THE EFFECTS OF THE "TEMPLATES" FOR DIRECT AND EXPLICIT SPANISH
INSTRUCTION ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS' READING OUTCOMES
by
FATIMA ELVIRA TERRAZAS ARELLANES
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Special Education
and Clinical Sciences
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
June 2009
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Fatima Terrazas Arellanes
Title:
"The effects of the "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction on English Language
Learners' Reading Outcomes"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
by:
Roland Good, Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Kenneth Merrell, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Jeffrey Sprague, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Robert Mauro, Outside Member, Psychology
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
June 13,2009
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
© 2009 Fatima Elvira Terrazas Arellanes
111
IV
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Fatima Elvira Terrazas Arellanes for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
to be taken June 2009
Title: THE EFFECTS OF THE "TEMPLATES" FOR DIRECT AND EXPLICIT
SPANISH INSTRUCTION ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS READING
OUTCOMES
Approved: ~_-~-_~ _
Roland Good, Ph.D.
Early literacy development and mastery of reading skills are critical goals for all
students to accomplish; however, there is not yet a clear answer on how or in which
language to teach these skills to English Language Learners (ELL). Until clear evidence
on effective interventions is found, the academic achievement gap between mainstream
students and ELL students is likely to increase. This study examined the effects of the
"Templates" Spanish intervention program on the Spanish early literacy skills of
phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle for 12 kindergarten Hispanic ELL
students emolled in a dual immersion program. To assess the efficacy of the Spanish
vintervention program, a hierarchical linear model (HLM) design combining elements of
multiple baseline across subjects, single-subject design, and a regression discontinuity
design was used. Results of the HLM analysis found no significant effects of the
intervention in the between subjects analysis. The visual analysis of single subject
designs indicated that of the 12 subjects only three appeared to exhibit a positive effect of
the intervention when measures of alphabetic principle were used and only two when
phonemic awareness measures were used. Students for whom the "Templates" did not
appear to have a positive effect were those that were already making adequate progress
while receiving the small group curriculum practice. These students' skills continued
growing when they received the "Templates" intervention and while some progressed at a
slower pace they may have reached a sufficient level of skills that continuing or
exceeding baseline levels ofgrowth was unlikely. Our study provides some initial
indication that students who are not making adequate progress with the small group
curriculum practice may potentially benefit from the use of more structured, direct, and
explicit instruction with the use of the "Templates". Limitations ofthis study included the
use of a small sample size, the short duration of the time allowed for the intervention
procedures, and the restricted time to conduct phase changes from baseline to
intervention would have provided a clearer indication of intervention effects.
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Fatima Elvira Terrazas Arellanes
PLACE OF BIRTH: Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico
DATE OF BIRTH: August 27,1976
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
Universidad Aut6noma de Sinaloa
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy in School Psychology, 2009, University of Oregon
Master of Arts in Special Education, 2008, University of Oregon
Bachelor of Science in Psychology, 2000, Universidad Aut6noma de Sinaloa
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Educational Technology
Literacy Instruction
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Research Assistant, Center for Advanced Technology in Education, University of
Oregon, 2008 to Present
Research Assistant, Center on Teaching and Learning, University of Oregon,
2005 to 2008.
Vll
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Doctoral Research Award, University of Oregon, College of Education, 2007
Wes Becker Scholarship Award, University of Oregon, College ofEducation,
2005
Best Accumulative GPA, Psychology School, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa,
2000
Summer of the Scientific Research X Award, Mexican Academic of Sciences,
2000
Vlll
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to Professor Roland Good for his assistance
in the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, special thanks to the members of my
dissertation committee for providing the additional support needed to prepare my
dissertation, Dr. Kenneth, Merrell, Dr. Jeffrey Sprague, and Dr. Robert Mauro. I also
want to thank my son Lamar who was born and turned two during this exhausting
process. The investigation was supported financially by the Dynamic Measurement
Group Award, through the School Psychology Program Student Awards.
To my son Lamar Terrazas Rogers.
IX
Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
x
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1
English Language Learners and Reading Difficulties 1
Early Intervention and Prevention Models .4
Statement of Problem: Need for Spanish Intervention Programs 6
The "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction 8
Purpose of the Study 11
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Effective Literacy Instruction 12
Key Components of Reading Instruction .12
Direct and Explicit Instruction Components 18
Instructional Design Strategies 21
Instructional Delivery Strategies 24
Bilingual Education 29
Cross-Linguistic Transfer 32
Summary 34
III. METHODOLOGY 36
Setting 37
Participants' Characteristics and Recruitment 37
Personnel 38
Measurement 40
Dependent Variables 40
Independent Variables .. : 43
Design and Procedures 45
Baseline Procedures 45
Intervention Procedures 46
Data Analysis 47
Summary 51
IV. RESlTLTS 52
Visual Analysis 52
Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido 52
Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 65
Summary 75
Xl
Chapter Page
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) 75
Model Equations 76
Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS) 79
Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas (FSF) 79
Summary 82
V. DISCUSSION 84
Limitations 86
Threats to Internal Validity 87
Threats to External Validity 88
Threats to Construct Validity 89
Implications 91
Conclusions 94
APPENDICES
A. LETTER OF PARENTAL CONSENT 95
B. SCOPE AND SEQUENCE FOR TEMPLATES FOR DIRECT AND
EXPLICIT SPANISH INSTRUCTION 98
C. EXAMPLE TO TEACH THE SOUND OF THE LETTER "M" 100
D. GUIDE TO REVIEW LETTER NAMES 101
E. TEACHING SEQUENCE 102
F. FIDELITY CHECK LIST FOR TEMPLATE PRACTICE 103
G. FIDELITY CHECK LIST FOR SMALL CURRICULUM PRACTICE .104
H. CHECKLIST FOR DIRECTIONS AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS 105
I. THREE DAY LESSON PLAN SEQUENCE/SMALL CURRICULUM
PRACTICE 107
J. THREE DAY LESSON PLAN SEQUENCE/SMALL TEMPLATE
PRACTICE 108
K. KINDERGARTEN IDEL BENCHMARK GOALS 109
BIBLIOGRAPHY 110
xu
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Steps in Explicit Instruction ., 10
2. Instructional Design Strategies for Direct and Explicit Instruction 24
3. Instructional Delivery Strategies for Direct and Explicit Instruction 29
4. 15t Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Palabras Sin Sentido 61
5. 2nd Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Palabras Sin Sentido 62
6. 3rd Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Palabras Sin Sentido 63
7. 4th Replication for the Effect of"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Palabras Sin Sentido 64
8. 15t Replication for the Effect of"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 71
9. 2nd Replication for the Effect of"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 72
10. 3rd Replication for the Effect of"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 73
11. 4th Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las
Segmentaci6n de Fonemas ~ 74
12. Growth Curves for Baseline and Intervention Phases on Fluidez en las
Palabras Sin Sentido 80
13. Growth Curves for Baseline and Intervention Phases on Fluidez en la
Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 82
X111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Critical Elements in the Literature 13
2. Steps in the Error Correction Procedure 28
3. Means and Change in Means for Fluidez en las Palabras Sin Sentido 53
4. Slopes and Change in Slopes Across Phases for Fluidez en las Palabras sin
Sentido 54
5. Criteria for Horizontal Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment of
Intervention Effect for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido 55
6. Criteria for Vertical Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment of an
Effect of the Intervention for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido 60
7. Means and Change in Means for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 66
8. Slopes and Change in Slopes Across Phases for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de
Fonemas 67
9. Criteria for Horizontal Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment of
Intervention Effect for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 68
10. Criteria for Vertical Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment of an
Effect of the Intervention for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 70
11. Coding Scheme for Piecewise Linear Model for Each Weeldy Assessment
Session 77
12. The Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction on the
Early Literacy Skill for Fluidez en las Palabras Sin Sentido 80
13. The Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction on the
Early Literacy Skill for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas 81
1CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study examined the effects of the "Templates" Spanish intervention program
on the Spanish early literacy skills of phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle
for 12 kindergarten Hispanic ELL students enrolled in a dual immersion program. The
"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction (TEDESI) are an instructional
approach that aims to increase effective delivery of explicit Spanish instruction in
targeted reading areas, and augment basic Spanish reading skills of ELL students. This
chapter provides an overview of: (a) the increasing number of ELL students with reading
difficulties, (b) the importance of early intervention and prevention models to promote
reading success, (c) the need for Spanish intervention programs that improve reading
success, and (d) the TEDESI and how they were used in this study. The chapter
concludes with a statement of the purpose of this study.
English Language Learners and Reading Difficulties
Ethnic and racial diversification in the United States is growing, particularly
among school-age children. In our schools there are about 3.7 million students identified
as having "limited English proficiency" and over 400 different languages spoken by this
population (Kindler, 2002, as cited by Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Spanish speakers
2make up approximately 77% of the limited English proficiency (LEP) population. An
LEP individual is defined by Public Law 103-382 as "someone who has difficulty
speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language and whose difficulties
may deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where
language instruction is in English" (as cited by Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). However,
English language learners (ELL) is our preferred term to describe this population.
The Hispanic English language learner population is not only the fastest-growing
student population in the U.S., but also one of the populations that present the most
instructional challenges for U.S. schools (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995). By the year
2015, Hispanics will become the second largest group behind the non-Hispanic Whites,
21.3% vs. 59.2%, respectively (Yaden, Tom, Madrigal, Brassell, Mossa, Altamirano, &
Armendariz, 2000). Thus, educators' concerns about ELL instruction have increased,
particularly in regards to literacy instruction. Learning to read in a language different
from the one spoken at home poses an enormous challenge to ELL students and a great
dilemma for teachers regarding what is the best way to approach their reading instruction.
Yet, there is a lack of knowledge on effective literacy instruction both in English and
Spanish for children who are English language learners.
In the most current available report from the National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition (2000-2001) only 18.7% of English language learners in the U.S.
scored above the state established norms for reading comprehension compared to 57.4%
from the native English population. Furthermore, although the reading outcomes of
English language learners in general are low, children who speak Spanish as their first
3language are more likely to experience reading difficulties than children from other
linguistically diverse backgrounds (August & Hakuta, 1997). This is a clear indication of
our inability to create educational systems that fulfill English language learners
educational needs.
The National Center of Education and Statistics (2004) reported that 31 % of
English language learners who speak English proficiently failed to complete high school.
This number is even larger (51 %) for the English language learners with limited English
proficiency. It is suspected that low academic achievement among English language
learners is one possible cause of high school drop outs (De la Colina et aI., 2001). De la
Colina and colleagues propose three possible causes ofacademic failure: the English
language learner population may have low levels ofEnglish language proficiency; they
may have difficulty with advanced Spanish language skills; and/or their parents and
extended families may have little formal education (2001). English language learners
who cannot read and write proficiently in English and/or who fail to acquire a high
school diploma can expect challenges throughout their life. They not only lack full
participation in American schools but they also lack job opportunities and earning power.
Furthermore, the U.S. national potential for economic competitiveness, innovation,
productivity growth, and quality of life are also affected O~LP-LMCY, 2006).
The importance of improving reading comprehension scores and English
language proficiency in English language learners needs to lead professional educators to
develop successful alternatives to solve these problems. We need to concentrate our
efforts on prevention rather than remediation (Kame'enui, Good, & Harn, 2005). We
4need to identify students that are at serious risk for becoming successful readers and
writers early. We also need to develop effective teaching strategies/intervention programs
that fulfill these students' needs.
Early Intervention and Prevention Models
The skills that children develop during early kindergarten/first grade instruction
have a substantial impact on their further literacy development. Children who fall behind
in academic skills early in school are likely to be behind later in school (Alexander &
Entwisle, 1988; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992). Statistics
indicate that there is an 88% chance for a child who was a poor reader in first grade to
continue being a poor reader in fourth grade (Juel, 1988). Teaching children to read in a
language in which they are not yet proficient increments the risk for ELL. For this group
of children, it is critical to identify those skills that are predictors of reading development
and to design appropriate assessments that identify children at risk early.
In recent years, several models for the early identification and intervention for
students at risk have been developed. The Outcomes Driven Model (Good, Gruba, &
Kaminski, 2002), the Problem Solving Model (Deno, 1989), and Three Tier Models for
primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention for academic or Response to Intervention
(RTI) model (Gresham, VanDerHeyden, & Witt, 2005; Kame'enui, Good, & Ham, 2005)
and behavioral problems (Homer, Sugai, Todd, & Palmer, 2005) are just some examples.
5All of these models consist of a prevention-oriented decision-making process
that focuses on supporting children to achieve successful academic outcomes through
early intervention efforts. Prevention-oriented tasks in these models involve repeated
assessments of students' basic academic skills, behavior problems, and/or social
emotional needs to identify those students that are at higher risk for developing further
difficulties.
Interventions based on these prevention models usually entail: (a) universal
interventions, core instruction provided for all students (repeated assessments three times
a year); (b) targeted interventions, "generally effective" research-based interventions
specifically targeted for those students that are identified as being at higher risk for
becoming readers (provided in groups of four to five students and conducting more
frequent assessments to monitor students progress) and, (c) individual interventions,
students who do not respond to targeted interventions will get something else or
something more individualized, either from their teacher or someone else; students are
repeatedly assessed (once a week generally) and those who still do not respond either
qualify for a more intensive special education evaluation or for special education services
(Fuchs, Mork, Morgan, & Young, 2003).
Another important characteristic of early intervention models is that they all use
assessment tools that are dynamic indicators of basic academic and/or behavioral skills
(or assessment that focuses on key behaviors of overall performance) to identify students
at risk for academiclbehavioral failure and to develop adequate interventions to solve
students' problems early. Indicatores Dimimicos del Exito en la Lectura (IDEL) is a
6recently developed assessment tool that has been successfully applied with an Outcomes
Driven Model approach for the early identification of students at risk for difficulty
becoming successful Spanish readers. However, while we have tools to identify
struggling ELL readers early, effective reading instruction and intervention programs are
still a need. The following section briefly describes this issue and leads us to the purpose
of our study.
Statement of Problem:
Need for Spanish Intervention Programs
Teaching reading to English language learners presents several questions: what
instructional elements of Spanish or English language need to be emphasized? What
models for design and delivery of instruction provide better results?, and, what
instructional approaches should we use, bilingual, English-only, or pair-bilingual
approaches? In this section we discuss these issues in order to emphasize the significance
of this study.
A first concern is that, models of effective teaching and interventions for Spanish
and English literacy skills for English language learners lag behind the need. De la Colina
and colleagues (2001) reported a need for bilingual teachers to have intensive, research-
supported, Spanish language reading interventions. Additionally, The National Literacy
Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (NLP-LMCY, 2006) emphasized the
importance of key components of beginning reading such as phonological awareness,
7phonics and word study, vocabulary, and comprehension, for Spanish reading
instruction with English language learners. Such support is based on the premise that
Spanish, like English, is an alphabetic language, and according to recent findings the
essential features of English literacy instruction can also be applied to Spanish (Carrillo,
1994, Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Jimenez & Ortiz, 2000, Jimenez, 1994;
Signorini, 1997).
A second issue is that, the NLP-LMCY (2006) stated that even though there is
some indication that what works for native English speakers is also effective for English
language learners (particularly direct and explicit instruction), there are too few high-
quality studies to conclude this with certainty. Therefore, even though there is some
evidence of the potential that direct and explicit instruction of the key components of
beginning reading has for improving English language learners' bilingual reading
outcomes, more research is essential.
Finally, research on bilingual education suggests that there is a positive effect of
bilingual education on English language learners' English reading outcomes (Willig,
1985; Greene, 1997; Slavin & Cheung, 2004; NLP-LMCY, 2006). However, some
opponents of bilingual education argue that delaying reading instruction in English is
counterproductive and that English-only instruction is more effective (Gersten, 1985;
Rossell & Baker, 1996). They also suggest that studies conducted on bilingual education
have shown minimal effect sizes (NLP-LMCY, 2006). As the NLP-LMCY (2006) also
reports, studies on bilingual education in which effects sizes were minimal are those that
use Spanish interventions inefficiently or studies that have serious methodological issues.
8Furthermore, the panel argues for a need to develop effective interventions that address
the needs of straggling English language learners. However, the research on acquiring
literacy in a second language and the research on effective intervention programs remains
limited (NLP-LMCY, 2006). Full descriptions of the issues around bilingual education
and appropriate instruction for English language learners are presented in the literature
section of this paper.
The "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
The TEDESI were recently developed by the Western Regional Reading First
Center under the coordination of Peinado, Baker, and Rogers (2006). They consist of
direct and explicit instruction in the key components of reading. The "Templates" were
designed to augment, not replace, core reading instruction by focusing on the effective
delivery of instruction. The "Templates" are a series oflesson cards that contain specific,
explicit teaching routines that teachers integrate into existing whole class and small group
instruction.
Currently, there are fifteen lesson cards that focus on the following teaching
skills: alphabetic knowledge, phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. A table of the
scope and sequence of the lesson cards is provided in Appendix B. In this study only
templates designed to teach alphabetic knowledge, phonemic awareness, and alphabetic
principle skills were used. The "Templates" were integrated with the activities of the
9kindergarten curriculum used by the school teacher: Alfarrimas - Hampton Brown
publisher.
Specifically, the "Templates" involve both preparation steps and instructional
delivery steps. The preparation steps include (a) a brief description of the task and the
pre-requisite skills for the task, (b) the materials teachers need to have available for
effectively delivering instruction, (c) appropriate signals and waiting time, and (d) the
specific teacher wording to elicit student responses. Signaling and waiting time are
considered to be key features ofthe "Templates" because they allow for effective pacing
of a lesson, they provide a cue of when students need to respond, and they facilitate the
participation of all students, avoiding the tendency for higher performing students to
always answering first.
