Effective Language Interventions, Progress Monitoring, and Assessment Tools for English Language Learners

• In Event: 58.077 - District-Driven Problems of Practice: What Can Practitioner-Scholars Learn and How Do Districts Benefit?

Abstract

Objectives

One district’s problem of practice was struggling with providing effective language interventions to English Language Learners (ELLs) within a Response to Intervention system. Further, this district wanted to better understand how to utilize consistent progress monitoring and assessment tools to determine whether ELLs are making gains. Therefore, three key research objectives were requested from the partnership: (a) Conduct a thorough literature review on the best language interventions, progress monitoring and assessment tools for ELLs; (b) Provide a table with varying options and include cost and links to research; and (c) Provide recommendations of ways to incorporate language interventions within an RtI System.

Perspectives

Of all the student groups in the country, English Language Learners (ELLs) are the fastest growing group in the United States (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011). As of 2010, 5.2 million, or 10% of the population, were identified as ELL students. The needs of ELL students do not appears to be being met however, as ELL students consistently underperform their non-ELL peers (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). It is therefore imperative their language and academic needs be met as early as possible.

Methods & Data Sources

The methods utilized to conduct this literature review involved searching various databases using various combinations of the following search terms: language interventions for ELLs, separating language vs. disability, language or learning disorder, assessment for ELLs, progress monitoring tools for ELLs, effective methods for interventions, and response to intervention for ELLs. After deciding on which literature pieces to include, they were organized according to the themes outlined in the objectives section.

Substantiated Conclusions

The literature review conducted highlighted the fact that few language interventions exist for ELLs. Further, there is also a dearth of language-based progress monitoring and assessment tools that are objective in nature Cohan & Honigsfeld, 2008). There are not many studies (meta-analysis or peer reviewed) on the use of these tools with ELLs. Brown (2004) notes that there are no available objective criteria for comparing assessments across the different languages. Therefore, caution should be taken when using tools that are currently available. Further recommendations and key findings will be discussed in the structured poster session.

Significance

Beyond the benefits to the district in knowledge gained by this report, this project provides a unique opportunity for all districts in the state of Oregon to learn about effective language interventions and progress monitoring/assessment tools that will support educators in deciphering between a language vs. learning disorder. Given the disparity in the under and over representation of ELLs in Special Education programs, it is imperative districts develop consistent and system-wide processes and procedures for making this initial identification into Special Education programs. This research opportunity provided insight into the various options available to districts.

Authors

• Toshiko Maurizio, University of Portland

• Emily Jaskowiak, Kelso School District