University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effects of guided reading (teacher supported) on reading comprehension scores for primary students who are learning disabled English language learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Effects of guided reading (teacher supported) on reading comprehension scores for primary students who are learning disabled English language learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EFFECTS OF GUIDED READING (TEACHER SUPPORTED) ON
READING COMPREHENSION SCORES FOR PRIMARY
STUDENTS WHO ARE LEARNING DISABLED
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

by

Lei’ala Patricia Ann Chong Montoya

_____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2008

Copyright 2008 Lei’ala Patricia Ann Chong Montoya

ii

DEDICATION

To my mother, Virginia B. Y. Chong, my late father, Michael J. Chong Sr.,
my son, Aaron P. Montoya and my brother, Michael J. Chong Jr.,
who have always supported my academic endeavors.
This dissertation is for you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The patience, understanding and commitment of my committee members are to
be commended. My committee, Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. Kim
Hirabayashi, accepted this long journey of challenges and allowed me to continue to
search and explore in anticipation. Dr. Sundt, my chair, came to my rescue after other
professors left for one reason or another; she stuck with me through thick and thin
always with a positive attitude. Another important member of my original committee,
a colleague and friend, Dr. Nathan Murata from the University of Hawaii, assisted me
with the process of obtaining the “terminal degree” and left the committee for personal
reasons.
On a personal note, my mother, Virginia Chong, and late father, Michael
Chong, along with my son, Aaron, who continued to support my educational
endeavors. They did this with both verbal and financial support always just being there
for me. Other members of my “Ohana” are my dear aunt and uncle, Carol and Walter
Pang and their children, my “sister” Karen Morrow, my dearest friends, Mary and
Manuel Duarte and Amy Barnes. I would also like to acknowledge the research
teacher, Laura Cramer, along with the other teachers and students who participated in
my study. She is the gem that made the study an exciting and rewarding venture. To
Terry Ceja who stayed with me during the last hours of my Qualifying Exam. She
supported me throughout my journey.
Other professionals that assisted in my dissertation completion and gave me
the added support and were my cheerleaders are Dr. Michael McLauglin who

iv

supported and encouraged me through my trial and tribulations, Dr. Ilda Jimenez West
my Catalina Island Advisor who believed in me, and to my supportive colleague, Ana
M. Conover, who spent many late nights supporting my writing and just being there,
and Dr. Zina Chacon, my Catalina colleague, who gave me the encouragement to
continue the process. To this end, much gratitude to Delta Kappa Gamma Society
International who believed in my ability to pursue the Doctoral Degree by awarding an
academic scholarship towards the completion of my studies.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER ONE:
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................... 5
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 7
The Purpose of the Study .................................................................................. 11
Importance of the Study .................................................................................... 12
Research Questions of the Study ....................................................................... 13
Brief Description of Method ............................................................................. 13
Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 14
Delimitations of the Study ................................................................................. 14
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................... 14
Outline of the Dissertation ................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER TWO:
Review of Literature .......................................................................................... 18
Literacy .............................................................................................................. 19
How They Learn—Stages/Phases ..................................................................... 23
Two Student Populations Critically Affected .................................................... 24
Literacy Window to Acquisition ....................................................................... 29
Reading Interventions ........................................................................................ 31
Prevention and Solutions ................................................................................... 34
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER THREE:
Methodology ...................................................................................................... 40
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 40
Research Design ................................................................................................ 40
Procedural Integrity ........................................................................................... 42
Population and Sample ...................................................................................... 43
Parental Consent Procedure ............................................................................... 52
Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 52

vi

Independent Variable: Guided Reading as the Experimental Condition .......... 55
Procedures ......................................................................................................... 58
Data Collection .................................................................................................. 58
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 59
Comprehension .................................................................................................. 59
Retelling ............................................................................................................ 61
Summary ............................................................................................................ 63
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 63

CHAPTER FOUR:
Research Findings ............................................................................................. 65
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 65
Summary of the Study ....................................................................................... 65
Findings ............................................................................................................. 67
Summary ............................................................................................................ 79

CHAPTER FIVE:
Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................... 82
Purpose .............................................................................................................. 82
Research Questions of the Study ....................................................................... 82
Brief Description of Method ............................................................................. 82
Discussion .......................................................................................................... 83
Summary of the Study ....................................................................................... 85
Implications for Practice .................................................................................... 88
Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................... 89
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 91

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 94

Appendices
APPENDIX A: Interview ................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX B: Rater Checklist ........................................................................ 117
APPENDIX C: Graph Tables ........................................................................... 118
APPENDIX D: Comprehension Retelling Instrument ..................................... 120
APPENDIX E: Comprehension Instrument ..................................................... 122
APPENDIX F: Six Phases of Reading Acquisition ......................................... 124

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Students for Academic Achievement Results ....................................... 51

Table 2: Daily Strategy Focus ............................................................................. 59

Table 3: Baseline Results per Student Prior to Guided Reading Interventions
Baseline Data for Comprehension Questions ........................................ 68

Table 4: Baseline and Intervention Comparison on the Comprehension
and Retelling Phase of the Study ........................................................... 74

