Enhancing Oral and Literate Skills for AtRisk ELL Children
March 16, 2012
California Speech-Language-Hearing Association
San Jose, California
Presenters
Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin, Ph.D. CCC-SLP
Professor, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology
California State University, Sacramento
LSHS, San Juan Unified School District
Robert A. Pieretti, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Pathology and
Audiology
California State University, Sacramento
LSHS, Sacramento City Unified School District
Presenters
Ploua Vue. B.S.
Graduate Student, Department of Speech Pathology and
Audiology
California State University, Sacramento
Mary Martineau. B.S.
Graduate Student, Department of Speech Pathology and
Audiology
California State University, Sacramento
Full presentation available:
www.hhs.csus.edu/homepages/SPA/Roseberry
Click on Workshops
Follow the link to this handout
Workshop Objectives; participants
will:
1. Discuss laws impacting service delivery
2. Describe the impact of ELL status on students
with LLD (language learning disabilities)
3. Describe general intervention strategies that
can be used to increase language skills across
settings
4. Discuss how to tie therapy into the general
education curriculum
5. Identify practical strategies for increasing the oral
and literate language skills of preschool and early
elementary school students
6. Summarize ideas for helping increase family
involvement
7. Define and discuss Response to Intervention
I. INTRODUCTION
At the first author’s previous school, we had a great deal of diversity;
91% of our students were students of color; 9% were White. Many
came from welfare homes. The school has 900-1000 students.
In Elk Grove Unified School District
as a whole…
Children represent between 80-90
different language groups
They come from all over the world.
Sacramento, California and New York
have the largest numbers of immigrants
from the former USSR in the entire United
States
Thus, it is the overall goal of this
workshop to present ideas and
strategies that are:
widely applicable to ELL students from a
variety of cultural and linguistic
backgrounds in both Special Education and
RtI settings
useable by monolingual English-speaking
clinicians as well as bilingual clinicians, and
easy, inexpensive, and fun to implement!
As much as possible, the ideas
presented will be:
Practical for use on “Monday
morning”
Useful for tying in with the general
curriculum of the school
Representative of evidence-based
practice
The ideas presented will be
applicable to a range of settings,
including:
Speech-language
therapy pull-out rooms
Self-contained special
education classrooms
General education
classrooms
The ideas can be used with…
Young ELLs who are at risk for a
diagnosis of LLD
Young ELLs who already have IEPs
because they have been diagnosed with
a LLD
You are encouraged to:
Share these ideas with general
education teachers as much as possible
Help general education teachers to
understand that the more they help us
implement the ideas presented, the
faster our students will progress!
II. LANGUAGE-LEARNING
DISABILITIES IN ELL STUDENTS
Legal Considerations

The IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 2004) states that students who
speak a second language must be assessed in
both the primary (first) language and English

These students must show delays in BOTH the
primary language and English in order to be
diagnosed as having LLD (language-learning
disability).

An ELL student has a true LLD if he
experiences difficulties learning in BOTH
languages

A LLD affects the student’s ability to learn any
language

The student with age-appropriate L1
skills and low scores in English is
NOT LLD and is not a candidate for
special education (RoseberryMcKibbin, 2008; Kohnert, 2008).

We must make teachers and
administrators aware of the
difference between a student with
normal underlying language learning
ability who needs more time and
exposure to English (non special
education) and the student who is
truly LLD (qualifies for special
education).
There is increased focus on
diverse students in our schools…

English language learners now
represent 9.6% of all students
enrolled in public pre-kindergarten
through grade 12 classes in the
U.S.; 67% of these students are
enrolled at the elementary school
level

The No Child Left Behind Act
(2001) has put strong emphasis
on achievement for low-income,
diverse, and English language
learner students
Silliman, Wilkinson, & Brea-Spahn,
(2004) stated that:

The sharp increase in enrollment in
American public schools coexists with a
crisis of illiteracy in America, which is
particularly regrettable given the changed
sociodemographic characteristics of
American classrooms.

