• Paper Citation: Philip Capin, Sharon Vaughn, Joseph E. Miller, Jeremy Miciak, Anna-Mari Fall, Greg Roberts, Eunsoo Cho, Amy E. Barth, Paul K. Steinle & Jack M. Fletcher (2023) Investigating the Reading Profiles of Middle School Emergent Bilinguals with Significant Reading Comprehension Difficulties, Scientific Studies of Reading, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2023.2254871

A few months ago, a study crossed my radar that caused me to stop, print it out, mark it up, and then begin digging into related studies, which is what I do when a study grabs my attention.

Getting into research is akin to getting into Miles Davis—if you like a given song or album, you may start checking out the other musicians he plays with, and they'll lead you into a new and ever expanding fractal universe, because Davis had a knack for collaborating with musicians who were geniuses in their own right. A few examples: John Coltrane, Tony Williams, Keith Jarrett, Herbie Hancock, John McLaughlin, Wayne Shorter, Jack DeJohnette, the list goes on and on. Maybe I'm stretching this analogy a bit, but similarly, when I come across a study that brings me deeper into something, I then find myself drawn into the other studies cited therein, and my world begins to expand. . .

Anyway, the study I'm referring to here was “Investigating the Reading Profiles of Middle School Emergent Bilinguals with Significant Reading Comprehension Difficulties“, by Philip Capin, Sharon Vaughn, Joseph E. Miller, Jeremy Miciak, Anna-Mari Fall, Greg Roberts, Eunsoo Cho, Amy E. Barth, Paul K. Steinle & Jack M. Fletcher.

The reason this study struck me is that my general understanding of English learner (EL) reading profiles was as follows: ELs—most particularly those born in the U.S. (which are the majority of ELLs, contrary to assumptions)—acquire code-based skills commensurate to that of their English proficient peers, and the focus for them needs to be primarily on morphology, vocabulary, oral language, semantics, pragmatics, and comprehension. In other words, the rich language side of the Simple View of Reading.

Yet while this may remain accurate in aggregate, this study of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) in 6 and 7th grades challenges the assumption that ELs who have received many years of ELL service will necessarily gain requisite code-based skills without systematic and explicit instruction alongside of those meaning-based skills, and, potentially, greater dosage of both code and meaning-based instruction as needed.

So let's spend a minute unpacking this particular study, and then look a little further afield into related studies on the reading profiles of ELs, and put it all together. It took me some time to read the related studies and process all of it.

TL;DR

In aggregate, as stated before, EL reading profiles are most distinct from non-EL reading profiles in that they will require more attention to language comprehension at large: plentiful opportunities for social interaction and engagement with shared texts to gain the English language. Makes sense, right, since they are learning English by definition? But for ELs who also have difficulty reading, greater attention must be paid to BOTH code-based and meaning-based skills, with greater intensity/dosage according to need.

The Longer Version

In this study of 6th and 7th grade ELs in the Southwestern US with a home language of Spanish and of Mexican or central American descent, the sample excludes students at beginning stages of English language proficiency (ELP) and is focused on those who have intermediate to advanced ELP.

While time in the U.S. is not noted, we can make the inference that most likely the majority of these students have either been born in the U.S. or have received a number of years of instruction in English (due to their levels of ELP). It should also be stressed, as the authors of the study do, that in contrast to other studies showing different results, the students in this sample are below the 16 percentile (on reading screening), meaning that the sample does not include a wider distribution of students at different ability levels.

One of the first concepts that emerged from this study and other related literature on reading profiles is that of severity vs. specificity of reading skill needs.

Severity refers to the degree of reading difficulty a student experiences across all component skills. Specificity refers to the specific component skills in which a student has difficulty.

My previous understanding was that we need to primarily distinguish, a la the Simple View of Reading above, between decoding and language comprehension skill needs. Yet this study and some of the others below suggest that reading profiles for both ELs and non-ELs are typically marked by severity, not specificity. This means that students with reading difficulties tend to have difficulty across all component skills, rather than just one or two specific skills, or on solely code or solely meaning-based skills.

In this study, they found the following four profiles:

• (1) very low word reading with low vocabulary for students whose word reading and vocabulary were nearing or below two standard deviations from normative data;
• (2) low word reading and low vocabulary for students whose word reading was approximately one standard deviation below the expected average normative score with vocabulary scores also nearly two standard deviations from average normative score (similar to Profile 1);
• (3) average word reading with low vocabulary for students with average scores in word reading but low vocabulary
• (4) above average word reading with low vocabulary for students with letter and word identification scores that were, on average, two standard deviations above the mean with low vocabulary scores that were also more than one standard deviation below the mean.

