Remedial and Special Education2014, Vol. 35(5) 300 –312© H.docx

Remedial and Special Education
2014, Vol. 35(5) 300 –312
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741932514525047
rase.sagepub.com
Article
I improved a lot, that’s for sure, but I still need to learn . . . if I
had more opportunities, I feel like, I would be good right now
and passing my tests . . . I mean every test I’ve taken right now,
I failed . . . I failed the tests because of the words . . . so I think
I need explanation.
These words capture the school experiences of many of
the English language learners (ELLs) in my (first author’s)
classroom for the past 4 years. Working with ELLs who had
been classified as limited English proficient beginning in
elementary grades, right up to their high school graduation,
I began to question what had happened during their school-
ing. As a nonnative English speaker, I had always thought
that ELLs in the United States had such a great opportunity
to learn English and other academic subjects by receiving
language support services such as English as a second lan-
guage (ESL) or bilingual education programs. However, my
students’ stories fueled my strong desire to understand why
the educational needs of many long-term ELLs are not
being met.
A large number of ELLs in secondary schools are long-

term ELLs; that is, they have attended public schools in the
United States for at least 7 years, having received English
language support services, yet have not acquired English
proficiency, as determined by state and federal guidelines
(Capps et al., 2005; Menken, Kleyn, & Chae, 2012; Olsen,
2010). Although national data about long-term ELLs do not
exist, a variety of sources (e.g., Batalova, Fix, & Murray,
2007; Capps et al., 2005; Olsen, 2010) estimate that 50% to
70% of ELLs in secondary school were born in the United
States. Formal or informal programs to address the particu-
lar needs of long-term ELLs are scant to non-existent, and
services available for these learners are extremely limited
(Zehr, 2010). In secondary grades, English language sup-
port programs available to ELLs are typically designed for
students who have recently arrived in the United States and
reflect an assumption that the students received adequate
schooling in their country of origin (Menken et al., 2012;
Zen, 2001). In general, these programs do not necessarily
focus on providing the academic language supports needed
by long-term ELLs (Callahan, 2005; Menken, 2013).
Despite attending schools in the United States for a long
period of time, and although they may not have received
adequate English language development and academic
instruction to meet their needs, long-term ELLs are often
525047RSEXXX10.1177/0741932514525047Remedial and
Special EducationKim and Garcia
research-article2014
1Texas A&M International University, Laredo, USA
2The University of Texas at Austin, USA
Corresponding Author:
Won Gyoung Kim, Assistant Professor, Department of

Curriculum
and Pedagogy, Texas A&M International University, 5201
University
Boulevard, Sue and Radcliffe Killam Library 419K, Laredo, TX
78041,
USA.
Email: [email protected]
Long-Term English Language Learners’
Perceptions of Their Language and
Academic Learning Experiences
Won Gyoung Kim, PhD1 and Shernaz B. García, PhD2
Abstract
Long-term, adolescent English language learners (ELLs)
experience persistent academic underachievement in spite of
several
years of schooling; yet, the research on this topic is scant. To
increase our understanding of these students’ educational
experiences, we explored perceptions of 13 long-term ELLs
about their schooling in the context of their school history,
including program placements, special education referral, and
academic outcomes. Data from semistructured interviews
and documents were analyzed using a grounded theory
approach. Participants viewed themselves as English-proficient,
motivated learners, and described their school experience as
positive but challenging. The findings revealed a gap between
their postsecondary aspirations and the reality of their academic
performance, which raises questions about the adequacy
of educational programs and identification of ELLs with
disabilities.
Keywords
qualitative, research methodology, English language learners,
preferral intervention/RTI, secondary, special education,
academic achievement

at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on January 21,
2016rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
mailto:[email protected]
http://rse.sagepub.com/
Kim and Garcia 301
blamed for their academic underachievement (Jacobs,
2008; Reeves, 2006). Because alternative services such as
ESL or reading remedial programs rarely provide rigorous
learning opportunities for this population, the students, who
have been struggling from year to year, fall further and fur-
ther behind (Callahan, 2006). Moreover, these limited
opportunities to learn have resulted in undesirable educa-
tional outcomes, including low engagement, high retention
and drop-out rates, and inappropriate referral to special edu-
cation (Abedi, 2006; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Suárez-
Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008; Sullivan,
2011).
Misidentified and Underserved ELLs in
Special Education
Schools have been critiqued for their tendency to respond to
ELLs’ academic failure by placing them either in special
education or in remedial programs (Harry & Klingner,
2006; Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda, 2002). Although
special education services may be perceived as a means to
do something for these learners (Sullivan, 2011), these pro-
grams have different objectives and tend to limit students’
access to a comprehensive and rigorous curriculum.
Consequently, the academic literacy gap that already exists
is likely to increase (Callahan, 2006).

Available literature on ELLs (e.g., Artiles, Rueda,
Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; García & Ortiz, 2008; Liu,
Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson, & Kushner, 2008; Sullivan,
2011) suggests that ELLs continue to be inappropriately
served in special education without adequate consideration
of cultural, linguistic, and experiential factors. Finding that
identification of ELLs for special education has increased
notably in secondary schools, Rueda et al. (2002) associ-
ated this rise with the decrease in language support services
experienced by students as they move up through secondary
grades. These authors also found that ELLs who received
less native language support were more frequently placed in
special education, particularly for specific learning disabili-
ties (SLD) and speech-language impairments. Similarly,
Samson and Lesaux (2009) found that ELLs were under-
represented in early elementary grades but overrepresented
beginning with upper elementary levels.
Conversely, educators are often reluctant to refer ELLs
to special education services because they assume ELLs’
academic difficulties are mainly a product of their limited
English fluency (Hui-Michael & García, 2009; Samson &
Lesaux, 2009). ELLs tend to be referred for special educa-
tion services 2 to 3 years later than average, compared with
non-ELLs (Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005). Many educa-
tors also have difficulty in distinguishing between students’
academic struggles that reflect a language difference from
those that may reflect SLDs because students in both groups
tend to perform poorly on academic tasks that require higher
order language skills (Case & Taylor, 2005). Hui-Michael
and García found that elementary teachers’ assumptions
about second language acquisition and positive perceptions
about Asian Americans influenced their tendency to over-
look the academic struggles of their Asian American ELLs,

especially if they were well behaved and compliant.
In spite of the growing presence of long-term ELLs in
secondary schools, little research has been conducted on
issues relating to long-term ELLs’ academic challenges,
including risk factors associated with dropping out, reten-
tion, and the high incidence of disproportionate representa-
tion in special education programs (Olsen, 2010). Equally
absent from available literature are the voices of the stu-
dents themselves (Howard, 2002; Hughes, Page, & Ford,
2011). To date, most research related to ELLs’ school per-
formance has focused on various school-based instructional
interventions (e.g., Graves, Gersten, & Haager, 2004) or
teachers’ views about diverse learners (e.g., Batt, 2008;
Reeves, 2006); rarely are the voices of these learners
included, although they are the focus of school improve-
ment efforts (Hughes et al., 2011). Students’ academic per-
formance may be closely related to how they perceive their
schooling (Byrnes & Rickards, 2011; Cook-Sather, 2002).
Long-term ELLs’ voices can inform the work of educators,
policymakers, and researchers by offering a firsthand per-
spective on what happens in schools and their classrooms,
and how these experiences affect the academic achievement
of ELLs (Hughes et al., 2011). Bringing ELLs’ voices to the
forefront and examining their perceptions of their schooling
experiences may also help stakeholders understand why so
many ELLs have become long-term ELLs and provide
practical suggestions for improving instruction and, ulti-
mately, educational outcomes.
The research reported in this article was designed to
expand the existing database about long-term ELLs’ aca-
demic challenges from the perspective of the students them-
selves. The primary research question guiding this study
was as follows:

What are the perceptions of adolescent long-term ELLs
about their language and academic learning experiences
in school?
A second focus of the study was to develop a profile of
adolescent long-term ELLs’ language and academic history
to contextualize participants’ perceptions of their schooling
and uncover factors related to special education, where
relevant.
Method
This study was conducted from a qualitative, constructivist
paradigm, using naturalistic inquiry (NI) approach as the
guiding methodology as we believe knowledge is
302 Remedial and Special Education 35(5)
constructed from the perspective of the participants. NI
approaches are well suited to analyze concepts and themes
from the exploratory cases of this population (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).
Context and Setting
The study was conducted at Sunshine High School in
Pebble Creek Independent School District (all names used
in this study are pseudonyms) in a metropolitan area of
Texas. During the year of the study, approximately 25% of
the student enrollment at the school was eligible for free/

reduced lunch, and 60 students (or 2.4%) were classified as
limited English proficient (LEP: the term used in Texas for
students who are eligible for special language services).
Fifty-two students (87%) spoke Spanish as their home lan-
guage, and the rest reported one of the following languages
as their home language: Akan, Chinese, French, Korean,
Urdu, and Vietnamese. The school was rated Academically
Acceptable for the 2011–2012 school year, according to the
School Report Card provided by the Texas Education
Agency.
Special language programs for ELLs. The district offered
bilingual education and ESL programs in its elementary
schools, and content-based ESL programs in its secondary
schools. During the years spanned by the study, the district
implemented a transitional bilingual model that typically
provides academic instruction in the students’ native lan-
guage and ESL instruction to develop their English profi-
ciency. Instruction in English is gradually increased over
time. The district’s content-based ESL programs integrated
the instruction of English language learning with subject
matter instruction.
Procedures to identify students with LEP begin with a
Home Language Survey to identify students whose home
language is other than English. A Language Proficiency
Assessment Committee (LPAC) uses scores from three
assessments to determine students’ eligibility for language
services: (a) the Woodcock–Muñoz Language Survey–
Revised (WMLS-R; Schrank, Wendling, Alvarado, &
Woodcock, 2010), (b) the writing portion of the Texas
English Language Proficiency Assessment System
(TELPAS), and (c) state reading and writing assessments.
The WMLS-R yields a measure of English cognitive aca-
demic language proficiency (CALP) from Level 1 (negli-
gible) to Level 6 (very advanced). The TELPAS measures