A growing achievement gap exists
among minority and nonminority
students, those from poorer versus
richer families, those whose native
language is English, in contrast to those
whose first language is not English,
and those identified for special services
versus those in regular education
No Child Left Behind…

Addresses inequities in several ways

Students with disabilities must
participate in state accountability
systems for reading and math in
grades 3-8

Accommodations are allowed for
these students as necessary

Schools must show adequate annual
progress toward all students being
proficient in math and reading, or the
school will face penalties.
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA 2004):

LEAs (local education agencies)
are allowed to eliminate the IQachievement discrepancy gap that
formerly was mandated in order to
qualify students for many special
education services

There is a greater emphasis on
pre-referral services

Schools may now use more funds
for early intervention
There is a special focus…

On children in
kindergarten through 3rd
grade who don’t
technically qualify for
special education but who
need additional support.

This includes ELL students
There is also a special focus
on children who are having
difficulty developing their
basic reading skills,
especially in the early
grades.
Response to InterventionAn Opportunity?
• Under IDEA, federal funds
can be allocated for early
intervening services to
provide academic
assistance from special
educators to students at
risk for academic failure
•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).
Now more schools across the
U.S. are implementing RTI
Regular education classroom (Tier 1)
▼
Noncategorical, nonspecial
education interventions (afterschool math and/or reading
academy; REWARDS reading
program, etc.) (Tier 2)
▼
Special education with IEP (Tier 3)
Diehl & Silliman, 2009; Language
and Communication Disorders in
Children)

RtI 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 RtI 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
If we do not help ALL students
succeed in school, we impact
their futures…
Some places in Virginia and
California…

Build prison cells
according to the
number of 3rd
graders who do not
read at grade level

