identifying english learners with dyslexia
DESCRIPTION
Identify English Learners with DyslexiaTRANSCRIPT
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
1
MINI SKILLS SESSION:
IDENTIFYING ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH DYSLEXIA
Dr. Catherine Christo, Megan Sibert, & Natasha Borisov
Why Focus on EL Students?
Growing Numbers of ELs in U.S. Schools From 1997-98 to the 2008-09 school years, the number of
EL students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, a 51 percent increase (Batalova & Terrazas, 2010).
Uneven Literacy Performance 30% of EL 4th graders reaching basic reading competency
compared to 70% for non-EL
29% of EL 8th graders compared to 77% of non-EL
Why Focus on EL Students? cont.
The dropout rate for EL students is 15 to 20 percent higher than for the general student population (Sheng, Sheng, & Anderson, 2011).
EL students are overrepresented in special education programs (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008).
ELL students have lower academic achievement as compared to non-ELL students (Brooks, Adams, & Morita-Mullaney, 2010).
There is a lack of research, best practice guidelines, or “definitive“ protocol for this population
Ethical/Legal Standards
NASP Guidelines
School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning. In conducting psychological, educational, or behavioral evaluations or in providing interventions, therapy, counseling, or consultation services, the school psychologist takes into account individual characteristics…
Practitioners are obligated to pursue knowledge and understanding of the diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds of students, families,…
School psychologists conduct valid and fair assessments. They actively pursue knowledge of the student’s disabilities and developmental, cultural, linguistic, and experiential background,…
Ethical/Legal Standards, cont.
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Address issues of language, appropriateness of norms and
cultural as well as linguistic differences…
IDEA “….findings are not primarily the result of … cultural factors or
environmental or economic disadvantage”
Presentation Outline
1. Learning Trajectory for EL students
2. Learning to Read
3. Dyslexia Defined
4. Current Assessment Methods
5. Suggestions for Assessment
6. Case Studies
7. Interventions
8. Q & A
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
2
Resources
What Works Clearinghouse: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx For practice guides and reviews of intervention
programs
Reading Rockets English Language Learners resources Parent friendly
Dr. Cristina Griselda Alvarado www.educationeval.com/.../Evidence-
Based_Bil_ed_Programs.
Learning Trajectory for EL Students
Expected Trajectory: BICS vs. CALP
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) Typically acquired in 1-2 years
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) Typically acquired in 2-7 years
Source: Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-624.
L2 Acquisition Stages
• Increased comprehension • Using simple sentences• Expanded vocabulary• Continued grammatical
errors
• Improved comprehension• Adequate face-to-face
conversational proficiency • More extensive vocabulary • Few grammatical errors
• Focusing on comprehension
• Using 1-3 word phrases
• May be using routine/formulas (e.g., “gimme five”)
• Silent Period• Focusing on
Comprehension
Stage 1: Preproduction
(first 3 months)
Stage 2: Early
Production(3-6 months)
Stage 3: Speech
Emergence(6 months – 2
years)
Stage 4: Intermediate
Fluency (2-3 years)
Source: Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005).
Possible Factors Contributing to Delayed L2 Acquisition
Delayed Second
Language Acquisition
Cultural Factors
Personal and Intrinsic Factors
Environmental Factors
L1 Schooling Quality and
Quantity
Family Factors
Deficits in Phonological
Skills
But sometimes, it’s due to:Mostly, it’s due to:
Factors Contributing to Delayed L2 Acquisition
Poor self-concept Withdrawn Personality Anxiety Lack of Motivation Traumatic Life Experience Difficult Family Situation Different Cultural Expectations Limited Literacy of Parents in Native
Language Poor Instructional Match Unaccepting Teachers and/or School
Community
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
3
Importance of Home Support… Factors Contributing to Delayed L2 Acquisition, cont.
Deficit in phonological skills (both for L1 and L2) is indicative of dyslexia
Later exposure to L2 Research shows that children who are
exposed to L2 before age 3 have better reading performance than children exposed to L2 in 2nd and 3rd grade.
Importance of Native Language Literacy
In U.S. schools where all instruction is given in English, EL student with no schooling in their first language take 7-10 years or more to reach age and grade-level norms of their native English-speaking peers.
Immigrant students who have had 2-3 years of first language schooling in their home country before they come to the U.S. take at least 5-7 years to reach typical native-speaker performance.
Source: Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in Language and Education, 1(4).
Importance of Native Language Literacy cont.
Neural mechanisms within parieto-temporal regions of impaired readers in second
language learning are similar to that of the impaired reading in a mother language.
Whenever possible, look for patterns of language acquisition difficulties in student’s
native language.
Review records, interview parents, etc.
