessment procedures that are sensitive to cultural differences and provide an
accurate portrayal of students’ strengths as well as their learning needs.
Although teachers may not need to develop all of the competencies required
to be an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, as described by Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL, 2008), the TESOL Teacher
Education Standards can provide a framework for thinking about the different
dimensions of expertise that are important and what it means to be culturally and
linguistically responsive. TESOL describes five essential domains of expertise: (a)
language and knowledge of the second-language acquisition process; (b) culture
and an understanding of how culture affects learning; (c) instruction and how to plan
6
SRA FLEX Literacy™
for ESL and content learning; (d) assessment and knowledge of issues concerning
assessment in a second or additional language, language proficiency assessments,
and classroom-based assessments; and, last but not least, (e) professionalism and the
importance of understanding the history of ESL and of being an advocate for one’s
students.
Typical literacy instruction does not include enough support in oral language,
vocabulary, or comprehension for ELLs (August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee,
Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). In
multiple studies, ELLs have benefitted from targeted vocabulary instruction (Gersten
& Baker, 2000; Goldenberg, 2008; Lesaux, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2006) and
frequent opportunities to engage in academic language (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux,
Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006; Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009). Effective vocabulary
instruction should be intensive, systematic, explicit, and direct in nature (Green, 2004;
Kurjakovic, 2008). Technology that supports the direct teaching of word meaning
shows promise for increasing vocabulary (Dalton & Grisham, 2011; McCardle et al.,
2005). Vocabulary instruction should also include strategies to help students learn
words independently by monitoring their understanding and taking steps to figure out
unknown words. One way to do this is by building on ELLs’ native language through
cognates (August, Carlo, & Snow, 2005). Another way is by teaching morphological
awareness (Keiffer & Lesaux, 2008). Francis et al. (2006) emphasized that ELLs
must be give ample opportunities to develop more sophisticated vocabulary
backgrounds and strategies to handle challenging narrative and expository
text. These strategies include: (a) making predictions, (b) monitoring
understanding and asking questions during reading, (c) summarizing after
reading, (d) reading with fluency, (e) significant opportunities to engage in
academic talk, and (f) focused independent reading opportunities. ELLs also
need supports to help them understand new words and make connections with
prior learning, such as realia (real objects), pictures, diagrams, and semantic
webs (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008).
Further, a focus should be placed on reading and comprehending challenging text.
For example, Perez and Holmes (2010) emphasized teaching content-area strategies
to ensure students’ success in content-rich classes such as science and social studies.
These strategies include learning to access textbooks and other informational
materials, to take notes from teacher lectures and textbooks, and to study more
effectively. (See Marchand-Martella, Martella, Modderman, Latterell, & Pan, 2013
for recommendations on best practices in adolescent literacy instruction.) Motivation
is a key component of consideration for these learners. Meltzer and Hamann (2004)
describe the importance of making connections, collaborative learning, and in-depth
discussions when accessing content-area classes and materials. Having students
interact with text and with one another is a key component to success for ELLs
(Meltzer & Hamann, 2004).
One way to support ELLs’ comprehension is through Collaborative Strategic
Reading (CSR), a procedure designed to improve reading comprehension through
explicitly taught before-, during-, and after-reading comprehension strategies. In CSR,
ELLs benefit from rich language exposure with peers through fostered cooperation
and engagement with the teacher and other students (Boardman, Klingner, Boele,
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
7
& Swanson, 2010; Klingner & Vaughn, 2000; Klingner, Vaughn, Arguëlles, Hughes, &
Leftwich, 2004; Vaughn et al., 2011).
Teachers should include a minimum of 90 minutes per week on activities in
which students of varying skill levels are grouped or paired for instruction. Partner
or small-group work is advocated for this population. Getting students to read short
passages, to practice summarizing/developing a gist, to answer questions, and to
make predictions are key aspects of peer-assisted learning opportunities and should
be included for ELLs.
WHAT IS EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION?
Teachers have a profound impact on how much their students learn. “Although
it seems simplistic and obvious, teachers of reading ‘teach’; that is, students do not
become independent learners through maturation” (Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009,
p. 126). Students do not learn simply by the passage of time—they must receive
instruction. Teaching requires carefully planned teacher and student interactions.