The instructional delivery steps include: (a) a brief explanation ofthe task prior to
starting the activity; (b) teacher modeling and demonstrating the task using specific
wording, signals, and wait time (e.g. "My turn"); (c) teacher leading student group
practice with one or two examples using specific verbal and visual cues (e.g. "Our turn");
(d&e) providing student whole group and individual responses until knowledge is solid
using appropriate signaling, monitoring, and pacing (e. g. "Your tum"); and (f) using
systematic error correction procedures that follow the same model-lead-test (my turn-our
turn-your tum) procedure. Figure 1 is a description of each step ofthe "Templates" direct
and explicit instructional model. (A model of a Spanish template is provided in Appendix
C, and Appendix D provides the English version used to create the Spanish "Templates").
Figure 1
Steps in Explicit Instruction
10
Steps Definition Example
Teacher (does) says Student
responds
11
Purpose of the Study
Developing effective Spanish intervention programs is crucial. Identifying the
effects of direct and explicit Spanish instruction with English language learners is a main
goal for this study. We hope to contribute to the development of literacy and language
development theories that specifically apply to ELL and to the development of Spanish
intervention programs. Specifically, this study examined the effects of the "Templates"
Spanish intervention program on the Spanish early literacy skills ofphonemic awareness
and the alphabetic principle for 12 kindergarten Hispanic ELL students enrolled in a dual
immersion program.
The proposed study addresses the instructional needs that English language
learners present by increasing our understanding of effective teaching methods and
instructional curriculum materials for Spanish early literacy skills. The primary research
question examined in this study is:
Is there a functional and significant relationship between the use of the
"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction and an increase on the early
literacy skills (phonemic awareness and phonic skills) of kindergarten bilingual English
language learners?
12
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the literature on (a) key components of effective literacy
instruction, (b) direct and explicit instruction, and (c) bilingual education and cross-
linguistic transfer (Table 1 highlights some critical elements in the literature reviewed in
this section). Direct and explicit teaching strategies may be a useful methodology for
introducing beginning reading skills to English language learners. In this section, "direct
and explicit instruction" is defined and critical features are outlined. Finally, some of the
issues surrounding bilingual education, English-only programs, and pair bilingual
programs as well as important elements of cross-linguistic transfer of Spanish to English
literacy skills are addressed.
Effective Literacy Instruction
Key Components ofReading Instruction
In an effort to identify, assess, and synthesize research on the education of
English language learners, with regard to literacy attainment, the NLP-LMCY (2006)
conducted an extensive and rigorous research review that addressed critical questions in
Table 1
Critical Elements in the Literature
1. Key components of effective English literacy instruction have benefits for
English reading skills of English language learners (NLP-LMCY, 2006,
Kame'enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, & Coyne, 2002; Carnine, Silbert, &
Kame'enui, 1997; Watkins & Slocum, 2004; Shaywitz, 2003).
2. Studies with monolingual English speakers at risk for reading difficulties have
demonstrated the positive effects of direct and explicit instruction (Adams &
Engelmann, 1996; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Juel, Minden-
Cupp, 2000; Torgesen, 2000).
3. Bilingual education has positive effects on English reading outcomes (Willig,
1985; Greene, 1997; Slavin & Cheung, 2004; NLP-LMCY, 2006).
4. Cross-linguistic transfer of reading-related skills from one language to
another is evident for some components of beginning reading (August et aI.,
2001; Cisero & Royer, 1995; Comeau et aI., 1999; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995;
Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Escamilla, 1987; Geva, Wade-
Woolley, & Shany, 1997; Jimenez Gonzalez & Haro Garcia, 1996; Kendall,
Lajeunesse, Chmilar, Shapson, & Shapson, 1987; Lambert & Tucker, 1972;
Ordonez, Carlo, Snow, & McLaughlin, 2002).
13
14
the field. The panel reported that early reading skills were critical for later successful
literacy development. Specifically, they determined that these skills could be clustered
into five key components. The five components include (a) phonemic awareness, (b)
phonics, (c) fluency, (d) vocabulary, and (e) reading comprehension (NLP-LMCY,
2006). Furthermore, the panel reviewed 17 studies to determine the extent to which
explicit teaching of key components of English reading instruction confer a learning
benefit on English language learners.
Phonemic Awareness
Phonological awareness instruction consists of teaching students to focus on and
manipulate phonemes in spoken syllables and words (National Reading Panel, 1998).
Reviews of the literature indicated that phonological awareness is an important skill for
students to master to become successful readers (e.g. Adams, 1990; Carnine, Silbert, &
Kame'enui, 1997; Hurford, Darrow, Edwards, Howerton, Mote, Schauf, & Coffey, 1993;
Mann, 1993; National Reading Panel, 200). Snowling (1981) found evidence that
students who are unaware of the sound structure of spoken words often have more
difficulty acquiring the decoding skills that are necessary for proficient reading.
Additionally, Quiroga et al. (2002) found that the same relationship exists between
phonological awareness and reading in Spanish. In particular, Stuart (1999) found
positive effects of phonemic awareness and phonics instruction for English language
learners' reading outcomes (effect size +0.46*).
15
Lewkwicz's (1980) review of phonemic awareness skills identified two tasks
directly related to decoding ability: (1) segmenting and (2) blending. Students must have
an understanding that words can be segmented into sounds, and that sounds can be
blended together to form words. For example, in a segmenting exercise, the teacher
would say "the sounds in the word cat are IkJ Ia! It/." In contrast, in a blending exercise,
the teacher would say "the sounds Id/ 101 Igl can be put together to make the word: dog."
Students (including ELL students) who do not develop this understanding early lag
behind their peers in their ability to sound out and read words (Cornwall, 1992; Hurford
et al., 1993; Mann, 1993).
Phonics
Phonics instruction is designed to help students learn that letters represent sounds
and that those letters can be put together to form words (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, &
Tarver, 2004). The primary focus of phonics instruction is to help beginning readers
understand how letters are linked to sounds (phonemes) to form letter-sound
correspondences and spelling patterns, and to help them learn how to apply this
knowledge in reading whole words (phonological recoding). Phonological recoding
involves using letter sound correspondences (e.g. this letter "c" makes the sound Ik/) and
blending to form words (e. g. the letters c-a-t map to the sounds IkJ Ia! Itl, and can be
blended together to form the word 'cat').
According to the National Reading Panel, phonics instruction should be
coordinated with phonemic awareness instruction and both should be systematic, explicit
16
and synthetic (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2004). Blachman and colleagues
(1999), in a study conducted with children with low SES, found that children who receive
explicit systematic phonics and phonemic awareness instruction made grater progress in
reading than children who received the less explicit and systematic basal instruction.
Foorman and Torgesen (2001) also found that systematic phonics instruction produces
significant reading benefits for students with reading disabilities. Furthermore, Foorman
et aI., (1998) reported dramatic reduction in overall failure rates for children taught
phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondences using direct instruction and
practice in controlled vocabulary text.
Fluency
Reading fluency instruction develops a student's ability to recognize words in
connected text with little or no effort (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2002). Compared to
fluent readers, students that lack fluency with reading have to apply more of their
cognitive resources to decoding words making it difficult for them to focus their attention
on comprehension (Samuels, 1987; Sindelar, 1987). Thus, fluency becomes a facilitator
for reading comprehension. Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, and Kouzekanani
(2003) concluded that "improved fluency and automatic word recognition allow students
to focus on understanding and analyzing the content of the text" (p. 222). De la Colina
and colleagues (2001) found evidence that fluency instruction was effective for first
grade English language learners who (after a 12 week intervention) improved an average
17
of 32 words correct per minute (WCPM) and second grade students who improved an
average of37 WCPM.
The National Reading Panel (2000) reported three major findings on fluency
instruction: (1) classroom practices that include repeated oral reading with feedback and
guidance lead to improvements in reading for good readers, as well as those who are
experiencing difficulties; (2) guided, repeated oral-reading procedures that improve
reading fluency also have a positive impact on word recognition and comprehension; and,
(3) fluency can be improved by having students read and reread text a certain number of
times until desired levels of speed and accuracy are reached (as cited in Carnine, Silbert,
Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2004). Silent independent reading however, was not found to
improve reading fluency and overall reading achievement.
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension
Vocabulary and Comprehension are the last components of English instruction.
According to Baumann and Kame'enui (1991), vocabulary instruction should include
definitional and contextual information about each word's meaning in addition to
multiple exposures to meaningful information about words. Students with limited
vocabulary have difficulty with reading and comprehension; thus vocabulary knowledge
is necessary for reading comprehension (Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, &
Kouzekanani, 2003). The National Reading Panel (2000) found that exposure to reading
was the most effective means for vocabulary development. The panel also indicated that
explicit and systematic instruction in vocabulary was the best mode for teaching students
18
who were disadvantaged in their exposure to complex vocabulary. Perez (1981) and
Carlo et al. (2004) found that vocabulary instruction for English language learners
yielded findings consistent with those of vocabulary studies done with native speakers.
Reading comprehension reflects a students' mastery of all of the skills listed
above and should be a focus of all reading programs. Reading comprehension instruction
utilizes strategies before, during, and after reading text, including: activation of prior
knowledge, monitoring understanding, self-questioning, distinguishing between the main
idea and supporting details, and writing summaries (Baker & Brown, 1984). Carnine et
al. (2004) reported that studies conducted across the last 30 years suggest that inadequate
time and attention to comprehension instruction has contributed to the poor state of
reading comprehension among students and that more research is needed in this area.
This is also true for English language learners; the few studies conducted in the area of
ELL reading comprehension have not provided sufficient evidence to determine the best
way to facilitate reading comprehension for this population (NLP-LMCY, 2006)
Direct and Explicit Instruction Components
Direct and explicit instruction is a systematic approach that includes a set of
design and delivery strategies to teach subject matter efficiently so that all the students
learn all the material in the minimum amount of time (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). This
approach to teaching is teacher-directed and skills-oriented, and emphasizes the use of
19
small-group, face-to-face instruction of carefully articulated lessons that are sequenced
deliberately, and taught explicitly (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2004).
Numerous studies with monolingual English speakers at risk for reading
difficulties have demonstrated the positive effects of direct and explicit instruction
(Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Juel, Minden-
Cupp, 2000; Torgesen, 2000). Adams & Engelmann (1996) conducted a meta-analysis
that yielded over 350 studies conducted on explicit instruction. In this analysis they found
that the mean effect size per study using explicit instruction was more than +0.75, which
confirms the substantial effect of explicit instruction. The authors consistently found
research with substantial effect sizes that indicate that explicit instruction is an effective
practice not only for low performing students and students in special education but for all
students.
Additionally, Torgesen (2000) reviewed five studies that were designed to
improve the early reading skills of students with reading disabilities. His goal was to
identify what conditions needed to be in place for all students to acquire adequate reading
skills. Despite Torgesen's recognition that we still have "not yet discovered the
conditions that need to be in place for children with the most serious disabilities ... we
know that approaches featuring systematic, explicit instruction in phonemic awareness
and phonetic decoding skills produce stronger reading growth in children with phonemic
awareness than do those that do not teach these skills explicitly" (Torgesen, 2000, p. 63).
Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000) analyzed word recognition instruction (e.g. phonics and
phonemic awareness) with first grade learners for the purpose of identifying the
20
instructional practices that best foster learning to read words. Their results suggest that
differential, explicit instruction may also be helpful in this grade.
Finally, Fuchs and colleagues (1997) studied the effectiveness of a class-wide
peer tutoring program in reading for three different learner groups: low achievers with
disabilities (LD), low achievers without disabilities (LP), and average achieving readers
(AA). These researchers used a Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program in
which students engaged in different reading strategies addressed by teacher-directed
instruction. Their findings indicated that LD, LP, and AA students in PALS classrooms
made significantly greater progress than their counterparts in no-PALS classrooms (effect
sizes +0.22*, +0.55*, and +0.56*, respectively).
Kame'enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, and Coyne (2002) delineate six
instructional strategies for the design of all explicit instructional episodes: (a) big ideas,
(b) conspicuous strategies, (c) mediated scaffolding, (d) strategic integration, (e)
judicious review, and (f) primed background knowledge. The features of effective
instruction are complemented by features of effective delivery. Hall (2002) delineated
five instructional delivery strategies: (a) appropriate pacing, (b) adequate processing time,
(c) response monitoring, (d) provide feedback, and (e) frequent student responses. In the
following section is a description of each of these design and delivery strategies and how
they contribute to effective instruction and student learning.
21
Instructional Design Strategies
Effective instructional design strategies assist in maximizing student learning.
Accomplishing this goal requires paying attention to all aspects of teaching. Maximizing
student learning requires that attention is paid to a wide variety of details concerning the
design of effective instruction. Examples include:
Big Ideas
Big ideas are "concepts, principles, or heuristics that facilitate the most efficient
and broadest acquisition of knowledge" (Kame'enui et aI., 2002, p. 9). A 'Big idea' is
considered as one of the "key features of high quality educational tools for English
language learners" (Howell & Nolet, 2000, p. 40). This concept encompasses a wide
array of skills that can be categorized under one term. In beginning reading 'big ideas'
refer to a set of unifying curriculum activities necessary for successful beginning reading,
for example, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are
the five 'big ideas' of beginning reading. Principles of instructional design indicate that
teaching skills within the context of 'big ideas' facilitates deeper understanding of
content, and an integration of new skills.
Conspicuous Strategies and Strategic Integration
Conspicuous strategies refer to the learning process presented as an explicit
sequence of teaching events that make 'big ideas' applicable. For instance, to apply a 'big
22
idea' of phonemic awareness a plan of action is needed for making students aware that
words are made of individual sounds or phonemes. This plan of action would require
multiple steps, a sequence of teaching events, and systematic teacher actions. (See
Appendix E for an example of the sequence used in this study). Strategies are made
conspicuous by the use of visual maps or models, verbal directions, and full explanations
(Kame'enui et aI., 2002). There is extensive empirical evidence suggesting that ELL are
especially in need of conspicuous presentation of the organization of knowledge
(Karne'enui et aI., 2002).
Strategic integration is the "planful consideration and sequencing of instruction in
ways that show the commonalities and differences between old and new knowledge"
(Karne'enui et aI., 2002, p. 9). Conspicuous strategies and strategic integration together
create instruction that is explicit. Englemann and Carnine (1982) described the
characteristics of explicit instruction used in the design of the TEDESI (See Figure 1
Steps in Explicit Instruction presented on previous pages).
Mediated Scaffolding and Primed Background Knowledge
When teaching events are accommodated to the needs of each child, especially for
the learning of new material, the new principle of mediated scaffolding has been used.
Scaffolds provide the learner with personal guidance during the initial phases of learning
new and difficult information. According to Kame'enui and colleagues (2002) in
beginning reading, scaffolds may be provided in two ways: through teacher or peer
assistance, or through the sequence and selection of specific tasks. Teachers modeling the
23
precise process students will need to perform, and having specific steps to follow are
some examples of this. Teacher-mediated scaffolding is especially important for
correcting students' errors (error correction procedures are described below).
Primed background knowledge refers to the knowledge that a student must
possess in order to acquire new information. According to Kame'enui and colleagues
(2002), mediated scaffolding and background knowledge together guide students'
appropriate placement within their academic curriculum. These instructional strategies
require the identification of students' precise skill sets. Once we know exactly which
skills students have already acquired, and we know the text target skills, we can provide
appropriate placement in the curriculum. For the purposes of this study, we measured
mediated scaffolding and priming background knowledge through several IDEL
assessment measures described in the methods section and used such information to
deCide appropriate placement in curriculum.
Judicious Review
Finally, the principle of applying and developing familiarity with new knowledge
that is facilitated by a sequence of scheduled opportunities to learn is called judicious
review. According to Kame'enui and colleagues (2002) the review must be sufficient to
enable a student to perform the task without hesitation, distributed over time, cumulated
and integrated into more complex task, and varied illustrating the wide applications of
information.
24
Teachers who acknowledge the importance of these design principles are able
to make thoughtful changes to the instruction of struggling students. Figure 2 displays the
essential design strategies for all explicit instructional episodes.
Instructional Delivery Strategies
"Students learn best when they are actively engaged" (Watkins & Slocum, 2004).
Effective delivery of instruction was, for this reason, another important element that we
considered for the design ofthe present study. Six main elements involve effective
instructional delivery:
Figure 2
Instructional Design Strategies for Direct and Explicit Instruction (Hall, 2002).
Instructional
DESIGN
Components
25
Frequent Student Responses
This involves the teacher eliciting students responses several times per minute
(e.g. ask students to say, write, or do something) to keep them actively engaged, provide
them with adequate practice, and help them achieve greater success. Group unison
responses are also important for organizing active student engagement and responses.
When students answer in unison then (a) they get high-quality practice in every item, (b)
they are busy learning the material and are less likely to become distracted, and (c)
teachers can easily assess the skills of all students and be well informed about their skills
(Hall, 2002). In order for students to initiate a response at the same time, teachers are
encouraged to use adequate signals. Auditory signals such as a snap, tap, or clap are
useful because they do not require students to look away from their book; however,
visual signals (e.g. pointing to a word) are often necessary. To signal a unison response
teachers provide (a) a focus cue to gain student's attention to the task, (b) thinking time
that vary depending on the skills of the students, (c) a verbal or visual cue followed by a
pause, and (d) a signal.
Appropriate Pacing
Appropriate pacing is defined as the rate of instructional presentations and
response solicitations, and is influenced by many variables such as task complexity or
difficulty, relative newness of the task, and individual students' differences (Hall, 2002).
According to Hall (2002), when tasks are presented at a brisk pace, there are three
benefits to instruction: (a) a rapid pace allows teachers and students to cover more
26
material, (b) students are more engaged in the instructional activity, and (c) behavior
problems are minimized (students stay on-task when instruction is appropriately paced).
Even though the pace of instruction should be quick, it is also important to give students
sufficient thinking time.
Adequate Processing Time
Processing time, which also refers to the thinking time, is defined as the amount
of time between the moment a task is presented and the time the learner is asked to
respond (Hall, 2002). This time should vary based on the difficulty of the task relative to
the student (e.g. ifthe task is relatively new, the amount of time allocated to think and
formulate a response should be greater than that of a task that is familiar and in the
learners' repertoire.
