Growth in Oral Reading Fluency of Spanish ELL Students With Learning Disabilities

Abstract

The process of learning to read is difficult for many children, and this is especially true for students with learning disabilities (LD). Reading in English becomes even more difficult when a student’s home language is not English. For English language learner (ELL) students with LD, acquiring the necessary skills to read fluently is an even greater challenge. The process of repeated reading has been beneficial for many students with LD, yet there is little information regarding its effect on ELL students. This column discusses the use of a fluency-based reading intervention with elementary-level, Spanish-speaking ELL students with specific LD.

Keywords

intervention academic linguistic diversity strategies instruction elementary reading

Learning to read is a challenging process for many young children. It is a complicated chain of events that involves more than simply decoding words on a page (Cohen, 2007). According to Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, and Jenkins (2001), “Reading is a complex performance that requires simultaneous coordination across many tasks. To achieve simultaneous coordination across tasks, instantaneous execution of component skills is required” (p. 239). For students with learning disabilities (LD), learning to read often is quite daunting and difficult (Walker, Jolivette, & Lingo, 2005). It has been asserted that Latino/Latina students living in the United States have a great amount of difficulty learning to read (Ross & Begeny, 2011). When trying to learn to read in English, when one’s first language is Spanish, reading becomes even more challenging. This problem is even more substantial (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007) depending on the child’s socioeconomic status, native language fluency, whether or not he or she has an LD, as well as his or her parents’ level of education (Farahmandpur, 2015). It is not really surprising then that English language learner (ELL) students have some of the highest grade retention and dropout rates of all children in the United States (Duran, 2008). Therefore, if ELL students “are to develop reading and writing skills that are comparable to those of their native English-speaking peers, they must develop literacy skills as they continue to increase their oral English language proficiency” (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2003, pp. 221–222).

Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is considered to be one of the defining traits of a skilled reader (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005). Ross and Begeny (2011) defined oral reading fluency as “a student’s ability to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression” (p. 604). Fluency is a crucial part of the reading process and a main component of becoming a skilled reader (Lingo, 2014), for it is believed that if readers can spend less time and effort decoding a text, they will be able to focus more time on ascertaining the meaning of the given passage (Linan-Thompson et al., 2003; Lingo, 2014; Marchand-Martella, Martella, Modderman, Peterson, & Pan, 2013). Consequently, it is believed that more efficient reading fluency can lead to fewer misinterpretations of a given text (Hudson et al., 2005). For students with LD, there is also strong evidence that increased fluency is related to higher levels of reading comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988).

A successful method of increasing reading fluency for students with LD and their typical peers, as well as for ELL students, is the use of repeated reading (Linan-Thompson et al., 2003). In repeated reading, a person practices reading a given text until he or she reaches a particular level of accuracy (Tam, Heward, & Heng, 2006). In other words, “The goal of repeated reading is to increase the speed of word recognition and make decoding of the words automatic, thus enabling the student to concentrate on the meaning of the text” (Walker et al., 2005, p. 21). The use of repeated reading leads to an increased recognition of sight words and overall vocabulary, and it also provides poor readers with more time to practice (Marchand-Martella et al., 2013). For students with LD, who frequently have great difficulty reading, the use of repeated reading has shown to be highly effective (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003; Lingo, 2014; Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000; Strickland, Boon, & Spencer, 2013).

When focusing on ELL students with LD, the stakes appear to be even higher. Some studies suggest that focusing on comprehension and fluency instruction for ELL students in the early grades may be essential for success in school later on. Furthermore, even rigorous efforts for remediation in the later grades may yet be unsuccessful (Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012). Therefore, to assist ELL students with LD to become more fluent and efficient readers, the use of repeated reading can be of great assistance. Thus, in an attempt to increase the reading fluency rates of ELL students with LD, a fluency-based reading program (i.e., Great Leaps Reading) was introduced at the beginning of the school year.

The program was administered by the Grades 3–5 special education teacher each school day (i.e., minus days absent, standardized testing days). The program was used with the three students from early September to early May. Each student worked individually with the special education teacher without interruption. The students read the three different probes (Phonics, Phrases, and Stories) each session, and they had exactly 60 seconds to read each individual probe (i.e., passage). As each student read, the teacher corrected orally any mistakes the student made. After the child completed each separate reading, the teacher charted the student’s performance, recording the total number of words read and the number of mistakes made during that 60-second time period.