Table 5: Baseline and Intervention Means for Comprehension ......................... 74

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Comprehension: Appendix E: Graph 1 ..................................................... 70

Figure 2: Retelling: Appendix D: Graph 2 ................................................................ 72

Figure 4: Comprehension: Males and Females ........................................................ 76

Figure 5: Retelling: Males and Females .................................................................. 80

ix

ABSTRACT

This study focused on specific instructional methods that a primary special
education teacher utilized with Learning Disabled English Language Learners in
Guided Reading (teacher supported). The teacher was observed during seven (25%)
Guided Reading (teacher supported) sessions during baseline and intervention by two
elementary teacher raters to confirm inter-rater reliability. Reliability was at 100%.
Both teacher raters were observing the primary teacher for use of specific Guided
Reading (teacher supported) strategies that were taught on a daily basis: On Monday-
Predicting/Inferring, Tuesday-Phonics/Decoding, Wednesday-Monitor/Clarify,
Thursday–Question, and Friday-Evaluate/Summarize. Students were assessed daily
by another teacher with a criterion referenced comprehension and retelling questions
instrument after a stable baseline.
Modeled after California Reading and Literature Project K-6 Reading Results,
the Retelling Instrument Check measured the student’s ability to retell a story.
Modeled after Macmillan/McGraw-Hill “Spotlight on Literacy” Assessment, the
Comprehension Questions Instrument measured the student’s reading comprehension.
Baseline and intervention results were graphed daily for 30 days. Results of the study
showed an increase in each student’s reading and comprehension ability. The study
concludes that when teaching strategies are guided and explicit and consistent,
students will be able to utilize strategies to comprehend what is read and as well as
internalizing the strategies for independent reading.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The art of reading empowers us to have the ability to function in everyday
society, a skill which many of us take for granted. Reading is critical for successful
achievement in school and society. Without this specific life skill, a simple task such
as reading for survival becomes an insurmountable obstacle. Hall and Moats (1999)
state that children who have deficiencies in reading will not reach their full literary
potential. For example, a recent study of adults in the workplace conducted by United
Way (2004), found that 48% of the workforce in the Los Angeles County cannot read
well enough to understand a bus schedule. Being unable to read a bus schedule makes
obtaining a job much more difficult. In this context, mastering the reading process
becomes the foundation for learning that begins with students acquiring critical skills
that include higher level reading and comprehension skills that last for a lifetime
(England, Collins, & Algozzine, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
The U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1993) found that 25%
of adults in the country lack the basic literacy skills required in a typical job. The
National Institute for Literacy (1999) underscored the importance of basic literacy
skills to improve the job search for employment prospects for welfare recipients.
These recipients receive welfare benefits through Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF). Moreover, the research finds that 35% of TANF recipients
generally have low basic skills that measure at level 1 (i.e., locating expiration date on
driver’s license, signing their name,) and 41% are at level 2 (i.e., locating an

2

intersection on a street map, totaling cost on an order form) (National Institute for
Literacy, 1999). Many of those who are not productive in life (i.e., school dropouts,
incarcerated individuals, unemployed and underemployed adults) are destined to be
non-readers (Cramer & Ellis, 1996).
To be competitive in a diverse society, literacy becomes an essential
component to economic success. For that reason, today’s focus is on producing
literate, competent individuals who will meet academic standards, which will enable
them to secure employment and personal autonomy. An individual’s oral and reading
proficiency levels are predictors of academic, employment and personal success.
Honig and others (2000) state that illiteracy has a substantial and direct, negative
effect on a person’s life style in the form of denied job opportunities and receiving
lower wages. The paucity of research on literacy related to learning disabled English
language learners, has prompted the need to extrapolate information regarding
literacy, literacy window to acquisition, data, serious reading problems, prevention,
stages and theory, and learning disabled English language learners.
Reading instruction in schools is the primary weapon society has against
producing a large segment of the population that is unable to read. Given the
necessary tools, students have opportunities to become proficient and independent in
being able to read and comprehend at grade-level. A report from the California
Department of Education (1996) purports that “the heart of a powerful reading
program is the relationship between explicit, systematic skills instruction and
literature, language, and comprehension.”

3

However, reading failure has become a nationwide epidemic. The 1998
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that 38% of 4
th
grade
students and 26% of 8
th
grade students are reading below their grade level (National
Center for Education Statistics, 1999; United States Department of Education, 1994).
Lyon (1997) stated that fewer than 30% of middle school students comprehend grade-
level texts beyond a literal understanding, of students identified with reading
disabilities in the 3rd grade, about 74% remained reading disabled in the 9th grade
(Lyon, 1996).
While the trend in national legislation, particularly that reflected in No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, suggests an awareness by policymakers that reading
for meaning is the most critical skill taught in school. More precisely, an area of
concern in the elementary grades is reading comprehension and the development of
reading skills (Durkin, 1993; National Reading Panel (NRP), 2000). For meaningful
and relevant understanding of text, comprehension is defined as “intentional thinking
during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader”
(Harris & Hodges, 1995). Hence, the reader uses cognitive strategies such as prior
knowledge and experiences to become actively engaged in the formulation of the text
while constructing a mental image (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).
National legislation mandates that every child read independently by 3
rd
grade
(NCLB, 2001; USDOE, 1997), yet our student’s reading scores are at an all time low
(California Reading Imitative, 1999). As an example, the 2005 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports that California's 4
th
graders scored an average

