Educational Recommendations for Representatives

Reform NCLB creating an entirely new program consistent with prevailing scholarly thought in education and using all types of research in the field.

Problem #1

NCLB focuses on massive multiple choice testing.  Teacher focus on high scores in multiple choice testing focuses educators on isolated discrete bits of knowledge good for quiz shows but not productive to create thoughtful people or productive citizens.  Current assessments used such as DIBELS focuses the reader on speed in reading, but ignore communication, the main goal of reading.  Writing is not emphasized in such a curriculum.  Apparent high scores indicated familiarity of the test and not with skills or content.

Solution:  Drop or drastically reduce standardized testing and focus more on supervised professional teacher evaluation.  Focus on assessment that help teachers make plans for instruction.

Problem: Students are doing too many decontextualized skills and too many worksheets.

Solution: Have students reading real information and books following a theme and have students group to present information and discuss issues in the theme to create a more sophisticated understanding of issues (e.g. healthy eating, clean air, friendship).

Problem: Too many dollars don't get into the classroom.

Solution: Ensure federal and state money reduces teacher-student ratios in classrooms to improve instruction and doesn't add more consultants or administrators.

Problem: NCLB focuses on skills training.  Children don't learn skills rapidly, but they can acquire language.

Solution: Focus on acquisition through teacher reading books, art, singing, movement, drama, and discussion.  For more information go to edresearch.info, California Reader or The Reading Teacher (DeVoogd articles).

Reading First;It's the Worst

Stephen Krashen also notes that since Reading First did reading 18.5 minutes a day more for two years, their program was worse than those who didn't do Reading First.

Published in Print: December 3, 2008
Education Week
Federal Path for Reading Questioned
By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo

The latest lackluster results from a study on the impact of the Reading First program offer little insight into which parts of the program are worth saving and which need revamping—vital questions, experts say, that could help guide any future federal endeavor to address the nation’s reading woes.

One of the largest and most rigorous studies ever undertaken by the U.S. Department of Education found that the $6 billion funding for Reading First has helped more students “crack the code” to identify letters and words, but it has not had an effect on reading comprehension among 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders in participating schools.

But the study’s limited scope—the impact of the federal funding on reading comprehension—does not offer enough information to craft better plans or policies aimed at reform.

“My one complaint about this evaluation is that its design was powered to ask a limited question (Does RF work on average?) rather than the contextual question of: Under what conditions does RF work and why?” Barbara R. Foorman, a prominent reading researcher at Florida State University in Tallahassee, wrote in an e-mail.

Ms. Foorman, who served as commissioner of education research at the Education Department’s Institute of Education Sciences in 2005 and 2006, said she is reassured by the findings that Reading First schools are spending more time teaching and practicing basic skills such as decoding, and seeing improved student achievement in those areas. She is disappointed, however, in the lack of improvement in students’ understanding of text—outcomes, she said, which are to be expected given the program’s priorities of teaching the fundamentals.

The final impact study does not provide much hope to Reading First advocates at a time when Congress has slashed funding—from $1 billion a year since the program was launched in 2002 to $353 million in fiscal 2008—and has proposed eliminating it altogether. Proponents of the program point to other findings from state data that show greater gains on several measures among participating schools.

“It’s not such a bad piece of work, but there are no conclusions you can draw from it,” Stanford University researcher Michael L. Kamil said of the study. “But as you look at the whole set of data that we have on Reading First, it is much more encouraging. There’s lots of evidence that this has worked.”

Those state-reported testing data and surveys, Mr. Kamil acknowledges, were not gathered using rigorous methods or compared against results at similar schools that are not in the program.

The impact study, released by the IES Nov. 18, is the only scientifically rigorous review of the grant program. Some of its findings are consistent with those state reports and independent surveys. More time is spent on structured reading instruction and teacher professional development, for example, in schools that received Reading First grants than in comparison schools.

The $36 million study may have left more questions than answers, many observers say.

“There is very little in the report that’s useful,” said G. Reid Lyon, who as then-chief of the reading-research arm of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development helped draft the Reading First legislation and the requirements for evaluating the program under the No Child Left Behind Act. “The only way for it to be helpful was in an effectiveness study, which was supposed to look at which kids did respond [to Reading First-style instruction] and why, and which kids did not respond and why.

“This evaluation,” he added, “did not help us to improve the program in any way.”

Missing Elements

The study was reconfigured to fit a reduced budget for the evaluation, and also because it was started after implementation of Reading First began, making it unfeasible to assign schools randomly to the treatment or comparison groups, according to federal officials.

Broader questions, however, are the ones that policymakers and researchers say could help refocus a federal reading initiative. It is unclear whether Reading First will survive—Congress’ fiscal 2009 budget proposal provides no funding, but the program will receive continuation funding at least through next March—or if Congress or the new administration will push for a new plan for addressing the nation’s reading woes.

Congressional staff members debated future directions for reading policy last month at a briefing on the impact study, according to Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, the director of the institute, the Education Department’s research arm, until Nov. 21.

Those present at the briefing, he said, were not suggesting that the federal government abandon its efforts, but rather try to discover what is missing from the current reading program. Stronger pre-K literacy programs, adolescent literacy, efforts to improve students’ background knowledge, and teacher preparation were all discussed, Mr. Whitehurst said.

The impact study shows clearly, he said, that the program needs improvement.

“Advocates for the program will be pleased that it’s shown a positive correlation on [improved] decoding skills ... the focus of the program,” said Mr. Whitehurst.

Among both students in the Reading First and non-Reading First schools examined in the study, reading achievement was low and had not improved significantly over the course of the three-year study. Fewer than half of 1st graders and less than 40 percent of 2nd and 3rd graders showed grade-level proficiency in their understanding of what they read. Yet, on a basic decoding test, 1st graders in Reading First schools scored significantly better than their peers in the comparison schools.

“I don’t think anyone should be celebrating the fact that the federal government invested $6 billion in a reading program that has shown no effects on reading comprehension,” Mr. Whitehurst added.