Good to Know…
Studies show that students whose primary language is alphabetic with letter-sound correspondence (e.g., Spanish) have an advantagein learning English as opposed to students who speak non-alphabetic languages (e.g., Chinese).
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
4
Cross-Language Transfer
If students have certain strengths in their L1, and those strengths are known to transfer across languages, then we can expect that the students will develop those proficiencies in their L2 as their L2 proficiency develops
Domains of Cross-Linguistic Transfer: Phonological Awareness
Syntactic Awareness
Functional Awareness
Decoding
Use of Formal Definitions and Decontextualized Language
Learning to Read
Basic Assumptions(Regardless of Language Status) Simple model of reading (Tumner and Gough)
Competent reading rests on the development of basic skills The “hands and feet of genius”
Multiple components of reading must be taught in a systematic, explicit manner that also immerses children in language and text
Decoding Comprehension Reading
It’s All About the Word
Children must learn how visual information is linked to speech – the words and sounds they know.
“The first steps in becoming literate, therefore, require acquisition of the system for mapping between print and sound” Ziegler and Goswami, 2006
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
5
Well… Maybe Not All
Story structure
Language
Background knowledge
Comprehension
Word Reading Must Become:
Automatic (Almost)
Effortless
Fast Accurate This is true in any language and the
crux of the problem in dyslexia across
languages.
Integrate Multiple Systems
1. Visual system
2. Phonology
3. Working memory
4. Language
5. Orthographic
6. Phonological
7. Context
8. Meaning
For EL student, each of these areas must be considered!
Bilingual Environments
Concepts learned well in one language can be transferred to another
Knowledge of phonemes may be absent for English Learners Training helps Children with no phonological
problems catch up with their peers in phonological processing in 1 to 2 years
National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children Profiles of both groups with
reading problems are very similar
Dyslexia
Definition of Dyslexia: NICH and IDA
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.
These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of languagethat is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.
Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
6
Characteristics of Students With Reading Problems
Most reading problems have to do with decoding and spelling
Some readers may understand the system but lack fluency
Some readers have trouble with comprehension
Each of these reading problems require different interventions!
Possible Causes
Visual processing Temporal processing Phonological
processing Rapid Naming
speed Orthographic
processing
Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages
Different writing systems Alphabetic
Logographic
Syllabic
Directionality of print
Can transfer knowledge learned in one language to another
Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages
Alphabetic languages differ Similar or different alphabet Opaque vs. transparent
orthographies For example – Spanish
consonants but not vowels
Common manifestation is lack of rapid word recognition.
Grain size theory
Reading and Dyslexia Across Languages
In more consistent orthographies dyslexia manifests as problems in fluency rather than accuracy. Children become accurate decoders
by first grade
Phonological processing, Rapid naming, Orthographic processing Results have inconsistent results
Spanish – all three predicted reading in kindergarteners
Current Methods of Assessment
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
7
Who are EL Students?
Identifying EL students NCLB definition: 1) Age 3-21 2) Enrolled or preparing to
enroll in elementary or secondary school
3) Not born in the U.S., native language other than English, comes from an environment where English isn’t the dominant language
4) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English may deny him the ability to meet the state’s proficiency level to be successful in an English-only classroom
Factors Contributing to Difficulties when Assessing ELs with LD
Typical EL students and EL’s with LD sharemany characteristics: Poor comprehension Difficulty following directions Syntactical and grammatical errors Difficulty completing tasks Poor Motivation Low Self-Esteem Poor Oral Language Skills
It has been suggested that linguistic diversity may increase assessment errors and reduce the reliability of assessments
Lack of teachers trained in bilingual and multicultural education to meet and assess EL students’ needs
Mistaking basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) for cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)
Assessment in English
Pro’s: Accommodations can be made
(to test itself or to test procedure) to provide a more valid picture of the ELL student’s abilities:
Provides information about the student’s level of functioning/ability in an English-speaking environment
Con’s: Student’s may not thoroughly
understand task instructions or particular test items due to limited English proficiency
Compromises test validity: Student not represented in the norm
group Changing/simplifying language to
improve understanding of test instructions breaks standardization
Students demonstrate slower processing speeds and are more easily distracted during assessments conducted in a language with which they are less familiar
Assessment in English
Checklist of Test Accommodations
Before Conducting the Test:
Make sure that the student has had experience with content or tasks assessed by the test
Modify linguistic complexity and text direction
Prepare additional example items/tasks
During the Test:
Allow student to label items in receptive vocabulary tests to determine appropriateness of stimuli
Ask student to identify actual objects or items if they have limited experience with books and pictures
Use additional demonstration items
Record all responses and prompts
Test beyond the ceiling
Provide additional time to respond/extra testing time
Reword or expand instructions
Provide visual supports
Provide dictionaries
Read questions and explanations aloud (in English)
Put written answers directly in test booklet(modified from Szu-Yin & Flores, 2011)
Assessment in Native Language
Pro’s: May provide a more
accurate inventory of student’s knowledge and skills
Interpreters can be utilized to facilitate testing if psych doesn’t speak student’s native language
Con’s: Language-specific
assessment for each and every student are not available
If they are unfamiliar with the educational context, using interpreters may compromise test validity
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
8
Nonverbal Assessment
Pro’s: Attempts to eliminate
language proficiency as a factor in the assessment
May provide a better/more accurate estimate of student’s cognitive abilities
Con’s Often does not fully eliminate
language Offers a limited perspective
of a student’s academic potential
Fails to provide information about linguistic proficiency in student’s native language or in English
Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Strengths of this method: Widely used and understood Provides fairly clear-cut criteria for which students have and do not have
SLD/Dyslexia Uses norm or criterion-referenced standardized tests
Weaknesses of this method: IQ scores based on tests administered in English lack validity and
reliably for bilingual children whose language proficiency in English is still developing
IQ is likely to be underestimated when tests are given in English, lessening likelihood of identification of SLD in ELL students
Gap between scores of immigrant and indigenous children on IQ tests becomes smaller the longer the immigrant student has been in the English-speaking country (Ashby et al.)
Content of IQ tests may lack any overlap with content covered in or important to the academic context
Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
RTI/CBM Strengths:
Uses multiple measures of functioning/ability (CBM) and monitors students to ensure they are progressing or are identified as needing more support
Focuses more on supporting students’ needs and less on labeling their challenges
Ensures appropriate and effective curricula are being implemented with fidelity and integrity
Weaknesses: Doesn’t consider many ecological variables Doesn’t provide scientifically based research on the varying population
that RTI is purported to benefit
Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
CBM- continuedStrengths: CBM reading measures have been found to be a sensitive measure of
reading progress for bilingual Hispanic students Direct link between assessment and instruction Found to be very useful for native English-speaking students Data-based decision making about placement
Weaknesses: Very little research done regarding use of CBM specifically with bilingual
students Relationship between reading fluency and reading proficiency in ELL’s
learning to read in English is not clear Curriculum being taught is not necessarily culturally unbiased or sensitive
Current Methods of Identifying/Assessing SLD/Dyslexia
Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths:
Focuses on individual student’s performance pattern Can interpret pattern of scores in comparison to typical
pattern of English Learners Provides information that may be helpful in designing
interventions
Weaknesses: Doesn’t consider many ecological variables Limits of using cognitive processing measures with English
Learners
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
9
Depends on the system your school follows: RTI, PSW or discrepancy approach?
Source: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/bilingual/CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf
When Should You Refer EL’s for Special Ed? Questions to Consider
Are the instruments being used appropriate for the student? Will a variety of tests, instruments, or procedures be used to
determine if a child is a child with a disability? Will actual test scores be provided or will the test results be
reported descriptively? Will the student be evaluated in his or her native language? Why or
why not? Are bilingual personnel available to complete the evaluation? If there are no bilingual personnel available, will interpreters be
used to evaluate the child? Will the student be evaluated in the language of instruction? Has the assessment process been explained to the parents in their
native language if necessary?
Assessment and Diagnosis
Recommendations for Best Practice
Assess students in both native language and English
Thorough analysis of language proficiency using a broad range of test results and observation (multiple data sources)
Provide information on: best educational placement for the student type of instruction that would be most
beneficial the point at which student will be ready to
transition from bilingual education to English-only education (APA, 1985; IDEA, 1990, 1997)
Recommendations for Best Practice
Use of observations and interviews in multiple settings, times, and events
Assessment of portfolios, work samples, projects, criterion-referenced tests, informal reading inventories, and language samples.