The consistency of “low vocabulary” is unsurprising in an ELL profile, given that they are learning English. What was somewhat more surprising was that 72% of the sample, or 225 out of 340 students, fell into profile 2, which means they struggled with both word-level reading and language skills.

The finding that reading profiles are typically marked by severity, not specificity, has several instructional implications.

• First, it suggests that interventions should be designed to address all component skills of reading, rather than just one or two specific skills. This is because students with reading difficulties tend to have difficulty across all component skills, not just one or two specific skills. We have explored this concept previously under the umbrella of a “multicomponent approach.”

• Second, it suggests that the intensity of intervention should be adjusted according to the severity of the student’s reading difficulties. Students with more severe reading difficulties will need more intensive intervention than students with less severe reading difficulties.

As the authors of the study put it in the final paragraph:

“The high percentage of EBs with reading comprehension difficulties who have difficulty decoding words that are in their oral vocabulary in our study also suggests that educators may want to err on the side of providing code-based instruction and use students’ response to this instruction to determine whether additional word reading instruction is necessary.”

More Research on EL Reading Profiles

I went further afield exploring EL reading profiles, trying to better understand the severity vs. specificity concept, as well as to see how EL profiles showed up in different studies and grade-levels. Here's a brief summary and quotes from a few more:

• Miciak et al. (2022) examined the reading profiles of 3rd and 4th-grade English learners (ELs) with and without risk for dyslexia. They found that the majority of struggling ELs demonstrated deficits across all reading components, rather than specific deficits in one area. This suggests that ELs with reading difficulties need comprehensive reading interventions that address multiple areas, rather than interventions that focus on a single skill or component.

Key quotes:

“Our results revealed that the differences between ELs with typical reading skills and reading difficulties were most apparent, based on effect size differences, on measures of word reading. “

“It is their performance in both of these areas that differentiates students with reading difficulties from those who are typically developing. These findings underscore the importance of providing ELs with evidence-based word reading instruction in the primary grades to prevent word reading difficulties and risk for dyslexia. They also highlight the need for long-term, multi-component reading interventions that simultaneously address word reading, fluency, and linguistic processes among students with reading difficulties. As opposed to working on these skills in isolation, optimal interventions may integrate word reading and fluency instruction within reading interventions that target building vocabulary, comprehension, and content knowledge.”

• Vargas et al. (2023) examined the early literacy profiles of first-grade ELs and non-ELs. They found that the profiles of ELs and non-ELs were similar, and that the profiles were differentiated by severity rather than specificity. This suggests that ELs and non-ELs with reading difficulties can benefit from similar instructional approaches, delivered with varying intensity.

Key quotes:

“Our person-centered approach identified specific patterns of performance that would not have been revealed had this study only utilized composite mean scores, highlighting important differences between EL and non-EL students. In addition, had the analysis only used composite scores without examining the relations between the variables, it would have relied on unjustified assumptions about the characteristics of the variables in the profile analysis.”

“The heterogeneity in early literacy profiles suggests that grouping EL and designing literacy instruction solely based on their EL status and English language proficiency is inappropriate. To improve students’ foundational literacy skill development and learning outcomes, educators should design instruction that is aligned with EL instructional needs.”

“Because the profiles differ in severity, interventions can be adjusted to meet the instructional needs of students in different reading profiles by adjusting dosage, rather than instructional foci, where students with more severe deficits receive greater dosage while maintaining the same instructional focus (Capin et al., 2021).”

• Kieffer & Vukovic (2012) examined the reading profiles of 1st through 3rd-grade ELs and native English speakers in urban schools. They found that linguistic comprehension difficulties were more prevalent among ELs and native English speakers from low-income backgrounds. They also found that weaknesses in code-related skills, when found in combination with limited linguistic comprehension, may lead to more severe difficulties.

Key quote:

“The relative unique contributions of these two cognitive components in our sample suggest that linguistic comprehension explains much more of the variation in reading comprehension than code-related skills for the learners studied. At the same time, the interaction indicates that weaknesses in code-related skills, when found in combination with limited linguistic comprehension, may lead to more severe difficulties than weaknesses in linguistic comprehension alone, a hypothesis further supported by the categorical analyses. Our second major finding was that the most prevalent cognitive component profile in these schools, by far, was that of underdeveloped linguistic comprehension skills combined with adequate code-related skills.”