4

of 207 out of 500 points on a reading test last spring, falling well below the national
average of 217. Additionally, the San Francisco Chronicle (August 17, 2004) stated
that 4.8 million student’s Grades 2-11, showed small gains on the California Standards
Test. Although, statewide, there was a 36% gain in students that were “proficient,”
64% scored below the mean at “basic,” “below basic,” or “far below basic.” The 2007
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports modest reading gains.
Elementary students reading scores for 4
th
graders have increased 4% to 221 based on
a scale score of 500. Eighth grade scores increased have increased 3% points to 263.
Additionally, Juel (1988/1994) reported that children who are not reading at
grade level by the end of their first year in school (i.e., lst grade), have 1 chance in 8 of
ever reaching grade level without costly and time-consuming efforts and interventions.
If this inability to attain reading proficiency as an independent reader is not addressed,
reading deficiency will continue throughout their adult years (Honig, Diamond, &
Gutlohn, 2000). As further evidence, a 1993 study of adult illiteracy in the United
States found 47% of adults, 18 years or older, are either illiterate or can only perform
simple literacy tasks (NCES, 1993). Sources suggest that poor or struggling readers
who display reading difficulties during school-age years will continue to display
reading difficulties in the work force.
This study will examine the importance of the role of the teacher during
Guided Reading (teacher supported) on students’ reading comprehension scores and
how this process transfers to independent reading for students who are learning

5

disabled English language learners. Literacy or the act of reading engagement is
critical for student achievement and success.
Background of the Problem
Reading instruction has remained unchanged while the U. S. elementary school
population has become dynamic (Baca, 1994; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990).
Emerging from the Great Depression and World War II, education has continued to
remain stagnate (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007). A continued trend, for the past 25
years, is the immigration growth in public schools and educating of an increasingly
complex and diverse student population (Baca, 1994; Gersten, Bengleman & Jimenez,
1994; Hodgkinson, 1993; O’Shea, Hammittee, Maninzer, & Crutchfield, 2000).
Research indicates that one out of every four students will be diverse (i.e.,
Latino) in 2020 (Gersten, Basker, Marks, & Smith, 1991). To illustrate, the ELL
population in public elementary and secondary schools in the United States has
increased from 5.1% in the 1993-1994 school year to 6.7%, to include the total school
population in 1999-2000 (NCES, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). A
research study estimated that nearly 4 million ELLs are students enrolled in public
schools in the United States, a 72% increase from 1992 (Kindler, 2002; Zehler,
Fleischman, Hopstock, Stephenson, Pendzick, & Sapru, 2003). Another study
estimates that of the 4.6 million ELLs that may be enrolled in our U.S. schools,
approximately 9% or 357,000 students receive special education assistance (Zehler et
al., 2003).

6

This growing school population impacts the instructional environment in
America’s schools warranting continued renewal in reading instruction. Research data
indicates that a significant amount of students are displaying problems in the mastery
of literacy skills and strategies that are needed to perform at grade level (Gersten et al.,
1991). For example, the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
(U.S. Department of Education, 2005), reports that only 13% of 4
th
grade Hispanic
students and 15% of 8th grade students, are able to read at proficiency standards
(Kamps et al., 2007). As the learning disabled English-language learners population
escalates, there will be a myriad of challenges accompanied by intense pressures on
teachers, schools, districts, and states to ensure that students meet the state-governance
mandates, and levels of reading proficiency (Anderson et al., 1998; Gersten et al.,
1991).
Although there are many factors (i.e., reading failure, poverty, phonological
processing difficulties, language barriers, parents’ low-reading abilities, or biological
and psychological learning deficits) that influence students being “ at-risk” and
“struggling readers,” research data show that parents’ low reading abilities may have
put many students at risk for reading failure (Honig, Diamond & Gutlohn, 2000;
Lyons, 1998). Public concern for effective reading instruction prompted President
George Bush’s enacted bipartisan education framework, the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB), is an explicit directive to all of America’s schools to insure that
“every child will be able to read by the end of 3rd grade” http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
overview/intro/idex.html.

7

Statement of the Problem
While the population of LD/ELL students continues to grow in California
schools (CDOE, 2006), there is limited research validating effective teaching
strategies for students who are Learning Disabled English Language Learners
(LD/ELL) (Klinger, Artiles, & Mendez Barletta, 2006; Gersten & Baker, 2000; Sanez,
Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). What literature that does exist, often addresses the English
language learners (without disabilities) and their need for instruction and academic
interventions (Muller & Markowitz, 2004; Frances, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera,
2006), or the literature is focused on best practices for students with Learning
Disabilities, not taking into account the student’s primary language and current
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) scores (CDOE, 2008).
With an increasing number of LD/ELL students, arriving in American schools,
teachers are faced with providing educational services for a culturally and linguist-
ically diverse population who are performing at below basics level on their test scores
(Baca, 1994; Gersten, Bengleman, & Jimenez, 1994; Hodgkinson, 1993; O’Shea,
Hammittee, Maninzer, & Crutchfield, 2000; Maldonado, 1994; McCardle, McCarthy,
Cutting, Leos, & D’Emillio, 2005). A large percentage of the students come from
Hispanic families (Hudson & Smith, 2001). It is important to develop academic
programs that will assist them to be competitive with the general school population
(Hudson & Smith, 2001). The 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress
report that 60% of Hispanic 4th graders, were scoring below basics in reading (U.S.
Department of Education, 1999). A universal concern, an advanced score on the state