Critics of Reading First say the lack of results are because of the program’s narrow focus on explicit skills and the inadequate attention to the complex set of knowledge and skills children need to learn to read.

“You can’t get a much more concentrated effort to make something positive happen than this program has,” said David Reinking, an education professor at Clemson University in Columbia, S.C., and the vice president of the National Reading Conference, a research organization based in Oak Creek, Wis. “The whole [approach] rested on the assumption that improved reading fluency and decoding would translate somehow directly into gains in comprehension.”

The study, he added, “certainly isn’t a ringing endorsement for Reading First, and by extension ... of scientifically based evidence, as being the magic bullet.”

Similar or Not?

Some observers argue, though, that the study’s complex design makes it difficult to draw positive or negative conclusions overall. It compares Reading First schools with similar ones in the same districts that are not part of the program to determine the impact of the extra funding on instruction, reading proficiency, and the relationship between instruction and students’ comprehension.

Between 30,000 and 40,000 students in grades 1, 2, and 3 were given a reading-comprehension test four times from fall 2004 to spring 2007. The students attended nearly 250 schools in 17 districts and a statewide jurisdiction.

The study also includes extensive classroom observations to identify the instructional practices in both types of schools, as well as surveys of teachers, principals, and reading coaches.

An interim report on the findings, released in May, drew scathing criticism from supporters of the program, who suggested that the design of the study was flawed because it did not consider the likelihood that Reading First principles and practices had spread to schools that were not in the program. ("Reading First Doesn't Help Pupils 'Get it'," May 7, 2008.)

Other studies have found that a significant proportion of schools serving struggling students have incorporated explicit instruction in the basic reading skills found to be essential in learning to read: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

But Mr. Whitehurst dismissed those claims, saying that although there may be some “bleed over” into non-Reading First schools, the classroom observations and survey data show that the schools are not so similar.

“The schools were not doing the same thing,” he said. “There were differences in professional development, there were differences in their use of reading coaches, ... and there were significant differences in classroom practices.”

Some experts, however, disagree.

“The schools in the study started out as different as one could expect,” Mr. Lyon said. “But as time went on there was more districtwide adoption of Reading First methods. I’m not at all persuaded.”

Meaningful Instruction Works!!

Two outstanding reports on the efficacy of Reading Recovery intervention on student achievement have been recently released, one by the What Works Clearinghouse (an update of its former validation) and a major study released in England on the effects of their Every Child a Reader initiative. I"ve attached the press release we distributed last week, and please find below two links to the WWC and the UK study.

The significance of these studies includes: meaning-based instruction for initially low-performing children works; at-risk children can learn to read on continuous text (read: phonics worksheets unnecessary); one-to-one instruction is viable for delivering intervention for accelerating pupil learning in order to catch up to their peers; teacher professional development continues to be affirmed as the primary factor for improving reading achievement.

Judith

Links:

WWC Page Revised - http://www.readingrecovery.org/research/what_works/index.asp

Every Child a Reader Page - http://www.readingrecovery.org/rrcna/news/UK_Literacy_News-08.asp

Academic English & Prop. 227

Academic Instrumental Knowledge: Deconstructing Cultural Capital Theory for Strategic Intervention Approaches by Robert Rueda Lilia D. Monzó and Angela Arzubiaga

In this paper we have drawn on a sociocultural perspective in order to situate the nature of cultural capital and argue that all groups have cultural capital in specific sociocultural contexts. Attempts to offer families' knowledge about the educational system (AIK) cannot be effective when they are embedded in deficiency perspectives or treated as a set of neutral facts to be learned. Our interest is in providing families with the opportunities afforded to those who have the knowledge to make informed choices that have positive impact on their children's educational success. We have attempted to distinguish between broader notions of cultural capital, which are difficult to operationalize to a set of more concrete practices and knowledge about the educational system, which will enhance immigrant children's opportunities to academic success. With a perspective on learning as the process of developing identities which may transform people's ways of seeing and doing, we view critical dialogue as an imperative part of this process. We argue against the uncritical enculturation of families into dominant cultural systems and argue in favor of encouraging politically informed decisions, negotiating academic instrumental knowledge within existing values and practices, creating hybrids, transforming knowledge, and permitting informed choice in the acceptance or rejection of cultural practices in the process of appropriating this knowledge.

Academic English: A Conceptual Framework Robin Scarcella April 2003

Learning academic English is probably one of the surest, most reliable ways of attaining socio-economic success in the United States today. Learners cannot function in school settings effectively without it. This variety of English entails the utile, complex features of English required for success in public schooling and career advancement. It involves mastery of a writing system and its particular academic conventions as well as proficiency in reading, speaking, and listening. Unfortunately, academic English has often been ignored or under-emphasized in public school instruction. Many have not understood its importance in helping students function in school settings or have misunderstood its complex nature. This paper discusses approaches to the study of academic English and presents a multi-dimensional framework for analyzing it. The dimensions include linguistic, cognitive, and socio-cultural/psychological ones. Te paper also describes the relationship between the English used in everyday situations and in academic ones. It concludes with a brief discussion of research implications pertaining to instruction, assessment, and professional development.

Implications for Further Study

The research on the development of academic literacy is in its infancy. The proposed framework is designed to promote informed dialogue to practitioners and researchers that will stimulate further investigation. Additional research should explore the limitations of the framework and consider the ways it facilitates the development of testable hypothesis. It should also focus on elaborating the description of academic literacy in developmentally age-appropriate ways for English learners. For instance, while the framework provides a global understanding of the general language components and features young children must develop to acquiring academic English, it does not specify the precise language features children should learn at different grade-levels. If the framework is to be helpful, it would be useful to understand the specific language features (e.g., phonological, lexical, grammatical, and discourse features) English learners should be taught in different grades and at different English proficiency levels. This will entail investigating the teachability (e.g., practice, impute, corrective feedback). It will also be important to explore the extent to which English language learners of diverse proficiency levels are able to acquire the features of academic English. For instance, just because native English speakers are able to narrarate at the third grade, we cannot necessarily expect English learners of specific proficiency levels to be able to narrate. In brief, there is a need to collect data on what English learners in different sets of circumstances and contexts are able to do. Longitudinal research particularly is essential. In terms of instruction, teaching academic English should probably include a consideration of the three dimensions of academic English. However, the extent to which the various dimensions are emphasized in different grades and to learners of different proficiency levels should be explored.