The most effective and efficient way of shortening the learning time for all students,
including ELLs, is through the direct and explicit teaching of skills. It is a key
component of quality instruction for ELLs (Calderón, 2006) and for students with
learning disabilities (Ritchey, 2011). Interestingly, reading interventions delivered in
either English or Spanish produced significant changes in reading skills when explicit
instructional principles were evident (Vaughn et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, LinanThompson, & Francis, 2005). Consider the following:
As educators, we all have the same goal: to help our students
make the maximum possible academic gains in a positive,
respectful environment that promotes their success and
nurtures their desire to learn. One of the greatest tools
available to us in this pursuitis explicit instruction—instruction
that is systematic, direct, engaging, and success oriented…
explicit instruction is helpful not only when discovery is
impossible, but when discovery may be inaccurate, inadequate,
incomplete, or inefficient (Archer & Hughes 2011, p. vii).
In explicit instruction, teachers are fully responsible for student learning but
gradually relinquish this responsibility to students as the students become successful
(Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2013; Ritchey, 2011). Teachers program for student
success and are intentional with their instruction rather than leaving students to
discover what to do on their own. Thus, instruction “moves from teacher modeling,
through guided practice using prompts and cues, to independent and fluent
performance by the learner” (Rosenshine, 1986, p. 69).
Explicit instruction is “a systematic method of teaching with emphasis on
proceeding in small steps, checking for student understanding, and achieving active
and successful participation by all students” (Rosenshine, 1987, p. 34). Systematic
instruction is a key aspect of explicit instruction. It refers to a plan or logical sequence
of teaching used to decrease student confusion and errors. For example, teaching
letter sounds in a specified and logical order (e.g., separating the teaching of b and
d and focusing on high-utility sounds such as a and s among those taught first) is
8
SRA FLEX Literacy™
a hallmark of effective phonics instruction. When a curricular program includes a
detailed scope and sequence showing a logical order of skills, systematic instruction
is evident. That is, prerequisite skills are taught in a step-wise fashion before more
complex skills and strategies are taught. Throughout this process, it is important to
connect new learning with old in ways that are meaningful for students. Tasks should
never feel abstract or disconnected for students. For example, when learning the
sound b, students should connect the new sound with objects or names they already
know, perhaps from home or community. This approach helps students build schema
and be active participants in the learning process.
Systematic phonics instruction can help ELLs learn decoding skills (Slavin &
Cheung, 2004). Even when the focus is on decoding, students should learn the
meanings of words. They also should apply what they have learned by reading
connected text. It is important for ELLs to learn to read and understand multisyllabic
words (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011; Carlo et al., 2004; Mancilla-Martinez &
Lesaux, 2011). Calderón et al. (2011) noted that equal coverage should be provided
for decoding and comprehension skills for ELLs. Word-reading fluency and decoding
skills are known to be significant predictors of text-reading fluency, and text-reading
fluency can explain unique variance in reading comprehension. It is important to
keep in mind, however, that ELLs do not demonstrate the same relationship between
fluency and comprehension as fluent English speakers (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010). ELLs
can become fluent word callers but slow down when they focus on comprehension.
Explicit, or direct, instruction can also be referred to as “demonstration-promptpractice” (Stevens & Rosenshine, 1981), “antecedent prompt and test” (Martella,
Nelson, Marchand-Martella, & O’Reilly, 2012) or “I do, we do, you do” (Archer &
Hughes, 2011). In this type of instruction, students are shown how to perform a task
before being expected to do it on their own. “High-quality instruction is the single
most important factor in improving student achievement for English Learners”
(Calderón, 2006, p. 1). This high-quality instruction should be explicit in nature to
ensure the needs of ELLs are being met in the most efficient and effective manner
possible.
HOW CAN CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY
RESPONSIVE, EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION BE INFUSED
INTO A RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK?