students’ English proficiency in the four domains of listen-
ing, speaking, reading, and writing; scores place ELLs in
one of four categories: beginning, intermediate, advanced,
or advanced high. ELLs in K–12 are evaluated annually in
spring to determine their eligibility to remain in, or be
exited from, the program.
Participant Selection
Of five high schools in the Pebble Creek Independent
School District, the principals of the two high schools with
a high ELL enrollment were contacted; the principal of
Sunshine High School agreed to participate in this research
project. Using purposeful sampling, ELLs at Sunshine High
school were considered for inclusion if they (a) met the
state’s eligibility criteria for classification as LEP, (b) had
attended school in the United States for 7 years or more
without acquiring CALP in English, and (c) had at least 1
year of high school experience. Of the 20 students who met
these criteria, 13 agreed to participate; all were native
speakers of Spanish (see Table 1). Students aged 18 years or
older gave consent for their own participation; consent for
younger adolescents was obtained from parents, and stu-
dents signed an assent form. The district’s bilingual educa-
tion and ESL personnel served as informants as needed, to
clarify information recorded in the documents or to gain
further information about the programs and/or services
implemented in the district.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected during the 2012–2013 school year.
Participants’ perceptions of their school experience were
elicited through individual, semistructured, and in-depth
interviews, averaging 40 min each. Although participants
were offered the option of being interviewed in Spanish, all

indicated they felt comfortable conversing in English.
Students were asked about their family backgrounds (e.g.,
Tell me about yourself and your family) and their percep-
tions and recollections of their language development and
academic learning experiences (e.g., Tell me about your
language learning experiences. What types of instruction
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample.
Participants Age Grade Gender
Years of school in
the United States
Angie 18 12 Female 9
Benito 18 12 Male 10
Cesar 18 12 Male 11
Doris 18 12 Female 13
Ileana 17 12 Female 8
Tristan 17 11 Male 14
Elisa 15 10 Female 12
Geon 16 10 Male 10
Hazel 16 10 Female 12
Jamie 15 10 Female 12
Leon 16 10 Male 12
Messi 15 10 Male 7
Norman 16 10 Male 7
Kim and Garcia 303
did you receive in elementary/middle/high school? What do

you think about English language supports that you’ve
received throughout schooling?). School and district docu-
ments were also reviewed to compile profiles of partici-
pants’ school history. These data included academic and
language assessment scores, other academic records (e.g.,
retention history, course schedules), and available docu-
ments related to their bilingual education/ESL history, and,
where relevant, their special education program placements.
Information from school records was available to students
during their interviews.
Documents in students’ LPAC folders were examined
before the interviews. Information sought included their
immigrant status, primary language, schools attended, the
number of years they had been in LEP status, language pro-
grams and services provided, and retention history. The
information gathered from these documents became part of
the students’ profiles and equally served to generate ques-
tions for interviews. Following the interviews, participants’
recollections about their experiences of schooling were
compared with school records (cumulative folders) that
documented each student’s schooling history, including
placement in language programs, courses taken, disciplin-
ary events, and academic performance data. All data were
gathered by the first author, who was an ESL teacher and
case manager at another high school in the district. The stu-
dents appeared to share their learning experience with little
hesitation as the researcher listened to their stories.
Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection,
using grounded theory as the overarching method for ana-
lyzing the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Transcribed data were divided into meaningful
chunks with descriptive labels or categories (e.g., schooling
consistency, academic challenges), and categories that
emerged from the data were clustered into themes (e.g.,

positive perceptions of learning). Categories and themes
were adjusted as data continued to be gathered and ana-
lyzed. Triangulation among students’ recollections of their
placements, archival data, and informant interviews were
used to ensure the findings accurately reflected the real situ-
ation. Member checks with participants, reflexive journal-
ing, and peer debriefing were also utilized to ensure
trustworthiness of the study. Information obtained from
informal conversations with each participant during mem-
ber checks was added to the transcribed interviews. Because
the first author’s classroom interactions with her own stu-
dents initiated this study, her feelings, motives, and experi-
ence were documented through reflexive journaling and
peer debriefing; both were instrumental in monitoring the
potential influence of these feelings and experiences on the
research process.
Findings
We begin with a profile of participants’ school history, fol-
lowed by our analysis of their perceptions of their school
experience. The profiles serve as the context for making
sense of students’ perceptions of their academic and lan-
guage learning experiences.
Profile of Participants’ Demographic
Characteristics and School History
Each participant’s story reflected a unique personal and life
experiences; however, the findings also highlight similari-
ties in participants’ experiences. Results revealed that 50%
of the participants were U.S.-born and all had learned
Spanish as their first language using it as the primary means
of communication with their parents at home. The majority
(n = 10) had attended schools in Pebble Creek District for

their entire schooling. More than 50% had been served in
bilingual/ESL programs for 10 years or more. Although
they been in LEP status for an average of 10 years 6 months,
this number was as high as 14 years. The group profile also
revealed a high retention rate during elementary school and
a history of special education referral for three students.
Special Language Services Received
Services implemented at the schools that students had
attended in Pebble Creek District were extrapolated from
data in the students’ cumulative folders, interviews, and
informal conversations with bilingual and ESL staff in the
district. We assigned participants to one of two groups
based on their time of entry to special language programs,
because this appeared to be a factor in their language learn-
ing experiences and the services they had received. Students
who entered bilingual education between pre-K and third
grade were placed in the Early Entry group; those who
received bilingual education services beginning in fourth
grade were classified as Late Entry.
Of the eight students who were classified as Early Entry,
six (Doris, Elisa, Hazel, Jamie, Leon, and Tristan) were
U.S.-born and entered bilingual education in pre-K when
they enrolled in elementary grades. The two other students
(Geon and Cesar) were first-generation immigrants and
began their U.S. schooling in the district’s bilingual educa-
tion program in the second and third grade, respectively.
Five students (Angie, Benito, Ileana, Messi, and Norman)
in the Late Entry group entered the district’s bilingual edu-
cation program in either fourth or fifth grade.
Language services received in elementary school. Students in
both groups reported that they typically had one or two
teachers who spoke Spanish and English in their bilingual

education classrooms. Of 13 students, 7 had attended Blue
Mountain Elementary School, and their descriptions of the
learning environment and bilingual education services
received were fairly consistent. They recalled that all stu-
dents in the classroom were Spanish speakers; some were
born in the United States, whereas the rest came mostly
from Mexico. Participants in the Early Entry group reported
that the bilingual education teacher taught all subjects
almost entirely in Spanish until third grade. Beginning in
fourth grade, academic instruction in English was intro-
duced gradually, but Spanish remained the dominant lan-
guage of instruction. In fifth grade, although instruction in
English increased, students remembered that most class-
room communication and interactions continued in Span-
ish. Students in the Late Entry group were placed in
bilingual education along with Early Entry students, with
occasional pullout, small group instruction. It appears that
special language services provided for both groups were
identical in spite of differences in their proficiency in the
two languages.
Language services received in secondary schools. None of the
participants in the Early Entry group recalled receiving any
language support services during his or her middle and high
school years. Consistent with the students’ statements, their
school records also did not indicate that they had received
any services. For instance, entering middle school, Elisa

was placed in an ESL program, but her course schedule
records did not indicate the type of language support she
received, if any. According to her, an ESL teacher helped
ESL students in some classes but worked mainly with new-
comers to the United States: “We had a teacher that helped
us in some classes, especially with help other, like the ones
that barely got there. She would be like, more with them.
And she’d like, I remember [she was] in math and science.”
Similarly, Cesar’s LPAC reports for his secondary grades
documented the results of state assessments and WMLS-R
scores, but his course schedules and transcripts for those
years did not indicate whether any services were provided,
either. He did not recall receiving any ESL services during
his middle and high school years:
I wasn’t in [ESL program] . . . I didn’t even know I was in ESL
program because I was going to my regular classes . . . I saw
my other friends, she [ESL teacher] always pulled them out
from the class, and they always got some help, but I was always
stayed there.
Participants in the Late Entry group received some lan-
guage support during middle school (e.g., ESL class, push-
in support), but no consistencies were found in terms of the
types of services and duration. For example, Angie’s LPAC
report reflected that she was placed in a content-based ESL
program during middle school. She did not have an ESL
class on her course schedule; she noted, however, that a
teacher came to her core classes and helped her when she
did not understand the meaning of words or concepts.
Like Cesar, Benito did not recall receiving any language
support services in sixth grade. However, the next year, he
was placed in an ESL class in which READ180 was the
primary approach to English language development. Benito

described it as a small class composed of six to seven stu-
dents, with a monolingual English teacher. According to
him, the students worked on a computer using the program
for 15 min, and they read books. During his first 3 years of
high school, Benito’s school record indicated that he con-
tinuously failed almost all his classes.
Retention History
Five of the eight participants in the Early Entry group
(Doris, Geon, Tristan, Cesar, and Elisa) had a history of
retention or retention recommendation; only one student
(Benito) in the Late Entry group had been retained. Doris
and Geon were retained in second grade, and the rest were
retained in fifth grade. Doris completed second grade at an
elementary school in California and moved to a neighbor-
ing school district in central Texas. She explained that she
had to repeat second grade because she did not perform well
on the test she took when she enrolled in Texas. Although
Geon had attended school in the United States for only 9
months, the LPAC decided to retain him in second grade at
the end of that year.
Tristan, Cesar, and Benito were retained in fifth grade,
because they did not pass the state assessments, even after
two or more attempts. Tristan explained that his fifth-grade
bilingual education teacher taught in English, but it was still
difficult for him to take the tests in English: “It was actually
pretty difficult for me. I didn’t know English that much.”
Cesar took the state reading and math assessments in
Spanish 3 times; all attempts were unsuccessful. His LPAC
report briefly stated that “the student doesn’t meet promo-
tion criteria.” According to Cesar and his LPAC report, the
language of instruction was mainly English in his fifth
grade year. Finally, Benito recalled that moving up to fifth
grade, it was difficult to figure out what he was supposed to