In terms of assessment, the framework suggests the need for reliable, valid measurements of academic English that systematically test the key features of academic English that learners have difficulty acquiring (Bachman, 1990; Duran, 1989; Stevens, Butler & Castellom-Wellington 2000) It will also be important to explore assessments tat provide learners with rich, constructive information that will advance the learners’ language rather than providing students with limited or unhelpful information about their English language development. Finally, if the framework is shown to be useful, teacher professional development programs will be required to provide teachers with the knowledge base required o teach the various dimensions and features of academic English. Larger issues should also be considered in the instruction of academic English. For instance, the huge gap in working conditions and wages paid to teachers in poor affluent communities lead to enormous gaps in the teachers’ knowledge of academic English and probably the ability to teach it.

Because academic English is complex and dynamic, entailing linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural/psychological dimensions, it may be very difficult to research. Despite these difficulties, academic English merits investigation. The major features of academic English can and should be made clear. This paper has attempted to add this clarity.

Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12
Executive Summary Submitted to the California Department of Education by American Institutes for Research and WestEd Findings from a Five-Year Evaluation

In 2000, the California Department of Education contracted with the American Institutes for Research and WestEd to conduct a five-year evaluation of the effects of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners (ELs). Student achievement analyses, phone interviews, case study site visits, and written surveys were used to examine such questions as how the proposition was implemented, which EL services are most and least effective, and what unintended consequences resulted from Proposition 227 implementation.

Important findings from the achievement analysis include the following:

Since the passage of Proposition 227, students across all language classifications in all grades have experienced performance gains on the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program. However, since Proposition 227 was implemented alongside other reform efforts in a climate of increased accountability, it is difficult to attribute gains solely to these provisions.

While there has been a slight decrease in the performance gap between EL and “English Only” students, it has remained virtually constant in most subject areas for most grades. When former ELs, Reclassified to Fluent English Proficient students, are included in the cohort of ELs, this pattern in the performance gap is very similar. This is especially noteworthy given the substantial increase in the percentage of English learners participating in statewide assessments since the passage of Proposition 227.

Regarding differences in performance by model of instruction, across all analyses little to no evidence of differences was found. Although the most advanced analyses performed, given current state data limitations, show a slight student achievement advantage to immersion over a bilingual approach, more refined analyses enabled through the use of student-linked data from Los Angeles Unified School District indicate that the contribution to EL performance of an additional year in a bilingual program is not statistically different from an additional year in an immersion program.

Because model of instruction does not appear to be a clear determinant of EL success, we explored the premise that the best source for understanding what does lead to high-level academic performance for ELs would be schools and districts that appear to be achieving this result. We developed a model for identifying such sites and interviewed administrators from 66 schools and 5 districts that are among the highest performers statewide. Our findings suggested no single path to academic success among ELs. However, commonly cited key factors included: (1) staff capacity to address EL needs, (2) a school-wide focus on English Language Development and standards-based instruction, (3) shared priorities and expectations in regard to educating ELs, and (4) systematic assessments providing ongoing data to guide EL policy and instruction.

In light of these findings, recommendations from this study include 11 recommendations directed primarily to state and local educational leaders and policymakers.

Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners
Their Challenges, Experiences, and Needs

California’s classrooms are changing. Will teachers be up to the task of ensuring all students, including English language learners, meet the state’s high academic standards?

A new survey of more than 5,000 teachers finds few professional development opportunities targeted on working effectively with second language learners. A lack of time and instructional resources also hamper teachers’ ability to reach the nearly 1.6 million students designated as English learners in California’s public schools. The teachers surveyed also said their efforts to teach English learners are complicated by their struggle to effectively communicate with the parents and families of English learning students.

California’s English Learner Population
Students in California’s public schools come from a wide variety of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Almost 1.6 million, approximately 25%, are classified as English learners or “EL” and require special assistance from their teachers and schools to meet the state’s rigorous academic content standards while also learning English. The vast majority of teachers, over 80%, have one or more EL students in their classroom. California, with 32% of all EL students in the country, has a higher concentration of English learners than anywhere else in the U.S. California’s growth in EL student enrollment is also greater than the rest of the nation. The most recent language census data lists 57 different primary languages spoken by students in the state’s schools. Most of the state’s English learners, 85%, are Spanish speakers, with only five other language groups (Vietnamese, Filipino, Cantonese, Hmong, and Korean) even reaching the level of 1%-2% of the EL student population. An additional one million students come from homes where a language other than English is spoken, making students who speak a language other than English at home account for 40% of California’s K-12 school population.

With regards to student learning, only 10% of those identified as English learners passed the California English Language Arts Standards Test in 2004. Moreover, only 39% were able to pass the English Language Arts portion of the California High School Exit Exam in 2004, compared with 81% of English speakers. Only 49% of EL students passed the math portion of the exam compared with 78% of their English-only peers.

Surveying Teachers of English Learners
Because of the escalating numbers of English learning students in California’s classrooms, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning partnered with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UC LMRI) to conduct a large-scale survey of teachers from across the state. We set out to learn what challenges these teachers face with regard to educating English learners, and to analyze how these challenges vary according to factors such as teacher experience, training, and student need. The report, Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners, documents the responses of over 5,000 California teachers regarding their challenges, experiences and professional development needs.

Survey Findings
• Over the last five years, many EL teachers had little or no professional development designed to help them teach these students, and the quality of training was uneven.
• Greater preparation for teaching English learners equaled greater self-rated ability to teach these students successfully.
• The majority of teachers expressed the desire and need to gain greater expertise for teaching English language learners.
• Communication with students and their families was of utmost importance to teachers.
• Finding the time to teach EL students all of the required subject matter, including English language development, presented the second greatest teaching challenge for elementary teachers.
• Teachers expressed frustration with the wide range of English language and academic levels often found in their classrooms.
• Teachers were challenged by the lack of tools to teach, including appropriate assessment materials and instruments.
• The more teachers knew about working effectively with English learning students, the more likely they were to cite shortcomings in instructional programs for their students.

