Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and

1
Running head: INTERVENTIONS STRATEGIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR
CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS?
Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Students?
Systematic Review Proposal
Ayuuba Gibrilla
Department of Educational Studies
EDPS 664: Research Seminar in Special Education
Purdue University
Fall 2014

2
Abstract
Students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse background resist the
intervention treatments, and as a result they are referred to special education and its related
service (Sorrells, Rieth & Sindelar, 2004). In view of the increasing number of culturally and
linguistically diverse students (CLDS) being referred to special education, it has become
imperative to conduct a review of the intervention strategies currently implemented to find out
why these students resist interventions; and also to identify potential variables that contribute to
the ineffectiveness of the intervention strategies. Preliminary findings point out that
inappropriate instruction at the tiers levels of Response to intervention (RTI) model, a negative
school culture, and inadequate teacher preparation were the main reasons why students from
culturally and linguistically diverse are not responding to intervention treatments (Klingner &
Edwards, 2006)
Keywords: culturally and linguistically diverse background, interventions, response to
intervention, intervention strategies, disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse students

3
Introduction
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students are common in schools across the United
States. In 2002, it was estimated that 43% of teachers teaching in the U.S taught at least one
culturally and linguistically student in their classrooms (U.S. Department of Education
[USDOE], 2003). Approximately 20% of residents in the U.S older than 5 speak a language
other than English at home, and by the year 2030, it has been estimated that approximately 40%
of the school population will speak English as a second language (USDOE, 2003). Although
77% of English language learners speak Spanish as their first language (Zehler et al., 2003),
culturally and linguistically students are a diverse population in terms of ethnicity, nationality,
and socioeconomic background in the United States (August & Hakuta, 1997).
On a national level, students from culturally and linguistically diverse background
perform at a lower levels than their English proficient peers on math and science tests to a lesser
degree (Abedi, 2006). By fourth grade, nearly half of the students from culturally and
linguistically diverse background drop behind non–English language learner peers in their
academics (Fry, 2007). It is estimated that 1 in 5 students from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds meet state standards in mathematics, reading and science (Genesee,
Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005).
There is abundant evidence that culturally and linguistically diverse Students are
overrepresented in special education due to inappropriate identification and misassessment
(Artiles, Sullivan, Fierros, & Klingner, 2008; de Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi, & Park, 2006). These
students may often times inappropriately be identified as having a learning disability due to first
of all the lack of limited understanding of the educational needs of culturally and linguistically
diverse students (Gersten & Woodward, 1994). Secondly, the inadequate language assessments

4
(MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006), and inappropriate assessment practices are carried out (Figueroa &
Newsome, 2006). As a result of inappropriate assessment, (Schmid, 2001), and also the fact that
many teachers do not have adequate knowledge of the impact of language acquisition on
academic development (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006) CLDS are miseducated. Due to all CLDS
are more likely to drop out of school and are less likely to go on to any kind of post-secondary
education than students who speak English as their native language (Genesee et al., 2005).Thus,
it is evident that school systems and teachers are unable to meet the educational needs of CLDS.
In fact research has consistently validated that students identified as CLDS are more likely to
attend poorer quality schools than their native English- peers (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-
Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).
Unfortunately, research demonstrates that many schools and teachers view the diversity
of student backgrounds as a problem (Obiakor, 1999). Moreover, it is common for limited
English proficiency to be viewed as a barrier to educational success and even as a disability
(Connor & Boskin, 2001). Such attitudes manifest themselves in low achievement for students
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CLDB) (Nieto, 2000).
Response-to-Intervention (RTI) in Special Education
RTI is an intervention used to meet the educational needs of struggling students before
they are considered for special education services. The implementation of RTI varies
considerably. RTI is typically organized into three or four tiers that may, or may not, include
special education services. In three-tier models, Tier 1 focuses on providing high-quality
instruction for all children in general education classrooms and on differentiating instruction
according to students' performance levels and needs (Xu & Drame, 2008). Intensive
interventions is increased in Tiers 2 and 3 (e.g., individual or small-group instruction provided