What surfaces from all of these studies is that while it is accurate that the majority of ELs require a focus on language comprehension and meaning-based skills (not surprising), for ELs who also struggle to learn to read, a commensurate amount of attention must also be paid to code-based skills at the same time. The more that an EL may struggle to learn to read, the greater the amount of comprehensive and simultaneous code and meaning-based instruction they need to receive.

Another way to reframe this is that the key identifier that we can use to distinguish an EL who may struggle to learn to read from an EL who will not are word-level measures.

The other thing that surfaces is that while severity of need across all components identifies those who will need the most support, those with more mild difficulties may show more specific component weaknesses. We need to continue to look at both composite and component assessment measures to identify and target needs accordingly.

Implications for Schools

Don't make assumptions about students identified as ELLs. Assess the literacy they bring in home language. Don't assume they have no literacy. But also, don't assume they only need to focus on meaning-based skills. Monitor both code and meaning-based skills for ELs, especially in the transition into upper elementary grades. Provide both code and meaning-based instruction as needed.

Don't group ELLs solely based on their ELL status nor their ELP. Group alongside their English proficient peers based on their literacy needs.

At the same time, distinguish between those ELLs who are newly developing English (1st year) from those who have had a good dosage of high quality instruction in English. For those who are newly arrived, they may initially benefit from targeted language supports and instruction in small groups, as well as grouping that allows them to draw upon their home language. However, any separation or grouping based solely on ELP should be temporary, as heterogenous grouping ultimately benefits language and literacy development for ELLs.

I hope some of this is useful. I still feel like I'm trying to clearly understand the severity vs. specificity thing. If you have any insights, please share!

#multilingualism #literacy #language #multilinguals #reading #assessment #intervention

While I use Zotero to organize some of what I come across, I tend to read through papers on my phone on buses/trains to and from work, or to print out something to read later, so I am not systematic or well-organized about what I pick up from what I read, unfortunately. I do post quotes from articles as I read them on social media, so I can search through my own past feed to find links to research I read. So while I might build my own schema about things as I read more and more stuff, I don’t retain the specific sources.

One of the things I have had in my head regarding literacy interventions is that multicomponent approaches in English tend to be more effective than single component approaches for students who are learning English at school (ELL), and for many other populations as well.

But is this right?

What is a Multicomponent Approach?

Before we go any further, let’s pause to define what we mean by a multicomponent approach.

Language and literacy are composed of many components, such as the following:

In a multicomponent approach to instruction, multiple components of literacy and language are tackled in tandem or in succession, as the case may be, such as in the following aspects:

Most typically, a multicomponent approach is in reference to a reading intervention, but I think there is saliency to core instruction as well. Many upper elementary and above teachers note that they serve students who need foundational and other skills, and they may not know what to do to meet their needs daily. A multicomponent approach may be a useful lens in such circumstances.

Are Multicomponent Approaches to Intervention More Effective?

So let’s return to where we started: is a multicomponent approach to literacy intervention more beneficial for ELLs, and potentially other students?

If you consider the Simple View of Reading (SVR), this makes logical sense, given that by definition an ELL is learning the English language, so even when an ELL requires more intensive phonemic awareness, decoding, or fluency supports in English, they simultaneously require explicit instruction with and opportunities to use morphology, syntax, and text-level comprehension and oral language in English. Furthermore, it makes sense even when considering the needs of students with dyslexic profiles, where phonemic awareness and decoding are specific targets for need, given that a significant number of children with dyslexia demonstrate comorbidity with speech or language comprehension difficulties.

However, as we explored in a paper by Keith Stanovich, building an understanding of reading with what might make sense (a coherence approach) can be misleading if it’s not firmly based on empirical evidence (a correspondence approach). So recently I set out to confirm or refute the following:

• Are multicomponent approaches to intervention more effective than single component interventions?
• Are multicomponent approaches more effective for students identified as ELLs who are at risk of future reading difficulty?

TL;DR From my amateur review of some of the extant research, the answer appears to be yes to be both questions.

A Review of the Research

I should note that some of the research I have listed below were indicated in the chapter on multicomponent interventions in the very useful book Structured Literacy Interventions: Teaching Students with Reading Difficulties, Grades K-6, edited by Louise Spear-Swerling.