8

test, is a desirable skill level that is required for proficiency for school and job success.
Research confirms that students not reading at benchmark by the end of 1st grade will
demonstrate “low self esteem, and not be motivated to learn to read” (Juel, 1988;
Hudson & Smith, 2001). The struggles and challenges that accompany ELL non-
readers is a large indicator of possible special education assessment and placement
(Segan, 1998). To complicate the placement process, ELLs who require special
education services, are further impacted by the lack of highly qualified teachers
(NCLB, 2001; Ortiz, 2001). Hence, the biggest obstacle in the current academic field
is educating this vast population of LD/ELL (McCardle, et al., 2005).
Although, this student population is an asset in bringing traditions, cultures and
“rich heritage” to any educational setting, they also are a challenged group that
represents a high drop-out and mobility rate, produces low test scores, and are socially
and economically deprived (NCES, 2004). A large hurdle for these students is to
overcome the language barrier, while overcoming low expectations, and their
underachievement of academic skills. Relatedly, the academic area of concern is in
the area of reading instruction. LD/ELL students need specific skills to become
proficient readers, one of which is reading comprehension (National Reading Panel,
2000).
In meeting the needs of our learning disabled English language learners
(LD/ELL) in providing reading comprehension instruction, teachers must take into
account the student’s cultural background, while maintaining an effective learning
environment (Cloud, 2002). It is hopeful, that when the teacher’s main goal is to

9

make taught concepts meaningful and relevant to the students needs, by using
culturally appropriate instructional materials, that learning disabled English language
learners will meet academic success (Cloud, 2002). As an example, reading for
meaning is conceptualized when students are able to make personal connections with
theme related text that they can identify with and relate to. A priority is for the teacher
to understand the mechanics of teaching reading to this diverse population.
A critical factor of why LD/ELL students fail is due to instructional deficits.
Students with both disabilities and an English language factor require a supportive
learning environment and the utilization of effective instructional strategies as a
vehicle to their achieving academic success (Ortiz et al., 1985; Ortiz, Garcia, Wheeler,
& Maldonado-Colon, 1986). For example, Ortiz and Wilkinson (1991) and Willig,
Swedo, and Ortiz (1987), posit that effective strategies are based upon tapping on
student’s prior knowledge (Brophy, 1992; Leinhardt, 1992), giving students
opportunities to interact with other students in reviewing taught concepts, and the use
of higher order thinking and problem solving skills (Cummins, 1984; Ortiz &
Wilkinson, 1991; Willig, Swedo, & Ortiz, 1987) and teaching students how to make
task relevant to their needs (Burke, Hagan, & Grosse, 1998).
According to Siegel and Lesaux (2003), weak reading instruction does not
effectively accommodate the needs of this diversity of children who are contributing
to the increasingly low levels of literacy as these children mature to adulthood. As an
example, the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports that
California’s 4th graders scored an average of 207 out of 500 points on a reading test

10

last spring, falling well below the national average of 217. While there is evidence
that this population of students who are LD/ELLs struggle with academic content, it is
also apparent that 75% of school districts do not have specially designed curricula for
these students (Zehler et al., 2003). Furthermore, studies have found that not all core
content implemented in classrooms for LD/ELLs are as aligned with State
performance standards in comparison to programs for the general education
population (Muller & Markowitz, 2004; Zehler et al., 2003).
The instructional emphasis on reading comprehension is about constructing
meaning from print and to comprehend what is read (Adams, 1990). Reading
comprehension is necessary for students to meet NCLB mandates. Due to NCLB
mandates, schools are scrambling to raise test scores of all students including English
language learners and special education students. Districts have implemented high
quality staff developments, and hired reading specialists and coaches. Assessments
have become a priority in ascertaining students’ reading proficiency, and identifying
students who need additional reading instruction (NCLB, 2001).
All students need to be proficient in reading by the 3rd grade, as mandated by
the Reading Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools (1999). Both
the California framework and the State standards rely heavily on converging reading
research. However, there is compelling evidence that a high percentage of young
adolescent students are unable to read beyond the 3rd grade level (Greene, 1999;
Lyon, 1997). Because of this, researchers have employed qualitative studies to
describe the type of reading exposure that middle and high school students’ have had,

