Relatively little is known regarding post-intervention reading fluency outcomes for English learners (ELs) in comparison with non-EL peers, yet educators must be prepared to sustain growth for all students transitioning to less-intensive tiers of support. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether EL status moderated post-intervention maintenance effects among U.S. second- and third-grade students who transitioned back to Tier 1 instruction only due to successful performance during a Tier 2 reading fluency intervention. Piecewise multi-level models were estimated to address whether EL status uniquely predicted intervention growth patterns and the extent to which these patterns were maintained over a 12- to 13-week post-intervention period. Reading fluency scores were similar between EL and non-EL students prior to the start of and during the intervention, and all students’ performance decreased slightly immediately after support ceased. Regardless of grade level or EL status, post-intervention fluency gains generally remained smaller than those observed during intervention meriting attention to individual- and systems-level instructional considerations for ensuring continued growth.
AlbersC. A.MartinezR. S. (2015). Promoting success with English language learners. The Guilford Press.
2.
Al OtaibaS.PetscherY.PappamihielN. E.WilliamsR. S.DyrlundA. K.ConnorC. (2009). Modeling oral reading fluency development in Latino students: A longitudinal study across second and third grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014698
3.
AugustD.McCardleP.ShanahanT. (2014). Developing literacy in English language learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review, 43(4), 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087417
4.
BakerD. L.ParkY.BakerS. K. (2012). The reading performance of English learners in grades 1-3: The role of initial status and growth on reading fluency in Spanish and English. Reading and Writing, 25, 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9261-z
5.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BradyS. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP research. In BradyS.BrazeD.FowlerC. (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69–96). Psychology Press.
7.
ChoE.CapinP.RobertsG.RobertsG.VaughnS. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 982–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000332
8.
ChristT. J.AranasY. A.JohnsonL.KemberJ. M.KilgusS.KissA. J.WhiteM. J. (2018). Formative assessment system for teachers technical manual. Author and Fastbridge Learning.
9.
CrossonA. C.LesauxN. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9168-8
10.
DedrickR. F.FerronJ. M.HessM. R.HogartyK. Y.KromreyJ.LangT. R.NilesJ. D.LessR. S. (2009). Multilevel modeling: A review of methodological issues and applications. Review of Educational Research, 79, 69–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325581
11.
DentonC. A.NimonK.MathesP. G.SwansonE.KethleyC.KurzT. L.ShihM. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600402
12.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.StahlS. A.WillowsD. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580
15.
GerstenR.HaymondK.Newman-GoncharR.DiminoJ.JayanthiM. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591
16.
GonzalezJ. E.DuránL. K.Linan-ThompsonS.JimersonS. R. (2022). Unlocking the promise of multitiered systems of support (MTSS) for linguistically diverse students: Advancing science, practice, and equity. School Psychology Review, 51(4), 387–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2022.2105612
17.
GrabeW. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
18.
HudsonA.KohP. W.MooreK. A.Binks-CantrellE. (2020). Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesis of research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030052
19.
JebbA. T.TayL.WangW.HuangQ. (2015). Time series analysis for psychological research: Examining and forecasting change. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00727
20.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.Van Den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
21.
KamataA.NeseJ. F. T.PatarapichayathamC.LaiC. (2013). Modeling nonlinear growth with three data points: Illustration with benchmarking data. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508412457872
22.
KimY. G.WagnerR. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
23.
KoskinenP.BlumI. (1986). Paired repeated reading: A classroom strategy for developing fluent reading. The Reading Teacher, 40, 70–75.
24.
MarkovitzC. E.HernandezM. W.HedbergE. C.WhitmoreH. W. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of a volunteer one-on-one tutoring model for early elementary reading intervention: A randomized controlled trial replication study. American Education Research Journal, 59(4), 788–819. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211066848
25.
MarkovitzC. E.HernandezM. W.HedbergE. C.WhitmoreH. W.SatoriousJ. (2018). Impact evaluation of the Minnesota reading corps K-3 program (2017–18). University of Chicago.
26.
MiciakJ.AhmedY.CapinP.FrancisD. J. (2022). The reading profiles of late elementary English learners with and without risk for dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 72(2), 276–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00254-4
27.
MoeyaertM.UgilleM.FerronJ. M.BeretvasS. N.Van den NoortgateW. (2014). The influence of design matrix on treatment effect estimates in the quantitative analysis of single-subject experimental design research. Behavior Modification, 38, 665–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514535243
National Research Council. (2011). Allocating federal funds for English language learners. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13090
30.
NelsonP. M.KlingbeilD. A.Van NormanE. R.ParkerD. (2021). A cluster randomized controlled trial of brief follow-up practice sessions on intervention maintenance. Journal of School Psychology, 88, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.07.003
31.
NelsonP. M.Van NormanE. R.ParkerD. C. (2018). An examination of student reading outcomes following tier II exit decisions. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.03.003
32.
NelsonP. M.Van NormanE. R.VanDerHeydenA. (2017). Reduce, reuse, recycle: The longitudinal value of local cut scores using state test data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 683–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916658567
33.
NewellK. W.CoddingR. S.FortuneT. W. (2020). Oral reading fluency as a screening tool with English learners: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 57(8), 1208–1239. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22406
34.
O’ConnorR. E.FulmerD.HartyK. R.BellK. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380050701
35.
ParkerD.BurnsM. K. (2013). Using the instructional level as a criterion to target reading interventions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.702047
36.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
37.
RichardsonR. D.RocconiL. M.CrewdsonM. A. (2020). Evaluating English learner progress in reading: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 49, 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1787080
38.
RobertsG. J.HallC.ChoE.CotéB.LeeJ.QiB.Van OoyikJ. (2021). The state of current reading intervention research for English learners in grades K–2: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09629-2
39.
SearfossL. (1975). Radio reading. The Reading Teacher, 29, 295–296.
40.
ShanahanT.BarrR. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 958–996. https://doi.org/10.2307/748206
41.
SilvermanR. D.SpeeceD. L.HarringJ. R.RitcheyK. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 108–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.618153
42.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.KwokO. M.McDonaghS.HarnB. A.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313587
43.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2022). National student group scores and score gaps. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/groups/?grade=4
46.
Van NormanE. R.NelsonP. M.KlingbeilD. A. (2020). Typical rates of regression after exiting supplemental interventions in reading. School Psychology Review, 49(4), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2020.1720801
47.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900401
48.
VerhoevenL.Van LeeuweJ. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1414
49.
WawireB. A.ZuilkowskiS. S. (2021). The role of vocabulary and decoding language skills in reading comprehension: A cross-linguistic perspective. International Multilingual Research Journal, 15, 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2020.1753953
50.
Yaghoub ZadehZ.FarniaF.GevaE. (2012). Toward modeling reading comprehension and reading fluency in English language learners. Reading and Writing, 25, 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9252-0
51.
ZimmermannL. M.ReedD. K.AloeA. M. (2021). A meta-analysis of non-repetitive reading fluency interventions for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 42, 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519855058
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