When explicit culturally and linguistically responsive reading instruction is
delivered, it should be provided within a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework
(see Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, & Francis, 2008 for specific information on RTI and
ELLs). RTI includes progressively intensive instruction with careful progress monitoring
(Davis Bianco, 2010; Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007; Turnbull, Turnbull, &
Wehmeyer, 2010). RTI was developed as an alternative to the achievementdiscrepancy formula (sometimes referred to as the “wait-to-fail” model) used to
qualify students as having a learning disability. However, RTI should be used to help
all students, not just those with learning disabilities. The National Association for
State Directors of Special Education (2006) identified eight core principles of RTI.
These include the following:
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
9
• We can effectively teach all children.
• Intervene early.
• Use a multi-tier model of service delivery.
• Use a problem-solving method to make decisions within
a multi-tier model.
• Use research-based, scientifically validated interventions/
instruction to the extent available.
• Monitor student progress to inform instruction.
• Use data to make decisions. (This is a central concept of RTI.)
• Use assessment for three different purposes: screening,
diagnostics, and progress monitoring.
RTI rests on the assumption that if effective instruction is provided to all students
and support services are provided if needed (based on assessment information),
students will be less likely to need special education services. Many students,
including a preponderance of ELLs, do not receive effective instruction until after
they have experienced reading failure. The hope with RTI is that this initiative will
“reduce the misidentification of English learners as having learning disabilities”
(Echevarria & Hasbrouck, 2009, p. 1). Further, RTI provides “a way to support English
language learners when they first show signs of struggling with reading” (Orosco &
Klingner, 2010, p. 270).
RTI usually includes three (or four) tiers or levels of instruction (see Echevarria &
Hasbrouck, 2009; Esparza Brown & Doolittle, 2008; Esparza Brown & Sanford, 2011;
DePry & Cheesman, 2010; Foorman, 2007; D. Fuchs & L. Fuchs, 2005, 2006, 2009;
L. Fuchs & D. Fuchs, 2006, 2007; Haager et al., 2007; Klingner & Edwards, 2006;
National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010; National Education Association,
2010; Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Sun, Nam, & Vanderwood, 2010; and Vaughn &
Roberts, 2007 for details on RTI implementations).
Tier 1
Tier 1 (comprehensive core/primary level) is focused on general education and
the universal core instructional program that is in place in a school. Core reading
curricula, programs, and strategies should be based on scientifically-based reading
research about what works with ELLs. Teachers should use instructional practices
that have been validated with similar students in similar contexts. A generic “onesize-fits-all” approach to using research-based practices is insufficient and can lead to
underachievement by ELLs and misunderstandings by teachers as to why their ELLs
are struggling (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). In many ways, learning to read in English as
one’s second or an additional language is similar to learning to reading in English as
one’s first language (Gersten et al., 2007). Yet there also are important differences
when learning how to read in a second or additional language, and there is essential
information teachers should understand about the process of second-language
acquisition and how that comes into play when teaching ELLs to read in English
(August & Shanahan, 2006; Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2009; Klingner, SolteroGonzalez, & Lesaux, 2010).
10
SRA FLEX Literacy™
Research-based instruction for ELLs includes an emphasis on the five elements of
effective reading instruction that benefit other students, with the added element
of oral language (August & Shanahan, 2006; Linan-Thompson & Vaughn, 2007):
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The focus
shifts in grades 4–12, with emphasis placed on word study, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, and motivation (Boardman et al., 2008). Daily reading instruction
for ninety minutes, delivered by the general education teacher, is recommended.
Assessment is a key aspect of this tier of instruction; benchmark assessments are
usually conducted in fall, winter, and spring. Universal screening using schoolwide
curriculum-based measures pinpoints those students who may be at risk. Students
who perform below a norm-referenced cut-off point (e.g., below the 25th percentile)
and continue to show little to no progress across five to eight weeks of effective
instruction with weekly progress monitoring probes are deemed in need of Tier
2 services. It is important when determining which students should receive Tier 2
interventions to make sure that Tier 1 instruction is appropriate for meeting students’
language and learning needs and that most “true peers” (i.e., other ELLs with similar
backgrounds) are thriving. When most ELLs fail to show progress, the focus should be
on improving core instruction.
Tier 2
Tier 2 (secondary intervention/secondary level) instruction focuses on small
groups of students who have not responded to Tier 1 efforts that have been
effective with most of their peers. Additional attention, focus, and support
are placed on key aspects of the core program to ensure student success.