5
by the classroom teacher or by a reading specialist) for students who do not make expected
progress. If it is included in the RTI model, special education teachers typically provide Tier 3
interventions. As students move through the tiers, the intensity of the interventions they receive
increases and those students who do not seem to be making adequate progress are provided with
interventions right away, before they have a chance to fall further behind (Harn, Kame'enui, &
Simmons, 2007).
There are a lot of components built into RTI that if done well can make a difference for
CLDB. One of the things that need to be done is to focus on quality of core instruction and
making sure that the instruction given is as strong as possible because it is the core instruction
that is the foundation of the RTI pyramid. Every intervention that has to be provided to
struggling students to ensure their educational success is built into that foundation. It is therefore
important to take a look at the instruction being provided and there are some ways built into RTI
to do that. The progress monitoring, universal screening and that enable us to look at the class
wide data sets as well as how individual children are doing to get the sense of where the students
in the class seem to be doing well, where the teacher might benefit from some professional
development to help with certain areas (Deno, Reschly, Lembke, Magnusson, Callender,
Windram & Stachel, 2009)
When we think about the progress monitoring data, it is important that we do not want
too many students not reaching bench marks. When a class or a grade level where is not doing
well, what that means is that the instruction has to be changed. It is not that all these students are
just moved to Tier 2. It is important to take a look at what is going on to make sure the
instruction being provided is as strong as it can be. Is it at the right level for the students? Is it

6
meeting their language and literacy needs? Is it a practice that has been validated with similar
students in similar circumstances?
It is important too that teachers have a strong relationship with students, that the
classroom environment is conducive to learning, that the teacher has a good relationship with
the family and community (Klotz & Canter, 2007). One of the things this is going to take is
observing in classroom and collaboration, recognizing that any one teacher does not have all the
expertise, but together as a team, by sharing expertise, then the students’ needs will be better
met. (García & Ortiz, 2008; Linán-Thompson & Ortiz, 2009). Although there appears to be much
promise in RTI, many of the details of RTI implementation still need to be worked out. Some
experts are concerned about the feasibility of RTI (Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santora,
Linan-Thompson & Tilly, 2008). General and special education teachers are confused about how
best to implement RTI in practical and effective ways (Wiener & Soodak, 2008).
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in a social constructivist framework (Kong & Song (2013) and
guided by three assumptions with CLDS. The first assumption is that teachers have a duty to use
teaching and assessment practices that have been validated with similar populations (e.g.,
Newman & Cole, 2004). Second, teachers who work in culturally and linguistically diverse
settings should be knowledgeable about teaching multicultural education pedagogy (Gay &
Howard, 2000). Third, a sociocultural perspective is important for teachers and instructional
aides to understand the ways culture and language affect learning (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
The second assumption concerns the belief that one size-fit all approach to RTI does not
help meet the educational needs of CLDS. For teachers to make a meaningful impact in the
education of CLDS, they have to provide high quality evidence-based education. Moreover, the

7
assessment and instructional practices they implement in the classroom should have been
validated with similar students and in similar educational settings (Klingner & Edwards, 2006).
This is because; instructional interventions and assessment techniques which have produced
positive results with native speakers of English are not necessarily practical with CLDS. When
common approaches are applied, there is the possibility CLDS will not respond to such
instructional interventions.
The third assumption is about the knowledge of the teacher. It is important that for
teachers to properly assess and implement interventions for CLDS, they need to have some
expertise on how to educate them. General and special teacher education and in-service
professional development programs an adequate level of preparation. But that is not the case.
Teachers who work with CLDS should be knowledgeable about the second-language acquisition
process. They also need to understand that when CLDS comprehension and production of
English are limited, this does not mean they have a cognitive deficit, rather, they are in the
process of acquiring a new linguistic discourse. (August & Shanahan, 2006; Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages, 2008).
Although researchers have found that intensive, well-constructed interventions can help
improve CLDS academic achievements, there are gaps in the knowledge base of culturally and
linguistically responsive interventions. Little is known about what RTI actually looks like when
implemented by practitioners in schools with a high proportion of CLDS. Moreover, the RTI
literature is mainly composed of quantitative studies that pay little attention to students’
differences, teachers’ instructional behaviors, or classroom and school settings. To remedy gaps
in the knowledge base of culturally and linguistically responsive interventions, there is the urgent

8
need for more qualitative and descriptive studies to help understand how school personnel make
sense of RTI and incorporate it into their daily routines.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the factors or potential variables that
contribute to the ineffectiveness of RTI and other instructional strategies when implemented on
CLDS population. Research has shown a sizeable percentage of students from CLDB with
disabilities do not respond intervention treatments when they are implemented on them (Sorrells,
Rieth & Sindelar, 2004).
We sought to describe school personnel’s perceptions of RTI, what the model looked like,
and the challenges they faced. We focused on understanding instruction provided across the three
tiers of the RTI model. This research was guided by the following question:
1. What are the factors or potential variables that contribute to the ineffectiveness of RTI
and other instructional strategies when implemented on CLD population?
2. a. How do school personnel implement an RTI model for CLDS with disabilities? (b)
What are the features of the RTI model? (c) What mathematics interventions are teachers
using for CLDS learning difficulties, (d) what did this instruction look like? (e) To what
extent did instruction appear to be appropriate for meeting students’ cultural and
linguistic needs? (f) What kinds of assessment data were collected?
3. How did school personnel understandings, beliefs, judgments, professional development,
and training affect program implementation with CLDS?
4. How do we ensure that the child has in fact received culturally responsive, appropriate,
quality instruction?

