Scaffolding English Language Learners and Struggling Readers in a Universal Literacy Environment with Embedded Strategy Instruction and Vocabulary Support
Free accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2007
Scaffolding English Language Learners and Struggling Readers in a Universal Literacy Environment with Embedded Strategy Instruction and Vocabulary Support
As interest and concern rise in U.S. educational circles around the reading achievement of English language learners (ELLs) and struggling readers, researchers and practitioners alike are calling for the increased use of technology as a means to decrease achievement gaps in reading (Jiménez, 2003; Strangman & Dalton, 2005). In this article, we report results from a 4-week study of the English reading comprehension of struggling readers, including Spanish-speaking ELLs. Thirty 4th-grade students read several narrative and informational hypertexts that provided embedded vocabulary and comprehension strategy supports, along with text-to-speech read-aloud functionality. Correlation analyses of pre-post standardized reading vocabulary gain scores revealed that vocabulary gain was associated, although not significantly, with the frequency of access of hyperlinked glossary items throughout the intervention, and that lower pretest vocabulary knowledge was associated with positive vocabulary gains. A similar pattern was detected for comprehension gains, which were significantly associated with the frequency of access of coaching avatars that provided support around the productive use of reading comprehension strategies. The results reported here suggest that struggling readers and Spanish-speaking ELLs made use of the digitally embedded features in such a way as to promote both learning novel lexical items and effectively applying reading comprehension strategies.
References
1.
AlvermannD. E., (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York: Lang.
2.
AndersonR. C.FreebodyP. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In HustonB. (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (Vol. 2, pp. 231–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In ReinkingD.McKennaM.LabboL.KeifferR. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. A.ChenD.LewinL. (1994). Hypertext literacy: Observations from the electrotext project. Language Arts, 71, 279–287.
5.
Cognition and Technology Group and Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center. (1993). Examining the cognitive challenges and pedagogical opportunities of integrated media systems: Toward a research agenda. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(2), 118–124.
6.
DaltonB.KennedyM.SchleperD.LutzL.StrangmanN. (2005). Shared reading project: Chapter by chapter for thinking reader (Final report to the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center and Gallaudet University). Wakefield, MA: CAST.
7.
DaltonB.PishaB. (2001, December). Developing strategic readers: A comparison of computer supported versus traditional strategy instruction on struggling readers' comprehension of quality children's literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
8.
DaltonB.PishaB.EagletonM.CoyneP.DeysherS. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment (Final report to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs). Peabody, MA: CAST.
9.
DaltonB.StrangmanN. (2006). Improving struggling readers' comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In ReinkingD.McKennaM. C.LabboL. D.KeifferR. D. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10.
DukeN. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40–44.
11.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelL. M.AndersonH. M.StevensD. D. (1991). Making strategies and self talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.
12.
GarcíaG. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371–392.
13.
GarnerR. (1992). Metacognition and self-monitoring strategies. In SamuelsS. J.FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 236–252). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
14.
HirschD.NationP. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–696.
15.
HonorL. L. (2001). Hispanic Americans: A statistical sourcebook. 2001 edition. Palo Alto, CA: Information Publications.
16.
HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 127–168.
17.
JiménezR. T. (2003). Literacy and Latino students in the United States: Some considerations, questions and new directions. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 122–128.
18.
JiménezR. T.GarcíaG. E.PearsonP. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 31–61.
19.
JiménezR. T.GarcíaG. E.PearsonP. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.
KamilM. L.IntratorS. M.KimH. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 771–788). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22.
KimH. S.KamilM. L. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction. In SweetA. P.SnowC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 166–175). New York: Guilford.
23.
KlingerJ. K.VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.
24.
LabboL. D. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356–383.
25.
LandauerT. K. (1998). Learning and representing verbal meaning: The latent semantic analysis theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 161–164.
26.
LauferB. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567–587.
27.
LauferB.HillM. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL Dictionary and how does it affect word retention?New York: New York University, Institute for Education and Social Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 462834).
28.
LeuD.Jr. (2000). Our children's future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 53, 424–431.
29.
LeuD. J.JrKinzerC. K.CoiroJ.CammackD. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
30.
LipsonM. Y.WixsonK. K. (1997). Assessment & instruction: An interactive approach. New York: Longman.
31.
LivelyT.AugustD.CarloM.SnowC. E. (2003). Vocabulary improvement program for English language learners and their classmates. Baltimore: Brookes.
32.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.OmansonR. C.PerfettiC. A. (1983). The effects of long term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 3–18.
33.
NagyW. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
34.
NagyW. E.GarcíaG. E.DurgunogluA.Hancin-BhattB. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual children's use and recognition of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 241–259.
35.
NagyW.HermanP. A. (1985). Incidental vs. instructional approaches to increasing reading vocabulary. Educational Perspectives, 23(1), 16–21.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
38.
PalincsarA. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.
39.
PalincsarA. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—A response to C. Addison Stone's “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370–373.
40.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
41.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Teaching for meaningful understanding and self-regulated learning (Vol. 1, pp. 35–71). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
42.
ParisS. G.CrossD. R.LipsonM. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239–1252.
43.
PressleyM. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.
44.
ProctorC. P.AugustD.CarloM. S.SnowC. E. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 159–169.
45.
RAnd Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAnd Corporation.
46.
ProctorC. P.CarloM. S.AugustD.SnowC. E. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.
47.
ReinkingD. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 484–498.
48.
ReinkingD.SchreinerR. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 536–551.
49.
RoseD.DaltonB. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In BlockC. C.GambrellL. B.PressleyM. (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 257–274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisors of Curriculum Development.
51.
RosenshineB.MeisterC. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
52.
StanovichK. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
53.
StrangmanN.DaltonB. (2005). Technology for struggling readers: A review of the research. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 545–569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
54.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Intervention for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.
55.
TaborsP.PáezM.LópezL. (2003). Dual language abilities of bilingual four-year olds: Initial findings from the Early Childhood Study of Language and Literacy Development of Spanish-Speaking Children. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1), 70–91.
56.
van DaalV. H. P.ReitsmaP. (1993). The use of speech feedback by normal and disabled readers in computer-based reading practice. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 243–259.
57.
WongB. Y. L. (1991). Assessment of meta-cognitive research in learning disabilities: Theory, research and practice. In SwansonH. L. (Ed.), Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 265–284). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