For example, in
2012, if 500 third
graders do not read
well, 500 prison
cells are made
available to house
these children 1015 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
III. SPECIFIC
STRATEGIES FOR
PRESCHOOL
CHILDREN
Blevins 2011 CSHA:
• In Santa Ana Unified, they had so
many preschool referrals that it
would have cost $2 million to hire
SLPs to test and treat the kids
• Many were ELL—mostly Spanishspeaking
• She created a preschool RtI program
“
At risk” preschoolers were
seen by SLPAs for 6 weeks
• They received language intervention
• At the end of the 6 weeks, 95% of the
children were fine
• Only about 5% needed IEPs
Gillam 2011 CSHA
• We are WAAAAY overidentifying ELL
kindergarteners for IEPs
• Assessed Spanish-speaking Ks at
beginning and end of K (English and
Spanish)
• Of 167 “at risk” at beginning of K, only 21
really needed IEPs at end of K
Thus….
• It behooves us to
work with young
(preschool and
kindergarten)
ELLs to ensure
that they
experience as
much success as
possible
A. Increasing Oral Language
Skills in Preschool ELL Children
with LLD
• Research shows that even children as
young as 3 years of age reject peers whom
they perceive as “different” (Rice, Sell, &
Hadley, 1991; Tabors, 2008; Weiss, 2002).
• Thus, a major goal for ELL preschoolers
with LLD is to successfully interact
socially with their peers.
With ELL preschool children who are
LLD…
• It is crucial to increase their ability to
interact verbally with peers.
• We have said that ideally, these
children will receive intervention in L1.
However, the reality is that many of
them are in daycare or preschool
settings where only English is spoken.
• These children face the
challenge of learning to
successfully interact with
peers in a language that is
unfamiliar to them. If
these children have a LLD
in addition to not speaking
English, they have “double
jeopardy.”
How do we help ELL preschoolers with
LLD succeed in preschool/daycare
settings?
• First, professionals such as SLPs,
teachers, and childcare workers
cannot just assume that these
preschool children will
automatically engage in
interactions with their typicallydeveloping peers.
Research has shown that these
children need the adults around
them to facilitate language
interaction opportunities with
peers.
Specific Suggestions
• When an ELL LLD child asks an adult for
something, the adult can redirect the child to a
typically-developing peer in the classroom. The
adult can teach the child specific strategies for
interacting with the peer.
• For example, if a Ryan, a Mandarin-speaking
child comes and tugs on an adult’s arm and
points to the bathroom, the teacher could say
“Ryan, go ask your friend Mark to go to the
bathroom with you. Walk up to him and say
‘Mark, bathroom please’ and take his hand.”
– In this way, Ryan would be encouraged to
interact with a peer and also learn an
effective strategy for gaining a peer’s
attention.
Tabors (2008) coordinated the
Harvard Language Diversity
Project, a research activity of the
New England Quality Research
Center on Head Start
• Tabors’ research yielded some
excellent, practical, evidence-based
strategies for providing additional
support to ELL preschool children.
• Tabors, P.O. (2008). One child,
two languages: A guide for
childhood educators of children
learning English as a second
language (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes Publishing
• www.brookespublishing.com
• Tabors recommended that
teachers give children some
immediate, routine phrases to use
to initiate conversation with
peers.
• If an ELL child with LLD can be
taught such words/phrases as “Hi”
“How’s it going?” “Can I play?,”
they immediately open themselves
up to more language exposure and
interaction with other children.
Another practical strategy:
• Professionals can ask parents of ELL LLD
children to teach them a few key words in
the children’s home language.
• The research of Tabors and her colleagues
showed that it was extremely helpful during
the first few weeks of preschool if the
adults could say words like bathroom, eat,
listen in the children’s first languages.
• This gave the children a sense of connection
with the teachers and helped them learn
preschool routines faster.
Tabors and her Harvard colleagues
also recommended that:
• Adults give the preschoolers a great
deal of verbal “space” for the first few
weeks.
• In the Harvard project, the teachers
welcomed the children and smiled at
them, but they did not overwhelm them
by issuing directives (unless necessary)
or calling on them too much during the
first few weeks.
• When the teachers did eventually
begin addressing the children directly,
they “doubled the message” by
accompanying their words with a
gesture, action, or directed gaze.
• This redundance enhanced the
children’s comprehension of what
the teachers were saying, and
increased the children’s
confidence.
One of the most helpful things
for the preschool children….
• Was the establishment of a consistent
set of routines that were simple and used
daily. For example, things like snack time,
outside play, cleanup time, and circle time
allowed the ELL preschoolers to
immediately act like members of the
group.
Another successful strategy that helped the l
ELL preschoolers fit into the group faster
and socialize more:
• Teachers always structured small group
activities to include a mix of ELL and
monolingual English-speaking children.
• This was very helpful to the ELL children
because they did not have to negotiate
entry into the groups; they were
automatically included.
• Once included in the activities,
the ELL children gained more
exposure to English and more
opportunities to interact with
other children.
B. Increasing Literacy Skills
• Reading, writing, spelling
– 
• Phonological awareness
– 
• Oral language
– 
– Foundation is
environmental experiences
and exposure
Begin with phonological awareness:
• Phonological awareness is the ability to
consciously reflect on and manipulate the
sound system of a language.
• It is foundational to success in reading,
writing, and spelling (Justice, 2010; Ukrainetz
et al., 2009).