Monica, Orlando, and Antonio

Three Spanish-speaking, Mexican American ELL students participated in this project. During the school year, Monica (age 9) and Orlando (age 10) were in the fourth grade and Antonio (age 12) was in the fifth grade (please see Note 1). All three students were in bilingual education classes and were taught in Spanish and English every other day. They had all been determined to have specific LD in both reading and math. Orlando and Antonio received speech/language services at school once per week, while Monica received social work services once per week due to academic anxiety. It is important to note that it was decided by the individualized education program (IEP) team that, due to lack of further need, Monica was exited from social work services during her annual IEP meeting in December.

Assessment Information

Two assessments were administered to measure growth in student reading fluency: one from the intervention (i.e., Great Leaps) and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next Benchmark Assessment (DIBELS). The Great Leaps Assessment (Campbell, 1998) charts a student’s current performance in reading fluency. Using specifically identified 1-min probes in phonics, sight words, and short stories helps the program administrator know where to begin the student’s personalized instruction. The DIBELS (Good & Kaminski, 2011) is an individually administered assessment used to measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. In the DIBELS Next, a student is given a reading passage and asked to read it aloud. Then, the student is asked to retell what he or she had just read about. Three different readings are administered. This assessment measures reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension by calculating the mean words correct per minute (WCPM) of the three passages. The assessments were administered to each student in September 2014 and May 2015.

The Intervention

The intervention program (Campbell, 1998) is a widely used supplemental reading program (Begeny et al., 2010). The program consists of readings in three different sections: phonics, sight phrases, and oral reading passages (called “stories”). The program takes about 7 to 8 minutes per day to complete. The student has exactly 60 seconds to read each particular selection (called “probes”), and as the student is reading, the program administrator corrects orally any mistakes the student makes. At the same time, the program administrator marks the mistakes on his or her copy of the reading probe. After the student completes each reading, the administrator charts the student’s performance, documenting the total number of words read and the number of mistakes made during that 60-second reading block. A student successfully completes the reading when a given page is read in 60 seconds or less. In the phonics and sight phrases sections, students must complete the passages with no errors. In the reading passages section, students are allowed up to two mistakes to make a leap on to the following probe.

The program has been used with children with LD in the elementary grades (Walker et al., 2005), middle school (Bhat et al., 2003; Mercer et al., 2000; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002), and high school (Haselden & Webster, 2011; Lingo, 2014). Studies have shown that the program is effective in increasing students’ reading fluency (Bhat et al., 2003; Joseph & Schisler, 2009; Lingo, 2014; Mercer et al., 2000) as well as phonemic awareness and sight word fluency (Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002). The program is also considered to be easy to use and implement (Walker et al., 2005).

Monica’s Response to the Intervention

Monica showed great growth in her phonemic awareness and reading fluency over the 8 months using the intervention. Monica began on Probe 1 in Phonics, and by the end of the study she was at Probe 19. At the beginning, Monica pronounced several phonemes as a Spanish-speaker might. For example, when she encountered the “j” sound, she pronounced it as “huh” instead of “juh.” In Spanish the “j” sounds like a “huh,” while in English it sounds like a “juh.” In addition, as Monica moved to the consonant-vowel (cv) sound pattern in the Phonics’ probes, she encountered a few issues as well. For example, when Monica initially read the “si” digraph, she said “see,” yet with the short vowel, it is supposed to sound like “sih,” as in “sit.” This is an understandable error, since in Spanish, “sí” is read as “see,” meaning “yes.” In the Phrases section, Monica went from Probe 7 at the beginning of the year to Probe 15 by the end of the school year. In the Stories section, Monica really excelled. She started on Probe 22 (i.e., primer reading level) and finished on Probe 46 (i.e., second grade reading level).

According to Monica’s performance on the intervention assessment, there was evidence that she improved in the areas of both phonemic awareness and fluency. Monica improved the number of correctly read sounds/phrases on both the Phonics probes as well as the Pre-primer Reading (PP Reading) and Primary Reading (P Reading) probes. For example, in her first grade level Reading, she went from reading 48 words and making 7 errors (or 48/7) to reading all 103 words with no errors (103/0). Furthermore, her percentage of errors also decreased as her words read increased. Based on Monica’s scores on the second, third, and fourth grade Stories probes, she was nearing proficiency at the third grade level. On the DIBELS assessment, Monica made progress in all three areas of fluency, accuracy, and recall. According to the DIBELS scores on her posttest, Monica was reading faster and more accurately. She went from reading 53 WCPM to 77 WCPM and her accuracy rate rose from 87% to 96%. In addition, Monica also made progress at summarizing the content of what she was reading.