do in the class, although he tried his best to understand what
the teachers were saying. In spite of following the LPAC’s
recommendation to attend summer school, he did not pass
the assessments administered over the summer and was
retained.
Referral and Placement in Special Education
Two participants in the Early Entry group (Doris and Hazel)
and one (Benito) in the Late Entry group had a history of
special education referral in their fourth and fifth grade. We
have summarized each case individually due to the unique
circumstances of each one. Doris was identified as needing
special education services for SLD in fifth grade when she
attended Blue Mountain Elementary School. Soon after, she
transferred to a school in California. When she returned to
Sunshine High School, the Admission, Review, and
Dismissal (ARD) committee (the state’s term for
Individualized Education Plan [IEP] committee)
Kim and Garcia 305
was convened and dismissed her from special education
services. Doris, was not aware of her special education
placement and did not recall receiving any special services:
“I didn’t even know until, like, last year. Some lady looked
for me, and I was, like, ‘what?’ I don’t remember at all.”
Hazel transferred to the district in fourth grade from a
neighboring district’s bilingual education program. When

she enrolled in Pebble Creek District, she was placed in an
ESL program, the only language service offered at the
school. The LPAC report indicated that Hazel struggled
with reading in English; she was concurrently referred for
special education and tested for SLD at the beginning of the
spring semester. Based on her reading difficulties, com-
bined with low scores on the Otis–Lennon School Abilities
Test (OLSAT), a measure of abstract thinking and reasoning
ability for children pre-K to 18, Hazel was evaluated but did
not qualify.
When Benito enrolled in Pebble Creek, in the fourth
grade, he had limited proficiency in Spanish, and his English
proficiency scores placed him at the nonfluent level. Although
placed in a bilingual education classroom, his academic
progress was insufficient and his proficiency in both lan-
guages remained limited. When English became the primary
medium of instruction in fifth grade, his limited proficiency
in the language of instruction continued to slow his academic
performance. A special education referral committee was
convened during his second year of fifth grade; he was evalu-
ated for special education eligibility but did not qualify.
Development of English Language Proficiency
Participants’ WMLS-R scores were analyzed to obtain a
measure of their growth in academic language in English
over time (see Table 2). Overall, students in the Early Entry
group had higher scores than those in the Late Entry group,
but their levels remained relatively limited (3/limited, or
3.5/limited-to-fluent) in spite of 10 or more years of school-
ing. Except for Norman, scores of participants in the Late
Entry group did not increase during their first 3 years of
schooling, remaining at Level 1 (negligible). Despite 5
years of schooling, all ELLs in the Late Entry scored at
Level 2 (very limited) at the end of middle school. Their

CALP Levels remained low during their high school, rang-
ing from Level 1 (negligible) to Level 3 (limited).
Academic Outcomes
Participants’ results on the state assessments provided a
measure of their academic performance, and were used to
gauge their academic progress over time (see Table 3).
Although state assessments are not without controversy,
and should not be used as a sole indicator of student learn-
ing, they were used to make high stakes instructional deci-
sions (e.g., retention, special education referral) and
therefore played a critical role in the school history of the
students. All six (of the eight) participants in the Early Entry
group who took the state reading assessment in Spanish at
the end of their third grade school year passed. This sug-
gests appropriate academic skills in the first language at the
early elementary stage for these ELLs. Moreover, the lan-
guage of instruction was consistent with the language of
assessment. In fourth grade, Cesar, Jamie, Geon, and Leon,
all of whom took the state reading assessment in Spanish,
passed; Elisa, Hazel, and Tristan, who took the test in
English, did not. Interview data indicated that the primary
language of instruction during fourth grade was Spanish.
Interestingly, in fifth grade, all three students (Cesar, Geon,
and Leon) who took the state reading test in Spanish passed,
but of the four students who took the reading test in English,
Jamie was the only one to pass, although all had been taught
in English.
ELLs in the Late Entry group began taking state assess-
ments during their second or third year of school in the
United States. Except for Norman, no student passed the
state tests for reading and math during the fifth and sixth
grades; no one, including Norman, passed the state read-

ing and math assessments in seventh grade. Students in
both groups experienced continuous failure in their sec-
ondary grades except for three students, Elisa, Jamie, and
Ileana.
Table 2. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
Levels by Grade and Group as Measured by the Woodcock–
Muñoz Language Survey–Revised (WMLS-R).
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10tha 11tha
Early entry
Cesar NA NA 3 3 3 3 4 3.5 3.5
Doris – – 2 – – – 2 NA NA
Elisa 2 3 3 4 4 3.5 3
Geon NA NA NA NA NA NA 3
Hazel – 3.5 4 4 4 4 3.5
Jamie 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
Leon − – – – – 3.5 3
Tristan NA 2 2 3 3.5 3 3.5 NA
Late entry
Angie – 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
Benito – 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
Ileana – – 1 1 2 2 3 2 3
Messi – 1 1 1 2 2 2
Norman – 1 1 2 2 2 3
Note. CALP levels: 1 = negligible, 2 = very limited, 3 = limited,
3.5 =
limited to fluent, 4 = fluent, 4.5 = fluent to advanced, 5 =
advanced, and 6
= very advanced. NA = Scores not available (e.g., missing
folder, student
absent). – = there were no scores in the students’ cumulative
folder and
Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) report

because
the students were not enrolled in the district during that year.
aSome scores do not exist in these columns because participants
have
not yet reached these grade levels.
In summary, participants’ recollections of their experi-
ence, supported by analysis of school documents, revealed
a track record of insufficiently developed English profi-
ciency and continuous academic failure through high
school, as reflected in their performance on state assess-
ments. Collectively, these patterns served as the backdrop
for conversations with them about their learning experi-
ences, the results of which follow.
Long-Term ELLs’ Perceptions of Their
Learning Experiences
Two major themes emerged from the conversations with
long-term ELLs about their language and academic learn-
ing experiences: First, their accounts and reflections pre-
sented them as motivated, active learners who no longer
saw themselves as ELLs. Second, they described their
learning experiences as positive but challenging.
Motivated, Active Learners
So, am I an ESL student? The majority of participants in this

study no longer considered themselves to be ELLs. They
had been in mainstream classroom settings for 5 years or
more without receiving any language supports. Further-
more, they viewed the ESL program as a service supportive
for recent arrivals, so they believed that ESL could not
address their academic needs. For example,
I didn’t have any help [in middle school]. In high school, I
don’t think [I have an ESL teacher] . . . I already know a lot of
English, so they can’t help me. The ESL can’t help me. They
just help the people that need, like they just got here this year.
(Geon)
I didn’t know (I was in ESL program in middle school). The
only thing that happened in school is that this teacher, like, she
asked me like, she put a picture and what’s this like (WMLS-R
test)?... I was in ESL program? Probably I went to Mexico for
pre-K. (Leon)
Several participants from the late entry group (e.g.,
Angie, Benito, Ileana, and Messi) described feeling more
comfortable in high school because they had learned more
English. “People would, like, ‘it [high school] is hard. High
school is so hard.’ But I feel [it’s] easier in high school
because I’ve been learning more English” (Ileana). In addi-
tion, they felt comfortable communicating and learning in
English, both in academic and social settings. Many partici-
pants shared that they were able to support their parents on
many occasions by translating Spanish into English or vice
versa. During the interviews, all participants freely con-
versed in English, sharing their thoughts and reflecting on
their learning experiences.
I am motivated to learn. All participants expressed their
desire to succeed in school. They discussed several areas in

which they felt they needed to improve, such as academic
vocabulary and writing skills, to be better prepared for col-
lege and career. The influence of family was a strong thread
in all these conversations: Angie tried to improve her aca-
demic outcomes because she wanted her parents to be proud
of her. Doris worked hard to be able to graduate high school
because she wanted to show her family that she was very
capable of accomplishing her goal. Geon wanted to study
Table 3. Results of State Assessments in Reading and Math by
Grade and Group.
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10tha 11tha
Grade Spanish Mostly Spanish Mostly English English English
English English English English
Lang. of instr. Rdg Mth Rdg Mth Rdg Mth Rdg Mth Rdg Mth
Rdg Mth Rdg Mth Rdg Mth Rdg Mth
Early entry
Cesar — — P(S) F(S) P(S) F(S) P F P F P F F F P F P P
Doris NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA F F
Elisa P(S) P(S) F(E) P(E) F(E) P(E) P P P P F P P P
Geon P(S) F(S) P(S) P(S) P(S) F(E) P F F F F F P P
Hazel P(S) F(S) F(E) F(E) F(E) F(E) F F F F P P F F
Jamie P(S) F(S) P(S) P(S) P(E) NA P P P P P P P P
Leon P(S) P(S) P(S) F(E) P(S) F(E) P F F P F F F F
Tristan P(S) F(S) F(E) F(S) F(E) P(E) F F F F P P P F F P
Late entry
Angie — F(S) F F F F F F P P F F P P
Benito F(S) F(S) F F F F F F F F F F F F
Norman P(S) P(E) — P F P P P F P
Ileana — — F F F F P P P P P P P P
Messi F(S) F(E) F F F F F F F P

