Abstract

A study was conducted using a single case, multiple baseline (across subjects) design to study an intensive reading intervention among low-achieving at-risk students in first and second grade Spanish/ English bilingual classrooms. The intervention, involving three research-supported techniques, was conducted for 45 minutes per day, three days per week, over 12 weeks, with 74 students from four classrooms (analyses included 53 students with complete data). Dependent measures were oral reading fluency scores and comprehension scores from post-reading questions, collected every two weeks from equivalent probes. It was concluded that implementing intensive reading fluency interventions in bilingual classrooms is feasible and valuable if conducted with fidelity, and if students are highly engaged.

Introduction

The problem of low academic achievement and excessive high school dropout rates among bilingual Hispanic students (Kaufman & Frase, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1997) has caused bilingual education to be closely scrutinized. The performance of bilingual Hispanic students has been low on statewide academic assessments. For example, the 1997 Texas State Performance Report for the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) in reading showed a passing rate of 92.4% for White students in grades 3-8 and 10 but only 75% for Hispanic students in the same grades. These academic problems may be due in part to three disadvantages that many bilingual Hispanic students endure in school: (a) low levels of English language proficiency, (b) difficulty with advanced Spanish language skills, and (c) students' parents and extended families having little formal education (Valdivieso & David, 1988; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992).

A considerable quantity of literature asserts that literacy instruction in a student's first language (LI) facilitates acquisition of literacy in a second language (L2) (Cummins, 1989; 2000; Garcia, 1994; Genesee, 1987; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995; Krashen, 1992; Lanauze & Snow, 1989; Leasher-- Madrid & Garcia, 1985; Medina, 1988; Troike, 1978). It is upon this premise that some of the guidelines for transitional bilingual education are based (Gonzalez, 1994; Prado & Tinajero, 2000): starting academic instruction in L 1, including reading, and transitioning students into academic instruction in L2 as their acquisition of L2 strengthens. A secondary goal is to maintain and continue to develop literacy in the LI heritage language. Indeed, a major focus of the federal Bilingual Education Act is to assist LEP students to acquire a second language and eventually be mainstreamed into a monolingual program (Bilingual Education Act, 1968).

However, continuing public challenges to the efficacy of transitional bilingual programs (August & Hakuta, 1997) have created pressure on these programs to more efficiently increase Spanish reading competency of young bilingual students. More rapid development of Spanish reading competency should lead to more rapid competency in English reading. Bilingual teachers and program administrators are therefore seeking intensive, research-supported Spanish language reading interventions, especially those suitable for low-- achieving students in grades 1-4.

Reading Fluency Interventions

Little methodologically rigorous research exists on reading instruction in a second language (August & Hakuta, 1997) or on the effectiveness of Spanish-language reading programs in bilingual classrooms (Snow, et al., 1998). In the absence of research to inform decisions regarding the selection of appropriate reading interventions for bilingual programs, the use of English reading interventions, well supported by a convergence of research evidence, should be examined as possible options for use with struggling readers in these programs. One focus of reading interventions for English-speaking readers has been on improving students' reading fluency because of its key role in the development of skillful reading.

Automaticity theory posits that a fluent reader decodes text automatically-that is, without conscious direction-leaving attention free to be used for comprehension (Laberge, 1973; Laberge & Samuels, 1974). Beginning readers focus their efforts and attention on figuring out each word (Breznitz, 1987). Therefore, the beginning reader's efforts are devoted mostly to decoding, rather than on deriving meaning from the reading. This makes the process of comprehension more difficult and slower (Laberge & Samuels, 1974; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; Stanovich, 1986). Three instructional practices have been documented as effective in improving the fluency skills and, thus, the reading comprehension skills of children who speak and read in English: (a) repeated reading, (b) teacher/expert modeling, and (c) student self-monitoring of progress.

Repeated reading

Repeated reading entails rereading a passage to improve automaticity (Koskinen & Blum, 1984). Several studies conducted with students in the elementary grades have demonstrated that repeated reading improves reading accuracy, speed, and comprehension (Dahl, 1974; Dowhower, 1987; Fleisher, Jenkins, & Pany, 1979; Herman, 1985; Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993; McCormick & Samuels, 1976; O'Shea, Sindelar, & O'Shea, 1985; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985; Turpie & Paratore, 1995).

Teacher modeling

The importance of teachers reading aloud to students has been extensively documented (Huck, Hepler, & Hickman, 1987). Carbo (1978) developed a method in which students listen to a tape-recorded story by a fluent reader. This format is attractive to students because they can work on their fluency independently (Rasinski, 1989). Research has demonstrated that providing an expert model of oral reading along with, or slightly ahead of, students produces growth in vocabulary, word knowledge, and visual decoding (Eldredge & Quinn, 1988; Heckelman, 1969; Reitsma, 1988; Skinner, Logan, Robinson, & Robinson, 1997).

Progress monitoring

Providing evidence to students about their progress toward goals can positively affect their performance (Bandura, 1982; Farnham-Diggory, 1972; Fuchs & Fuchs 1986; Hasbrouck, Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker, 1999; Shinn, 1989; Skager, 1984; Soltys, 1997; Wang & Peverly, 1986). This evidence of improvement can come from students' own self-monitoring efforts as well as teacher or peer tutor reports (Bentz & Fuchs, 1992). Low-achievers may be as capable of self-monitoring as high-achievers, although they may require support from external progress monitoring systems (Smith, 1991).

A combined strategy: Read Naturally

Read Naturally (RN) (Ihnot, 1997) is a strategy that combines the use of repeated reading, teacher modeling, and student self-monitoring to enhance students' reading fluency skills. RN has been studied in general education, remedial, and special education settings. The major study supporting RN was conducted over a six-year period with 214 second- and third-grade students. The oral reading fluency (ORF) and comprehension scores for these students increased, on average, over 10 percentile points across six months of instruction. Other students using RN have shown gains in reading fluency and comprehension that exceeded typical improvement (Hasbrouck, Ihnot, & Rogers, 1999).

Intensity and Level of Engagement

Important to the success of any reading intervention is its intensity, i.e., how many minutes per day and week active instruction occurs. Intensity of instruction also includes the pace with which new material is presented and the number of interactions between student and teacher. An intensive intervention will keep students actively engaged, responding at a high rate and moving quickly through the lesson and the curriculum (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997). Active practice time is a good index for the opportunity to learn, and it commonly relates to degree of skill improvement (Berliner, 1979; Stallings, 1980; Wyne & Stuck, 1982). While research strongly supports the importance of intensive interventions, especially with children who are struggling (Snow, et al., 1998; Torgeson, 2000), obstacles to providing intensive programs are abundant, including insufficient scheduled time, inattentive or unmotivated students, classroom interruptions, and excessive teacher explanations, which limit student active responding.

Objective measures of instructional intensity typically include frequency and duration (minutes per day and days per week of instructional opportunities). Level of student engagement may be measured by direct observation of student attention and responding, or may be inferred from records and work samples. In the present study, we objectively defined level of engagement as the average number of timed oral reading practices each student performed per week.

Purpose