Hall2019 - Reading Instruction For English Learners With Learning Disabilities

Hall, C., Steinle, P. K., & Vaughn, S. (2019).
Reading instruction for English learners with

learning disabilities: What do we already know, and what do we still need to learn? In D. J.
Francis (Ed.), Identification, Classification, and Treatment of Reading and Language Disabil-
ities in Spanish-speaking EL Students. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
166, 145–189.
6
Reading Instruction for English Learners
With Learning Disabilities: What Do We
Already Know, and What Do We Still Need
to Learn?
Colby Hall, Paul K. Steinle, Sharon Vaughn
Abstract
This paper reviews findings from four research syntheses that report the effects
of academic language and/or reading interventions on language and reading
outcomes for English learners who have or are at risk for learning difficulties.
Studies included in the syntheses varied in research design and addressed multi-
ple areas of reading and language. There was disagreement between syntheses as
to the extent of research evidence in favor of particular instructional practices.
For ELs with learning difficulties in kindergarten and first grade, however, there
was strong consensus that multiple-component reading instruction that includes
phonological awareness and phonics instruction is associated with improved
word reading outcomes. It may also be beneficial to provide oral language,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension instruction; nevertheless, there is a need
for future research on instructional interventions that aim to improve reading
comprehension outcomes for this population. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, no. 166, July 2019 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). • DOI: 10.1002/cad.20302 145
146 READING AND LANGUAGE DISABILITIES IN SPANISH-SPEAKING EL STUDENTS
E nglish learners (ELs) constitute 9.2% of the national enrollment in

public elementary and secondary schools (Kena et al., 2015) and the
population of EL students is growing considerably faster than that
of other populations nationally: between 1995 and 2010, the growth rate
of the EL population nationwide was 63.5%, whereas the growth rate of
the student population overall was just over 4% (National Clearinghouse
for English Acquisition and Instruction Educational Programs [NCELA],
2011). While not without controversy, research suggests that some bilin-
gual students may have certain cognitive advantages over their monolin-
gual peers (e.g., enhanced selective attention; Adesope, Lavin, Thompson
& Ungerleider, 2010; Barac, Bialystok, Castro, & Sanchez, 2014; for a con-
trary view, see Duñabeitia et al., 2014; Gathercole et al., 2014). At the same
time, ELs in the United States demonstrate significantly lower academic
achievement than English-only (EO) students (National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics [NCES], 2015a, 2015b), with EL students at higher risk of
grade retention and school dropout (Kena et al., 2015).
It is important to consider these academic achievement statistics within
the context of the high levels of poverty experienced by many ELs in the
United States. Spanish-speaking ELs in the United States are more likely
than EO students to have family incomes below or near poverty levels (Fry
& Gonzales, 2008; Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008) and parents
with relatively low levels of education and literacy (Capps et al., 2005; Her-
nandez et al., 2008). They are also more likely to be enrolled in under-
resourced, low-performing schools (Capps et al., 2005; de Cohen, Deter-
ding, & Clewell, 2005). As a result, many ELs in the United States have
fewer opportunities to access texts and experiences that contribute to suc-
cessful literacy acquisition at home and at school. Stressors at home and
at school and lack of access to high-quality instruction have the poten-
tial to influence the neural systems that underlie learning. Environmen-
tal factors impact biological factors (e.g., gene expression and brain struc-
ture/function) that in turn influence cognitive and behavioral/psychosocial
factors (e.g., phonological processing, attention) that in turn influence
the development of academic skills (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes,
2018). Thus, many ELs in the United States who are struggling in school
demonstrate learning difficulties or disabilities (we use these terms inter-
changeably and use the abbreviation LDs to refer to both) that are the
result of complex interactions between neurobiological and environmental
factors.
Frameworks for understanding reading development typically describe
reading comprehension as the interactive product of word recognition and
linguistic comprehension processes (see Gough and Tunmer’s simple view
of reading [SVR; 1986]). Word recognition involves the integration of
phonological, orthographical, and semantic knowledge (Perfetti & Hart,
2002). Comprehension draws on (and, in turn, informs) the semantic
knowledge activated during word recognition but also requires the reader
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

READING INSTRUCTION FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES 147
to engage in sentence- and discourse-level comprehension processes that

enable him or her to determine the importance of information in text, inte-
grate information in text, activate relevant general knowledge, and integrate
knowledge with information in text to create a representation of the text in
memory (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Because semantic knowledge impacts
both word recognition and comprehension, all ELs (even typically develop-
ing ELs, students who do not have learning difficulties) would be expected
to demonstrate challenges with both factors (word reading and linguistic
comprehension) of the SVR equation. ELs with LDs, in addition to having
underdeveloped language knowledge, may additionally struggle to develop
phonological awareness (PA) and to integrate phonological knowledge with
knowledge of orthography. In addition (or instead), ELs with LDs may
struggle to learn language and to engage in sentence- and discourse-level
comprehension processes.
Because ELs with LDs are developing English proficiency at the same
time that they are experiencing other processing difficulties, it would be
reasonable to assume that they might respond differently to reading inter-
ventions than do EO students with LDs. Ideally, educators employ research-
based instructional and assessment practices validated with samples of
students similar to the students they teach (Klingner & Edwards, 2006).
Instructional interventions effective in improving academic outcomes for
EO students with LDs may not be similarly effective in improving the same
outcomes for ELs with LDs, particularly if they neglect to consider vocab-
ulary and oral language development. Similarly, instructional interventions
effective in improving academic outcomes for ELs without LDs may not be
similarly effective in improving academic outcomes for ELs with LDs, par-
ticularly if they neglect to intensify and individualize instruction to address
the source of the student’s learning struggles. Instruction for ELs with LDs
may have the greatest impact when designed to respond to unique contex-
tual and linguistic-cognitive factors that interact with LDs.
Until recently, it has been very challenging to make research-based
decisions about instruction for ELs with LDs because there has been so
little research investigating the impact of instruction or the trajectories of
students’ responses to instruction for this population. However, within the
last 15 years there has been an increase in high-quality studies, syntheses,
and meta-analyses investigating the effects of academic interventions for
ELs (e.g., Baker et al., 2014; Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Genesee, Lindholm-
Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Hall et al., 2016; Shanahan & Beck,
2006). There has also been an increase in studies investigating the effects
of instruction for ELs who demonstrate academic difficulties despite
having been provided high-quality Tier 1 instruction. The majority of these
studies have examined the impact of supplemental, small-group language
and literacy instruction on language and literacy outcomes. There remains
a dearth of research on language, literacy, and/or content knowledge
acquisition-focused interventions for language minority students with

or without LD on outcomes in content-area (e.g., mathematics, science,

and/or social studies) domains.
This paper summarizes the findings from each of four reviews of
research addressing the effects of academic language and/or reading
interventions on language and reading outcomes for ELs who have or
are at risk for learning difficulties (August & Siegel, 2006; Klingner,
Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker, & Smith,
2016; Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, & Francis, 2008). We propose this
“synthesis of syntheses” based on a model that synthesized reviews of
research on effective instruction for students with learning disabilities
(Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). Our purpose is to identify evidence-
based practices and effective instructional practices for ELs with LDs across
age groups, discuss disagreements and gaps in the research, and highlight
challenges that prevent the identification of appropriate instruction for ELs
with LDs.
Methods
All syntheses of research published within the last 15 years that investigated
the effects of an academic language and/or reading instructional interven-
tion on a language or reading outcome for ELs with or at risk for LDs
were eligible for inclusion in this synthesis of syntheses. Four syntheses
met this criterion for inclusion. In discussing each synthesis, we described
all included studies (regardless of study design) that addressed the effect(s)
of an academic language and/or reading instructional intervention on at least
one language or reading outcome. In certain cases, this meant that we only
discussed a subset of the studies included in a synthesis. For example,
August and Siegel (2006) synthesized twelve qualitative, single case, sin-
gle group, and treatment-comparison group design studies addressing lit-
eracy instruction conducted with ELs in Grades K-12 who were receiving
instruction in special education settings. However, two included case stud-
ies did not investigate the effects of an intervention [i.e., Hughes, Schumm,
and Vaughn (1999) examined Latino parents’ perceptions and practice of
literacy-related activities at home; Ruiz (1995) identified opportunities for
student participation during business-as-usual classroom instruction]. One
included study investigated the impact of a writing intervention on writing
outcomes (i.e., Graves, Valles, & Rueda, 2000). For this reason, we only
discussed nine studies in our discussion of the synthesis reported by August
and Siegel.
In the synthesis reported by Klingner et al., authors included forty-
two studies on the topic of ELs with reading difficulties and/or with or at
risk for LDs. They sought not only to identify elements of instruction that
were effective in improving reading outcomes for this population, but also
to understand more about factors shown to impact reading development
for ELs, identification of LDs in this population, and the experiences of EL

students receiving special education services.1 However, among the forty-

two qualitative, single case, single group, and treatment-comparison group
design studies that Klingner et al. included in their synthesis, we only dis-
cussed the seven that investigated the effects of a reading intervention on
a reading outcome (i.e., the ones in the table titled “Studies Included in
the Review That Provide Data on Interventions for ELLs Struggling With
Reading”).
Rivera et al. (2008) synthesized twenty-one qualitative, single case,
single group, and treatment-comparison group design studies (as reported
in twenty publications; one publication, Vaughn, Cirino, et al., [2006],
reported on the results of two separate studies) examining the effects of
reading interventions on reading outcomes for ELs with or at risk for LDs.
However, among the twenty-one studies cited in their synthesis and listed
in their tables were ones that (a) did not disaggregate data for ELs with or
at risk for LDs (i.e., Calhoon, al Otaiba, Cihak, King, and Avalos, 2007) or
(b) reported on a subset of data reported in another study included in the
synthesis (i.e., Linan-Thompson, Cirino, & Vaughn, 2007; Mathes, Pollard-
Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan, Linan-Thompson, & Vaughn, 2007; Pollard-
Durodola, Mathes, Vaughn, Cardenas-Hagan, & Linan-Thompson, 2006;
Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005). For this reason, we
only describe results reported in sixteen of the twenty-one studies.
Finally, Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) synthesized thirteen experimental
treatment-comparison group design studies [published in twelve publica-
tions; again, note that Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006) reported on the results
of two separate studies]. They required that included studies be published
between 2000 and 2012 and evaluate the effects of reading interventions
on academic outcomes for ELs in Grades K-12 had or were at risk for
experiencing academic difficulties. They only included studies that (a) were
published in a peer-referred journal; (b) reported data disaggregated by EL
status if all participants were not English learners; and (c) reported infor-
mation about fidelity of implementation. We included all thirteen studies
in our discussion of the Richards-Tutor et al. synthesis.
We occasionally present findings from studies that authors of a syn-
thesis included but that (a) had participants who were ELs but were not
identified as having or being at risk for LDs or (b) had a mixed group of
participants for whom ELs with or at risk for LDs were not in the majority
and did not disaggregate data for the ELs with LDs (e.g., Calhoon et al.,
2007). However, we did not include studies in Tables 6.1–6.8 when par-
ticipants were not identified as having or being at risk for LDs or when
disaggregated data for ELs with or at risk for LDs was not available.
It may be useful at this point to orient the reader to the purposes of
our tables. Table 6.1 lists the studies included in each of the four synthe-
ses. Table 6.1 provides information about the degree of overlap across dif-
ferent syntheses, and potentially explains why different syntheses came to

