Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mr. Roberts’s second-grade class includes 25 students. Of these students, four receive special education services, and eight students are considered emergent bilingual learners. One of the students who is an emergent bilingual also receives special education support, and Mr. Roberts notices that two other emergent bilingual students are experiencing significant reading difficulties. Mr. Roberts wants to support the growth of his students but is feeling concerned from the demands of teaching whole-group lessons and then differentiating instruction for nearly half of the class. Beyond typical practices to support emergent bilingual students or students with a reading difficulty, Mr. Roberts wonders how he can better instruct students who are both learning a new language and have a disability.

“One possible solution to this challenge is to flip the common reactive model to one that is more proactive, placing the diverse needs of learners at the forefront of instructional planning.

Literacy learning is of central focus for all students, primarily in the early years. As students enter intermediate grade levels, fluent reading is vital for success not only in language arts class but across all content areas (Stevens et al., 2020). Beyond the school walls, literacy knowledge expands students’ opportunities for the future and benefits society as a whole (Kirsch et al., 2007). Current reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, 2022) demonstrate that reading instruction remains an area of need to better support the literacy development for all students.

Particularly important to consider are emerging bilingual learners who also experience a reading disability (Bernhard et al., 2006). Emergent bilingual learners possess immense assets, including a more extensive understanding of multiple languages, cultures, and means of acquiring literacy. Understanding that they may also require additional background knowledge and reading support in the language they are learning should stand as precedent—these considerations do not equate with a learning disability. However, there are some students that experience intersectionality between being an emerging bilingual learner and having a disability, specifically in reading (Crenshaw, 1989).

Common general education instructional models currently posit the needs of these learners as an add-on, placing the responsibility for extensive instructional differentiation on the classroom teacher and school specialists. The reality of balancing instruction for such a wide range of students can create immense cognitive stress, leaving teachers feeling overwhelmed and without support to best meet their students’ needs (Ziaian-Ghafari & Berg, 2019). One possible solution to this challenge is to flip the common reactive model to one that is more proactive, placing the diverse needs of learners at the forefront of instructional planning (Vellutino et al., 1996). In fact, practices targeting support of emerging bilingual learners and students with a disability are widely regarded as best practices for all students. Reading interventions focused on pillars outlined by the National Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency) have demonstrated large effects on emerging bilinguals’ reading accuracy and fluency and moderate effects on comprehension (Ludwig et al., 2019; National Reading Panel, 2000). Explicit instruction in reading has also demonstrated statistically significant impacts on emerging bilingual students’ reading outcomes (Graham et al., 2023; Richards-Tutor et al., 2016). Furthermore, these practices have also proven effective for all students in the general education setting (Castles et al., 2018).

An inclusive framework for teaching works to lessen the add-ons educators need to implement because original instruction is more accessible from the start. To support a classroom where literacy learning is designed for all students from the beginning, five key practices are shared. These focus on supporting emerging bilingual learners with a reading disability but are built with the end goal of empowering all students.

Create an Inclusive Environment

Preceding all instruction, teachers may focus on developing an environment where students feel safe, valued, and encouraged. All students have a first layer of internal processing that new content must pass through. This is referred to as an affective filter and involves a learner’s emotions, attitudes, and goals (Krashen, 1982). As students feel more relaxed in an environment, this filter is lowered, allowing greater learning and focus to take place (Dulay et al., 1982). Therefore, when students feel included and supported, they may also feel more comfortable to take risks, share ideas, and learn.