Note. Bold was used to visually differentiate the participants’
pass from fail. Lang. of Instr. = Language of instruction; Rdg =
Reading; Mth = Math; P = Pass; F = Fail; E =
English; S = Spanish; NA = Not available; — = LEP (limited
English proficiency)-Exempt.
aSome scores do not exist in these columns because participants
have not yet reached these grade levels.
Kim and Garcia 307
electricity so he could learn from his father, who “is really,
really smart on that.” In Jamie’s case, her brother’s encour-
agement motivated her to do her best in school:
My mom and everything motivates me. The one, who like,
motivates me a lot is my brother, because he went through all
these. When I need help, I call him because he is the one who
motivates me, like staying school and do well . . . like math, it’s
difficult for me, especially this year. And then, if I need help,
when he comes in the weekends, he helps me.
Messi was motivated to improve his academic perfor-
mance because his mother expected him to be the first in his
family to attend college:
My mom works too much . . . also my dad. And my mom
sometimes, she takes a part-time job, anywhere, so she can get
money. She does this because she cares about my education.
She wants me to be successful. She wants me the first one to go

to college. She wants me to concentrate on school and give me
everything that I need.
Active participants in learning. More than half of the partici-
pants in this study actively sought ways to improve their
academic outcomes. For instance, Messi, Leon, and Geon
went to their counselors to discuss their academic needs and
requested schedule changes (e.g., adding reading support
courses, switching to more rigorous classes). Messi shared,
This year . . . I know I have three tests to pass this year so
seven
tests [including four tests failed in the previous school year] I
gotta pass. So I talked to my counselor, and probably I’m
getting out of my soccer.
Jamie attended morning tutorials once or twice a week to
improve her academic vocabulary skills.
Cesar, Geon, Leon, and Norman discussed their purpose-
ful interaction with native English speakers to develop
English language skills. They believed this was essential to
learn English. Geon explained,
It helped me out a lot hanging out with people [who] didn’t
know Spanish, like people from here, America. I hung out a lot
with people like that. I still do in high school. So that’s how
I’ve learned English.
Cesar stated, “I was basically hanging out with a lot of peo-
ple who talked in English. I think that’s why helped me
[learn English]. To find who know more English, so they
would track me and help on my English learning.”
Postsecondary aspirations. The participants discussed their
plans after graduation during the interview. Almost all of

them expected to attend college to pursue their interests.
Cesar wanted to enter the medical field, and Leon hoped to
attend Texas A&M University to study about animals and
become a veterinarian. Ileana’s goal was to go to nursing
school, and Jamie had plans to work for the government.
They believed that if they passed their courses and state
assessments, they would be able to go to college and pursue
their careers. Norman explained, “I want to go to college. I
want to study, um, auto technician, mechanic. I’d like to do
stuff in welding.” Similarly, Angie said, “I want to go to
college. I’m going to be a vet, veterinarian. I like animals
. . . I’ve gotta focus on my class first. Like I gotta pass my
classes first, and then study and go to college.”
A Positive but Challenging Schooling Experience
All participants believed that they had made significant
progress in learning English and academic subjects in
English throughout school. They also indicated that the lan-
guage services that they had received were beneficial but
spoke of challenges they had experienced; they believed
they would have performed better had they received even
more support.
I am successful and I learned a lot. The students felt a sense
of accomplishment for having developed English language
skills despite many challenges. Angie appreciated that she
was able to learn another language. Benito took pride in
being able to comfortably converse with native English
speakers in English:
I felt good, you know. I can understand more . . . I was
surprised
when I was in high school 9th grade. I could speak more
English, you know, with white kids . . . we can talk [with] each

other.
Ileana was proud of her ability to help classmates who were
learning English: “People would be like, ‘it [high school] is
so hard,’ but I think it’s easy. I would even, like help my
friends and stuff.”
Language programs and services were beneficial. All partici-
pants consistently indicated that the bilingual education ser-
vices were beneficial. Mainly, they appreciated having
access to a bilingual teacher who could explain academic
concepts or vocabulary in Spanish when they did not under-
stand them in English. For instance, Angie described,
“There’s like a teacher who knows both languages because
that way, if you didn’t understand something, you could ask
her, and then you will remember.” In addition, participants
indicated that all services, including the reading interven-
tion program, pullout small group instruction, and push-in
support were helpful. Norman reflected, “In READ180
class, we would read books, and we would take tests on the
computer. I think READ180 helped me a lot.” Ileana spoke
positively of her experience in middle school:
The special [bilingual education] teacher would be like, in the
classroom with us to see if we needed help. She would come,
and she’s like, bilingual, and she would help when we didn’t
understand . . . I learned a lot, and then by seventh grade, I was
able to understand.

Learning without knowing the language of instruction. More
than half of the participants asserted that one huge chal-
lenge they had faced was that they had to learn without
knowing the language of instruction. Except Hazel, all par-
ticipants stated that they began learning in English in either
fourth or fifth grade. They explained their difficulties in
learning subject matter in English, particularly during mid-
dle school, as a result of their insufficiently developed Eng-
lish proficiency. As Angie noted, “It was hard because there
I was learning English. And I had, like, I had to pass my
classes without just knowing the language. They [teachers]
only spoke English.” Elisa also asserted, “I wasn’t in Eng-
lish until like middle school . . . there would be more Span-
ish, Spanish most of the time [in elementary].”
Drastic changes in language services. Close to one half of par-
ticipants discussed their academic challenges during middle
school, which they attributed to drastic changes in language
use and available supports. Because bilingual education
services were no longer available, and language services in
middle and high school focused on recent-arrival ELLs,
these long-term ELLs seemed to be expected to learn all
subjects in English, regardless of their actual English profi-
ciency, relying solely on a few linguistic services (when
available) designed for recent arrivals. Elisa described her
experience as “kind of hard, because I used to have bilin-
gual in elementary. I had paid full, a lot of attention, so I
would understand what they [teachers and students in
classes] were talking about.” Similarly, Leon could not
remember receiving any ESL support: “The only thing that
happened in school is that this teacher, like, she asked me
like, she put a picture and what’s this like? I don’t remem-
ber anything else . . . That was it.”
Less rigorous and distracting learning environment. At the time

of this study, the course schedules of all seven sophomore
participants included four core courses—English, math,
world history, and chemistry—all with an End Of Course
(EOC) designation, a new standardized assessment system
developed by the Texas Education Agency. Except for
Messi, all students discussed their concerns about their
placement in these EOC classes because they viewed EOC
classes as less rigorous and generally distracting. Noting
that her friends from elementary school were also in these
classes, Elisa reflected, “They are all native Spanish speak-
ers . . . They, like, play around and yell at each other . . . I
need to be less distracted.” Geon also expressed concern
regarding his placement in EOC classes:
EOC means all the Mexicans, people from other states. I have
a lot of friends there [EOC classes], distract me . . . I know I
should stop like, I should make stop, I don’t know. It distracts
me so much . . . I don’t really learn a lot. [sic]
Need to learn “big words” and writing skills. When asked
which areas they thought they needed to work on to succeed
in school, more than half of the participants mentioned that
they should know “big words” and develop good writing
skills. They discussed their critical need to develop aca-
demic vocabulary skills to perform well in school:
One of the hard things is writing. I can speak English good and
everything, but my writing part, I think it’s the one that’s
messing me up . . . I can write good, but not that good. The
thing messed me up more is how, like the words, how to spell
them. (Leon)
I know how to speak already. Writing, I just have hard time to
write like grammar and everything . . . when I write, like a
story, I don’t know how to put it together. (Norman)

My spelling (vocabulary), I need to practice on that, like (need
to) know how to spell bigger words and hard words. (Tristan)
Clearly, most of them were keenly aware of the impor-
tance of academic English language skills to their academic
success.
Discussion and Implications
Students’ accounts and school records converged around a
number of topics related to the adequacy of general educa-
tion programs that are similar to characteristics of programs
and services documented in the literature, and summarized
earlier in this literature review. Some of the findings also
serve to raise questions related to identification of long-
term ELLs with disabilities.
Hopes and Confidence
Participants in this study saw themselves as active, English-
proficient learners who were successful students in spite of
challenges they had experienced, which they attributed
mainly to their limited development of academic language
proficiency in English. Nonetheless, they appreciated the
linguistic supports they had received throughout their
schooling and proactively sought out experiences they per-
ceived to be more appropriate (e.g., requesting schedule
changes, seeking interactions with native English speaking
peers). They were aware of their educational needs and,
when asked, offered several possible solutions (e.g., content
area support and improving vocabulary and writing skills)
to better their academic preparation. A majority expressed
their desire to succeed in school and go on to college; they

Kim and Garcia 309
viewed their progress as a considerable accomplishment
and believed it would lead to college and career readiness.
Participants’ desire to succeed academically and to self-
advocate to achieve their goals are in sharp contrast to
accounts in educational research that have attributed under-
achievement among ELLs (and, more generally, students
from nondominant sociocultural and linguistic communi-
ties) to their cultural or linguistic “disadvantage,” lack of
achievement motivation, and/or the failure of their families
to value education (Jacobs, 2008; Reeves, 2006; Valencia,
1997). Their stories and academic profiles revealed that
they were performing at grade level during their early ele-
mentary years, and, despite subsequent language and aca-
demic struggles, they remained eager to succeed. As a
result, we are compelled to ask whether their teachers and
counselors were aware of these students’ aspirations, work
ethic, and perseverance. How might instruction, course
placements, and career advising have differed if they knew
about these students’ postsecondary and career aspirations?
The Reality
The discrepancy between participants’ aspirations and their
academic underpreparation is not new. Grant and Sleeter
(1986) noted that students in their study assumed that
attending school and passing classes would adequately pre-
pare them to attain their goals, not realizing the importance
of grades; and that they were not in a position to critique the
system. Schiller and Muller (2003) observed that although