• Preschoolers who are ELL and have LLD
especially need to develop phonological
awareness skills (Brice & Brice, 2009;
Roseberry-McKibbin, 2007).
The research of Ukrainetz
et al (2009) showed that:
• ELL kindergarteners (including those
from low-SES Hispanic homes) who
were exposed to phonological
awareness activities over the course
of a year made good progress in
reading
• The children with moderate deficits
benefited more than the
children with mild deficits
Interestingly…
• Even when treatment was provided in
short, intensive periods (as opposed
to longer, more drawn out less
intense periods), the children made
gains
• These gains were maintained over
time
Use the following hierarchy:
• 1. Count the # of words in a sentence
• 2. Count the number of syllables in a
word
• 3. Count the number of sounds in a word
• 4. Identify rhyming words
• 5. Use sound blending skills (e.g., “What
word is this? S-u-n”
• 6. Identify the first sound in a word
• 7. Identify the last sound in a word
Other ideas include:
• Use rhythm sticks and clapping to facilitate
knowledge of how many syllables there are
in a given word. Students can clap out the
syllables or use rhythm sticks to tap or
shake for each syllable.
• Use a grab bag where students pull an
object/toy out of the bag and tell the
beginning or ending sound in the word.
• Use rhymes such as Dr. Seuss. Many
ELL preschoolers with LLD have
underdeveloped rhyming skills.
We can also:
• Use stories with Rebus-style pictures
and ask students to “read” the pictures
• Read a familiar story or poem and have
students fill in missing words
If books are read many
times…..
• Children obtain more vocabulary
and information each time they
read the story.
• When they are familiar with a
story, they can be encouraged to
“read” it to peers and family
members. This increases their
confidence with reading.
Professionals can use books
that:
• Have highly exciting or dramatic story themes
• Have manipulative parts like flaps and movable
tabs to engage children.
• Have buttons to press that make noises (e.g., a
choo-choo noise for a train) or play music.
• Have many colorful pictures that accompany
the words. Often, children who have limited
exposure to books will become disinterested in
books that have many words on each
page.
And we know that we should
encourage caregivers to read,
read, read!
Written Language Attainments:
Preschool Period
• We need to be sure that
before they enter
kindergarten, our preschool
students can:
• 1. Display interest in reading
& sharing books
– 2. Hold a book right
side up
• 3. Identify the front and back of the book
• 4. Identify the top and bottom of a page
• 5. Look at and turn pages from left to
right
– 6. Identify the title on the book
cover
• 7. Identify titles of favorite books
• 8. Distinguish between pictures and print
on a page
• 9. Know where the story begins in the
book
• 10. Identify letters that occur in their
own names
• 11. Print the first letter of their name
• 12. Recite the first 10 letters of the
alphabet
• 13. Point to the first letter in a word
14. Differentiate uppercase from
lowercase letters
15. Use terms such as letter, word,
alphabet
• 16. Point to words individually as they are
read
• 17. Respond to signs in the classroom
• 18. Recognize common environmental
signs (e.g., stop sign)
If preschool students receive
comprehensive support in oral
and written language skills….
• They will be far
more successful in
elementary school
and beyond.
IV. Intervention and
Instructional Strategies for
Pull-Out and Push-In Therapy
in General Education Settings
d
HOW DID I GET HERE?
• An interest in children with early oral language
difficulties that become later reading and writing
difficulties…….
• An interest in promoting early detection and
remediation
• This began during my graduate and
undergraduate training program…………..
Dr. Goldsworthy and Sacramento State
Students have set the tone for literacy
intervention at the Maryjane Rees
Language, Speech, and Hearing Center
• 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 (Orthographic Awareness, Morphological
Awareness, 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?????
So, while I planned to be smooth,
efficient, and curriculum-relevant…….
I found myself swimming
through a “sea of referrals”….
Which left me with many
Questions!?!?!?!?!?!?
...............All of which led to the research
agenda we will review today!
MY 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 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
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 number of languages represented in
public schools
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, scientificallyproven 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 in Early Elementary School
• 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 Spanish speaking 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.
ELLs and Curriculum Selections: A
Mismatch
• “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.
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 L2 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 postvelar 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--longthin object) cwj mem (noun--pencil)
• Morphology:
English: Uses a final sound: “house” + “s”
Hmong: ob lus tsev
Hmong uses a quantifier: ob (quantifiertwo) 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).
Fish Soup Passage
Read the anecdote on your handout
(Fadiman 1997). How does this oral report
differ from the academic language
expectations of the classroom in U.S.
schools today…..consider early elementary
school.
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
English Oral Language
Instruction
• Some Hmong students have been
exposed to this oral narrative style.
• Some have not…
• But, consider what the literature says
about helping students develop oral
language in English…
California First Grade Standards
• 1.2.0
Reading Comprehension
• Comprehension and Analysis of Grade-LevelAppropriate 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.
More on: “How Did I Get