One such approach to creating an inclusive environment where students feel safe includes implementing culturally sustaining pedagogy. These practices center the funds of knowledge and strengths that students bring to the classroom (Moll et al., 2009; Paris, 2012). A student’s fund of knowledge refers to their linguistic repertoire, culture, and life experiences. Applying this includes providing opportunities for students to share their home language(s) and background while also connecting new learning with these areas to strengthen understanding (Broughton et al., 2023; Gonzalez et al., 2005). Furthermore, this asset-based lens centers and builds on students’ strengths throughout each lesson (Artzi et al., 2022). These practices are powerful for all learners, and demonstrate benefits socially, behaviorally, and academically for emerging bilingual students, including those with a disability (Dulay et al., 1982; Lang et al., 2011). Table 1 presents a checklist of culturally sustaining practices aimed at promoting an asset-based lens for greater inclusion of all students in your classroom.

“Applying this includes providing opportunities for students to share their home language(s) and background while also connecting new learning with these areas to strengthen understanding.

Table 1

Culturally Sustaining Practices in the Classroom

Culturally sustaining practices	Is this reflected in my classroom?	How can I better support this component?
1. Get to know the backgrounds, cultures, and languages represented from the students in your classroom. Create opportunities for students to share with and learn from one another.
2. Provide students opportunities to share about and speak in their home language(s). These may occur within whole-group, small-group, or peer-to-peer settings. Consider pairing students that share a common home language.
3. Ensure a wide range of texts are represented in your classroom library and class materials. This includes stories that present a variety of backgrounds, races, languages, religions, and locations.
4. Notice students’ strengths and build on them. Help students to draw connections between what they are learning and experiences from their own life.
5. Continue to expand your own learning of culturally sustaining pedagogy and examine the ways in which your classroom supports and values the funds of knowledge your students bring.

Mr. Roberts noticed that one of his students, Lucía, seems very reluctant to share her ideas with the class. Lucía is an emerging bilingual learner and seems withdrawn socially. Mr. Roberts reviews the checklist and realizes that much of his focus during class time has relied on learning and speaking in English. Lucía, like many other students in Mr. Roberts’ class, speaks Spanish at home. Mr. Roberts begins providing opportunities for students to teach and share about the Spanish language with the class. One of the many times Mr. Roberts incorporates this practice is when he is teaching about new vocabulary in reading. Mr. Roberts encourages students to learn from their peers and connect the new vocabulary in Spanish as well. Lucía loves to share and teach the class to pronounce new words in her home language, and the students enjoy expanding their learning. By creating a space that values and calls on Lucía’s additional linguistic repertoire, Mr. Roberts builds an environment where learners feel safe, included, and empowered to share and learn from one another.

Build Background Knowledge

Background knowledge refers to the prior learning students hold in a specific area, drawing from both academic and real-world experiences. The impact of background, or prior knowledge, is considered an important component for reading comprehension (Smith et al., 2021). The role of background knowledge may be especially powerful in supporting the reading comprehension of emerging bilingual students with a reading disability (Hall et al., 2019; Vaughn et al., 2019). To support and build students’ background knowledge, provide a brief “launch” into each reading lesson. This may include a video clip, picture, or brief discussion prior to beginning a read-aloud. Students will all bring varying levels of background knowledge to each new concept. However, taking a few minutes to preview and build on the context will provide greater access to the text for all.

Mr. Roberts is planning to introduce a nonfiction text to his class titled All About Ellis Island. He considers what concepts in the story may hinder some students, especially emerging bilingual learners with a reading disability, from fully accessing the text. Although Mr. Roberts has some students in his class who have been on trips to visit Ellis Island, he also has students in class who have not learned about it before. To support all students in gaining access to the text, Mr. Roberts plans his lesson “launch” and shows a brief, 30-second video clip depicting the history of Ellis Island. Next, Mr. Roberts takes 3 minutes to explicitly teach students about Ellis Island and leads the class in a brief discussion. Finally, before reading, Mr. Roberts invites all students to share what they have just learned about Ellis Island with a peer.

