REL Midwest Ask A REL Response

English Learners

February 2021

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544783

From the ERIC abstract: “As English learners face the double demands of building knowledge of a second language while learning complex grade-level content, teachers must find effective ways to make challenging content comprehensible for students. This updated English learner practice guide, ‘Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School,’ provides four recommendations for teaching complex content to English learners while simultaneously building academic language and writing and oral language proficiency. This updated practice guide builds on the work of the first practice guide on English learners, expands the grade range from K-5 to K-8, and incorporates instruction in mathematics, science, and social studies, as well as literacy. With techniques found in this guide, teachers can effectively address English learners’ content and language needs by systematically—and at times explicitly—building students’ English language and literacy, while teaching history, mathematics, science, and other disciplines. The four recommendations include concrete guidance on: (1) Teaching English learners academic vocabulary intensively within the context of an engaging piece of informational text; (2) Helping English learners make sense of the content area material; (3) Supporting English learners as they learn to generate well-organized essays that are progressively longer and more complex; and (4) Providing struggling English learners with high-quality instructional interventions in reading and English language development.”

Barrera, M., & Liu, K. K. (2010). Challenges of general outcomes measurement in the RTI progress monitoring of linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 273–280. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ900890

From the ERIC abstract: “The assessment for accurate identification and appropriate instruction of English language learners (ELLs) with learning-related disabilities has remained a chronic source of concern. One source of concern that has gone relatively unchallenged is the use of general outcomes measurement (GOMs). The authors examine the problems and challenges of using outcome measures within the response to intervention (RTI) model in the identification and assessment of ELLs who struggle in schools and are suspected of having learning disabilities. They argue here that, despite its importance as a viable form of assessment, GOMs and, concomitantly, RTI may exhibit risks for these learners. In particular, the unique characteristics of ELLs with and without disabilities are often inadequately addressed in current research and practice. The authors review recent educational research on GOMs with respect to ELLs and present current trends in this body of work, along with discussing suggestions and recommendations.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Beach, K. D., & O’Connor, R. E. (2015). Early response-to-intervention measures and criteria as predictors of reading disability in the beginning of third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(2), 196–223. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1051590

From the ERIC abstract: “We explored the usefulness of first and second grade reading measures and responsiveness criteria collected within a response-to-intervention (RtI) framework for predicting reading disability (RD) in third grade. We used existing data from 387 linguistically diverse students who had participated in a longitudinal RtI study. Model-based predictors of RD were analyzed using logistic regression; isolated measure/criteria combinations for predicting RD were analyzed using classification analysis. Models yielded superior classification rates compared to single measure approaches and did not systematically misclassify English learners. However, particular first and second grade measure/criteria combinations also showed promise as isolated predictors of RD in word reading/text fluency. Model-based approaches were required for acceptable classification of students with RD in comprehension. Although the former finding is promising for early identification of students in need of more intensive instruction in lexical or fluency-based skills, the latter finding reaffirms literature attesting to the complexity of RD in comprehension and difficulty of predicting deficits using early measures of reading, which primarily assess word reading skill. Results replicated well with an independent sample, thus enhancing confidence in study conclusions. Implications regarding the use of RtI for predicting RD are discussed.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Bianco, M., & Harris, B. (2014). Strength-based RTI: Developing gifted potential in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Gifted Child Today, 37(3), 169–176. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030165

From the ERIC abstract: “This article proposes a strength-based response to intervention (RTI) model for developing and identifying gifted potential in English language learners (ELLs). In the recent years, much has been written about RTI; however, the potential of RTI for meeting the needs of gifted ELLs has not yet been explored. This article seeks to address this void by proposing a multi-tiered system of supports designed to meet the unique learning needs of gifted, Spanish-speaking ELLs.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Burr, E., Haas, E., & Ferriere, K. (2015). Identifying and supporting English learner students with learning disabilities: Key issues in the literature and state practice (REL 2015-086). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558163

From the ERIC abstract: “While the literature on learning disabilities and on second-language acquisition is relatively extensive within the field of education, less is known about the specific characteristics and representation of English learner students with learning disabilities. Because there are no definitive resources and processes for identifying and determining best placement for English learner students with learning disabilities, schools, districts, and states struggle with this issue. As a result, English learner students who may or may not have learning disabilities are both over- and underrepresented in special education. This report aims to inform policymakers interested in developing procedures, including the use of guidelines and protocols, for identifying, assessing, and placing English learner students who may or may not have learning disabilities. The report describes (1) the key issues discussed in the research literature and (2) current state procedures for the 20 states with the largest English learner populations.”