Table 6.1. Studies Included in Syntheses

Richards-Tutor,
Rivera, Baker,
August Klingner, Moughamian, Gersten,
and Artiles, and Lesaux, and Baker, and
Siegel Barletta Francis Smith
(2006) (2006) (2008) (2015)
Begeny et al. (2012) X
Bos, Allen, and Scanlon X X
(1989)
De La Colina, Parker, X X
Hasbrouck, and
Lara-Alecio (2001)
Denton, Anthony, Parker, X X X
and Hasbrouck, (2004)
Echevarria (1996) X X
Fawcett and Lynch (2000) X
Gerber, Jimenez, Leafstedt, X
Villaruz, Richards, and
English (2004)
Gunn, Biglan, X X
Smolkowski, and Ary
(2000)
Haager and Windmueller X
(2001)
Jimenez (1997) X X
Kamps et al. (2007) X
Klingner and Vaughn X X
(1996)
Leafstedt, Richards, and X
Gerber (2004)
Linan-Thompson, X X
Vaughn,
Hickman-Davis, and
Kouzekanani (2003)
Lovett et al. (2008) X
Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, and X
Buckley (2003)
O’Connor et al. (2010) X
Perozzi (1985) X
Rousseau and Tam (1991) X
Rousseau, Tam, and X
Ramnarain (1993)
Saenz, Fuch, and Fuchs X
(2005)
Solari and Gerber (2008) X
Tam, Heward, and Heng X
(2006)
Vadasy & Sanders (2010) X
VanWagenen, Williams, X
and McLaughlin (1994)
(Continued)

Table 6.1. Continued

Richards-Tutor,
Rivera, Baker,
August Klingner, Moughamian, Gersten,
and Artiles, and Lesaux, and Baker, and
Siegel Barletta Francis Smith
(2006) (2006) (2008) (2015)
Vaughn, Cirino, et al. X X
(2006) English study
Vaughn, Cirino, et al. X X
(2006), Spanish study
Vaughn, X X
Linan-Thompson, et al.
(2006)
Vaughn, Mathes, et al. X X
(2006)
Vaughn et al. (2011) X
Wanzek and Roberts X
(2012)
Wolf (1993) X
Table 6.2. Characteristics of Qualitative Studies

Intervention Intervention
Authors Grade N Focus Program Interventionist
Haager and 1–2 335 Phonological N/A Teacher
Windmueller awareness
(2001)
Jimenez (1997) 7 5 Reading com- N/A Researcher/
prehension graduate
strategies assistant
Wolf (1993) 3–4 3 Fluency Reader’s Community
Theater volunteer
slightly different conclusions when reporting results and discussing impli-

cations for practice. The subsequent four tables provide information about
the characteristics (i.e., authors, grade level of participants, number of
participants, intervention focus, intervention program, and/or interven-
tion provider) of qualitative studies (Table 6.2), single case design studies
(Table 6.3), single group pretest posttest design studies (Table 6.4), and
treatment-comparison quasi-experimental or experimental group design
studies (Table 6.5). Table 6.6 represents effect sizes by measurement domain
for all experimental group design studies. Table 6.7 lists effect sizes for
quasi-experimental group design studies. Except when noted otherwise,
we independently calculated the effect sizes cited in this table using an
adjusted mean difference in the numerator and the pooled unadjusted stan-
dard deviation in the denominator. If adjusted means were not reported, we