Thus, educators often use double dosing (i.e., conducting each lesson twice)
or pinpointed explicit instruction (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis,
& Kouzekanani, 2003) to provide alternative instructional formats and
additional opportunities for students to practice the skills they are learning
in Tier 1. Again, research-based interventions are key to successful program
implementation. According to Gersten et al. (2009) in a recent meta-analysis
of RTI practices, intensive Tier 2 instruction has strong evidence (consistent and
generalizable) for success. Effective Tier 2 instruction includes homogeneous, smallgroup instruction, typically with groups of 3 to 5 students. Instruction occurs for 20
to 30 minutes each day, 5 days per week, or 45 minutes each day for 3 or 4 days
per week. Twice-per-month progress monitoring probes are used to assess student
progress. Implementations may last 8 to 20 weeks, depending upon the instructional
needs of the learners. Students continue to receive instruction in their core program
during Tier 2 instruction. “The goal is that students will ‘catch up’ with their peers
after secondary intervention” (Vaughn & Roberts, 2007, p. 42). Rivera et al. (2008)
emphasized, “Regardless of the type of skills an intervention targets, the focus on
explicit instruction and appropriately scaffolded development of reading skills is
essential in supporting ELLs who are at risk for reading difficulties” (p. 20);
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and colleagues provided intensive, small-group
interventions in either Spanish or English to first-grade ELLs considered to be at risk
for reading difficulties. The language of instruction of the supplemental interventions
matched the language of classroom reading instruction. The intervention programs
were specifically designed for ELLs who struggled with reading (Vaughn, Cirino et
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
11
al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005; Vaughn, Mathes et al.,
2006). Lessons included best practices in ESL instruction:
• Explicit instruction in oral language and listening comprehension
• Explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies
• A read-aloud routine with explicit vocabulary instruction and
scaffolded story retelling
• Word study and phonics strategies
• Word reading and reading connected texts
• Repeated reading for speed, accuracy, fluency, and prosody
• Frequent progress monitoring
If ELLs continue to struggle at the Tier 2 level and/or are not making adequate
progress that would allow them to exit the Tier 2 program, they should receive Tier 3
services. Klingner and Harry (2006) caution, however, “we must ensure that children
have received culturally responsive, appropriate, quality instruction within the first
and second tiers before a special education referral or placement is made” (p. 2249).
Tier 3
Tier 3 (intensive intervention/tertiary level) is considered to be the most sustained
and intensive of all the levels and is focused on individual student need (Stecker,
2007; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). In this level, instructional sessions are often lengthier
than those provided in Tier 2. Instruction is often delivered one on one or with very
small homogeneous groups of students (1 to 3). Some view this level as special
education; thus, those students who do not show progress in Tier 2 are referred to
and often qualify for special education services. Still other implementations provide
focused instruction after Tier 2 but before special education services are provided
(thus, a fourth tier of instruction becomes special education, while the third tier is
intensive intervention efforts). Tier 3 instruction may include 50-minute or longer
sessions delivered on a daily basis, depending upon the appropriateness of the core
reading program. Some implementations remove students from the core program,
choosing instead to provide an alternative core program uniquely designed to meet
the students’ skill-level needs. An alternative core does not negate core reading
participation; everything depends on the needs of the students. According to Kamil et
al. (2008),
Some adolescents need more support to increase literacy skills
than regular classroom teachers can provide. Students who
are unable to meet grade-level standards in literacy often
require supplemental, intensive, and individualized reading
intervention to improve their skills. Such interventions are
most often provided by reading specialists or teachers who
have undergone thorough training to help them understand
the program or approach they will use and to deepen their
understanding of adolescent struggling readers. (p. 31)
12
SRA FLEX Literacy™
In their review of the research literature, Kamil et al. (2008) found the effect size
for the use of intensive and individualized interventions provided by trained specialists
was considered strong, meaning it met the highest level of evidence as determined by
the Institute of Education Sciences and What Works Clearinghouse.