In favor of multicomponent approaches are the following sources:

• Donegan, R. E., & Wanzek, J. (2021). Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Reading and Writing, 34(8), 1943–1977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y > “For intervention area, only multicomponent interventions predicted significant effects for both comprehension and foundational outcomes“
• Al Otaiba, S., McMaster, K., Wanzek, J., & Zaru, M. W. (2022). What We Know and Need to Know about Literacy Interventions for Elementary Students with Reading Difficulties and Disabilities, including Dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.458 > “Findings, at least in the upper elementary grades, indicate that some intervention features including standardized protocols, multiple components, and longer duration can yield stronger effects“
• Solari, E. J., Kehoe, K. F., Cho, E., Hall, C., Vargas, I., Dahl-Leonard, K., Richmond, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., & Conner, C. (2022). Effectiveness of Interventions for English Learners with Word Reading Difficulties: A Research Synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(3), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12286 > “Research suggests that interventions that emphasize both code- and meaning-related skills are more effective for improving reading comprehension outcomes than those that focus on one set of skills in isolation (e.g., Al Otaiba et al., 2022; Baker et al., 2012). Considered together with other systematic reviews (e.g., Gersten et al., 2020; Richards-Tutor et al., 2016), our findings corroborate evidence that this is true for interventions implemented with EL students with WLRD (Baker et al., 2012), who are simultaneously developing proficiency in both linguistic comprehension and code-focused skills.“
• Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., & Donegan, R. E. (2019). Retention of Reading Intervention Effects From Fourth to Fifth Grade for Students With Reading Difficulties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1560379
• The relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades K-2. (2017). Regional Educational Laboratory Program (REL). Retrieved January 21, 2023, from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Publication/3831
• Extensive Reading Interventions in Grades K-3. (2007). Link via Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/guides/extensive-reading-interventions-grades-k-3
• Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Mathes, P. G., Vaughn, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). The Role of Oracy in Developing Comprehension in Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners: Topics in Language Disorders, 26(4), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200610000-00008 >“The most robust reading interventions are characterized by 30 min or more of instruction for several months (Mathes et al., 2005; NICHD, 2000), in which teachers provide explicit and systematic instruction in small groups across multiple critical components of reading including phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Foorman & Torgesen 2001; NICHD, 2000; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).”

There were a couple of meta-analyses that were directly contrary, however:

• Denton, C. A., Hall, C., Cho, E., Cannon, G., Scammacca, N., & Wanzek, J. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of foundational skills and multicomponent reading interventions on reading comprehension for primary-grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 102062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102062 > “Effects did not differ for interventions focused only on foundational reading skills and those that provided both foundational skills and comprehension instruction.“
• Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002 > “Interventions were more effective if they were targeted to a specific skill (g=0.65), then as part of a comprehensive intervention program that addressed multiple skills“

This topic is a good example of how research is rarely easily interpreted — some of the same authors on one side are listed on the meta-analysis on the other side, for example! The question is rather where does the evidence converge across multiple studies?

In this case, the weight of the converging peer reviewed evidence appears (from my limited amateur review) to fall on the side of the benefits of a multicomponent approach to literacy intervention, both for struggling readers at large, and for ELLs in particular.

What Does a Multicomponent Approach Look Like?

Dr. Alfred Tatum, whose book Teaching Black Boys in the Elementary Grades I have written about before, provides concrete examples of what a multicomponent approach in core instruction could look like, based on what Dr. Tatum calls his “Multidimensional Reading Model” (MDRM). While his lessons are designed explicitly for Black boys, I think these approaches can be beneficial for many other children as well.

For interventions, there’s a few other solid resources, starting with the book I mentioned earlier, Structured Literacy Interventions: Teaching Students with Reading Difficulties, Grades K-6 edited by Louise Spear-Swerling, in Chapter 10: Multicomponent Structured Literacy Approaches for Mixed Reading Difficulties.

In that chapter, there’s also a nice lesson planning tool that lists each component and possible time suggestions.

Another great recent resource is the WWC Practice Guide: Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9. While it isn’t explicitly about a multicomponent approach, it provides very concrete and useful approaches to multisyllabic decoding, fluency, and comprehension.

Associated resources to the WWC Practice Guide:

• One pager overview of the guide from MTSU
• The Practice Guide site
• Slidedeck on the guide

What is your experience or thoughts about a multicomponent approach to instruction, whether in core instruction or in intervention?