Table 6.3. Characteristics of Single Case Design Studies
Authors Grade N Intervention Focus Intervention Program Interventionist
De La Colina, Parker, Hasbrouck, and 1–2 74 Fluency, Read Naturally Teacher
Lara-Alecio (2001) comprehension (Spanish language
version)
Echevarria (1996) 2–3 5 Vocabulary/language Instructional Teacher
development Conversations
(Spanish language)
Perozzi (1985) Pre-K 6 Vocabulary/language N/A Graduate
development clinician
Rousseau and Tam (1991) 2–5 8 Fluency N/A Teacher
Rousseau, Tam, and Ramnarain (1993) 6 5 Fluency N/A Teacher
Tam, Heward, and Heng (2006) 3–5 5 Fluency, vocabulary N/A Researcher
Van Wagenen, Williams, and NR (mean age 3 Fluency, N/A Researcher
McLaughlin (1994) = 12 yrs.) comprehension
Note. NR = Not reported by author(s).
Table 6.4. Characteristics of Single Group Design Studies
Intervention
Authors Design Grade N Intervention Focus Program Interventionist
Fawcett and Lynch (2000) Single group NR (mean age 2 Computer-assisted Readers’ Researcher
= 11.7 yrs.) reading Interactive
instruction Teaching
Assistant
Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Single group 2 26 Fluency, Proactive Teacher
Hickman-Davis, and phonological Reading
Kouzekanani (2003) awareness,
phonics,
vocabulary, and
comprehension
Note. NR = not reported by author(s).
Table 6.5. Characteristics of Treatment-Comparison Group Design Studies
Intervention
Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, Experimental 2 21 Fluency, HELPS Fluency Researcher,
and Whitehouse (2012) comprehension program research
assistant
Bos, Allen, and Scanlon (1989) Quasi- 4–6 42 Vocabulary, language N/A Researcher
experimental development
Denton, Anthony, Parker, and Experimental 2–5 93 Fluency, phonics, Read Well; Read Undergraduate
Hasbrouck (2004) vocabulary, Naturally student
comprehension (English)
Gerber et al. (2004) Quasi- K-1 43 Phonological Early Reading Tutor
experimental awareness Project
Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, and Experimental K-3 256 Phonological Reading Mastery Paraeducator
Ary (2000) awareness, and Corrective
phonics, fluency Reading
Kamps et al. (2007) Quasi- 1-2 170 Fluency, Reading Mastery, Teacher
experimental phonological Read Well,
awareness Early
Intervention in
Reading, Read
Naturally (2nd
grade only)
Klingner and Vaughn (1996) Quasi- 7–8 26 Comprehension Collaborative Researcher
experimental Strategic
Reading
(Continued)
Intervention
Leafstedt, Richards, and Gerber Quasi- K 64 Phonological Early Reading Researcher
(2004) experimental awareness Project
Lovett et al. (2008) Experimental 2–8 76 Phonological Reading Mastery Teacher
awareness, and Corrective
phonics Reading
Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, and Quasi- 3 118 Phonological N/A Teacher
Buckley (2003) experimental awareness,
phonics
O’Connor, Bocian, Experimental K 35 Phonics, Ladders to Paraeducator
Beebe-Frankenberger, and phonological Literacy
Linklater (2010) awareness, oral
language
Saenz, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2005) Experimental 3–6 132 Fluency Peer-Assisted Teacher
Learning
Strategies
(PALS)
Solari and Gerber (2008) Experimental K 82 Phonological N/A Research
awareness, assistant
listening
comprehension
Vadasy and Sanders (2010) Experimental K 84 Phonological N/A Paraeducator
awareness,
phonics, word
reading, spelling,
oral language
(Continued)
Intervention
Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006) Experimental 1 91 Phonics, connected Proactive Reading Teacher
English study text practice,
comprehension,
oral language skill,
vocabulary
Vaughn, Cirino, et al., (2006), Experimental 1 80 Phonics, connected Lectura Proactiva Teacher
Spanish study text practice,
comprehension,
vocabulary
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al. Experimental 1 64 Phonics, connected Lectura Proactiva Teacher
(2006) text practice,
comprehension
vocabulary
Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006) Experimental 1 41 Phonics, connected Proactive Reading Teacher
text practice, oral
language skills,
vocabulary
Vaughn, Wexler, and Roberts Experimental 7–8 42 Fluency, vocabulary, REWARDS, Teacher
(2011) comprehension Wilson Reading
Wanzek and Roberts (2012) Experimental 4 74 Word reading, Wilson Reading Teacher
comprehension
Table 6.6. Outcome Effect Sizes by Measurement Domain for Experimental Group Design Studies
Follow-Up Effect
Study PA Phonics Fluency Vocab Comp Sizes
Begeny, Ross, — — GORT-F — GORT-C —
Greene, Mitchell, g = .95 g = 1.01
and Whitehouse
(2012)
Denton, Anthony, — Read Well: — — Read Well: —
Parker, and WRMT LWID WRMT PC
Hasbrouck g = .40 g = .00#
(2004) WRMT WA Modified Read
g = .35 Naturally:
Modified Read WRMT PC
Naturally: g = .15
WRMT LWID
g = −.06
WRMT WA
g = −.13
Gunn, Biglan, — After Y1: After Y1: — — 2 Years Post-TX:
Smolkowski, and WJ III LWID DIBELS ORF WJ III LWID
Ary (2000) g = .24∗ g = .24∗ g = .38‡
WJII WA After Y2: WJ III WA
g = .52∗ DIBELS ORF g = .59‡
After Y2: g = .36‡ DIBELS ORF
WJ III LWID g = .26‡
g = .49‡
WJ III WA
g = 1.17‡
Lovett et al. (2008) CTOPP Blending WRMT LWID — — WRMT PC —
g = 0.59∗ g = 0.00∗ g = 0.10∗
WRMT WA
g = 0.45∗
WRAT Reading
g = 0.33∗
(Continued)
Follow-Up Effect
O’Connor, Bocian, DIBELS PSF — — — — —
Beebe- g = .63#
Frankenberger,
and Linklater
(2010)
Saenz, Fuchs, and — — CRAB words — CRAB questions —
Fuchs (2005) correct correct
g = NR g = NR
Maze choices
g = NR
Solari and Gerber LC Focus: LC Focus: — — LC Focus: —
(2008) Early PA† WJ III LWID WJ III Story
g = .63 g = −.19 Retell
Late PA† WJ III WA g = 2.34
g = −.14 g = .43 LC†
PA Focus: PA Focus: g = 1.73
Early PA† WJ III LWID PA Focus:
g = −.57 g = .56 WJ III Story
Late PA† WJ III WA Retell
g = −.74 g = −.07 g = 1.00
LC†
g = 1.31#
Vadasy and Sanders CTOPP WRMT LWID Passage reading — WRMT PC —
(2010) g = .19# WRMT WA fluency† g = .47
combined g = .90
g = .61
Alphabetics†
g = .69∗∗
(Continued)
Follow-Up Effect
Vaughn, Cirino, CTOPP WLPB LWID DIBELS ORF 1 WLPB WLPB 1 Year Post-TX:
et al. (2006) PA Skills g = .35# g = .35# PV PC WLPB LWID
English g = .47# WLBP WA DIBELS ORF 2 g = .15# g = .13# g = .47§
intervention g = .47# g = .30 WLPB VA WLPB WLPB WA
TOWRE g = .11# LC g = .51§
g = .86# g = .08# TOWRE
Letter-Name g = .68§
ID† DIBELS ORF
g = .15 g = .37§
Letter-Sound WLPB
ID† PC
g = .66 g = .13§
3 Years
Post-TX:
WLPB LC
g = .37
WLPB
PV
g = .41
WLPB LWID
g = .84
WLPB WA
g = .33
WLPB
PC
g = .33
DIBELS
ORF
g = .26
TOWRE
g = .43
(Continued)
Follow-Up Effect
Vaughn, Cirino, TOPP-S WLPB-S LWID IDEL ORF 1 WLPB-S PV WLPB-S PC 1 Year Post-TX:
et al. (2006) PA Skills g = .62 g = .44 g = −.01# g = .32# WLPB-S LWID
Spanish g = .75# WLPB-S WA IDEL ORF 2 WLPB-S VA WLPB-S LC g = .67§
intervention g = .24 g = .31 g = .13# g = .08# WLPB-S WA
Spanish word g = .32§
reading Spanish word
fluency† reading
g = .58# efficiency
Letter-Name g = .54§
ID† DIBELS ORF
g = .29∗∗ g = .41§
Letter-Sound WLPB-S PC
ID† g = .32§
g = .16∗∗ 3 Years
Post-TX:
WLPB-S LC
g = .09
WLPB-S PV
g = .12
WLPB-S LWID
g = .38
WLPB-S WA
g = .06
WLPB-S PC
g = .20
ORF
g = .33
Spanish word
reading
efficiency
g = .42
(Continued)
Follow-Up Effect
Vaughn, Mathes, CTOPP-PA Skills WLPB WA DIBELS ORF WLPB PV WLPB PC —
et al. (2006) g = 1.23 g = 1.54# g = .15 g = .19# g = 1.33#
English Letter-Name WLPB VA WLPB LC
intervention ID† g = .31# g = −.30#
g = .30∗∗
Letter-Sound
ID†
g = .58∗∗
Vaughn et al. — Individualized: — — Individualized: —
(2011) WJ III LWID WJ III PC
g = .18∗ g = −.05∗
WJ III WA Standardized:
g = −.02∗ WJ III PC
Standardized: g = .26∗
WJ III LWID
g = .23∗
WJ III WA
g = −.01∗
(Continued)
Follow-Up Effect
Wanzek and — Word Study — Word Study Word Study —
Roberts (2012) Intervention: Intervention: Intervention:
WJ III LWID GMRT Vocab WJ III PC
g = .38∗ g = −.59∗ g = −.01∗
WJ III WA Comp GMRT RC
g = 1.09∗ Intervention: g = −.62∗
Comp GMRT Vocab WJ III LC
Intervention: g = −.03∗ g = .41∗
WJ III LWID Responsive Comp
g = .13∗ Intervention: Intervention:
WJ III WA GMRT Vocab WJ III PC
g = .49∗ g = −.05∗ g = −.53∗
Responsive GMRT RC
Intervention: g = −.66∗
WJ III LWID WJ III LC
g = .12∗ g = −.42∗
WJ III WA Responsive
g = .12∗ Intervention:
WJ III PC
g = −.12∗
GMRT RC
g = −.33∗
WJ III LC
g = .93∗
(Continued)
Note. PA = phonological awareness; GORT-F = gray oral reading test—fluency; GORT-C = gray oral reading test—comprehension; WRMT = Woodcock reading mastery
test; LWID = letter word identification; PC = passage comprehension; WA = word attack; Y1: after year one of treatment; WJ III = Woodcock Johnson (3rd ed.); DIBELS
= dynamic indicators of basic early literacy (Story 1 or 2); ORF = oral reading fluency; Y2: after year two of treatment; TX = treatment; CTOPP = comprehensive test of
phonological processing; WRAT = wide range achievement test; PSF = phoneme segmentation fluency; GMRT = Gates MacGinitie reading test; CRAB = comprehensive
reading assessment battery; LC = listening comprehension; NR = information needed for calculating effect sizes according to the procedure described in the body of this paper
was not reported. TOPP-S = test of phonological processes (Spanish version); ID = identification; WLPB = Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery; WLPB-S = Woodcock
Language Proficiency Battery (Spanish version); IDEL = Indicadores Dinámicos del Éxito en la Lectura (Stories 1 and 2); PV = picture vocabulary; VA = verbal analogies;
TOWRE = test of word reading efficiency; RC = reading comprehension.
∗
Reported by Richards-Tutor et al. (2016), who obtained additional information from the What Works Clearinghouse. There was not enough information in the published
article to calculate effect sizes using the procedure described in the body of the article.
†
Researcher-developed measure.
‡
Follow-up effects reported in Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, and Blair (2005).
§
Follow-up effects reported in Cirino et al. (2009).

Follow-up effects reported in Vaughn et al. (2008).
#
Effect size calculated differed by more than 0.05 from the effect size reported by Richards-Tutor et al (2016).
∗∗
Effect size for this measure was not reported by Richards-Tutor et al. (2016).
Table 6.7. Outcome Effect Sizes by Measurement Domain for Quasi-Experimental Group Design Studies
Follow-Up Effect
Bos, Allen, and — — — Vocab MC∗ Comp MC∗ Vocab MC∗
Scanlon g = .63∗ g = .66 g = 1.18
(1989) Text recall∗ Comp MC∗
g = −.09 g = 1.01
Text recall∗
g = −.88
Gerber et al. Early PA∗ WJ III LWID — — — —
(2004) g = .44 g = −.12
Late PA∗ WJ III WA
g = .47 g = −.37
Kamps et al. — After Y1: After Y1: — After Y1: —
(2007) WRMT WA DIBELS-NWF WMRT PC
g = 1.78† g = .70† g = 1.04†
WRMT WID After Y2: After Y2:
g = 1.54† DIBELS-ORF WMRT PC
After Y2: g = .58† g = 1.35†
WRMT WID
g = 1.39†
‡
— — — — GMRT-RC —
g = −.17
WJ II PC
g = .35
Strategy
Interview∗
g = .31
Leafstedt, Early PA∗ WJ III LWID — — — —
Richards, and g = .95 g = 1.29
Gerber (2004) Late PA∗ WJ III WA
g = 2.07 g = 1.11
(Continued)
Follow-Up Effect
Nag-Rulmani, PA Intervention: PA Intervention: PA Intervention: — PA Intervention: PA Intervention:
Reddy, and PA skills∗ WORD SWR TROG WORD RC WORD SWR
Buckley g = 1.35 g = 1.39 g = 1.10 g = .09 g = 1.34
(2003) Language WORD NWR Language Language WORD RC
Exposure: g = 1.10 Exposure: Exposure: g = .43
PA skills∗ WORD TROG WORD RC WORD
g = 0.79 Spelling g = .26 g = .43 Spelling
g = .51 g = .70
PA skills∗
g = 1.69
Language WORD NWR
Exposure: g = 1.84
WORD SWR TROG
g = .07 g = 1.20
WORD Language
spelling Exposure:
g = .28 WORD SWR
WORD NWR g = .30
g = −.16 WORD RC
g = .61
WORD
Spelling
g = .21
PA skills∗
g = 1.21
WORD NWR
g = .16
TROG
g = 1.47
(Continued)
Note. Except when noted otherwise, we independently calculated the effect sizes cited in this table using an adjusted mean difference in the numerator and the
pooled unadjusted standard deviation in the denominator. If adjusted means were not reported, we calculated effect sizes using a difference-in-differences approach
to calculate the numerator (i.e., we computed a gain score for both experimental and control groups) and the pooled posttest standard deviation for the denominator.
PA = phonological awareness; Vocab = vocabulary; Comp = comprehension; MC = multiple choice; WJ III = Woodcock Johnson (3rd ed.); LWID = letter word
identification subtest; WA = word attack subtest; WRMT = Woodcock reading mastery test; WID = word identification subtest; DIBELS = dynamic indicators of
basic early literacy; NWF = nonsense word fluency subtest; ORF = oral reading fluency subtest; PC = passage comprehension subtest; GMRT = Gates MacGinitie
reading test; RC = reading comprehension subtest; WJ II = Woodcock Johnson (2nd ed.); WORD = Wechsler objective reading dimensions; SWR = single word
reading; NWR = nonsense word reading; TROG = test for the reception of grammar.
∗ Researcher-developed measure.
† Cohen’s d effect size reported by study authors; not enough information was provided in the article for us to calculate effect sizes using the procedures we describe
in the body of the paper.
‡ Study compared two treatment groups.
Table 6.8. Recommendations for Practice by Synthesis
K-1 2–5 6–12
Klinger, Klinger, Klinger,
Richards- Artiles, August Richards- Artiles, August Richards- Artiles, August
Tutor Rivera and and Tutor Rivera and and Tutor Rivera and and
et al. et al. Barletta Siegel et al. et al. Barletta Siegel et al. et al. Barletta Siegel
(2016) (2008) (2006) (2006) (2016) (2008) (2006) (2006) (2016) (2008) (2006) (2006)
Explicit and systematic X X X X X X X
phonological
awareness/phonics
instruction
Vocabulary and oral X X X X X X
language
development
instruction
Reading comprehension X X X X X X X X X
instruction
RTI/MTSS framework X X
for providing
instruction
PALS instruction X X
Cognitive strategy X X X X X
instruction
(summarizing,
clarifying, question
generating, clarifying
and predicting)
Note. RTI = Response to Intervention; MTSS = multi-tiered systems of support; PALS = peer-assisted learning strategies.
calculated effect sizes using a difference-in-differences approach to calculate