The Center View

Until the release of the important information taken from Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners, teachers of English language learning students who are on the front lines of California’s education system were seldom, if ever, asked about the challenges they faced in their classrooms or what they needed to ensure that every child meets the state’s rigorous academic standards. Using the best advice from the classroom, education policy-makers at the local, regional and state levels can strengthen teaching that affects the learning outcomes of a major portion of the state’s student population. As first steps we recommend that:

• The governor and the leadership of the Legislature convene a summit of policy-makers, educational experts, and most of all, classroom EL teachers on “Teaching for California’s English Learners.” The purpose of this summit would be to carefully review and analyze the results of this survey and to chart a course of action that ensures high quality preparation and professional development for all teachers of English learners.
• The California Department of Education should develop and make available to local school districts a package of evaluation tools and instruments to assess the quality of local programs for English learners and identify areas in need of improvement. We further recommend that as part of this process CDE identify state, federal, and other resources that local school districts can use to assist them in making program improvements.
• Local school districts give high priority to the professional development needs of teachers of English learners as they implement the Teacher Credentialing or Professional Development Block Grant, recognizing the differing needs of teachers at the elementary and secondary levels identified in this research.

Increased attention to the needs of teachers of English language learners is warranted given the findings from this study: professional development is not targeted to meet the needs of English language learners; teachers are facing barriers to communication with their students and their students’ parents; and they are constantly accommodating for a lack of appropriate materials and resources to reach their students. Policy-makers and professional development providers across the state would be well advised to consider this fresh voice from the classroom when planning improvements for California’s teacher development system.

Excerpted from:
Gándara, P, Maxwell-Jolly, J, & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
The full text of this report is available for download from www.cftl.org

English Language Learners Research Cited in Herrell & Jordan

STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Research cited by:
50 Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners
by Adrienne L. Herrell and Michael Jordan

EL students are the fastest growing population (Leos 2004) (Pearlman) EL will be 50% in 2015

Krashen (1982) language acquisition(natural thing) versus language learning (teacher must focus on factors for instruction)

Canagarajah (2006) teacher must keep in mind when teaching to EL students gender, ethnicity, immigrant non-native status and impact on language learning ; assessment of student needs, level of functioning, motivation affect acquisition of target language; “teaching processes that are process-oriented , autonomous, and experiential are considered empowering.”

Halliday (1978) seven functions of language: instrumental, regulatory, representation, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative

Krashen, 1982; Krashen & Terrell, 1983, McLaughlin, 1990) role of emotions on the acquisition of language

Cummins (1986) basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) versus cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) What must be added to instruction to make it comprehensible to students. Context supports student understanding or more CAL. (QUADRANT)

Echevarria, Vogt & Short, (2000) The SIOP model –strategies for effectively supporting the learning of EL students

Genesee (1999) slower speech, clear enunciation, use of visuals and demonstrations, vocabulary development, making connections to student experiences, and using supplementary materials

Herrell & Jordan (2003) Echevarria & Short,(2004 and 2005): plan language objectives for all lessons, build academic vocabulary in all lessons, build and activate background knowledge, extend academic English interaction, integrate vocabulary and concept review throughout lessons, provide modeling and feedback related to language use in speech & writing

Krashen and Terrel (1993) students need to be allowed to move into verbal production of L2 at a comfortable rate.

Swain (1993) children who work together to solve problems, create projects supports language acquisition

Diaz-Rico and Weed (2003) and Ovando, Collier, and Combs (2003): scaffolding strategies to help EL student organize thoughts in English make significant gains

Rhodes & Nathenson-Mejia (1993) anecdotal records, form of assessment that allow the teacher to document the growth and accomplishment of students, based on teacher’s observations

Genishi & Dyson (1984) assessment and documentation is especially appropriate for EL students

Garcia (1994) anecdotal records results help teachers celebrate growth this can motivate students, lower classroom anxiety, and increase participation and learning.

Hernandez (1997) performance sampling works well with EL students; portfolios are not as difficult for EL students to understand

Herrell (1996) Portfolio Assessment

Farr & Tone (1994) students involved in their portfolio

Create predictable routines and signals

Provide language support through visual images

Connect language acquisition to the real world

Use interactive read-aloud –Barrentine (1996) the reading of books out loud with the use of expression, different, voices for characters, gestures and the active participation of the listener through predicting, discussion, and check for understanding, exploration of text structure, think aloud strategies

Smallwood (1992) strong English model and reduces anxiety

Demonstrates what good readers do (Tompkins, 1998)

Good for older students (Krashen, 1993; Trelease, 1995) higher test scores

Wood (1994) students will choose the same book or another by same author

Swain (1993) Discussion of literary elements help EL students

Trelease (1995) those read aloud to have a larger vocabulary

Teaching students to use advanced organizers
Ausubel (1963) representations of abstract concepts given before a lesson to help students make connections between old and new knowledge

Newell (1984) comparative organizers

Preview and review vocabulary
Lessow-Hurley (1990) give a preview of the lesson in the students home language

Have lessons, which focus on language
Gibbons (1993) lessons which emphasize the English vocabulary and usage rather than the curricular content

Scaffold the teaching of academic language
Jim Cummins (1986) BICS and CALP

Create a framework for language success
Gibbons (1993) a strategy in which the teacher identifies the language necessary for the students to be successful in a lesson and plans activities that support the use of the language in multiple functions

Skills Grouping for more individualized instruction
Gibbons (1993) is the act of arranging students in groups based on their need for instruction in a specific skill; done for a short periods of time for a few lessons---depends on how well a teacher knows the language skills of students
Total Physical Response: Movement for Language Acquisition