Best Practice Guidelines (Cline, 1995)
The active involvement of EL and bilingual support teachers at every stage
Recording and reviewing information on a student’s knowledge and use of native language and of English
Setting and reviewing of specific educational goals that include language and cultural needs
Arrangement of appropriate language provision
Investigation of social, cultural, and language isolation and peer harassment
Using interpreter when appropriate Placing student performance in context
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
10
Models for Assessing CLD/Bilingual Students
Ortiz, Ochoa, Dynda (2012) Contemporary Intellectual Assessment MAMBI C-LIM
Guajardo Alvarado www.educationeval.com Best Practices in Special
Education Evaluation of Students Who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Bilingual Special Education Eval … Woodcock Test
2013
Multidimensional Assessment Model for Bilingual Individuals (MAMBI)
A grid that provides nine profiles for a practitioner to choose from and takes into consideration 3 major variables about the student: Current grade Type of educational program Proficiency in both L1 and L2
Once these variables are accounted for, the practitioner is left with the method of evaluation most likely to yield valid results: Nonverbal Assessment Assessment primarily in L1 Assessment primarily in L2 Bilingual assessment both in L1 and L2
PATTERN OF EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN
Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Available in Flanagan, Ortiz, and Alfonso: Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment
LOW MODERATE HIGH
LO
W PERFORMANCELEAST AFFECTED
INCREASING EFFECT OFLANGUAGE DIFFERENCE
MO
DE
RA
TE
HIG
H INCREASING EFFECT OFCULTURAL DIFFERENCE
PERFORMANCEMOST AFFECTED
(COMBINED EFFECT OFCULTURE & LANGUAGE
DIFFERENCES)
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
DE
GR
EE
OF
CU
LTU
RA
L L
OA
DIN
G
Alvarado’s 4 Steps to Bilingual Special Education Evaluation
1. Gathering of student information
2. Oral language proficiency and dominance testing
3. Achievement testing
4. Cognitive testing
The language or languages of each step is dictated by the individual student’s language exposure, language dominance, and academic background and by the objective of the assessment.
Determining Language Dominance
Alvarado’s model for determining language dominance:
Using a test that has two language forms that have been statistically equated in order to allow comparison of abilities and skills between those two languages.
Two steps are proposed: 1: the core language of the cognitive battery is
determined on the basis of the student’s dominant language
2: the appropriate scale is selected on the basis of the student’s language status in his/her dominant language
In the Woodcock tests, the Batería III COG is statistically equated to the WJ III COG. Likewise the Batería III APROV is statistically equated to the WJ III ACH.
Informal Ways to Assess Language Dominance
Language student prefers talking in
Which language produces better phrasing
Speech therapists can test
What movies do they watch (English or Spanish)
Friends on playground
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
11
Considering Contexts, Academic Variables, & Processing
Context
Processing
Current Academic Variables
Ethnicity
Birthplace
Number of years in the U.S.
Parent Education (where, what level, quality, in L1/L2)
Context: CultureContext
Context: Language
Proficiency in L1 & L2
Student’s primary/dominant language
CELDT scores
Language(s) spoken at home
Primary language of parent(s) and sibling(s)
Parent language proficiency in L1 & L2
Exposure to English
School
Family
Media
Context
Context: Education
Schooling in another country
Duration
Quality
Years of formal school
In L1 & L2
Curriculum used
EL program or other special education/intervention program
Educational progress
Previous work samples
Prior language proficiency levels/CELDT scores
Context ContextCultural/Linguistic Factors
Impact of poverty –environmental and neurological
Dyslexia may manifest in one language and not another
Understanding of text structure
Nature of first language may impact how quickly students learn second Phonetic may be easier to transfer
Language loss for native language
Semi-lingualism
Process and conditions of learning second language
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
12
Current Academic Variables:Teacher/Classroom/School
Curriculum Teacher training in
teaching EL students Teaching strategies
used Direct & systematic Use of visuals,
concrete objects Opportunities for
hands-on learning Scaffolding
techniques Varied instructional
grouping Interventions Frustrational/instructio
nal/mastery levels Progress monitoring
data Research/evidence-
based? Rate of improvement Minutes of ELD per
day Language use in
classroom
CurrentAcademic Variables
Rule Out Lack of Instruction
Has child had adequate reading instruction. IDEA 2004 explicit on this As defined in NCLB
Contain the 5 areas noted in National Reading Panel
Has child had high quality, research based interventions? School history Data from an RtI model
Types of interventions Progress made
Sources of information History Direct observations Performance of other students Interviews with teachers/parents to further
clarify problem
CurrentAcademic Variables
Current Academic Variables: Student Variables
Current level of performance (compare to EL & non-EL peers)
Math ELA Peer groups, quality
of peer interaction, behavior
Classrooms Playground
Home History Interaction with
adults School Home History Personality
CurrentAcademic Variables
How CBM Can Help EL Students
Determine whether instructional programs are addressing needs of EL population as a whole
Inform instructional decisions for struggling EL readers Compare target students to peers
Current Academic Variables
Problems With CBM and ELs
Difficulty in determining: benchmarks
expectations
appropriate growth
Lack of growth can be due to variety of factors, such as: Language
SES
Instruction
CurrentAcademic Variables
