Square Pegs in Round Holes:
Addressing educational challenges for
culturally and linguistically diverse learners.
Alaska School
Psychologists Association
October 15, 2015
Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D.
St. John’s University
Diversity is Everywhere in the U.S.
Diversity is Everywhere in the U.S.
Levels of Educational Services for Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse Children
I. GENERAL EDUCATION – Equity
Primary language (L1) instruction for all LEP children
English language development (ELD) instruction for all children
Curriculum that integrates and utilizes culturally relevant materials
Affirmation of acquired knowledge and experiences
II. PRE-REFERRAL - Responsive assistance
Recognition of cultural and linguistic variables affecting achievement
Implementation and systematic monitoring of curricular modifications (e.g., RTI)
Culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions
Utilization and exhaustion of general education resources
III. ASSESSMENT - Bias Reduction
Transdisciplinary approach based on data from pre-referral process
Recognition of cultural and linguistic variables affecting test results
Modifications and adaptations of traditional techniques and practices
Non-discriminatory interpretation of all data within cultural/linguistic context
IV. SPECIAL EDUCATION - Entitlements and Rights
Specially designed instruction and services according to needs (IEP)
Continued primary language (L1) and English language development (ELD)
Culturally and linguistically appropriate IEP goals and objectives
Coordination between general education and special education teachers
Academic Attainment and Instructional Practices for
English Language Learners
Although many effective instructional practices are
similar for both ELLs and non ELLs why does instruction
tend to be less effective for ELLs?
Because ELLs face the double challenge of learning
academic content and the language of instruction
simultaneously.
To understand the implications of this challenge requires
a good understanding of early child development and
the interaction between language, cognition, and
academic achievement.
Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Comprehensible input is essential in order to progress through these stages
Stages of Language Acquisition
Pre-Production/Comprehension (no BICS)
Sometimes called the silent period, where the individual concentrates completely on figuring out what the new
language means, without worrying about production skills. Children typically may delay speech in L2 from one to
six weeks or longer.
•
listen, point, match, draw, move, choose, mime, act out
Early Production (early BICS)
Speech begins to emerge naturally but the primary process continues to be the development of listening
comprehension. Early speech will contain many errors. Typical examples of progression are:
•
yes/no questions, lists of words, one word answers, two word strings, short phrases
Speech Emergence (intermediate BICS)
Given sufficient input, speech production will continue to improve. Sentences will become longer, more complex,
with a wider vocabulary range. Numbers of errors will slowly decrease.
•
•
three words and short phrases, dialogue, longer phrases
extended discourse, complete sentences where appropriate, narration
Beginning Fluency
Intermediate Fluency (advanced BICS/emerging CALP)
With continued exposure to adequate language models and opportunities to interact with fluent speakers of the
second language, second language learners will develop excellent comprehension and their speech will contain
even fewer grammatical errors. Opportunities to use the second language for varied purposes will broaden the
individual’s ability to use the language more fully.
Advanced Fluency
•
give opinions, analyze, defend, create, debate, evaluate, justify, examine
Source: Krashen, S.D. (l982). Principles and Practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Language Proficiency vs. Language Development in ELLs
Change in W Scores
Phonological Processing
Vocabulary
5 6 7 8 9 10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Age
Source: McGrew, K. S. & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
80
90
95
What is Developmental Language Proficiency?
Example
CALP Level
-
◦
◦
◦
Letter Word ID
Dictation
Picture Vocabulary
RPI
100/90
94/90
2/90
SS
128
104
47
◦
◦
◦
◦
Reading-Writing
v. advanced
100/90
Writing
fluent 94/90
Broad English Ability
fluent 94/90
Oral Language
limited 27/90
123
104
104
65
◦
◦
◦
Verbal IQ
Perf. IQ
FSIQ-4
69
82
72
PR
CALP
97
59
<.1
-
94
61
59
1
6
4
4
3
verbal “thinking” skills continue
to lag in development
What is Developmental Language Proficiency?
Example
◦
Can read the following words:
◦ Great, become, might, shown, explain, question, special, capture, swallow
◦
Cannot name the following pictures:
◦ Cat, sock, toothbrush, drum, flashlight, rocking chair
◦
Can understand simple grammatical associations:
◦ Him is to her, as ___ is to she
◦
Cannot express abstract verbal similarities:
◦ Red-Blue: “an apple”
◦ Circle-Square: “it’s a robot”
◦ Plane-Bus: “the plane is white and the bus is orange”
◦ Shirt-Jacket: “the shirt is for the people put and the jacket is for the people don’t get cold”
Developmental Language Proficiency and IQ in ELLs
105
100
95
90
Standard Score
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
Low BICS
AVG VIQ
Intermediate Bics
AVG PIQ
Source: Dynda, A.M., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W., & Pope, A. (2008), unpublished data..
Hi BICS
Broad Eng Ability
Understanding First and Second Language Acquisition
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)
 ability to communicate basic needs and wants, and ability to carry on basic interpersonal conversations
 takes 1 - 3 years to develop and is insufficient to facilitate academic success
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
 ability to communicate thoughts and ideas with clarity and efficiency
 ability to carry on advanced interpersonal conversations
 takes at least 5-7 years to develop, possibly longer and is required for academic success
Cummins’ Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis (“Iceberg Model”)
 BICS is the small visible, surface level of language, CALP is the larger, hidden, deeper structure of language
 each language has a unique and Separate Underlying Proficiency (SUP)
 proficiency in L1 is required to develop proficiency in L2,
Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) facilitates transfer of cognitive skills
BICS - L2
BICS - L1
SUP - L1
CALP - L1
SUP - L2
COMMON
UNDERLYING
PROFICIENCY
CALP - L2
(CUP)
Source: Illustration adapted from Cummins (1984) Bilingual And Special Education: Issues In Assessment and Pedagogy .
Developmental Implications of Second Language Acquisition
If a second language (L2) is introduced prior to the development of CALP in the native
language (L1), and if the L2 effectively replaces the L1 and its role in fostering CALP,
academic problems will result. However, the language of instruction, parental
education, continued opportunities for L1 development, and the age at which the
second language is introduced, are factors that can affect development of the second
language and expectations of academic progress in a positive way.
L1
L2
L1
L2
HIGH L1 (CALP)
LOW L1 (BICS)
HIGH L2
(CALP)
Type 1.
Equal Proficiency
"true bilingual"
Type 3.
Atypical 2nd Language Learner
"acceptable bilingual"
LOW L2
(BICS)
Type 2.
Typical 2nd Language Learner
"high potential"
Type 4.
At-risk 2nd Language Learner
"difference vs. disorder"
L1
L2
L1
L2
Dimensions of Bilingualism and Relationship to Generations
Type
Stage
Language Use
FIRST GENERATON – FOREIGN BORN
A
Newly Arrived
Ab
After several years of
residence – Type 1
Ab
Type 2
Understands little English. Learns a few words and phrases.
Understands enough English to take care of essential everyday needs. Speaks enough English to make self understood.
Is able to function capably in the work domain where English is required. May still experience frustration in expressing self fully
in English. Uses immigrant language in all other contexts where English is not needed.
SECOND GENERATION – U.S. BORN
Ab
Preschool Age
Acquires immigrant language first. May be spoken to in English by relatives or friends. Will normally be exposed to Englishlanguage TV.