high school graduation is an important goal, overfocusing
on graduation might inadvertently limit ELLs’ access to
academically challenging courses that are critical for col-
lege preparation. Similarly, participants in this study seemed
unaware that passing courses without regard to grade point
average (GPA) might expedite graduation but would not
guarantee admission to college, nor did they realize that
they were academically underprepared to pursue postsec-
ondary education.
Adequacy of general education programs. Participants
reported (and school records confirmed) that they were not
sufficiently proficient in English to do well academically.
This raises questions about the adequacy of bilingual edu-
cation programs and ESL services at participants’ schools
(for ELLs, this is the general education program), and the
rigor of the academic curriculum to which they had access.
Bilingual education and ESL programs. The bilingual educa-
tion practices reported by participants raised questions
about the implementation of the program during the years
that they were enrolled in these schools. It is unclear why
participants as a group were not sufficiently proficient in
English by the end of fifth grade. Participants believed their
ESL instruction to be inadequate and school records
confirmed that their academic performance declined over
time, although they were at grade level during their early
elementary years. Language programs and services that do
not sufficiently develop students’ native language and Eng-
lish language fluency and academic skills limit opportuni-
ties to learn (Callahan, 2005). It is also unclear why
language supports do not seem to have been differentiated
for Early and Late Entry students, and how the language of
instruction transitioned from Spanish into English between
pre-K through fifth grades. Without a systematic plan that

ensures adequate levels of English proficiency, these pro-
grams risk becoming forms of “subtractive schooling”
(Menken & Kleyn, 2010) and may marginalize ELLs, lin-
guistically and academically (Valdez, 2001).
In middle school, ESL instruction appeared to be
replaced with remedial reading programs, and participants
did not perceive that the secondary ESL programs met their
ESL needs. Although appreciated by some participants, the
use of remedial reading and lower track courses can be
problematic because these programs were not designed to
meet the academic language development needs of second-
ary level ELLs and have been found to be insufficient to
ensure success for students reading just above the sixth-
grade level (Callahan, 2006). Albeit well intentioned, these
practices can deny access to the full, rigorous curriculum
that is crucial to success in secondary school and potentially
increase the existing academic gap. Instead, ELLs need a
systematic and high quality language development program
in conjunction with rigorous academic instruction that
accelerates their language growth and effectively supports
learning.
Lack of academic rigor. Participants’ LEP status and low aca-
demic performance, considered to be indicators of academic
risk, were associated with placement in low-level classes in
high school: Placement in EOC classes served as credit
recovery solutions that focused on students’ completion of
high school graduation requirements but did not necessarily
prepare them for postsecondary education. Placing partici-
pating ELLs in remedial and EOC classes (vs. English lan-
guage development programs and academic supports) can
limit their opportunity to learn because the structure of the
curriculum denies them access to challenging academic
opportunities (Callahan, 2005). In fact, the inadequacy of
these programs and courses may have contributed to, or

exacerbated, their language and academic learning difficul-
ties (Adelman, 1992). These academic risks are further
increased if students are retained on the basis of their low
performance on assessments, sometimes leading to a spe-
cial education referral.
Identification of ELLs with disabilities. Consistent with Artiles
et al.’s (2005) finding that ELLs’ overrepresentation in spe-
cial education began in fourth grade, all three long-term
ELLs in this study were referred and evaluated in either
fourth or fifth grade. When ELLs struggle academically, it
is important to consider all possible factors that might affect
underperformance before referral to special education to
assure that the placement is not primarily the result of lack
of opportunity to learn, or due to language and cultural dif-
ferences (Liu et al., 2008). Although more attention has
been paid in the literature to false positive identification, a
false negative determination can be equally detrimental to
unidentified ELLs with special needs, as their disability-
related educational needs are not being met (García & Ortiz,
2006). The histories of three participants in this study
potentially illustrate both phenomena. Although it was
beyond the scope of this study to determine the validity of
the referral and/or eligibility decisions, these cases con-
firmed the persistent challenges associated with identifica-
tion of SLD among ELLs.

Mobility as a factor in Doris’ performance. Although Doris
was identified as having a learning disability, she did not
recall receiving any special education services. Frequent
moves and changes in learning environment between Texas
and California schools seem to have contributed to her
learning struggles, such that her academic difficulties may
not have been related to SLDs. In today’s context of
Response to Intervention approaches to identifying SLDs,
IEP committees would first have to assure that students like
Doris receive a high quality core curriculum and tiered
interventions in general education, which, for ELLs, might
include native language and ESL instruction. For Doris,
mobility appears to have compounded difficulties she expe-
rienced and there was no information to indicate that her
bilingual education and ESL services had been responsive
to her frequent moves.
Failure to intervene. In the case of Hazel and Benito, factors
related to their learning difficulties were less clear. Although
both students were evaluated for special education and did
not qualify, they presented very different profiles. Docu-
ments relating to Hazel’s fourth-grade special education
referral meeting were not available as her special education
file was inactive. However, there was no evidence that the
LPAC committee had considered Hazel’s ELL status or any
other variables as potentially explanatory factors, as would
have been required in implementing prereferral intervention
(most likely to be in place at that time). A review of her
language and academic performance (Tables 2 and 3,
respectively) shows that Hazel was at the fluent level on the
WMLS (Level 4) by eighth grade and she passed the state
assessments in reading and math that same year. However,
she had failed all previous assessments and by the following
year, her CALP level had declined to 3.5 and she failed the
state assessments once again. Although Hazel did not qual-
ify for special education, she clearly continued to struggle

until the eighth grade, but there was no evidence from her
interview or from school records that she had received any
alternative or intensive services to support her language and
academic learning.
In spite of low language proficiency scores in Spanish
and English, continuous academic failures, and retention,
Benito’s school records did not indicate that he had received
any special interventions or attention from his LPAC to
address a persistent history of failure over 10 years of
schooling. Although all participants demonstrated low
achievement, Benito’s performance was visibly lower com-
pared with the rest; he was the only participant whose
English proficiency remained negligible (WMLS Level 1)
through the 11th grade, and he had failed all state assess-
ments. This comparison with like peers (Esparza-Brown &
Doolittle, 2008) and Benito’s lack of progress suggests that
his educational difficulties might require a different or pos-
sibly more specialized intervention.
Acknowledging Boundaries
The results of this study are bounded by the contexts in
which it was conducted. As such, transferability of the
findings is limited to students, schools, and settings that
may be similar to the contexts of this study. All participants
were Spanish-speaking long-term ELLs, and data gener-
ated relied on participants’ recollections of school experi-
ences, which could be incomplete and/or selective.
Similarly, the analysis of school records is subject to inher-
ent limitations in the use of archival data. Absence of infor-
mation cannot be presumed as evidence that actions or
deliberations did not occur—only that they were not
recorded. All 13 students were voluntary participants; the
voices of those who did not participate and of long-term

ELLs who had already dropped out are not included in the
study. Finally, the study is bounded by time and space to
the extent that the practices described herein were imple-
mented over 10 to 12 years in one specific state and school
district, and may have changed in response to local, state,
and federal initiatives.
Implications for Research and Practice
The findings of the study raise a series of questions for
future research and suggest practical implications for the
participating school district and other districts to which
these findings are transferable. To the extent that the dis-
trict’s current programs and services for ELLs share charac-
teristics described herein (some of which date back to
2004), an evaluation of the district’s special language pro-
grams and services is needed to ascertain fidelity of imple-
mentation, identify barriers to ELLs’ progress in language
development and academic learning, and develop more
effective programs in both areas. Information about college
Kim and Garcia 311
readiness and related academic requirements should be a
part of the advising process for all students and their fami-
lies to ensure that long-term ELLs have the same access to
these choices as other groups. The disparity between par-
ticipants’ aspirations and their academic reality also calls
for educators to ensure that they are better acquainted with
their students’ hopes and plans.

In light of limited empirical research about adolescent,
long-term ELLs—and to the extent that their educational
needs are unique compared with ELLs in general—few
research-based guidelines are available to districts to
inform their design of more effective programs for this
subpopulation. Consequently, local program evaluation
activities are likely to be guided by evaluation questions
that are similar to, and equally relevant for, research efforts
on a larger scale. These questions include (but are not lim-
ited to) the following: Why do some ELLs experience a
trajectory of persistent school failure although they were
successful in their early years of schooling? How do these
students compare with their ELL counterparts (with similar
histories) who are academically successful? What factors
influence school personnel’s decisions about retention and
referral and placement of ELLs in special education? What
additional ESL and academic supports do secondary level
ELLs need when they are not English proficient in spite of
5 to 7 years of bilingual education/ESL in elementary
grades?
Conclusion
By combining participating long-term ELLs’ accounts
and perceptions of their school experience with an ex post
facto analysis of school records, we have attempted to
generate a more nuanced picture of a challenging and per-
sistent educational phenomenon: that is, how to create
learning environments for ELLs that promote academic
success while meeting their English language develop-
ment needs. Research focused on educational programs
and schools is helpful (and needed) to ameliorate the
types of programmatic inadequacies that emerged in this
study; however, these studies cannot bring to light the dis-
crepancy between programs and students’ aspirations.