Using CBM with ELs
Used to: Screen for students at risk of learning difficulties
Monitor progress of all students
Monitor progress of selected students
Determine whether instruction/intervention is effective
Making special education decisions
CurrentAcademic Variables
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
13
Using CBM with ELs
DIBELS found to better predict low risk than at risk Classifies EL at risk better than
non-EL
ELs have different growth rates than non-ELs
Start lower so even with same slope don’t catch up
Fluency probes over-predict reading scores
Have weaker relationship with future reading than for non-EL
CurrentAcademic Variables
Using CBM with ELs
Useful but need more research Relationship between oral
reading fluency and comprehension More extraneous variables that
can lead to measurement error
Kindergarten phonemic segmentation fluency poor predictor of later decoding
Oral reading fluency may be better than maze fluency for predicting later comprehension
Diversity of ELs IDELS: Spanish version of DIBELS AIMSweb Spanish reading
CurrentAcademic Variables
RTI with ELs
How to determine underachievement In comparison to peers
In comparison to self
Appropriate instruction/intervention Lack of research on effective
intervention
Targeted intervention
CurrentAcademic Variables
Reading Components and Processing
National Reading Panel Phonemic Awareness in L1
and L2 Phonics in L1 and L2 Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension
Other processes related to reading Rapid naming Working memory
Oral Language
Processing
Weakness in Cognitive ProcessRelated to Reading
Phonological Processing Most common for English only
Associated with reading deficits in most languages but strength of relationship varies
Phonological processing in English predicts reading for EL reading disabled. Difficult to determine directionality and
causality
Cross language impact
Spanish phonological processing linked to English reading
ProcessingNew Directions
Basing assessment in phonological skills Less culturally biased than IQ testing Phonological processing skills
relevant to alphabetic literacy can be developed by exposure to any language
Phonology is a surface feature of language and “native-like” familiarity in the phonology of a new language should be developed more quickly than CALP skills (2 years vs. 5-7 years)
(Frederickson and Frith, 1998)
Processing
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
14
Cognitive Processes
Swanson et al (2012) ELs and bilinguals w/w/o RD Short term memory (core phonological loop) problem or
Working memory deficit impacting controlled attention
Reading disabled students who are EL and bilingual have similar cognitive profiles
Phonological processing Spanish and English
Naming speed – English Strongest measures
Spanish working memory and word reading English phonological processing and naming speed
Processing Cognitive Processes
May also be Naming speed,
Orthographic processing
Working memory
Consider CHC factors,
Berninger (PAL II)
Processing
Available Tests
Some in Spanish WJ Bateria Phonological
processing Long term storage
and retrieval Some working
memory
Some rapid naming
TOPPS (researcher developed version of CTOPP)
CELF WISC IV TAPS
DAS II ROWPVT, EOWPVT Woodcock Munoz
Language Survey-R BVAT-NU
Processing
Case Example
Ling-lee, 11 years, 6th grade
Adopted from China at age 10 years She lives with her parents and younger sister, who
is also from China Has low vision and she began to wear glasses
after coming to the U.S. Parents have limited information about her early
health history Currently in good health with the exception of
seasonal allergies Problem behaviors when Ling-lee first arrived
are mostly gone and she does well socially Attends Chinese school and hip-hop dance Ling-lee states likes math best – also language
arts because it makes you think and learns something new every day. Likes social studies least but learns interesting things - doesn’t get it sometimes.
Reasons for Referral
Does Ling-lee have dyslexia?
Does Ling-lee have dyscalculia?
How can the school and her parents best help Ling-lee to learn?
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
15
Educational History
Attended school through 2nd grade in China; picked up English quickly upon coming to the United States.
Chinese School teacher said that her skills in reading and writing in Mandarin where at the 4th grade level. Currently she is receiving A’s and B’s in her classes at Chinese School.
Attended private school for 4th grade. She began at Ivy in 5th and is currently in 6th
Outside tutoring in Barton based reading and math Able to decode but struggles with comprehension (mother notes in both
oral and written) Problems with directionality in math and reading CST 2011 Far Below Basic; CELDT scores Early Intermediate in Listening,
Speaking and Reading and Beginning in writing. Special Education evaluation on 10/2011
Placed due to academic underachievement in reading, writing and math and processing disorder in attention. Goals in math, reading, written language
Previous Evaluations
Academic: WJ-III (10/2011) Math Calculations & Math Fluency
= Average Range Reading
Word Identification = 14th
percentile Fluency & Reading Comprehension
= Well Below Average Written Language = Below Average
Spelling weakest
Cognitive: K-ABC II (4/2010) Long-Term Retrieval = Average All other scores in the Below
Average range
WISC IV SS=85, 16th percentile; VCI = 3rd
percentile; WM = 4th percentile; PS = 24th percentile
WRAML 2 Verbal =16th percentile; Visual =
27th percentile; Attention/Concentration = below average
TAPS 3 Phonological Processing, Visual
Motor Skills, & Memory = Average Language Understanding very
weak
BASC-2 Mother: Clinically Significant
Hyperactivity, Conduct Problems, Depression
Teacher: No clinically significant areas
Behavior During Testing
Friendly, conversed with the examiner regarding topics such as vacations, friends and family pets… responded appropriately in conversations but did little reciprocal questioning or expansion on topics.