Monitor Responses
Monitoring responses is a strategy necessary to ensure that all learners are
mastering the skills the teacher is presenting. Watching and listening to student responses
provides the teacher with key instructional information, which they use to make
appropriate adjustments to instruction. Weekly assessments are also key for the design
and delivery of instruction that fits each individual needs. Teaching for mastery should be
one of the most important goals for a teacher to achieve. This involves performing skills
at high levels; Engelmann (1999) suggest that by the end of a lesson, all students should
be "virtually 100% firm on all task and activities" (p. 6).
27
Provide Feedback
Students should receive specific and immediate feedback for both correct and
incorrect responses. In order to provide effective correction procedures, teachers must
notice every error, determine the type of error that was made, provide an appropriate
correction, and arrange for additional practice on items of that type. Appropriate error
correction should involve stopping the student immediately following the commission of
an error, demonstrate the correct answer (model), ask the student to respond to the
original item (test), and give several other items, and then retest the item that was missed
(retest). Table 2 displays the steps of the error correction procedure (all the templates
used in the present study integrated this error correction format).
Using the above described error correction procedure, this helps to reduce student
confusion allowing them to always know when they have produced the sound incorrectly,
and immediately hear the correct response. However, in addition to correcting student
response errors, teachers should also correct signals errors. When signal errors occur it
means that students did not answer together on signal. To correct this error, teacher might
say, "I need to hear everyone together" or "Everyone should respond right at my signal"
and repeat the task again (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). Figure 3 displays the essential
delivery strategies to all explicit instructional episodes
Table 2
Steps in the Error Correction Procedure (Adapted from Watkins & Slocum 2004)
28
Steps
1. Stop the student
Immediately following error,
begin correction.
Teacher says
My tum
Example
Student responds
2. Model This word is "eventually"
Provide correct response
3. Test Your tum, what word is this? eventually
Ask student to repeat the
correct response
4. Retest What word is this? (treatments) treatments
Teacher intersperses several What word is this? (submarine) submarine
other items before retesting
What word is this (eventually) eventually
Figure 3
29
Figure 3
Instructional Delivery Strategies for Direct and Explicit Instruction (Hall, 2002)
Instructional
DELIVERY
Components
Bilingual Education
Learning to read in a language different from the one spoken at home poses an
enormous challenge to ELL students and a great dilemma for teachers regarding what is
the best way to approach their reading instruction. To assist ELL students to become
successful readers, educators debate between a bilingual instructional approach and an
English "full structured immersion" approach. Advocates of the bilingual approach argue
that schools must teach students to read in their native language first, and only when they
are proficient in that language should they be transitioned to English only reading
instruction (Cummins, 1996; Greene 1997; Krashen and Biber, 1987; Willing (1985);
30
Wong Fillmore, 1992). On the other hand, opponents of bilingual education believe
that English-only instruction that includes vocabulary and language development is more
effective than bilingual education (Gersten, 1985; Porter, 1990; Rossell and Baker, 1996;
Schlesingedr, 1991). A more recent approach consists of pair-bilingual instruction, in
which ELL students are taught to read in their native language and in English at different
times of the day (Calderon & Minaya-Rowe, 2003; Howard, Sugarman, & Christian,
2003; Slavin & Cheung, 2004).
A closer look to the issue of bilingual and English-only approaches could be
found on Greene's (1997) meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual
education. Willing (1985) also re-analyzed a set of studies used in Baker and de Kanter
(1981) review of literature on the effectiveness of bilingual education, which had similar
results to those reported by Green in 1997, and we describe next.
Greene (1997) fully detailed the flaws on Rossell and Baker study on bilingual
education. Greene reported that of the 75 studies reviewed by Rossell and Baker only 11
studies were methodologically acceptable. Some of the studies that Rossell and Baker
included in their review are not about bilingual education; they instead compare different
native language approaches to each other, which make it difficult to make inferences
about the effects of English-only approaches. Their studies also failed to control
differences between students assigned to bilingual and English-only programs and their
claims that studies have negative or neutral results for bilingual education are
unsupported by the literature they review.
31
From the 11 methodologically accepted studies reviewed by Greene, results (of
the combined studies) produced an "average gain for bilingual students relative to
English-only students on all test scores measured in English of .18 standard deviations
with a combined z-score of 2.41 (p. 8). When scores on English reading measures were
analyzed separately, an average benefit of having at least some native language
instruction of.21 standards deviations with a combined z-score of2.46 was observed (all
the reported results met statistical significance). Five of the previous 11 studies were also
examined in a different analysis because they were the only studies where random
assignment of subjects to groups was used. From this analysis Greene found a stronger
positive effect size, where the combined z-score for all test scores measured in English
was 2.71 (SD =.26). In the experimental studies, scores on English reading measures
show an average benefit of at least some native language instruction of.41 standard
deviations with a combined z-score of3.47.
The NLP-LMCY (2006) particularly contributed to the field of bilingual
education (as compared to English only instruction) through a review of 15 studies that
yielded 71 effect sizes across 26 samples. Overall, the panel found that 16 of the 26
estimated effect sizes were positive, 8 were negative, and 2 were effectively 0 (p <.05).
From these reviews the NLP-LMCY (2006) concluded that "bilingual education has a
positive effect on English reading outcomes that are small to moderate in size" (p. 392).
Research on pair-bilingual instruction is limited. Slavin & Cheung (2004) found
only three studies ofbeginning reading in which Spanish dominant students were
assigned at random to be taught either in English-only or in Spanish and English
32
programs. In the first study, conducted by Plante (1976, as cited in Slavin & Cheung
2004) students taught in both languages performed much better on English reading test
than did students taught only in English. The second (Huzar 1973, as cited in Slavin &
Cheung 2004) and third (Maldonado, 1994, as cited in Slavin & Cheung 2004) studies
reviewed also showed similar effects in favor of pair bilingual programs. The students
that participated in this study were enrolled in a paired bilingual program where they
receive 80 minutes of Spanish instruction per week compared to 200 minutes of English
instruction.
Cross-Linguistic Transfer
The underlying mechanisms of Spanish reading skills acquisition that will
potentially facilitate the learning of a second language are unknown. Theories of cross-
linguistic transfer such as the theory of the Common Underlying Projiciencies (CUP)
suggest that knowledge about reading in a first language is a valuable resource for
assisting in second language reading skill acquisition (Cummins, 1996). The CUP theory
states that "common underlying knowledge about language lies beneath the surface of
bilingual or multilingual performance" (Cummins, 1996). Applied to literacy, CUP
theory implies that knowledge about reading in one language (L1) is an available
resource for assisting in second language (L2) reading acquisition. The term of cross-
linguistic transfer serves as the medium to the access and use of linguistic resources in L1
to the learning of other secondary languages.
33
Research on transfer of reading-related skills from one language to another has
not been extensive. Lindsey and colleagues (2002) reported that the predominant focus of
cross-linguistic transfer studies has been on phonological awareness skills (August et ai.,
2001; Cisero & Royer, 1995; Comeau et ai., 1999; Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt,
1993), single-word reading errors and fluency (August et ai., 2001; Da Fontoura &
Siegel, 1995; Geva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1997; Kendall, Lajeunesse, Chmilar,
Shapson, & Shapson, 1987; Lambert & Tucker, 1972), reading comprehension
(Escamilla, 1987; Jimenez Gonzalez & Haro Garcia, 1996), and vocabulary (Ordonez,
Carlo, Snow, & McLaughlin, 2002). However, most of the studies have focused on
phonological awareness and word reading ability, which suggests that phonological skills
are fundamental to reading acquisition across a wide variety of languages and
orthographies (Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003).
Cisero and Royer (1995) tried to determine whether observed differences in
young children's performance on different phonological tasks were explained by the
amount of exposure to relevant Spanish phonological awareness (PA) activities. They
were also interested on the progression of phonological skills in Spanish across three
tasks: rhyme detection, initial phoneme detection, and final phoneme detection. Their
studies reveled that students' performance was better on the rhyme task than on the initial
and final phoneme task (where no differences were observed) and that the task order was
not relevant. Jimenez and Garcia (1995) found that young children (instructed in Spanish)
were more successful on phonological awareness task that included continuant consonant
sounds vs. stop sounds, single consonant vs. consonants as part of cluster of consonant
34
sounds, and shorter vs. longer words. These findings are relevant because when
examined as predictors of performance on similar tasks in English they seem to be
correlated (Cisero & Royer, 1995).
For these reasons, we believe that English language learners are likely to benefit
from Spanish instruction on the key components of beginning reading so that they could
use these reading strategies when exposed to the English language instruction. The
present study is designed to gather evidence on this point and contribute to the future
development of a theory of the underlying mechanisms of Spanish reading skill
acquisition that will facilitate the learning of a second language. This knowledge could be
used to guide the development of instructional curriculum materials for the effective
teaching of Spanish reading skills to bilingual learners.
Summary
Successful literacy acquisition depends on the teaching of the five big ideas of
early literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Effective teaching of these skills is tied to effective design and delivery of instruction. If
instruction is poorly designed and delivered poorly, students may fail to learn the content
being presented. Meeting the needs of diverse learners (e.g. students with different skills
levels) can represent a challenge for educators. Effective instruction also means that
instruction needs to be appropriate for each individual learner. Educators need to place
students in the proper curriculum level by acknowledging their background knowledge
35
and providing mediated scaffolding. Simmons and colleagues (2002) suggest that
school systems should assess all students and group them at similar skill levels to
maximize instructional effectiveness for each level of student performance. In this study
students were randomly assigned to the treatment group; we were particularly concerned
about reducing threats to the external validity of the study (e.g. selection and treatment
interaction). We further discuss this issue in the methodology section of this paper.
36
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A hierarchical linear modeling design combining elements of multiple baseline
across subjects, single-subject design, and a regression discontinuity design was used to
examine the effects of the "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction on the
Spanish reading outcomes of bilingual English language learners. Hierarchical linear
modeling allowed for comparisons between baseline and intervention phases between
treatment and comparison groups. Additionally, both the individual level of performance
and the rate of growth were examined to (a) identify students who had made adequate
growth and (b) to. evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. The single-subject
multiple baseline across subjects design consisted of three tiers (four students for each
tier, and two phases (baseline and intervention). Multiple baseline across subjects design
allowed both within subjects and between subject comparisons at twelve different points
in time. This chapter describes: (a) the setting where the study took place; (b) the
characteristics, recruitment and assignment of participants to experimental conditions; (c)
the data collectors and their training; (d) the measurement procedures which include a
specification of the dependent and independent variables measured in this study as well
as s full description of the assessment measures, interobserver agreement procedures, and
37
fidelity of treatment implementation procedures; and (e) the design and procedures
used in this study.
Setting
The study was conducted in a moderate sized urban school district in the Pacific
Northwest during the 2007-2008 school year, beginning on January 2008. The study was
conducted in the students' regular classroom where they typically received reading
instruction (this included a small separate group that the teacher frequently used to
provide small group instruction). All students received reading instruction in small
groups from personnel hired and trained by the author of the study.
Participants' Characteristics and Recruitment
Participants included 5 female students and 7 male students (N = 12) in a
kindergarten pair-bilingual program whose primary language at home was Spanish.
Students where selected for participation in the study because they were bilingual
learners enrolled in the kindergarten ELL program in the available school. Of a total of
15 students who were recruited, we received parent approval for 14 students. Two
students had such numerous absences that we decided to drop them from the study.
However, they continued receiving the intervention on the days they were present.
38
After students were recruited, they were all assessed with the DIBELS and
IDEL measures of phonemic awareness (Letter Naming Fluency & Phoneme
Segmentation Fluency), phonics (Nonsense Word Fluency), and language fluency (Word
Use Fluency). However, 90% of the students did not respond to the measures oflanguage
fluency. When students were asked to use a commonly used word in a phrase they will
just repeat the word alone or did not say anything. This measure was selected for the
purpose of obtaining a general idea of the language skill of students in both Spanish and
English. To obtain such information we used preexisting data the school had collected at
the beginning of the year from the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts in its Spanish and
English form. Results of this language assessment indicated that 83% of the students
were proficient in Spanish (based on their age) and 58% were proficient in English. After
all initial assessments took place, three random groups of students were formed (4 to 5
students in each group). Group one was composed of 4 males and 1 female, group two
had 2 females and 2 males, and group three had 2 females and 3 males.
Personnel
Three bilingual educators who had either worked for the school in the past or
were currently performing some teaching activities for the recruited school were recruited
to conduct the intervention phases of the study. These educators received one-on-one
training on the explicit teaching of Spanish early literacy skills and the use of the
templates. The training procedures consisted of: (1) A 2-hour meeting where all the
39
teaching materials where introduced, including templates, the daily lesson plans, and
the curriculum materials. (2) One week of modeling procedures, where the author
modeled the intervention procedures for the educators for the 20-minutes of the daily
lessons and followed with a discussion of the relevant features of the delivery. On Day 1
we focused on reinforcement of appropriate behavior. On Day 2 we focused on signals
and student unison responses. On Day 3 error correction procedures and on Day 4 we
focused on making sure that we were following the daily lesson plans properly). (3) One
additional week of observing the educators during instruction and providing feedback
regarding the particular points that they needed to emphasize or modify. After the
training took place, all trainers where encouraged to share any particular concerns. When
necessary, problems were discussed and adequate solutions developed.
Two bilingual graduate students from the college of education at the University of
Oregon were recruited to conduct all the assessments required in this study. Because
these students were already proficient in the use of the assessment instruments, a two
hour training to review the specific procedures applicable to this study was conducted on
an individual basis. Random observations of the fidelity of the treatment implementation
were conducted. Both graduate students were trained and obtained competency on the use
of an observation form.
40
Measurement
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables that were examined consisted of early literacy skills in
Spanish, measured with IDEL measures of phonological awareness (PA) and alphabetic
principle (AP). Early literacy skills are operationally defined as the foundational skills
that facilitate reading proficiency, which in this study included: a) phonological
awareness or the ability to hear and manipulate sounds, and b) alphabetic principle
including alphabetic understanding or the mapping of print to speech and the
phonological recoding of letter strings into corresponding sounds and blending stored
sounds into words. (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 1998; National Research
Council, 1998; Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998; as cited in Good, Gruba, & Kaminski,
2002).
IDEL measures were given to all students once a week to identify their rate of
growth and level of performance across both baseline and intervention phases. In addition
to the measures described above, DIBELS and IDEL measures of letter naming fluency
(LNF/FNL), were given at the beginning and end of the study to compare student's level
of performance in English and Spanish before and after the intervention.
DIBELS and IDEL are effective and valid measures of early English and Spanish
literacy skills. Brief descriptions of Phoneme Segmentation Fluency / Fluidez en la
Segmentaci6n de Fonemas, and Letter Naming Fluency / Fluidez en el Nombramiento de
las Letras measures follow:
41
a) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de
Fonemas (FSF) are measures of phonological awareness. The PSF and FSF are
individually administered subtests ofthe DIBELS and IDEL measures. The
examiner orally presents words of three to five phonemes. The student is asked to
produce verbally the individual phonemes for each word. After the student
responds, the examiner presents the next word, and the number of correct
phonemes produced in one minute determines the final score. The numeric scale
of PSF scores range from "0" to "77" with "0" meaning the complete absence of
PSF skills, and "77" a well-developed FSF skill. The numeric scale ofFSF scores
ranges from "0" to "105" with "0" meaning the complete absence of FSF skills,
and "115" a well-developed FSF skill (all numeric scales are for first grade
measures).
b) Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) and Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS)
measure alphabetic understanding. NWF and FPS are individually-administered
subtests ofthe DIBELS and IDEL measures that require the student to rapidly
decode nonsense words that have no meaning in English and Spanish. After the
student is presented with a page of printed nonsense words (e.g. "tole" and
"capll") he/she is asked to say aloud the sound of each letter in the word or read
the whole word. The total number of letter-sound correspondences and the
number of whole words produced by the student correctly in one minute are
recorded by the tester. NWF scores range from "0" to "142" letter-sound
correspondences, with "0" meaning the complete absence ofNWF skills, and
42
"142" a well-developed NWF skill. FPS scores range from "0" to "148" letter-
sound correspondences, with "0" meaning the complete absence of FPS skills,
and "148" a well-developed FPS skill (all numeric scales are for first grade
measures).
c) Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) and Fluidez en el Nombramiento de las Letras
(FNL) are an individually administered subtests of the DIBELS and IDEL
measures. During this test students are presented with a page of upper- and lower-
case letters arranged in a random order and are asked to name as many letters as
they can. Students are told if they do not know a letter they will be told the letter.
The student is allowed 1 minute to produce as many letter names as he/she can,
and the score is the number of letters named correctly in 1 minute.
Observer Agreement for Dependent Variables
The principal investigator used both DIBELS and IDEL measures to conduct a
total inter-observer agreement test in two consecutive probes for each test applied. The
principal investigator worked independently with each data collector to conduct a total
inter-observer agreement, which was calculated by dividing the smaller total (words,
phonemes, or letter sounds correspondence) by the largest total, and multiplying it by
100%. Both data collectors obtained competency on the use of both DIBELS and IDEL
measures and were in agreement with principal investigator more than 95% of the time.
43
Independent Variables
The independent variable that was tested was the indicated intervention which
consisted of direct and explicit instruction of Spanish early literacy skills (particularly
phonological awareness, and alphabetic principle skills) with the use of the "Templates"
for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction designed by Peinado, Baker, & Rogers,
(2006). The TEDES1 logic consists of a three-step teaching process: demonstration model
("I do it"), guided practice ("We do it"), and independent practice ("You do it"). Spanish
early literacy skills were introduced at two different points in time for each of the
participants in the following order: PA by itself, and PA and AP combination. Appendix
E provides the reader with a sequence of teaching events and systematic teacher actions.
