English learners with learning disabilities (LD) have well-documented difficulties comprehending text. This study examined the effects of an intensive reading intervention (Reading Intervention for Adolescents [RIA]) on reading outcomes (word reading, vocabulary, and comprehension) for ninth-grade ELs with LD (n = 85). In the RIA, students received instruction in advanced word study, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Participants assigned to RIA received the intervention for the entire ninth-grade school year for approximately 3.75 to 4.25 hr a week, whereas students in the comparison condition participated in elective courses. After using analysis of covariance to test for treatment effects and controlling for false discovery rate, there were no significant differences between the two groups except on the proximal vocabulary measure (g = 0.41). Small, nonsignificant effects were observed on measures of word reading and sentence-level comprehension, and Hedges’ g values ranged from 0.08 to 0.18. Findings reveal the challenges of improving reading outcomes for English learners with learning disabilities in high school.
ArcherA. L.GleasonM. M.VachonV. L. (2014). REWARDS Secondary (3rd ed.). Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning Group Sopris Learning.
2.
BakerS.LesauxN.JayanthiM.DiminoJ.ProctorC. P.MorrisJ.. . . Newman-GoncharR. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://ies.ed.gov
3.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Methodological, 57, 289–300. Available from https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
4.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14. Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com
5.
ChristensonS. L.StoutK.PohlA. (2012). Check & connect: A comprehensive student engagement intervention: Implementing with fidelity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
6.
DentonC. A.WexlerJ.VaughnS.BryanD. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 79–89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00266.x
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
9.
FrancisD.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Houston, TX: Center on Instruction. Available from http://www.centeroninstruction.org
10.
GravetterF. J.WallnauL. B. (2013). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
11.
GwetK. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. Gaithersburg, MD: STATAXIS.
12.
HallC.RobertsG. J.ChoE.McCulleyL. V.CarrollM.VaughnS. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 763–794. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4
13.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 6, 107–128. Retrieved from https://www.journals.sagepub.com
14.
HernandezD. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/
15.
HockM. F.Brasseur-HockI. F.HockA. J.DuvelB. (2017). The effects of a comprehensive reading program on reading outcomes for middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 195–212. doi:10.1177/0022219415618495
16.
HullemanC. S.CordrayD. S. (2009). Moving from the lab to the field: The role of fidelity and achieved relative intervention strength. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 88–100. doi:10.1080/19345740802539325
17.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2017). What Works Clearinghouse procedures handbook (Version 4.0). Washington, DC: Author. Available from http://www.ies.ed.gov
18.
KamilM. L.BormanG. D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
19.
KittlemanA.GionC.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.KratochwillT. R. (2018). Establishing journalistic standards for the publication of negative results. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 171–176. doi:10.1177/0741932517745491
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632. doi:10.3102/0002831209355469
23.
LovettM. W.De PalmaM.FrijtersJ.SteinbachK.TempleM.BensonN.LacerenzaL. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL Struggling Readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333–352. doi:10.1177/0022219408317859
McFarlandJ.HussarB.de BreyC.SnyderT.WangX.Wilkinson-FlickerS.. . . HinzS. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf
26.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). 2015 reading assessment. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/
27.
National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition and Instruction Educational Programs. (2017). Fast facts: Students with disabilities who are language learners. Available from https://ncela.ed.gov
28.
PressleyM.HarrisK. (2008). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. The Journal of Education, 189, 77-94. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42748661
29.
Richards-TutorC.BakerD. L.GerstenR.BakerS. K.SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 144–169. doi:10.1177/0014402915585483
30.
RobertsG.VaughnS.FletcherJ.StuebingK.BarthA. (2013). Effects of a response-based, tiered framework for intervening with struggling readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 237–254. doi:10.1002/rrq.47
31.
RosenshineB. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262-268. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27541984
32.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. doi:10.1177/0022219413504995
33.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG. J.ChoE.WilliamsK. J.RobertsG.VaughnS. R.CarrollM. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86, 756–800. doi:10.3102/0034654316652942
34.
SolariE. J.PetscherY.FolsomJ. S. (2014). Differentiating literacy growth of ELL students with LD from other high-risk subgroups and general education peers: Evidence from grades 3-10. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 329–348. doi:10.1177/0022219412463435
35.
SolisM.VaughnS.ScammaccaN. (2015). The effects of an intensive reading intervention for ninth graders with very low reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 104–113. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12061
36.
StevensJ. P. (2007). A modern approach: Intermediate statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
Texas Education Agency. (2016). 2015-2016 school report card. Available from http://www.tea.texas.gov
38.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency–Second Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
39.
TrainorA.MurrayA.KimH.-J. (2016). English learners with disabilities in high school: Population characteristics, transition programs, and postschool outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 146–158. doi:10.1177/0741932515626797
40.
Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin. (2010). Vocabulary and oral language development. Austin, TX: Author
41.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.WilliamsK. J.MiciakJ.FallA.-M.RobertsG. (2018). Efficacy of a high school extensive reading intervention for English learners with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000289
42.
VaughnS.RobertsG.SchnakenbergJ. B.FallA.VaughnM. G.WexlerJ. (2015). Improving reading comprehension for high school students with disabilities: Effects for comprehension and school retention. Exceptional Children, 82, 117–131. doi:10.1177/0014402915585478
43.
VaughnS.RobertsG.WexlerJ.VaughnM. G.FallA.SchnakenbergJ. B. (2015). High school students with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 546–558. doi:10.1177/0022219413515511
44.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.RobertsG.BarthA. A.CirinoP. T.RomainM. A.. . . DentonC. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391–407. doi:10.1177/001440291107700401
45.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-ED.
46.
WanzekJ.SwansonE.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA.-M. (2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82, 428–442. doi:10.1177/0014402915619419
47.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN. K.MetzK.MurrayC. S.RobertsG.DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195. doi:10.3102/0034654313477212