9
5. How do we account for language and culture when designing interventions, conducting
research, and generalizing findings?
6. Can teachers realistically and effectively teach these students in the absence of research
based teaching grounded in cultural responsive interventions?
Methodology
Inclusion criteria. Peer reviewed publications from NECTC's transition literature database,
teacher personnel preparation programs database, Google scholar, RTI State Database, CEC
database and ERIC databases were searched for articles published in English since 2008 using
the following key search terms: response to intervention, response to instruction, intervention
strategies, disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse Students, English Language Learners.
The search main objective was to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria which include
studies that were empirical, published in peer reviewed journals, included culturally and
linguistically diverse population, and also is grounded in an RTI framework.
The Purdue Online Library was purposely included to ensure that no similar reviews had
been conducted before. The review will also include full-text articles published in English since
2000 in order to capture the most recent developments in the field. Studies with both positive and
negative outcomes were included, for the purposes of reducing publication bias. The review also
incorporated systematic reviews and observational type studies, including case studies that used
quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
Exclusion criteria. Publication type that were excluded include narrative reviews, editorials,
commentaries, unpublished manuscripts, dissertations, government reports, book chapters,
conference proceedings, meeting abstracts, lectures and addresses. Secondly, article with study

10
design that are nonsystematic, and those that did not report methods were excluded. Thirdly,
research with study population that were native English language speakers were also excluded.
Study selection. After retrieving potentially relevant primary studies from the database searches,
a screening process which usually has two steps was used to assess studies relevance. The first
step was searching by title and abstract. The second step was by reading the full text. For this
systematic review, studies that focused on RTI or its elements and other instructional strategies
used in teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students were selected. The reviewer
independently extracted data (the participant details, intervention details, outcome measures,
baseline and post-intervention results). Overall, the search preliminary findings yielded fifteen
studies, of which 4 make specific reference to linguistic and cultural factors were chosen and
reviewed.
Summary Information of studies reviewed
Studies reviewed were summarized according to the setting, participants’ description
(e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, culture, and language), and intervention description (duration) and
primary outcome.

11
Citation
/Study
Setting Participants
description
Intervention
description; duration
Criteria for students’
inclusion in
intervention
Intervention
implemented
Dyson, N.
I., Jordan,
N. C., &
Glutting, J.
(2013).
kindergarten
classes in
five schools
serving high-
risk children
from low-
income
urban families.
121 participants,
52 were girls
and 69 were boys.
67 were identified
as African American
, 45 as Hispanic
(37%), 7 as
Caucasian, 1 as
Asian, and 1 as
biracial
8-week number sense
intervention, 30-min
sessions, 3 days per
week,for a total of
24 sessions.
Participants were
recruited from
kindergarten classes
in five schools
serving high-risk
children from low-
income
urban families.
Representations
(primarily chips,
black dots, and
fingers)
Lovett et al.
(2008)
16 schools
from a diverse,
urban school
district in
Toronto
76 CLDS, 90 non-
ELLs
1 hour of daily
instruction basic word
identification and
decoding skills for 4 to
5 days per week.
Intervention classes
taught by certified
special
education teachers,
grouped by reading
level
5 weeks,totaling 105
hr.
Average standard
score
<85 on 3 reading
achievement tests
Tier 2
Koutsoftas
et al.(2009)
3 public school
classrooms
and 2 Head
Start
classrooms
Spanish; preschool Direct instruction in
phonemic awareness
skills twice per week
for
2 weeks,20–25 min
each
<4 out of 8 points on
Trophies Pre-K
Beginning Sound
Awareness CBM
Tier 2
Kamps et al.
(2007)
16 Kansas
schools over a
5-year period
170 CLDS and 148
English only
students; first and
second grade
Groups of 3–6
students
using Reading
Mastery,
Early Interventions in
Reading, Read Well,
or
Reading Naturally by
general education
teachers or reading
specialists
Failure to reach
benchmark
on DIBELS
Nonsense Word
Fluency and Oral
Reading Fluency
Tier 1 and 2

