Does Supplemental Instruction Support the Transition from Spanish to English Reading Instruction for First-Grade English Learners at Risk of Reading Difficulties?
Baker, Doris Luft; Burns, Darci; Kame'enui, Edward J.; Smolkowski, Keith; Baker, Scott King (2016). Learning Disability Quarterly, v39 n4 p226-239 Nov 2016. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1119703
-
examining78Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency |
Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
61.18 |
68.26 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT-10: Sentence Reading |
Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
518.51 |
521.72 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT-10 Word Reading |
Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
489.85 |
491.56 |
No |
-- |
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
36.18 |
39.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Listening Comprehension Subtest |
Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.77 |
13.72 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Word Meaning |
Small group reading instruction for English learners - Baker et al (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.69 |
22.31 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 42%
Male: 58% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Oregon
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in first grade bilingual (Spanish-English) classrooms in seven schools in Oregon. In four of the schools, the intervention was provided in the classroom; the intervention was provided as part of an after-school program in the other three schools. The study included students that were part of a larger study as well.
Study sample
Seventy-eight students were assigned to either the intervention group (39 students) or comparison group (39 students). All of the students were Spanish-speaking English learners enrolled in bilingual instruction classrooms. All of the participants were Hispanic. On average, students were 6.5 years old. Less than half (42%) were female and the remainder (58%) were male. All of the seven participating schools were Title I schools and 39% to 63% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch across the seven schools.
Intervention Group
The transition lessons intervention was designed to support Spanish-speaking English learners’ transition from Spanish to English reading instruction through small-group supplemental instruction. Students received 30-minute lessons daily for 60 days, delivered by bilingual certified teachers and instructional assistants who had an average of 11 years of teaching experience. Each lesson included two sections. The first section focused on developing decoding skills, including phonemic awareness, letter sound knowledge, and word/sentence reading. The second section focused on English language proficiency through academic language, content vocabulary, and comprehension strategies centered on read-aloud stories. The lessons made explicit connections between Spanish and English language features and provided scaffolding for understanding instructional terminology. The intervention was highly scripted and included explicit modeling, scaffolding, opportunities for student response, and corrective feedback.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction for struggling English learners. The specific instruction varied across districts but included various commercial reading programs. For example, some schools used Fast Track Phonics, DISTAR, or the Harcourt intervention program, while others used strategies from their core reading curriculum and supplemental materials like leveled reading books. Authors noted that instruction in the comparison condition focused more on lower order skills such as phonics, word, work, and sentence reading while instruction in the intervention condition focused more on higher order skills such as vocabulary, comprehension, and transition elements.
Support for implementation
Teachers received a seven-hour training prior to the start of the intervention. The training covered the lessons, lesson pacing, delivering explicit instruction to help students improve reading skills, and teaching vocabulary and academic language to English learners. Teachers also received coaching and feedback on their implementation of the intervention following observations from a member of the research team, which was done twice in the 12-week intervention period.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).