Ab
School Age
AB
Adulthood – Type 1
At work (in the community) uses language to suit proficiency of other speakers. Senses greater functional ease in his first
language in spite of frequent use of second.
AB
Adulthood – Type 2
Uses English for most everyday activities. Uses immigrant language to interact with parents or others who do not speak English.
Is aware of vocabulary gaps in his first language.
Acquires English. Uses it increasingly to talk to peers and siblings. Views English-language TV extensively. May be literate only
in English if schooled exclusively in this language.
THIRD GENERATION – U.S. BORN
AB
Preschool Age
Acquires both English and immigrant language simultaneously. Hears both in the home although English tends to predominate.
aB
School Age
Uses English almost exclusively. Is aware of limitation sin the immigrant language. Uses it only when forced to do so by
circumstances. Is literate only in English.
aB
Adulthood
Uses English almost exclusively. Has few opportunities for speaking immigrant language. Retains good receptive competence
in this language.
FOURTH GENERATION – U.S. BORN
Ba
Preschool Age
Is spoken to only in English. May hear immigrant language spoken by grandparents and other relatives. Is not expected to
understand immigrant language.
Ba
School Age
Uses English exclusively. May have picked up some of the immigrant language from peers. Has limited receptive competence
in this language.
B
Adulthood
Is almost totally English monolingual. May retain some receptive competence in some domains.
Source: Adapted from Valdés, G. & Figueroa, R. A. (1994), Bilingualism and Testing: A special case of bias (p. 16).
Parallel Processes in Development: Education follows Maturation
LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
COGNITIVE
DEVELOPMENT
Preproduction
Knowledge
Early Production
B
I
C
S
Emergent Speech
Beginning Fluent
C
A
Comprehension
B
I
C
S
Application
Analysis
C
Intermediate Fluent
L
A
Synthesis
B
I
C
S
A
L
P
Advanced Fluent
Pre-Readiness Training
Readiness Training
Basic Skills Training
C
L
P
ACADEMIC
INSTRUCTION
Appropriate Instruction/Assessment
CULTURAL CONTEXT
I
C
S
C
Early Conceptual
Development
P
Evaluation
B
A
L
P
Advanced Conceptual
Development
Education follows
maturation.
Black Slide
Kimani Ng’ang’a Maruge
A Google doodle honoring Maruge
Misconceptions about Learning and Language Acquisition
• Accent IS NOT an indicator of proficiency—it is a marker regarding when an individual
first began to hear/learn the language
• Children DO NOT learn languages faster and better than adults do—they only seem to
because they have better pronunciation but CUP aids adult learners considerably
• Language development CAN NOT be accelerated—but having developed one language
to a high degree (CALP) does help in learning a second language more easily
• Learning two languages DOES NOT lead to a kind of linguistic confusion—there is no
evidence that learning two or more language simultaneously produces any interference
• Learning two languages DOES NOT lead to poor academic performance—on the
contrary, students who learn two languages very well (CALP in both) tend to outperform
their monolingual peers in school
• Code-switching IS NOT an example of a language disorder and poor grammatical
ability—it is only an example of how bilinguals use whatever words may be necessary to
communicate their thoughts as precisely as possible, irrespective of the language
Developmental Implications of Early Language Difference
The 30 Million Word Gap
• according to research by Betty Hart and Todd Risley (2003),
children from privileged (high SES) families have heard 30
million more words than children from underprivileged (low
SES) families by the age of 3.
• in addition, “follow-up data indicated that the 3-year old
measures of accomplishment predicted third grade school
achievement.”
Source: Hart, B. & Risley, T. r. (2003). The Early Catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator 27(1), 4-9.
Developmental Implications of Early Language Differences: When do ELLs “catch up?”
60
Cumulative
Hours
of
Language
Exposure
in
Thousands
55
50
After 5
years of
instruction
47,450 hrs.
45
CALP
40
Native English
Speaker (L1)
-24,000
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EXPOSURE
Awake
12
Age 0 to 5:
Formal
instruction
begins
Asleep
12
35
30
365days x 12hrs. x 5yrs.= 21,900 hrs
10
25
365days x 14hrs. x 5yrs.= 25,550
+21,900
47,450
20
Limited English
Speaker (L2)
15
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EXPOSURE
10
Age 5 to 10+:
14
23, 725 hrs.
21,900 hrs.
-18,000
Native (L1) English(L2)
Age 0 to 5:
10
2
5
3,650 hrs.
365days x 2hrs. x 5yrs. = 3,650 hrs.
Age 5 to 10+
3
11
365days x 11hrs. x 5yrs.= 20,075
+3,650
23,725
B
1
2
3
4
5
K
6
1 st
7
2 nd
8
3 rd
Age and Grade Level
9
4 th
10
5 th
11
6 th
12
7 th
13
8 th
14
9 th
Achievement Trajectories for ELLs: Native language makes a difference.
General Pattern of Bilingual Education Student Achievement
on Standardized Tests in English
60
The “Slavin” window
*Note 1
40
52(54)* Late-exit bilingual and
content ESL
30
40(32)* Early-exit bilingual and
content ESL
20
34(22)* Content-based ESL
24(11)* ESL pullout traditional
10
The achievement “gap”
The “Closing” window
0
Normal Curve Equivalents
50
61(70)* Two-way bilingual
K
2
The “English-only” window
4
6
8
10
12
Grade Level
*Note 1: Average performance of native-English speakers making one year's progress in each grade. Scores in parentheses are percentile ranks converted from NCEs.
Adapted from: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Achievement Trajectories for ELLs: Students at-risk for failure.
60
General Pattern of Bilingual Education Student Achievement
on Standardized Tests in English
*Note 1
40
52(54)* Late-exit bilingual and
content ESL
30
40(32)* Early-exit bilingual and
content ESL
20
34(22)* Content-based ESL
10
24(11)* ESL pullout traditional
0
Normal Curve Equivalents
50
61(70)* Two-way bilingual
K
2
4
6
8
10
12
Grade Level
*Note 1: Average performance of native-English speakers making one year's progress in each grade. Scores in parentheses are percentile ranks converted from NCEs.
Adapted from: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
6%
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
14%
50
70
84
16
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
6%
Two way bilingual (dual immersion) – 6% At-Risk
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
11%
14%
50
54
84
16
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
11%
Late exit bilingual and content based ESL – 11% At-Risk
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
27%
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
14%
32 50
84
16
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
14%
27%
Early exit bilingual program with content ESL – 27% At-Risk
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk" Second
Language Students
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
41%
14%
22
50
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
84
16
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
X
+1SD
+2SD
14%
41%
Content-based ESL support only – 41% At-Risk
+3SD
Model Comparison of Percentage of "At-Risk"
Second Language Students
BLUE LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for ESL students
60%
14%
11
50
RED LINE = Distribution of achievement
scores for monolingual English students
84
16
38%
98
2
>99
<1
-3SD
-2SD
-1SD
14%
X
+1SD
+2SD
+3SD
IQ 100-105
60%
Traditional (non-content) ESL pullout support only – 60% At-Risk
Implications of Early Language Differences on Academic Achievement
The ELL Achievement Gap
“On the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress,
fourth-grade ELLs scored 36 points below non-ELLs in
reading and 25 points below non-ELLs in math. The gaps
among eighth-graders were even larger—42 points in
reading and 37 points in math.”
Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Implications of Early Language Differences on Academic Achievement
52 points
42 points
285
265
45 points
41 points
245
Non-ELL
30 points
225
ELL
31 points
205
185
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 12
2004
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 12
2008
Results of NAEP Data on Reading Achievement for ELL vs. Non-ELL
Developmental Implications of Early Language Differences
on the Acquisition of Reading and Writing Skills
• Reading (and writing) are symbolic aspects of language development.
• Best predictors of reading acquisition and achievement are Ga (primarily phonological awareness) and Gc (primarily
vocabulary)
• Best approach to teaching reading is through a balanced literacy program that is based on both a phonological
approach (sounding out words) and sight word development (recognizing words immediately—orthographic structure)
• Because language acquisition is a developmental process, subject to the maturation patterns of the brain, so too is
reading acquisition in any language at the mercy of how the brain develops.
Source: Feifer, S. G. & De Fina, P. A. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Reading Disorders: Diagnosis and Intervention. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.
Developmental Implications of Early Language Differences
on the Acquisition of Reading Skills
Characteristics of Impaired Readers
Poor decoding skills –
Characteristics of Normal Bilinguals
Poor decoding skills in older bilinguals –
Suggests intrinsic difficulty in phonological processing
Possible circumstantial issue if sounds were not heard in early
childhood, otherwise minimal effect related to limited exposure
Weak vocabulary development –
Weak vocabulary development –
Suggests intrinsic difficulty despite adequate language exposure
Circumstantial issue due to lack of comparable exposure to English
Inability to read strategically (can’t rely on Gf) –
Inability to read strategically (can’t rely on Gf) –
Suggests intrinsic problem in fluid reasoning
Circumstantial issue due to limited educational benefit and CALP
Poor spelling –
Good spelling –
Suggests intrinsic problem in visual memory
Assumes no intrinsic problems in visual memory
Many reading opportunities outside of school –
Few reading opportunities outside of school –
Available but insufficient to markedly improve reading skills
Insufficient to markedly improve reading skills even if available
Poor motivation and confidence –
Poor motivation and confidence –
Tendency to avoid reading as it becomes effortful and difficult
Tendency to avoid reading as it becomes effortful and difficult
Adapted from: Ortiz, S. O., Douglas, S. & Feifer, S. G. (2013). Bilingualism and Written Expression: A neuropsychological perspective. In S. G. Feifer (Ed.) The Neuropsychology of
Written Language Disorders: A framework for effective interventions (pp. 113-130). Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press
Developmental Implications of Early Language Differences
on the Acquisition of Reading Skills
Subtypes of Dyslexia
Implications for Normal Bilinguals
Dysphonetic Dyslexia - difficulty in using phonological route
in reading, so visual route to lexicon is used. Little reliance on
letter-to-letter sound conversion. Over-reliance on visual cues
to determine meaning from print.
Not usually evident in young bilinguals. However, difficulties may be
evident if an individual is past the critical period (10-12 y/o) when first
hearing sounds of a new language. Neuronal pruning creates a “wall”
that limits accurate processing of new sounds.
Surface Dyslexia - over-reliance on sound/symbol
relationships as process of reading never becomes automatic.
Words broken down to individual phonemes and read slowly
and laboriously, especially where phonemes and graphemes are
not in 1-to-1 correspondence.
Very typical and common characteristic of bilinguals due to the lack of
sufficient time and opportunity to develop automaticity and reading
fluency. Insufficient orthographic development means reading remains
an auditory process that may never become automatic and transparent.
Mixed Dyslexia - Severely impaired readers with
characteristics of both phonological deficits as well as
visual/spatial deficits. Have no usable key to reading or
spelling code. Bizarre error patterns observed.
Not usually evident in bilinguals, although, the need to over-rely on
visual processing to access meaning limits development of reading
speed and automaticity. However, significant difficulties may be evident
if an individual is past the critical period (10-12 y/o) and has had
limited or no prior education in reading.
Reading Comprehension Difficulties - inability to apply
strategies to derive meaning from print. Deficiencies in
working memory common and vocabulary development may
lag behind peers.
Very typical and common characteristic of bilinguals when native
language development is absent, interrupted or insufficient to promote
age or grade expected CALP. Limited exposure to instructional
language causes the curriculum to exceed the individual’s development
in vocabulary and abstract/reasoning abilities to foster meaning.
Table adapted from: Ortiz, S. O., Douglas, S. & Feifer, S. G. (2013). Bilingualism and Written Expression: A neuropsychological perspective. In S. G. Feifer (Ed.) The
Neuropsychology of Written Language Disorders: A framework for effective interventions (pp. 113-130). Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press
Is Special Education the Answer?
Special education cannot solve problems that are rooted in general education.
Is Special Education the Answer?
OCR Surveys and National Trends in Disproportionality
OCR Surveys Conducted every 2 years 1978 – 2010:
◦ African Americans continue to be over-represented as: ID and ED
1980 – 2010:
◦ Hispanics continue to be overrepresented as: LD, SLI and ID
National Trends ◦ African American identification increasing in: ID, ED, and LD
◦ Hispanic identification increasing in: LD and SLI
◦ Native American identification increasing in: ID, ED and LD
Effective Instruction for ELLs:
What the Research Says
Typical English Learners who begin school 30 NCE’s behind their
native English speaking peers in achievement, are expected to
learn at:
“…an average of about one-and-a-half years’ progress in the next six consecutive
years (for a total of nine years’ progress in six years--a 30-NCE gain, from the 20th to
the 50th NCE) to reach the same long-term performance level that a typical nativeEnglish speaker…staying at the 50th NCE) (p. 46).
In other words, they must make 15 months of academic progress
in each 10 month school year for six straight years—they must
learn 1½ times faster than normal.
Source: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: NCBE.
Effective Instruction for ELLs:
What the Research Says
Of the five major, meta-analyses conducted on the education
of ELLs, ALL five came to the very same conclusion:
“Teaching students to read in their first language [i.e., bilingual education]
promotes higher levels of reading achievement in English” (p. 14, 2008).
“Bilingual education [i.e., teaching students to read in their first language]
produced superior reading outcomes in English compared with English
immersion” (p. 9, 2013).
This is true primarily because teaching in the native language
does not interrupt or inhibit the linguistic and cognitive
development that students bring to school.
Sources: Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What we know—and don’t know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37,(2), pp.
4-11, 38-39. and Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
The “Basics” of Effective Instruction and Intervention
Strategies for English Language Learners
1. Provide comprehensible input and output
• Students need to understand what they are told as well as what they say
2. Negotiate meaning
• Connect what is being taught with why it’s important and meaningful
3. Shelter the core/content instruction
• Provide necessary support to maintain the student’s access to core subjects
4. Develop thinking skills and strategies for learning
• Sometimes students need to be taught explicitly how to learn
5. Give appropriate error correction
• Correct only the most egregious errors, not every one of them
6. Control classroom climate
• If students do not feel comfortable and safe, they will shut down
Linking Assessment to Responsive Intervention
• The value of the heritage language (L1) in being able to facilitate learning is too
valuable to be ignored and the potential of bilingualism for improving academic
progress, response-to-intervention, and testing, is necessary now more than ever.
• Merely teaching English learners to speak and comprehend English may comply with
Title I and III of ESEA (aka NCLB) but is insufficient to foster academic success for the
large majority of students.