Likewise, juxtaposing educational research that docu-
ments deficit views of ELLs held by schools and educa-
tors against students’ voices serves to create a counter-story
that may challenge educators to engage in dialogue with
their own students and families, and work together to
close the gap between their hopes and educational
reality.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment
and
special education eligibility. Teachers College Record, 11,
2282–2303. doi:10.1111/j1467-9620.2006.00782.x
Adelman, H. S. (1992). LD: The next 25 years. Journal of
Learning
Disabilities, 25, 17–22. doi:10.1177/002221949202500103
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005).
Within group diversity in minority disproportionate repre-
sentation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
Batalova, J., Fix, M., & Murray, J. (2007). Measures of change:

The demography and literacy of adolescent English learn-
ers. New York, NY: Migration Policy Institute, Carnegie
Corporation.
Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL education:
Potential solutions to overcome the greatest challenges.
Multicultural Education, 15, 39–43.
Byrnes, L. J., & Rickards, F. W. (2011). Listening to the voices
of students with disabilities: Can such voices inform prac-
tice? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35, 25–34.
doi:10.1375/ajse.35.1.25
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English
learners:
Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research
Journal, 42, 305–328. doi:10.3102/00028312042002305
Callahan, R. M. (2006). The intersection of accountability and
language: Can reading intervention replace English language
development? Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 1–21. doi:10.
1080/15235882.2006.10162863
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., &
Herwantoro,
S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools:
Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute.
Case, R. E., & Taylor, S. S. (2005). Language difference or
learn-
ing disability? Answers from a linguistic perspective. The
Clearing House, 78, 127–130.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives:
Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational

Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031004003
Esparza-Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic,
and ecological framework for response to intervention with
English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.
nccrest.org/Briefs/Framework_for_RTI.pdf
García, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2006). Preventing
disproportionate
representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive pre-
referral intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4),
64–68.
García, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2008). A framework for culturally
and linguistically diverse responsive design of response-to-
intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Exceptional Learners, 11(1), 24–41.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of
grounded
theory. Hawthone, NY: Aldine.
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1986). After the school bell
rings.
Barcombe, UK: Falmer.
http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/Framework_for_RTI.pdf
http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/Framework_for_RTI.pdf

Graves, A. W., Gersten, R., & Hagger, D. (2004). Literacy
instruc-
tion in multiple-language first-grade classrooms: Linking stu-
dent outcomes to observed instructional practice. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 262–272. doi:10.1111/
j1540-5826.2004.00111.x
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority
students in special education? Understanding race and dis-
ability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Howard, T. C. (2002). Hearing footsteps in the dark: African
American students’ descriptions of effective teachers.
Journal of Education for Students Places at Risk, 7, 425–444.
doi:10.1207/S15327671ESPR0704_4
Hughes, C., Page, A., & Ford, D. Y. (2011). Cultural dynamics
in
economically challenged, multiethnic middle school: Student
perceptions. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 16(1), 9–16.
Hui-Michael, Y., & García, S. B. (2009). General educators’
perceptions and attributions about Asian American student:
Implications for special education referral. Multiple Voices
for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 12(1), 21–37.
Jacobs, C. L. (2008). Long-term English learners writing their
sto-
ries. English Journal, 97(6), 87–91.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Liu, Y., Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson, P., &
Kushner,
M. I. (2008). From early childhood special education to spe-

cial education resource rooms: Identification, assessment,
and eligibility determinations for English language learners
with reading-related disabilities. Assessment for Effective
Interventions, 33, 177–187. doi:10.1177/1534508407313247
Menken, K. (2013). Emergent bilingual students in second-
ary school: Along the academic language and literacy con-
tinuum. Language Teaching, 46, 438–476. doi:10.1017/
S0261444813000281
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of sub-
tractive schooling in the educational experiences of sec-
ondary English language learners. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 399–417.
doi:10.1080/13670050903370143
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “long-
term
English language learners”: Characteristics and prior school-
ing experiences of an invisible population. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 6, 121–142. doi:10.1080/19
313152.2012.665822
Olsen, L. N. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the unkept
promise of educational opportunity for California’s long
term English learners. Long Beach: Californians Together.
Retrieved from http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/
download.aspx?fileId=12
Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward includ-
ing English language learners in mainstream classrooms. The
Journal of Educational Research, 99, 131–142. doi:10.3200/
JOER.99.3.131-143
Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). An
analysis of special education as a response to the dimin-

ished academic achievement of Chicano/Latino students: An
update. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and
success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 149–169).
New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language minority
learn-
ers in special education: Rates and predictors of identification
for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 148–162.
doi:10.1177/0022219408326221
Schiller, K. S., & Muller, C. (2003). Raising the bar and equity?
Effects of state high school graduation requirements and
accountability policies on students’ mathematics course tak-
ing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 299–
318. doi:10.3102/01623737025003299
Schrank, F. A., Wendling, B. J., Alvarado, C. G., & Woodcock,
R. W. (2010). Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey–Revised
Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualita-
tive research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008).
Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American
society. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education
identification and placement of English language learners.
Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334.
Valdez, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino
stu-

dents in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking:
Educational thought and practice. London, England: Falmer.
Wagner, R. K., Francis, D. J., & Morris, R. D. (2005).
Identifying
English language learners with learning disabilities: Key
challenges and possible approaches. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 20, 17–23. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2005.00115.x
Zehr, M. A. (2010, June 7). Study finds ELL students
languishing
in California schools. Education Week. Retrieved from http://
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/09/33ells-2.h29.html
Zen, D. (2001). What is wrong with ESL programs in schools?
Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center.
(ED482580)
http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/download.aspx?fileId
=12
http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/download.aspx?fileId
=12
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/09/33ells-
2.h29.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/09/33ells-
2.h29.html

Article
Research and Practice f o r Persons
G e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f L i t e r a c y S k ills T h r o u g h
P o r t a b l e T e c h n o l o g y f o r S t u d e n t s W i t h
S e v e r e D i s a b i l i t i e s
R eprints and perm issions:
sagepub.com /journalsPerm issions.nav
D O I: 10 . 1 17 7 / 15 4 0 7 9 6 9 15 5 8 6 190
rps.sagepub.com
w ith Severe D isabilities
2015, V ol. 4 0(1 ) 5 2 -7 0
© T h e A u th o r(s ) 2 0 15
®SAGE
F red S p o o n e r1, A m y K e m p -ln m a n 1, Lynn A h lg r
im -D e lz e ll1,
Leah W o o d 2, and Luann Ley D a v is 1
A b s t r a c t
L ite ra c y is an im p o r ta n t skill f o r accessing all a cadem
ic c o n te n t areas, and th e r e has been an increa se d
fo c u s o n using a v a rie ty o f assistive te c h n o lo g y (A
T ) t o s u p p o r t th e a c q u is itio n o f lite ra c y skills
fo r
s tu d e n ts w ith se vere d isa b ilitie s. L ite ra c y also p ro
v id e s th e se stu d e n ts w ith skills t o increase c o m m u
n ity
p a rtic ip a tio n , w ith ind e p e n d e n ce , w ith skills t o m

ake in d ivid u a l ch oices, and w ith o p p o r tu n itie s f o r
p o te n tia l
e m p lo y m e n t. P o rta b le te c h n o lo g y such as an iP a
d2 ® can be used to enhance lite ra c y skills f o r stu d e n ts
w ith se vere d isa b ilitie s in e le m e n ta ry s c h o o l. A ty
p ic a l w a y t o te ach lite ra c y t o th is p o p u la tio n is
th ro u g h
th e use o f a sh ared s to ry . A lth o u g h s yste m a tic in s
tru c tio n has p ro v e n t o be an e ffe c tiv e te a c h in g s
tra te g y,
th e g e n e ra lity o f th e lite ra c y skills usually has n o t
been th e fo c u s o f th e tra in in g . In th is stu d y, five s
tu d e n ts
w ith se vere d isa b ilitie s (IQ b e lo w 55, range in age 7-1
I years, g ra de range 2 n d -6 th grades) w e r e ta u g h t
to g e n eralize lite ra c y skills via m u ltip le e x e m p la r
tra in in g . A m u ltip le p ro b e design acro ss p a rtic ip a n
ts
d e m o n s tra te d a fu n c tio n a l re la tio n b e tw e e n s tu
d e n t re s p o n d in g and th e in te rv e n tio n . E xte n sio n
o f w h a t
w e c u r r e n tly k n o w , lim ita tio n s , and fu tu re re se
arch a re discussed.
K e y w o r d s
lite ra c y in s tru c tio n , se vere d isa b ilitie s, g e n e ra liz
a tio n tra in in g , shared s to rie s , s y ste m a tic in s tru c tio
n
Technology has become ubiquitous as a tool in education, and
for students with intellectual disability or
autism spectrum disorders (ASD), it can be enjoyable,
appealing, help students attend to tasks at school, and
be used in an assistive capacity to increase student access to
instruction (Douglas, Wojcik, &Thompson,

2012; Femandez-Lopez, Rodriguez-Fortiz, Rodrlguez-
Almendros, & Martinez-Segura, 2012; Kagohara
et al., 2013; Knight, McKissick, & Saunders, 2013; Mechling,
2011). Assistive technology (AT) is con-
stantly evolving to deliver multiple forms o f practical supports,
which provide behavioral, social, and aca-
demic enrichment within a single device. Interactive and
portable devices such as the iPad2® and other
tablets have increased accessibility and could be instrumental in
augmenting the acquisition o f new aca-
demic skills for students with severe disabilities (Kagohara et
al., 2013; Mechling, 2011). However, there
are challenges in using iPad2® technology for students with
more complex motor, cognitive, and sensory
perceptual impairments. For example, many of these
applications require significant motor, cognitive, and
sensory perceptual skills (Kagohara et al., 2010). In addition,
there have been few if any efforts to truly
'U n ive rsity o f N o rth C arolina at C h a rlotte , USA
C a lifo rn ia Polytechnic State U niversity, San Luis O bispo,
USA
C o r r e s p o n d in g A u t h o r :
Fred Spooner, D e p a rtm e n t o f Special Education and C hild
D evelopm ent, U niversity o f N o rth C arolina at C h a rlotte
, 9201
U niversity C ity Blvd., C h a rlotte , N C 28223-0001, USA.
Email: [email protected] uncc.edu
mailto:[email protected]
Spooner et al. 53