Generally Ling-lee worked quickly… difference between her response pattern, depending on the area being assessed… math… consider and monitor her response much more than in written language.
Ling-lee did not display signs of inattention as has been noted in previous testing, though she was eager to complete the testing so that she could do other things.
Occasionally language issues were noted; for example, in asking for repeated instructions when the instructions were complex.
Assessment Results
TEST OF WORD READING EFFICIENCY
Standard Score (Range)
Sight Word Efficiency
92
Phonemic Decoding Efficiency
90
GRAY ORAL READING TEST 5Composite Standard
ScorePercentile
Rate 7 16th
Accuracy 8 25th
Fluency 7 16th
Comprehension 7 16th
KAUFMAN TEST OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEEMENT II Cluster/Subtest Subtest Score
(mean=100)Percentile
READING Letter and Word Recognition 92 30th
WRITTEN LANGUAGE Written Expression 61 <1st
READING RELATED SUBTESTS Nonsense Word Decoding 92 30th
PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNER – II (PAL-II)
Skills Composite/Subtest
Scaled Score Related Processes Composite/Subtest
Scaled Score
Phonological Orthographic Coding COMP. 8Pseudoword Fluency 8 Receptive 9Pseudoword accuracy 7 Expressive 8
Morphological Decoding Phonological Coding 5Find the Fixes 9 Syllables 5Morph Decoding Fluency 6 Phonemes 5Morph. Decoding Accuracy 7 Rimes 7
Silent Reading Fluency Morphological/syntactic Coding 4
Sentence Sense Accuracy 4 Are They Related 10Sentence Sense Fluency 3 Does It Fit 3Orthographic Spelling Sentence Structure 2Word Choice Accuracy 12 Rapid Automatic Naming/
Switching Total11
Word Choice Fluency 12 Letters 11Letter groups 12Words 9
Verbal Working Memory Letters 6Words 3Sentences/Listening 9Sentences/Writing 10
Assessment Results, cont.
KEYMATH 3 Cluster/Subtest Standard Score
(mean=100)Scaled Score (mean=10)
Percentile
BASIC CONCEPTS 78 (73-82) 7TH
Numeration 8Algebra 7
Geometry 6Measurement 6
Data analysis 6OPERATIONS 92 (86-98) 30th
Mental Computation 10Addition/Subtraction 9
Multiplication/Division 8APPLICATIONS 78 (69-97) 7th
Foundations of Problem Solving 7Applied Problem Solving 5
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
16
Carlos, 8 years, 3rd grade
Latino boy, resides in San Francisco with his mother, father, twin sister, and older brother (20)
Hearing and vision are within normal limits. Carlos was born in San Francisco to parents
of Mexican descent. Spanish is primary language, though some
English is spoken in the home, as well. Primary language of instruction is Spanish,
though he receives some instruction in English, and he often prefers to speak English in informal conversation.
Carlos reports that his English is “not really good,” and that Spanish is all he speaks at home.
Background Information
Carlos is currently a 3rd grade student at Elementary School in San Francisco, in the Bilingual Pathway. Most academic instruction is delivered in Spanish
Receives daily English Language Development (ELD) support.
His teacher reports that his reading, writing, and math skills are improving, but that he continues to require additional support.
He received speech/language therapy in the past, but was exited from those services following his last triennial evaluation.
Attends the afterschool program. Described as a very sweet, motivated, and
cooperative young boy. His teacher states that Carlos is very intelligent,
respectful, and has high self-esteem.