the numerator (i.e., we computed a gain score for both experimental and
control groups) and the pooled posttest standard deviation for the denom-
inator. Table 6.8 lists recommendations for instruction according to grade
level of student and registers the number of syntheses that determined that
research evidence was in support of each recommendation.
Recent Meta-Analysis: Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker,

and Smith (2016)
Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker, and Smith (2016) reviewed thirteen
studies published between 2000 and 2012 that evaluated the effects of read-
ing interventions for ELs with or at risk for LDs [please note that here we
distinguish between the two separate studies reported in a single article
by Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006), although Richards-Tutor et al. (2016)
did not]. The authors applied stringent inclusion standards, requiring not
only that studies employed experimental or quasi-experimental designs, but
also that authors provided information about fidelity of implementation.
Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) independently calculated effect sizes for all
included studies in order to ensure that effect sizes could be interpreted in
a similar way across studies, using Hedges’ g to correct for potential errors
in effect sizes due to small sample size and adjusting for pretest scores on
each outcome. Although there was significant overlap between studies in
the four syntheses of research included in this paper (please see Table 6.1
for information about the studies that were included in each synthesis and
the degree to which there was overlap between syntheses), Richards-Tutor
et al. (2016) assessed and compared study results to tell a slightly different
story than did authors of prior syntheses of research on reading instruction
for English learners with LDs. Most strikingly, Richards-Tutor et al. (2016)
highlighted the presence of conflicting evidence and the dearth of evidence
in favor of a number of instructional approaches, especially for participants
in Grade 2 and above.
Effective studies included in the Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) review
used explicit and systematic instruction. As Richards-Tutor et al. noted,
this finding supports a substantial body of evidence on the benefits of using
systematic and explicit approaches to instruction, especially with students
who have or are at risk for reading difficulties. In addition, Richards-Tutor
et al. pointed to robust effects of comprehensive, multiple-component early
reading interventions for ELs with LD on measures of PA. Among the eight
included studies measuring PA, six reported statistically significant differ-
ences between groups in favor of the treatment condition (Lovett et al.,
2008; O’Connor, Bocian, Beebe-Frankenberger, & Linklater, 2010; Vadasy
& Sanders, 2010; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., Spanish study; Vaughn, Linan-
Thompson, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006). All studies provided
multiple-component reading instruction that included explicit instruction

in PA (as well as instruction in phonics, word reading fluency, passage read-

ing fluency, vocabulary, and/or comprehension; please see Tables 6.2–6.5
for information about intervention components for studies included in the
syntheses reviewed here). With the exception of one study conducted in
Grades 3–8 (Lovett et al., 2008), all investigations that reported statistically
significant effects on PA were conducted with students in kindergarten or
first grade. It is relevant to note that for one of the two studies that did not
find statistically significant effect sizes on PA measures (Solari & Gerber,
2008), the treatment conditions included differing amounts of listening
comprehension instruction in addition to PA instruction, and the control
group received a PA-only intervention; in this case, the lack of effects on
PA for the treatment groups likely reflected the PA-focused nature of the
comparison condition.
Eleven of the thirteen studies included in the Richards-Tutor et al.
(2016) review measured word reading or decoding accuracy. Only three of
these reported statistically significant effect sizes that were unequivocally in
favor of treatment (Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006,
Spanish study; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006). All three of these
studies provided multiple-component reading instruction that included
explicit instruction in phonics to students in grades K and 1. Both Gunn,
Biglan, Smolkowski, and Ary (2000) and Wanzek and Roberts (2012) found
statistically significant effects in favor of treatment conditions that included
phonics instruction (in the former study, students in K-3 in the treatment
condition received Reading Mastery and/or Corrective Reading; in the latter
study, Grade 4 students received Wilson Reading System) on measures of
word attack, but not on measures of word identification. Effect sizes tended
to be smaller for interventions that included participants in Grade 2 and
above.
Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) noted that seven studies measured pas-
sage reading fluency (Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012;
Gunn et al., 2000; Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; Vaughn et al., 2011; Vaughn,
Cirino, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006; Vaughn,
Mathes, et al., 2006). Significant effect sizes were found in only two stud-
ies (Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006). The
first study delivered one-on-one multiple-component supplemental reading
instruction that included passage reading fluency practice (i.e., repeated
reading, partner reading with a para-educator, and/or echo reading line by
line with a para-educator) to kindergarten-aged students. The second study,
which had Grade 1 participants, delivered the multiple-component Proac-
tive Reading/Lecture Proactiva intervention (i.e., phonics, oral language pro-
ficiency, vocabulary/knowledge-building, and comprehension instruction)
that included decoding practice with an emphasis on speed.
Vocabulary and/or oral language proficiency were measured as an out-
come in five studies (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006, English study; Vaughn,
Cirino, et al., 2006, Spanish study; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006;

Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006; Wanzek & Roberts, 2012). Only one study,
of a comprehensive early reading instruction treatment provided to first-
grader participants (Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006), reported a statistically
significant effect size in favor of treatment; the significant effect was for
the Verbal Analogies subtest of the Woodcock Language Proficiency Bat-
tery (Woodcock, 1991), but not for the Picture Vocabulary subtest. In this
study, participants in the treatment group received multiple-component
early reading instruction (i.e., phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, com-
prehension). During the vocabulary and oral language development com-
ponent of instruction, students were taught the meanings of two to three
key vocabulary words prior to listening to a passage from a book; teachers
then asked students questions about key ideas in the passage, as well as
discussing the meanings of pretaught vocabulary words in the context of
the passage. After reading the passage aloud, teachers used probes to guide
students in story retelling and intentionally provided opportunities for each
student to participate in dialogue with the teacher about the story using
complete sentences and new vocabulary words.
Reading cloze measures were used in nine studies (Denton, Anthony,
Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004; Lovett et al., 2008; Vadasy & Sanders, 2010;
Vaughn et al., 2011; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006, English study; Vaughn,
Cirino, et al., 2006, Spanish study; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006;
Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006; Wanzek & Roberts, 2012), with only three
studies yielding statistically significant effects in favor of treatment (Vadasy
& Sanders, 2010; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes,
et al., 2006). Vadasy and Sanders (2010) determined that kindergarten-aged
students who were assigned to a treatment condition that included one-
on-one, systematic, explicit phonics instruction (including decodable text
reading instruction but no explicit instruction in reading comprehension)
performed better than peers who did not receive supplementary instruction
on a comprehension cloze measure. The latter two studies conducted by
Vaughn et al. investigated the impact of the Proactive Reading/Lectura Proac-
tiva multiple-component intervention described above; during the compre-
hension component of instruction, students were taught to activate knowl-
edge related to the topic of the text using a modified K-W-L procedure
(during the K-W-L procedure, students identified prior to reading what they
already knew about the topic of the text [“K”], what they wanted to learn
about the topic [“W”], and then, after reading, what they learned [“L”]).
They were also taught how to retell and sequence story events in narrative
texts, identify main ideas, and summarize the text (using story grammar
elements for narrative text or simple content webs for expository text).
Passage reading comprehension was measured in only two studies
(Begeny et al., 2012; Wanzek & Roberts, 2012). A significant effect size
in favor of treatment was found in one of these two studies, conducted with
students in Grades 1 and 2 (Begeny et al., 2012). In this study, treatment stu-
dents received a reading fluency-focused treatment that included repeated

reading of text, modeled reading by an adult, systematic error-correction

procedures, goal-setting, and performance feedback through graphing.
Five studies measured listening comprehension, and three studies
reported statistically significant positive effects on listening comprehension
measures. For fourth-graders, Wanzek and Roberts (2012) found a signif-
icant effect in favor of treatment when a reading intervention was tailored
to the student’s skill profile (there were nonsignificant effects when a stan-
dardized intervention was used). Solari and Gerber (2008) found significant
effects in favor of a listening comprehension-focused treatment (70% of
intervention time was spent on listening comprehension and vocabulary,
10% on alphabetic knowledge, and 20% on PA) on a researcher-developed
and a standardized measure of listening comprehension. Vaughn, Linan-
Thompson, et al. (2006) also found statistically significant effects of the
Proactive Reading/Lectura Proactiva multiple-component reading interven-
tion that included a listening comprehension component on a standardized
test of listening comprehension in Spanish.
Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) concluded that the eight studies con-
ducted in kindergarten and first grade yielded a number of statistically and
practically significant effect sizes in favor of interventions targeting begin-
ning reading skills, but that effects were mixed for the five studies con-
ducted with participants in Grade 2 or above. Interventions that focused on
improving foundational word reading skills (i.e., PA, phonics) with younger
students obtained more consistent, statistically and practically significant
effects than those interventions that focused on improving vocabulary and
comprehension. The effects of intervention on older ELs (i.e., students in
Grade 4 and above) were minimal except for a few measures across the four
relevant studies; only one study (Wanzek & Roberts, 2012) conducted with
upper elementary students showed significant effects of intervention on a
measure of listening comprehension. Moderator variables, such as group
size, minutes of intervention, and personnel delivering the intervention
were not significant predictors of outcomes.
Descriptive Synthesis: Evidence-Based Practices for ELs

(Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, and Francis, 2008)
Rivera et al. (2008) proposed six recommendations for teaching ELs; these
recommendations were based on sixteen group design experimental or
quasi-experimental studies and single case design studies conducted with
ELs with or at risk for LDs, including language disorders and reading
difficulties. Because Rivera et al. employed less stringent standards for
including studies in their synthesis, some of their recommendations were
in direct contrast to the conclusions reached by Richards-Tutor et al.
(2016). For example, Rivera et al. reported that a number of the studies
in their synthesis provided evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of

reading comprehension, vocabulary and oral language instruction for older

ELs with learning difficulties.
Response to Intervention. Rivera et al. (2008) recommended that
instruction be delivered within a Response to Intervention (RTI) model,
citing (a) a quasi-experimental study (McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao,
2008) that determined the effectiveness of Tier I kindergarten peer-assisted
learning strategies (K–PALS), for kindergarten-aged ELs (please note that
because no participants in this study were identified as being at risk for
reading difficulties, this study is not included in our tables) and (b) the four
comprehensive early reading (Proactive Reading/Lectura Proactiva) studies
cited in the Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) synthesis (Vaughn, Cirino, et al.,
2006, English study; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006, Spanish study; Vaughn,
Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006). All five studies
were conducted within an RTI framework.
Match Instruction to Needed Skills. Rivera et al. (2008) also
reported that explicit, intensive intervention was most effective when it
was “closely and carefully matched to the skills that are a source of dif-
ficulty” (Rivera et al., 2008, p. 19). This recommendation was based on
results of two quasi-experimental studies (Gerber et al., 2004; Leafstedt,
Richards, & Gerber, 2004), each of which provided supplemental, explicit
PA instruction (i.e., rime detection, onset detection, phoneme segmenta-
tion, and phoneme blending) to small groups of EL students in kindergarten
and/or first grade who were at risk for reading problems. In the Gerber et al.
(2004) study, children who received the intervention (in Spanish for kinder-
garten and in English for most Grade 1 students) caught up to a normative
sample of typically performing peers by the end of the 1st grade on measures
of rime, phoneme segmentation, decoding, and word recognition skills. In
the Leafstedt et al. (2004) study, Grade 1 students who received the Early
Reading Project intervention in English did statistically significantly better
on a measure of pseudo-word reading than did their comparison peers, and
they also outperformed the comparison group on measures of early phono-
logical awareness, late PA, and word reading.
Multiple-Component Reading Interventions. The third recommen-
dation made by Rivera et al. (2008) was that early literacy instruction for
ELs at risk for reading difficulties focus on a combination of skills. This
recommendation was based on the following studies of interventions con-
sisting of explicit instruction in PA, phonics, reading fluency, academic
vocabulary, and comprehension. De La Colina et al. (2001) used a multiple
baseline single case design to determine that students in Grades 1 and 2
who received Spanish-language passage reading fluency and comprehen-
sion instruction (i.e., Read Naturally; Ihnot, Mastoff, Gavin, & Hendrick-
son, 2001) made significant improvements in Spanish-language oral reading
fluency and, to a lesser extent, reading comprehension, both in compari-
son to their baseline performances and in comparison to national norms.
While Denton et al. (2004) found no statistically significant differences

on word identification, word attack, or passage comprehension outcome

measures between Grade 2 through 5 students receiving English-language
Read Naturally (Ihnot et al., 2001) and peers in a no-tutoring control con-
dition, they did find that Grade 2 through 5 students who received Read
Well instruction (Sprick, Howard, & Fidanque, 2001) showed significantly
more growth in word identification, if not in reading comprehension, than
did comparison group peers. Gunn et al. (2000), in a study also included
in the Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) synthesis, reported that ELs in Grades K
through 3 at risk for reading difficulties who received multiple-component
supplemental reading instruction statistically significantly outperformed
control students at the end of year one of intervention on a measure of word
attack skill (however, not on measures of letter word identification or oral
reading fluency). At the end of the second year of the intervention (Gunn
et al. 2000), students in the treatment condition demonstrated significantly
higher scores than their peers on all three measures (i.e., oral reading flu-
ency, letter word identification and word attack). Note that this finding dif-
fers from the one reported by Richards-Tutor et al. (2016), who only provide
effect sizes at the mid-intervention time point. Kamps et al. (2007) used a
quasi-experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of a 2-year, sup-
plementary small group instructional intervention that used a set of explicit,
systematic, multiple-component early reading programs for early-grades
ELs at risk for reading problems. Students in the treatment condition statis-
tically significantly outperformed students in the comparison condition on
measures of word attack, word identification, nonsense word reading, oral
reading fluency, and passage comprehension. It is worth noting that there
were steeper rates of growth for students in the treatment condition during
first grade, while during second grade rates of growth in nonsense word
reading fluency and oral reading fluency were not significantly steeper for
students in treatment than for students in the comparison condition.
Finally, Rivera et al. (2008) cite as evidence Vaughn, Cirino, et al.
(2006; English study), Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006; Spanish study),
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al. (2006), and Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006),
who investigated the effects of Proactive Reading/Lectura Proactiva multiple-
component reading instruction for first-graders. The curriculum provided
explicit and systematic instruction in PA, phonics, automatic and fluent
word reading, and reading comprehension. In addition, instruction incor-
porated an oral language component. In the first (English-language) Proac-
tive Reading study, there were statistically and practically significant differ-
ences in favor of the treatment group at posttest on English PA, listening
comprehension, word attack, word identification, and passage comprehen-
sion outcomes. In the English-language replication study, there were sig-
nificant posttest differences in favor of the treatment group for English
PA, letter–sound identification, word attack, and word reading efficiency
outcomes. Group differences were not as large in the second study as they
were in the initial study; authors noted that students in the second study

had much lower initial levels of proficiency, which resulted in slower move-
ment through the curriculum (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2006). In the third
(Spanish-language) study, there were significant posttest differences in favor
of the treatment group on measures of Spanish-language letter–sound iden-
tification, PA, word attack, passage comprehension, and reading fluency. In
the Spanish-language replication study, there were significant posttest dif-
ferences in favor of treatment for Spanish outcomes in letter–sound iden-
tification, PA, and word reading fluency. Perhaps most important was the
fact that impacts of treatment were maintained at 1-year follow-up (Cirino
et al., 2009) and, though impact was reduced, that positive effects were still
consistently in favor of treatment participants even 3 years after the end of
the intervention (Vaughn et al., 2008).
Peer-Assisted Learning. Rivera et al. (2008) reviewed limited evi-
dence in favor of PALS (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes & Simmons, 1997) for ELs
with learning difficulties. In one study they cited, classrooms with ELs with
LD in Grades 3 through 6 who were assigned to PALS instruction demon-
strated more growth than no-PALs comparison classrooms on measures
of nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency, and letter-naming fluency
skills in English (Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). In a study conducted by
Calhoon et al. (2007) with seventy-six first-grade ELs with and without LD
(ELs with LD were not in the majority, and scores were not disaggregated;
for this reason, results are not reported in tables here), PALS was effective
in improving students’ reading comprehension skills in English. In both
studies, pairs of students, one high- and one low-performing reader, took
turns in the tutor and tutee roles. The pairs worked on a variety of reading
tasks, building PA, knowledge of letter-sound correspondence, fluency, and
comprehension. The stronger reader served as tutor first, listening for errors
and asking the tutee to correct his or her own errors, then praising the cor-
rect response. Finally, McMaster et al. (2008; cited above as evidence for the
effectiveness of instruction conducted within a Response to Intervention
format), determined the effectiveness of Tier I K–PALS, for kindergarten-
aged ELs (again, no participants were identified as being at risk for reading
difficulties).
Vocabulary and Language Development. Rivera et al. (2008) recom-
mended that instruction for ELs with or at risk for LDs enhance background
and vocabulary knowledge and promote oral language development. In sup-
port of this recommendation, they cited six studies (four of which were
included in their tables and thus were not included in our count of inter-
vention studies synthesized by Rivera et al.) that investigated the effects
of a vocabulary or language intervention for ELs with or at risk of LD
or language delays. Rousseau and Tam (1991) and Rousseau, Tam, and
Ramnarain (1993) used multiple baseline, single case designs to determine
that prereading activities including listening to the teacher read the pas-
sage aloud while the student reads silently and prereading discussion of
key vocabulary words had a positive impact on the word reading accuracy

and fluency of ELs in Grades 2–6 with speech and language impairments. A
combined listening previewing and discussion of key words approach was
more effective than either approach alone. Tam, Heward, and Heng (2006)
used a multiple baseline design with five primary-grade EL students who
were at risk for reading problems to show that (a) explaining the mean-
ings of new vocabulary words, using each vocabulary word in a sentence,
and asking the learner to use each word in a sentence, (b) correcting oral
reading errors during the learner’s initial oral reading of the passage, and
(c) asking the learner to read the passage as fast as possible for three con-
secutive trials was associated with a higher mean number of literal compre-
hension questions answered correctly per session. In a quasi-experimental
group design study, Bos, Allen and Scanlon (1989) determined that upper
elementary-aged ELs with LD who developed semantic maps showing the
relationships between words and also completed cloze sentences did sta-
tistically significantly better on multiple choice vocabulary tests and on a
text recall measure than did a comparison group who received instruction
in pronunciation and memorization of the vocabulary words. Echevarria
(1996) used a parallel treatments design to investigate the effects of Spanish-
language Instructional Conversations (IC), which included elicitation of
extended student contributions to discussions about text “through invita-
tions to expand, questions, restatements, and pauses; probes for the basis
of students’ statements; use of few known-answer questions; responsiveness
to students’ contributions; encouragement of general participation and self-
selected turns; and creation of a challenging, nonthreatening environment”
(pp. 342–343). IC instruction was more effective than baseline Spanish-
language basal reader instruction in improving elementary-aged students’
academic discourse.
Cognitive Strategies. Finally, Rivera et al. (2008) recommended using
cognitive strategies with older ELLs who have LD. To support their recom-
mendation, they cited only Klingner and Vaughn (1996), who employed a
quasi-experimental design to investigate the differential effects of coopera-
tive groupings and cross-age peer tutoring, both using an expanded form
of reciprocal teaching (subsequently developed into Collaborative Strategic
Reading, or CSR) on the reading comprehension of ELs in the 7th and 8th
grades. During CSR instruction, students learned to predict what the pas-
sage would be about, brainstorm what they already knew about the topic,
clarify words and phrases, summarize the main idea and the most important
details, and ask and answer questions. There were no significant differences
between groups at posttest, but both treatment groups made significant pre-
to posttest gains.
Reading Instruction and ELs With LDs (Klingner, Artiles, and
Barletta, 2006)
Klingner et al. (2006) reviewed seven studies conducted after 1997 that
investigated the impact of reading instruction on reading outcomes for ELs

