Response to Intervention: A Bright Spot for the Literacy Enhancement of English Language Learners in California? February 5, 2011 NSSLHA Conference California State University, Sacramento 8: 30 -10: 00 AM
Presenters Robert A. Pieretti, M. S. , CCC-SLP Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology California State University, Sacramento rpieretti@csus. edu Celeste Roseberry-Mc. Kibbin, Ph. D. CCC-SLP Professor, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology California State University, Sacramento celeste@csus. edu Ploua Vue. B. S. Graduate Student, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology California State University, Sacramento pvue 555@gmail. com
Our diversity has greatly increased in the 21 st century
Recent Statistics--% of U. S. population: 1970 White 83. 7 Black 10. 6 Hispanic 4. 5 Asian 1. 0 Native Am. . 4 2000 2050 70 12 13 4. 9 50 13 24 9 1
• It is very important for SLPs to be involved in supporting ELL students to succeed…and we can do this through increasing their access to the curriculum
We will cite research. . • To support the notion of evidence-based practice as we serve ELL students in the schools
Terry, P. , Connor, C. , Thomas-Tate, S. , & Love, M. (2010). Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 126 -145. • A meta-analysis of research shows that there is widely varying achievement among children in American schools • When children enter school (kindergarten), achievement gaps are observable even before they start learning to read
• The most salient child characteristics that predict academic success are SES and race • Low-SES, non-White children tend to lag behind White, middle-SES children • We need to work hard to close this gap
IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE SKILLS • Justice 2010: Well over 50% of prisoners/incarcerated individuals cannot read • Young children with language impairments who grow up with limited language skills have far-reaching consequences in every area of their lives
If we do not help ALL students succeed in school, we impact their futures…
One prison in Virginia… • Builds prison cells according to the number of 2 nd graders who do not read at grade level • For example, in 2010, if 500 second graders do not read well, 500 prison cells are made available to house these children 10 -15 years later
As SLPs, we can collaborate in the schools to emphasize • Justice and equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of race, SES, or primary language • Leveling the playing field
Response to Intervention-An Opportunity? • Under IDEA, federal funds can be allocated for early intervening services to provide academic assistance for students at risk for academic failure from special educators • Students who demonstrate improvement need different instruction, not special education…. • ELLs are frequently designated as struggling readers who are placed in undifferentiated remediation programs with native English speakers who have scored poorly on standardized reading tests (Harper et al. , 2008).
In the old days we had…. • Regular education in the classroom • OR ▼ • Special education with an IEP
Now more schools across the U. S. are implementing RTI • Regular education classroom (Tier 1) • ▼ • Noncategorical, nonspecial education interventions (after-school math and/or reading academy; REWARDS reading program, etc. ) (Tier 2) • ▼ • Special education with IEP (Tier 3)
So What? Why is this important? • Statistics provided by the U. S. Depts. of Ed and Commerce (2004): Non-English-speaking students are the most likely to drop out of school, to exhibit the lowest achievement scores, and to exhibit the highest rates of poverty. (Lovett et. al. , 2008, p. 333) • This is really the take away message today…. we need strategies to help these students access the core curriculum and we currently have unique opportunities to think in new and different ways!