Asher (1982) learning another language through actions

Using Shared Reading
Holdaway (1979) teachers read books, charts, and other texts WITH students when text is too hard for students to read by themselves

Depree & Iversen (1996) teachers read BIG BOOKS to small groups so all can see the text and pictures

Tompkins (1997) shared reading can be done with sets of small books, poetry charts, song lyrics, or any text as long as students and teacher can all see the words

Gibbons (1993) use of shared reading with EL students is appropriate because there are
teachers can use illustrations to support vocabulary development, think aloud and problem solving approaches, and verbal interactions to support comprehension

Using Leveled Questions
Krashen & Terrell (1983) teachers adapt the way they ask questions so students can respond according to their language acquisition stage

Use Objects to Connect Concepts

Partner Work
Meyers (1993) and Diaz-Rico& Weed (2002) effective with ELs because it gives opportunities for verbal interaction and support

Thonis (1994) PEER TUTORING- a student who has achieved a skill works with a classmate to help them acquire the skill

Communication games for verbal interaction
Gibbons (1993) activities set up in a class create opportunities and purposes for verbal communication practice

Bilingual books for biliteracy awareness

Cooperative Group Learning
Johnson & Johnson (1984) a collection of strategies in which students work together to accomplish a group task

Kagan (1989) small groups are effective for EL students because they have more opportunities for verbal interactions


Home cultures connections
Freeman & Freeman (1994) culture studies are studies in which students research and share information about their own cultural history and builds classroom community

Learning Centers-extending learning with
Imaging: creating visual pictures
Chamot & O’Malley (1994) state imaging encourages students to make an image in their minds to support the understanding of concepts or problems to be solved

Projects to integrate curriculum
Meyers (1993) planning curriculum in which knowledge and skills in several curricular areas are combined to accomplish an authentic task---students are learning vocabulary and having experiences which demonstrate the need to sue knowledge in multiple disciplines

Sort information in categories
Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston (1996) say sorting activities require students to sort objects, words, phrases, and sentences according to set parameters

Collaborative Reading for those who cannot read the text
Gibbons (1993) collaborative reading helpful to EL students when they are reading for information, supports readers of various abilities, use a variety of books/media on the topic to be studied

Multimedia presentations: the modern oral report
Diaz-Rico & Weed (2002) use of media to do research, publish, and make classroom presentations

Reciprocal Teaching-group work with interactive structure
Palincsar & Brown (1986) students take turns teaching small sections of text. Student reads a section of text, summarize it, and then question other students about it

Modeled talk: showing as you speak
Herrell (1999) concurrent verbal explanation and physical demonstration of directions or concepts (one of the simplest and most powerful strategies to use for EL students)

Reporting Back-verbal practice with curricular connections
Gibbons (1993) bridges spoken and written language: students report back by describing their experience, using related vocabulary in class news or daily learning log

Vocabulary Role-Play (dramatizing the word)
Herrell (1998) learners make connections to past experiences, current content, and new vocabulary and write and perform skits in which vocabulary words are use in different contexts (homographs and polysemous words)

Vocabulary Processing
Jordan & Herrell (2002) vocabulary is introduced in several contexts ( word collections, saying it, acting it out, relating it to something familiar) students pick three words to practice in their everyday interactions ( written in vocabulary journals with documentation of how they used the words in different ways)

Word Walls
Tompkins (1997) alphabetical lists of words created in the classroom for the purpose of word study and vocabulary development ( bilingual or multilingual word walls)

Story Reenactment

Scripting
Lozanov (1982) sample language interactions presented and practiced prior to students encountering the situation when the scripts will be needed

Talk Show
Three students work together to create an interview in which one plays the talk show host, one plays the person to be interviewed, and the third person provides a silent “acting out”

Writing Workshop
Graves (1983) and Tompkins (1994) writing workshop is an approach to writing in which the students choose their own writing topics and move through the prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing of their work as if they were professional writers

Diaz-Rico & Weed (2002) EL students work with a partner or group in revising and editing, as they are encouraged to interact and discuss

Read Aloud Plus
Jordan & Herrell (2001) read aloud plus can be used whenever there is tough text ( modeling fluency and expression, clarification of vocabulary, periodic checks for understanding, activating of knowledge and connections ) PLUS: visuals, realia, paraphrasing, rewriting, rewriting and illustrating, comparing and contrasting, and physicalization

Building on an Experience to Create a Written Account
Lee & Allen (1963) activity based writing lesson, connects student experiences, what is spoken, and written language---EL students are able to read text because they participated in the activity and the written words tell what they said about their experience

Writing Skills Through Active Scaffolding
Pinnell & McCarrier (1994) form of shared writing or language experience lesson where teacher and students compose a story or text and share the pen in writing the words down on a chart or writing paper ( students are supported in using conventional spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, encouraged to write what they can); teacher supports conventions and mechanics

Guided Reading (within a group setting)
Fountas & Pinnell ( 1996) provides a small group of 4-6 students basically at the same reading with individual coaching through these strategies; running records for cueing systems, phonics, word meanings, word order, sentence structure, relation of text to student’s prior experience, use of self-correction and self-monitoring whether reading made sense. BOOK WALK, PREDICTION, READING MULTIPLE TIMES ( teacher monitors individual students on above items), MINI-LESSONS

Using Technology to Build Background

CLOZE: using context to create meaning

Attribute charting
Peregoy & Boyle (1993) organizing information to support understanding , also called semantic feature analysis, visually organizing information to support understanding of the attributes of the concepts being studied

Cohesion links for paragraphs
Find all the nouns, verbs, conjunctions, substitutions, ellipses, lexical cohesion, etc.

Acquiring Self-help Skills
Gagne (1985) learning strategy instruction supports students in understanding their own learning and in monitoring the methods and results of strategies they use in reading, writing, discussions, and research (metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, social/affective strategies)

Dictoglos ( for oral and communication skills)
Ruth Wajnryb (1990) students listen to repeated fluent readings of English text, at first listen, on subsequent readings take down as much of the text as possible, get in pairs, and then in groups of fours to combine their notations and recreate as much of the text as possible. Authentic reason for communication and practice recreating, rewriting, and rereading English text.