Choi, E., Oh, K., Yoon, S. M., & Hong, S. (2012). A literature review of implementing response to intervention for English language learners. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127776

From the ERIC abstract: “Response to intervention (RTI) has actively been used for identifying reading difficulties and providing supplemental instructions for students with disabilities. Recent developments of RTI show that the method expands its applicability to other areas and populations. In particular, it is difficult to distinguish learning disability (LD) from English as a second language acquisition. RTI could successfully be implemented for English language learners (ELLs). A systematic literature review has been conducted to delineate various components, strategies, and implications of RTI for ELL students. Twenty-six articles that meet the criteria are analyzed for themes and important findings. The result of the literature review along with the implications of the identified studies is reported. It is identified that direct instruction used in tier 2 is an effective technique when infusing linguistic and cultural aspects of ELL with diverse needs.”

Cramer, L. (2015). Inequities of intervention among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 12(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1056724

From the ERIC abstract: “Although Response to Intervention (RTI) has been generally studied in relation to student outcomes, the system itself requires further study, particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. CLD students have consistently suffered inequities in the educational system, including over representation in high incidence disability categories and unequal access to general education curricula and settings. Students with disabilities, particularly those from CLD backgrounds, continue to achieve below their peers. RTI implementation has been touted to ameliorate these discrepancies. This article calls for systematic and culturally responsive study of RTI implementation within urban districts.”

O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Beach, K. D., Sanchez, V., & Flynn, L. J. (2013). Special education in a 4-year response to intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3), 98–112. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED578099

From the ERIC abstract: “This 4-year longitudinal research was designed to study special education determinations of students who participated in Tier 2 intervention in a Response to Intervention (RtI) model focused on reading across Grades 1-4. We compared identification rates for learning disabilities (LD) and student characteristics of 381 students the year prior to implementation with 377 students in the RtI environment. Across schools, 38-60 percent of students were English language learners (ELL). Key outcomes by Grade 4 for students with LD who had participated in a model of RtI were relatively greater reading impairment with effect sizes ranging from 0.64 to 0.82, and more equitable representation across ELL and native English speakers than in the cohort prior to RtI implementation. Notably, one-third of the students identified for special services as LD in these schools were not identified until 4th grade.”

O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Sanchez, V., & Beach, K. D. (2014). Access to a responsiveness to intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten matter?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 307–328. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1042218

From the ERIC abstract: “In this study, we tested the outcomes of access to a response to intervention (RtI) model in kindergarten or in first grade on end-of-Grade-2 reading achievement and placement in special education. Across five schools, 214 students who began having access to Tier 2 intervention in kindergarten or first grade were compared in Grades 1 and 2 with 208 cohort peers who were average readers and 102 historical control condition second grade poor readers who did not receive Tier 2 intervention. Results demonstrated significant effects on reading achievement for access to RtI in kindergarten at the end of first grade (effects averaged 0.48), but not in second grade, except for students who were English language learners (ELLs), who showed an advantage through the end of second grade. Students with access to RtI overall had significantly higher outcomes at the end of Grade 2 than students in the historical control, with no differences resulting from ELL status. No significant difference in the proportion of students placed in special education was noted; however, a greater proportion of the students found eligible as with learning disabilities had poor reading scores if they were placed after participating in RtI.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

REL Northeast and Islands. (2018, February-March). Data-driven implementation of tiered interventions with English learners [Webinar series]. Author. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/english_learners.asp

From the description: “This webinar is the first in a three-part training series for Connecticut educators on how to effectively implement response to intervention (RTI), or scientific research-based interventions (SRBI), with English learner students. Dr. Sarah Moore and Lindsey Massoud from the Center for Applied Linguistics provide background on RTI and English learners and offer strategies for and examples of implementing Tier 1 supports.”

Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085543

From the ERIC abstract: “This article reviews published experimental studies from 2000 to 2012 that evaluated the effects of providing reading interventions to English learners who were at risk for experiencing academic difficulties, including students with learning disabilities. Criteria included: (a) the study was published in a peer-referred journal, (b) the study was an intervention for English learners at risk or with a learning disability in Grades K-12, (c) data were disaggregated by English learner status if all participants were not English learners, and (d) information about fidelity of implementation was reported. Twelve studies met these criteria. Results of seven studies conducted in kindergarten and first grade indicated significant moderate-to-large effect sizes (ES range, 0.58-0.91) for interventions targeting beginning reading skills. Findings in five of the 12 studies suggested significant moderate-to-large effects in reading or listening comprehension (ES range, 0.47-2.34). The interventions in these studies included explicit instruction, and 10 used published intervention programs. Moderator variables, such as group size, minutes of intervention, and type of personnel delivering the intervention, were not significant predictors of outcomes.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Richards-Tutor, C., Solari, E. J., Leafstedt, J. M., Gerber, M. M., Filippini, A., & Aceves, T. C. (2013). Response to intervention for English learners: Examining models for determining response and nonresponse. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(3), 172–184. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1000295