Progress monitoring is conducted a minimum of twice per month to ensure
adequate progress is being made. Some implementations require weekly probes
to fine-tune their analysis of student skills. Note that the goal of Tier 3 programs
is to accelerate students’ skill acquisition so they can progress first to the Tier 2
programs and then, ultimately, need only the core or Tier 1 program. Thus, rather
than considering the three tiers as distinct and separate services for students, the tiers
should be seen as a continuum of services that best meet the needs of all students,
not just those in need of special education.
Conclusion
We cannot continue “business as usual” when ELLs are struggling in our
classrooms. There is great promise, though, in using an RTI approach, for many
reasons. First, the universal screening and progress monitoring called for in the RTI
process allow for comparison of students to other similar or ‘true’ peers in their
local cohort rather than to national norms. Second, an effective RTI model requires
collaboration among all educators (e.g., speech and language therapists,
school psychologists, counselors, English as a second language/Bilingual
specialist), thereby providing increased opportunities for professional
dialogue, peer coaching, and the creation of instructional models integrating
the best practices of the various fields of education and related services.
This collaboration is particularly critical, because the research base for all
educational fields, including instruction for ELLs, is growing rapidly. Third,
students who are struggling can be identified early and supported before
falling too far behind to ever catch up. (Esparza Brown & Doolittle, 2008, p. 71)
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
13
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2012). Caught in the crisis: Students of color and
native students in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.all4ed.org/
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient
teaching. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban
school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
Au, K. H. (2009/2010, December/January). Culturally responsive instruction. Reading
Today, 30–31.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20, 50–57.
Bakken, J. P., & Smith, B. A. (2011). A blueprint for developing culturally proficient/
responsive school administrators in special education. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 9, 33–46.
Barnes, C. J. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive
way. The Negro Educational Review, 57, 85–100.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2005). Integrated vocabulary
instruction: Meeting the needs of diverse learners in grades K–5. Naperville, IL:
Learning Point Associates.
Blanchett, W. J., Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2009). The intersection of race, culture,
language, and disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44,
389–409.
Boardman, A. G., Klingner, J. K., Boele, A., & Swanson, E. (2010). Collaborative
strategic reading. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Literacy and learning:
Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 23, pp. 205–235). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science.
Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M.
(2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief.
Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers,
classrooms, and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 57–62.
Brown, J. E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for
response to intervention with English language learners. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 40, 66–72.
Calderón, M. (2006). Effective instruction for English learners. Aiming High RESOURCE.
Santa Rosa, CA: Sonoma County Office of Education.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners.
The Future of Children, 21, 103–127.
14
SRA FLEX Literacy™
Callins, T. (2006). Culturally responsive literacy instruction. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 39, 62–65.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., Lively,
T., White, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English
language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39, 188–315.
Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally-responsive classrooms for culturally
diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351–371.
Cheesman, E., & DePry, R. (2010). A critical review of culturally responsive literacy
instruction. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5, 83–98.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English
language learners and other language-minority students. Best Evidence
Encyclopedia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www.
bestevidence.org/word/ell_read_2005_BRJ.pdf
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish
dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis
of research. Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/ell_read_mar_19_2012.pdf
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy instruction for English
language learners: A teacher’s guide for research-based practices.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the
relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ textreading fluency in English. Reading and Writing, 23, 475–494.
Curry, C. (2003, October). Universal design: Accessibility for all learners.
Educational Leadership, 55–60.
Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2011). eVoc strategies: 10 ways to use technology to build
vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 64, 306–317.
Davis Bianco, S. (2010). Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and
fidelity of implementation in a Response to Intervention model. TEC Plus, 6(5), 1–13.
De La Luz Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction
for linguistically different students. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427–449.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York, NY: The New Press.
DePry, R., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Reflections on culturally responsive teaching:
Embedding theory into practices of instructional and behavioral support. Journal of
Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5, 1–16.
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., . . . Snow,
C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis
from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82, 5–60. doi:
10.3102/0034654311433587
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
15
Echevarria, J., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009, July). Response to intervention and English
learners. CREATEBrief: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and
Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from www.cal.org/create
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for
English language learners: The SIOP Model (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Esparza Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological
framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 66–72.