• Of the three major variables in learning (language, cognition, curriculum) only the
curriculum is within our control. To improve learning we must not attempt to fit the
child to the curriculum but rather, fit the curriculum to the child.
• Political ideology or knee-jerk psychology about bilingualism and schooling cannot
continue to be used as the basis for instruction of ELLs. The research is very clear, the
longer children are taught in their native language, the better they succeed in
English.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
What the research says about effective Instruction for ELLs
Application of RTI with ELLs raises numerous questions regarding the
process, goals, intentions, and definitions. For example:
What constitutes sufficient “opportunity to learn” for ELLs?”
What works for ELLs, and with what type of ELLs?
What actually makes an intervention culturally or linguistically
appropriate?
How will ELLs “catch up” on experiential vs. discrete skills and
abilities?
What research guides expectations of progress or rates of
acquisition that define success or failure to respond to intervention?
How does RTI measure up to the “Standards” and IDEA requirements
for educational evaluation, particularly as related to SLD?
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
What the research says about effective Instruction for ELLs
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
What the research says about effective Instruction for ELLs
Typical English Learners who begin school 30 NCE’s behind their
native English speaking peers in achievement, are expected to
learn at:
“…an average of about one-and-a-half years’ progress in the next six consecutive
years (for a total of nine years’ progress in six years--a 30-NCE gain, from the 20th to
the 50th NCE) to reach the same long-term performance level that a typical nativeEnglish speaker…staying at the 50th NCE) (p. 46).
In other words, they must make 15 months of academic progress
in each 10 month school year for six straight years—they must
learn 1½ times faster than normal.
Source: Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness. Washington DC: NCBE.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS
Assessments, including RTI, should be selected and
administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or
cultural basis.
The use of RTI, as with any assessment tool or procedure,
should be designed to reduce threats to the reliability and
validity of inferences that may arise from language (and
cultural) differences.
Is RTI inherently more “fair” than other methods of
evaluation, in particular, standardized testing?
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS
The misguided and incorrect view that IQ=Ability=Potential,
coupled with the equally flawed notion of abilityachievement discrepancy as an infallible marker of SLD,
has made all of us wary of intellectual and cognitive testing;
especially in those cases where testing is seen only as a
process for uncovering a person’s general intelligence,
global intellectual ability, or innate “potential” for success.
“We are concerned that if we do not engage in dialogue about how
culture mediates learning, RTI models will simply be like old wine in
a new bottle, in other words, another deficit-based approach to
sorting children, particularly children from marginalized
communities.”
NCCRESt Position Statement 2005
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS
• Baker & Good (1995) investigated the reliability,
validity, and sensitivity of English CBM passages with
bilingual Hispanic students and concluded that it was
as reliable and valid for them as for native English
speakers despite the presence of differential growth
rates.
• Gersten & Woodward (1994) suggested that
CBM could be used to develop growth rates for
ELL students, but erroneously concluded that ELL
students generally continue to make academic
progress toward grade-level norms whereas ELL
students with LD do not.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS
In describing a basic three-tier RTI model, one of the
stated potential benefits included:
“Increased fairness in the assessment process,
particularly for minority students”
Kovaleski & Prasse, 2004
Although it has long been assumed that RTI will benefit
ELLs by avoiding the types of biases associated with
standardized testing, this premise does not appear to be
wholly supported by research.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 1 Issues
Tier 1 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:
Determine whether effective instruction is in place for
groups of students
“Teaching ELLs to read in their first language and then in their second language, or in
their first and second languages simultaneously (at different times during the day),
compared with teaching them to read in their second language only, boosts their reading
achievement in the second language” (emphasis in original).
“The NLP was the latest of five meta-analyses that reached the same conclusion: learning
to read in the home language promotes reading achievement in the second language.”
Source: Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
Tier 1 goals are very noble
and represent a strong
commitment to all children.
However, when it comes to
ELLs, the question regarding
what constitutes “quality”
academic instruction and
support tends to be
overlooked in the most
general sense.
The Language Proficiency-Academic Performance Continuum
Level
1
2
3
4
5
How will they gain language?
What do they Understand?
What can they do?
Can be silent for an initial period;
Recognizes basic vocabulary and high
frequency words; May begin to speak
with few words or imitate
Learner Characteristics
Multiple repetitions of language; Simple
sentences; Practice with partners; Use visual and
realia, Model, model, model; Check for
understanding; Build on cultural and linguistic
history
Instructions such as: Listen, Line up,
Point to, List, Say, Repeat, Color,
Tell, Touch, Circle, Draw, Match,
Label
Use gestures; Use other native speakers ;
Use high frequency phrases; Use common nouns;
Communicate basic needs; Use survival language
(i.e., words and phrases needed for basic daily
tasks and routines)
Understand phrases and short
sentences; Beginning to use general
vocabulary and everyday expressions;
Grammatical forms may include
present, present progress and
imperative
Increased comprehension in context;
May sound proficient but has social
NOT academic language;
Inconsistent use of standard
grammatical structures
Very good comprehension; More
complex speech and with fewer errors;
Engages in conversation on a variety of
topics and skills; Can manipulate
language to represent their thinking
but may have difficulty with abstract
academic concepts; Continues to need
academic language development
Multiple repetitions of language; Visual supports Present and past tense; School
for vocabulary; Pre-teach content vocabulary;
related topics; Comparatives &
Link to prior knowledge
superlatives; Routine questions;
Imperative tense; Simple sequence
words
Routine expressions; Simple phrases; Subject verb
agreement; Ask for help
Multiple repetitions of language; Use synonyms
and antonyms; Use word banks; Demonstrate
simple sentences; Link to prior knowledge
Formulate questions; Compound sentences; Use
precise adjectives; Use synonyms; Expanded
responses
Communicates effectively on a wide
range of topics; Participates fully in all
content areas at grade level but may
still require curricular adjustments;
Comprehends concrete and abstract
concepts; Produces extended
interactions to a variety of audiences
May not be fully English proficient in all
Analyze, Defend, Debate, Predict,
domains (i.e., reading, writing, speaking,
Evaluate, Justify, Hypothesize and
listening); Has mastered formal and informal
Synthesize, Restate, Critique
language conventions; Multiple opportunities to
practice complex grammatical forms;
Meaningful opportunities to engage in
conversations; Explicit instruction in the smaller
details of English usage; Focus on “gaps” or
areas still needing instruction in English; Focus
on comprehension instruction in all language
domains
Multiple repetitions of language; Authentic
practice opportunities to develop fluency and
automaticity in communication; Explicit
instruction in the use of language; Specific
feedback; Continued vocabulary development in
all content areas
Past progressive tense;
Contractions; Auxiliary verbs/verb
phrases; Basic idioms; General
meaning; Relationship between
words
Present/perfect continuous;
General & implied meaning; Varied
sentences; Figurative language;
Connecting ideas; Tag questions
Range of purposes; Increased cultural
competence (USA); Standard grammar; Solicit
information
May not yet be fully proficient across all domains;
Comprehends concrete and abstract topics;
Communicates effectively on a wide range of
topics and purposes; Produces extended
interactions to a variety of audiences; Participates
fully in all content areas at grade level but may
still require curricular modifications; Increasing
understanding of meaning, including figurative
language; Read grade level text with academic
language support; Support their own point of
view; Use humor in native-like way
Source: Turner & Brown, (2012) as cited in Brown, J. E. & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Interventions for English Learners with Learning Difficulties. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, and D. P.
Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (pp. 267-313)., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
PLUSS Framework for Evidence-based Instruction for ELLs
PLUSS Framework
Pre-teach critical vocabulary
Language modeling and
opportunities for practice
Use visuals and graphic
organizers
Systematic and explicit
instruction
Strategic use of native
language & teaching for
transfer
Definition
Evidence
Presentation of critical vocabulary prior to lessons to ensure later
Beck, McKeown and Kucan (2002); Heibert and
comprehension using direct instruction, modeling, and
Lubliner (2008); Martinez and Lesaux (2011); Nagy,
connections to native language
Garcia, Dyrgunoglu and Hancin (1993)
Teacher models appropriate use of academic language, then
Dutro and Moran (2003); Echevarria, Vogt and Short
provides structured opportunities for students to practice using
(2008); Gibbons (2009); Linan-Thompson and
the language in meaningful contexts
Vaughn (2007); Scarcella (2003)
Strategically use pictures, graphic organizers, gestures, realia, and
Brechtal (2001); Echevarria and Graves (1998);
other visual prompts to help make critical language, concepts, and
Haager and Klingner (2005); Linan-Thompson and
strategies more comprehensible to learners
Vaughn (2007); O’Malley and Chamot, (1990)
Explain, model, provide guided practice with feedback, and
Calderón (2007); Flagella-Luby and Deshler (2008);
opportunities for independent practice in content, strategies, and
Gibbons (2009); Haager and Klingner (2005); Klingner
concepts
and Vaughn (2000); Watkins and Slocum (2004)
Identify concepts and content students already know in their
Carlisle, Beeman, Davis and Spharim (1999);
native language and culture to explicitly explain, define, and help
Durgunoglu, et al. (1993); Genesee, Geva, Dressler,
them understand new language and concepts in English
and Kamil (2006); Odlin (1989); Schecter and Bayley
(2002)
Source: NCCRESt, (2012) as reprinted in Brown, J. E. & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Interventions for English Learners with Learning Difficulties. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, and D. P. Flanagan
(Eds.), Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (pp. 267-313)., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Examples of PLUSS Framework Applied in the Classroom
PLUSS Framework
Example
Pre-teach critical
Select 3-5 high utility vocabulary words crucial to understanding text (not necessarily content specific words) and
vocabulary
use the words over time (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2008; Beck, McKeown, Kucan, 2002)
Language modeling and
Provide language frames and sentence starters to structure language interaction. For example, after having defined the
opportunities for
you were preoccupied.” (pause to give time to think). “Turn to your partners and share, starting your sentence with, ‘I
practicing
was preoccupied when…’, what will you start your sentence with?” (Have students repeat the sentence starter before
explicitly teach student friendly definitions, model using the words, and provide students with repeated opportunities to
word, “preoccupied,” for instance, ask students to use the word, “preoccupied,” in a sentence, “Think of a time when
turning to their neighbor and sharing).
Use visuals and graphic
Consistently use a Venn diagram to teach concepts, such as compare and contrast, and use realia and pictures to
support the teaching of concepts (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2008)
organizers
Systematic and explicit
Teach strategies like summarization, monitoring and clarifying, and decoding strategies through direct explanation,
modeling, guided practice with feedback, and opportunities for application (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2008).
instruction
Strategic use of native
Use native language to teach cognates (e.g., teach that preoccupied means the same thing as preocupado in Spanish) or
explain/clarify a concept in the native language before or while teaching it in English.
language & teaching for
transfer
Source: Brown, J. E. & Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Interventions for English Learners with Learning Difficulties. In J. T. Mascolo, V. C. Alfonso, and D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of Planning,
Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (pp. 267-313)., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
Dual-language/dual immersion and maintenance type bilingual programs
probably meet this criterion. But what about students in transitional bilingual,
ESL content, ESL pullout, and English immersion programs?
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
What the research says about effective Instruction for ELLs
Of the five major, meta-analyses conducted on the education
of ELLs, ALL five came to the very same conclusion:
“Teaching students to read in their first language [i.e., bilingual education]
promotes higher levels of reading achievement in English” (p. 14, 2008).
“Bilingual education [i.e., teaching students to read in their first language]
produced superior reading outcomes in English compared with English
immersion” (p. 9, 2013).
This is true primarily because teaching in the native language
does not interrupt or inhibit the linguistic and cognitive
development that students bring to school.
Sources: Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What we know—and don’t know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37,(2), pp.
4-11, 38-39. and Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2) pp. 8-23, 42-44.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
What the research says about effective Instruction for ELLs
52 points
42 points
285
265
45 points
41 points
245
Non-ELL
225
ELL
30 points
31 points
205
185
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 12
2004
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 12
2008
Results of NAEP Data on Reading Achievement for ELL vs. Non-ELL
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 1 Issues
How can RTI-based evaluation be fair when the instructional
programs most often used to instruct groups of ELL students
(i.e., ESL, English immersion) have been demonstrated
empirically to be ineffective in promoting grade level
achievement or academic success?
Well designed and effective interventions cannot make up for
deficiencies in educational pedagogy or artifactual
developmental delays that result from the unenlightened use of
“intuitive science” (i.e., common sense) or application of
misguided political ideology.
What would you choose?
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FORM
Please select an instructional program for your child by placing a check in the appropriate box below:
English as a Second Language
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: This program
has been scientifically validated to lower achievement in
English, increase special education placement, raise the
risk of dropping out, and decrease rates of graduation.
Bilingual Education
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 2 Issues
Tier 2 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:
Provide effective instruction to the target student and
measure its effect on performance
“Making an assumption that what works with native English speakers will work with
students from diverse language backgrounds may be inaccurate (McLaughlin, 1992).
Although substantial empirical support exists for the use of a response-to-intervention
(RTI) approach to address literacy problems with native English speakers (e.g., Burns,
Appleton, and Stehouwer, 2005; Mathes et al., 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, and Tanzman,
1998), very little data exist about the effectiveness of this approach with EL learners
(Vaughn et al., 2006).”
Source: Vanderwood, M. L. & Nam, J. E. (2007). Response to Intervention for English Language Learners: Current developments and future
directions. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns and A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of
Assessment and Intervention (pp. 408-417).
What Works Clearinghouse Looks at Reading
Recovery® for English Language Learners
The WWC examined the research conducted in English on Reading Recovery®
and identified 13 studies that were published or released between 1997 and
2008 that looked at the effectiveness of this short-term tutoring intervention on
English language learners' literacy skills. None of these studies meet WWC
evidence standards. Therefore, conclusions may not be drawn based on studies
conducted in English about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Reading
Recovery® for English Language Learners.
December 15, 2009
Full report available at:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/read_recov/
What Works Clearinghouse Looks at “Accelerated
Reader” for English Language Learners
The WWC examined the research on "Accelerated Reader" and identified 13
studies that were published or released between 1983 and 2008 that looked at
the effectiveness of this curriculum on English language learners’ reading and
math skills. None of these studies meet WWC evidence standards. Therefore,
conclusions may not be drawn based on research about the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of "Accelerated Reader" on English Language Learners.