Here?”
Educational Experience/Interests
+
Work Experience
+
Situation in California
+
Current Research Needs
+
Population of Interest
= Dissertation Research
Dissertation Research
• Response to Intervention and Literacy: A
Bright Spot for Hmong Speaking English
Language Learners?
• University of California at Davis, Spring
2011
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…..
P.S…………
• This also pertains to our teamwork on
Response to Intervention projects….
I got by with a little help from my
friends!!!!!
Research Assistants from the Department of
Speech Pathology and Audiology at
Sacramento State:
Debbie Tobler
Ploua Vue
Stacie Chastain
Jayne Adams
Aron Goeke
Editorial Assistant: Tracy Stage
Three specific questions informed
our research agenda
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 oralnarrative component designed by SpeechLanguage 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 building
bridges
• Curriculum-based intervention
• Phonological awareness and
•
•
phonics activities related to
curriculum selections
Vocabulary from curriculum
selections
Oral narratives around curriculum
selections-promoting morphology,
syntax, and story retell
Anticipated Challenges
• Hybridity of cultural identities
• Individual backgrounds and linguistic
differences within groups will performance
and are 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?
Current Research Agenda
• 39 Hmong ELL Students
First grade, similar SES, similar background and
educational experiences, began speaking
English in school, 1-2 years of instruction in
English,
No suspected primary language delay, “at-risk” for
academic failure in Language Arts curriculum
adoption
• Four groups: Control, Leg, Onleg,
Cronleg
• 7 weeks, small groups/varied
language abilities, 19 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
New Sourcebook for 2012!
• Goldsworthy, C. & Pieretti, R. Sourcebook
of Phonological Awareness Volume IV:
Curriculum Relevant Literature. Clifton
Park: Delmar/Cengage Learning.
• Activities based on stories commonly
found in major U.S. Kindergarten and First
Grade curriculum adoptions.
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, ring, 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
Bunny: -own, -ing, -og, -one, -ind
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 cards printed with words from the lists
into 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 & McKeown, 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 picturestoryboard)
• Someone (Character)
• Somewhere (Setting)
• Wanted
• First
• But
• Next
• But
• Next
• 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 nativeHmong speaking research assistant
• Introduced to one critical theme
from each story (“Home”)
Targets: Contextualized/CulturallyRelevant Connections
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
Results…………….
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?
• Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Significant mean
raw score change difference (p<.05) between
performance of Control (.80) and CRONLEG (3.67)
on Passage Comprehension (WJIII)
Results……
Overall Trends:
• Means indicate that students participating
in this intense, short term RTI curriculum
modification were reading more words and
understanding more of what they read
than controls
Results….
• Phonological awareness (PA)
• Vocabulary
• Decoding
• Reading Comprehension
PA: CTOPP Mean Standard Score
Changes by Treatment:
Phonological Awareness Composite
Vocabulary: ROWPVT Mean
Standard Score Changes by
Treatment: Receptive Vocabulary
Decoding and Comprehension: WJIII Mean
Raw Score Changes by Treatment: Letter-Word
ID and Passage Comprehension
Remember!
• 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?
We really wanted to know: Can
oral narrative help?
• Story retell portion speaks to the building of
linguistic 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
We really wanted to Know: Did
promotion of sociocultural
connections help?
Author
Reader
Experiences/Knowledge:
Experiences/Knowledge:
Grounded in culture
Grounded in culture
Increase analysis of interconnections
Can we promote this in children?
Results…..
• 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?
• Trends indicate that language-rich oral
narratives may have been a key element!
Groups demonstrating the largest
mean standard score change pre- to
post-intervention on selected measures
MEASURE
Largest Mean Change
CTOPP PA COMPOSITE
ONLEG
CTOPP ELISION SUBTEST
ONLEG
ROWPVT
ONLEG
WJIII PASSAGE COMP
CRONLEG
WJIII LETTER-WORD ID
LEG
TEACHER QUEST: DECODING
ONLEG
TEACHER QUEST: READING COMP
LEG
TEACHER QUEST ENGAGEMENT
ONLEG & CRONLEG
TEACHER QUEST: PARTICIPATION
ONLEG & CRONLEG
Results…….
• Question 3: How will acquired skills impact these students’
performance in the general education language arts curriculum?
• Open Court Reading Lions and
Comprehension measures did not reveal
clear patterns despite noted
improvements.
• Limited linguistic knowledge, flexibility and
schema lead to problems with problem
solving, inference, and irregular
orthographic patterns
Results….An Added Benefit!!!!!!!!!!
Teacher Questionnaire
• Increased confidence regarding story
comprehension
• Increased classroom
participation/engagement
Implications
• Evidence suggests that contextualized,
language-rich oral narratives may be an
essential element for Hmong speaking
ELLs: PA, Decoding, and participation
and engagement
• Emphasizing learning language by making
sense or meaning out of experience with
communicative contexts……(Norris &
Hoffman, 1990).
Implications…
• These findings are particularly important
with ELL populations who have not
demonstrated a history of academic
success
• Engagement is positively correlated with
school success
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 50th percentile=
35WPM
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
Elision
Raw
Raw
Standard Standard
Score Score Score Pre Score Post
Pre
Post
5
8
8 (A)
9 (A)
10
11
10 (A)
10 (A)
3
13
5 (P)
7 (BA)
“Say time without
/m/”
Blending Words
“What word do