Many current experts are recommending Rt. I • For differentiating language differences from disorders in ELL students • Generally, ELL students who do not respond to Rt. I genuinely need special education
Justice 2010: • If children show treatment resistance sped
Diehl & Silliman, 2009; Language and Communication Disorders in Children) • Rt. I is a method of service delivery that tries to “catch” kids before they end up needing special education • There is especially an emphasis on reading intervention in the early grades • Great because it takes us away from a “wait to fail” system and instead has a “supporting success” orientation • Goal: PREVENT problems later
It is easy to be afraid that being involved in Rt. I will create more work for us! • But ultimately, it will make our jobs easier because fewer children will be on IEPs • More students will receive support BEFORE we are asked to formally evaluate them for special education
So instead of being overwhelmed by the idea of Rt. I… • Hopefully we will find ways to support ELL students as part of a school team approach • In the ideal team approach, the work load is shared
And we are able to work together to support our ELLs as they work to become successful, productive members of society
PRIMARY TOPICS FOR TODAY… • Revisit links between oral language and literacy • Discuss the challenges faced by English Language Learners (ELLs) “at risk” for academic failure in early elementary school • Review current research regarding language and literacy enhancement for ELLs • Review current research agenda designed to examine benefits of an intervention designed to meet the needs of these students • Discuss potential roles and provide practical suggestions for the SLP working with ELL populations
HOW DID I GET HERE? • An interest in children with early oral language difficulties that become later reading and writing difficulties……. (It all began in 250 Shasta Hall) • An interest in promoting early detection and remediation
Dr. GOLDSWORTHY AND SAC STATE STUDENTS IN SPHP HAVE SET THE TONE FOR LITERACY INTERVENTION IN OUR CLINIC • CHILDREN’S LITERATURE (Context) LINKED TO • ORAL NARRATIVE ACTIVITIES (Oral Language) LINKED TO • SOURCEBOOK OF PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS SERIES (Phonological Awareness) LINKED TO • Modified RAVE-O activities: Language activities designed to promote RETRIEVAL, AUTOMATICITY, VOCABULARY, ELABORATION, AND ORTHOGRAPHY ACTIVITIES (Language/Literacy)
HOW DID I GET HERE? • My work in the Public Schools…. which led to several interests, including: 1. Multilingual students (Difference vs. Disorder, but suggestions to team? ) 2. Response to Intervention (RTI) programs: Which students need Special Education and which students need more intense instruction………….
Questions!? !? !? . . . . All of which led to the research agenda we will review today!
My Daily Affirmation Throughout The Research Process: If you think you’re on to something….
Even if you aren’t sure EXACTLY where you’re going—Stay On Course!!!
You’ll find something worthwhile in the end…. .
I get by with a little help from my friends!!!!! Research Assistants from the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology: Debbie Tobler Ploua Vue Stacie Chastain Aron Goeke Jayne Adams
SPECIAL ED: WHO ARE THESE KIDS? • WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? • WHERE DO THEY GO?
Remember, early success in school is closely linked to success in the language arts— specifically reading and reading comprehension Kids who don’t achieve traditionally get referred to Special Ed… • What about English Language Learners? • Traditionally, ELLs have been overrepresented by those same two words: SPECIAL ED!
Research completed in California • Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005: ELLs with limited proficiency in both their native language and in English are disproportionately included in Special Education programs in both the elementary and secondary grades…. . Does this necessarily indicate a language disorder? Consider subtractive bilingualism…. .
The Situation in California • Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which introduced stringent accountability measures to ensure federal education funding • Standards based education and assessment • California chooses to test in English only • Proposition 227 lead to English language mainstream classrooms for most ELLs
The Situation in California (Cont’d) Many feel this Inclusion leads to marginalization School curriculums adoptions: • Assume phonics-based reading instruction • Assume an English oral language foundation • Assume access to familiar vocabulary in English • Do not include modifications “to help ELLs develop oral language in English, to build on students’ literacy skills in their native language, or to acknowledge differences in cultural experiences and identity development” (Harper et al, 2008, p. 274)
Shaywitz (2004): Essential, scientifically-proven elements of reading programs for children at-risk for reading difficulties • Systematic and direct instruction in Phonemic Awareness • Systematic and direct instruction in phonics • Practice applying phonics in reading and writing • Fluency training • Enriched language experiences
How about effective English literacy instruction for ELLs? Research confirms the need for: • Systematic and explicit phonologically based intervention (Lovett et al. , 2008) • Oral language development (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Gersten & Geva, 2003; Harper et al. , 2008; Pollard-Durodola et al. , 2006) • Extensive vocabulary development, reading comprehension, attention to sentence forms, and discourse structure (Gersten & Geva, 2003) • Cultural relevance (Pollard-Durodola et al. , 2006)
Research Also Confirms RTI for ELLS • Linan-Thompson et al. study (2003): 26 ELLs. Grade 2. 58, 35 -minute sessions. Small groups over 3 months. Significant gains on measures of word attack, passage comprehension, phoneme segmentation fluency, and oral reading fluency. • Vaughn et. al study (2006): 41 hispanic ELLs. Grade 2. 50 -minute sessions, 5 days per week. Added element: guided story retelling with complete sentences and contentspecific vocabulary. Significant gains: PA, RAN, letter knowledge, word attack, passage comprehension, and spelling dictation.
