Dual Language Learners Who Are Nonresponsive to Comprehensive Evidence- Based Vocabulary Instruction Laura Saenz, Jorge E. Gonzalez, Denise A. Soares,

Dual Language Learners Who Are Nonresponsive to Comprehensive

Evidence-Based Vocabulary Instruction

Laura Saenz, Jorge E. Gonzalez, Denise A. Soares, and Nora Resendez

Acknowledgement

• IES CFDA 84.305A• IES Education Research Grants • IES Early Learning and Policies• Efficacy and Replication Goal grants

that:• Aim: Provide support for the development of

interventions that address specific sources of reading comprehension difficulties.

• Award Period: June 2011 – May 2015

Presenters

• Jorge Gonzalez, Associate Professor, TAMU

• Denise Soares, Research Associate,TAMU

• Nora Resendez, Project Coordinator, UTPA

• Laura Saenz, Associate Professor, UTPA

Other Contributors

• Sharolyn Pollard-Durodola, Associate Professor, Univerisity of Denver

• Leina Zhu, TAMU • Heather Davis, Research Assistant,

TAMU

Contact Information

• Laura Saenz, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Associate Professor of Special Education Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies at The University of Texas-Pan American

Project WORLD involves a nationwide partnership with Texas A&M University's Center on Disability and Development and The University

of Texas - Pan American with funding awarded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Educational Sciences (IES)

grant # R305A110638 .

Presentation Agenda

1. Who are Dual Language Learners?2. Who are non-responders to reading

interventions?3. Why Study non-responders?4. Characteristics of English-language

non-responders to reading interventions.

5. Dual-language/English-language learners characteristics.

Who are Dual Language Learners (DLL)?

• DLLs include children born in the United States or other country who are acquiring English and another language simultaneously

• Most DLLs in the US are Spanish-speakers, of immigrants from birth to 8 years old, more than half are Mexican, Central or South-American in origin (Fortuny, Hernandez & Chaudry, 2010; Páez, Tabors & López, 2007)

• Dual language classrooms vary from one or two DLLs to entire classrooms from the same language or multiple language backgrounds.

• Instruction can be English-only, mostly a non-English language (usually Spanish) or a mix of Spanish and English until proficiency (Goldenberg, 2008).

Dual-Language Learner Preschool Children

• DLLs face special challenges as they move through early childhood programs and schools. They tend to enter school with lower scores on cognitive and language assessments and leave school with lower educational attainment (Beltran, 2011).

• Meeting the needs of these children can be difficult for teachers, many of whom have not received adequate training in working with DLLs (Zepeda, Castron & Cronin, 2011).

• Teaching language-minority students to read and write well in English is an urgent challenge for the nation’s K-12 schools. Literacy in English is Essential (August & Shanahan, 2006).

Challenges for DLLs• DLLs continue to be overrepresented among low-achieving

students and underrepresented among high-achieving students • DLL lag in achievement at all SES levels-regardless of how SES is

measured • Achievement deficits are even more pervasive among immigrant

DLLs• Patterns of low achievement persist through the grades.• DLLs who entered kindergarten without English language skills are

the lowest performing group at the fifth grade (Miller & Garcia, 2008).

• Individual differences contribute significantly to English literacy development among DLLs especially responsiveness to instruction.– This presentation addresses some of these individual

differences relative to responsiveness to evidence-based vocabulary instruction: Non-Responders among DLLs

Who are Non-Responders?

• Students who do not make adequate reading progress despite the participation in evidence-based practice (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005) .

• Students who are unresponsive as indicated by the difference between poor readers’ and their peers’ growth rates and performance levels in the mainstream classroom (Case et al. 2003) .

Why study Non-Responders?

• Research suggests that even well designed interventions implemented with a high degree of fidelity fail to respond to the needs of all students (Dion, Morgan, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2004). Those students are termed non-responders.

• Examining non-responsiveness among students is important because not only does it inform us on how to improve classroom instruction, but it also tells us what characteristics mediate or moderate responsiveness.

• It can also inform us early on which students are most at risk of reading difficulties and thus need intensive one-to-one or differentiated instruction.