Fidelity ofImplementation
A check list (see Appendix F) for the accurate implementation of the TEDES1
was developed in order to measure the intervention's implementation effects. Graduate
students were trained and obtained competency on the use of this checklist before he/she
conducted random observations of treatment fidelity. This checklist was designed to
identify if particular aspects of the intervention were in place, including proper use of
templates, correct implementation of daily lesson plans, adequate use of signals and
correction procedures, and adequate pace of instruction. Additionally, this instrument
gathered some information regarding student engagement through the use of a
momentary interval observation procedure conducted during the 20 minute observation.
44
A similar instrument was design to conduct observations during the small curriculum
practice that occurred during baseline (see Appendix G). Appendix H provides a
description for the use of these checklists as well as the operational definitions of the
observed variables.
A total of six random observations were conducted during the small group
template practice. Results ofthese observations indicated that while two ofthe
interventionists correctly followed the daily lesson plans, used adequate signals and
corrections procedures, and had an adequate pace of instruction, the other interventionist
used signals inconsistently and did not provide adequate correction procedures. This
interventionist was immediately removed from his current training group and placed in
the group that already had received the intervention for about 6 weeks, which could
potentially explain the drop that these students displayed during the last 5 weeks they
remained on the intervention. Due to limited resources we were unable to conduct enough
observations of the small curriculum practice group to make any concrete conclusions
about any potential differences on instruction. A total of two observations were
conducted with this group, which indicated that even though they were following daily
lesson plans, they were not using adequate signals and correction procedures, their pace
of instruction was slower than the treatment group, and they did not seem to have clear
academic and behavioral expectations.
45
Design and Procedures
This study employed a single-subject multiple baseline across subjects design,
with three tiers (four students for each tier), and two phases (baseline and intervention).
Because we had four students for each tier that participated in baseline and intervention
phases at three different points in time, four replications of the design were available.
Students were assigned to their treatment group at random. At Week 5, students in Tier 1
started the intervention phase and the other students in Tiers 2 and 3 remained on
baseline. The students who continued on the baseline phase served as a comparison group
for the students who were in the intervention phase. At Week 8 students in Tier 2 started
the intervention while students in Tier 3 remained on baseline. At Week 13 all students
were receiving the intervention, all in separate groups, with different teachers, and at the
same time ofthe day.
Baseline Procedures
In this phase, the PA and AP skills of all participants were measured with the
IDEL measures once a week, this included PSF, & NWF. Additional observations of the
implementation of small group curriculum practice activities were conducted at random
with all the groups. The duration of this phase was 5 weeks for Tier 1 (Tl), 8 weeks for
Tier 2 (T2), and 12 weeks for Tier 3 (T3).
46
During baseline all participants received typical Spanish reading instruction in
their classrooms. This consisted of small group curriculum practice provided by the
general education teacher and/or the instructional assistant. The structure of the small
group curriculum practice consisted ofdaily lesson plans developed by the lead teacher to
provide 20 minutes of small group structured instruction. The daily lesson plans were
based on the academic goals of the current curriculum used in the students' classroom.
Appendix I provides a sample of a three day sequence of daily lesson plans designed to
provide small curriculum practice.
Intervention Procedures
After four weeks on baseline, T1 started the intervention phase, which lasted for
the remaining time of the study (15 weeks). T2 started intervention four weeks later when
an effect of the intervention was observed in at least one student in Tl. T3 started the
intervention at Week 12 of the study and received the intervention for the remaining three
weeks. Intervention phase activities consisted of 20 minutes of small group template
practice four days a week. Daily lesson plans were developed to provide 20 minutes of
small group template practice and they were based on the curriculum that recruited
schools were currently using to provide Spanish instruction; however, activities were
restructured to be introduced with the use of the Spanish "Templates". Appendix J
provides a sample of a daily lesson plan designed to provide small group template
practice.
47
In this phase, the PA and AP skills of all participants were measured with the
IDEL measures once a week just like they were conducted during baseline. Additional
observations of the implementation of small group "Templates" practice activities were
conducted at random with all the groups. The duration of this phase was 10 weeks for Tl,
6 weeks for T2, and 3 weeks for T3.
Data Analysis
Data from this study were analyzed using both visual and statistical methods to
identify whether a functional and significant relationship exists between the use of the
"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction and an increase on the early
literacy skills of kindergarten bilingual English language learners. First, data were
graphically depicted in a multiple baseline across subjects design. Four replications of a
three- tier, two phases (baseline and intervention), multiple baseline across subjects
design were examined. Two scores (FPS correct letter sounds, and FPS words recoded
correctly) were examined for each subject. Intervention was provided in three groups
with four subjects in each group. Subjects were assigned to replication based on their
initial FPS score. Each replication enabled a visual analysis of change in growth across
the phases (baseline vs. intervention phases) in the study on measures of phonological
awareness and alphabetic understanding. Regression lines and slopes were added to the
graphs to facilitate visual analysis. Second, a statistical analysis of the data was
conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Raundenbush & Bryk, 2002).
48
Levell of the model was a within-subject regression discontinuity design. Level 2 of
the model was a null model with no between-subjects effects modeled.
The visual methods for the analysis of single-subject data consist of horizontal
and vertical analyses that are crucial to determine whether there is a functional
relationship between implementation of the independent variable and increase in the
dependent variable (Homer & Albin, 2005). During horizontal analyses each student's
performance in baseline is compared with his/her performance during intervention. This
analysis consists of analyzing changes in level, trend, and variability. Change in level
refers to the average of the data within a condition and it is typically calculated as the
mean. According to Kennedy (2005), attending to the level of data allows for the
estimation of the central tendency of the data and for the comparison of patterns between
phases.
Trend refers to the slope of the best-fit straight line that can be placed over the
data within a phase. In order to interpret the effects of trend, changes in slope and
magnitude must be considered (Kennedy, 2005). Slopes can be positive or negative; a
positive slope is one in which the data points are increasing in value within a phase. A
negative slope is just the opposite. The magnitude of a trend refers to the size or extent of
the slope (e.g., a high magnitude slope is a rapidly increasing or decreasing patter in the
data). In our analysis a positive slope of high magnitude during intervention phases
would indicate a positive effect of the intervention; this is particularly true if a flat or
negative slope has been observed during baseline. When a positive slope has been
observed during baseline, a change in level only may not indicate an effective
49
intervention. Instead an increase in the magnitude of the slope would be a more
accurate estimation of effect.
Variability in data, overlap of data points, and immediacy of the effect are also
important to consider in determining whether a functional relationship exists between the
variables of interest. Variability has been defined as the degree to which individual data
points deviate from the overall trend. Kennedy (2005) refers to variability as being high,
medium, or low. When high variability (data points scattered widely around the trend
line) is observed, more data points would be required to document a consistent pattern
and/or an effect. Kennedy (2005) defines overlap "as the percentage or degree to which
data in adjacent phases share similar quantitative values" (p. 204). In general when data
does not overlap between phases a functional relationship can be established; however, in
cases when overlap is not present but a continuous similar trend is observed between
phases, then trend analysis overrides the importance of overlap. This is particularly
important in our data because in most cases the percent of non-overlap was low, however
positive upward trend was observed in both baseline and intervention phases in some of
the participants. Immediacy of effect refers as to how quickly a change in the data pattern
is produced after the phase change; it can be described as rapid or slow. When a quick
change in the pattern of the data is observed a rapid immediacy of effect is determined.
During vertical analyses a student's performance is compared to that of his/her
peers in the same replication who were held stable in a condition as the student's
condition changed. All the elements of horizontal analysis also assist in this
interpretation. In a multiple baseline design we expect to identify at least three
50
demonstrations of the effect at three different points in time (across subjects) to
establish a functional relationship between the independent and dependent variables. An
effect is demonstrated if changes in the dependent variable occur only when the
independent variable is introduced across subjects. By comparing changes in phases
across participants, multiple baseline designs control for history and maturation as threats
to the internal validity of the effect.
Furthermore, in order to aid our interpretation of data we used IDEL's
kindergarten benchmark goals from middle and end of the year assessments (Benchmark
scores can be found on Appendix K). IDEL's benchmark assessments assist with the early
identification of students that are at potential risk for developing the basic skills to
become proficient readers. Three different risk categories can be identified: low, some,
and at risk. Also when students fully develop a basic reading skill the benchmark
assessment indicates that by using the term "established"; this means that students are
ready to move into the next basic reading skills. For kindergarten FPS middle ofthe year
assessment 0-9 points indicates at risk, 10-19 indicates some risk, and 20 or above
indicates low risk. For kindergarten FPS end of the year assessment, 0-29 indicates at
risk, 25-34 indicates some risk, and 35 and above indicates low risk. For kindergarten
FSF middle of the year assessment 0-14 points indicates at risk, 15-29 indicates some
risk, and 30 or above indicates low risk. For kindergarten FSF end of the year assessment,
0-34 indicates at risk, 35-49 indicates some risk, and 50 and above indicates established.
51
Summary
In this chapter, we described the characteristics of the students, data collectors,
and interventionist that participated in this study. We described our dependent and
independent variables and we presented the features of the design and data analysis used
to determine if the "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction had a
positive effect on the Spanish reading outcomes of bilingual English language learners. In
the next section, we will provide evidence that suggests that the intervention had a
positive effect for some but not all of the participants.
52
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of both visual and statistical analyses presented in this section is to
answer whether a functional and significant relationship exists between the use of the
"Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction and an increase on the early
literacy skills of kindergarten bilingual English language learners. Results for FPS and
FSF are discussed separately for both visual and statistical analysis.
Visual Analysis
Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS)
Results for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido are presented in Figures 4 to 7 and
Tables 3 to 6. Table 3 displays the means for baseline and intervention phases, the change
of means, and the percent of non-overlapping data for all students' scores on FPS
measures. Average FPS scores for baseline phase were 20 correct letter sounds per
minute, with participant averages ranging from 0 to 81 correct letter sounds per minute.
Average FPS scores for intervention phase were 35 correct letter sounds per minute, with
participant averages ranging from 7 to 112. Slope values and changes made in slope from
baseline to intervention are presented in Table 4.
53
Table 3
Means and Change in Means for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
Baseline Intervention Overall
Replication Change in %Non
& Tier # Names M Range M Range Meansa Overlapb
Rl Tl Samuel 13 0-23 38 22-49 25 90%
Rl T2 Alfredo 9 3-16 20 7-28 11 57%
Rl T3 Ofelia 30 8-47 50 43-55 20 67%
R2 Tl Rodrigo 9 0-15 34 24-49 25 100%
R2T2 Juan 2 0-6 10 8-14 8 100%
R2 T3 Roberto 24 12-34 32 29-36 8 34%
R3 Tl Maria 13 7-20 31 14-43 18 89%
R3 T2 Wendy 20 8-27 34 27-46 14 71%
R3 T3 Pedro 21 14-24 17 10-21 -4 67%
R4Tl Alex 10 4-17 33 18-55 23 100%
R4T2 Judith 56 31-81 92 75-112 35 71%
R4T3 Dora 32 23-45 28 23-32 -5 0%
Mean 20 35 15
a Change was calculated using the formula: M (Phase 2) - M (Phase 1)
b Percent ofNon Overlap was calculated by determining the percent of Phase 2 data
points that did not overlap with the Phase 1 range
54
Table 4
Slopes and Change in Slopes Across Phases for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
Replication Names Baseline Slopes Intervention Slope Change in Slope
& Tier #
R1 T1 Samuel 6.54 2.31 -4.23
R1 T2 Alfredo 1.76 -1.39 -3.16
R1 T3 Ofelia 3.69 -6.00 -9.69
R2 T1 Rodrigo 4.09 1.31 -2.77
R2T2 Juan -0.55 0.14 0.69
R2 T3 Roberto 1.62 -1.00 -2.62
R3 T1 Maria -2.54 2.70 5.24
R3 T2 Wendy 0.39 1.82 1.43
R3 T3 Pedro -0.37 -4.50 -4.12
R4T1 Alex 1.04 2.51 1.46
R4T2 Judith 6.13 5.21 -0.91
R4T3 Dora 0.22 -9.00 -9.22
Mean 1.84 -0.49 -2.33
55
Table 5
Criteriafor Horizontal Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment of
Intervention Effect for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
Replication Names Level Immediate Slope % ofNon Benchmark Overall
& Tier # Change Effect Change Overlap Goal Judgment
Rl Tl Samuel Yes No No Yes Yes No
Rl T2 Alfredo Yes Yes No No No No
Rl T3 Ofelia Yes No No No Yes No
R2 Tl Rodrigo Yes Yes No Yes Yes Possible
R2T2 Juan No Yes No Yes No No
R2 T3 Roberto No No No No No No
R3 Tl Maria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
R3 T2 Wendy Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
R3 T3 Pedro No No No No No No
R4Tl Alex Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
R4T2 Judith Yes No No Yes Yes No
R4T3 Dora No No No No No No
Average FPS slopes for baseline phase resulted in a 1.84 rate of growth, with
participant slope averages ranging from -2.54 to 6.54 increases. The average FPS slopes
for the intervention phase was -0.49 rate of growth, a change of -2.33 from baseline rate
ofgrowth, with participant slope averages ranging from -9.00 to 5.21. Table 5 displays all
56
the elements of the visual analysis that were used to decide whether the intervention
had an effect on students' rate of acquisition of the alphabetic principle skills.
Changes in level were defined based on a change in means score equal or greater
than 10 points. Of the 12 participants only 8 met this criterion including Samuel, Alfredo,
Ofelia, Rodrigo, Maria, Wendy, Alex, and Judith. Immediate effects were judged based
in the largest score obtained during baseline and how much this score differed from the
first three data points on the intervention. We decided that an immediate effect was
present when the difference between these numbers doubled the rate of growth obtained
in baseline and/or the values were greater than 10 points. Based on this criterion only
Alfredo, Rodrigo, Juan, Maria, and Alex demonstrated an immediate effect of the
intervention.
Changes in slope that indicated a positive effect of the intervention were defined
as scores greater than one point. According to this rule only 3 participants obtained a
change in slope greater than one point (Maria, Wendy, and Alex). Furthermore, when
looking at all replications presented in Figures 4 to 7, some variability of FPS data may
have resulted in negative slope for some participants. Overall, 3 participants, Juan, Maria,
and Pedro displayed decreasing trends on their rate of acquisition of the alphabetic
principle skills during baseline. Two participants, Ofelia and Judith displayed rapid
increasing trends and the other participants displayed slowly increasing trends during
baseline. During intervention all students in Tier 1 and 2 displayed moderate increasing
trends (one student exception); however, the four students in Tier 3 that received the
57
intervention at the end, displayed decreasing trends on their on their rate of acquisition
of the alphabetic principle skills.
Percent of non overlapping data were judged based on Scruggs and Mastropieri
(1994) criteria. They recommend greater than 70% non-overlapping data points as an
indicator of an effective intervention. Seven participants met this criterion: Samuel,
Rodrigo, Juan, Maria, Wendy, Alex, and Judith. Scores equal or greater than 35 correct
letter sound correspondences per minute in the last data point available from intervention
were the ones that met the benchmark goal. This included Samuel, Ofelia, Rodrigo,
Maria, Wendy, Alex, and Judith.
Overall, of the 12 participants that received the intervention we can only say with
confidence that there was likely a positive effect for Maria, Wendy, and Alex. Maria
demonstrated a decreasing trend (slope = -2.54), on her rate of acquisition of the
alphabetic principle skills during baseline and an increasing trend (slope = +2.70), of
moderately high magnitude during intervention. A clear immediate effect was also
observed and a change of level with a change of means of 18 points was documented (M=
13 for baseline and M = 31 for intervention). According to this data the suggested
intervention had a positive effect on Maria's rate of acquisition of alphabetic principle
skills. Maria also exceeded the end of the year benchmark goal, obtaining a score of 43
clspm.
Wendy had a slightly increasing trend during baseline (slope = +0.39) and when
the intervention started this had an immediate effect (M= 20 for baseline, and M = 34 for
intervention) and a change of level with a change of means of 14 points was documented.
58
Wendy's rate of acquisition of alphabetic principle skills during intervention had a
moderate increase (slope = +1.82). In addition, Wendy's end of the year score was 46,
indicating that she exceeded the end of the year kindergarten benchmark goal as an effect
of the intervention.
Data from Alex who took the intervention at the same time that Maria also
indicated a demonstration of the intervention effect. Alex had a positive trend (slope =
+1.04) of small magnitude during baseline, and a positive trend (slope = +2.51) of
moderate magnitude during intervention. An immediate effect was clearly observed and a
change of level with a change of means of 23 points (M = 10 for baseline and M = 33 for
intervention). It is important to observe that when Alex completed baseline he was not
making good progress toward kindergarten benchmark goals for the middle of the year
assessments, placing him at some risk status for making adequate progress toward the end
ofthe year benchmark goal of 35 clspm. When Alex received the suggested intervention
he was able to exceed this goal obtaining a score of 55 clspm.
We also believe that the intervention may have had a possible effect for Rodrigo,
whose progress during baseline on FPS measures was increasing steadily showing an
increase of 4 nonsense words read per minute through each weekly assessment (slope =
+4.09). When Rodrigo started the intervention a small immediate effect of the
intervention was observed (M = 9 baseline, and M = 34 for intervention) and a change of
level with a change of means of25 points was documented. Rodrigo's progress during
the intervention continued to increase steadily but at slower pace than the observed
during baseline (slope = +1.31). However, it is important to observe that when Rodrigo
59
completed baseline, despite the progresses made there, he still was at some risk status
for making adequate progress toward the end of the year benchmark goal of35 clspm.
The slope obtained in baseline could have been over-estimated as a result of low scores
obtained in the initial assessments. When Rodrigo received the intervention he was able
to exceed this goal obtaining a highest score of 49 clspm. His performance may represent
a small positive intervention effect.