12
Findings
The purpose of this review was to find out why CLDB with disabilities do not respond
intervention treatments and to determine the potential factors that contribute to the
ineffectiveness of RTI and other instructional strategies when implemented on CLDS population.
Consequently, studies were examined to determine whether, and to what extent, researchers in
this area instructional quality as they relate to intervention. Though some limitations must be
acknowledged (i.e., minimal number of studies reviewed, the specificity of the search, potential
inadequacies in the search strategy), the present review produced notable findings. The findings
indicated that inappropriate instruction, a negative school culture, and inadequate teacher
preparation were the main reasons why students from culturally and linguistically diverse are not
responding to intervention treatments.
Discussion
In examining the intervention strategies for CLDS, we focused on how teachers’
understandings, beliefs, judgments, and training affected RTI program implementation with
CLDS. One of the studies included in the review made reference to Tier 1 general education
factors. Gay (2010) is of the view that the foundation of the first tier should be culturally
responsive, quality instruction with on-going progress monitoring within the general education
classroom. They see this first tier as including two essential components: (a) research-based
culturally and linguistically responsive interventions, and (b) instruction by knowledgeable,
skilled teachers who have developed culturally responsive attributes.
Another study included in the review shows that few researchers attended to the
implications of language when studying interventions for CLDS. The treatment of all students
(including CLDS) as relatively homogenous when implementing interventions in the general

13
education setting is troubling. Although it is certainly relevant to attend to language as a critical
factor in intervention studies with CLDS, the extent to which language is considered requires
deeper examination.
Another study indicated that teachers who provide a balance between direct and explicit
instruction, oral language development, and student-based collaborative approaches integrated
with phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary development,
and comprehension skills instruction can significantly improve CLDS academic development
(August & Shanahan, 2006; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006).
Unfortunately, a few teachers in this study provided effective practices that had been
authenticated. For instance, this study’s sole bilingual teacher provided instruction that included
clear, direct, and explicit strategies that allowed for student motivation, individual differences,
and oral language development. In contrast, other participants failed to provide instructional
pacing in phonological awareness and decoding that would have promoted English language
learner engagement to improve their fluency and word identification (Leafstedt et al., 2004;
Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006).
In view of the ongoing, one of the study reviewed recommend that in teacher education
programs and professional development workshop, teachers should be trained in instructional
strategies that are responsive to CLDS. They should also be trained in the language acquisition
process and the unique needs of CLDS. Teachers need to know if their interventions are effective
and how to adjust instruction for students who do not seem to be responding.
Implication for Policy, Practice, and Research
There is advancement and support for the use instructional interventions to help prevent
culturally and linguistically diverse students’ underachievement and inappropriate referral to

14
special education. The how to do it has always been problematic (Morrow, & Chou, 2008).
Educational institutions need the knowledge to be able to attend to the educational needs of the
growing CLDS population. Preliminary information proceeding from this review seems to
suggest that policy has to be made to encourage research and teachers’ use of instructional
interventions that are culturally and linguistically responsive in order to help address the
educational needs of CLDS.
Policy. A major policy concern was that students from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds might learn differently compared with the Native English proficient students. Due
to this, using a one-size-fits-all policy approach in the provision of the needs of all students,
without considering student’s culture and language might be ineffective and unproductive
(Klingner & Edwards, 2006). This approach results in more CLDS being referred to special
education and related services (Ortiz & Yates, 2002). Therefore, there is the need to develop
policies that encourage the use of culturally and linguistically responsive intervention when
teaching students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Practice. This review has made it obvious that classroom teachers, whether in general or special
education need to first of all have the knowledge of the cognitive, psychological, and behavioral
characteristics of CLDS and how to respond to their ethnic, cultural and linguistic ethos.
Secondly, they need to teach CLDS using research based teaching grounded in culturally and
linguistically pedagogy particularly when there are instances of culture, language and disability
(Klingner & Edwards, 2006). And finally, teacher education and professional development
programs have to prepare teachers to provide instruction that is unique, individualized and
culturally responsive for all students with disabilities (Murawski & Hughes, 2009).