Support Vocabulary Learning

Vocabulary knowledge holds powerful implications for students’ overall comprehension of a text. Although this is an important aspect for all students, it is vital for emerging bilingual students with or at risk for a reading disability (Hickman et al., 2004; Vaughn et al., 2006). Emerging bilingual students with a reading difficulty benefit from explicit instruction that targets academic vocabulary to support understanding of texts. One way to integrate this practice includes interactive read-alouds (Giroir et al., 2015). Using this framework to support students will prioritize explicit preteaching of vocabulary (a component of building background knowledge as well), with opportunities to practice and respond to new words using student-friendly definitions. Vocabulary practice should explicitly introduce new words each week and provide extension options for students to practice within the context of a story or discussion (Kong & Hurless, 2023). Table 2 presents options to learn and practice vocabulary before, during, and after reading so that vocabulary building is an ongoing part of learning. Figure 1 presents one option for applying new vocabulary terms (Frayer et al., 1969). To increase engagement and accessibility, teachers may also consider implementing a digital version of this model (Dazzeo & Rao, 2019).

Table 2

Teach and Apply New Vocabulary

Before reading (also a component of building background knowledge)	• Choose: Identify 5 to 6 new vocabulary words per week. These should be academic or Tier 2 words (words that are high utility but likely not known) that will support students’ understanding. These words can be found in texts from English language arts or across any content area (science, social studies, or mathematics).• Teach: Use student-friendly definitions to explicitly teach these words.• Visualize: Add visual representations of vocabulary terms. Examples may include a picture, a semantic map, or a Frayer model that identifies a word’s definition, characteristics, examples, and nonexamples (see Figure 1 ).
During reading	• Bring attention: Notice vocabulary words as they appear in texts or in the world. Challenge students to identify these words and raise their hand or signal when they see or hear them.• Add context: Discuss the meaning of the vocabulary word and how it relates to the text.
After reading	• Review: Return to the vocabulary words and review the meaning or concept that each represents.• Extend: Provide opportunities to transfer vocabulary ownership to students (this is a more challenging skill). Invite students to use sentence stems or generate their own sentences that embed new vocabulary.

Figure 1

Frayer model for vocabulary development

Provide Explicit Instruction in Word Reading

Word reading is a central component of overall text comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Underlying this process are both phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge (Shapiro & Clemens, 2023). Studies have demonstrated that explicit, systematic instruction in word reading, including its subprocesses of phonological/phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence, promote statistically significant reading outcomes for students with or at risk for a reading disability and emerging bilingual students (Hall et al., 2023; Vaughn et al., 2006). Given that instruction to build students’ decoding skills presents significant positive results for both emerging bilingual students and students who experience reading difficulty, building in daily instruction and practice of word reading is integral for student success. Atlhough there is not a set precedent for the rate, small-group instruction focusing on two to four new letter-sound correspondences per week is a good place to start with students in kindergarten and first grade. This rate of introduction may be adjusted based on the needs of the students in each small group. Instruction of letters should not flow alphabetically but should focus on the most common letters students will encounter first. Once students are taught and have an opportunity to practice between two and four new letter-sound pairs, they can begin to decode words that include these letters. Integrating these with decodable texts that feature the sound(s) taught will provide students with an immediate way to practice new learning in context. Table 3 features a simple lesson design for letter-sound correspondence and word reading in context.

Table 3

Lesson Example to Teach and Apply Letter-Sound Correspondence

Step 1: Teach	• Objective: Students will demonstrate understanding and application of the /f/ sound and the letter-sound correspondence, “ph.”• Review the sounds letters “p” and “h” represent independently. Then, demonstrate that when p and h come together, they make a new sound, /f/.• Show students the letters “p” and “h.” Hold up a card with these letters on one side and “f” on the other side and a picture of an ear. Use this card to demonstrate the sound /f/ when “p” and “h” are stuck together.
Step 2: Practice	• Point to the “ph” letters and model the /f/ sound once alone.• Then, ask students to practice this with you 3 times.• Next, have students try this independently.• Word sort initial and final sounds: Present students with 10 words that include “ph” at either the beginning or end of a word. Students sort words into the following two groups:/f/ as initial sound /f/ as final sound
Step 3: Apply word reading	• Apply knowledge of letter-sound correspondence for “ph” by using the decodable text Phil and Phoebe. Have students read this text aloud for you and use this as an informal observation to gauge student understanding of this letter-sound pair and any areas that may need additional practice.