Interestingly, some students (Samuel, and Judith) for whom we concluded that the
intervention did not have an effect, showed adequate progress and reached end of the
year benchmark goals. However, their rate of progress during intervention was slower
than the one observed at baseline. These decreases in progress could be explained by the
fact that they were already making great progress during baseline and they had already
met the end of the year benchmark goal when they started the intervention. Observing a
growth of a faster speed is difficult in such circumstances.
Results of a vertical analysis are presented in Table 6, each student's performance
is compared to that of his/her peers in the same replication who were held stable in a
condition as the student's condition changed. Three criteria were used to make a decision
of whether there was an effect of the intervention. The first criterion was the
documentation of progress made by the student that was receiving the intervention (St,
Tx progress) during the first few weeks that students in Tiers 2 and 3 remained in the
baseline. The second criterion was the documentation of lack of progress made by the
comparison students (S2, BL progress) that remained in the baseline condition. The third
criterion was an indication that the intervention had an effect on the student's rate of
60
acquisition of the alphabetic principle skills as presented in the horizontal analysis
(refer to Table 5). Of the 12 comparisons for possible replications of the effect of the
intervention, we were able to document only four effects at four different points in time.
Table 6
Criteriafor Vertical Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment ofan Effect of
the Intervention for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
Comparisons S1 Tx S2BL SI Tx Overall
Replication # Progress Progress Effect Judgment
R1 Samuel vs. Alfredo No No No No
R1 Samuel vs. Ofelia No Yes No No
R1 Alfredo vs. Ofelia No Yes No No
R2 Rodrigo vs. Juan Yes No Possible Yes
R2 Rodrigo vs. Roberto Yes Yes Possible No
R2 Juan vs. Roberto Yes No No No
R3 Maria vs. Wendy Yes No Yes Yes
R3 Maria vs. Pedro Yes No Yes Yes
R3 Wendy vs. Pedro Yes No Yes Yes
R4 Alex vs. Judith Yes Yes Yes No
R4 Alex vs. Dora Yes Yes Yes No
R4 Judith vs. Dora Yes No No No
61
Figure 4
F' Replicationfor the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Palabras Sin Sentido
Baseline Treatment
120 ,
I
I
I
I Samuel I100 III
I
80 JI
I
I
~ I
..... 60 FPS Slope == 6.54
I
FPS Slope == 2.31
=
I A.J 8,= I =# ==-... 40 I~ I • -=i q,:'=== ::::::::;::>~ 20 l~ I X~ IQ.o Io J IrI:l I~ I jI~ 0 2 3 4 : 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
=~ I
"'0 I--------------~----
= 120Q
I Alfredo IQ.o 100rI:l~
~
~ 80Q
U
"'0 60
= FPS Slope == 1.76 FPS Slope == -1.39
= 40Q
00. .~~~I •~ 20~
.....
.....
~ 0 ¥lo.:l
..... 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
~
~
~ 120 ~------------------l~ I
Q I I OfeliaU J100 I
....
I
IQ I
~ 80 II~ FPS Slope == 3.69 :FPS Slope == -6.00,.Q
e 60 ~= ~ ...Z 40 +
': j l- ~
=""0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Weeks
62
Figure 5
2nd Replicationfor the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Palabras Sin Sentido
Baseline Treatment
120
100
80
60 FPS Slope = 4.09
FPS Slope = 1.62
15
1514
14
... "...."...... ·· .. ······....··1
13
12
12
11
119
7
7
s
4
4
3
:32
2
20
40
2 :3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Weeks
63
Figure 6
]rd Replicationfor the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Palabras Sin Sentido
Baseline Treatment
'15
15
14
14
I Pedro
13
13
12
12
1110
10
FPS Slope = 1.82
/ ......~
v:::::;:r w
9
9 10 11 '12 13 14 15
•
8 : S
•
•
•
~w _
,
•I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
FPS Slope = -0.30 :FPS Slope = -4.50
I
I
,
,
•• • •. .:~.
'--...•
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
s
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
: FPS Slope = 2.70
,
,
: .<~.. <;:>,.~~..
\~~.:>
I
I
FPS Slope = 0.39
4
4
3
•
,
4 : 5
,
1... 10,.. .... __ ...
j
,
I
I
•j
•,
•,
, '
•
•
•
•,
,
, ..dt:
.&. '... •t""'....-·~"-+-'. '~i
•
•
2
2
1 :2
FPS Slope = -2.54
•
120
100
80
60
~
-=
40
=.....~ 20
l.
~
0C.
!7J I)~
c:J
= 120~
"'C
= 1000
C.
!7J
~ 30l.
l.
0 6'0U
"'C
41)
=
=0 20rfl
I
l.
~ 0
-~ 0~
-c:J 120~
l.
l. 1000
U
~ 000
l.
~ 60
.,Q
e
= 40Z
20
I) I
I)
Weeks
64
Figure 7
i h Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Alphabetic Principle Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Palabras Sin Sentido
Baseline Treatment
13 14 15
FPS Slope = 5.21
9 10 11 12
9 HI 1112 13 14 15
•
3 : 9 10 1112 13 14 1S
I
I
~-----------------,
I
I
·
,
,
,
•,
•I _
FPS Slope = 0.22 fPS Slope ~ -9.00
s
7
7
1
5
5
5
FPS Slope = 6.13
I
4 : 5
I
,-------------------
•,
I
I
I,
,
I
,
I
•I
•I
I,
•
•
•I
I,
•I
•
FPS Slope = 2.51
43
3
3
2
2
'2
1
1
FPS Slope = 1.04
120
100
SO
60
~
... 40
==.- 20~
""~ 0Q..
~ 0
~
~
= 120~
"'0
= 100Q
Q..
~ aD~
""""Q 00U
"'0 40
=
=Q 20OCJ.
I
""~ 0
...
... {)~
~
... 120~
~
"""" HJOQ
U
~ SO
Q
"" 60~
,.Q
e 40
=Z
20
0
lJ
Weeks
65
Fluidez en la Segmentacion de Fonemas (FSF)
Results for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas are presented in Figures 8 to
11 and Tables 7 to 10. Table 7 displays the means for baseline and intervention phases,
the change of means, and the percent of non-overlapping data for all students' scores on
FSF measures.
Average FSF scores for baseline phase were 38 correct phonemes per minute,
with participant averages ranging from 0 to 89 correct phonemes per minute. Average
FSF scores for intervention phase were 35 correct phonemes per minute, with participant
averages ranging from 16 to 104. Average FSF slopes (presented in Table 8) for baseline
phase resulted in a 2.66 rate of growth, with participant slope averages ranging from 0.53
to 7.13 increases. Average FSF slopes for intervention phase was -3.21 rate of growth, a
change of -5.87 from baseline rate of growth, with participant slope averages ranging
from -32.00 to 4.73.
Table 9 displays all the elements of the visual analysis that were used to decide
whether the intervention had an effect on students' rate of acquisition of the alphabetic
principle skills.
Overall, of the 12 participants that received the intervention we can only say with
confidence that there was likely a positive effect for Samuel and Alex. Of the 12
participants 9 had a change of level (Samuel, Alfredo, Rodrigo, Juan, Roberto, Maria,
Alex, Judith, and Dora) and only 2 participants (Alfredo, and Alex) had an immediate
66
Table 7
Means and Change in Means for Fluidez en la Segmentacion de Fonemas
Baseline Intervention Overall
Replication Change in %Non
& Tier # Names M Range M Range Meansa Overlapb
Rl Tl Samuel 11 0-24 33 19-51 22 70%
Rl T2 Alfredo 35 0-44 59 51-67 25 100%
Rl T3 Ofelia 55 36-75 64 34-85 9 34%
R2 Tl Rodrigo 11 4-17 38 16-70 27 80%
R2T2 Juan 24 13-37 34 19-47 10 29%
R2 T3 Roberto 43 2-63 66 60-71 23 67%
R3 Tl Maria 52 41-59 68 38-87 16 89%
R3 T2 Wendy 65 53-79 68 47-94 3 29%
R3 T3 Pedro 28 17-38 8 24-56 8 34%
R4Tl Alex 15 8-21 36 19-61 21 91%
R4T2 Judith 55 46-63 70 50-88 16 86%
R4T3 Dora 67 45-89 88 72-104 22 50%
Mean 38 35 17
a Change was calculated using the formula: M (Phase 2) - M (Phase 1)
bPercent of Non Overlap was calculated by determining the percent of Phase 2 data
points that did not overlap with the Phase 1 range
67
Table 8
Slopes and Change in Slopes Across Phases for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas
Replication Names Baseline Slopes Intervention Slope Change in Slope
& Tier #
R1 T1 Samuel 0.53 4.73 4.19
R1 T2 Alfredo 4.36 1.82 -2.54
R1 T3 Ofelia 1.01 -19.50 -20.51
R2 T1 Rodrigo 7.13 2.74 -4.39
R2T2 Juan 1.80 2.46 0.66
R2 T3 Roberto 4.19 -5.50 -9.69
R3 T1 Maria 2.60 1.61 -0.99
R3 T2 Wendy 2.27 -0.89 -3.16
R3 T3 Pedro 1.00 2.50 1.49
R4T1 Alex 2.60 2.54 -0.06
R4T2 Judith 1.74 0.92 -0.82
R4T3 Dora 2.66 -32.00 -34.67
Mean 2.66 -3.21 -5.87
effect of the intervention. A few more students met benchmark goals and obtained a
percentage of non overlapping data higher than 70%.
During baseline Samuel made very little progress on his ability to decode
phonemes (slope = +0.53). After Samuel received the intervention for a few weeks an
immediate effect of the intervention was observed and a change of level with a mean
68
change of22 points was documented (M= 11 for baseline, and M= 33 for
intervention). Samuel's progress during the intervention (slope = +4.73) was increasing
steadily and at a faster pace than the observed during baseline. Thus, the intervention had
a positive effect on Samuel's ability to decode phonemes.
Table 9
Criteriafor Horizontal Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment of
Intervention Effect for Fluidez en la Segmentacion de Fonemas
Level Immediate Slope % ofNon Benchmark Overall
Replication Change Effect Growth Overlap Goal Judgment& Tier # Names
Rl Tl Samuel Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Rl T2 Alfredo No Yes No Yes Yes No
Rl T3 Ofelia Yes No No No Yes No
R2 Tl Rodrigo Yes No No Yes No No
R2T2 Juan Yes No No No No No
R2 T3 Roberto Yes No No No Yes No
R3 Tl Maria Yes No No Yes Yes No
R3 T2 Wendy No No No No Yes No
R3 T3 Pedro No No Yes No No No
R4Tl Alex Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
R4T2 Judith Yes No No Yes Yes No
R4T3 Dora Yes No No No Yes No
69
Alex had a positive trend (slope = +2.60) of small magnitude during baseline,
and a positive trend (slope = +2.54) of the same magnitude during intervention. A large
immediate effect was clearly observed and a change oflevel with a change of means of
21 points was documented (M=15 for baseline and M= 36 for intervention). While Alex
rate of progress did not differ between phases, we would like to argue that the suggested
intervention had a positive effect on Alex's ability to decode phonemes for the following
reasons: a) a large change of means between baseline and intervention was documented
(change on M = 21), and b) Alex achieved a change of risk status from baseline to
intervention, he went from being at some risk to fully established on phonemic awareness
skills.
Interestingly, some students (Alfredo, Roberto, Maria, Wendy, Judith, and Dora)
for which we concluded that the intervention did not have an effect showed adequate
progress and reached end of the year benchmark goals; however, their rate of progress
during intervention was slower than the one observed at baseline. These decreases in
progress could be explained by the fact that they were already making great progress
during baseline and they had already met the end of the year benchmark goal when they
started the intervention. Observing a growth of a faster speed is difficult in such
circumstances.
Results of a vertical analysis are presented in Table 10 where we compared a
student's performance to that of hislher peers in the same replication who were held
stable in a condition as the student's condition changed. Of the 12 possible comparisons
70
for possible replications of the effect of the intervention we were able to document
only one effect at one different point in time.
Table 10
Criteria for Vertical Analysis Met by Participants and Overall Judgment ofan Effect of
the Intervention for Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas
Comparisons S1 Tx S2BL S1 Tx Overall
Replication # Progress Progress Effect Judgment
R1 Samuel vs. Alfredo Yes No Yes Yes
R1 Samuel vs. Ofelia Yes Yes Yes No
R1 Alfredo vs. Ofelia Yes No No No
R2 Rodrigo vs. Juan Yes No No No
R2 Rodrigo vs. Roberto Yes Yes No No
R2 Juan vs. Roberto No Yes No No
R3 Maria vs. Wendy Yes No No No
R3 Maria vs. Pedro Yes Yes No No
R3 Wendy vs. Pedro No No No No
R4 Alex vs. Judith No Yes Yes No
R4 Alex vs. Dora No Yes Yes No
R4 Judith vs. Dora Yes No No No
71
Figure 8
1st Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Phonemic Awareness Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Segmentacion de
Fonemas
120 Baseline Treatment
100
80
1514
Ofelia II
~'~\\ '+
•
13
FSF Slope = 1.82
FSF Slope = 1.01
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
,
8 : 9 10 11 12
I
I
~-----------------,,
,
•,
,
,
,
•I,
I
•
•I
I
•
·•
•
:FSF Slope = -19.50
,
•
8
7
7
6
6
FSF Slope = 4.73
•:5
,
,
------------~-----;
•,
•,
•,
,
•,
•I
f
I,
•,
~:
,
I
,
•,
•
FSF Slope = 4.36
4
3 4
2
FSF Slope = 0.53
40
20
80
60
60 .
40
20
4-
0 ..
0 1
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
120
100
9 10 11 12 1314 15s765
O+--....---,r--....--......--...-........--...,..--....--..--,......--....--......--....--...----..
o
Weeks
72
Figure 9
2nd Replicationjor the Effect oj "Templates" jor Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Phonemic Awareness Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Segmentacion de
Fonemas
15
Juan
13121110
9 1011 12 13 14 15
9
.~
FSF Slope = 4.19
7
7
5
Treatment
•,
,
•,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
: FSF Slope = 2.74,
: ./:'>~ /7
, * Ii -./;.r
,
,
FSF Slope = 1.80
432
Baseline
FSF Slope = 7.13
,
:5
,
~----------------- ,
•,
,
,
•,
•
•,
,
: FSF Slope = 2.46,
,
,
f~.<-\,~, ,... : ~ '> /*/ 2M - .... , ~\. /;-... , ~ "*,
I ~ --_.,m m. : .
(I +-...;..'......--.--......--.....--....--....--......- .........:-.---.--....,....-.....--.....--.....--.;
•
o 2 3 4 5 6 1 S: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
I
,
~~_·*---~~~·----~-l
I
,
!I Roberto I
,
,
i~
,
,
,
: 4
fSF Slope = -5.50
,
,
120
tOO
80
60
40
20 &;
0
0
120
'100
80
60
40
20 h r
1~1100
80
:i
2: j ~,/
r'
•
\) :2 3 4
Weeks
73
Figure 10
3rd Replication for the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Phonemic Awareness Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Segmentacion de
Fonemas
Baseline Treatment
13 14 15
FSF Slope = -0.89
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
9 10 11 12
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
FSF Slope = 1.00
7
7
7
6
65
......... - - --_.----... -- '"' ........ --,
I
: 5
,
~--------~~-------~,
,
I
,
I
·•
•
•,
• q :
I
•,
•I,
,
,
I
•,
•
1 I Maria
j FSF Slope = 1.61 LAt.
, ~~..-...;;;:s=:*=.;=;;a';::;:;II\j:.-d *~,
I
,
,
•
•I,
,
,
,
,
FSF Slope = 2.27
4
4
3
::.'I
2
FSF Slope = 2.60
20
60
40
100
0
0
120
100
60
60 ..
40 't'
20 •
0
0
120
100
00
60
40
20 *=
..,
0
()
Weeks
---------------
74
Figure 11
4th Replicationfor the Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction
on Phonemic Awareness Skills as Measured with Fluidez en las Segmentaci6n de
Fonemas
120
lOO
Baseline Treatment
,
FSF Slope = 0.92
9 '10 11 12 13 14 1$
~
,
: 9 10 1112 13 14 15
,
I
~---------~-----_.,,
I
,
•,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I,
,
•,
,
,
,
,
FSF Slope = 2.66 : FSFSlope = 32.00
,
.,654
FSF Slope = 2.54
,
4 : 5 6 'l {!
•L _
,
,
,
·
,
•,
: ~~. 4..~ ...~""., . ---- ')
i I \)' ~
---=+ * .,;4 : " / ~
.--- <;>P : A
•
•FSF Slope = 1.74 :
,
,
,
•,
3
zm;::;;+
,2 3
FSF Slope = 2.60
+ ,.
C'
40 .
60
80
20
O+--.--.,.--,--..,.--.--.,.--.,--..,.--,....--.,.--.,--..,.--,....----y--,
40
60
0
0
120
100
aD
60
40 Ir'
III
20
0
0
120
100
I) 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Weeks
75
Summary
Results of the visual analysis did not demonstrate a functional relationship
between the use of the "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Instruction and an increase on
the early literacy skills of kindergarten bilingual English language learners. Of the 12
intervention effects that were possible, only three were clearly documented when FPS
measures were used and only two effects were documented when FSF were used.
Furthermore, four of the 12 different points in time of possible effects of the intervention
were documented for FPS and only one for FSF. These results indicate that the
intervention did not demonstrate positive effects on the student's rate of acquisition of
alphabetic principle and phonemic awareness skills.