Characteristics of Non-Responders to Reading

InterventionWith the exception of English oral-language skills, the profiles of poor readers among monolingual and language-minority children are very similar (August & Shanahan, 2006)• phonological awareness;• verbal memory; • rapid naming;• vocabulary, verbal ability, and IQ;• attention or behavior problems;• orthographic awareness; and• home background (including socioeconomic status)

Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez (2003); Torgesen, 2000; Velting & Whitehurst, 1997

Instruction for DLLs and Other Language Minority Children

• Instruction with adjustments that provides substantial coverage of the key elements of reading-identified by the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension-has clear benefits for language minority students. Necessary but not sufficient!

• Oral proficiency in English is critical as well - but student performance suggests it is often overlooked in instruction

• Well-developed oral proficiency in English is associated with English reading comprehension and writing skills for these students. Specifically, English vocabulary knowledge, listening comprehension, syntactic skills and metalinguistic aspects of language (e.g., providing definitions of words). (August & Shanahan, 2006)

Project WORLD

• WORLD is a multi-dimensional pedagogical approach designed and tested in collaboration with teacher/researchers that aims to intensify content vocabulary instruction via interactive conversations around shared book reading.

• Address the needs of at-risk preschoolers by accelerating learning through quality of instructional design and language interaction opportunities.

• Strategic and purposeful instructional and educational opportunities. Exposure to sophisticated science and social studies vocabulary that is important for future reading comprehension.

the WORLD intervention

Instructional

materials that

focus on high

priority oral

language skills

Builds one or more

language skills

necessary for school readiness

_______________ Expands and builds

on children’s current level

of understandi

ng

Kindergarten Readines

s

• For children who enter school with lower oral language skills that places them at-risk for reading difficulties.

• Project WORLD is an 18-week, language rich shared reading curriculum that provides powerful interactive conversations around 5-day instructional cycles of 15-20 minutes each.

• Small group (5-7) shared reading that is more intensive, intentional and systematic than typical practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN:METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The School Districts

• South Texas school districts – District A: 28K students with 99.2%

Hispanic, 95.9% economically disadvantaged, and 70.9% at risk.

– District B: 31K students with 98.6% Hispanic, 88.6% economically disadvantaged, and 73.7% at risk.

Dual Language Model

• Gómez and Gómez Model of Dual Language Education– “50-50 Content Model”

• Language of instruction alternates regularly; each have day; each day or each week

– Each content area is taught consistently in one language for continuity in lessons over time

» Language arts taught in both languages

Study Participants-Teachers

• Teachers were randomly selected from 21 schools pre-kindergarten teacher roster

• 42 teachers were randomly assigned to the WORLD intervention group or a business as usual group (BAU). – 23 WORLD– 19 BAU

• 38% of teachers reported that Spanish was their primary language

• Approximate years teaching Pre-K= 4• Approximate years teaching = 8

Study Participants-Students

• Students were ranked by performance on the preLAS English and Spanish language proficiency measure– PreLAS is used to determine basic English

& Spanish language competence and preliteracy skills in young children.

• Primary level ranking > highest English PreLAS score

• Secondary level ranking > highest Spanish PreLAS score

Study Participants: Students

• 6 Top boys were given consent forms • 6 Top girls were given consent forms • Top 3 boys with consent were selected

and tested • Top 3 girls with consent were selected and

tested • Only at-risk students identified. Any

student performing above the 30th percentile on the English PPVT-IV was eliminated as a target

Language and Vocabulary Profile of Students

• English preLAS scores indicated non-speaker or pre-functional proficiency

• Spanish preLAS scores indicated limited or beginning proficiency

• Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV score M = 63.81 and SD = 15.42 (test M = 100; SD = 15) – PPVT-IV measures receptive vocabulary in

standard English. Three standard deviations below mean of 100

Other Demographic Data

• Gender – Equal boys and girls in treatment and

BAU groups• WORLD male = 69; WORLD female = 69

(n=138)• BAU male =57; BAU female = 57 (n=114)

• 98% Hispanic• Age in months = 56 • 92% economically disadvantaged

Defining Non-responsiveness

• Non-responsiveness was defined as performance below 30th percentile among intervention students on PPVT-IV pre- to post-test gains