Assessment Results: DAS-IIComposite/Cluster Standard Score Percentile Descriptor
Special Nonverbal Composite
98 45th Average
Nonverbal Reasoning97 42nd Average
Spatial Cluster 100 50th Average
Clusters/Subtests T-Score Percentile Descriptor
Nonverbal Reasoning Cluster
Matrices 48 42nd Average
Sequential &Quantitative Reasoning 48 42nd Average
Spatial Cluster Subtests
Recall of Designs 50 54th Average
Pattern Construction51 54th Average
Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests-Normative Update (BVAT-NU)
Cluster/Subtest Standard Score Percentile Descriptor
Bilingual VerbalAbility
89 23rd Below Average
English Language Proficiency
86 18th Below Average
Picture Vocabulary
86 17th Below Average
Oral Vocabulary 95 37th Average
Verbal Analogies 88 21st Below Average
*Norms based on age
Test of Auditory Processing Skills-3 (TAPS 3)Index Standard Score Percentile Descriptor
Phonologic 90 25th Average
Memory 83 13th Below Average
SubtestScaled Scores
Percentile
Phonologic
Word Discrimination 9 37th
Phonological Segmentation 8 25th
Phonological Blending 7 16th
Cohesion
Auditory Comprehension 4 2nd
Memory
Number Memory Forward 7 16th
Number Memory Reversed 9 37th
Word Memory 2 <1st
Sentence Memory 8 25th
Test of Auditory Processing Skills 3: Spanish Bilingual Edition (TAPS-3: SBE)
Subtest Scaled Score Percentile
Memory
Word Memory 9 37th
Sentence Memory 7 16th
Cohesion
9 37th
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
17
Test of Visual Perceptual Skills 3 (TVPS-3)
Cluster Standard Score Percentile Descriptor
Overall 76 5th Low
Basic Processes 80 9th Below Average
Sequencing 65 1st Very Low
Complex Processes 75 5th Low
ClusterScaled Scores
Percentile
Basic Processes
Visual Discrimination 5 5th
Visual Memory 5 5th
Spatial Relations 8 25th
Form Constancy 6 9th
Sequencing
Sequential memory 3 1st
Complex Processes
Figure Ground 5 5th
Visual Closure 5 5th
VMI: 112, 79th
Percentile
Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII)-Test of Achievement (Norms based on age)
Cluster areas for determining Specific Learning Disability according to IDEA
MATH REASONING 83/12th
ORAL EXPRESSION 71/3rd
LISTENING COMPREHENSION 80/10th
WRITTEN EXPRESSION 87/20th
BASIC READING SKILLS 93/31st
READING FLUENCY 91/28th
MATH CALCULATION 114/83rd
READING COMPREHENSION 77/6th
READING FLUENCY 91/28th
Subtests SS/PercentileStory Recall 86/18thPicture Vocabulary 71/3rdUnderstanding Directions 73/3rdOral Comprehension 93/31stWriting Fluency 88/21stWriting Samples 89/23rdLetter-Word Identification 88/21stWord Attack 99/48thPassage Comprehension 77/6thReading Vocabulary 87/19thCalculation 121/92ndMath Fluency 96/39thApplied Problems 79/8thQuantitative Concepts 91/27thReading Fluency 91/28th
Bateria III Pruebas De Aprovechamiento(Norms based on age)
Bateria III Tests of Achievement:Bateria III Cluster areas for determining Specific Learning Disability according to IDEA Rememoracion de cuentos 87/20th Vocabulario sobre dibujos 66/1st EXPRESION ORAL 68/2nd Comprension de indicaciones
62/1st Comprension Oral 73/3rd COMPRENSION AUDITIVA
59/<1st Fluidez en la escritura 87/19th Muestras de redaccion 98/45th EXPRESION ESCRITA 92/31st
Identificacion de letras y palabras 111/77th
Analisis de palabras 109/73rd DESTREZAS BASICAS en LECTURA
112/78th Comprension de textos 87/19th Vocabulario de lectura 81/11th COMPRENSION de LECTURA
80/9th Problemas Aplicados -- Conceptos cuantitativos 88/22nd RAZONAMIENTO en
MATEMATICAS -- Fluidez en la lectura 47 FLUIDEZ
en la LECTURA 47
Interventions
Interventions
The following reading interventions are recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for use with ELL students: Enhanced Proactive Reading Read Well SRA Reading Mastery/SRA Corrective Reading
Common elements in the above intervention programs: formed a central aspect of daily reading instruction between 30 and 50 minutes to implement per day intensive small-group instruction following the principles of
direct and explicit instruction in the core areas of reading extensive training of the teachers and interventionists
Interventions
AIM for the BESt: Assessment and Intervention Model for the Bilingual Exceptional Student
Incorporates pre-referral intervention, assessment, and intervention strategies
Uses nonbiased measures Aims to improve academic performance for culturally and
linguistically diverse students and aims to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education How?
Use of instructional strategies proven to be effective with language-minority students
Allows teachers flexibility to modify instruction for struggling students Supports teachers with a team of professionals Uses CBM and criterion-referenced tests to assess in addition to standardized
test data
Model holds promise for improving educational services provided to limited English-proficient students(Ortiz et al., 1991)
NASP CONVENTION 2013 2/10/2013
CHRISTO, BORISOV, SIBERT
18
References
Alvarado, C.G. (n.d.). Bilingual special education evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals using Woodcock tests.