#multicomponent #intervention #literacy #reading #ELLs #research #literaturereview

Discuss...

There’s a debate that has flared up around mass shootings that over-simplifies the issues into gun control vs. mental health. Yet these both need to be part of the conversation. We need to decrease access to assault weapons, while increasing access to sustained mental health services.

A recent interview in Politico of two professors who study mass shooters has struck a very personal chord with me and helps point to structures we need to put in place, both within and beyond schools. Here’s two quotes that resonated with me:

“We need to build teams to investigate when kids are in crisis and then link those kids to mental health services. The problem is that in a lot of places, those services are not there.”

“It was none of these people’s jobs to make sure that he got connected with somebody in the community who could help him long term.”

After reading the Politico piece and the portrait of a teenager shooter they paint in the interview, I realized that I have worked with a student who had echoes of that profile.

Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.

I’m going to tell you a little bit about this student, let’s call him Roberto (not his real name), and some of what my team did for him while he was with us. He came to our school in 6th grade and presented with academic gaps and frequent counterproductive behavior in the classroom, such as saying inappropriate things and not completing any work. He did not have an IEP, but the 6th grade team raised him as a possible referral, so I began digging into his previous educational data, speaking to his mom, and interviewing him to learn about what was happening.

In line with the profile from the Politico interview, he had experienced childhood trauma. He grew anxious in rooms with closed doors and in elevators. And his behavior at home with his mom was growing increasingly challenging, preceding the challenges that were beginning to show up in school.

After reviewing all of his data, student work, and speaking with him more in-depth, we had him evaluated by our school psychologist, and indeed he manifested with a learning disability and in need of social-emotional supports. We put in place ICT (co-teaching) services as well as counseling. Thanks to our great counselor, social worker, and parent coordinator, we also aided his mother in obtaining external counseling supports for him.

In the article, they say this about the typical teenage mass shooter:

What’s different from traditional suicide is that the self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety.

Roberto’s targets for the most disrespectful behavior were his mother and generally his female teachers.

As I spoke with Roberto and learned more about his experiences, he shared that he was frightened by the level of work expected at our school, and he knew it was much harder, and he couldn’t hide that it was difficult for him from his peers. So he tried to make them laugh or think he was cool instead.

Talking with Roberto on his own was always insightful–he had a lot of potential, and we were up front with him that his potential didn’t match his current performance. He needed to ask for help and give himself a chance and use the supports his teachers offered him.

In 7th grade, he was making progress, but his behavior became especially challenging in math class. We put in place a more formalized Behavior Intervention Plan to further ensure aligned supports for him.

I left the school after that year, but I felt confident that Roberto would continue to make progress. With the supports we put in place, both school-based and externally, I knew he could be successful in high school if he continued to receive those supports.

A couple years later, I happened to find out he had later been arrested for threatening to shoot up his high school. This hit me hard, because it felt like we had failed him.

He didn’t, thank god, end up becoming another teenage mass shooter. He wasn’t able to acquire a gun, and his threats were reported and taken seriously. His story shows that not only is gun control critical in preventing heinous acts from occurring, but also the importance of ensuring continuity of care and support.

In my former school, he had a strong school-based team looking out for him. And while I don’t think his external therapy was consistent, we did check in with his mother on those supports as well. Yet when he went on to high school did he continue to get external therapy? Was his high school on top of the services recommended by his IEP? If we had still been with him in high school, would we have been able to surface when he needed help before he shut down completely and turned against his peers and torpedoed his future?

I’d like to think so. But it’s hard to place blame on a school I don’t know anything about. They may have provided him an environment of care. They may have been providing his recommended services and monitoring his progress. Something may have been happening in his life and mind well beyond the purview of the school.

It all starts with a school team identifying needed supports and putting them in place as soon as possible. But it doesn’t end there, as I learned the hard way in Roberto’s case. Who was he connected with “in the community who could help him long term”?

To prevent troubled kids from becoming troubled teens who decide to hurt others and themselves, we need services of aligned support that extend beyond the school and into the community and which can help to ensure continuity of supports and services over time.

We can’t reach every kid every time, but if we can keep guns out of their reach, and keep listening to what they say, and taking them seriously, and giving them hope, I think–I hope–we can do much more to prevent harm over the long term.

#guns #teenagers #violence #teams #schools #community #supports #intervention

Discuss...