Orlando’s Response to the Intervention

Orlando made progress in the program as well. He began on Probe 3 in both Phonics and Phrases, and similar to Monica, he pronounced the “j” sound as “huh” instead of “juh” at the beginning of his phonics work. In addition, Orlando rolled his “r” when he initially pronounced the “r” sound in the Phonics section. In the Stories section, Orlando began at Probe 30 (i.e., first grade reading level) and finished on Probe 51 (i.e., almost third grade level). Orlando completed reading two out of the three sections in the reading program a month before the end of the school year. Ultimately, he completed 24 probes in the Phonics section and 17 probes in the Phrases section.

Based on Orlando’s performance on the intervention assessment, he made progress in the areas of both phonemic awareness and reading fluency. Orlando received higher scores on both of his Phonics posttests, going from a 34/5 to 50/0 and a 42/5 to 55/1 (i.e., words read/errors), and his Phrases posttests, moving from a 60/2 to 60/0 and 63/2 to 114/0. In the Stories assessments, Orlando also made progress, going from a 72/3 to a 116/2 on his second Reading probe. On his DIBELS posttest, Orlando made progress in his reading fluency (i.e., from 88 WCPM to 98 WCPM) as well as his accuracy (i.e., from 95% to 99%). In summary, Orlando made progress on all of his posttests except for one (i.e., story retelling), and it was a modest decrease at that.

Antonio’s Response to the Intervention

Antonio was 12 years of age and in the fifth grade. He began on Probe 3 in the Phonics section at the beginning of the year and finished on Probe 14. Antonio did make progress in this area, but overall, he had great difficulty with phonics and was unable to master short vowel sounds by the completion of the study (e.g., he pronounced “stro” as “str-oh” instead of “str-ah”). In the Phrases section, he began on Probe 11 and finished on Probe 16, which was the least amount of progress of the three students based on the number of probes completed. In the Stories section, Antonio began on Probe 35, which is a second grade reading level, and finished on Probe 49, which is almost third grade level. Therefore, Antonio did make moderate progress in his reading fluency based on his probe completion.

On the intervention assessment, Antonio also made progress in the areas of phonemic awareness and reading fluency. Even though phonics was the most difficult area for Antonio, he made progress on both of his Phonics posttests (i.e., from a 45/8 to 50/4 and 51/8 to 55/5). In his Phrases assessment, Antonio also increased in his words read and decreased in his percentage of errors (i.e., from 60/1 to 60/0 to 76/6 to 115/7). Antonio also showed progress on his Stories posttest. He went from a 103/2 to 103/1 on his first Reading and rose from a 104/4 to a 131/1 on his second Reading. On Antonio’s DIBELS posttest, he continued to progress significantly in all areas. His fluency rose from 89 WCPM to 121 WCPM and his accuracy improved from a 90% to a 95%. In his story retelling, Antonio went from 36 words to 55 words. In summation, Antonio progressed in both his reading fluency and accuracy over the course of the school year.

It is important to note that although the intervention procedure and outcomes for Monica, Orlando, and Antonio have value as an example of how reading fluency can increase for ELL students with LD, this was not a controlled experiment. The students received reading instruction in their own individual classrooms via various techniques, methods, and instructional tools. Therefore, the evidence presented here may not be transferable to other students and classroom settings.

Conclusion and Implications for Practice

All three ELL students made notable progress in the areas of reading fluency, based on their assessment scores. As is evident from the students’ third and fourth grade reading scores on the intervention assessment, they were also getting closer to reading at grade level. In particular, both Monica and Orlando increased almost two grade levels by the end of the year. In addition, when asked, all three students stated that they felt that they were better, more confident readers by the end of the school year than at the beginning.

According to Solari, Petscher, and Folsom (2014), “The early grades are when intensive instruction in critical literacy skills that have been shown to ameliorate reading risk such as basic reading skills, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and decoding is traditionally provided” (pp. 344–345). Furthermore, for ELL students, who have some of the highest-grade retention and dropout rates in the United States (Duran, 2008), it is essential that educators find better methods to help linguistically diverse students learn to read in English to succeed academically. Using a repeated reading program that focuses on phonemic awareness and sight word identification has the potential to assist ELL students with LD learn to read English more efficiently and effectively, and this increase in reading skills can benefit most, if not all, academic areas.