15
Research. According to Pugach (2001) the research community has yet to set culturally and
linguistically responsive interventions as its research agenda in special education. In view of this,
there are several unanswered research questions which should be explored through future
research. One of the questions is whether a culturally and linguistically responsive approach
would be more effective to address and educate CLDS (Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Xu &
Drame, 2008). If so, under what conditions would it be most effective? Another question is can
teachers realistically and effectively teach these students in the absence of research based
teaching grounded in cultural responsive pedagogy? The research community needs to
investigate to come out with answers that will establish whether there is the need for culturally
and linguistically responsive approach to teaching CLDS.
Conclusion
Diversity is increasing in U.S public schools and as a result children from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds will continue to grow. Regrettably, if teachers do not
implement intervention strategies that are culturally and linguistically responsive, public schools
would witness an overrepresentation of children from culturally and linguistically diverse
background in special education than we would expect. In order to decrease the number of
students from culturally and linguistically backgrounds’ referrals to special education, the first
and crucial step to take is to provide significant training in cultural awareness to instructional
staff. They need to be able to teach these students using research based teaching grounded in
cultural responsive interventions. The second is the need for greater depth and breadth in
planning instructional interventions, particularly, the tiers of RTI framework in order to
understand how curriculum and instruction at each tier may be improve and how assumptions
about student language that mediate both teaching and research can be addressed effectively.

16
References
Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in ELL assessment and special education eligibility.
Teachers College Record, 108, 2282 – 2303
Artiles , A. J. , Sullivan , A. , Fierros, E. G. , & Klingner , J. ( 2008 , March ). The impact of
restrictive language policies on special education placements of English learners.
Presentation at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New
York, NY.
August, D and Hakuta, K. (1997) Improving Schooling for Language-minority Children: A
Research Agenda National Research Council, Washington, DC
Connor, M. H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Overrepresentation of bilingual and poor children in
special education classes: A continuing problem. Journal of Children & Poverty, 7, 23 –
32.
Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram, H., &
Stachel, N. (2009). Developing a school‐wide progress‐monitoring system. Psychology in
the Schools, 46(1), 44-55.
de Valenzuela , J. S. , Copeland , S. R. , Qi , C. H. , & Park , M. ( 2006 ). Examining educational
equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special
education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425 – 441
Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C. & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low-income
Kindergartners at risk for mathematics difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 46(2),
166-181.
Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: Is it
Nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 206 – 214.

17
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center
García, S. B. and Ortiz, A. A. 2008. A framework of culturally and linguistically responsive
design of response to intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Exceptional Learners, 11(1): 24–41.
Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The
Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College
Press.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363 – 385.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language minority student and special education:
Issues, themes and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310–322. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 28, 163 – 167.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santora, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly,
W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and
multi-tier intervention for reading in primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-
4045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
Harn, B. A., Kame’enui, E. K., & Simmons, D. C. (2007). Essential features of interventions for
Kindergarten students most in need of accelerated learning: The nature and role of the
third tier in a primary prevention model. In D. Hager, S. Vaughn & J. Klingner (Eds.),

18
validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 161 – 184). New York, NY:
Brookes.
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.
Klingner, J. K., Sorrels, A. M., & Barrera, M. T. (2007). Considerations when implementing
response to intervention with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In D. Haager,
J. K. Klingner & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to
intervention (pp. 223 – 244). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2007). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer for parents.
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved July, 10, 2009.
Kong, S. C., & Song, Y. (2013). A principle‐based pedagogical design framework for developing
constructivist learning in a seamless learning environment: A teacher development model
for learning and teaching in digital classrooms. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(6), E209-E212.
Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Gray, S. (2009). The effect of Tier 2 intervention for
phonemic awareness in a response-to-intervention model in low-income preschool
classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 116 – 130.
Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit
Phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 19, 252 – 261.
Linán-Thompson, S. and Ortiz, A. A. 2009. Response to intervention and English-language

19
learners: Instructional and assessment considerations. Seminars in Speech and Language,
30(2): 105–120.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P. T. (2006). The response to
intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39, 390 – 398.
Lovett , M. W. , De Palma , M. , Frijters, J. , Steinbach , K. , Temple , M. , Benson , N. , &
Lacerenza, L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to
intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41,
333 – 352.
MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability:
Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers
College Record, 108, 2304 – 2328.
Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-
teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 267-277.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New
York, NY: Longman.
Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact on
“accuracy” of self-concepts. Exceptional Children, 66, 39 – 53.
Pugach, M.C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative
research for special education. Exceptional Children, 67, 439–453.
Report No. 89–9). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

20
Schmid, C. L. (2001). Educational achievement, language-minority students, and the new
second generation. Sociology of Education, 74, 71–87.
Shanahan, T., & August, D. (2006). Report of the National Literacy Panel: Research on teaching
reading to English language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Xu, Y. and Drame, E. 2008. Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential of response
to intervention of English Language Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35:
305–311.
Zehler , A. M. , Fleischman , H. L. , Hopstock , P. J. , Stephenson , T. G. , Pendzick , M. L. , &
Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with
disabilities: Policy report—Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students.
Washington, DC: Development Associates.

Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and

Similar to Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Interventions Strategies in Special Education: How Effective Are They for Culturally and