I

Teaching Reading toEarly Language Learners

Recent research offers insights into effective strategies for belping young English-language learners develop reading skills.

n the past decade, researchers have increasingly mmed their attention to studying how young English learners develop language and literacy skills, with a special

focus recemly on reading development. Some of the research findjngs have partic ular relevance for teachingreading to English learners in theprimary grndes.

Similar Paths to ReadingThe latest research indicates that both English learners and native speakers of English take similar paths of develop ment in such prereadillg skills as phono logical awareness. The research also suggests that we can distinguishbetwee n l imited English skills andlearning disabilities in young children.

Russell Gersten and Esther Geva

Pho11ological Awm·euessAwareness of speech sounds plays an important role in reading development. Many studjes in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom (Adams, 1990; Ehri , 1991; Snow , Burns,& Griffin , 1998) have shown thatinstruction in phonological awareness enhances growth in reading and spelHng.

A less weU-known findillg is that theawareness of individual speech sounds in one 's native language correlates with the awareness of individual speechsounds in a second language . Phonological awareness in Spanish or Korean , for

44 EDllC ATI O NAI. l.HAl>ER S HIP/ Al'Rll. 2 003

example, transfers to phonological aw;1reness in English. This awareness can also predkt reading and spelling development in both languages, even when the two languages are very different from each other-for example, Punjahi-English, Farsi-English , English Hebrew , French-English , .English Spa11ish, and English-Chinese (Geva & Wang, 2001).

Each language has different phono logical d1aracteristk:s , of course , and English learners may encounter specific difficulties related co their home language (Fasho.la , Drum, Mayer, & Kang, 1996; Wang & Geva , in press),

espechtUy during U1e initial learning phases. These difficulries are frurly predictable, however, and should lead to proactive teaching that focuses on porenlh1Uy problematic sounds and letter combinati ons. In fact, new research suggests that with appropriate insLruction , English learners can learn phonological awareness and decocliJ1g skills in English as rapidly as native English speakers can (Geva , 2000; Thompson, Vaughn , Hickman-Davis,& Kouzekanani , 2003).

In a srudy of spelling devclopmenc, a group of children whose native language was Cantonese and a comparison grot1p

of native English- peaking ch ildren developed spelling skills at the same pace from the beginning of grade l to the end of grade 2. Specific spelling errors mad e by the Cantonese group-such as a difficu l.ty tHstingu ishing the sounds / th/ and /s/ in tbink and sink-d isap peared by 2nd grade (Wang& Geva , in pre s). A longitu dinal study involving 13 1 Engli ·h learners a nd 727 native English speakers concluded that the acquisi tion of basic Li ceracy skills for children from both language groups developed in a similar fashion " (Chiappe, iegel , & Wade Woolley , 2002 , p . 369).

Detecti11g Lear 11.t11g Disabilities 111 English Learuers

Historically, educators havehad ditficulty distinguishingreading disabilities from Limited English proficiency (Donov<m & Cross, 2002). Research suggests, however, that it is possible to validl)' screen English learners for leaming disabilities in kindergarten and I t grade even when children 's oral language skills in English are still developing . Assessi ng letter naming fluency and phonological skillsearly in lsl grade can pred ict moderately well the English learners' furn.re reading achievement-word reading, oral reading fluency, <md comprehension (Baker, Gersten , Haager, Goldenberg, & Dingle, in preparation ; Chiappe et al., 2002; Gersten & Bak er, 2003; Geva, 2000).TI1ese results suggest that if cltil dren have received appropriate <mdsy tematic literaC)' instmction in English , such assessments to ascertain those at rh.k for reading failure are appropriate. One of the practical ou

tcomes of this researc h is tha t it may no longer be ethi cally ju stifiable to with hold assessment and intensive early intervention from

English learners who show early warnjng signs of a reading disability .

Despite limjted research on effectiveinterventions for helping English learners.read in a second language (August & Hakuta , 1997; Gersten & Baker, 2003; Rousseau , Tam, & Ramnara.in , 1993), the similar paths of phonological awareness suggest that we can extrapolate from research with native speakers to fmd some helpful strategies. For example, Scarborough 's (200 I ) finding of a link between oral language comprd1ension and subsequent readjn g comprehension for native English speakers suggests that instruction in both Listening and reading comprehension strategies is part.icula.rly in1portanl for English learners. Our observational research also found that high-quality vocabulary instniction aids reading comprehension and that a combination of defining new words, using them in class discussion , and w1iting sentences and sto1ies appears to be optimal.