Note. For Phil and Phoebe text and other decodable text options, see https://heggerty.org/frog-series/.

Teach Comprehension Skills

Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading (Shapiro & Clemens, 2023). Interactive read-alouds present powerful opportunities for modeling fluent reading, embedding vocabulary, and gauging students’ literal and inferential understanding of a text (Giroir et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2020). This includes providing instruction beyond the “right there” answers from the text to questions that prompt emerging bilingual students to make inferences and think critically about the text. Specifically for emerging bilingual learners with a reading disability, this structured format provides opportunities to learn new words in context, make connections, and build background knowledge. Practices built in before, during, and after reading that integrate vocabulary, language, and word reading (decoding) skills contribute to comprehension of text, and these scaffolds are especially vital for emerging bilingual learners (Giroir et al., 2015). Table 4 presents an overview of possible focuses for each stage of an interactive read-aloud to support emerging bilingual students with a reading disability.

“These strategies have demonstrated efficacy on literacy outcomes for emerging bilingual learners and students with a disability but ultimately serve as strong instructional practices for all students.

Table 4

Comprehension Building Before, During, and After an Interactive Read-Aloud

Before reading	1. Identify and preteach new vocabulary.2. Make predictions.3. Review genre; discuss text structure if applicable.
During reading	1. Embed questions to monitor comprehension.2. Ask literal comprehension questions.3. Ask inferential comprehension questions.4. Revisit vocabulary as it appears in the text.
After reading	1. Scaffold students’ opportunities to retell and summarize what was read.2. Discuss the main idea and key details from the text.3. Provide opportunities for students to summarize in a written or spoken format.

Conclusion

Practices that build on strengths while supporting the needs of emerging bilingual students with a reading disability do not necessarily require instructional approaches that are entirely different from how evidence-based reading instruction is provided for all students. Components including creating an inclusive environment and instruction for background knowledge, vocabulary, word reading, and comprehension all present powerful strategies for supporting students’ reading development. These strategies have demonstrated efficacy on literacy outcomes for emerging bilingual learners and students with a disability but ultimately serve as strong instructional practices for all students (Hickman et al., 2004; Vaughn et al., 2006).

Using these keys to anticipate the needs of emerging bilingual students with a reading disability, Mr. Roberts began implementing these practices as his initial plan for instruction. Not only did the keys support students in his class identified as emerging bilingual students with a reading disability, but they also benefited all learners. Students began to gain confidence in vocabulary knowledge and word reading, which supported their overall comprehension of texts. By using these practices and anticipating the needs of emerging bilingual learners with a reading disability from the beginning, Mr. Roberts was able to decrease some of the time he was previously spending on extensive interventions after whole-group lessons. Students were set up in a more inclusive environment for accessing literacy learning. These practices also demonstrated gains for students across other content areas, such as science and social studies, where reading skills are vital for content-specific comprehension.

Footnotes

Declaration Of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Emily Mauer

Emily Mauer, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

References

Artzi

Hsin

L. B.

Sanford

A. K.

Brown

J. E.

Guin

(2022). Meeting the language needs of emergent multilingual students at risk for learning disabilities through multitiered systems of support. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(3), 189–203.

Bernhard

J. K.

Cummins

Campoy

F. A.

Ada

A. F.

Winsler

Bleiker

(2006). Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk of learning disabilities. Teachers College Record, 108, 2380–2405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00786.x

Broughton

A. J.

Przymus

S. D.

Ortiz

A. A.

Cruz

B. J. S.

(2023). Critical consciousness in decision-making: A model for educational planning and instruction with bilingual/multilingual students with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 55(5), 338–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221093655

Castles

Rastle

Nation

(2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1998, Article 8. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

Dazzeo

Rao

(2020). Digital Frayer model: Supporting vocabulary acquisition with technology and UDL. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920911951

Dulay

Burt

Krashen

S. D.

(1982). Language two. Newbury House, Rowley.