Research Needs • What is the value of each intervention component? What helps the most? (Vaughn et. al. , 2006) • What about ELLs from language groups other than Spanish? What about shorter, less intensive interventions? (Linan-Thompson et al. , 2006, 7 month study)
Research Needs • Links between L 2 development and the curriculum: Promotion of academic language development (Saunders & O’Brien, 2006)
The Hmong: A population of Interest • One of fastest growing California Populations • Largest concentrations in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Kan & Kohnert, 2005) • 36, 000 Hmong American students in California K-12 (Vang, 2004 -5). Of these, 85% classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP)
The Hmong: A population of Interest • Fifth largest group of ELLs in California schools (CDE, 2009) • In Sacramento county, second largest group of ELLs behind Spanish speakers (CDE, 2009) • Population expected to grow exponentially • “Struggles of Hmong students have been obscured by the successes of Asian students in general” (Magagnini, 2010).
Hmong and Academic English: A Mismatch? • Phonology: Unlike English, one morpheme=one syllable. Language with 8 inflectional tones. Few glides. Many more stops. Includes post-veolar and uvular sounds. • Semantics: Unlike English, Hmong uses classifiers to indicate a semantic class to which something belongs: ib tug cwj mem ib (quantifier--“a” or “one”) tug (classifier--long-thin object) cwj mem (noun--pencil) • Morphology: English: Uses a final sound: “house” + “s” Hmong: ob lus tsev Hmong uses a quantifier: ob (quantifier-two) lus (classifier— something big) tsev (house) Sources: Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Rubba 2006; Kan 2010
Hmong and Academic English: A Mismatch? • Syntax/Grammar • Hmong is Subject-Verb-Object, but unlike English, the word order changes to emphasize certain parts of utterances. • English: ‘He/She cut a piece of paper. ’ • Hmong: Nws txiav ib daim ntawv. • Translation: He/She cut one (classifier) paper. • English: ‘I cut that piece of paper. ’ • Hmong: Daim ntawv ko yog kuv txiav hov. • Translation: (Classifier) paper there is I cut, really. Sources: Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Rubba 2006; Kan 2010
Most Noteworthy: Narrative Differences! Hmong: Historic emphasis on oral skills; Long, highly-detailed, loosely-connected narratives: Fadiman (1997): Hmong phrase-hais cuaj los kaum los, meaning “to speak of all things. ” The phrase itself is sometimes used at the beginning of Hmong oral narratives to remind listeners that the world is full of things that, even though it may not seem so, are actually connected, that no event occurs in isolation, that you can miss a great deal by sticking to the point, and “that the storyteller is likely to be long-winded” (p. 13).
Most Noteworthy: Narrative Differences! English: Frequent formulaic structures, beginning with early storybooks • Topic statements • Characters • Development of central idea/plot • Prove something, argue something with examples • Series of examples • Conclusions
California First Grade Standards • 1. 2. 0 Reading Comprehension • Comprehension and Analysis of Grade-Level-Appropriate Text • 1. 2. 7 Retell the central ideas of simple expository or narrative passages. • 1. 2. 5 Confirm predictions about what will happen next in text by identifying key words • 1. 3. 0 Literary Response and Analysis • Narrative Analysis of Grade-Level-Appropriate Text • 1. 3. 1 Identify and describe the story elements of plot, setting, and characters, including the story's beginning, middle, and ending. • 1. 3. 3 Recollect, talk, and write about books read during the school year. • 1. 2. 0 Speaking Application (Genres and their Characteristics) • 1. 2. 2 Retell stories using basic story grammar, sequencing story events by answering who, what, when, where, why, and how questions.