integrate communication access for individuals who require
augmentative and assistive communication
(AAC) so that they can more effectively utilize the various
functions across applications (McNaughton &
Light, 2013).
Preliminary evidence indicates the use of digital text via
computers and tablets may provide students
with severe disabilities increased access to the content and
skills o f their same-aged peers through the use
of features such as text-to-speech, touchscreen, multiple
applications, and the ability to embed pictures and
videos (Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph, & Smith, 2012; Mechling,
2011; Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Kemp-
Inman, & Wood, 2014). The use o f digital text to support
communication and instruction for students with
severe disabilities is emerging in current research literature,
specifically in the area of literacy (e.g., Ahlgrim-
Delzell, Browder, & Wood, in press; Coleman, Hurley, &
Cihak, 2012; Coyne et al., 2012; Wood, Mustian,
& Cooke, 2012), which is consistent with the emphasis of
improving literacy for all students (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council o f
Chief State School Officers [NGA &
CCSSO], 2010; National Institute for Literacy, 2001). Emergent
literacy skills have been described as
behaviors that form a foundation for the development o f formal
literacy skills such as decoding, oral read-
ing fluency, and reading comprehension (Lanter, Watson,
Erickson, & Freeman, 2012; National Early
Literacy Panel, 2008). These skills include letter awareness and
looking to print for information, essentially
pointing the child toward an understanding of the purpose of
reading (McDonnell et al., 2014; Pullen &
Justice, 2003; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Although emergent
literacy skills usually develop as a result

o f interactions with adults (e.g., teachers and parents) and a
literacy-rich environment, students with severe
disabilities may not naturally develop these skills (Lanter et al.,
2012; McDonnell et al., 2014).
Frequently, students with severe disabilities are not successful
in acquiring reading skills when typical
instructional procedures are applied (i.e., Tier 1 supports:
screening and benchmark testing o f students to
determine instructional needs, core curriculum based on
scientifically validated research, and continuing
professional development to ensure every student receives
quality instruction, for example, Al Otaiba,
Kosanovich-Grek, Torgesen, Hassler, & Wahl, 2005; Vaughn,
Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson,
2007). However, practitioners can promote access to grade-
aligned literature and the development o f emer-
gent literacy skills through the use o f shared stories, an
evidence-based practice for teaching literacy to this
population of students (Hudson & Test, 2011). Originally a
strategy used for very young children without
disabilities (Justice, 2002; Pullen & Justice, 2003), emergent
readers can engage in the shared story format
to increase their knowledge of the subject matter as well as to
gain these important early literacy skills
(National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Adapted versions of the
text can be used to assist students in com-
prehending the story while maintaining their interest (Browder,
Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee,
2008; Browder, Trela, & Jimenez, 2007; Mims, Browder, Baker,
Lee, & Spooner, 2009; Mims, Hudson, &
Browder, 2012).
To facilitate success for students with severe disabilities,
explicit, systematic instruction can be used to
teach the components o f a shared story (Browder et al., 2008;

Mims et al., 2012; Spooner et al., 2014).
Based on behavioral principles o f learning, systematic
instruction is an evidence-based practice for teaching
students with severe disabilities (Spooner, Knight, Browder, &
Smith, 2012). For shared stories, these
methods include the use o f task analytic instruction (Gold,
1976; R. D. Horner & Keilitz, 1975; Test,
Spooner, Keul, & Grossi, 1990), time delay (Snell & Gast,
1981; Touchette, 1971), and least to most
prompting (Mims et al., 2012).
Several studies involving shared stories have incorporated AT
into one or more steps o f the task analysis
to further enhance access to literacy for non-readers. For
example, AAC devices have been used to facilitate
completion of a repeated storyline and to provide response
options for students with little to no verbal abil-
ity (Browder et al., 2008), and Coyne et al. (2012) used
electronically formatted books (e-books) to teach
literacy to this population o f students.
In a study more closely related to the present investigation,
Spooner et al. (2014) examined the effects of
systematic instruction, including constant time delay and a
modified system o f least prompts using an
iPad2® and a GoTalkNow© communication application
(Attainment Company, 2011) to teach grade-
appropriate literature in a shared story format for students with
ASD and limited verbal ability. Using a task
analysis to direct the shared story process, participants were
able to increase the number of independent
54 R e s e a rc h a n d P ra c tic e f o r P e rso n s w ith S
evere D is a b ilitie s 4 0 ( I )

correct responses on the task analysis from baseline to
intervention, indicating a functional relation between
the intervention and student performance.
Although research has demonstrated that students with severe
disabilities can use AT to successfully
access and comprehend text, it is equally important that
students learn to generalize these skills across con-
tent (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Stokes, Baer, & Jackson, 1974).
Students with severe disabilities typically have
difficulty with skill generalization (Heward, 2009; Richards,
Brady, & Taylor, 2015; Stokes & Baer, 1977;
Taylor, Smiley, & Richards, 2015), thus necessitating explicit
and purposeful training of generalization for
this population. In the seminal piece, Stokes and Baer (1977)
suggested several approaches, including train-
ing sufficient exemplars. This method has been used in
instruction for students with severe disabilities in
the form o f teaching multiple exemplars (Hicks, Bethune,
Wood, Cooke, & Mims, 2011; R. H. Homer,
Eberhard, & Sheehan, 1986; Knight, Spooner, Browder, Smith,
& Wood, 2013). The purpose o f this study
was to extend the research on shared stories by examining the
use of systematic instmction and training
multiple exemplars of emergent literacy skills through a shared
story format on the iPad2® to increase
acquisition and generalization o f emergent literacy skills for
elementary-aged students with severe disabili-
ties. There were three primary research questions for this
investigation.
Research Question 1: What are the effects o f grade-aligned,
adapted shared stories formatted on an
iPad2® and paired with systematic instruction and presentation
o f multiple exemplars on the acquisition

o f emergent literacy skills for students with severe disabilities?
Research Question 2: What are the effects of the intervention on
listening comprehension of students
with severe disabilities?
Research Question 3: What are the effects o f the intervention
on generalization o f emergent literacy
skills for students with severe disabilities?
M e t h o d
Participants
Five elementary-aged students were selected to participate in
this study. The selected students met the fol-
lowing inclusion criteria: (a) have an IQ o f 55 or below and
satisfy the federal criteria for intellectual dis-
ability, (b) have the physical ability to touch picture symbols
and the iPad2® to indicate a response to a
question (participants were screened by being given six
questions and provided with four response options
on the iPad2® and must have responded by pointing to all six
questions to meet this criteria), (c) have lim-
ited verbal communication (i.e., must use some form of
augmentative communication), and (d) must have
returned both the signed parental and student consent forms. All
students involved with the investigation
used the Unique Learning System curriculum (N2y, 2014) for
literacy training. In general, the classroom
lessons focused on differentiated literacy (e.g., stories, poems),
and students were asked to repeat a line
from the story through an active participation response (e.g.,
voice output device, eye gaze choice, verbally)
to demonstrate comprehension.
S e b rin a . Sebrina was a 7-year-old African American female
in the second grade. She was diagnosed with

ASD and had very limited verbal skills such as one word
utterances for her wants and needs or gestural
communication. Sebrina was evaluated as a pre-school student
using the Transdisciplinary Play-Based
Assessment (TPBA, Linder, 1993), which is a customary
assessment tool utilized to evaluate cognitive
functioning for students in the pre-school age range. Her
cognitive skills ranged from a 24-month level to a
36-month level with most skills clustered at the 30-month level
o f development and was identified as sig-
nificantly below average. Sebrina had Individual Education
Program (IEP) goals pertaining directly to early
literacy skills, and her literacy skills according to her IEP were
at the emerging or pre-primer level.
M ir a n d a . Miranda was an 8-year-old Hispanic female in the
third grade. She was evaluated as a pre-school
student with the TPBA (Linder, 1993) that reported her
cognitive skills ranged from a 24-month level to a
36-month level with most skills clustered at the 30-month level
of development and was identified as
Spooner et al. 55
significantly below average. She was diagnosed with ASD at
that time and had unintelligible expressive
communication. Miranda was identified as an English as a
Second Language (ESL) student. Miranda quali-
fied for the North Carolina (NC) Extend 1 (State Alternate
Assessment) for both English and mathematics.
Miranda had IEP goals pertaining directly to early literacy
skills, and her literacy skills according to her IEP
were at the emerging or pre-primer level.

Jesse. Jesse was a 9-year-old Hispanic male in the fourth grade.
He had been diagnosed with multiple dis-
abilities that include intellectual disability, limited receptive
and expressive speech, and limited motor coor-
dination and muscle tone. Jesse had vision and hearing only on
his right side, due to significant physical
impairments (i.e., oral/palate) that impeded his communicative
abilities. Because o f his low cognitive func-
tioning, Jesse was administered the Differential Ability Scale II
(DAS; Elliott, 2007) and received a full
scale score o f 50. He was given the Brigance Diagnostic
Inventory o f Early Development (Brigance, 1991),
which indicated his overall functioning as significantly below
average in all areas. Jesse qualified for the
NC Extend 1 (State Alternate Assessment) for all three areas of
English, mathematics, and science. Jesse
had IEP goals directly related to early literacy skills, and his
literacy skills according to his IEP were at the
emerging or pre-primer level.
M a d is o n . Madison was a 9-year-old White female in the
fourth grade. She was diagnosed with multiple
disabilities that included moderate intellectual disability,
limited receptive and expressive speech, limited
motor coordination, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Madison’s full scale IQ score was 47 using
the Leiter-R (Roid & Miller, 2002). The Brigance Inventory of
Early Development (Brigance, 1991) indi-
cated that Madison was functioning significantly below average
in all areas. Madison qualified for the NC
Extend 1 (State Alternate Assessment) for both English and
mathematics. Madison had IEP goals directly
related to early literacy skills, and her literacy skills according
to her IEP were at the emerging or pre-primer
level.