Observational Research on Ef

I

fective InstructionFor two years, we observed 34 1st grade classrooms in wh.ich at lea t three fourths of the students were English learners (Baker et al., in preparation ; Gersten & Baker, 2003; Graves & Gersten, 2002; Haager, Gersten, Baker,& Graves, in pre s). Teachers followedthe California state standards, which were developed on the basis of the National Reading Panel's report (National Institute of Child H ealth and Human Development , 2000). Most

teachers used a basal series with <m accompanying series of children's Literature, and about one-fourth u sed a Uterature-based approach aligned co the state standard . All in tmcrors taught reading <md langu age arts exclusivel y in English . Teacher and their assistantswere free to use students' native langu ages to clarify material , but theyrarely did so. Readi ng and hmguage artsinstruction lasted at least two :rnd one- .,.

u

.30

A SOC: IATIO N P OH S l'PER V I S I ON A N I) Cll RIU \. lll.llM 0F.VELOP 1E N T 45

half hours each day.The standard s provide

dear guidelines about how and for bow long to teach reading but only offer genertl! guidelin es on how to adjust lessons for English learners. Because of this lack of specific guidance, we saw a good deal of natural variation in how teachers adapted their instmctional strategies to the needs of English le.u·ners.

Our goal was to Link specific instructional su-ategies to reacting growlh among English learners. We assessed students on valid predictors of subse quent reading perfonnance letter nami ng and phonemic awa reness-at the beginning of the year, and on compre hension as well as fluency and accuracy at the year's end.After identifying classes inwh ich the average perfor· mance of the English leitrners was at or above levels consid· ered accepLable bendunar ks

Gersten & Baker, 2003).A major finding from the

quantitative scores on d1e rating scale and our qualita· tive field notes was that these effective Leachers , unlike many of their colleagues ,used most of the strategies in our 29·item , research-based framework .The only area that showed inconsistency was reading fluency practice.

Embedding Pbo110/ogical Aw eireuess with Wr iting Effective teachers systematically built skills in p honolog·ical awareness :me! decodingth roughouc the morning. Thei r lesson segments were typically brief and lively <llld oI'ten included review. Teachers also helped reinforce phonological and word-attack skills asstudents were reading.

:=;illl"_.,,.111'!!11'9'-'-- J f A pleasant surprise was the

s emp hasis that these teachers0 p.Jaced on wri ting. Teachers

had students write frequently

for I st grade, we used factor analysis, astatistical teclmique, tO explore whid1 good instructional practices-whar we caUcd/acet5 of insti·uction-had recurring patterns across these classrooms.

Ln addition to our qualitative field notes, we quantified what we observed using a 7-poim like.rt scale for a list of 29 teaching strategies that we derived and developed from three sources: observational research on beginningrea ding (An derson, Evertson, & Brophy. 1 979; Poorman, Fran cis, Shaywitz, Shay witz, & Fletcher, 1997; Stallings & Kaskowitz, 1974); research on English language instruction for English learners (Tikunoff et al., 1991); and the National Research Panel's research synthesis on components of effective beginning reading prog rams (National Institute of Child Heald1 and Hlrn1a11 Develo pm ent, 2000). The scale represented how well the strategy was used; low scores repre· sented

either i.neffective or nonuse of the technique.

Using our factor analysis. we identi· fiecl six facets of instruction (see p. 47) tbal predicted student growtb in reading-in both reading comprehen sion and reading fluency a.ncl accur.1cy . Although tl1e individual coefficient<; varied from the first to the second yearof the sLudy, our key finding was that all six facets of instruction contributed to reading growth. If th.is pattern recurs in other observational research , educators will better understand how to Leach reading effectively to English learners in the primary brrades.

