Teacher Research Action Project - USF RED 6748. ELLs and Reading Instruction

1. S E R E N A U T Z – R E D 6 7 4 8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
AND READING INSTRUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
• ELLs are at a higher risk for experiencing
difficulty in the upper elementary grades as
text complexity increases (Silverman, Proctor,
Harring, Doyle, Mitchell, & Meyer, 2013).
• Many ELLs have had limited exposure to
academic English (Silverman et al., 2013).
• It takes between five and nine years to
develop the academic language skills
necessary to become proficient in English
(Suits, 2003).

3. MY GOAL
• To better understand the language
acquisition process for ELLs
• To understand how reading comprehension
and oral reading fluency are intertwined
• To better meet the needs of my ELLs when it
comes to reading, thus transferring into
other content areas
• To find specific activities and strategies that
work to improve ELLs’ reading
comprehension and oral reading fluency

4. PURPOSE
• 6 of my 23 students are classified as ELL
• Over 70% of my school is categorized as
Hispanic
• 14 of my 23 students speak Spanish as
the primary language at home
• 1 is on Tier II for reading, 1 on Tier III
• All 6 students struggle with reading
comprehension and are many of my
lowest readers

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• How will small group activities with
struggling ELLs contribute to their
success with oral reading fluency and
reading comprehension, and how will
this affect their success with the
Accelerated Reader (AR) program?
• What activities and strategies will be
most beneficial for my ELLs who are
struggling in reading?

6. WHO AND WHERE?
• 5 ELL students
• Struggles lie in reading comprehension
and oral reading fluency
• My classroom – the floor
• 15-30 minutes each day
• Small-group setting

7. THE PLAN
• We will meet every day for 15-30 minutes
• Activities are designed to increase students’ oral
reading fluency and reading comprehension
abilities
• We will use the Journey’s leveled readers,
alternating each week between fictional and
nonfictional text
• Small-group setting combined with guided
reading
• Focus primarily on repeated readings and choral
readings, alongside the use of graphic organizers

8. DATA COLLECTION
• Daily observations/field notes
• Student artifacts (folders)
• Recordings of students reading aloud
• Pre- and post-test results for reading
attitude surveys, STAR Reading tests,
and oral reading fluency tests
• Weekly scores on AR tests for the
leveled readers

9. MONDAY
• Look through the on-level text and make
predictions
• “I read” and students read along silently
• “Sticky-note” graphic organizer
• Focus on monitoring comprehension
• Students reread once more
independently
• Take the ELL leveled reader home

10. TUESDAY
• Students look back over Monday’s graphic
organizer
• Choral read the text together whole-group
• Fictional text: “Sum it Up” graphic organizer
• Nonfictional text: Main idea/details graphic
organizer
• Students reread once more independently
• Take the ELL leveled reader home

11. WEDNESDAY
• Students look back over Tuesday’s
graphic organizer
• Choral read the text together whole-
group
• Activity from back of the leveled reader
• Main idea/details graphic organizer
• Students reread once more
independently
• Take the ELL leveled reader home

12. THURSDAY
• Focus is on oral reading fluency
• Reading with expression
• Choral read text together whole-group
• Stop every few pages to practice reading
selected text aloud; “I do, We do, You do”
• Fictional text: dialogue
• Nonfictional text: vocabulary words or
content-area vocabulary
• Students reread once more independently
• Take the ELL leveled reader home

13. FRIDAY
• Focus is on review
• Choral read the text whole-group
• Students look back through their graphic
organizers
• Reread the text once more independently
• Record the students reading aloud
• Students take the AR test on the leveled
reader and report their grade back to me
• Students write short response on the leveled
reader for that week

14. RESULTS
• 3/5 students showed an increase in their WCPM
(words correct per minute) in regards to ORF
• 3/5 students showed a decrease in raw scale
scores for their reading attitude surveys
• All students passed all AR tests at an 80% or
higher, with the exception of one student, who
only failed one test.
• Little to no improvement with students’ expression
when reading aloud
• Most of the students were active participants