Gibbons (1993) focuses on fluent academic language and supports learners in listening and recalling good English language models

Free Voluntary Reading
Krashen (1993) involves students in reading English text, FVR ( free voluntary reading) encourages silent, self-selected reading of enjoyable books written at students’ independent levels, supports reading comprehension, writing, grammar, spelling, and vocabulary development

Hernardez (1997) difficult to implement because of the large numbers of books required, effective for EL students because of the power in exposing them to a large volume of English reading

Repetition (multiple interactions with a book)
Tompkins (1996) the use of a piece of text in several different ways to reinforce the understanding of it and the gradual integration of the vocabulary and concepts into the speaking and writing vocabulary of the students: choose a book that will sustain interest over time, explore the story structure, play with words, create an alternate text, create an innovation on the text, create another innovation or version

GIST (exploring tough text)
Cunningham (1982) supports comprehension of informational text: students read sections of the text silently, after each short section, group members work collaboratively to generate one sentence that summarizes the “gist” of the passage ( or paragraph with dense text). EL students have a chance to discuss and clarify meaning as they decide on the best summary sentence for the section or paragraph

Syntax Surgery: Manipulating English Grammar
Herrell (1998)allows students to see the relationships of elements within a sentence that may be confusing to understand because English syntax often differs from word order found in students’ home languages

Baltra (1998) EL students sometimes encounter difficulty in comprehending sentences they read or confuse word order when speaking or writing in English

Swain (1993) refining of the spoken and written product are vital to the development of fluency ---in output theory

Gardner (1993) Theory of Multiple Intelligences –the ways people are smart-the modes in which they process information effectively- Use these to teach and test students in their preferred modes

VOCABULARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH ON VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION


The following studies show that students need large vocabularies to be successful readers and that economically disadvantaged children enter school with far fewer words.


Vocabulary knowledge is one of the most significant predictors of reading comprehension.
Davis, F.B., (1972). Research on comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 7, 628-678.

Children with average or above-average verbal ability enter kindergarten with a receptive vocabulary of approximately 5,000-10,000 words, others enter school with knowledge of far fewer words, thus beginning their school careers at a disadvantage. Hart and Risley’s long-term study of vocabulary development in children during the first three years of life revealed these significant differences as strongly related to parental income and welfare status. Children in economically disadvantage households were exposed to significantly fewer words, which was related to their own vocabulary use as well as their rate of vocabulary growth during these formative years.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of you American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Marzano’s study shows that students need to learn specific academic vocabulary to understand specific genres and content areas.

Vocabulary knowledge differentially affects comprehension in school reading and learning, depending on the nature of what is being read. Stories and literature are much less dependent on specific terms used by authors than informational texts used in science, social studies, and mathematics. Academic vocabularies consist of words with precise meanings that are often central to content area understanding and differ from general meanings of even the same terms, (e.g., operation has a very specific meaning in mathematics; Marzano, 2004)

Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Definition:
Comprehensive vocabulary instruction- (from Vocabulary: Questions from the Classroom) vocabulary instruction that encompasses much more than a list of words to teach at the beginning of the week. Rather, it involves a common philosophy and shared practices among teachers in a school or district based on a solid understanding of the knowledge base of vocabulary and understanding need to be supported by curricular considerations as well as by appropriate classroom and school organization. Blachowicz, Watts-Taffe, & Fisher (2006), Graves (2006), and Nagy (2005) all agree on the following characteristics of good vocabulary instruction:
It takes place in a language-and word-rich environment that fosters what has been
Referred to as “word consciousness’.

It includes intentional teaching of selected words, providing multiple types of
information about each new word as well as opportunities for repeated exposure,
use and practice.

It includes teaching generative elements of words and word-learning strategies in
ways that give students the ability to learn new words independently.

Blachowicz,C.L.Z., Watts-Taffe, S., & Fisher, P. (2006). Integrated vocabulary instruction: Meeting the needs of diverse learners in grades 1-5. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nagy, W.E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long term and comprehensive. In E.H. Hiebert & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (p 27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Some class time needs to be devoted to vocabulary instruction but in context is best. Commercial vocabulary programs have not been successful in producing documented growth in word knowledge.

Definition: (from Questions from the classroom) language-rich environment is one in which children’s opportunities to read, hear, use, and talk about new vocabulary are many and varied. Naturally, these environments contain books and other reading materials, both narrative and expository, on a variety of topics appropriate for a variety of reading levels.

Duke’s study involved looking at low socioeconomic schools and high socioeconomic schools to compare how print-rich the environments were. Low SES classrooms had smaller libraries, 40% fewer books and magazines, less displays of books and magazines in the classrooms and fewer texts on walls and other surfaces.

Lower socioeconomic schools may contribute to lower levels of achievement by limiting students to literacy in the form of print rich environments.


The following studies show that reading aloud to children can increase their incidental vocabulary learning whether teachers explain words or not, but they learn more with explanations.

Eller et al. and Robbins& Her, documented the fact that young students can learn word meanings incidentally from read-aloud experiences.

Eller, G., Pappas, C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergartners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 5-24.
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L.C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54-64.


Elley’s studied classroom teachers reading stories aloud to 7 and 8 year olds. Seven classes of 7-year-olds showed vocabulary gains of 15 percent from one story, without any teacher explanation. Three classes of 8-year-olds who received no teacher explanation showed gains of 15 percent, and three classes that did receive explanation showed 40 percent. Follow-up tests showed that this incidental vocabulary learning was relatively permanent, and low-scoring children gained as much as high-scoring children.

Elley, W.B. (1988). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Research on Comprehension
by Susan Drew, Graduate Student at California State University Fresno

Background Knowledge – is knowledge that is acquired through study or experience.

To summarize the conclusions of the studies listed below the researchers found that in order for people to understand what they read and/or hear they must have knowledge of the language and of the world. Bransford and Johnson’s study was with adults, however Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon (1979) did a similar study with children and had parallel results. The greater the background knowledge of the material, the greater the understanding there will be.