11

to include in their reader’s characteristics. For example Kos (1991) looked into the
reasons why middle school students continued to have reading problems. Based on a
case study approach, Kos (1991) came up with a rationale of why middle school
students made limited progress in reading. First, Kos (1991) noted that middle school
students felt helplessness in their current school situation. Secondly, reading problems
cause stress, thus distracting the student from instruction. Third, when students
attempt to use strategies, they are often used ineffectively and inefficiently. Kos
(1991) proposed that the type of instruction needed for struggling readers should
provide an emphasis on repetitive and discrete reading subskills. However, these
subskills are often seen by the student as irrelevant, meaningless, and disconnected
from their own motivations and purposes for reading. This might explain their
inadequate improvement in reading. In a similar study, Worth and McKool (1996)
interviewed 6th graders who were good readers, but had negative attitudes toward
reading. Their analysis indicated that negative attitudes might be attributed to their
limited opportunities to read independently, self-selected reading materials, or read
materials that were of interest to them. The authors concluded that the students in
their study did not dislike reading; instead, they dislike the assigned reading they were
required to read. Furthermore, their opinion on reading in school might have been
distorted about reading in general, hence their un-willingness to read.
The Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study is to determine the effects of the independent
variable, Guided Reading (teacher supported) on Learning Disabled students who are

12

English language learners. More specifically, the purpose was to determine if
treatment effects resulted in better reading comprehension for these students. Impact
on the dependent variable, reading comprehension scores based on treatment effects,
secondary purpose was to determine whether treatment effects resulted in independent
reading.
Importance of the Study
Children with true learning disabilities who are English language learners are
placed at a particular disadvantage as our instructional strategies seem to be making
little positive impact for them. There is a climate of increased accountability, with
NCLB forcing schools to disaggregate performance by student subgroups, including
EL and LD students. We do not know what works for them, but we need to determine
some effective strategies.
Guided Practice in the form of Guided Reading and small group instruction is
one strategy that is showing some promise. Guided Practice is an effective reading
instruction (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996), which provides small differentiated instruction
based on the following theories: Constructivist Theory (Bruner, 1966), Zone of
Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978), and Gradual Release of Responsibility
(Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) model of instruction. In teaching reading, the goal is for
every child to become an independent and proficient reader. However, children with
learning disabilities who are English language learners need guided practice. The
benefits of the Guided Reading Instructional Model are individualized instruction,
explicit instruction of strategies, leveled books, support from the teacher, context

13

embedded language, structured format of lesson and the systematic evaluation of
progress (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002).
Research Questions of the Study
1. What are the effects of guided (teacher supported) reading intervention
on reading comprehension scores of learning Disabled Language
Learners?
2. What are the effects of guided (teacher supported) reading intervention
on retelling scores of learning Disabled Language Learners?
Brief Description of Method
Four 6
th
grade students were selected based on their need to improve reading
skills and on their individual developmental delays (i.e., severe discrepancy between
ability and achievement in reading). Participants all lived in rural neighborhoods with
low socioeconomic status backgrounds (SES). Additionally, the participants were in a
Special Day Class (SDC), and were diagnosed as learning disabled English language
learners LD/ELLs. Thirty guided reading and independent reading sessions were
conducted and observed. Several sessions were audio-taped and transcribed, and were
used to analyze the teacher’s instructional strategies. An experienced and tenured
special education teacher (K-6) participated in this experimental study. A long-term
substitute teacher assessed the students on a daily basis during baseline and
intervention. Two additional teachers were employed to confirm inter-rater reliability
25% of the time at baseline and intervention.

14

Significance of the Study
In 2002, the National Reading Panel’s report entitled, Teaching Children to
Read is a strategic method in the prevention of reading difficulties. Researchers have
espoused the need for one-to-one “tutoring” or small group instruction based on the
need for more Guided Reading (teacher supported) “best practices” (Slavin & Cheung,
2004). Theoretically, there is research based on the need for assisting student
performances for learning disabled English language learners LD/ELL. However,
there is a greater need for more research on using specific strategies in working with
the struggling and at-risk student in a small group environment. This study
demonstrates how an instructional method as Guided Reading (teacher supported) can
assist teachers with student’s reading comprehension and independent reading and
answer the call for new research.
Delimitations of the Study
The boundaries of this study were the limited number of participants due to
the single subject multi baseline across subject design. In addition, participants were
limited to 6
th
graders at one school site from the same special education class. The
major drawbacks to this study were the fact that the participants were limited in
number due to the single subject multiple baseline across subject design.
Definition of Terms
Constructivist Theory
Learning develops when a strategy is taught in collaboration with the teacher
in creating or “constructing” new meanings.

15

Fluency
Fluency is “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly,
and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as
decoding” (Meyer & Felton, 1999, p. 284).
Guided Reading (Teacher Supported)
A method in which a teacher supports each reader in their development of
effective strategies, while processing text at increasing levels of difficulty (Fountas &
Pinnell). Guided Reading is utilized in assisting students in becoming fluent readers
who are able to problem solve strategically and become independent readers.
Gradual Release Theory
Joint responsibility from teacher and student with a gradual move of the
responsibility for task completion to the student (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).
Independent Practice
The phase of instruction that occurs after skills and strategies have been
explicitly taught and practiced under teacher direction or supervision.
English Language Learners (ELL)
ELL is defined by the California Department of Education as “students with a
primary language other than English who are limited-English proficient.”
Learning disabled (LD)
LD is defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1977,
Section 3030 (j) as students with “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which

16

may manifest itself in an impaired ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or
do mathematical calculations, and having a severe discrepancy between intellectual
ability and achievement in one or more academic areas.
Learning Disability
A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding and using language spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
Reading Comprehension
A complex process that cannot be understood without a clear understanding of
the role that vocabulary development and vocabulary instruction play in the under-
standing of what has been read. Reading comprehension is also an active process that
requires an intentional and thoughtful interaction between the reader and the text.
Struggling Readers
Children who find learning to read difficult regardless of the organization of
the educational system (Elley, 1992).
Guided Practice
A teaching strategy that poses questions that gradually lead students from easy
or familiar examples to new understandings
Scaffolding
Instructional technique whereby the teacher models the desired learning
strategy or task, then gradually shifts responsibility to the students.