15. RESULTS (CON’T)
• 3/5 students showed decreases in STAR
Reading scores
• Discrepancy among STAR Reading scores:
• Jackson est. ORF 91 to 80 WCPM; actual WCPM
increased from 105 to 148.
• Todd est. ORF 103 to 97 WCPM; actual WCPM
decreased from 60 to 50.
• Cameron’s est. ORF 54 to 83 WCPM; actual
WCPM increased from 74 to 90.
• GE (grade-equivalent scores) seem questionable

16. DISCUSSION
• 3/5 decreased in reading attitude survey
results, but were the only 3 who
continued to take AR tests outside of our
small group
• Exceptions: Todd and Sonya
• STAR Reading results may be more of a
suggestion
• What is next for fluency and expression?
• The amount of time is crucial!

17. LIMITATIONS
•Sample size
•Time
•Interruption of schedule
•Post-testing environment

18. CONCLUSION
Repeated readings
Choral readings
ELL and on-level text
Graphic organizers
Small-groups
Multiple testing measures
• Future research:
• What can be done to further increase ORF abilities in ELLs?
• What can be done to further increase and maintain expression
while reading aloud?
• Reliability of the STAR Reading test?

19. REFERENCES
Albers, C.A., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Using Flashcard Drill Methods and Self-Graphing Procedures to Improve the
Reading Performance of English Language Learners. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 367-388.
Bunten, B.A. (2010). Preservice Teachers’ Discourse Focus on Native Russian-Speaking Students. Multicultural
Education, 17, 2-9.
Dresser, R. (2012). The Impact of Scripted Literacy Instruction on Teachers and Students. Issues in Teacher
Education, 21(1), 71-87.
Helman, L.A., & Burns, M.K. (2008). What Does Oral Language Have to Do With It? Helping Young English-
Language Learners Acquire a Sight Word Vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 62, 14-19.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., …Walton, C. (2007). Use of
Evidence-Based, Small-Group Reading Instruction for English Language Learners in Elementary Grades:
Secondary-Tier Intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 153-168.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Effectiveness of Supplemental
Reading Instruction for Second-Grade English Language Learners with Reading Difficulties. The Elementary
School Journal, 103, 221-238.
McIntosh, A.S., Graves, A., & Gersten, R. (2007). The Effects of Response to Intervention on Literacy
Development in Multiple-Language Settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 197-212.

20. REFERENCES (CON’T)
Muyskens, P., Betts, J., Lau, M.Y., & Marston, D. (2009). Predictive Validity of Curriculum-Based
Measures in the Reading Assessment of Students who are English Language Learners. The
California School Psychologist, 14, 11-21.
Palmer, B.C., Zhang, N., Taylor, S.H., & Leclere, J.T. (2010). Language Proficiency, Reading, and
the Chinese-Speaking English Language Learner. Multicultural Education, 14, 44-51.
Silverman, R.D., Proctor, C.P., Harring, J.R., Doyle, B., Mitchell, M.A., & Meyer, A.G. (2013).
Teachers’ Instruction and Students’ Vocabulary and Comprehension: An Exploratory Study
with English Monolingual and Spanish-English Bilingual Students in Grades 3-5. Reading
Research Quarterly, 49, 31-60.
Suits, B. (2003). Guided Reading and Second-Language Learners. Multicultural Education, 11(2),
27-34.
Taffe, S.W., Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P.J. (2009). Vocabulary Instruction for Diverse Students.
In L.M. Morrow (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Literacy and Diversity (pp. 320-336). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Tam, K.Y., Heward, W.L., & Heng, M.A. (2006). A Reading Instruction Intervention Program for
English-Language Learners Who Are Struggling Readers. The Journal of Special Education,
40(2), 79-93.