Esparza Brown, J., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English language learners:
Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve
instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center on Response to
Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org
Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 39(5), 24–30.
Ford, D. Y., & Kea, C. D. (2009). Creating culturally responsive instruction: For
students’ and teachers’ sake. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–16.
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines
for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations
for instruction and academic interventions. (Under cooperative agreement grant
S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.
org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf
Fry, R., & Lopez, M. H. (2012). Hispanic student enrollments reach new highs in 2011.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http:/
www.pewhispanic.org
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for
practitioners, policymakers, and parents. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why,
and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2009). Responsiveness to Intervention: Multilevel assessment
and instruction as early intervention and disability identification. The Reading
Teacher, 63, 250–252.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006, Winter). Identifying learning disabilities with RTI.
Perspectives, 39–43.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing Responsiveness to
Intervention. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20.
Gay, G. (2002a). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically
diverse students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613–629.
Gay, G. (2002b). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53, 106–116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
16
SRA FLEX Literacy™
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English
language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of
Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10, 363–385.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices
for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella,
R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners
in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/
ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson,
S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response
to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades.
A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/
practiceguides/
Goldenberg, C. (2008, Summer). Teaching English language learners: What
the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 8–23, 42–44.
Gonzalez, R. J., Pagan, M., Wendell, L., & Love, C. (2011). Supporting ELL/
culturally and linguistically diverse students for academic achievement.
Rexford, NY: International Center for Leadership in Education. Retrieved
from http://www.LeaderEd.com
Green, L. C. (2004, April). Bilingual word power—Research-based vocabulary
strategies for English language learners. IDRA Newsletter. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association.
Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds). (2007). Evidence-based reading practices
for Response to Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Handsfield, L. J., & Jiménez, R. T. (2008). Revisiting cognitive strategy instruction in
culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: Cautions and possibilities. Language
Arts, 85, 450–458.
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal
versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74, 372–388.
Hemphill, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White
students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
Huerta, T. M. (2011). Humanizing pedagogy: Beliefs and practices on teaching of
Latino children. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 38–57.
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
17
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008).
Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices:
A practice guide. (NCEE#2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
Kane, W. (2010, November 13). Latino kids now majority in state’s public schools. San
Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://sfgate.com
Kea, C., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., & Richards, H. V. (2006). Becoming culturally
responsive educators: Rethinking teacher education pedagogy. Tempe, AZ: Center
for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCREST).
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning:
Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The
Reading Teacher, 61, 134–144.
Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2006). English language learners struggling to learn
to read: Emergent scholarship on linguistic differences and learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 386–389.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners
who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39, 108–128.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to
Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117.
Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making
process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement
conferences. Teachers College Record, 108, 2247–2281.
Klingner, J. K., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., & Lesaux, N. (2010). Response to intervention for
English language learners. In M. Lipson & K. Wixson (Eds.), Successful approaches
to response to intervention (RTI): Collaborative practices for improving K-12 literacy
(pp. 134–162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (2000). The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using
collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34,
69–98.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguëlles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004).
Collaborative strategic reading: “Real world” lessons from classroom teachers.
Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.
Kurjakovic, K. (2008). Vocabulary instruction for English language learners. Educator’s
Voice, 1, 12–15.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lesaux, N. K., Koda, K., Siegel, L. S., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy
of language minority learners. In D. L. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing
literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 75–122).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18
SRA FLEX Literacy™
Linan-Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based methods of reading
instruction for English language learners, grades K-4. Alexandria, VA: The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003).
Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English
language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103,
221–238.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’
word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82,
1544–1560.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension
for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2010). Read to Achieve: Comprehending
Narrative Text. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates/McGraw-Hill.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2013). Explicit instruction. In W. L.
Heward (Ed.), Exceptional children (10th ed.) (pp. 166-168). Columbus, OH: Pearson/
Merrill.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Modderman, S. L., Latterell, H. M., &
Pan, S. (2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education
and Treatment of Children, 36, 161–184.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & O’Reilly, M. (2012).
Comprehensive behavior management: Individualized, classroom, and
schoolwide approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, 68–78.