WHERE AM I NOW? • Department of Education, University of California, Davis. • Language, Literacy and Culture Emphasis WHERE AM I GOING? • Three questions are currently informing my research agenda • Dissertation development • Ph. D to be awarded Spring 2011
Question 1. Can intense, short term curriculum modifications designed by special educators for students with language-based reading difficulties enhance pre-requisite English literacy skills for typically developing ELL students whose first language is Hmong? In other words: Can such a program help build bridges for these students? Help differentiate difference from disorder AND provide a foundation from which to proceed?
Question 2: Does the inclusion of an oral-narrative component designed by Speech-Language Pathologists enhance these students’ developing English literacy skills? Will this component yield better results if it is grounded in sociocultural reading theory? In other words: Can specific program components help build bridges for these students?
Question 3: How will acquired skills impact these students’ performance in the general education language arts curriculum? The whole point!
Specific grounding in English systems of language: A place to start bridge building? • Designing a curriculum based intervention study modeled on the Sac State Literacy program with and without oral narratives and culturally relevant components • Successes may inform curriculum delivery modifications for these students
Current Research Agenda • 39 Hmong ELL Students First grade, similar SES, similar background and educational experiences, no suspected primary language delay, “atrisk” for academic failure in Language Arts curriculum adoption • Four groups: Control, Leg, Onleg, Cronleg • 7 weeks, small groups/varied language abilities, 18 sessions • Intervention: 2 stories from the curriculum. Frontloading
Curriculum Selections: Open Court (Adams et al. , 2002)
Curriculum Selections
Curriculum Selections
Literacy Enhancement Group (LEG) • Hierarchichal Phonological Awareness Activities (Word, Syllable, and Sound levels) (Based on: Goldsworthy, 1998) • Letter-Word Identification Activities (Word Attack) (See Word Wheel) Decontextualized Targets: Phonology/Phonics
PA Activities based on: GOLDSWORTHY SOURCEBOOKS for PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS • Delmar/Cengage Learning • Activities at word, syllable, sound levels • 35 -36 activities/story • 10 stimulus items/activity
SAMPLE WORD LEVEL ACTIVITIES • “How many words do you hear? ” the leaves (2) • “Tell me which word is missing? ” sang, frog sang (frog) • “Supply missing word. ” It was _____ (spring) • “Rearrange these words. ” spring was it (it was spring) **Use manipulatives and fade…………
SAMPLE SYLLABLE LEVEL ACTIVITIES • Delete syllables: “Say groundhog without ground” (hog) • Adding syllables: “Add in to the end of rob” (robin) • Substituting syllables: “Say robin. Instead of -in say -er” (robber) **Use manipulatives and fade…………
SAMPLE PHONEME LEVEL ACTIVITIES • Guess which word doesn’t rhyme with the other 3: spring, the, king (the) • Blending sounds: b + unny; gr + ound • Substituting initial sound: “Say log. Instead of /l/ say /b/” (bog) • Identify all the sounds in the word: bunny = /b/ /short u/ /n/ /long e/ **Use manipulatives and fade…………
Word-Identification Program/Word Wheel
Six selected rimes/word families
Combined with possible onsets (consonant and consonant-blends)
The “real” words are written on a whiteboard
Each student maintains a journal
“Timed” reading and sorting activities: Modified from the RAVE-0 program (Wolf & Miller, 1997; Wolf, Miller, & Donnelly, 2000) • Read your journal lists and “beat your time” • Sort 3 X 5 cards printed with words from the lists in to respective “word family” piles and “beat your time”
Oral Narrative Literacy Enhancement Group (ONLEG) Add in before LEG activities: • Primary discussion of six selected multiple meaning words from story • Presentation of story with open-ended questions (based on Text Talk, Beck & Mc. Keown, 2001) • Scaffolded story retelling (based on Linking the Strands of Language and Literacy , Goldsworthy, C. with contributions by Lambert, K. , 2010) -Contextualized -Targets: Phonology/Phonics/Vocabulary/Oral Language Development