17

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Is the difference between what a child can do with help and what her or she
can do independently (Vygotsky, 1978).
Outline of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction, the problem and its underlying
theoretical framework. It also includes the role and elements of guided reading
practices, data source, the significance and purpose of the study, research questions to
be answered, and definition of terms. Additionally, chapter 1 includes a brief
description of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, and the outline of the
dissertation.
Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature. This chapter will examine the
importance of the role of the teacher during Guided Reading (teacher supported) on
student’s comprehension, and how this process transfers to independent reading.
Chapter 3 briefly presents the methodology used in the study, including the research
design; population and sample; data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 includes
the findings of the study. Chapter 5 presents the findings, conclusions and
recommendations. References conclude the study.

18

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Reading is critical for successful achievement in school and society for all
students. However, 20% of students fail to attain basic skills and have a minute
possibility of meeting the same expectations as their average achieving peers unless
they receive specific reading strategies (The Special Edge, 2000). Although most
children will learn to read regardless of the methods used, there is a population of
students who are continuously challenged, and for about 30% of these students,
reading will be a formidable and difficult task they will face during their lifetime
(Lyon, 1997). Identified as learning disabled (LD) and English language learners
(ELL), these students are particularly at risk for reading difficulties (Gunn, Biglan,
Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000). In short of such academic challenges, LD/ELLs, have
become a remedial target, due to their difficulties in learning to read and lacking the
necessary tools (i.e., specific reading skills, reading strategies, increased instructional
time, sequencing of story elements, immediate feedback and early interventions) that
will lead to independent reading (The Special Edge, 2000).
According to research from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development’s (NICHD) Program in Learning Disabilities (Special Edge, 2000), a
major cause of reading difficulties in students with learning disabilities are reading
impairments that can be related to deficiencies in the way the brain processes
language-based task. In this connection, there is a large influx of students who have
difficulty with the mechanics of the English language (Helman, 2004). Of that group,

19

73% spoke Spanish and are identified as English Language Learners (U.S. Census
Bureau, 1995). Based on what we know about the LD/ELL population, and to ensure
all children learn to read, it is necessary to develop viable and effective instructional
methods. Specifically, the scaffolding of Guided Practices that will influence
students’ language and literacy development using Pearson and Gallagher’s Gradual
Release Theory (1983).
With the voluminous amount of research regarding the need for enhancement
of literary skills and the Federal Government’s emphasis on every child reading on
grade level by 2014, this chapter will examine the importance of obtaining literary
comprehension skills through Guided Practices that will assist the students who are
learning disabled English language learners, thus leading to student’s independent
reading at grade level.
Literacy
Reading is the language arts skill that traverses all academic discipline and
leads to literacy (CDE, 1996; Juel 1988; Lyon & Chabra, 1996). In a 1994 poll
conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the American Federation of
Teachers and The Chrysler Corporation, results indicated that 70% of teachers that
were polled believe that reading is the “most important” curriculum skill for children
to learn. In this connection, an earlier poll conducted by the same researchers revealed
only a 62% vote for reading as an important skill. Researchers agree that reading is
“most important,” and children should be exposed to early reading in their schooling
(Honig et al., 2000, NICHD, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Research

20

links many benefits to reading early. Early readers progress more quickly and learn
the strategies that prompt children to want to read (American Federation of Teachers,
1999). With the enforcement of the U.S. Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
2001, teachers have become aware of the reality that reading is a critical area of need.
Reading leads to literacy that is carried to other elements of a person’s life.
The subject of reading is synonymous to education, in that it is a passionate
subject shared and valued by virtually every American (State of California Reading/
Language Arts Framework, 1999). The important priority for educators is to have
every child reading at grade level every year beginning in kindergarten (State of
California Reading/Language Arts Framework, 1999). Cloud (2002) and Collier
(1995), states that all children including the learning disabled English language
learners need to be exposed to literacy at an early age through a balanced and
comprehensive literacy program. In this connection, the employment of guided
reading strategies and the implementation of reading comprehension strategies such as
guided questioning, prior knowledge, prediction, inferring, monitoring and thinking
maps or graphic organizers are elements that will make content literacy compre-
hensible to LD/ELL (Kang, 1994; Leverett & Diefendorf, 1992; Zehler, 1994).
Bridging comprehensive literacy progression and strategies with good
instruction will motivate all children to want to read. Through these efforts, students
will become proficient and strong readers. Utilizing reading strategies such as
phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, word recognition, to improve the reading
process, will close the wide achievement gap between strong and mediocre readers as