During classroom observatio ns, we also took open-ended field notes L O capture specific examples of practices that appeared to be particularly effec tive, and we examined notes each year from d1e four classes with the strongest reading growth in order to articulatethemes. Ald1ough ead1 reacher had a different style of teaching, several common attributes showed up in our study (Baker ct a.I., in preparation ;

and used writ ing to enhance md re inforce emerging phonological and word analysis ski.Us. The writing activi ties for stuclems in m:my of the high·growth classes ranged from taking diclaLion and using new vocabulary in workbooks to working on semantic webs and gc::nernting stories about

their personal live . 1n one class, studentswrote half a page a day aboutanything-a class trip, an evenr at home, a tory that the child was reading independently, or a story that d1e class was reading. Stud ents seemed ro love taking dictation , wh id1 suggests that sLUdems, LOO, viewed writing as a

means to reinforce and demonstratetheir knowledge of phon ics.

l11fu si11g Lessollswilb Vocllb11la1y DevelopmentThe effective teachers emphasized vocabulaiy and language , and they inte grated vocabulary development with otl1er lessons. Teachers focused on 1ich

46 EDI J CAT I Ol\A I. L liAll ER S HI P/APlllL 2 00 .

and evocative words (tbump, valley) and on words essential for under standing a story. But they also higb ligbted basic words that a 1st grade native speaker would not necessarily need to learn. For example, while reading a story about a valley , one teacher used hand gestures to focus students' atten tion on the illustrations of the valley but also asked questions to relnforce the meanings of simplerwords like bigh, low, higber, and lower . Most teachers relied on books or pictures to teach vocabulary, but one teacher acted out word meanings , getting down on the floor to demon strate rabbits tbumping and even doing a somersault to define that word.

Teachers asked students to defUle words, to use words in sentences, and sometimes to answer sophisticated questions involving chose words. (Studen ts often came u p with inter esting definitions, such as "a warren is like an apartment for rabbits. ") Few

vocabulary activities required a good deal of preparation or imagination , but we found that effective teachers ' sLrate gies corroborated the research on higb quali ty vocabulary instruction (Beck, Perfetti , & McKeown , 1982; Biemiller , 200 L ; National Lnstitute of Child Health and Human Development , 2000) and that students whose teachers included high-quality vocabulary instruction in their reading lessons bad better reading skills.

Teachers developed individual stylesfor focusing on vocabulary. Some of them integrated vocabulary il1stn.1ction with phonological awareness activities, whereas others u sed pi.ctures from big books. But teachers invariabl y focused on vocabulary instruction several different times du1ing the morning.

During this time, teachers did notstress proper grammar and syntax. For exanlple, when a studenc with Limited English proficiency said , "Potato is big," the teacher integrated his attempt into

the group discussion . he paraphras ed the sn1dent 's idea in a more sophisti cated , g;.unmatically correct fashion , but made a point of indudillg the idea.

Not only did infusing vocabulary acrivities provi.de na tural and struc tured breaks from the abstract phonemic awareness activi ties, buL it also fostered an e,xciting pace and rhythm to the lesson and provided a cognitively challenging task that snidents could participate in at man y different levels. (Gersten & Baker, 2003, p. 102)

The teachers with high sn1dent growth in reaclilig-that is, Engl.ish learners readil1g at acceptable levels for nat ive English speakers-had a good sense of the appropriate length of literacy activities for (>-yea r-olds and did not stretch out any activity for too long, especially independent seatwork. Several. teachers alternated complex and demanding activities, such as devel oping a concept map, wid1 well-defined

Six S uccessful Reading Instruction Strategies for 1st Grade English LearnersExplicit Teaching

• Models skills and strategies• Makes relationships overt• Emphasizes distinctive features of new concepts•Providesprompts• Uses appropriate length of time for literacy activities•Adjusts own use of English during lesson

English Learning• Uses visuals or manipulatives to teach content• Provides explicit instruction in English• Encourages students to give elaborate responses• Uses gestures and facialexpressions to teach vocab ulary

and clarify meaning of content

Phonemic Awareness and Decoding• Provides systemat ic instruction in phonemic awareness• Provides systematic instruction in letter-sound

correspondence

• Provides systematic instruction in decoding

Vocabulary Development•Teaches difficult vocabulary prior to and during lesson•Structures opportunities to speak English• Provides systematic instruction for developing vocabulary• Engages students in meaningful interactions about text

Interactive Teaching•Secures and maintains student attention during lesson• Maximizes extent to which students are on task during

literacy activities• Selects and incorporates students' responses, ideas. exam

ples, and experiences into lesson• Gives students time to respond to questions

Instruction Geared Toward Low Performers•Achieves high level of response accuracy• Ensures quality of independent practice• Engages in ongoing monitoring of student understanding

and performance• Elicits responses from all students• Modifies instruction for students as needed• Provides extra instruction, practice, and review• Asks questions to ensure comprehension

A SSOC I ATION FOR S Ul'E R \l l S I ON AN D CL lll!I C: lJ LlJM DF.VE l.OPM F.NT 47

I Teachers used writingto enhance and reinforce

emerging phonologicaland word analysis skills.