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)
In times when evidence-based practices are critical, HLM has been a promising
approach for the analysis for single subjects designs (Jenson, Clark, Kircher, and
Kris~ansson, 2007). HLM can augment or supplement a visual analysis of data,
especially when there are multiple replications of the design. HLM (Raudenbush & Bryk,
2002) was used to analyze the effect that the "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction had on the early literacy skills (particularly FPS and FSF) ofthe participant
kindergarten bilingual ELL students. HLM was used to compare rates of progress on
fluidez en las palabras in sentido (FPS) and fluidez en la segmentacion de fonemas (FSF)
76
between the baseline and intervention phases for students, and more importantly
between the treatment and comparison group. To examine the effect of this intervention a
regression discontinuity model was used. The HLM notations for this growth model
follows.
Model Equations
The Level I model tested the effect of the intervention and error analysis guided
by weekly assessments on students FPS skills from the baseline to the treatment phase
or
Yti = no; + nIi (time) + n2i (intervention) + n3i (time*intervention) + eli, where
Yti is the score or the student i at time t, no; is the intercept or score at time zero for the
baseline phase, nIi is the growth rate during baseline phase. Intervention is coded as an
indicator variable (i.e., baseline = 0 intervention phase = 1). Time (aw) is centered for
each subject with the phase change coded as O. For the baseline phase (a2ti= 0), the
model simplifies to:
Yti = no; + nIi (time) + e
And for the intervention phase (a21i = 1 and a31i = time), the model simplifies to
YI ; = (no; + n2) + (nIi + n3) (time) + e
77
Thus 7l"2irepresents the difference in intercept at time zero, and 7l"3irepresents
the change in slope at time zero where time zero is specific to represent the phase change
from baseline to intervention. Finally, eti is within student error. Level 1 provides within
student evaluation of the intervention effect. Table 11 illustrates the coded variables for
alti, a2li, and a31ito represent the piecewise regression for a subject who was 12 weeks in
baseline and 8 weeks in intervention (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The Level 2 model
tested the effect of the "Templates" on FPS and FSF between treatment group (n = 12) and the
comparison group (n = 12). The representation of the model follows.
Table 11
Coding Scheme for Piecewise Linear Model for Each Weekly Assessment Session
Weekly Assessments
Baseline Week Intervention Week
Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920
alIi
-11 -10.5 -9.5 -8.5 -7.5 -6.5 -5.5 -4.5 -3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
a21i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a31i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Note. alIi = time; a21i = intervention; a31i = time * intervention.
78
7fOi = {JOO + rOi
fJoo symbolizes the average scores at time zero for the baseline phase. fJ 10 is the
average growth rate during the baseline phase. The change in trajectory is of primary
interest in this study, with fJ20 representing the average change in level from the baseline
phase to the intervention phase (i.e., change in intercept at time zero). In modeling the
interaction coefficients, fJ30 symbolizes the average change in slope from baseline to
intervention phases.
There are four error terms within Level 2 of this model: rOi represents the average
error (residual) in scores at time zero for baseline phase between students, rli is the
average error (residual) in growth rate during the baseline phase between students, r2i is
the average error (residual) in the difference in intercepts at time zero between students,
and r3i represents the average error (residual) in estimating the difference in slopes
between baseline and intervention phases between students. Whereas Level 1 provided a
within student model of the results, Level 2 provides a between student model of results.
79
Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS)
Results of the FPS regression discontinuity growth model are presented in Table
12. The average predicted FPS score at Time = 0 was 26.51 clspm, which was
significantly difference from 0, t(Il) = 4.41, P < .05. Time = 0 in this study was set at the
point of change from baseline to intervention phase. Figure 12 illustrates Time = 0 for a
student within this study. This figure also reflects the intercept and slope for each
condition and shows relevant patterns by group and phase.
The average slope for all students was 1.79 during the baseline phase, which was
significantly different from 0, t(11) = 4.41,p < .05. There was no significant change in
level from the baseline to the intervention phase, t(11) = 1.24,p > .05. The change in
level was a 2.71 point non-significant increase in predicted FPS scores at the point of
transition from baseline to intervention phase. The interaction between time and
intervention phase resulted in a non-significant decrease in slope of progress of -0.40,
t(11) = -0.60,p > .05. Thus, no significant effects of intervention were documented in the
between subjects analysis.
Fluidez en la Segmentaci6n de Fonemas (FSF)
Results of the FSF regression discontinuity growth model are presented in Table
13. The average predicted FSF score at Time = 0 was 46.40 cppm, which was
significantly difference from 0, t(11) = 7.62,p < .05. Time = 0 in this study was set at the
80
Table 12
The Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction on the Early
Literacy Skill for Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
Effect Estimate SE df t-Value
Intercept 26.51 * 6.00 11 4.41
Time (Slope) 1.79* 0.62 11 2.87
Intervention Phase 2.71 2.19 11 1.24
Time*Intervention Phase -0.40 0.67 11 -0.60
*p < .05.
Figure 12
Growth Curves for Baseline and Intervention Phases on Fluidez en las Palabras sin
Sentido
120
100
80
60
40
-
-
-
20.....u
~8 0
-12 -11-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time
81
point of change from baseline to intervention phase. Figure 13 illustrates the location
of Time = 0 for a student within this study. This figure also reflects the intercept and
slope for each condition and shows relevant patterns by phase.
The average slope for all students was 2.24 during the baseline phase, which was
significantly different from 0, t(1l) = 4.04,p < .05. There was no significant change in
level from the baseline to the intervention phase, t(1l) = 1.23,p > .05. The change in
level was a 4.19 point non-significant increase in predicted FSF scores at the point of
transition from baseline to intervention phase. The interaction between time and
intervention phase resulted in a non-significant decrease in slope of progress of -1.29,
t(1I) = -1.39,p > .05. Thus, no significant effects of intervention were documented in the
between subjects analysis.
Table 13
The Effect of "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish Instruction on the Early
Literacy Skill for Fluidez en las Segmentacion de Fonemas
Effect Estimate SE df t-Value
Intercept 46.40* 6.52 11 7.12
Time (Slope) 2.24* 0.55 11 4.04
Intervention Phase 4.19 3.41 11 1.23
Time*Intervention Phase -1.29 0.93 11 -1.39
*p < .05.
82
Figure 13
Growth Curves for Baseline and Intervention Phases on Fluidez en las Segmentacion de
Fonemas
120
100
80
60
40
20
o
-12 -11-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time
Summary
The visual and statistical analyses demonstrated that using the "Templates" for
Direct and Explicit Instruction did not change the phonemic awareness and alphabetic
principle skills for most Kindergarten English language learners' students that
participated in this study. Results of the HLM analysis found no significant effects of the
intervention in the between subjects analysis. The visual analysis of single-subject
designs indicated that of the 12 subjects, only three appeared to exhibit a positive effect
83
of the intervention when measures of alphabetic principle were used and only two
when phonemic awareness measures were used. Students for whom the "Templates" did
not appear to have a positive effect were those that were already making adequate
progress while receiving the small group curriculum practice. Our study provides some
initial indication that students who are not making adequate progress with the small
group curriculum practice may potentially benefit from the use of more structured, direct,
and explicit instruction with the use of the "Templates".
84
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
In the last few years, direct instruction has been shown to be one of the most
highly effective teaching methods for a wide range of content and populations, including
students with learning disabilities (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). Using direct instruction
with a Spanish intervention program expands the benefits of this teaching method to a
new domain and to a different population of Spanish learners. Additionally, direct
instruction increases educators' access to teaching strategies and curriculum materials to
better serve this population.
The TEDESI are a new intervention that was recently developed by the Western
Regional Reading First Center under the coordination of Peinado, Baker, and Rogers
(2006). The present study was the first study to evaluate the effects of the TEDESI
intervention on the basic reading skills of bilingual kindergarten students learning to read
in Spanish. Another larger scale study using a group research design methodology is
currently being conducted at the Pacific Institute of Research at University of Oregon,
although no preliminary results are yet available.
Identifying the effects of direct and explicit Spanish instruction using the TEDESI
with bilingual English language learners was the main goal for this study. We hoped to
contribute to literacy and language development theories that specifically apply to ELL
85
and to Spanish intervention programs. Specifically, this study examined the effects of
TEDESI on the Spanish basic early literacy skills (particularly focused on phonemic
awareness and phonic skills) of Hispanic English language learner kindergarten students.
Results of both visual analysis and quantitative analysis indicated that while some
students evidenced significant increases in level (particularly for FSF) and slope (for both
FPS and FSF) over the duration of the study, the reading growth and outcomes of
students could not be clearly attributed to the direct and explicit Spanish instruction of
phonemic awareness and phonic skills with the "Templates". Ofthe twelve students that
participated in the study only five (Samuel, Rodrigo, Maria, Wendy, and Alex) appeared
to benefit from the intervention compared to their baseline performance. A common
characteristic of the students who benefited from the intervention was a lack of adequate
progress while they were receiving the baseline small group curriculum practice. Students
for whom the TEDESI did not appear to have a positive effect were those that were
already making adequate progress while receiving the small group curriculum practice
(Ofelia, Rodrigo, Roberto, Judith, and Dora). These students' skills continued growing
when they received the "Templates" intervention and while some progressed at a slower
pace they may have reached sufficient levels of skills that continuing or exceeding
baseline levels of growth was unlikely.
Thus, this study provides some initial indication that students who are not making
adequate progress with the small group curriculum practice may potentially benefit from
the use of more structured, direct, and explicit instruction with the use of the TEDESI.
The use of a single-subject methodology was particularly helpful for identifying the
86
characteristics of students for whom the TEDESI may be more effective, which could
not have been a clear outcome in a group design. However, subsequent research is needed
to evaluate this hypothesis.
The HLM approach also appeared to be valuable as an effective method for
evaluating the effects ofthe intervention. In single-subject studies, the level of statistical
analysis is often limited to visual analysis and conventional parametric analyses (e.g. t-
test and ANOVA). HLM provided an evaluation of the effects ofthe intervention,
summarized over the 12 participating students. HLM allowed the modeling of repeated
measures within subjects while also evaluating the effect of the intervention between
subjects. The HLM analysis found no significant effects of the intervention in the
between-subjects analysis. The accuracy of conclusions from the visual analysis were
enhanced with the inclusion of HLM procedures. HLM has been suggested as a
promising approach for the analysis for single-subject designs (Jenson, Clark, Kircher, &
Kristjansson, 2007). However, the use of the HLM approach with this small sample size
did not allow tests of effects with the level of power that would be available with larger
sample size.
Limitations
It is important to note several limitations to the external validity and the construct
validity of the independent and dependent variables of this study. Threats to internal
validity did not appear to be a weakness of this study. Threats to internal validity are
87
those that may threaten our ability to attribute changes in the dependent variable due to
change in the independent variable. They may include, but are not limited to: maturation,
attrition, subject selection bias, history, instrumentation, regression toward the mean, and
testing (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Threats to the external validity consist of the
extent to which the results of this specific study would apply to the real world setting.
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Threats to the construct validity relevant to our study
were those related to the manipulations due to the independent variables, particularly the
lack of representativeness and reliability that this had in our study (Cook & Campbell,
1979). Discussion of the threats to internal, external, and construct validity follows.
Threats to Internal Validity
A multiple baseline single subjects design was used in this study. The nature of
this design controls for most threats to internal validity. Maturation and history are threats
to internal validity that are controlled by implementing the intervention at different points
in time for different students, so that changes in student's performance are not likely to be
due to regularly occurring maturation processes or to history but instead can be attributed
to the intervention. Testing and subject selection bias are also threats to internal validity
that are controlled in this design with the use of vertical comparisons in the between
subjects effects. All students served as their own baseline and they all participated in
baseline and treatment procedures.
88
Attrition, instrumentation, and regression were not a plausible threat to the
internal validity of this study. Although fourteen students were originally selected for this
study, data from only twelve were used in our analysis. The two students that were not
consider to be part of the analysis did continue to receive the intervention with the other
students; however, their high number of absences compromised the analysis of treatment
effects (data was insufficient for meaningful interpretations). Instrumentation was not
considered a threat because experienced observers were hired to conduct all the required
assessments, and they were the same across all of the assessment sessions. Regression
toward the mean was not considered a threat because students were randomly assigned to
their treatment groups, they all received the intervention at different points in time, and
they were not selected on the basis of extreme scores, performance, or characteristics.
Threats to External Validity
External validity refers the extent to which the results meaningfully apply to the
real world. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether a functional
relationship existed between the use of the "Templates" for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction and an increase on the early literacy skills (phonemic awareness and phonic
skills) of kindergarten bilingual English language learners. With single-subject studies,
generalization to other subjects is addressed through multiple replications of the same
treatment and design that produce similar results for different participants.
89
Three stages of replications have been suggested before results can be
generalized to other students: direct replication, systematic replication, and clinical
replications (Homer, 2008). Direct replications are conducted by the same researcher,
with the same subjects, and in a specific setting. Direct replications are followed by
systematic replications, which involve replications conducted by different researchers,
different behaviors, or different settings. Finally, clinical replications are conducted after
systematic replications, where the developments of very specific treatment packages are
tested prior to generalization.
The current study consisted of four direct replications conducted by the same
researcher in the same setting. Results of these replications were inconsistent across
different subjects. It is imperative to clearly define the characteristic of participants for
whom this intervention could potentially be effective and conduct additional direct,
systematic, and clinical replications with other subject populations. An important next
research question may be: can we meaningfully improve basic Spanish reading skills by
using direct and explicit Spanish instruction with the "Templates" for students who are
not making adequate progress in their current intervention?
Threats to Construct Validity
Construct validity is related to the interpretation or basis of the effect that was
demonstrated in an experiment due to the specific aspects of the intervention. Threats to
construct validity include those related to the independent variables such as inadequate
90
operationalization (e.g. lack of reliability, lack of representativeness, and lack of
impact), and treatment artifacts (e.g. demand characteristics in the research setting,
experimenter expectancy effects pretest sensitization to the treatments, and order effects).
Threats to construct validity also include those related to the dependent variables such as
inadequate operationalization (e.g. lack of reliability, lack of representativeness, and lack
of sensitivity of measures), and measurement artifacts (e.g. strategic responding by the
participants).
Lack of representativeness of the independent variable was the most important
limitation to the construct validity of this study. Originally we intended to provide the
intervention for 30 minutes five days a week; however, due to time restrictions we were
only allowed to provide the intervention for 20 minutes four days a week. While the
interventionists tried to use the time to the maximum, sometimes the classroom teacher
had planned other activities that interfered with intervention activities. We believe this
reduced our ability to make a more substantial impact on the students' learning. Lack of
reliability of the independent variable was another limitation. One of the interventionists
introduced some variability in treatment that could have affected the construct validity of
our study. According with our observations this interventionist was not implementing the
intervention with fidelity (e.g. he/she was not using adequate signals, he/she was not
following the daily lesson plan properly, and his/her the pace of instruction was too slow.
While we intended to solve this problem by reassigning interventionists (no other
interventionist were available) to different groups so that the group that would be less
affected was the one that already had shown an effect of the intervention, some
91
limitations to the integrity of the independent variable could have occurred before this
event was detected. A threat to the dependent variable was the shorter length of time in
treatment phase, which could have made measures of response or change in growth less
reliable. No other threats to the construct validity of independent or dependent variables
were observed.
Implications
Although we were not able to clearly demonstrate the effects that direct and
explicit instruction has on bilingual kindergarten English language learners, a few
students appeared to make gains with the TEDESI. Other studies have demonstrated the
effects ofdirect and explicit instruction and resulting decreases in reading difficulties
(Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Juel, Minden-
Cupp, 2000; Torgesen, 2000). These studies have been conducted with a range of
students, particularly monolingual students with special needs and English language
learners at risk for reading difficulties who received treatment in English (Linan-
Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, Kouzekanani, 2003), and very few in Spanish
(Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan,
and Francis, 2006). The present study included bilingual kindergarten English language
learners, and provided instruction in the student's native language. While we were not
able to clearly demonstrate the effects of the intervention, some important lessons were
learned for future studies:
92
(a) The intervention helped some students that were not making adequate
progress with current instructional materials. This means that we need to
try to identify who the intervention is likely to work with, and we need to
treat intervention as testable hypothesis to see if it in fact works for each
student. If the intervention is proven to be effective for students that are at
risk for developing early literacy skills with current instructional materials
we can use early identification and intervention models and later use the
TEDESI as a targeted intervention. Examples of these models include the
Outcomes Driven Model (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2002), the Problem
Solving Model (Deno, 1989), and Three Tier Models for primary,
secondary, and tertiary prevention for academic or Response to
Intervention (RTI) model (Gresham, VanDerHeyden, & Witt, 2005;
Kame'enui, Good, & Ham, 2005) and behavioral problems (Horner,
Sugai, Todd, & Palmer, 2005), which were fully described in the literature
section of this paper.
(b) Use a multiple baseline approach with two tiers on a much larger time.
The current study used a multiple baseline approach with three tiers; while
four tiers are typically recommended in order to document three
demonstrations of the effect at three different points in time, we can also
have such demonstrations if we have multiple baseline designs with two
tiers that last a much longer time; however, it will be necessary to conduct
more replications as demonstrated in this study. In our study, due to time
93
limitations, students that received the intervention at the end (third tier)
did not receive it for enough time to interpret their response accurately.
(c) Continue using weekly assessments. Weekly assessments seem to be an
effective approach to measure the progress that students make across
baseline and interventions phases. Initially we considered having two
assessments sessions a week, however, this could have caused more
logistical challenges and taken valuable time from intervention. A
limitation of our weekly assessment consisted of the initial and final
sessions where most students performed poorly. Future researchers may
consider disregarding initial and final assessments or plan better
conditions for the final assessment (e.g. not have it during the last week of
classes).
(d) Analyzing single-subject results with a quantitative approach such as
HLM seemed to augment the visual analysis. This quantitative approach
seemed to provide a valuable way to evaluate the effects of an intervention
conducted with replications of a single-subject design. HLM and visual
analysis seemed to complement each other in evaluating treatment effects.
However, some may argue that visual analysis approaches are not as
accurate at representing the effect that the intervention had on students'
reading outcomes.