Frayer

Frederick

W. C.

Klausmeier

H. J.

(1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive mastery. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Giroir

Grimaldo

L. R.

Vaughn

Roberts

(2015). Interactive read-alouds for English learners in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 68(8), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1354

10.

Gonzalez

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(2005). Introduction: Theorizing practices. In Gonzales

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(Eds.), Funds of knowledge (pp. 1–28). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462

11.

Gough

P. B.

Tunmer

W. E.

(1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

12.

Graham

Silva

Restrepo

M. A.

(2023). Reading intervention research with emergent bilingual students: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 36, 2433–2464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10399-8

13.

Hall

Dahl-Leonard

Cho

Solari

E. J.

Capin

Conner

C. L.

Henry

A. R.

Cook

Hayes

Vargas

Richmond

C. L.

Kehoe

K. F.

(2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477

14.

Hall

Steinle

P. K.

Vaughn

(2019). Reading instruction for English learners with learning disabilities: What do we already know, and what do we still need to learn? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(166), 145–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20302

15.

Hall

Vaughn

Barnes

M. A.

Stewart

A. A.

Austin

C. R.

Roberts

(2020). The effects of inference instruction on the reading comprehension of English learners with reading comprehension difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 41(5), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824983

16.

Hickman

Pollard-Durodola

Vaughn

(2004). Storybook reading: Improving vocabulary and comprehension for English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 720–730.

17.

Kirsch

Braun

Yamamoto

Sum

(2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation’s future. Educational Testing Service.

18.

Kong

N. Y.

Hurless

(2023). Vocabulary interventions for young emergent bilingual children: A systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214211027625

19.

Krashen

S. D.

(1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.

20.

Lang

Rispoli

Sigafoos

Lancioni

Andrews

Ortega

(2011). Effects of language of instruction on response accuracy and challenging behavior in a child with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20(4), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9130-0

21.

Ludwig

Guo

Georgiou

G. K.

(2019). Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419825855

22.

Moll

L.C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

23.

National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

24.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244

25.

Richards-Tutor

Baker

D. L.

Gersten

Baker

S. K.

Smith

J. M.

(2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483

26.

Shapiro

E. S.

Clemens

N. H.

(2023). Academic skills problems. The Guilford Press.

27.

Smith

Snow

Serry

Hammond

(2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348

28.

Stevens

E. A.

Vaughn

Swanson

Scammacca

(2020). Examining the effects of a tier 2 reading comprehension intervention aligned to tier 1 instruction for fourth-grade struggling readers. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919893710

29.

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). NAEP report card: 2022 NAEP reading assessment. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/

30.

Vaughn

Fall

A.-M.

Roberts

Wanzek

Swanson

Martinez

L. R.

(2019). Class percentage of students with reading difficulties on content knowledge and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775117

31.

Vaughn

Mathes

Linan-Thompson

Cirino

Carlson

Pollard-Durodola

Cardenas-Hagan

Francis

(2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1086/510653

32.

Vellutino

F. R.

Scanlon

D. M.

Sipay

E. R.

Small

S. G.

Pratt

Chen

Denckla

M. B.

(1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601

33.

Ziaian-Ghafari

Berg

D. H.

(2019). Compassion fatigue: The experiences of teachers working with students with exceptionalities. Exceptionality Education International, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v29i1.7778

Teaching Emerging Bilingual Students With a Reading Disability

Abstract

Create an Inclusive Environment

Build Background Knowledge

Support Vocabulary Learning

Provide Explicit Instruction in Word Reading

Teach Comprehension Skills

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration Of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References