To address the reading needs of ELL students with LD in this nation’s schools, using repeated reading programs has the potential to be highly effective. Reading programs, such as the one discussed here, are easy to use, demand a minimal amount of time, can be used in a variety of instructional settings, and require minimal teacher training (Strickland et al., 2013). Therefore, it is possible that including repeated reading programs into schools with high percentages of ELL students can benefit both ELL students as well as those with specific LD.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Begeny

J. C.

Laugle

K. M.

Krouse

H. E.

Lynn

A. E.

Tayrose

M. P.

Stage

S. A.

(2010). A control-group comparison of two reading fluency programs: The Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) program and the Great Leaps K–2 reading program. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 137–155.

Begeny

J. C.

Ross

S. G.

Greene

D. J.

Mitchell

R. C.

Whitehouse

M. H.

(2012). Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 134–149.

Bhat

Griffin

C. C.

Sindelar

P. T.

(2003). Phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 73–87.

Campbell

K. U.

(1998). Great leaps reading (4th ed.). Micanopy, FL: Diarmuid.

Cohen

(2007). A case study of a high school English-language learner and his reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(2), 164–175.

Duran

R. P.

(2008). Assessing English-language learners’ achievement. Review of Study in Education, 32, 292–327.

Farahmandpur

(2015, April 5). The “two-sizes-fits-all” approach to bilingual education doesn’t work. Truthout. Retrieved from http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/30027-the-two-sizes-fits-all-approach-to-bilingual-education-doesn-t-work

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hosp

M. K.

Jenkins

J. R.

(2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Maxwell

(1988). The validity of in-formal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28.

10.

Good

R. H.

III Kaminski

R. A.

(2011). DIBELS Next Benchmark Assessment book. Longmont, CO: Dynamic Measurement Group.

11.

Hasbrouck

J. E.

Tindal

(1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 41–44.

12.

Haselden

P. G.

Webster

(2011). The effects of the “Great Leaps Reading Program” on students with severe reading disabilities as a secondary reading intervention in an impoverished setting. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED523411)

13.

Hudson

R. F.

Lane

H. B.

Pullen

P. C.

(2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714.

14.

Joseph

L. M.

Schisler

(2009). Should adolescents go back to the basics? A review of teaching word reading skills to middle and high school students. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 131–147.

15.

Lee

Grigg

Donahue

(2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

16.

Linan-Thompson

Vaughn

Hickman-Davis

Kouzekanani

(2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 221–238.

17.

Lingo

A. S.

(2014). Tutoring middle school students with disabilities by high school students: Effects on oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(1), 53–75.

18.

Marchand-Martella

N. E.

Martella

R. C.

Modderman

S. L.

Peterson

H. M.

Pan

(2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(1), 161–184.

19.

Mercer

C. D.

Campbell

K. U.

Miller

M. D.

Mercer

K. D.

Lane

H. B.

(2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Study & Practice, 15(4), 179–189.

20.

Ross

S. G.

Begeny

J. C.

(2011). Improving Latino, English language learners’ reading fluency: The effects of small-group and one-one-one intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 48(6), 604–618.

21.

Scott

T. M.

Shearer-Lingo

(2002). The effects of reading fluency instruction on the academic and behavioral success of middle school students in a self-contained EBD classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 167–173.

22.

Solari

E. J.

Petscher

Folsom

J. S.

(2014). Differentiating literacy growth of ELL students with LD from other high-risk subgroups and general education peers: Evidence from grades 3–10. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 329–348.

23.

Strickland

W. D.

Boon

R. T.

Spencer

V. G.

(2013). The effects of repeated reading on the fluency and comprehension skills of elementary-age students with learning disabilities (LD), 2001–2011: A review of study and practice. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 11(1), 1–33.

24.

Tam

K. Y.

Heward

W. L.

Heng

M. A.

(2006). A reading instruction program for English-language learners who are struggling readers. Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 79–93.

25.

Walker

L. L.

Jolivette

Lingo

A. S.

(2005). Improving reading fluency: A case study using the Great Leaps Reading Program. Beyond Behavior, 14(2), 21–27.