C-REAL's March 2015 event. "Reading Achievement of ELLS and Response to Intervention Model" presented by Dr. Jung.

1. READING ACHIEVEMENT
OF ELLS AND RESPONSE
TO INTERVENTION
MODEL
Adrian Jung, Ph.D.

2. Response to Intervention
(RTI)
 Is a model used by schools around the US.
 Result of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA,
2004) and No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
 Scientifically-based instructional practices to be
used (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008,
p. 24).

4. Basis for RTI Model
 RTI relies on quality instruction
 Needs of ELLs and at-risk students identified by
skilled teachers (McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao
(2008).
 All can benefit
 Language abilities no longer an issue
 Instruction starts where children are at
 Instruction tied to evidence/scientifically-based
practices (Xu & Drame, 2008).

5. RTI Model
RTI Model
regarded as alternative to current
practice
addressed disproportionate
numbers of children qualifying
for special ed. services and
increase in ELL student
populations.

6. English Language Learners
(ELLs)
 ELLs often placed in special education
classrooms (Orosco & Klinger, 2010).
 RTI important in decreasing the over
representation of ELL populations in special
education settings, (McMaster, Kun, Han, &
Cao, 2008).

7. Importance of RTI for ELLs
 Additional source of data
gathered from instruction.
RTI procedures assist schools
(Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).
Students can be identified and
academic failure addressed early
(Mellard, 2004).

8. “Identifying students who are not
achieving at the same level and
rate as their peers and providing
appropriate interventions are two
features that RTI advocates
emphasize” (Mellard, 2004, p.

9. RTI Research
 There are gaps in the research on how
RTI affects the academic performance of
ELLs.
 ELLs often grouped with English Only
students.
 Districts given freedom in their
interpretation of RTI guidelines.

10. Language Development
 There are correlations between oral language
delay and reading difficulties. (Lovett et al.,
2008).
 The success of RTI may be validated after a
review of instruction.
 ELL participant data results have been
skewed.

11. Assessments
 Measurement of reading achievement
happens at the end of second grade.
 Concerns are warranted.
 Teacher competency in teaching reading
acquisition is limited (Brown & Doolittle, 2008).
 Fidelity to research based practices needed

12. Research-Based Practices
 ELLs respond to direct reading instruction
(Haager, Calhoon & Linan-Thompson, 2007).
 ELLs benefit from effective instructional
practices, targeted assessment (Brown &
Doolittle, 2008, Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, &
Ciullo, 2010).
 Examples include:
 small group support
 language support/remediation

13. The purpose of this
study/research was to
examine the
relationship between
RTI and the reading
acquisition of ELLs.

14. Targeted Areas of Research
 Researched:
 RTI and ELLs in general education settings.
 Pre-service teacher programs.
 Acquisition of grade level reading skills
 ELLs as an independent population

15. METHODS

16. Setting and Participants
 An Urban K-8 school district in LA and OC
 Two of the seven elementary schools in the
district
 130 (EL) & 227 (EO): 2010-2011
 122 (EL) & 174 (EO): 2011-2012
 Both schools used reading assessment data
from CST and teacher-administered reading
assessments to determine grouping for ELLs
and EOs.

17. Instrument and Data Collection
 Repeated-measures design with English
proficiency as the one between-groups factor,
and California Standardized Tests (CST) as
the one repeated-measures factor with three
levels.
 collected CST scores for both ELL and EO
students over the course of two years
 Scores were separated according to the
language designation of the student earning
the score.

18. RESULTS

20. Table2
Differenceinreadingprogressbetweentwogroups
Source df F Sig.
Groups 1
216 7.40 .01*
*p<0.5

22. CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION
LIMITATIONS
IMPLICATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS

23. Discussion & Conclusion
 RTI significantly impacts schools on multiple
levels
 The relationship b/w reading progress for ELLs
and participation in RTI
 ELLs would demonstrate a faster rate of reading
achievement than ELLs who did not participate in
RTI

24. Limitations
 Conducted in a district that serves a largely
homogeneous community
 Served by the district contains a relatively
homogeneous population
 Because the focus was on reading, other
subjects commonly addressed in RTI, such as
math, were not studied.
 Limitations also include examining the
relationship between RTI and ELL reading
achievement over a period of two years.

25. Implications
 School administrators can use the results of
this study to guide their RTI model
implementation.

26. Recommendations
 Need for longitudinal data
 Study of a more diverse sample
 RTI and older students.