Identical untitled passages were given to three groups of adults: one group was told what the passage was about before they read it, another group was told what the passage was about after they read it, and a third group was not told what the passage was about at all.
Bransford and Johnson found that the ability to understand messages is based not only on the comprehender's knowledge of language but also on his/her general knowledge of the world.

They found the people who were told what the passage was about before they read it comprehended and recalled the passage twice as well as the people in the other groups.

According to Bransford and Johnson people gain greater understanding of presented materials when they are able to connect it with something they have heard or learned about prior to reading.

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 711-726.

Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print. They asked 20 average second-grade children with the same overall intelligence and general reading level—10 who knew a great deal about spiders and 10 who knew little about spiders—to read a passage on spiders.

They found that the children who knew more about spiders before they read the passage were significantly better at answering questions on information in the passage than the children who knew less about spiders before they read the passage.

Similar to the Bransford and Johnson study, this one concluded how vital it is for teachers to present good background information to students on new topics to ensure that children have the ability to make connections with the new information. This is especially important for our struggling readers and our English language learners. All students need guidance and support in the effort to present information in a fair and just manner.

Pearson, P.D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.

Taylor found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print and that below-average readers do especially well on making sense of passages on familiar topics as opposed to unfamiliar topics. She gave 31 third- and fifth-grade children passages on a topic generally familiar to children—bird nest building—and on a topic generally unfamiliar to children—bee dancing. The third-grade children were average third-grade readers. The fifth-grade children were average and below-average fifth-grade readers.

Taylor found all the children recalled significantly more on the familiar topic than on the unfamiliar topic. The below-average fifth-graders were the most affected by whether they were reading on a familiar or unfamiliar topic. They recalled as much as the third graders when reading on the unfamiliar topic but as much as the average fifth graders when reading on the familiar topic.

Similar to the previous findings, Taylor found that the students who gained a significant amount in recalling information were the struggling readers. If unfamiliar information is presented to students, without the support of scaffolding, we are doing them a disservice. Taylor implied that by presenting background knowledge to children we have an opportunity to offer more meaningful lessons and possibly begin to close the achievement gap.

Taylor, B. (1979). Good and poor readers' recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 375-388.

Lipson found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print. She gave 32 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade average and above-average readers two passages, one was entitled First Communion and the other was entitled Bar Mitzvah. Half the children were attending a Catholic school and half were attending a Hebrew school.

Lipson found the children read significantly faster and recalled significantly more on the culturally familiar passages than on the culturally unfamiliar passages.

Like Taylor’s findings, Lipson found that when presented with cultural familiar and unfamiliar passages, the students were much more successful with the culturally familiar. Students attending Catholic school would undoubtedly be familiar with a First Communion and the students who attend Hebrew school would be familiar with a Bar Mitzvah. To be familiar with a subject assists in the process of making meaning and also with being able to further connect with other new subjects or topics.

Lipson, M.Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children's memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, XVIII, 448-457.
Access to Books

Below are studies that suggest the importance of children having access to books. It is vital that students have access to many high-interest books that cross genres in a literacy-rich classroom.

Elley and Mangubhai found that increasing access to books for children with limited access to books increased their literacy achievement. They studied 614 children in 4th and 5th grade classrooms in rural Fijian schools with very few books. Of these children, 380 were in classrooms where the researchers provided 250 high-interest, illustrated storybooks in English per classroom, and 234 were in the on-going English language program that put little emphasis on reading. Eight of the 16 experimental classes used sustained silent reading. The other 8 experimental classes used the Shared Book Experience (a.k.a., shared reading), a teaching technique where the teacher points to the print in full view of the children while reading to the children. The researchers found that after eight months, the pupils in the two experimental groups progressed in reading comprehension at twice the rate of the comparison group.

The book flooding studies were convincing. The students in both the shared reading group and the silent reading group far outperformed those who were in the more traditional model in reading comprehension. By providing a variety high-interest books and giving students the gift of time to read proved to be beneficial to the students.

Elley, W.B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, XIX, 53-67.

Elley found the availability of books is a key factor in reading achievement. He studied the reading achievement of children in 32 countries and found that factors which consistently differentiated high-scoring and low-scoring countries were large school libraries, large classroom libraries, regular book borrowing, frequent silent reading in class, and frequent story reading aloud by teachers. The highest scoring countries typically provide their students with greater access to books in the home, in nearby community libraries and bookstores, and in the school.

The models used by the 16 experimental classes were ones in which scaffolding, guidance, and critical literacy was provided. By rereading the story multiple times, and incorporating activities that extend the story, the teacher lowered the affective filter for the students and reading comprehension increased, making it accessible to all. With such tremendous support it would be difficult to imagine that students not being motivated by a teacher using such great strategies

Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the World Do Students Read? The IEA Study of Reading Literacy. The Hague, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Krashen found a significant positive correlation between each (U.S.) state's 1992 fourth-grade reading comprehension scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and the number of books per students in school libraries as well as library use, regardless of how much money the state spent on education per pupil. The findings suggest that for money spent on education to affect reading scores it needs to be invested in library books.

Krashen’s findings are compelling, however we must determine how to get the books out of the libraries and into the students’ hands. When a school is fortunate enough to have a certified librarian making excellent and varied book selections students will likely make use of the library. Teachers can assist in this with modeling readings across genres. Krashen stated the importance and significance of books being accessible to all students.

Krashen, S. (1995). School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly, 23, 235-237.

Neuman found that increasing 3- and 4-year-old children's access to books in child care centers serving economically disadvantaged children and providing training to child-care staff in an intervention program known as Books Aloud significantly increased the children's early literacy knowledge. The program flooded over 330 childcare centers with high-quality children's books at a ratio of 5 books per child and provided 10 hours of training to child-care staff. Neuman examined the project's impact on 400 3-and 4-year-old children randomly selected from 50 centers across 10 regions and 100 control children from comparable child care centers not involved in the project.