• Partial responsiveness was defined as performance between the 30th and 50th percentile among intervention students on PPVT-IV pre- to post-test growth

• Responsiveness was defined as performing above the 50th percentile among intervention students on PPVT-IV pre- to post-test growth

WORLD Responders vs. Non-responders

• Similar– Age in months– Gender– Attendance– Lunch status– English PreLAS scores

• Initial Between-group Differences*– Spanish PreLAS scores: Responders to the WORLD

intervention had higher initial Spanish oral language proficiency than non-responders

• Responders = 64.51 (level 2 speakers, beginning 57-66) • Partial responders = 58.73 (level 2 speakers, beginning 57-66) • Non-responders = 52.55 (level 1 speakers, non-speaker 0-56)

* (Not controlling for important pre-test differences)

Fidelity of WORLD Intervention

• Whether teachers implemented the intervention well or not (i.e., with integrity) did not produce differences among three groups: – Non-responders: M = 2.78 (0.19)– Partial responders: M = 2.67 (0.47)– Responders: M = 2.63 (0.53)

Language Measures

• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – (PPVT-IV)- test of receptive vocabulary

• Expressive Vocabulary Test-2nd Edition (EVT-2) – test of expressive vocabulary that does not require reading or writing

• Oral and Written Language Scales-2nd edition (OWLS-II) – listening comprehension scale that measures receptive language

• Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-2nd edition (KABC-II) – Conceptual Thinking subtest

Researcher-developedVocabulary Measures

• PPVT-Modified- researcher-developed receptive vocabulary measure

• EVT-Modified – researcher-developed expressive vocabulary measure

Data Analysis

• Analysis of Variance for each dependent measure at posttest – Non-responders vs. partial responders vs. responders

• T-tests for each dependent measure at posttest– Non-responders vs. responders

• A multiple regression analyses that included membership in non-responder or partial responder group as a predictor of performance post-test dependent measures. Range of covariates to control for pre-test differences. All students were included in the regression.

What We Learned From Initial Analyses

• Demographics– DLLs with lower initial Spanish oral language proficiency

were more much less responsive to intervention

• No difference among groups as a function of how well teachers implemented the intervention

• Compared to non responders, responsive children at post-test scored much higher on researcher-developed measures of science and social studies storybook vocabulary

• When we compared responders to non-responders only, responsive children had higher listening comprehension scores as well.

*Covariates not addressed

Controlling for Pre-test Differences

• When we controlled for pre-test differences on important individual differences in gender, attendance, fidelity, home literacy environment, parental reading beliefs, English/Spanish proficiency, mCLASS emergent literacy probes the landscape changed

From our Second Set of Analyses We Learned:

• Non responsive children scored much lower on measures of listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary

• Children in classrooms with teachers who implemented the intervention “less well” were less responsive on listening comprehension and measures of expressive vocabulary

• At entry to preschool higher English oral language positively related to post-test performance on listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary

Pretest Posttest0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

72.2170.28

73.171.81

70.9

75.45

*Pre post comparison on OWLS for WORLD Group

Non-responders

Partial Responders

Responders

OWLS

Pretest Posttest0

5

10

15

20

7.779.1

6.62

9.98.33

9.92

Pre post comparison on KABC for WORLD Group

Non-responders

Partial Responders

Responders

KABC

Pretest Posttest0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

55.81 58.5857.95

64.67

55.33

67.27

*Pre post comparison on EVT-2 for WORLD Group

Non-responders

Partial Responders

Responders

EVT-2

Pretest Posttest0

5

10

15

20

6.18

13.18

7.27

14.86

6.02

15.2

*Pre Post comparison on PPVT-M for WORLD Group

Non-responders

Partial Responders

Responders

PPVT-

M

Pretest Posttest0

5

10

15

20

6.17

15.17

7.73

19.27

6.32

20.17

*Pre post comparison on EVT-M for WORLD Group

Non-responders

Partial Responders

Responders

EVT-

M

Summary of Findings

• Spanish PreLAS difference when comparing groups vs. English PreLAS as a predictor in the multiple regression analyses including all students

• No fidelity difference when comparing responder groups vs. fidelity as a predictor in the multiple regression analyses including all students

• Family literacy assessments not predictive of performance – need to reexamine measures

Implications