94
Conclusions
The visual and statistical analyses demonstrated that using the "Templates" for
Direct and Explicit Instruction did not change the phonemic awareness and alphabetic
principle skills for most Kindergarten English language learner students that participated
in this study. Results of the HLM analysis found no statistically significant effects of the
intervention in the between subjects analysis. The visual analysis of single-subject
designs indicated that of the 12 subjects, only three appeared to exhibit a positive effect
of the intervention when measures of alphabetic principle were used and only two when
phonemic awareness measures were used. Students for whom the "Templates" did not
appear to have a positive effect were those that were already making adequate progress
while receiving the small group curriculum practice. These students' skills continued
growing when they received the "Templates" intervention and while some progressed at a
slower pace they may have reached a sufficient level of skills that continuing or
exceeding baseline levels of growth was unlikely. It is also possible that this type of
instruction with the TEDESI was not engaging for them. These kindergarten students
were for the most part used to dynamic activities that involved games and "hands on"
activities. Therefore, the use of direct and explicit instruction that requires their complete
attention and frequent response may not have been appropriate for them.
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF PARENTAL CONSENT
95
96
Dear parents,
Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by me, Fatima Elvira
Rogers, from the University of Oregon, School Psychology Program. I am a doctoral
student who is very interested in learning more about how children learn to read in
Spanish. I am currently conducting my dissertation study, and your child's school and
teacher has agreed to participate. The purpose of my research is to find out more about
how to provide effective Spanish reading instruction to Spanish speaking children.
The study will last 18 weeks total, starting at the end of January and ending in the middle
of May. If your child participates, he/she would be randomly assigned to one of three
different treatment groups that will receive 20 minutes of daily direct and explicit
Spanish instruction with a newly designed method. Each group will start treatment at
different times and remain on it until the end of the study. Before and after the treatment
all children will be assessed with reading tests that will take approximately 5 minutes.
Additional weekly or biweekly reading assessments that take approximately 3 minutes
each (two a week) will be conducted to all children for a period of seventeen weeks
starting at the end of January. For these tests, students will be asked to read words and
sounds.
No significant risks have been associated with this study, with the exception of any
nervousness your child may experience while taking the reading test. Precautions have
been taken to ensure confidentiality of all student participants. Your child's performance
on these tests will not affect the grades your child receives at school. Results from this
study will be used to help teachers provide better instruction to children who are learning
to read in Spanish. Students will receive a small reward for participating (e.g., pencils,
stickers).
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with your child will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission.
Your child's identity will be kept confidential by the use of subject numbers to identify
student test scores, rather than student names.
Your child's participation is voluntary. The decision to not have your child participate in
this project will not affect you, or your child's, relationship with their teacher or with the
school. If you have any questions, please call or email Fatima Rogers
(frogers@uoregon.edu, 541-302-5866) or Roland Good, my advisor at University of
Oregon (rhgood@uoregon.edu, 541-346- 2897). Also, there is an office at the University
of Oregon (the Office for Protection of Human Subjects, 541-346-2510) that you can call
if you have questions about your child's rights when participating in a research project
(541-346-2510). Please keep additional copy of this letter for your records and send
the signed document in the provided envelop.
Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information
provided above and that you willingly allow your child to participate. You may
withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty.
I give consent for my child (name) to participate in this study.
Print Parent/Legal Guardian name: _
Parent/Legal Guardian Signature: _
Date
----------
97
APPENDIXB
SCOPE AND SEQUENCE FOR
TEMPLATES FOR DIRECT AND EXPLICIT SPANISH INSTRUCTION
98
-----------------------------------------_._._.._...
99
Scope and Sequence for Templates
# Tile Skill
1 Guide to teach blending syllabus Phonemic Awareness
lA Example to teach blending syllabus Phonemic Awareness
2 Guide to teach blending sounds Phonemic Awareness
2A Example to teach blending sounds Phonemic Awareness
3 Guide to teach blending sounds and syllabus Phonemic Awareness
3A Example to teach blending sounds and syllabus Phonemic Awareness
4 Guide to teach segmenting words into syllabus Phonemic Awareness
4A Example to teach segmenting words into syllabus Phonemic Awareness
5 Guide to teach segmenting words into sounds Phonemic Awareness
5A Example to teach segmenting words into sounds Phonemic Awareness
6 Guide to teach letter names -
6A Example to teach the name of the letter "m" -
6R Guide to review the letter names -
7 Guide to teach letter sounds Phonics
7A Example to teach the sound of the letter "m" Phonics
7R Guide to review letter sounds Phonics
8 Guide to teach blending sounds and syllabus Phonics
8A Example to teach blending sounds and syllabus Phonics
9 Guide to teach the continuous blending of letter sounds Phonics
9A Example to teach the continuous blending of letter Phonics
sounds
10 Guide to teach spelling and writing words Phonics
lOA Example to teach spelling and writing words Phonics
11 Guide to teach reading whole words Fluency
llA Fist example to teach reading whole words Fluency
12 Guide to teach reading a sentence Fluency
12A Example to teach reading a sentence Fluency
13 Guide to teach fluency reading: Basic level Fluency
13A Example to teach fluency reading: Basic level Fluency
14 Guide to teach fluency reading: Intermediate level Fluency
14A Example to teach fluency reading: Intermediate level Fluency
15 Guide to teach fluency reading: Advanced level Fluency
15A Example to teach fluency reading: Advanced level Fluency
APPENDIXC
EXAMPLE TO TEACH THE SOUND OF THE LETTER "Mil
100
Tarjeta #78 Ejemplo para ensefiar el sonido de la letra "m" Fonetica
Kinder Tema2 Semana 1 I Dia2 I pagina T20
Actividad Enseftar el sonido de 1a 1etra "m".
Preparaci6n Tenga 1ista 1a tarjeta de Mara Mariposa.
Sefiales Ha~a DUta
Enfoque Muestre 1a tarjeta de Mara ;,Sonido?
Mariposa Immmi
Espere 1 6 3 segundos.
Sefial Toque debaio de 1a 1etra*.
*Para sonidos cortos (fbi, Id/, Ich/, Ig/, Ij/, Ik/, Ift/, Ip/, It!) toque
debajo de 1a 1etra por 1 segundo, para sonidos continuos toque
debajo de 1a 1etra por 3 segundos.
1. Explicaci6n (Muestre 1a tarjeta.) Mara Mariposa empieza con la letra "erne". El
sonido de esta letra es (Toque debajo de 1a 1etra*.) Immm/. Cuando
toque debajo de la letra quiero que me digan el sonido (enfatice "e1
sonido") de la letra hasta que yo la deje de tocar.
2. Demostraci6n Mi turno. (Ponga su mano en e1 pecho.) El sonido de la letra "erne" es
(Espere 1 segundo y toque debajo de 1a 1etra.) Immm/.
3. Practica de la Ahora todos. (Muestre 1a tarjeta.) ;,Sonido? (Espere 1 segundo y toque
maestrayel debajo de 1a 1etra.) Immm/.
grupo
4. Practica de (Apunte a los estudiantes.) Ahora ustedes. (Muestre 1a tarjeta.)
grupo ;,Sonido? (Espere 1 segundo y toque debajo de 1a 1etra.) Immmi. De
nuevo. (Muestre 1a tarjeta.) ;,Sonido? (Espere 1 segundo y toque debajo
de 1a 1etra.) Immm!
5. Turnos (Llame a los estudiantes en un orden impredecib1e. Escoja con mas
individuales frecuencia a estudiantes que hicieron errores.) Turnos individuales.
Maria. (Muestre la tarjeta.) ;,Sonido? (Espere 1 segundo y toque debajo
de 1a letra.) Immm!
6. Correcci6n (Ponga su mano en e1 pecho.) Mi turno. (Muestre 1a tarjeta.) ;,Sonido?
Corrija los (Espere 1 segundo y toque debajo de 1a letra.) Immm/.
errores (Apunte a toda 1a c1ase, aunque s610 un individuo haya hecho e1 error.)inmediatamente
despues de que Ahora ustedes. (Muestre 1a tarjeta.) ;,Sonido? (Espere 1 segundo y
los estudiantes toque debajo de 1a 1etra.) Immmi. jSi, Immm/!
los cometan. Maria. (Muestre 1a tarjeta.) ;,Sonido? (Espere 1 segundo y toque
debajo de 1a 1etra.) Immmi. jMuy bien, Immm/!
101
APPENDIXD
GUIDE TO REVIEW LETTER NAMES
card #1 f
St~
Template for letter Recognition (Name) Revili!w
E,x~nattonlSaipt
SIGNAliNG f'Roa:OUht
U"i(' <lff"i!Jr.nptiate to elilfil f(X;u!'i.
(jnt~I<;!u(~'r:f; fe<4D1<~;
Wa.:ittime
IISigflaj;i(;St;a~i
J!r~~
~.tp Undl.'~f
ieiter ,
I. fXPlAfN TASk
BfI{'fl.,. fl(llff!le {l~ f?J1IJloln
the taSk l(l~~enl$ j)flf)f
tD ~.r1d~Lll1'"l ttN: <f(l~"'jt,'f,
1" MOIJEl RESPONSE
f','fxj,J<1 ('klSi!l'~ n:','4.ipDH<.e [0
l~'e t~ "'lths€·.>eN'l~
E");a!l'i~~~!NJ ~IDq~mQ
prc:o::et.1ur€! <!~e,
J. MOVIL)f~lCE
USING WHOlf·GROitJiP
RESPONSES UNTIL
KNOWlSlGE ftPPEARS
TO BE SOU0
tKl? ~l;'{t"''lf' <jig"1alllllq.
a~'.Iflrtonn{\\, dlj(j gl'(tCi~
prOCOO1jres.
4. CORRfCTION
PtitO(£l)UR[
ISay. You'te gQJftg toP'act~Silyirt(J the nhlll.es ftx SQme
I NtltCf'£ Whe.fJ lpi.1int t" tlte kft 01,/I0tm1'.. (9rlft! Olit too
I~ in YtJUI bt:Ntd. Shy~ II~JJteoftlw Jel'lCffwl1@n 1 t.Jjp
!u~lt,
I(~..Il;M7lI'f th:e f~ ({ll,J~~rj hrn~ V'C'iJ do tnJ', b!"mrlti~I'J
I Si,;)y: 111m~ for you how to 5oi'l'y the IItllmJ oftne fir'Sit~
llettet!$, ,Ny tum.
i Ml;,x~el f1;W !itutrefn:s, lJ5lr.g t1'le s~n<}l!f~ 1J!l{j(,\l(jU1'~ abtPlf', ',f~ {!'Illy
1leather ~e;~l€Jl1l9"
!
Is.:s.,.; E~ch limt~ I tDp undtu.J I'tJtt". yt1U say tlie nameofthe
I k!lter. YOYI'IYIiJ.i Pn:}Wle ipr.lct~~ u",nlJ ~~'~;lOO¥e tlfi;X;l:rt1ure i'Yllh (*'11-,'
i 9tM~tS 1e;;W)ir)(i1I!'~),
I
1
IITo {:j:wI(:d 'ilu(f,enls.
HyttnIJ.
11Jse ~1'h}lrtl~~ ')f(;I(,('wrt' ilit)IJ\'t' Itilith ("mil' ~e~;hl.':'( f(1"'i~nd\jfftj [0
" ((;;fTOO m)t1~Nlts {If' mr;;:~'i.1 i~f,1":rn
I Say: Ywr tum.
I t~ $lI'Jfl4l!ln~ r*OC<OOilIif~ a~" ....,tt. 00%'1 'stmlt..t~t.s f1?CJt){'wKltntt ~I)
I! t\,d~1i' t~:rn if~3t C{Ji'rea f5t."N)n~;e (or t'lf?tSh6'j l~e(n., Bt1lt. 'Up l)Wl dl'M~ {cmtmue,
!
'''/11(:11 it ~~itNj;I';, th.Jt tl~ gfOUp fl. (ff.:m'¥t5b'~'~U'l!' ..lfP,W€'if1;);\} at! lCf."m5
(Off'i¥tUy. i)fo't!!d~ l!'l\wichJ<l1 hl~n'S ~¥ (l' chi)'d: (An Of! """\rl'faJ:
sttl1t1~tf. Wor t~ ~Ui'ff';1tt;, (a'1l 011 'i4TM;~mf> ,0 illTh lIAplOOi!(labll'"
~f' C,aillTlOf€ ffeo(t~~J¥ ()iff st<jJden~;,; wtl<Jrrliill:I~" (i'(W()f1"
APPENDIXE
TEACHING SEQUENCE
102
Weeks Skills Templates Activities Goal
I
!
1-2 Phonics #7, Letter sounds Students got familiar with
templates formats for the purpose
of learning the use of teacher signs
and developing easy with unison
#6: Letter names responses and waiting time. Letter
sounds and letter names were
introduced.
3-4 Phonics #7, Letter sounds Students continued learning new
#6: Letter names letter sounds and new letter names.
Phonemic #1, Syllable blends Students learned and built fluency
Awareness #2, Individual sounds on how to blend two syllable
blends words into individual sounds and
into syllables.
5-6 Phonics #7, Letter sounds Students continued learning new
#6: Letter names letter sounds and new letter names.
#8, Blending sounds Students learned blending sounds
and syllabus into syllabus to read words.
Writing #10, Spelling and Students began writing words and
writing had some practice with their
reading.
7-8 Phonics #7, Letter sounds Students continued learning new
#6: Letter names letter sounds and new letter names.
#8, Blending sounds Students began having fluency
and syllabus with blending sounds into syllabus
to read words.
Writing #10, Spelling and
writing Students continued writing words
and had some practice with their
reading.
9-10 Phonics #7,Lettersounds Students continued learning new
#6: Letter names letter sounds and new letter names.
Phonemic #8, Blending sounds Students become fluent with
Awareness and syllabus blending sounds into syllabus to
read words.
# 10, Spelling and Students continued writing words
writing and had some practice with their
reading.
APPENDIXF
FIDELITY CHECK LIST FOR TEMPLATE PRACTICE
Cbeddht fOir the Illlp~meltajtiOOl ofSmall Group Templati!5 Pn,dire
103
O~E~er _
D!te; _
KEY:
TemnlareiCu:rricu:lum Practire
l'fJlChef oehJl\'ius Bt-h.nton Stu.demt
#2
Beu\lQn Stlldtllit
#3
El\lll1 }"kr~t~y Imm-;:;il ;Y£
~1I»::.t
D
MD
J\~~1uyImm-;iJ :of
Enp';<m=t
',00 «!" til"
Coding
~~fI'i~il r.f.
~Zi~1l3iI1t
W' 4ttK'
F F= Feedback
APPENDIXG
FIDELITY CHECK LIST FOR SMALL CURRICULUM PRACTICE
Cheddh' for th~ Impl€'meutatiol1 of Sm." Group Curriculum Prnc-rlee
104
Date: _
Ob-:.elver: _ Lesson ":: _
KEY: ,J = Ob::.er.red blank = not ob'...rred N:A= not apptLcJble
Racia:e: Comments
D
Mf)
I
Mlil'll.eZlIih1' 3o.tF.!'\'al of
Ell§agemEl:.l
i z:r 1((' iN!
!>{.~!lm!;?J;t bt;:n'a1 of
E.~emmr
Z:' '0 60"
Coding
Beha'1rWf:! StIldent
#3
~fumeu;l'1r}' mMi'Mof
EDZiJS:2llle:llI
::rt - - ,1C-~ 67'
EC
l'
MD= MO,a,,]i.!lg
E( =En'ol' conectiO!.1
E= Engage!:lleut
105
APPENDIXH
CHECKLIST FOR DIRECTIONS AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
Checklist Directions and Operational Definitions
Directions:
Use the check list to observe the teacher and three students and record the frequency and
momentary interval of the following occurrences:
Teacher giving directions
Teacher's modeling and/or presentation of instruction (MD)
Teacher's error correction (EC)
Teacher's feedback (F)
Target students engagement time (E, in a momentary interval recording)
Students (U) unison responses.
NOTE: Operational definitions to each of the behaviors are provided at the end of this
section, but any adjustments can be made according to someone's judgment.
Notice that the observation form has been divided into three sections: a list of
items to be rated, the teacher behaviors, and student behaviors. Before starting the
frequency and interval recording for teacher and student behaviors, the observer needs to
observe and rate the list of items provided on the top of the document. The observer
would come back to those at the end of the observation to complete any missing
responses. After completing the item list, the observer needs to start the timer and begin
with the teacher and student simultaneous observation. During the first minute the
observer watches the first student and places a tally mark in the corresponding box if he
or she was engaged at any time during the observation, also at the same time the observer
records any behavior (from the list provided above) that teacher emits by placing a tally
mark on the space provided for such element. After the first minute the observer moves
shifts to observe student number two and continues observing teacher (same procedure
for student number three). At minute four the observer comes back to student number one
and follows the same process. The total time of this part of the observation is 15 minutes.
Before ending the observation the observer take notes and makes comments of any
relevant points, he/she also verifies that the item list on top of the checklist have been
copleted.
Operational definitions of specific behaviors:
Directions: The teacher reads the specific directions provided in the template or text
book.
Example: Today we are going to learn how to blend syllabus sounds to read
106
Example: Today we are going to learn how to blend syllabus sounds to read
words. First I am going to tell you how to do it and then you would do
it yourself.
Non-example: Teacher shows word card and says: /ma! /pa!, word? mapa, now
is your tum.
Modeling (MD): Instruction presented or modeled by the teacher to the whole class.
Example: Teacher lectures using overhead projector. Teacher models how to
hold a pencil (computer, calculator, etc.) in front of the class.
Non-example: Student stands in front of class and shows a treasure.
Error Correction (EC): It consists of any verbalization the teacher uses to indicate an
incorrect response, and it is usually followed by a correct one. During small template
practice it should contain all the steps provided on template.
Example: The student makes a mistake and the teacher immediately stop the
lesson and says: "My tum", the word is "mapa". What word?