these sounds make:
/b/ /i/ /n/
Sound
Matching
“Which word starts
with the same sound
as man?”
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
Subtest
Letter-Word
Identification
Note: A=Average, HA=High Average
Raw
Raw
Standard Standard
Score Score Score Pre Score Post
Pre
Post
33
37
108 (A)
110 (A)
15
20
95 (A)
102 (A)
12
23
110 (A)
120 (HA)
Identify letters and read
words of increasing
difficulty: P, cat,
scientist
Passage
Comprehension
Read and fill in
information
Word Attack
Decode nonsense
words: yosh, snirk
P.J.’s CRONLEG Performance
• Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary
Test (vocabulary recognition)
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 on
P.J.
• 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
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
Research: We begin confused and we
end confused…..but hopefully at a
higher level of confusion!!!!
More Questions and Future
Directions……..
• Follow up study: Will current participants’
improved reading and comprehension
begin to provide “schema” and an
increased understanding of the “richness”
of the English language?
• Would this suggest that Hmong speaking
ELLs might benefit from a positive Mathew
Effect (Stanovich, 1986, 2000) as noted in
reading and writing research?
More Questions and Future
Directions….
• Would we find similar findings with ELLs
from other understudied groups?
• CRONLEG may have taken time and
focus away from PA/Phonics training. Can
ONLEG by itself constitute “good teaching”
(Delpit, 1998) from a sociocultural
standpoint? Design such a study
comparing ONLEG to Controls.
ONLEG Modifications from
CRONLEG??
• 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?
I still spend a lot of time wishing
for all of the answers…….
But in the meantime, one thing’s
for sure: If we want to
resemble this guy…………
Rather than this guy………
It still all comes down to
collaboration………
phono
phonics
vocab
fluency
awareness
Teacher
X
Resource
Specialist
Speech
Language
Pathologist
xxxx
X
text
comp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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 interdisciplinary 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
As already stated, it is easy to be afraid
that being involved in RtI 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 RtI…
• 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
Collaboration
So what if I’m not involved in RTI? How can
I use this information?
• SST: Suggesting classroom modifications
and pre-testing and pre-intervention
strategies for ELLs
• Consultation and Collaboration with
teaches and team members for ELLs who
do qualify
V. INCREASING FAMILY
INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENTS’
LEARNING
Some educators tell parents to
“speak only English at home”
• Because they believe that an ELL child
with a LLD will be confused by a dual
language environment. However,
research has shown that this is not true.
• Children with LI can and do learn 2
languages effectively; being a proficient
bilingual is very advantageous
• If a child is cut off from one of his
languages, it can have a negative
impact in many areas.
Here in the U.S., we as professionals
routinely expect families to be involved
in their children’s learning.
• However, in some cultures, families believe that
school and related activities are the responsibility
of professionals—not families!
• Thus, families may be offended at being asked to
participate in educational decisions, carryover
activities, etc. because these things are not their
job. Education of children is the job of
professionals. Raising children and providing
discipline is the job of the family!
• In these cases, we can utilize the services of cultural
mediators to help families realize that in the U.S.,
they are expected to be an integral part of the
educational team. This may be a difficult transition
for many families.
• A cultural mediator is a person from the family’s
cultural and linguistic background who acts as a gobetween for professionals and family members,
helping them work successfully with one another.
Remember that in some
cultures
• Older siblings take responsibility for younger
ones. Thus, SLPs may have better success
engaging the support of older siblings for things
like carryover of homework assignments.
• Also, parents and grandparents may speak littleno English. Older siblings usually do speak
English, and can be most helpful in assisting
with homework assignments and other carryover
activities.
We can help parents understand what U.S.
schools expect of them and their children
• Parents need to understand the academic/ curricular
standards of their children’s schools. For example,
here in California, students begin learning
multiplication at the end of second grade. In some
countries, students do not begin learning this
information until third grade.
• If parents can volunteer in their children’s classrooms,
they will understand the demands of the curriculum
much better. Parents who speak little English can still
help with tasks such as xeroxing, collating, and
stapling assignments.
Many families are
surviving…
• Keep assignments short and simple.
• When we do give homework, it needs to
only take a few minutes to do, and it
needs to be understandable to families.
• We often tell the student what needs to
be done, make sure she has a parent
sign the assignment, and offer a sticker
or small prize for returning it.
Help parents understand the
relevance of talking to infants and
small children
In many cultures, infants and young children
are not considered conversational partners
• Many cultures value quietness in children
• Thus, they may receive a great deal of love and
affection, but language stimulation may not be
occurring at a level expected by mainstream society.
• Again, it can be very advantageous to involve older
siblings in language stimulation activities
Help parents find out
• About local adult literacy services and
English classes.
• For example, English classes are often
offered at night through local educational
agencies.
Encourage students to read