Storyboard: A Map Generic icon introduction (see picture storyboard) • • • Someone (Character) Somewhere (Setting) Wanted First But Next Solution Feelings
Storyboard Sequence • Group orally labels each pictured generic icon when queried by teacher: Every story is about someone or a character. Who is the someone in this story? ” • Retell as a group, taking turns, with specific pictured icons to place on the board when handed them • Retell as a group, taking turns, selecting correct pictured icon from an array of three • SIMPLE retell individually, pointing to each icon on the board, receive help and feedback from group, if needed
Specific icons related to story: “Next he meets the robin”
Specific icons related to story: “But he can’t live in the log. ”
Specific icons related to story (Solution): “He met a white bunny. ”
Specific icons related to story (Feelings): “The bunny felt happy and safe. ”
Culturally-Relevant Oral Narrative Literacy Enhancement Group (CRONLEG) Add in before LEG and ONLEG activities: • Unit based on Language Experience Approach (Nessel & Jones, 1981; Craig, 1980; Anne Arundel Public Schools, 1980; Bank Street, 2009). • Developed in consultation with native. Hmong speaking research assistant • Introduced to one critical theme from each story (“Home”)
Culturally-Relevant Oral Narrative Literacy Enhancement Group (CRONLEG) • Scaffolded word web about theme • Character development • Develop a unique tale based on group’s knowledge and experiences to parallel the Open Court story to come • Then introduced to the storyboard concept • Retell of story using storyboard by group and then individually
Culturally-Relevant Oral Narrative Literacy Enhancement Group (CRONLEG) • Story written down in a book to “read” in subsequent session • Following reading of Open Court story, comparisons between students’ book and the story made by the group • Drew upon individual oral narrative experiences while simultaneously tying the activity to narrative style of Academic English -Contextualized/cultural connections/Bridges -Targets: Phonology/Phonics/Vocabulary/Oral Language Development
Important Note! • All of the activities selected are recommended in one way or another in the literature: Evidence Based……. • BUT!!! Which combinations of activities help the most? Which methodologies help the most?
One thing we really want to know: Is oral narrative one answer? • Story retell portion of the Sac State literacy program speaks to the building of these bridges through increased oral narratives. • Provides opportunities for English vocabulary expansion, connections to prior knowledge and life experiences, increased understanding about the literacy practices of the target language/language of instruction
Another thing we really want to know: Did promotion of sociocultural connections help? • Based on a different definition of reading • “Reading is an active process in which readers use their background knowledge, the situational context, and the cues provided by an author to construct an interpretation of the meaning of a text” (Pritchard, 1990) BUT • School curriculum does not always provide culturally familiar materials.
Developing A Social-Cultural Perspective Author Experiences/Knowledge: Grounded in culture Reader Experiences/Knowledge: Grounded in culture Increase analysis of interconnections Can we promote this in children?
Oral Narrative Modifications for ELLs • The Language Experience Approach (have student tell story first, then write it down, then move into the actual story) • Build on Schema Activation: Access what students know and begin there. • What do I know about bunnies? What do I want to know about bunnies?
Data Analysis • Sorting through many different profiles and patterns • We will be conducting a repeated measures multiple analysis of variance to see if there were any significant findings……. . • Stay tuned for the results this Spring/Summer!
Anticipated Challenges • Hybridity of cultural identities • Individual backgrounds and linguistic differences within groups will impact performance and be difficult to account for • Which generation are we examining? Is culture still “alive” within the family unit? • Ability to isolate variables in social sciences… • If we do find significant improvements, will they carryover long-term?