Non-example: Teacher informs student that the word was incorrect, that talking
is not allowed during instructional time, or other behavior not
academically related..
Feedback (F): Consists of teacher's verbalizations (or material tokens) to praise accuracy
or quality of work and/or appropriate behavior.
Example: Teacher says: "Good work everybody"
Non-example: Teacher says: "It is time for lunch, everybody get ready".
Engagement (E): Student looks at the teacher while he/she is talking, reads silently at
desk, completes hislher works sheets, ask teacher academic related questions.
Example: Student is taking notes while teacher presents lecture.
Non-example: Student gets up from his/her desk while teacher presents lecture.
Unison Responses (U): All students respond at the same time to the teacher's request or
cue.
2. .earn (0 assciClale I~tt~f.i iI"",lj3Quncs (Eli teJ, Ee.)
L _earn name a"o souM coHre se:te" Ee iAAmatsd-A.iphH}
4. Teeeher asks ~luderb to C:iIDf the mmal In :he s:u::!en: s~.
2. TeacMr asks sludem ro1i~d al1t'e 1eti«S "Ee" jr t"E! s1Ldeltvrof" sheet
~
Gi
trJ
tJ
>
>-<
r
trJ
rn
rn
0
Z
'i:I
r
~
rn
trJ >10
'i:Ie 'i:I
trJ ~Z
n tJ
>-<trJ
><
---- >-<rn
~
r
r
n
e
~
n
e
r
e$:;
'i:I
~
n
>-3
>-<
n
-
trJ
0
-..l
FcctrS wmjs
L~lrc ce lectura:
Day. ~'~nda'}'r..U"lber ~H.eclurHTl
Small (urrinlmJl Pl'al'tlr~ Di1il~rLes;oE Plan
Pf(lce,:a23
1. Testher '!l3eS Cd 10preselt1he s.;:n~ f3f t"e eterE. Siuden:s ~~g song
a(:f\~ v,oj';1l the leanl"
3. Tea<:her asks students to e:~r1 all the letters 'Ee' iJlhe sw:len! IVJrl;
shee':. Later sluce:'ls share tle fesd1s wilt !he tearnEr in :n3wtlJa Lms.
2. StlI::ent IliOIlshre1 ~E'.
t Alpha:et S(OCi smg Oet1:€f Ee).
l.E:!gard Elephant ~o:'g
Theme r~c"s: P"o"ics,tbe Imr E
Actvities
2. :;:mecLIe: wi::h Ee
O:J:!ctves:
Mate-a's.;
Tern: Test-Revier,., \Jci'we!sand c::mSDnarn:s: Mm, 53, L1, Nn, &. Pp
1. 'Wend cards fm students, 2. Cards with letter A, E, I, 0, U, Mm,
95, U, Nn,&. Pp
1, Bu ild fhlE'ncyon oQrnbidng HHJn'OS int.e syllabus,
a, Havefoo15 ',vordS re8'dy'ifI"littEn in astiay nete in your template [only fim fiV'e,I, Fa·llcw tErTlPlatE 9 drEctions
tc,segmentwc-rds, Trjs is 8 new strategy they ",,'ilIle:am so mSlil:eSl.Zeyoo model fa them witM t,\'1::C>f tlvee
werds follcr",ing all the st'i:p5cf the template, then as~ students to de it on their cri'in with diffen,nt wa-Os,
...,
::r:
G;
trJ
t:l
>
>-<
l'
trJ
\/.J
\/.J
~
'i:i
l'
~
\/.J >trJ 'i:i10 'i:i
C ~~ t:l
n ......
trJ ><
---
'-<
\/.J
~
>l'
l'
...,
trJ
~
'i:i
l'
>
...,
trJ
'i:i
~
n
...,
......
n
trJ
.......
0
00
CSC
miD
sol
lee
una
pan
Mesa
t\:1asc
Un'\!!
Losa
Nina
uma
Pans
Pine
Focus wC'rds:
Dsy: Idondsy May 5th, .20D8,
3, Build fluency 00 reading words
#9: CIlmbining sl:Hinds
Ternplsts:
tf1: LEttB sounds
Number of Lectl.Zes: 21-21:,
2. Eu ild fluency en lettS' sounds,
Prooec!l.Zs:
1, Sho\r, card with IEttB A and give individual tl.Zr1S sSling ihesQund .of the letter, islEr show card with letter E
and give ind,h"idusl tl.Zr1S sskil1d thesQumiof the letter, ihen al1ernate boih letters, No'" dothesam;:' ptocedl.Ze
fa: thEoiher ihree lettS's (I, 0, U), TSE n.Dtes b illenfi~ what stud;:nts do notknaw sorne specificsoonds:
share ihis infa-ma1ion with me, sCVi'ECSn decide ifwe need to modify the plans fC>f the week, If more ihan 1'110
students did ootkncr''i'thesounds ofsome IEttBs fellow temp~te 7R to rEviB'i th.e name of the lettS's,
2, Show card with IettB Mn and give individual turns as~ing the sound ·of this letter, 1s!E:rshl"li' csrd '....ith lettEr
5s and give individual turns ask ing the soond of the IEttE!', then altE!' nate beth letters, latE!' hsve focus W1::fds
wl'itt'i:n in a board and asl student tell you the soond cf the worOs you p,cint {yoo oould try Sst- ing tc read the
word ifthey want and onl~,tcstudents trat 'i'Cu kncr,'i m~ht be sble:tIHe8d), No.', dothe ssme procedu,re fa-
the ether three letters {L1, Nn, Pp;" Tske netes to identify whatstudents de net KncW scrnespedficscunm:
share this infcrmaiiollwith me, sowe cs.n decide ifwe need to roodif>; the ~lans for the week, If rnore than ti','o
students oki nctKnowthesounds ofscmE> IEttBs fol!o'.... template7R b reviev the name of the lettS's,
4, Explain tc studen'13 that they Me gc.ing tcread wcrdson their on silently. Mode! to students hQ\,'I'the; need to-
wert-en the.ir cwn, Thay must lise the strategy they just learned te Im.a "'r'rnos ltemplat'i:Bstrategy), LstB. gille
esd1 student a pso:ageof words 10 read silently, While students read thewa-os help students that might
str~lewith .reading. Remember thistscme student; might finish right Shyar' sogivethem a 000: tc:rmo atthe
sametime yoo give them the c:ardssnd explain to them that they oan read the becK {use COO)\; foradiv it,;, #4)
when they finish,
Materials:
1, TesHn::\'iledge
cf letters A E, I, 0,
U,
4, REadil1d wcrds
lCcmbinil1d
sQl.mds into wcrm
(TBi)
2. Tstll:nob'ledge
of letters Mm, Ss,
U, Nn,&. Pp
ObjecthiS:
P.ctr..,'ities :
BfW:J.ltAARK 1~0AI.5 FOl -HIS ~'fA3LRE 1{fi\'E 1Iel" EfH~ ESTA.BUSl-m,
T'En~~~YeiYI ":lJd~ in th= !eW$; ~O percem ::fa 5d-coQI dstrit;t ...e;ln§ rol '3(1'lf5 sOC!" I:! b~ c';niild'e"oo
a M~<: ftf :le::I "ng~ Olrd I";=,:i -g ''!.t<::n~ .;;nd 1h:~ ~et....,~s:'1 :h'E: 20:,'tl"nd pe'o:'£:n~h:"nd +i:f1
Fe;rDBrlf~ m:ul:l J~ CC"''6:d@i~at ;::n:-e rS/(.
ID ELBen ~hrra '<3M'I;;.
Three A5SeS'~nein: P~ji:c~f1el' Ynr
2;
"'d
~
t:1
......
><
~
~
Z
t:1
m
~
~
......
t:1
m
r
tD
~
n
~
o
o
>r
r:n
Fe.
~fiti::
E-lu;;;"9;r~
E;tcibli,>"t~
SJm~ .is-.:
k.
5:YTli;! d;<
1.!J;'~ 115k
W"~ list.
End ·lJ'f ~'~ar
H::u'1l7 - lO
2:; - JA
3~ <lin att\'e
0- 2£
Sccfecr;: Ist:abolS
Q - 3'
~:; - L9
5) arc! :fix·",',",
0- 2l
15 - 3~
4;) a.-d 3!:x:\'@
At .isle:
~<::re nk
te... nsk
ftt. risk
~\lr@ rsk
ic.. ri~k
MrS<
&!.\lr'e rsk
leI,.. risk
i""iidd'e:~ ~ear
"'on1:l14- D
hIe!; status:
) -14
~5- 64
25;n:,.:c~\@
;~ - 14
l5·'.:.!91
3J!,,1: .,,:c\~
J-9I\~ <dril\i"~~d;j~~'"is n _1~
a!SIa>ii"Tl@1li: penad I2},,1: .,,~1t
El!!ilWlii1iQ (tf ~ar
Nondll- 3:
SclJ'res l Sl:atUli
r -4 Ilid r~k
~ - :4 :::.:rmf! li;~(
]5 ~rd .<'bo·~ Lo\y ri5l<:
.c-l IAtn,~
~ - S StIm'E! rri<
·E ,.pc aOll'{<@ lowri.k
:·:JL~: .
~ IN C'ERI;;; A.RTEN
FIIuid=2 =11 Northlc I
l.etras (FrL)
'llJid·e2 en 1;;J6
'J;;bhns: $ill Sl!-tirl:;
[FFS-fSt:
FlIJiBe2 en 1;1
"nll!ntDn d~
~;lefl]iIIS (FSf-TUl)
FlrAid!!2 efl ~l
uw d@ Ii!i Pill"br.JS
:RJP)
I ItEl Meiils:ufe
..-
o
\0
110
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research in direct instruction: 25 Years Beyond
DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Achieving in the first 2 years of school: Patterns
and processes. Monographs ofthe Society for Research in Child Development, 53
(2, Serial No. 218).
August, D., Calderon, M., & Carlo, M. (2001). The transfer of skills from Spanish to
English NABE News, March/April, 11-12,42.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schoolingfor language-minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
August, D., & Shanahan, L. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report ofthe National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth.
Washington, DC: National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
Youth (U.S.).
Baker, K. L., & Kanter, A. A. (1981). Effectiveness ofbilingual education: A review of
the literature. Washington, DC.: Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluations,
U.S. Department of Education.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson
(Ed.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Baumann, J. F., & Kame'enui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to
Voltaire. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squiere (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on
teaching the English language arts (pp. 604-632). New York: MacMillan.
Blachman, B., Tangel, D., Ball, E., Black, R., & McGraw D. (1999). Developing
phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-year intervention with
low-income, inner-city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 11, 273-293.
Calderon, M., & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2003). Designing and implementing two-way
bilingual programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
111
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, 8., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D.,
Lively, T., & White, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs
of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading
Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading (3 rd ed.)
Upper Saddle River. NJ, Prentice Hall.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, 1., Kame'enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction
reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Carrillo, M. (1994). Development of phonological awareness and reading acquisition: A
study in Spanish language. Reading and Writing, 6(3),279-289.
Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of
phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 275-303.
De la Colina, M. G., Parker, R. I., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2001). Intensive
intervention in reading fluency for at-risk beginning Spanish readers. Bilingual
Researchjournal, 25(4),503-538.
Comeau, 1., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of
phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language.
Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91,29-43.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & analysis
issues for field settings. Chicago: Ranch McNally College.
Cornwall, A. (1992). The relationship of phonological awareness, rapid naming and
verbal memory to severe reading and spelling disability. Journal ofLearning
Disabilities, 25(8), 532-538.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Educationfor empowerment in a diverse
society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual education in the United States: Power, pedagogy, and
possibility. The Review ofEducation/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 20(3),255-270.
Deno, S. 1. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services. In M.
R. Shinn (Eds.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.
1-17). New York: Guilford.
Durgunoglu, A. Y, Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer
of phonological awareness. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 453-465.
112
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Scharschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The
role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk
children. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning
strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to academic diversity. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 174-206.
Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language minority students: Results of a
longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-
196.
Goldenberg, C. N., & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents' values and beliefs
about their children's education: Continuities and discontinuities across cultures
and generations. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Culture, motivation, and
achievement (pp. 183-277). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Good, R. H., Bank, N., & Watson, J. M. (Eds). (2003) Indicadores dinamicos del exito en
la lectura. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement.
Good, R. H., Gruba, J. & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best practices in using dynamic
indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology-IV (pp. 699-
720). Washington DC: NASP.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators ofbasic early literacy early
literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement.
Greene, J. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual
education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2/3), 1-22.
Gresham, F.M., VanDerHeyden, A., & Witt, J.C. (2005). Response to intervention in the
identification oflearning disabilities: Empirical support andfuture challenges.
Retrieved August 20, 2008, from
http://www.joewitt.org/Downloads/Response%20to%20Intervention%20MS%20
Gresham%20%20Vanderheyden%20Witt.pdf
113
Hall, T. (2002). Explicit instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing
the General Curriculum. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from
http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_explicit.html
Homer, R H. (2008). External validity of single-subject designs. Lecture deliveredfor
AdvancedApplied Behavior Analysis, May 12, 2008.
Homer, R H., & Albin, R. (2005). Multiple baseline designs. Lecture deliveredfor
Single Subjects Research Methods, February 7, 2005.
Homer, RH., Sugai, G., Todd, A.W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive
behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara
& L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behavior:
Designing positive behavior plans (pp.359-390). New York: Guilford Press.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, T., & Christian, D. (2003). Two-way immersion education:
What we know and what we need to know. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
CRESPAR
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision
making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hurford, D. P., Darrow, L. J., Edwards, T. L., Howerton, C. J., Mote, C. R, Schauf, J. D.,
& Coffey, P. (1993). An examination of phonemic processing abilities in children
during their first-grade year. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 26(3), 167-177.
Jimenez, J. E., & Haro-Garcia, C. R. (1996). The reading strategies ofbilingual Latinalo
students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31, 90-112.
Jimenez, J.E., & Ortiz, M.R (2000). Metalinguistic awareness and reading acquisition in
the Spanish Language. The Spanish Journal ofPsychology, 3, 37-46.
Jimenez, R T. (1994). Understanding and promoting the reading comprehension of
bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18 (1-2), 99-119.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children
from first through fourth grade. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and
instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458-492.
Kame'enui, E. L., Carnine, D. W. Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2002).
Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus OH:
Merrill/Prentice Hall Publishing Company.
114
Kame'enui, E. J., Good, R. H., & Ham, B. A. (2005). Beginning reading failure and
the quantification of risk: Reading behavior as the supreme index. In W. Heward,
T. Heron, N. Neef, S. Peterson, D. Sainato, G. Cartledge, R. Gardner, L. Peterson,
S. Hersh & J. Dardig (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education:
Achievements, challenges, and opportunities. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
MerrilllPrentice Hall Publishing Company.
Kame'enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The
prevention ofacademic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing
Company.
Krashen, S., & Biber, D. (1987). Bilingual education in California. Sacramento:
California Association for Bilingual Education.
Mann, V. A.(1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal ofLearning
Disabilities, 26(4),259-269.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report ofthe National Reading Panel: Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment ofthe sCientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Children Health and Human Development.
Peinado, J., Baker, D. and Rogers, F. (2006). Templates for Direct and Explicit Spanish
Instruction. Unpublished Materials.
Perez, E. (1981). Oral language competence improves reading skills of Mexican
American third graders. Reading Teacher, 35(1),24-27.
Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics ofbilingual education. New York: Basic
Books.
Pressley, M., & Rankin, J. (1994). More about whole language methods of reading
instruction for students at-risk for early school failure. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 9(3), 157-168.
Quiroga, T. L., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W.
(2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL
first graders: Research into practice. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 40(1), 84-111.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subjects
research: Applications in educational and clinical settings. San Diego, CA:
Singular.
115
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual
education. Research in the teaching o/English, 30(1), 1-74.
Samuels, S. J. (1987). Information processing abilities and reading. Journal 0/Learning
Disabilities, 20(1), 18-22.
Schlesinger, A. Jr. (1991). The disuniting of America. New York: W. W. Norton.
Scruggs, E. T., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). The effectiveness of generalization training:
A quantitative synthesis of single subject research. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A.
Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Makuch, R. W.
(1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal
distribution of reading ability. New England Journal 0/Medicine, 326, 145-150.
Signorini, A. (1997). Word reading in Spanish: A comparison between skilled and less
skilled beginning readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(3), 319-344.
Simmons, D. C., Kame'enue, E. J., Good, R. H., Ham, B. A., Cole, C., & Braun, D.
(2002). Building, implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading improvement
model: lessons learned school by school. In Shinn, M., Walker, H., & Stoner, G.
(Eds.), Interventions/or Achievement and Behavior Problems II (pp. 537-569).
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychology.
Sindelar, P. T. (1987). Increasing reading fluency. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19,
59-60.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2004). A synthesis o/research on language o/reading
instruction/or English language learners. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University.
Snowling, M. J. (1981). Phonemic deficits in developmental dyslexia. Psychological
Research, 43,219-234.
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics
teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners.
British Journal 0/Educational Psychology, 69(4),587-605.
116
Thompson, S. L., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003).
Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second grade English
language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal,
103(3),221-238.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in
reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practices, 15, 55-64.
Watkins, C. L., & Slocum, T. A (2004). The components of direct instruction. Journal of
Direct Instruction, 3, 75-110.
Willig, A (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual
education. Review ofEducational Research, 55(3),269-317.
Woodcock, W. L. (1991). Woodcock language battery revised. Chicago: Riverside.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1992). Against our best interest: The attempt to sabotage bilingual
education. In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language royalties: A sourcebook on the official
English controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yaden, D. B., Tam, A, Madrigal, P., Brassell, D., Mossa, J., Altamirano, L. S., &
Armendariz, J. (2000). Early literaqy for inner-city children: The effects of
reading and writing interventions in English and Spanish during the preschool
years. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 186-189.