Ashby, B., Morrison, A. & Butcher, H.J. (1970). The abilities and attainments of immigrant children. Research in Education, 4, 73-80.
Ascher, C. (1991). Testing Bilingual Students. Do We Speak the Same Language? PTA Today, 16(5), 7-9.
Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1994). Curriculum-Based Measurement Reading with Bilingual Hispanic Students: A Validation Study with Second-Grade Students.
Batalova, J., & Terrazas, A. (2010). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=818#1a
Becker, H., & Goldstein, S. (2011). Connecticut administrators of programs for English language learners: English language learnes and special education: A resource handbook. Retrieved from CAPELL_SPED_resource_guide.pdf.
Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusivelearning communities for ELL students: Transforming school principals'perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-151.
Christo, C. Crosby, E. Zoraya, M. (In press). Response to Intervention and Assessment of the Bilingual Child. In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Clinton, A. (in press) Semi-lingualism: What neuroscience tells us about the complexities of assessing the bilingual child from low socio-economic backgrounds. In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Cline T (1998) The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children British journal of Special
References, cont.
Cline, T. (1998). The assessment of special educational needs for bilingual children. British journal of Special Education, 25 (4), 159-163.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school (electronic version.) Direction in Language and Education, 1(4).
Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities. Clearing House: A Journal Of Educational Strategies, Issues And Ideas, 84(6), 244-248.
Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H.-K., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: a cross-linguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. [Article]. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 372-392. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x
de Ramírez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Evaluation of Reading Skills of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners in Bilingual Education Classrooms. [Article]. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 356-369
Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological Testing of Linguistic-Minority Students: Knowledge Gaps and Regulations. Exceptional Children, 56(2), 145-52.
Frederickson, N.L. & Frith, U. (1998). Identifying dyslexia in bilingual children: A phonological approach with Inner London Sylheti speakers. Dyslexia, 4, 119-131.
Linan-Thompson, S., & Ortiz, A. A. (2009). Response to Intervention and English-Language Learners: Instructional and Assessment Considerations. [Article]. Seminars in Speech & Language, 30(2), 105-120.
Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English learners response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185-195.
References, cont.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: Apolicy brief. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchBrief.pdf
O'Bryon, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2010). Bilingual school psychologists' assessment practices with English language learners. [Article]. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1018-1034. doi: 10.1002/pits.20521
Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y.-J., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The Role of Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special Education: Implications for Response to Intervention. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316-333. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2011.628608
Ortiz, S. O., Ochoa, S. H., & Dynda, A. M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations: Moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L., (3rd Edition), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (p. 526-552). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Considerations in Implementing Intervention Assistance Teams to Support English Language Learners. Remedial And Special Education, 27(1), 53-63.
Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A Framework for Serving English Language Learners with Disabilities. Journal Of Special Education Leadership, 14(2), 72-80.
Petitto, L.A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span: Implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 185-197.
Pollard-Durodola, P., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Tong, F. (In press). Implications of bilingualism in reading assessment. . In A. Clinton (Ed.) Integrated Assessment of the Bilingual Child. APA Publications
Ramus F, Rosen S, Dakin SC, Day BL, Castellote JM, White S, Frith U. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126, 841–865.
References, cont.
Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H.S, Ortiz, O. (2005). 'Bilingual Education and Second-Language Acquisition'. In Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. New York: The Guildford Press.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & O'Hanlon, L. (2005). Nonbiased Assessment of English Language Learners: A Tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(3), 178-185.
Sandberg, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2011). English Learners: Challenges in Assessment and the Promise of Curriculum-Based Measurement. [Article]. Remedial & Special Education, 32(2), 144-154. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361260
Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., & Lussier, C. M. (2012). Cognition and Literacy in English Language Learners at Risk for Reading Disabilities. [Article]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 202-320. doi: 10.1037/a0026225
Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Fulbright RK, Skudlarski P, Todd-Constable R, Marchione KE, Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Gore JC. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52,101–110
Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. J. (2011). Dropping out of school among ELL students: Implications to schools and teacher education. Clearing House, 84(3), 98-103.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census population profile maps. Retrieved on October 21, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_profile_maps/census_profile_2010_main.html
Wilda, L.-R., Ochoa, S. H., & Parker, R. (2006). The Crosslinguistic Role of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency on Reading Growth in Spanish and English. [Article]. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 87-106
You, H., Gaab, N., Wei, N., Cheng-Lai, A., Wang, Z., Jian, J., & Ding, G. (2011). Neural deficits in second language reading: fMRI evidence from Chinese children with English reading impairment. Neuroimage, 57(3), 760-770.