Neuman found the children in the experimental group showed significantly higher increases in concepts of print, letter name knowledge concepts of writing and concepts of narrative than the control group.

Neuman’s study of book flooding childcare centers demonstrated the importance of children being familiar with books. The population studied was of economically disadvantaged children. It is likely that these children do not have reading materials in their home. Training staff at the centers enables the youngsters to have good modeling and lots of support with the books. The study showed that early intervention of providing opportunities with books would place the children at an advantage when they enter kindergarten, and not at the disadvantage they would have experienced without the program.

Neuman, S.B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, (3), 286-311.

Smith, C., Constantino, R., & Krashen, S. (1997). Difference in print environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24, (4), 8-9.

Neuman and Celano found striking differences in access to print between middle-income neighborhoods and low-income neighborhoods. They found children in middle-income neighborhoods have a large variety of resources to choose from while children in low-income neighborhoods have to rely on public institutions which provide unequal resources, both in quantity and quality, across communities.

Neuman’s findings support earlier findings of Krashen (1995) and those of Smith, Constantino, & Krashan (1997) that children who reside in low-income communities do no have the same access to books and other reading materials as those who reside in middle- or high-income communities. The results of the findings suggest a discrepancy that requires further action for improvement.

Neuman, S.B. and Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, (1), 8-26.


Natural vs. Contrived Language

Rhodes found children read and comprehend stories with natural language better than stories with contrived language. She asked 13 first grade children to read four stories, two with natural language and two with contrived language. Of the two with natural language, one was a familiar story and one was an unfamiliar story. Of the two with contrived language, one was based on letter-sound correspondences that had been taught and one was based on print words that had been taught.

Rhodes found 3 of the children read all four stories without difficulty. However, among the10 children who had some difficulty, the children read and retold the stories with the natural language better than the stories with the contrived language. On average, the children retold 61% of the unfamiliar story with the natural language, 52% of the story based on letter-sound correspondences, and 24% of the story based on print words.

Rhodes also noted that several times the children laughed and smiled in the process of reading the stories with natural language but only one child had the same reaction (and then only once) in the process of reading a story with contrived language.

The findings of Rhodes demonstrated that children are able to understand and comprehend stories better when the language presented is natural and familiar to them. The affective filter would be lowered and therefore children would be able to relax and enjoy the story and opposed to having to concentrate intently on it and not gain meaning.

Rhodes, L.K. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: an analysis of beginning reading materials. In New Perspectives on Comprehension, edited by J. C. Harste and R. F. Carey, pp. 100-31. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University School of Education.


Bridge, Winograd, and Haley found children learn to recognize print words significantly better when working with texts with natural language than with contrived language. They studied 16 first grade slow learners, 8 with reading instruction using predictable reading materials (texts with familiar, natural language) and 8 with reading instruction using preprimer materials (texts with contrived language).

They found that after four weeks of instruction, the children receiving instruction using the predictable reading materials learned significantly more target words and non-target words than the students using the preprimer materials.

They also found that the children who had been reading the predictable materials reported more positive feelings about reading aloud while the preprimer children reported more negative feelings about reading aloud in the reading group.

Like the findings of Rhodes, Bridge, Winograd, & Haley discovered that children had positive feelings about reading and were successful through the use of predictable materials. The repeat practice provides the support necessary for children to not feel threatened, but to be confident and excited about their progress.

Bridge, C., Winograd, P.N., & Haley, D. (1983). Using predictable materials vs. preprimers to teach beginning sight words. The Reading Teacher, 884-891.




Fluency

Fluency- is the ability to read a text accurately and quickly. When fluent readers read silently, they recognize words automatically. They group words quickly to help them gain meaning from what they read. Fluent readers read aloud effortlessly and with expression. Their reading sounds natural, as if they are speaking. Readers who have not yet developed fluency read slowly, word by word. Their oral reading is choppy and plodding.
Fluency is important because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Because fluent readers do not have to concentrate on decoding the words, they can focus their attention on what the text means. They can make connections among the ideas in the text and between the text and their background knowledge. In other words, fluent readers recognize words and comprehend at the same time. Less fluent readers, however, must focus their attention on figuring out the words, leaving them little attention for understanding the text.

Stahl found that instructing students to say words in isolation faster does not necessarily mean they have stronger comprehension skills. Studies have demonstrated that a child’s reading a fluency passage might improve, however there are no findings that show that comprehension improved along with the fluency.

I have had difficulty with my middle school students who read TOO quickly. They were under the impression that reading fast, meant reading well. When they read their won poetry, they read it so fast that no one in the class understands the beautiful work they have written. I take their work and read it more slowly with lots of expression, pausing frequently to enphasize the language and emotions, and the students begin to realize that reading FAST is not being fluent.

Stahl, S. (2004). What do we know about fluency? Findings of the National Reading Panel. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.


Fluency is a result of contextual reading, including sustained silent reading. It should not be practiced aside from authentic contextualized reading experience.

Fluency is not decoding or based on speed, however it is having the ability to make meaning while reading. Fluent readers comprehend what they are reading while they are reading. Students must read quickly enough to be able to understand and to be understood if reading to others- that- is the fluent reader.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). The report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Samuels warned us to beware in his paper by stating that “speed barking” at print does not always demonstrate to teachers that students understand what they are reading. He continued with the fact that many ELL students are able to decode with speed, but have weak comprehension because of vocabulary problems. These students are able to decode, however they cannot be considered fluent readers of English.

I see this with students who are second language learners, as eighth grade students. They can reading quickly, skip over words they don’t know, and are happy to be finished with the passage. This is where I work with my students in small groups or individually, and slow them down, discuss unfamiliar words, idioms and colloquialisms. Pre-teaching using this methodology is vitally important, to teach the students the difference between decoding/word-calling and being truly fluent- which includes UNDERSTANDING!

Samuels, S. J. (2006) Introduction to reading fluency. Paper presented at Spotlight on Fluency: Research and Practice from International Reading Association Publications, 51st IRA Annual Convention Chicago, IL