who had LDs or were identified as struggling readers. Two of the seven
included studies employed qualitative methods (Haager & Windmueller,
2001; Jiménez, 1997). Of the five experimental-design studies included
in the synthesis, one had a multiple baseline single case design (De La
Colina et al., 2001), one study measured participants’ gains from pre-
to posttest (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani,
2003), and three studies (Denton et al., 2004; Klingner & Vaughn, 1996;
Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, & Buckley, 2003) used treatment-control group
experimental or quasi-experimental designs: one of these studies was con-
ducted in India (Nag-Arulmani et al., 2003); another (Klingner & Vaughn,
1996) was quasi-experimental in design but it compared the effects of two
treatment groups rather than comparing the effects of treatment to a no-
treatment or business as usual comparison group (authors also measured
pre- to posttest gains).
Reading in the Primary Grades. Haager and Windmueller (2001)
documented the implementation of an intensive professional development
program designed to improve early English language reading instruction
for first- and second-grade ELs with LDs or at risk for reading difficulties.
They reported that ELs with and at risk for LDs made steady progress when
they received supplemental small-group instruction in PA, alphabetic prin-
ciple, and reading comprehension strategies. Linan-Thompson et al. (2003)
measured pre- to posttest gains when they provided intensive instruction
to small groups of EL second-grade students at risk for reading problems.
The intervention consisted of fluency instruction (e.g., repeated reading,
paired reading, echo reading, tape recorder-assisted reading with attention
to vocabulary and meaning), PA instruction (e.g., explicit instruction in
blending, segmenting, deleting, and substituting phonemes, with atten-
tion to letter-sound relationships similar in English and Spanish as well
as to letter-sound relationships that are different in each language, and
sounds that are not present in Spanish), phonics/word study instruction
(e.g., explicit instruction related to regular vowel patterns and word fam-
ilies, open and closed word sorts, play with onset-rime strips and wheels,
and word building), and guided reading with a focus on activating back-
ground knowledge, vocabulary acquisition, and comprehension. Students
made significant gains from pre- to posttest on word attack, passage com-
prehension, phoneme segmentation fluency, and oral reading fluency mea-
sures.
Nag-Arulmani et al. (2003) used a quasi-experimental treatment-
control group design to compare the effects of explicit PA instruction and
implicit oral language exposure instruction. They reported that a group of
7- to 9-year-old EL students with reading difficulties who received explicit
PA instruction showed significantly greater gains on word reading and PA
outcomes than did a group who received open-ended language exposure
instruction and also a control group who received craft and calligraphy
instruction. There were no differences between groups on reading compre-

hension, spelling, or language proficiency outcomes. Gains were particu-

larly large for students who began the study with the lowest word reading
scores. The De La Colina et al. (2001) study, described above, found posi-
tive effects in favor of Spanish-language Read Naturally (which focuses on
passage reading fluency and comprehension) on Spanish-language reading
fluency and comprehension outcomes.
Reading in the Upper Elementary and Middle Grades. Jiménez
(1997) used a case study approach to describe the way in which five ELs
with reading difficulties in middle school successfully learned and applied
three reading comprehension strategies while reading English-language
text: resolving word meanings based on cognate knowledge and context
clues; asking questions when comprehension breaks down; and making
inferences or drawing conclusions. The studies reported by Denton et al.
(2004) and by Klingner and Vaughn (1996), described previously, demon-
strated the benefits of (a) a multiple-component reading treatment that
included explicit, systematic instruction in PA and phonics, and (b) instruc-
tion in reading comprehension cognitive strategies (e.g., prediction, self-
questioning, summarization, and comprehension monitoring).
In their synthesis, Klingner et al. (2006) articulated promising prac-
tices including (a) combining explicit PA and/or word study instruction
with other reading and English language development activities, (b) teach-
ing and encouraging the use of reading comprehension strategies, and (c)
heavy emphasis on vocabulary instruction during all aspects of literacy
learning. Authors noted the discrepancy between the effectiveness of the
Spanish-language version of Read Naturally in improving oral reading flu-
ency and reading comprehension for Grade 1 and 2 EL students in one
study (De la Colina et al., 2001) and the lack of effectiveness of the English-
language version of Read Naturally in improving the oral reading fluency
and reading comprehension of ELs in Grades 2 through 5 in a second study
(Denton et al., 2004). They argued that additional research is needed to
determine the effectiveness of instructional approaches to teaching ELs who
have or are at risk for LDs.
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority

Students (August and Siegel, 2006)
August and Siegel (2006) synthesized nine studies examining approaches
to academic language and/or reading instruction for students with LDs
and/or language disorders or delays. Only two of the nine studies examined
included more than five participants (Bos et al., 1989; Klingner & Vaughn,
1996). Four of the nine studies employed single case designs (Echevar-
ria, 1996; Perozzi, 1985; Rousseau et al., 1993; VanWagenen, Williams,
& McLaughlin, 1994) and the remaining three studies measured pre- to
posttest gains for a single treatment group and/or used qualitative methods
(Fawcett & Lynch, 2000; Jimenez, 1997; Wolf, 1993).

Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Wolf (1993) documented the

engagement and successful reading behaviors of three third and fourth-
grade ELs with reading difficulties when they participated in a Reader’s
Theater intervention. Fawcett and Lynch (2000) recorded pre- to posttest
gains in reading speed, accuracy, and comprehension for two EL students
(mean age, 11.7 years) with significant reading delays (mean reading age,
7.3 years) who received individualized, computer-assisted reading instruc-
tion focusing on phonics, fluency and comprehension instruction. VanWa-
genen et al. (1994) used a multiple baseline design to determine that an
“assisted reading” technique in which students listened to and then read
in unison with a teacher’s tape-recorded fluent reading of a passage led to
improvements in reading rate, error rate, and comprehension for middle
school-aged language-minority students with LDs. The studies reported by
Jiménez (1997) and Rousseau et al. (1993) have already been described.
Vocabulary and Language Development. Perozzi (1985) employed
a parallel treatments single case design to determine that pre-k and kinder-
garten students with language delays learned word meanings more quickly
in a second language when they were initially taught these vocabulary words
in their first language. Results reported by Echevarria (1996) and Bos et al.
(1989) are described above.
The studies synthesized by August and Siegel (2006) provide some evi-
dence that reading comprehension strategy instruction is feasible and ben-
eficial for ELs with reading difficulties (Jimenez, 1997; Klingner & Vaughn,
1996), and that instructional approaches addressing vocabulary and oral
language demonstrate promise for yielding reading gains (Bos et al., 1989;
Echevarria, 1996; Perozzi, 1985; Rousseau et al., 1993). In at least one study
(Perozzi, 1985), efforts to develop students’ first language vocabulary ben-
efited students’ second language vocabulary acquisition.
Synthesis of Syntheses
Altogether, the preceding reviews included a total of thirty-two studies that
had as participants ELs with or at risk for LDs and assessed a literacy-related
outcome. Three of the thirty-two employed primarily qualitative meth-
ods; seven had single case designs; two were single group pre- to posttest
designs; twenty employed experimental or quasi-experimental treatment-
comparison group designs. A summary of findings across syntheses is as
follows.
• Authors of all four reviews emphasized the benefit of providing PA and/or

word study instruction as part of early reading instruction. Richards-
Tutor et al. (2016) demonstrated that evidence as to the benefit of this
kind of instruction (at least evidence based on rigorous, experimental or
quasi-experimental group design studies) is much stronger when partic-
ipants are students in kindergarten and Grade 1.

• Rivera et al. (2008) recommended that reading instruction target a com-

bination of reading skills, including PA, knowledge of letter-sound corre-
spondence and other word identification skills. At the same time, Rivera
et al. (2008) and Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) provided evidence for the
benefit of explicit, systematic interventions that target skills (e.g., word
reading, vocabulary knowledge, discourse-processing) that have been
identified (i.e., using curriculum-based or norm-referenced assessments)
to be the specific source(s) of difficulty for individual students (e.g., Ger-
ber et al., 2004; Leafstedt et al., 2004; Wanzek & Roberts, 2012.
• Authors of three reviews cited research evidence in favor of reading com-
prehension strategy instruction (August & Siegel, 2006; Klingner et al.,
2006; Rivera et al., 2008). In contrast, Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) noted
the rarity of statistically significant effects in favor of intervention on
reading cloze and reading comprehension measures among the experi-
mental and quasi-experimental studies included in their review. Among
the nine studies included in the Richards-Tutor et al. meta-analysis that
included a reading cloze measure, only three studies reported statistically
significant effects in favor of treatment. Only one of two studies that
measured passage reading comprehension reported a statistically signifi-
cant effect in favor of treatment. Interventions that accelerated growth in
reading comprehension included (a) multiple-component instruction for
Grade 1 students with a knowledge-activation and comprehension strat-
egy instruction (e.g., main idea/summarization) component (Vaughn,
Mathes, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006) and (b)
instruction for ELs with LDs with Grades K-1 that focused on foun-
dational skills that included decoding (Vadasy & Sanders, 2010) and
passage reading fluency (Begeny et al., 2012), without even necessarily
including an explicit comprehension instruction component.
• Authors of three reviews (August & Siegel, 2006; Klingner et al., 2006;
Rivera et al., 2008) suggested the benefit of instructional approaches
focused on vocabulary and oral language instruction. However, Richards-
Tutor et al. (2016) could not locate any rigorous experimental or quasi-
experimental studies with participants who were ELs with learning dif-
ficulties that specifically targeted vocabulary instruction/acquisition, and
only four studies measured vocabulary as an outcome. Nevertheless,
three of the five studies included in Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) that mea-
sured listening comprehension outcomes found statistically significant
effects in favor of treatment, lending support for the potential effective-
ness of oral language comprehension-focused instruction in accelerating
oral language comprehension for ELs with LDs.
• Rivera et al. (2008) was the only review that recommended (a) instruc-
tional delivery within an RTI model, and (b) the use of peer-assisted
learning for elementary-aged ELs identified with a disability. These rec-
ommendations were based on a small number of promising studies.