From the ERIC abstract: “Using extant data, the purpose of this study is to examine methods for determining response to intervention (RTI) in a sample of kindergarten English Learners (ELs). Three commonly used methods for determining RTI—(a) benchmark criteria, (b) slope discrepancy, and (c) dual discrepancy—are investigated. Participants included 117 ELs. Students were administered pretests and then provided intervention in phonological awareness and phonics in small groups. Progress was monitored weekly on two Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills measures, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency. Results indicate that there is very little overlap across the three methods and across the two measures in determining response and nonresponse for kindergarten ELs. The results of the study have implications for continued research regarding response of ELs as well as practical implications regarding which methods and measures should be used to determine response.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Ruiz, M. I. (2020). Beyond traditional response to intervention: Helping rural educators understand English learners’ needs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 39(1), 35–53. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1243148

From the ERIC abstract: “Response to intervention (RTI) allows schools to support the academic success of English learners (ELs) while helping educators rule out cultural or linguistic differences and educational background as the root of ELs’ academic or behavioral struggles. However, in rural schools, insufficient training in how to effectively instruct ELs and limited experience teaching ELs due to local demographics may lead RTI teams to prescribe inappropriate interventions or to avoid putting ELs through the RTI process altogether. The framework proposed in this article guides rural RTI teams through the process of considering the factors that might be influencing the performance of struggling ELs to provide these students with the supports they need to benefit from core instruction and tiered interventions.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Socie, D., & Vanderwood, M. (2016). Response to intervention for English learners. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden, Handbook of Response to Intervention (2nd ed., pp. 519–537). Springer. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566739

From the abstract: “When compared to English-only (EO) students, English learners (ELs) continue to demonstrate lower academic achievement in all areas throughout their school careers. There appear to be a number of reasons why this is the case, including a lack of emphasis on research-based English language development (ELD) instruction in the schools and, concurrently, a lack of differentiated instruction for ELs throughout the school day. Additionally, due to the fact that EL students tend to be concentrated in urban, low-income environments, these students tend to lack vocabulary and literacy skills in their first language. All of these issues serve to place EL students at a disadvantage early on, and this achievement gap becomes more pronounced later on. Fortunately, there is a movement in schools toward the use of response to intervention (RTI), and with that, the adoption of evidence-based instructional programs and practices in schools. Consequently, this chapter focuses on the advantages this movement provides for EL students, and specifically, the incorporation of empirically based ELD instruction and classroom practices that support academic language development during content area instruction. Additionally, specific recommendations for screening, instruction, progress monitoring, and intervention at tiers 1 and 2 are discussed.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Nelson, J. R. (2015). Effectiveness of supplemental kindergarten vocabulary instruction for English learners: A randomized study of immediate and longer-term effects of two approaches. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 490–529. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED557796

From the ERIC abstract: “A two-cohort cluster randomized trial was conducted to estimate effects of small-group supplemental vocabulary instruction for at-risk kindergarten English learners (ELs). ‘Connections’ students received explicit instruction in high-frequency decodable root words, and interactive book reading (IBR) students were taught the same words in a storybook reading context. A total of 324 EL students representing 24 home languages and averaging in the 10th percentile in receptive vocabulary completed the study (‘Connections’ n = 163 in 75 small groups; IBR n = 161 in 72 IBR small groups). Although small groups in both conditions made significant immediate gains across all measures, ‘Connections’ students made significantly greater gains in reading vocabulary and decoding (d = 0.64 and 0.45, respectively). At first-grade follow-up, longer-term gains were again greater for Connections students, but with smaller effect sizes (d = 0.29 and 0.27, respectively). Results indicate that explicit ‘Connections’ instruction features designed to build semantic, orthographic and phonological connections for word learning were effective for improving proximal reading vocabulary and general decoding; however, increases in root word reading vocabulary did not transfer to general vocabulary knowledge.”

Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C., Pollard-Durodola, S.D., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 449–487. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ746822

From the ERIC abstract: “Two studies of Grade 1 reading interventions for English-language (EL) learners at risk for reading problems were conducted. Two samples of EL students were randomly assigned to a treatment or untreated comparison group on the basis of their language of instruction for core reading (i.e., Spanish or English). In all, 91 students completed the English study (43 treatment and 48 comparison), and 80 students completed the Spanish study (35 treatment and 45 comparison). Treatment students received approximately 115 sessions of supplemental reading daily for 50 minutes in groups of 3 to 5. Findings from the English study revealed statistically significant differences in favor of treatment students on English measures of phonological awareness, word attack, word reading, and spelling (effect sizes of 0.35-0.42). Findings from the Spanish study revealed significant differences in favor of treatment students on Spanish measures of phonological awareness, letter-sound and letter-word identification, verbal analogies, word reading fluency, and spelling (effect sizes of 0.33-0.81).”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.