Baker. . K., GerMen, R..Ilaager, D..Goldenherg,C., & Dingle.'.,,\1. (in prepa ration). 1st grcule reading instruction for Englisb / er1r11t.!1:: An obse1H1/1011al study. Final report. To he 'ubmi1ted to Califomia Dept. of EducaLion .

Beck. I. L., Perfetti.<:. A ., & McKeown,M. G.(1982). Effects of long-termvocabul:try instruction on lexical acccs

activities. such as spelling, dictation,practice on sounds, and defining w ords. Tht'. number and variety of activitit'.s were impressive .

These teachers enhanced their systematic instruction of phonologicaJ awareness and word reading with their approac hes co reading c0mpreht'.nsion. Although each taught comprehension in a different way, all sLressed an under standing of both the material that students read and what teachers read to them.They also successfu lly used reading as a vehicle for langmgc

devel opment by emphasizing vocabula ry for English learners. Subsequent research should docu mt:nt and verify the efficacy

of these teach ing strategies, yer ourresearch shows that some viable strate gies are already available for enhancing reading grow th in English learners. •

ReferencesAdams ,M.J .(1990).Begi1111i11g lo

read: n1i11king and lecm1i11g about print. Cambridge,MA: MIT Pre s.

Andl'.rson ,L.. Evenson,C., & Brophy,]. (1979). An l'.Xpl'.rimentaJ study of dft:c· live teaching in first-grade reading groups. Ele111e11/a1J 1 c/Jooljournal , 79, 193-223.

August, D.. & HakuLa. K. (1997).lmpro11i11g scbooling fcn· /a11g11age · minority cbildren: A resem·c/J agenda. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

and reading co111prehcnsion.}011riw/ ofEt:lucatio1wl Psycbology, 7 i, 'i06-52 I .

13iemmer, A . (200 I). Teaching voc:ibulary: Early. direct aml sequential. A111ericm1 Educator, 25. 25-28.

Chiappe,P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Wuolll'.y ,L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of rl'.ading !>kills: A longi· wdinal study. cie11tific /11tlies of Reading. 6( 1). 369- 100.

Donovan,S.. & Cros1>,C. (1002)..I/inoritys/11de111s in special and gljled ed11ca tio11. Wal>hington .DC: ational Resem:h Council.

Ehri, L. C. ( 199 1). Leaming to read andspell \VOrlb. In L. Rieben & C.A . Perfetti (Ed:..),Leaming lo rend (pp. 57-73). llillsdale, ) : Erlhaum.

Fashola,0. S.. Drum, P.A ., Mayer, R.E., &

Kang, S. j. ( 1996). A cognitive theol'y oforthographic transitioning: Predictableerror in how Spanish-speaking chil

Imagine helpinga voung child...-Bypass special education services-Transition smooth ly into the next learning

environm ent-Improve assessment scores-Become more independent

Som etimes the difference between imagining and "making it happen " is as simple as finding the right resource.

Project SLIDE: S1zills f'Or Leaming Indeperiden ce in DevelopmentallyAppropriate Environments

• Four empirically valida ted strategies• Step-by-step instrudjons• Design ed to overlay any curriculum!

Call (800) 547-6747 or visit

dren spell English word.A111erlcw1 Ed11cational Researcb journal , 33( i), 825-8-!.).

Foorman. B. R., FrJncis. D.J .. Shaywicz.S. E., haywitz,B., & Fletcher,J. M.(199}. The ca e for earl} reading intervention . In B.A . Blachm•tn (Ed.). Fo1111- c/alio11s of reading acqulsl/1011: lmjJ/i catio11sfor l11ter1•e11/ ion am/ dyslexia(pp. 103-11'5). llillsdale,NJ : Erlbaum.