It is noteworthy that authors of different reviews focused on different

aspects of individual studies and thus drew different conclusions regard-
ing findings and the nature of the evidence they represented. For example,
Richards-Tutor et al. (2016), in their independent calculation of effect sizes,
found no statistically significant effects in favor of the Read Well treatment
on the measure of word identification (Denton et al., 2004). In contrast,
Denton et al. (2004) reported statistically and practically significant effects
on this measure, as did authors of prior syntheses (Klingner et al., 2006;
Rivera et al., 2008). Similarly, in their review of the study reported by Gunn
et al. (2000), Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) did not report on effects after
the second year of intervention, at which time students in the treatment
condition had significantly higher scores than their peers on measures of
English word recognition, decoding, reading vocabulary, oral reading flu-
ency, and reading comprehension. On the other hand, Rivera et al. (2008)
did cite second-year effects, and thus saw the study as providing strong sup-
port for comprehensive, tailored early reading interventions. Finally, Rivera
et al. (2008) noted that the four Proactive Reading/Lectura Proactiva stud-
ies reported by Vaughn et al. (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006, English study;
Vaughn, Cirino, et al., Spanish study; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al.,
2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006), yielded significant differences favoring
treatment students 1 year after the end of intervention. One year after the
end of intervention, treatment students in the Spanish studies scored sig-
nificantly higher than their comparison group peers on Spanish measures
of decoding, spelling, fluency, and comprehension; for the English studies,
there were significant differences favoring treatment students on English
measures of oral language, decoding, spelling, fluency, and comprehension
(Cirino et al., 2009). In contrast to Rivera et al. (2008), Richards-Tutor et al.
(2016) focused only on short-term gains.
Directions for Future Research

While the overall trend is in the direction of increased research investigating
effective practices for ELs with LDs, the number of studies included in these
syntheses (thirty-two total) is still relatively small considering the range of
grade levels addressed. The scarcity of studies across upper elementary and
secondary grades is particularly noteworthy (there were only twelve studies,
half of which employed experimental or quasi-experimental designs). Of
the thirty-two studies conducted across grade levels, only one (Gunn et al.,
2000) was a large-scale RCT (i.e., a randomized experiment with more than
250 participants).
The variation in population descriptions across synthesized studies
made generalization challenging. ELs with LDs represent an incredibly
diverse population of students. Nevertheless, in most studies, little detail
was provided about important variables that differentiate subpopulations
within this diverse group and may impact literacy learning (e.g., language

proficiency measures were often missing from sample descriptions). We

realize that measurement collection is limited by real constraints that
include school district limits on assessment time per student, funding
for the purchase of assessment materials, and the lack of availability of
assessment materials in languages that are not widely spoken in the United
States. Nevertheless, future research would benefit from an effort to provide
more detailed information about EL participants’ family socioeconomic
(SES) status, age of initial exposure to English, English language proficiency,
native language proficiency, amount of exposure to literacy instruction in
the native language, and literacy experiences at home in any language. It
would also be useful if researchers could provide information about the pro-
portion of ELs relative to EO students in the classroom/school/community
being studied, and the nature of the native language spoken by the EL
(Lipka, Siegel, & Vukovic, 2005). For example, as Fawcett and Lynch
(2000) noted in interpreting the results of their pretest/posttest single
group design study of literacy acquisition for two young Somali-speaking
learners of English, there is some evidence that the degree of similarity
between English and the native language spoken by EL students may
impact their literacy acquisition. When the native language of ELs has a
more transparent orthography (i.e., more a regular and predictable system
of letter-sound correspondence; e.g., Arabic, Italian, or Portuguese), there
may be more opportunities for positive transfer of native language literacy
knowledge to English literacy development (Lipka et al., 2005). At the very
least, future research should carefully describe and report disaggregated
data based on language proficiency and socioeconomic status variables.
Future research should also carefully describe procedures used to iden-
tify students with LDs. It is worth noting that many students who dis-
play reading difficulties in kindergarten and first grade are “false positives,”
meaning that they display problems early in their schooling but these prob-
lems often are remedied without significant intervention beyond traditional
schooling. It will be valuable to determine learning trajectories over time for
students who are ELs with mild reading difficulties, as well as for ELs with
significant reading difficulties.
Considering the evidence that ELs have more significant oral language
comprehension deficits than their EO peers (e.g., Spencer & Wagner, 2016)
and that oral language comprehension (i.e., vocabulary and listening com-
prehension) contributes more to reading comprehension for ELs with LDs
than it does for EO students with LDs (e.g., Cho et al., 2019), there are
an inadequate number of studies that investigate approaches to vocabu-
lary and oral language instruction integrated with reading comprehension
instruction for this population. There has been a wealth of relatively recent
research published studying the effects of vocabulary and oral language
instruction for ELs who do not have LDs (e.g., Carlo et al. 2004; Hwang et al.
2015; Lesaux et al. 2010; Lesaux et al. 2014; Mancilla-Martinez, 2010), but
approaches to vocabulary and oral language instruction for ELs that have

LDs are relatively unstudied. Considering the evidence available, it appears

desirable to target and measure the impact of oral language and vocabulary
instruction for ELs with and/or at risk for LDs. Richards-Tutor et al. (2016)
point out that studies in their synthesis “that did measure vocabulary used
typical standardized measures that may not be able to capture the growth
students are making in the context of a particular intervention” (p. 22).
The findings from the studies summarized in these syntheses are limited by
a dearth of measures that are sensitive to growth in vocabulary knowledge
but not over-aligned with instruction/inherent to treatment. Assessing lan-
guage development is an ongoing challenge, but sensitive assessments are
necessary if we are to fully understand for whom interventions are effective,
and how effective they are.
There is also a need for future research on reading comprehension
instruction. Reading comprehension strategy instruction was perceived as
a promising approach to accelerating gains in reading comprehension for
ELs with LDs in all syntheses (August & Siegel, 2006; Klingner et al.
2006; Rivera et al, 2008) except one (Richards-Tutor et al, 2016). However,
Richards-Tutor et al. present persuasive evidence that rigorous, carefully
controlled group design studies rarely found effects in favor of reading com-
prehension instructional treatments on reading comprehension outcomes,
especially for students in Grade 2 and above. There is a need to develop
and test approaches to reading comprehension instruction for ELs with
LDs across age groups, but especially for those students in Grade 2 and
above. In addition, there is a need to better understand the relative influ-
ence of variation in instructional context and group size on intervention
outcomes for ELs with LDs. It may be that the lack of positive effects of
intervention on reading comprehension outcomes for ELs with reading dif-
ficulties at all age levels (and/or the lack of positive effects of intervention
on any reading outcomes for students in Grade 2 and above) is related to
inadequate intensity of instruction. Furthermore, pairing intensive inter-
ventions with school-wide approaches to enhancing language and liter-
acy outcomes may be associated with more favorable outcomes for ELs
with LDs.
In addition or as part of research projects investigating the effects of
these instructional context variables, there is a need to study the impli-
cations of delivering reading instruction for ELs with learning difficulties
within an RTI model. Research needs to consider the benefit of interven-
tions designed to improve oral language and reading comprehension across
tiers within a multi-tiered system of special education supports. There is
also a need to develop and test interventions that are aligned with students’
specific learning and language needs (e.g., their levels of vocabulary devel-
opment, foundational reading skills, and linguistic comprehension skill).
Personalized approaches to instruction for ELs with LDs require additional
efficacy studies; however, initial findings suggest that these approaches to
instruction are likely to be beneficial.

Finally, it would be beneficial to examine the long-term effects of read-

ing interventions for ELs with or at risk for LDs. There are few studies of
ELs that follow participants for more than 1 year after the end of inter-
vention, and only one that tracks outcomes for students 3 to 4 years after
intervention (Vaughn et al., 2008). It may be valuable to test the impact of
interventions that focus on early reading skills (e.g., PA, word reading) on
later reading fluency and comprehension. Given the cost of intensive inter-
vention, the relative benefits of such interventions over time are important
to consider.
This synthesis of syntheses provides guidance to educators and
researchers regarding instruction for EL students who demonstrate sig-
nificant reading difficulties/learning disabilities. While the findings reveal
many shortcomings in our extant data base for this population, they also
yield several clear paths forward for instruction and future research. The
research agenda for ELs with significant reading problems is extensive and
will benefit from the attention of funding agencies such as the Institute of
Education Sciences and the National Institutes of Health.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305F100013 to
The University of Texas at Austin as part of the Reading for Understanding
Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do
not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Note
1. In addition to analyzing the effects of reading instruction on reading outcomes,
Klingner et al. analyzed (a) population characteristics and subgroups among ELs iden-
tified as needing special education services (n = 6), (b) qualitative aspects of learning
for ELs receiving special education services (n = 5), (c) data related to pre-referral and
referral issues (n = 2), (d) factors impacting assessment practices and results for students
who were ELs with LDs (n = 6), (e) component reading skills and cognitive processing
variables that predict reading achievement for ELs (n = 4), and (f) data related to the
process of becoming literate in a first and second language that may inform special edu-
cation eligibility decisions (e.g., data measuring the relationships among L1 and L2 oral
proficiency and reading; n = 12).
References
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review
and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational
Research, 80(2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803
August, D. L., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Literacy instruction for language-minority chil-
dren in special education settings. In D. L. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing

literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., . . .
Newman-Gonchar, R. (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, Insti-
tute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf
Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. C., & Sanchez, M. (2014). The cognitive development
of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
29(4), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.003
Begeny, J. C., Ross, S. G., Greene, D. J., Mitchell, R. C., & Whitehouse, M. H. (2012).
Effects of the helping early literacy with practice strategies (HELPS) reading fluency
program with Latino English language learners: a preliminary evaluation. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 21, 134–149.
Bos, C. S., Allen, A. A., & Scanlon, D. J. (1989). Vocabulary instruction and reading
comprehension with bilingual learning disabled students. National Reading Conference
Yearbook, 38, 173–179.
Calhoon, M. B., Otaiba, S. A., Cihak, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a
peer-mediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade
classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 169–184.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Wash-
ington, DC: Urban Institute.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N.,
. . . & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of
English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215.
Cheung, A. C. & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-
dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis
of research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654312465472
Cirino, P. T., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Fletcher, J. M., &
Francis, D. J. (2009). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interven-
tions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(3), 744–781.
de Cohen, C. C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B. C. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant
children in high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two
tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual
students. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289–305.
De la Colina, M. G., Parker, R. I., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2001). Inten-
sive intervention in reading fluency for at-risk beginning Spanish readers. Bilingual
Research Journal, 25(4), 503–538.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Hernández, J. A., Antón, E., Macizo, P., Estévez, A., Fuentes, L. J., &
Carreiras, M. (2014). The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children revisited. Exper-
imental Psychology, 61(3), 234–251.
Echevarria, J. (1996). The effects of instructional conversations on the language and
concept development of Latino students with learning disabilities. Bilingual Research
Journal, 20(2), 339–363.
Fawcett, A. J. & Lynch, L. (2000). Systematic identification and intervention for reading
difficulty: Case studies of children with EAL. Dyslexia, 6(1), 57–71.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities:
From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford Publications.
Fry, R., & Gonzales, F. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of hispanic public
school students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-assisted learn-
ing strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy
.lib.utexas.edu/stable/1163346
Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., Kennedy, I., Prys, C., Young, N., Viñas Guasch,
N., . . . Jones, L. (2014). Does language dominance affect cognitive performance
in bilinguals? Lifespan evidence from preschoolers through older adults on card
sorting, simon, and metalinguistic tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(11), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00011
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (2006). Conclusions
and future directions. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders & D. Chris-
tian (Eds.), Educating English learners: A synthesis of research evidence, (pp. 223–234.)
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gerber, M., Jimenez, T., Leafstedt, J. M., Villaruz, J., Richards, C., & English, J. (2004).
English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for K-1
English learners. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 19(4), 239–251.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental
instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early ele-
mentary school. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.
Graves, A. W., Valles, E. C., & Rueda, R. (2000). Variations in interactive writing instruc-
tion: A study in four bilingual special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 15(1), 1–9.
Haager, D., & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English lan-
guage learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an
urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 235–250.
Hall, C., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., McCulley, L. V., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S.
(2016). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: a meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4
Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant fam-
ilies: Looking to America’s future. Social Policy Report. Washington, DC: Society for
Research in Child Development.
Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Home literacy activities: Percep-
tions and practices of Hispanic parents of children with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 22(3), 224–235.
Hwang, J. K., Lawrence, J. F., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Differential effects of a
systematic vocabulary intervention on adolescent language minority students with
varying levels of English proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(3), 314–
332.
Ihnot, C., Mastoff, J., Gavin, J., & Hendrickson, L. (2001). Read naturally. St. Paul, MN:
Read Naturally.
Jimenez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy
Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 224–243.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., . . .
Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English
language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disabil-
ity Quarterly, 30(3), 153–168.

Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Dun-
lop Velez, E. (2015). The condition of education 2015. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who
struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(2), 108–128.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to inter-
vention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension
strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language.
The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275–293.
Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit
phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities
Research Practice, 19(4), 252–261.
Lesaux, N. K. (2006). Building consensus: Future directions for research on English
language learners at risk for learning difficulties. Teachers College Record, 108(11),
2406–2438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00787.x
Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven pro-
files: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading com-
prehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.004
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of aca-
demic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from
a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Effec-
tiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learn-
ers with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 221–238.
Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English language
learners’ response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 30(3), 185–195.
Lipka, O., Siegel, L. S., & Vukovic, R. (2005). The literacy skills of English language
learners in Canada. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 39–49.
Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lac-
erenza, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: a comparison of response to
intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4),
333–352.
Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2010). Word meanings matter: Cultivating English vocabulary
knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. TESOL Quar-
terly, 44(4), 669–699. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213782
Mathes, P. G., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Linan-Thompson, S., &
Vaughn, S. (2007). Teaching struggling readers who are native Spanish speakers: What
do we know? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 260–271.
McMaster, K. L., Kung, S., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies:
A “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ Response to Intervention. Excep-
tional Children, 71(2), 194–214.
Nag-Rulmani, S., Reddy, V., & Buckley, S. (2003). Targeting phonological representa-
tions can help in the early stages of reading in a non-dominant language. Journal of
Research in Reading, 26(1), 49–68.
National Center for Education Statistics (2015a). 2015 Mathematics grades 4 and
8 assessment report cards: Summary data tables for national and state average
scores and achievement level results. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/files/2015_Results_Appendix
_Math.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2015b). 2015 Reading grades 4 and 8
assessment report cards: Summary data tables for national and state average
scores and achievement level results. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/files/2015_Results_Appendix
_Reading.pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition & Instruction Educational Programs.
(2011). The growing number of English language learners. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf
O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & Linklater, D. L. (2010).
Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading.
Journal of Special Education, 43(4), 220–235.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of functional
literacy, 11, 67–86.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.
Perozzi, J. (1985). A pilot study of language facilitation for bilingual, language hand-
icapped children: Theoretical and intervention implications. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 50(4), 403–406.
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.
Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The
effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Excep-
tional Children, 82(2), 144–169.
Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Language and
reading interventions for English language Learners and English language learners with
disabilities. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Rousseau, M. K., & Tam, B. (1991). The efficacy of previewing and discussion of key
words on the oral reading proficiency of bilingual learners with speech and language
impairments. Education & Treatment of Children, 14(3), 199–209.
Rousseau, M., Tam, B., & Ramnarain, R. (1993). Increasing reading proficiency of
language-minority students with speech and language impairment. Education & Treat-
ment of Children, 16(3), 254–271.
Ruiz, N. T. (1995). The social construction of ability and disability: II. Optimal and at-
risk lessons in a bilingual special education classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
28(8), 491–502.
Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for
English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231–
247.
Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. L. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learn-
ers. In D. L. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language:
Report of the National Literacy Panel. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Solari, E. J., & Gerber, M. M. (2008). Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-
speaking English language learners: teaching text level reading skills while maintain-
ing effects on word-level skills. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 155–
168.
Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2016). The comprehension problems for second-
language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A
meta-analysis: Meta-analysis of second-language learners. Journal of Research in Read-
ing, 40(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12080

Sprick, M. M., Howard, L. M., & Fidanque, A. (2001). Read Well: Critical foundations in
primary reading. Dallas, TX: Sopris West.
Tam, K. Y., Heward, W. L., & Heng, M. A. (2006). A reading instruction intervention
program for English-language learners who are struggling readers. Journal of Special
Education, 40(2), 79–93.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruc-
tion for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and
classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786–803.
VanWagenen, M. A., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1994). Use of assisted read-
ing to improve reading rate, word accuracy, and comprehension with ESL Spanish-
speaking students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1 Pt 1), 227–230
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD interven-
tion research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-
Durodola, S. D., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention for
first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39(1), 56–73.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English
language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 58–67.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-
Durodola, S. D., . . . Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for
first grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School
Journal, 107(2), 153–180
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E.
C., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English
intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 43(3), 449–487.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Tolar, T., Fletcher, J. M., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., &
Francis, D. J. (2008). Long-term follow-up of Spanish and English interventions for
first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Research
on Educational Effectiveness, 1(3), 179–214.
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A., Cirino, P., Romain, M., . . . Denton, C.
(2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school
students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407.
Wanzek, J., & Roberts, G. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional
emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly,
35(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711434047
Wolf, S. (1993). What’s in a name? Labels and literacy in Readers Theatre.
The Reading Teacher, 46(7), 540–545. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy
.lib.utexas.edu/stable/20201130
Woodcock, R. W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery-revised. Chicago, IL:
Riverside.

COLBY HALL, PhD, is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Learn-

ing Institute at McGovern Medical School, part of the University of Texas Health
Science Center at Houston. Her research focuses on reading instruction for stu-
dents with or at risk for reading difficulties. She is also interested in reading
instruction for students who are English learners.
PAUL K. STEINLE, MA, is a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin.

His research interests include intensive interventions for students with or at
risk for reading difficulties and instruction within response to intervention (RtI)
frameworks.
SHARON VAUGHN, PhD, is the Manuel J. Justiz Endowed Chair in Math, Sci-
ence, and Technology in Teacher Education at the University of Texas at Austin.
Vaughn is an internationally renowned expert whose research is focused on
instruction and intervention for students with disabilities and students who are
English language learners throughout K-12.

Hall2019 - Reading Instruction For English Learners With Learning Disabilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hall2019 - Reading Instruction For English Learners With Learning Disabilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hall, C., Steinle, P. K., & Vaughn, S. (2019).

Reading instruction for English learners with

E nglish learners (ELs) constitute 9.2% of the national enrollment in

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

to engage in sentence- and discourse-level comprehension processes that

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

or without LD on outcomes in content-area (e.g., mathematics, science,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

students receiving special education services.1 However, among the forty-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.1. Studies Included in Syntheses

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 6.1. Continued

Table 6.2. Characteristics of Qualitative Studies

slightly different conclusions when reporting results and discussing impli-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

calculated effect sizes using a difference-in-differences approach to calculate

Recent Meta-Analysis: Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

in PA (as well as instruction in phonics, word reading fluency, passage read-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

reading of text, modeled reading by an adult, systematic error-correction

Descriptive Synthesis: Evidence-Based Practices for ELs

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

reading comprehension, vocabulary and oral language instruction for older

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

on word identification, word attack, or passage comprehension outcome

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

hension, spelling, or language proficiency outcomes. Gains were particu-

Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Wolf (1993) documented the

• Authors of all four reviews emphasized the benefit of providing PA and/or

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

• Rivera et al. (2008) recommended that reading instruction target a com-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

It is noteworthy that authors of different reviews focused on different

Directions for Future Research

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

proficiency measures were often missing from sample descriptions). We

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

LDs are relatively unstudied. Considering the evidence available, it appears

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Finally, it would be beneficial to examine the long-term effects of read-

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

COLBY HALL, PhD, is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Learn-

PAUL K. STEINLE, MA, is a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

You might also like