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of
adolescent English language learners through content area learning: Part One:
Focus on motivation. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, Brown University.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
Into Practice, 31, 132–141.
Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33, 4–9.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006, May).
Response to Intervention. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/Documents/Download%20Publications/
RtIAnAdministratorsPerspective1-06.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card in reading.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
19
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Vocabulary
results from the 2009 and 2011NAEP reading assessments (NCES 2013 452).
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, April). Essential components of
RTI: A closer look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.rti4success.org
National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]. (2008). English language learners:
A policy research brief: A nation with multiple languages. Urbana, IL: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org
National Education Association. (2010). Response to intervention: A transformational
approach. Washington, DC: NEA Education Policy and Practice, Center for Great
Public Schools.
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic
Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (2011). The growing numbers of
English learner students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/t3sis
Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with
English language learners: “Referring into RTI.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43,
269–288.
Perez, D., & Holmes, M. (2010). Ensuring academic literacy for ELLs. American
Secondary Education, 38, 32–43.
Pitts, L. (2012, November 26). You can’t fix education by lowering the bar. The
National Memo. Retrieved from http://www.nationalmemo.com/you-cant-fixeducation-by-lowering-the-bar/
Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools:
Culturally responsive pedagogy. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39, 64–68.
Ritchey, K. D. (2011). The first “R”: Evidence-based reading instruction for students
with learning disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 50, 28–34.
Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Language and
reading interventions for English language learners and English language learners
with disabilities. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational
Leadership, 43(7), 60–69.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(3), 34–36.
Rotherham, A. J. (2011, May 12). The education crisis no one is talking about. Time.
Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2070930,00.html
Rupley, W. H., Blair, T., R. & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction
for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 25(2), 125–138.
Shevalier, R., & McKenzie, B. A. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching as an ethicsand care-based approach to urban education. Urban Education, 47, 1086–1105.
20
SRA FLEX Literacy™
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., &
Chung, C. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and
current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2004, March). How do English language learners learn to
read? Educational Leadership, 52–57.
Smith, M. (2012, August 31). At some schools, the demographics future is now. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic
language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 2, 325–344.
Stecker, P. M. (2007). Tertiary intervention: Using progress monitoring with intensive
services. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 50–57.
Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B. V. (1981). Advances in research on teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1–9.
Sullivan, A. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and
placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 71, 317–334.
Sun, J. W., Nam, J. E., & Vanderwood, M. L. (2010). English language learners (ELL)
and response to intervention (RTI): Information for K–6 educators. Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (2008). TESOL/
NCATE Standards for the recognition of initial programs in P-12 ESL teacher
education. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved on June 2, 2009 from http://
www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=219&DID=10698
Terry, N. P., & Irving, M. A. (2010). Cultural and linguistic diversity: Issues in
education. In R. P. Colarusso & C. M. O’Rourke (Eds.), Special Education for
all teachers (5th ed.) (pp. 110–132). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural
diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328–350.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2010). Exceptional lives: Special
education in today’s schools (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Provisional data file: SY2010-11 four-year
regulatory adjusted cohort graduation rates. Washington, DC: Author.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Cardenas
Hagen, E., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an
English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems.
American Education Research Journal, 43, 449–487.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Mohammed,
S. S., & Stillman-Spisak, S. J. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with
middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 938–964.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching
English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research
into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58–67.
Effective Reading Intervention Practices for English Language Learners
21
Vaughn, S., & Roberts, G. (2007). Secondary interventions in reading: Providing
additional instruction for students at risk. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5),
40–46.
Vialpando, J., Yedlin, J., Linse, C., Harrington, M., & Cannon, G. (2005). Educating
English language learners: Implementing instructional practices. Washington, DC:
The National Council of La Raza and The Education Alliance at Brown University.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007, March). The culturally responsive teacher.
Educational Leadership, 28–33.
Wagner, R. K., Francis, D. J., & Morris, R. D. (2005). Identifying English language
learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 6–15.
White, K. K., Zion, S., Kozleski, E., & Fulton, M. L. (2005). Cultural identity and
teaching. Tempe, AZ: National Institute for Urban School Improvement.
22
SRA FLEX Literacy™