December 22, 2009
Full report available at:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/accreader/
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 2 Issues
How can RTI-based evaluation be fair to the individual student if
the program used to instruct that student (i.e., ESL, English
immersion) has been demonstrated empirically to be ineffective
in promoting grade level achievement or academic success?
Even after an ELL has been exited from or deemed to no longer
need or require bilingual education or ESL services (un-LEP’d), it
cannot be assumed that he/she is comparable to age or grade
matched monolingual English speaking peers, or that
interventions that “work” for native English speakers will now
suddenly “work” just as well for non-native English speakers.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 3 Issues
Tier 3 RTI evaluation implications for ELLs:
Refer students whose RTI warrants additional or intensive
continuing interventions
What exactly will evaluation look like beyond progress monitoring and curriculum based
assessment of current academic skills?
How will these procedures systematically evaluate the influence of cultural and linguistic
differences and the extent to which they are primarily responsible for lack of progress as
compared to lack of progress due to a learning disability, particularly when RTI has not
ensured that evidence-based instruction (i.e., in the native language) has been
provided?
Source: Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C. & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of Response to Intervention and Norm-Referenced Tests
in Learning Disability Identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43(7), 807-825.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 3 Issues
The assumption of comparable levels of “effective
instruction” across type of ESL or bilingual program is
unlikely to ever to be met. A student may have one
type of program in one classroom or in one school
and a different one in another classroom or school.
Thus, the nature and implementation of various
native language programs as well as any school
movement complicates reliable, valid, and fair
measurement of progress within the curriculum.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
Is this really an example of “not making progress” for an
ELL student who is receiving ESL services only?
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
To what extent do Isiah, Mary, and Amy represent “true” peers for Chase?
ELLs must be compared to other ELLs who have similar educational
experiences AND similar levels of English language proficiency.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
To what extent did Fuchs et al. base growth rates on ELLs of comparable
educational experiences AND English language proficiency?
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
To what extent do the gains by the “peers cohort” represent the expected
gains for ELLs who may differ in terms of educational experiences AND
English language proficiency?
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 3 Issues
The most common type of instruction given in schools today, ESL,
creates an artifactual linguistic “handicap” that puts otherwise
capable children at levels far below their age and grade related
peers in school achievement. What is “effective instruction” for
the average 3rd grader may be totally inappropriate for the
average ELL who, nonetheless is in 3rd grade.
ELLs are clearly able to make progress comparable to English
speaking peers on discrete types of skills (e.g., phonological
processing or phonemic awareness). However, progress on other
abilities that develop as a function of age and experience (e.g.,
vocabulary, advanced grammar), is likely to remain behind that of
peers.
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 3 Issues
Classroom or Grade
Level Aim Line
6 week standard
12 week standard
50 WRCPM
50
WRCPM =
Number of
Egberto’s progress
if he makes gains
comparable to
English speaking
peers
45
Words Read
15 word
difference
40
Correctly Per
Minute
35 WRCPM
35
30
Egberto’s progress
if he makes gains
comparable to other
“proficient” ELLs
25 word
difference
25
Classroom/grade level
expectations = 15
15 word
difference
20
a 6 week period
20 word
difference
15
10
25 word
difference
English learners
often begin behind
Egberto’s progress
if he doesn’t make
gains comparable to
other “proficient”
ELLs
35 word
difference
WRCPM progress over
5
English speakers
Week 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Example 2nd Grade Progress Monitoring Chart
*Note: The name,“Egberto,” is a derivative of “Egbert” and used with the blessings of Dan Reschley.
11
12
13
14
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 3 Issues
Unless measurement methods used in RTI, whether
CBM or otherwise, account for the differential rates of
development that are occurring in the processes
related to native language acquisition, English
acquisition, and acculturation to the mainstream,
there is no guarantee that results will be any more
“fair” than other methods.
Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this packet is © Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. and S. Hector Ochoa, Ph.D. May not be reproduced without permission.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
It is important to recognize
that RTI, just like testing, is a
measurement paradigm. RTI
is a different paradigm than
testing, but measurement
and comparisons of the
collected measurements
against a pre-determined
standard is still at the very
core of RTI.
Nondiscriminatory Assessment and RTI:
Issues in Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Intervention
What about students that speak languages other than Spanish?
Fairness in Evaluation of ELLs via RTI/MTSS: Tier 3 Issues
Once an ELL has been exited from or deemed to no longer need or require
bilingual education or ESL services (i.e., they have been FLEP’d, or unLEP’d), it cannot be assumed that they are comparable in terms of their
academic achievement to their monolingual English speaking peers.
ELLs will invariably continue to have increasingly less foundation and lifelong experiences in English language development and in then acquisition
of the acculturative knowledge that is embedded within and underlies the
subject matter of all curricula and for which mastery remains a critical
requirement for success in school.
“Once a bilingual, always a bilingual.” ELLs do not suddenly cease to be
bilingual simply because they have become proficient and dominant in
English.
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
“Instead of attempting to describe each individual’s
mental endowment by a single index such as a
mental age or an intelligence quotient, it is
preferable to describe him in terms of a profile of all
the primary factors which are known to be
significant…If anyone insists on having a single
index such as an IQ, it can be obtained by taking an
average of all the known abilities. But such an index
tends so to blur the description of each man that
his mental assets and limitations are buried in the
single index” (Thurstone, 1946, p. 110).
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
Cognitive testing and RTI are not mutually exclusive. Both are measurement
paradigms but each answers a different and important question.
RTI seeks to ensure that the learning difficulties are not the result of
extrinsic issues in teaching, instruction, curriculum, etc. It addresses the
question of learning needs and measures the individual’s success when
those needs are identified and met. It is not a diagnostic system and is best
utilized for understanding academic development as compared to peers on
a local basis (e.g., classroom, school, or district).
Cognitive testing, particularly within a PSW model, seeks to provide insight
into any possible intrinsic factors that may be responsible for learning
difficulties and which inhibit the acquisition and development of academic
skills. It is a diagnostic system and is best utilized in understanding cognitive
development as compared to peers on a national basis (e.g., all individuals
of the same age or grade).
In the same manner that low test scores do not automatically indicate a
learning disability, so too does poor progress or a failure to respond to
intervention also not invariably suggest a learning disability. In both cases
there are an infinite number of reasons that account for and may explain
the observed problematic performance; only one of which is a disability.
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
“The danger with not paying attention to
individual differences is that we will repeat
the current practice of simple assessments in
curricular materials to evaluate a complex
learning process and to plan for interventions
with children and adolescents with markedly
different needs and learning profiles” (p. 567;
Semrud-Clikeman, 2005).
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
Understanding the
relationship between
cognitive abilities and
academic skills provides
a new window into
explanations for learning
difficulties as well as new
avenues for tailoring
intervention to increase
success.
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
Because RTI is usually in place as part of a pre-referral system, students who
reach Tier 3 may benefit from comprehensive testing to assess their
cognitive strengths and weaknesses, particularly in service of SLD
identification via a PSW approach. The IDEA definition remains as follows:
Specific Learning Disability
(a) In general. The term 'specific learning disability' means a disorder in one
or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations.
(b) Disorders included. Such term includes such conditions as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia.“
(c) Disorders not included. Such term does not include a learning problem
that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental
retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage."