21

well as with students who are learning disabled English language learners.
Implementing each strategy decreases the gap as students advance through the grades.
Stanovich (1986) posits that children, who are given reading instruction at an early
age, become successful readers later on.
More specifically, Stanovich, (1986/1993b) was adamant about struggling, or
less-skilled students, such as learning disabled English language learners not having
productive and effective practice with text. He felt, without text engagement, there
would continue to be wide reading proficiency gaps. This phenomenon where early
readers are fluent in their reading skills and get “richer,” as opposed to less proficient
readers who fall further and further behind and become “poorer” in reading ability is
known as the “Matthew Effect” (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). To elude the
pitfalls of the “Matthew Effect,” where one reader is more fluent than the other, it is
essential that all children be afforded the opportunity to read. Academic success,
secure employment, and personal autonomy are all elements of survival that depend
on proficiency in the reading and writing arena (American Federation of Teachers,
1999).
Literacy is the key to keeping abreast of the events that happen in this ever-
changing world of ours by reading the newspaper, magazines, and to be able to log on
the network to gain internet access of the daily news. Clearly a major component to
be successful in life and participate fully in society, all students, specifically learning
disabled English language learners, must be immersed in daily literacy practices as a
critical and essential component. To assist children in closing the literacy gap

22

between strong and mediocre reading, specific interventions must be in place prior to
the 3rd grade (State of California Reading/Language Arts Framework, 1999). For
example, addressing of content standards, providing skills that students need to learn,
providing instruction and materials that specifically address students’ deficiencies and
scheduling adequate time for instruction and practice.
An interesting educational challenge is how to deal with the fact that the
fundamentals of reading are developmental. There are predictable phases of ability
levels that children go through in reading (Appendix F). These clear, sequential steps
(or stages according to Learning Theory) are well documented in research. To
monitor and guide their learning, all children need targeted, direct, and explicit
instruction along with age-appropriate and leveled reading materials. Daily practice of
their emerging reading skills is a necessary learning ritual (Special Edge, 2001). In
language arts instruction, high quality instruction includes a comprehensive, balanced
language arts program in which curriculum and instruction are differentiated accord-
ing to assessed needs. Beginning in kindergarten through 3rd grade, provisions of
explicit and systematic instruction and diagnostic support should be placed in any
school’s learning curriculum such as: (a) phonemic awareness, (b) listening skills
and listening vocabulary, (c) phonics, (d) decoding, (e) word-attack skills, (f) spelling,
(g) vocabulary, (h) comprehension skills, (i) writing skills and strategies and their
application, (i) speaking skills and strategies, are examples of what a strong reading
curriculum should include. Such a curriculum would then produce competent literate
individuals.

23

How They Learn--Stages/Phases

The literacy window to reading acquisition is from kindergarten through Grade
3 (CORE, 2000; Spear-Swerling, 2006; State of California Reading/Language Arts
Framework, 1999). Students move through six developmental phases of reading
acquisition. They are Logographic Phase (Pre-Alphabetic and Partial--Alphabetic
Phase), Spelling--Sound Phase (Full-Alphabetic Phase and Consolidated-Alphabetic
Phase), Automatic Phase, Efficiency of Reading--use reading to gather information,
Multiple Points of View Phase-Reading with greater Depth, and Selective Reading
Phase (Ehri, 1998) (Appendix F).
In order to make academic content comprehensible to ELLs, sheltered content
instruction must be provided to meet the students second language needs. For
LD/ELLs this is a multiphase process. After addressing second language needs,
instruction must be further modified to provide for their special education needs
(Muller & Markowitz, 2004). According to Kang (1994), Leverett and Diefendorf
(1992), and Zehler (1994), examples of sheltered instruction for increasing
comprehension for ELLs include: (a) creating a predictable environment, (b) asking
carefully constructed questions that students know the answers for, (c) promoting the
use of learning strategies that support reading comprehension, and (d) guided reading
strategies with materials that are linguistically appropriate for students’ stages of
language proficiency. Additional sheltered instruction for LDs can be: (a) create a
learner-friendly environment free of distraction; (b) adapt methods of presentation and

24

methods of practice (e.g., modeling, visual cues) use of formatted materials (e.g.,
graphic organizers); and (c) one-to-one teaching.
Research on interventions for ELLs with disabilities is extreme limited. There
is of yet no consensus among experts as to whether strategies that are found to be
effective for ELLs are also effective for ELLs with disabilities. With the number of
ELLS in our nation’s schools continuing to grow, many of them having a learning
disability, there is an immediate need for on going research in this area (Muller &
Markowitz, 2004).
Two Student Populations Critically Affected
Dr. Melvin Levine, Director of the clinical Center for the Study of Develop-
ment and Learning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill defines Learning
Disability as “the term currently used to describe a handicap that interferes with
someone’s ability to store, process or produce information. Such disabilities affect
both children and adults. The impairment can be quite subtle and go undetected
throughout life. But learning disabilities create a gap between a person’s true capacity
and his day to day production and performance. It is not always immediately obvious
that a person has a learning disability. The most straightforward indication is
academic failure or underachievement by someone who seems capable of more
(Levine, 1984, p. 1). In addition, students with LD/ELLs have substantial weaknesses
in auditory-related skills, such as phonemic awareness and sound symbol
relationships.