to their parents in English
• This helps develop
students’ literacy skills.
• Many parents want to
learn English, and they
are helped by hearing
their children read to
them in English.
Remember that some parents are nonliterate in English…
• Send home wordless books that parents and children
can look at together and discuss.
• Encourage parents to read or discuss books with
their children in L1.
Encourage them to take their children to the
local library to check out books. Many
developing countries don’t have public
libraries; parents are often very happy to find
this resource here in the U.S.
Help parents become aware of such things
as garage sales and flea markets where
they can purchase books very inexpensively.
We have been collecting and
distributing gently-used children’s
books to low-SES preschoolers…
To date…
• We have collected and distributed over
12,000 books; many have been given
to families who do not speak English
• We have collected these books from
university students, churches, and
friends
Some books….
• Have been shared with classroom
teachers (e.g., Head Start, district
preschool programs) to help prepare
at-risk preschoolers to succeed in the
general education setting
It has been very
rewarding…
• To put books into the hands of children
and families who otherwise might not
have any books in the home
Thank you
for all you
do on behalf
of our
children
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Selected Bibliography
Adams, M., Bereiter, C., Campione, J., Hirshberg, J., McKeough, A., Pressley, M., Roit, M.,
Scardamalia, M., & Treadway, G. (2002). Open court reading. Level 1. Book 2. Columbus: McGrawHill.
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., & McKeown, M. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of reading-aloud experiences for
young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Brice, A.E., & Brice, R.G. (2009). Language development: Monolingual and bilingual acquisition.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
California Department of Education. Statewide English Learners by Language and Grade. Retrived
1-28-11 from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang1.asp?cChoice=LepbyLang1&cYear=200910&cLevel=State&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
Craig, L. (1980). Language Experience Approach/Metropoloitan Cooperative Education Service
Agency. Northbrook, Ill.: Hubbard.
Delpit, L. (1998). The politics of teaching literate discourse. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.),
Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across language and cultures (pp. 207-218).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fadiman, A. (1997). The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux.
Selected Bibliography (Cont’d)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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., Kaderavek, J.N., Fan, X., Sofka, A., & Hunt, A. (2009). Accelerating preschoolers’ early
literacy development through classroom-based teacher-child storybook reading and explicit print
referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 67-85.
Justice, L.M. (2010). Communication sciences and disorders: A contemporary perspective (2nd 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/-Kanx0004.
Kan, P.F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English: Lexical-semantic skills in
L1 and L2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 372-383.
Kohnert, K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
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.
Selected Bibliography (Cont’d)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Langdon, H. (2008). Assessment and intervention for communication disorders in culturally and
linguistically diverse populations. New York: Thomson/Delmar.
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.
Lovelace, S., & Stewart, S.R. (2009). Effects of robust vocabulary instruction and multicultural text
on the development of word knowledge among African American children. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 168-179.
Lovett, M., DePalma, 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. B1, B4.
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.
Norris, J., & Hoffman, P. (1990). Whole language intervention: For school-age children. San
Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Owens, R.E., Metz, D.E., & Farinella, K.A. (2011). Introduction to communication disorders: A
lifespan evidence-based perspective (4th 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-McKibbin, C. (2007). Language disorders in children: A multicultural and case
perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Selected Bibliography (Cont’d)
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2008). Increasing language skills of students from low income backgrounds.
San Diego: Plural Publishing.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & Hegde, M.N. (2011). An advanced review of speech-language pathology:
Preparation for PRAXIS and comprehensive examination (3rd 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/morph.over.html.
Ryan, S. (2009). The effects of a sound-field amplification system on managerial time in middle school
physical education settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 131-137.
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.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in
the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations in new frontiers. New
York: Guilford Press.
Ukrainetz, T.A., Ross, C.L., & Harm, H.M. (2009). An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic
awareness with kindergarteners who are at risk for reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 86-100.
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., CardenasHagan, 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.
Selected Bibliography (Cont’d)
•
•
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 # 1r55HD/OD30970-01A1.
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.