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
Old notions about lack of aptitude x treatment interaction are
predicated upon educational ideas regarding learning “styles”
whereas modern research and theory (e.g., CHC theory) provide
empirically supported causal explanations regarding the relationship
between various cognitive abilities and the acquisition and
development of academic skills. Perhaps the best example of this
research is the link between auditory processing (Ga) skills,
specifically phonological awareness and the acquisition of basic
reading skills.
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
Knowledge that a student has a particular deficit (e.g., working memory) is
valuable, not only because it provides clear support for the statutory
definition of SLD in IDEA, but also because it helps determine whether an
observed failure to respond was due to instructional over-reliance in the
individual’s area of weaknesses. If so, efforts for intervention can be
significantly improved by selecting programs that minimize use of abilities
that are weak for the individual, rather than continuing to select them
randomly, and which will increase the likelihood that the individual will
demonstrate better progress and more efficient learning.
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
In turn, testing benefits from information gathered over the course
of the previous two tiers including because it provides a detailed
and comprehensive context within which the student’s
performance in various areas of cognitive functioning that are
crucial to the acquisition and development of academic skills. Such
data and information includes:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Attendance and experience with school setting
Match between child’s L1 and language of instruction
Parent’s ability to support language of instruction
Years (duration) of instruction in L1 and L2
Quality of L1/L2 instruction or bilingual program
Cultural relevance of the curriculum
Consistency in curriculum and instructional programs
Teaching strategies, styles, attitudes, and flexibility
System and individual expectations regarding dual language learners
Direct observation of classroom performance and learning
An Hypothesis Testing CHC Model for SLD Identification Within an RTI Framework
Use of an hypothesis-testing
approach to SLD evaluation
helps to ensure that appropriate
questions are asked at each
respective level so that the
necessary data are collected
and interpreted in light of the
individual needs of the learner.
Such an approach avoids the
typical exploratory type of
evaluation that is often subject
to confirmatory bias.” (p. 746)
Source: Flanagan, Fiorello & Ortiz (2010).
Integrating RTI and Cognitive Testing for ELLs
Matching Standardized Treatment Protocols (STP) with Specific Areas of Weakness
Effective Instruction for ELLs: Match the development.
• Don’t be afraid to provide the cognitively-linguistically appropriate level of instruction regardless of current AGE or
GRADE.
• Teach within the zone of proximal development, essentially what comes NEXT because instruction that is beyond
what comes “NEXT” will be ineffective and impede development even further.
• Don’t try to alter cognitive or linguistic development because you CAN’T. Alter the curriculum, because you CAN.
• Provide access to core curriculum and focus on developing thinking and literacy skills from the CURRENT
developmental level.
• Use meta-cognitive strategies that help students think about, plan, monitor, and evaluate learning at their
CURRENT level.
• Use cognitive strategies that help engage students in the learning process and which involve interacting with or
manipulating the material mentally or physically, and applying a specific technique to learning tasks at their
CURRENT developmental level.
• Use social-affective strategies that help students interact with another person, accomplish a task, or that assist in
learning.
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Prior Learning
Proximal Learning
Future Learning
Independent
Performance
(“known”)
Assisted
Performance
(“with help”)
Beyond
Performance
(“can’t do”)
Appropriate level of
instruction
Summary of Instructional and Intervention
Strategies for English Language Learners
1.
Instruction must always match linguistic/cognitive development regardless of the individual’s
age or grade.
2.
No amount or type of instruction can make up for developmental delays that occur as a
function of differences in the primary language and the language of instruction.
3.
Individual differences means that some children will succeed despite the way we instruct
them and many will fail because of the way we instruct them.
4.
There is no single teaching method or intervention that is appropriate for all English
language learners.
5.
There is no single teaching method or intervention that will help all English learners “catch
up.”
6.
Of the three major variables for learning, language, cognition, and academic development,
only the latter is within our control. Thus, to improve learning we must not attempt to fit the
child to the curriculum but rather, fit the curriculum to the child. Any other way will not
prove successful.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Formal and Informal Learning Experiences
Children raised in two cultures naturally split their time and experience across each of them.
Unfortunately, parents are usually able to mediate aspects of only their native culture to their children
and cannot do so with the new culture because of their own lack of familiarity with it.
This means that children from bilingual-bicultural backgrounds must often navigate both the new
language and culture almost on their own, a term I refer to as “cultural pioneering.”
The process of learning a new language and culture thus becomes very dependent on the
experiences a child has, particularly while in school. If something is not explicitly taught in school, the
chances that it may be taught and learned informally outside the school decrease. This often results
in hit-or-miss learning that although occurs for children in general, becomes a much more frequent
occurrence for children from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Areas that are highly
susceptible to this influence include cultural knowledge, especially the subtle, idiosyncratic, and less
frequent aspects of it as well as language, particularly correct grammar, pronunciation, usage, and
pragmatics including idioms and humor.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Formal and Informal Learning Experiences
Old Bay and Michigan
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Opportunity for Learning
Assessment of a student's academic skills and abilities must directly examine the
student's skills and abilities with respect to the actual materials and content used for
instruction. Thus, authentic assessment seeks to uncover whether learning difficulties
can be ascribed to experiential differences rather than ability differences. Not only does
this ensure greater validity of the assessment, it provides valuable information necessary
to develop specific and effective instructional strategies. In general, evidence of lack of
opportunity for learning, ineffective prior instruction, and linguistically inappropriate
curricula, are all factors that increase the likelihood that no disability exists.
For example –
According to the manual (1993) for the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, the 80
vocabulary words and their definitions were drawn from :
"current, widely used high school and college texts, including words that must be
known by students in order to cope successfully with school assignments." (emphasis
added)
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Vocabulary Exposure and Development
• It is fruitless to attempt to indoctrinate a superannuated canine with innovative maneuvers.
• Scintillate, scintillate, asteroid minified.
• Members of an avian species of identical plumage congregate.
• Pulchritude possesses solely cutaneous profundity.
• It is fruitless to become lachrymose over precipitately departed lacteal fluid.
• Eschew the implement of correction and vitiate the scion.
• All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.
• Where there are visible vapors having their prevalence in ignited carbonaceous materials, there is
conflagration.
• A plethora of individuals with expertise in culinary techniques vitiate the possible concoction
produced by steeping certain comestibles.
• Individuals who make their abodes in vitreous edifices should be advised to refrain from catapulting
petrous projectiles.
Homes where English is not the primary or native language results in linguistic experiences that shape the
perceptions and views of the speakers particularly in reference to vocabulary but also what might constitute
acceptable ways of communicating that can include comfort with basic grammatical errors, use of codeswitching, frequent use of slang or colloquial terminology, uncommon or unusual pragmatics, and variances
in general language usage.
Basic Writing Skills
Written Expression
Broad Written Lang.
Math Computation
Math Reasoning
Broad Math
Basic Rdg. Skills
Rdg. Comprehension
Broad Reading
SS
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Academic Skills and the “Bilingual Bermuda Triangle”
PR
145
99+
130
98
115
86
100
50
85
16
70
2
55
<1
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Classroom Behavior and Performance
Characteristics and behaviors often associated
with various learning problems
Common manifestations of English Language Learners (ELLs) during classroom
instruction that may mimic various disorders or cognitive deficits.
Slow to begin tasks
ELLs may have limited comprehension of the classroom language so that they are not
always clear on how to properly begin tasks or what must be done in order to start them or
complete them correctly.