Gersten,R., & B:iker,$. K. (2003). English·language lcamen. ''ithlearning disabilities. In 11. L. Swanson, K.R. llarris,&S. Graham (Eds.),/lt11ul/ )(lok of teaming disa()l/ifles (pp.91-109). New York :Guilford.

Geva, E.(2000). Issues in the assessment of reading <lbabilitic in L2 children. Dyslexia. 6. 13-28.

Geva, E., & Wang,M.(2001). The role oforthography in the.'. literacy m.:qui ition of young L2 lcamers.A11111wl Re1•ie11• of Applied Li11g11istics , 21, 182-20--1.

Graves,A ., & Ger Len, R.(2002, April)./11str11clio11 and literacy de11e/ojJ111e11t of T:ngllsb-lc111g11age learners: Descrip tive researr:/J i11 gn1de one classroo111s. Pre·cntation al the Council for Excep tional Children Annua l Crnwl'.ntion,

cw York .NY.Haager,D., Gersten, It.Baker,S., &

Gmvl'.s, A .(in pre:...,). The Englbh

Proven and Practical

48 F.iJl <A 1 lONAl. LEADER llll' / APIUl. 200 .

www.sopriswest.com language h:arncr classroom observationinstrumcnL In . R.Vaughn & K.L.

Briggs (E<ls.), Reading /11 the classroom:yste 111sfor obserui11g teaching and

/earnl11g. Baltimore: Brookes.aLionaJ lnsLitutc of Child Health ancl Human Oe\lelopment. (2000). Report of the Na/Iona/ Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. (NTH Publication No. 004769). Wa ·hingron, DC:Government Printing Office. Available:www.njchd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smaUbook.pclf

Housseau.M . K., Tam, 13. K. Y. , &Ramnar:tin, R. ( 1993). Lncreasing readingproficiency of language-minority students with spc:ec h ancl language impaimlents. Education cmd Treal me11ts of C/Jildre11, 16, 254-271.

·carborough ,H. (200 I ). Connecting early language and Literacy to later reading (dis)abilities. In S. B. euman & D. K. Dickinson (Ells.). lla11dbook of early literacy researc/J (pp.97-110). ew York : Guilford.

now, C. .. Burns,S. M ., & Griffin,P.(1998). Preventing read ing difficulties inyoung cbifdren. WashfagLon ,DC:National Aca demies Press.

Smllings,.J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974).

Follou tbrougl:J classroom observatione/laluatiou, 1972-19 73. Stanford,CA:Stanford Research lnstilute.

·111ompson,s. L., Vaughn,S., Hickman Davis,P., & Kouzekanani,K. (2003).EffccLiveness of supplemental reading instruction for 2nd grade English learners with reading difficulties. Ele111e11ta1y Sc/Joo/ j ournal, 103(3), 22 1-238.

Tikunoff. \: .J., \Varel, B. A., vanBroek.huizen, L. D., Romero, M.,Casu111eda, L. V., Lucas,T., & KaLz, A.(199 1). F/11al report: A descriptive shtdyof slg11ifica 111features of exe111pla1y special alter11ati11e l11stru.ctional programs. Los Alamitos,CA: The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory .

Wang,M ., & Geva,E. (in press). SpeUing acquisition of novelEnglish phonemes in Chinese children.Reading and lflriti11g: A11 /11t erdiscipli11C1yr j ournal.

Russell Gersten is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon and is Director of the Instructional Research Group, 2525 Cherry Ave., Ste. 300, Signal Hill, CA 90755; rgersten@oregon .uoregon.edu . Esther Geva is a professor and is Chair of the School and Clinical Child Psychology Program, Depart ment of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for

Studies in

June 22-24Bloomington, IN

June 29-July 1Round

Rock,TX

July 13-15Vancouver, WA

July 20-22Rochester,

NY

Education, University of Toronto, 252Bloor West, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5S 1V6; egeva@oise.utoronto.ca.

July 27-30San Diego, CA

August 3-6Lincolnshire, IL

August 20-23Toronto , ON

A SS OC IA T ION FOR SUPER\l l ION AND CU RIU Cl' t.tl M DE VllLOl' ME NT49

Copyright© 2003 EBSCO Publishing