In the meantime, a case study: • P. J. • 7 -5, Hmong American Male, First grade, regular education • Met all criteria for referral • CELDT: EI (expected for 1 -2 years of instruction in English) • Reading Lions: 18. 5 WPM 50 th percentile= 35 WPM • Teacher: Frequently attempts to engage in classroom discussion around curriculum. Difficult time decoding and comprehending when reading.
P. J. ’s CRONLEG Performance • Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Note: A=Average, BA=Below Average, P=Poor Subtests Raw Standard Score Pre Score Post Pre Post Elision 5 8 8 (A) 9 (A) Blending Words 10 11 10 (A) Sound Matching 3 13 5 (P) 7 (BA)
P. J. ’s CRONLEG Performance • Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Phonological Awareness Composite Pre 85 (Below Average) Phonological Awareness Composite Post 91 (Average)
P. J. ’s CRONLEG Performance • Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement Note: A=Average, HA=High Average Subtest Raw Standard Score Pre Score Post Pre Post Letter-Word Identification 33 37 108 (A) 110 (A) Passage Comprehension 15 20 95 (A) 102 (A) Word Attack 12 23 110 (A) 120 (HA)
P. J. ’s CRONLEG Performance • Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Score Standard Score Pre 55 110 Post 55 110
P. J. ’s CRONLEG Performance So What? Are there curriculum improvements? • Reading Lions Fluency Pre: WPM • Reading Lions Fluency Post: • Optional Open Court Fluency Measure 18. 5 21 WPM 27 WPM
P. J. ’s CRONLEG Performance • So What? Are there curriculum improvements? Home for a Bunny Lesson Assessment: Comprehension: 7/7 Correct Vocabulary: 4/4 Correct Phonics: 6/6 Correct
Research Assistant Notes • Appeared to gain confidence using oral English, decoding words, and answering questions about text • Storyboard seemed to aid comprehension • Oral output increased • Increased awareness of all sounds in words: decreased omission of final sounds and vowel substitutions in spontaneous speech • Overall speech intelligibility seemed to improve
Teacher Questionnaire • Increased confidence regarding story comprehension
In Conclusion…. Why Involve the SLP? • ELLs are frequently among the students referred to SST and IEP teams as being “at risk of academic failure. ” • SLP training leads to heightened awareness of multicultural issues and linguistic differences. • SLPs are the professionals among the inter-disciplinary special education teams whose expertise is in the area of language development and literacy. • SLPs are well-placed for intervention and/or consultation, collaboration, and follow-up. • Many SLPs are asked to participate and help develop RTI programs
Collaboration • So what if I’m not involved in RTI? How can I use this information? • Consultation, Collaboration, combine with your expertise in IEPS and linguistically appropriate goals, etc.
THANK YOU! • Questions, Ideas, suggestions? Please email us at: rpieretti@csus. edu celeste@csus. edu pvue 555@gmail. com
References • • • Adams, M. , Bereiter, C. , Campione, J. , Hirshberg, J. , Mc. Keough, A. , Pressley, M. , Roit, M. , Scardamalia, M. , & Treadway, G. (2002). Open court reading. Level 1. Book 2. Columbus: Mc. Graw-Hill. Anne Arundel County Public Schools (Md. ). A guide for use of language experience approach in kindergarten. Annapolis, Md. The Schools. Artiles, A. J. , Rueda, R. , Salaar, J. J. , & Higareda, I. (2005). Within group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283 -300. August, D. , Carlo, M. , Dressler, C. , & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 20(1), 50 -57. Bank Street. (2009). Literacy Guide. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from www. bnkst. edu/literacyguide/story. html. Beck, I. , & Mc. Keown, M. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of reading-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10 -20. California Department of Education. Statewide English Learners by Language and Grade. Retrived 1 -28 -11 from http: //dq. cde. ca. gov/dataquest/LEPby. Lang 1. asp? c. Choice=Lepby. Lang 1&c. Year=200910&c. Level=State&c. Topic=LC&my. Time. Frame=S&submit 1=Submit Craig, L. (1980). Language Experience Approach/Metropoloitan Cooperative Education Service Agency. Northbrook, Ill. : Hubbard. Fadiman, A. (1997). The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