Slow to finish tasks
ELLs, especially those with very limited English skills, often need to translate material from
English into their native language in order to be able to work with it and then must translate it
back to English in order to demonstrate it. This process extends the time for completion of
time-limited tasks that may be expected in the classroom.
Forgetful
ELLs cannot always fully encode information as efficiently into memory as monolinguals
because of their limited comprehension of the language and will often appear to be forgetful
when in fact the issue relates more to their lack of proficiency with English.
Inattentive
ELLs may not fully understand what is being said to them in the classroom and consequently
they don’t know when to pay attention or what exactly they should be paying attention to.
Hyperactive
Impulsive
Distractible
ELLs may appear to be hyperactive because they are unaware of situation-specific
behavioral norms, classroom rules, and other rules of social behavior.
ELLs may lack the ability to fully comprehend instructions so that they display a tendency to
act impulsively in their work rather than following classroom instructions systematically.
ELLs may not fully comprehend the language being being spoken in the classroom and
therefore will move their attention to whatever they can comprehend appearing to be
distractible in the process.
Disruptive
ELLs may exhibit disruptive behavior, particularly excessive talking—often with other ELLS,
due to a need to try and figure out what is expected of them or to frustration about not
knowing what to do or how to do it.
Disorganized
ELLs often display strategies and work habits that appear disorganized because they don’t
comprehend instructions on how to organize or arrange materials and may never have been
taught efficient learning and problem solving strategies.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Listening Comprehension and Receptive Language
"I pledge a lesson to the frog of the United States
of America, and to the wee puppet for witches hands.
One Asian, under God, in the vestibule,
with little tea and just rice for all."
Source: In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson by Bette Bao Lord, © 1986, Harper Trophy.
Children who are learning a second language hear and interpret sounds in a manner that
conforms to words that already exist in their vocabulary. This is a natural part of the first and
second language acquisition processes and should not be considered abnormal in any way. It
represents the brain’s attempt to make sense and meaning of what it perceives by connecting it
to what it already knows.
Songs are a good example of this linguistic phenomenon even for native English speakers.
Consider these classic misheard lyrics:
“There’s a bathroom on the right”
“Excuse me while I kiss this guy”
“Doughnuts make my brown eyes blue”
“Midnight after you’re wasted”
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Oral and Expressive Language
'Twas the night before Christmas, y por todo la casa,
Not a creature was stirring—Caramba! Que Pasa?
Los niños were tucked away in their camas,
Some in camisas, some in pijamas.
While hanging the medias with mucho cuidado,
In hopes that old Santa would feel obligado.
To bring all children, both buenos y malos,
A nice batch of dulces y otros regalos.
A Visit From St. Nicolas – Anonymous, 1823
Bilinguals/bicultural individuals are perfectly happy with two languages existing
side by side. It provides an ability to use code switching and dual-mode
communication not available to monolinguals. For bilinguals, it doesn’t matter
what language is used in conversation because it all makes sense—and mutual
comprehension is the goal of all language and communication.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Reading Comprehension
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll
Questions: 1) What things were slithy? 2) What did the toves do in the
wabe? 3) How were the borogroves? 4) What kind of raths were there?
Meaning in print is not derived solely from word knowledge. Mature and
advanced readers eventually discard “decoding” as the primary means for
developing reading abilities in favor of orthographic processing of letters,
words, sentences, and grammatical structure. Meaning is often inferred
from our cultural knowledge and experience with the language. More
experience equals clearer meaning and better comprehension.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Orthographic Processing
BON APPETIT
ARROZ Y HABICHUELAS
NA ZDROWIE
IUMRING TQ CQNGIUSLQNS
As before, comprehension in print is not derived solely from actual word or letter
identification or recognition. English is extremely irregular in morphology and mature and
advanced readers eventually discard “decoding” as the primary means for developing reading
abilities in favor of orthographic processing of letters, words, sentences where even small
surface features are sufficient to derive meaning. Similar to grammatical structure, the ability
to understand printed text in the absence of such structure, is accomplished via knowledge of
the morphological rules and experience with vocabulary that comes from formal and informal
sources. Comparatively speaking, ELLs have less experience and thus less ability to generate
meaning automatically, fluently, or transparently.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Orthographic Processing
Finished files are the
result of years of scientific
study combined with the
the experience of years...
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Verbal and Mathematical Reasoning
What day follows the day before yesterday if two days from
now will be Sunday?
Paul makes $25.00 a week less than the sum of what Fred
and Carl together make. Carl's weekly income would be
triple Steven's if he made $50.00 more a week. Paul makes
$285.00 a week and Steven makes $75.00 a week. How
much does Fred make?
The ability to engage successfully in verbal reasoning tasks and mathematical word problems
presumes the existence of a developmentally proficient level of fluency with the language since
it is not the language that is being tested, but the ability to reason. When the native language
development is interrupted, bilingual/bicultural individuals may not have the necessary
command of the language and the task is confounded by simple comprehension issues and
degrades into a test of language, not reasoning.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
Cultural Perspective and Reasoning Ability
Rules: Connect all 9 dots above using only 4 straight lines. You may cross lines, but you cannot
lift your pencil.
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
General Knowledge and Cultural Artifacts
Cultural and Linguistic Experiences Mediate Learning:
General Knowledge and Cultural Artifacts
What I thought
The reality
Tabasco – Mexican hot sauce
Made by McIlhenny Co., USA
Kahlua – Hawaiian liquor
Coffee liqueur made in Mexico
Enfamil – Puerto Rican baby formula
Made by Meade-Johnson, USA
Amoco – Bilingual reference to mucous
Brand of British Petroleum gas
Chiclet – Mexican chewing gum
Made by Cadbury/Adams, USA
Toto – Strange name for a dog
Dorothy’s dog’s real name
Acculturation to the mainstream plays a significant role in linguistic development and learning
in and out of the classroom. The presence and interaction of dual cultural contexts with which to
embed certain culturally-specific words or ideas in English may lead to a failure to comprehend
or acquire the true meaning of the word or the concept. Idioms are another example of this
problem, for example: “I think it’s cool the way you don’t get on my case about everything.”
Bottom Line - The Bilingual/Bicultural Experience
Bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one head
Attainment of developmental proficiency in language and acculturation is multifaceted
and complex
Both language acquisition and acculturation are and must be understood as
developmental processes
The standards by which bilinguals in U.S. public schools will always be judged will
necessarily be based on the performance of individuals who are largely monolingual
and monocultural
Once a bilingual, always a bilingual—individuals do not suddenly cease to be
bilingual/bicultural simply because they have become English dominant or English
proficient
Bilingual/bicultural experiences differ significantly from monolingual/monocultural
ones and have important implications for schooling and learning in the classroom
across the lifespan
Influences on early language development can have profound and lifelong effects that
are manifested in testing and evaluation
Assessment of English Language Learners - Resources
BOOKS:
Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Comprehensive
Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A
practical approach. New York: Guilford.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S.O. & Alfonso, V.C. (2013). Essentials of
Cross-Battery Assessment, Third Edition. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2012). Essentials of Specific Learning
Disability Identification. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P. & Alfonso, V. C. (2015). Cross-Battery
Assessment Software System (X-BASS v1.0). New York: Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
ONLINE:
CHC Cross-Battery Online
http://www.crossbattery.com/