G a b rie l. Gabriel was an 11-year-old African American male
in the sixth grade. He was diagnosed with
Down syndrome and had a full scale IQ score of 50 using the
Leiter-R (Roid & Miller, 2002). Gabriel dem-
onstrated selective mutism that impeded his expressive
communication. Gabriel qualified for the NC Extend
1 (State Alternate Assessment) for all three areas of English,
mathematics, and science. Gabriel had IEP
goals directly related to early literacy skills, and his literacy
skills according to his IEP were at the emerging
or pre-primer level.
Although the students in the study ranged in grade level from
second to sixth grades, the pre-school
assessment data were the information that was used to
determine placement. More current assessment infor-
mation was not available.
Setting
The study took place in a suburban public elementary school in
the Southeast. The school served approxi-
mately 800 students in Grades kindergarten through fifth with
54% receiving free and reduced-price lunch.
The racial and ethnic diversity of the students in the school was
13% African American, 79% White, 6%
Hispanic, and 1% Other. Participants received a majority o f
their academic instruction in one o f two special
education self-contained classrooms. All sessions in the study
took place in a teaching office adjacent to the
participants’ self-contained homeroom classes to minimize
distractions. The doors connecting the two
classrooms to the office were closed during the study sessions.
Students sat at a large desk that faced a wall
and limited the distractions from the windows.

Experimenters
The interventionist was a doctoral student at a local university
with a total o f 16 years teaching experience
working with students with severe developmental disabilities. A
second researcher, also a doctoral student
56 R e s e a rc h a n d P ra c tic e f o r P e rso n s w it h S
evere D is a b ilitie s 4 0 ( I )
and a board-certified music therapist working toward licensure
in special education, collected interobserver
reliability and procedural fidelity data. The interventionist
collaborated with the two special education
teachers to create a session schedule that ensures the
participants did not miss academic instruction (e.g.,
mathematics, literacy, science) in their typical classrooms (e.g.,
during morning circle time when calendar
and weather were being reviewed).
M easurem ent
D e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s . The first dependent variable was
measured across all sessions and was defined as each
student’s independent correct responses for items on the task
analysis o f the shared story for each adapted
chapter o f Charlotte’s Web. The task analysis offered nine
opportunities for the student to respond and was
adapted from a template used in previous research to teach
story-based lessons (Browder, Trela, et al., 2007;
Spooner et al., 2014), combining early literacy and
comprehension elements from the book and the iPad2®.
The nine elements in the task analysis included opportunities to
(a) identify the book title (as represented by

a screenshot of the book’s cover); (b) identify the author’s name
(as appears on the book cover); (c) turn
pages of the adapted chapter; (d) two opportunities to text point
left-to-right to words in the book as the text
was being read; (e) select the correct vocabulary word
definition, using a four-grid response option format
(i.e., pictures and text representing one correct response and
three distractors); (f) answer two different
comprehension questions, one for each page of text, using a
four-grid format o f response options (i.e., pic-
tures and text representing one correct response and three
distractors); and (g) identify the repeated storyline
using a button that would voice the words when pressed (e.g.,
Wilbur was special). Vocabulary word defini-
tions and listening comprehension questions were validated by a
literacy expert. Each chapter consisted of
two pages, with two to four adapted story sentences on each
page. The text was programmed to be read
aloud using the text-to-speech function. One vocabulary word
per chapter (e.g., runt, sell, crowd) was
selected and pre-taught as part of the generalization training
intervention (see generalization training under
procedures for a more detailed description). When the student
touched the highlighted vocabulary word, the
program was formatted to immediately jump to the vocabulary
response choice page to assess student
knowledge of the vocabulary word, and then returned to the
story when the correct definition was selected.
Mastery criterion for each student was set at eight independent
correct responses, or 89% (8 out of 9), on
the steps o f the shared story task analysis for three consecutive
sessions.
A second dependent variable was the total number of listening
comprehension questions answered cor-
rectly without assistance by the student per session. Student

performance on listening comprehension was
parsed out to examine the effect o f the intervention package on
listening comprehension alone. At the mid-
point and again at the conclusion o f each chapter, the student
was presented with a listening comprehension
question, which corresponded to the chapter book used in that
section, for a total o f two listening compre-
hension questions per adapted chapter. All listening
comprehension questions were developed at the literal
recall level (e.g., What did Fern do every day when she got
home from school? Where did Wilbur go to
live?) to allow the focus of the intervention to be on
foundational, emergent literacy skills that collectively
boost participants’ understanding of the book. Answers were
directly derived from the text. Four response
options, including picture and text, were presented along with
the question. Response options consisted o f
one correct answer, two distractors, and a question mark that
sounded “I don’t know, read it again” when
pressed. A modified system o f least prompts was used to
provide students with re-reads of the text if needed
to answer the listening comprehension questions. Once the page
was read, the student would touch the
iPad2® to activate the reading o f the question. If the student
chose the question mark, the student was
referred to the page of text with a portion (approximately two
sentences) highlighted to direct the student to
the correct answer. The student then was given a second
opportunity to answer the question. If the student
still pressed the question mark, the student was referred to the
page of text with a smaller portion o f text
highlighted (approximately half to one sentence) to further
direct the student to the correct answer.
D a t a c o lle c tio n . Student responses on the shared story
task analysis were recorded throughout baseline,

intervention, and maintenance phases. For each item on the task
analysis, if the student responded correctly
S po on er et at. 57
within 4 s, the student scored a plus (+). If the student
responded incorrectly or did not respond within 4 s,
the student scored a minus (-). No feedback or error correction
was provided to participants during base-
line, intervention, or maintenance phases for the shared story
chapters of Charlotte’s Web; thus, student
performance on the shared story chapters served to indicate the
extent to which participants could general-
ize emergent literacy skills from the generalization training to
the new information presented daily through
the Charlotte’s Web chapters.
E x p e rim e n ta l Design
For this study, the researchers utilized a multiple probe across
participants design (Gast & Ledford, 2014;
R. D. Homer & Baer, 1978). This design allowed researchers to
(a) analyze the effectiveness of the inter-
vention based on the discrepancy between baseline and
intervention data across participants, and (b) inter-
mittently collect baseline data, thus minimizing participants’
frustration and familiarity with materials prior
to receiving instruction during the intervention. Baseline for all
participants continued for at least five ses-
sions and until a change in trend or level was observed. The
student with the lowest stable baseline (the
student with the most need) entered intervention first. When the
first participant began intervention, base-
line probes continued to occur for the remaining participants

until they entered the intervention phase.
When the first participant demonstrated a stable accelerating
trend in completion of the steps on the task
analysis, the next student demonstrating the lowest stable
baseline was brought into intervention. This pat-
tern continued for the remaining participants. Mastery consisted
of the participant demonstrating eight of
nine (89%) independent correct responses on the task analysis
for three sessions. Once mastery was
achieved, intermittent probes were conducted to ensure that
their skills were maintained and entered the
maintenance phase. After all participating students had received
at least one maintenance session, the study
came to completion. The sessions were held in the morning
during the students’ English Language Arts
(ELA) lessons (approximately 9:00-10:00 a.m., Monday through
Friday), lasting approximately 15 min. All
students received the intervention for a total o f 44 sessions
over a period o f 14 weeks (with the exception of
days students were on a field trip, sick, spring break, school day
off). In total, the study lasted approximately
5 months from baseline through maintenance phases for all
participants.
Procedures
B a s e lin e . The interventionist presented each session in a
one-to-one shared story format with an adapted
chapter from two age-appropriate, grade-aligned books
(Charlotte’s Web and Because o f Winn Dixie). The
adapted chapters were randomized during baseline by writing a
chapter number (1-13) on small pieces o f
paper and drawing them out o f a cup to determine which
adapted chapter would be used during baseline.
The chapters were randomized during baseline to ensure that

chapters from each book would have an equal
chance of being assigned to each participant, thus controlling
for book effects in the event students used
both Charlotte’s Web and Winn Dixie to complete the study. All
students met the mastery criterion using
Charlotte’s Web only, and therefore, Winn Dixie was not used
in intervention or maintenance.
The interventionist used a shared story task analysis to guide
delivery o f each component. The steps of
the task analysis and the procedure used to deliver the
generalization training are shown in Table 1. The
steps of the task analysis provided the student with nine
opportunities to respond (no generalization training
occurred during baseline). The interventionist delivered the
initial cue to begin, and the student would then
touch the iPad2® to voice the title, author, and vocabulary
words, and read the adapted story as directed in
the order o f steps on the shared story task analysis (see Table
1).
G e n e r a liz a tio n t r a in in g in te r v e n tio n . The shared
story implementation was identical to baseline, except that
the chapters were introduced sequentially (i.e., beginning at
Chapter 1 o f Charlotte’s Web, then Chapter 2,
and so on). As in baseline, the shared story task analysis was
presented without providing any prompting or
corrective feedback to assess the extent to which students were
able to generalize their knowledge o f emer-
gent literacy skills to new chapters of the book each day.
Participants received the generalization training
intervention after the shared story (i.e., Charlotte’s Web
adapted chapters with task analysis) each day. The

58 R e s e a rc h a n d P ra c tic e f o r P e rso ns w ith S eve
re D is a b ilitie s 4 0 ( I )
T a b l e I . Shared Story Task Analysis W ith Generalization
Training Procedures.
1. Touch title
- T a u g h t u s i n g e x a m p l e s a n d n o n - e x a m p l e
s
2 . Touch author name
s
3. Turn page (at least 3 times)
- T a u g h t u s i n g t i m e d e l a y ( 0 - s f o l l o w e d b
y 4 - s d e l a y )
4 . Text point (first page of text)
y 4 - s d e l a y )
5. Vocabulary
s
6. Comprehension Question I
- T a u g h t u s i n g m o d i f i e d s y s t e m o f l e a s t p
r o m p t s
7. Text point (second page of text)
y 4 - s d e l a y )
8. Touch repeated storyline

Remedial and Special Education2014, Vol. 35(5) 300 –312© H.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Remedial and Special Education2014, Vol. 35(5) 300 –312© H.docx

Similar to Remedial and Special Education2014, Vol. 35(5) 300 –312© H.docx (20)

More from debishakespeare

More from debishakespeare (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Remedial and Special Education2014, Vol. 35(5) 300 –312© H.docx