References • • • Gersten, R. , & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early language learners. Educational Leadership, 60, 44 -49. Goldsworthy, C. L. (2001). Sourcebook of Phonological Awareness Activities: Children’s Core Literature. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc. Goldsworthy, C. L. with Lambert, K. R. (2010). Linking the strands of language and literacy: A resource manual. San Diego: Plural Publishing. Harper, C. , de Jong, E. , & Platt, E. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second language teacher expertise: the exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy, 7, 267 -284. Justice, L. M. (2010). Communication sciences and disorders: A contemporary perspective (2 nd ed. ). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kaderavek, J. (2011). Language disorders in children: Fundamental concepts of assessment and intervention. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kan, P. F. (2010). Hmong-English Bilingual Spekers: Resources for Speech-Language Pathologists, Educators, and Parents. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http: //www. tc. umn. edu/Kanx 0004. Kan, P. F. , & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English: Lexical-semantic skills in L 1 and L 2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 372 -383. Linan-Thompson, S. , Vaughn, S. , Hickkman-Davis, P. , & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 221 -238.
References • • • Linan-Thompson, S. , Vaughn, S. , Prater, K. , & Cirino, P. (2006). The response to intervention of English Language Learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Reading Disabilities, 39(5), 390 -398. Lovett, M. , De. Palma, M. , Frijters, J. , Steinbach, K. , Temple, M. , Benson, N. , & Lacerenze, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333 -352. Magagnini, S. (2010, March 1). Hmong cultural split arises over school. The Sacramento Bee, pp. B 1, B 4. Nelson, N. W. (2010). Language and literacy disorders: Infancy through adolescence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Nessel, D. , & Jones, B. (1981). The language experience approach to reading: A handbook for teachers. New York & London: Teachers College Columbia Press. Owens, R. E. , Metz, D. E. , & Farinella, K. A. (2011). Introduction to communication disorders: A lifespan evidence-based perspective (4 th ed. ). Boston: Pearson Publishing. Pollard-Durodola, S. D. , Mathes, P. G. , Vaughn, S. , Cardenas-Hagan, E. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). The role of oracy in developing comprehension in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Topics in Language Disorders, 26, 365 -38. Roseberry-Mc. Kibbin, C. , & Hegde, M. N. (2011). An advanced review of speech-language pathology: Preparation for PRAXIS and comprehensive examination (3 rd ed. ). Austin, TX: Pro • Ed. Rubba, J. (2006). An overview of the English morphological system. Retrieved October 16, 2010 from http: //cla. calpoly. edu/~jrubba/morph. over. html.
References • • • Saunders, W. & O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral Language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm. Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Chastain (Eds. ), Educating English language learners (pp 14 -63). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shaywitz, S. (2004). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred K. Knopf. Vang, C. T. (2004 -05). Hmong-American K-12 students and the academic skills needed for a college education: A review of the existing literature and suggestions for future research. Hmong Studies Journal, 5, 1 -31. Vaughn, S. , Mathes, P. , Linan-Thompson, S. , Cirino, P. , Carlson, C. , Pollard. Durodola, S. , Cardenas-Hagan, E. , & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-frade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The elementary school journal, 107(2), 153 -180. Wolf, M. , & Miller, L. (1997). As reported by Wolf, M. (1999). The retrieval, automaticity, vocabulary-elaboration-orthography (RAVE-O) reading intervention manual. An unpublished manual for NICHD grant # 1 r 55 HD/OD 30970 -01 A 1. Wolf, M. , Miller, L. , & Donnelly, K. (2000). Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary, Elaboration, Orthography (RAVE-O): A comprehensive, fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (4), 375 -386.
Скачать презентацию Response to Intervention A Bright Spot for the
e092e47720203e8cdd59e492220c4d3a.ppt