25

Further evidence of reading problems comes from the overrepresentation of
students who are diagnosed as learning disabled or are referred to special education
because they cannot read at the appropriate grade level (OSEP, 1996). Part of the
problem comes from a lack of early identification and treatment (OSEP, 1996).
Researchers have also documented additional personal, social and educational
problems that too often result when early attention and intervention do not occur
(OSEP, 1996). For the past 30 years, efforts have been made to increase the early
identification of students with reading difficulties. Although this process has been
done through Title I support, not much has been done with early intervention through
special education (Chard & Kameenui, 2000). Many states require that children
demonstrate a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability before identifying
them with specific reading disabilities. Because of this policy, many children do not
receive specially designed instruction or special education services for their reading
problems until 2nd or 3rd grade (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Lloyd, 1996).
With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), the shift is to allow local and state agencies the
option to suspend the use of Intelligence Quotient (IQ)–an achievement discrepancy
formula as an identification tool for special education placement. Rather, the use of a
Response to Intervention (RTI) criteria model is the recommended practice especially
for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse and struggle with academic
achievement (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller,
Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). The RTI practice model is an intensive intervention

26

tool used as prevention to academic failure by providing quality literacy instruction in
the general education mainstream environment (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Vaughn &
Fuchs, 2003). Gresham (1991) defines RTI, as the change in behavior or performance as
a function of an intervention. The RTI model is a multi-tiered approach providing
services and interventions that can be implemented using various strategies for the
different levels of support (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Based on tiers, the first tier
refers to quality instruction with the monitoring of student progress. The second tier
addresses the providing of intensive support during intervention for the students who
have not met core curriculum benchmarks and monitoring of assessment. The third tier
is related to long-term intervention. When students are not able to progress with tier
one and two, they may qualify for special education or an evaluation for a possible
placement (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).
All students must be given the opportunity to learn otherwise there is little
evidence that they have a learning disability (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). The main
issue in working with students who are diagnosed as LD/ELL is that there are few
interventions that work for them. More strategies are needed to accommodate this
special population of students.
Ongoing empirical evidence indicates that 2
nd
or 3
rd
grade is too late for
reading interventions to have a significant impact on early reading acquisition (Snow,
et al., 1998). For example, Bond and Dykstra (1967) predicted a gloomy future of
slow performing and struggling beginning readers. Juel (1988) found that children
who performed poorly in reading in 1st grade had approximately a 90% chance of

27

remaining at the “poor reader” status after 3 years of schooling. Further, Juel
observed that the children “began to dislike reading and read considerably less than
good readers both in and out of school” (p. 27). Felton and Wood (1992) reported that
children displaying reading “problems” at the end of 3
rd
grade would probably still
have reading difficulties by the end of 8th grade. What is discouraging is that 30 years
after Bond and Dykstra’s (1967) report we still have a bleak outlook for remediation
of struggling, emergent readers (Snow, et al., 1998).
Many children with reading disabilities as LD/ELLs have difficulties in word
recognition--accuracy and fluency, which is based on the teaching of phonemic
awareness. Phonemic awareness is the understating that spoken language is composed
of phonemes, or speech sounds. It involves the ability to blend, segment and
manipulate phonemes in spoken words (Daneman, 1991; Honig, Diamond, Gutlohn, &
Mahler, 2000; Stanovich, 1994). With new reforms and research into the awareness of
word recognition, it is now known that word recognition is strengthened by
(a) awareness of letter–sound correspondences (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989;
Foorman, 1995; Haskell, Foorman, & Swank, 1992; Lovett, Warren-Chaplin, Ransby,
& Borden, 1990); (b) phonological processing and the ability to use speech-sound
structure of oral language in written language (Adams, 1990; Felton & Pepper, 1995;
Stanovich, 1986); (c) awareness of sounding-out and blending strategies for word
reading (Foorman, 1995); and (d) fluency with decoding words and identifying words
(Adams, 1990; Foorman, 1995; Sawyer, 1992). For that reason, it is imperative that
Guided Reading (teacher supported) Practices are infused into every day teaching.

28

Students are taught in small groups, and are given distinct strategies that are
appropriate for their learning style to assure student achievement. Once children start
developing awareness and skills in the phonemic arena and have daily engagement
with teacher guidance, the community of readers will be more sensitive to orthography
and their understanding of the meaning of words will further assist in their progress in
word recognition (Adams 1990; Chall, 1967; Ehri, 1991; Gough & Hillingier, 1980;
Juel, 1991).
Another at risk population is the English Language Learners (ELL). These
students have difficulty learning in school primarily, because of their inability to be
proficient in their 2nd language acquisition. Because of this problem, educators need
to base their instruction on the English language arts content standards at its curricular
platform and align curriculum, assessment, instruction and organization for a coherent
structure for language arts implementation (CDE, 2004). To assist the ELL students in
furthering their learning, teachers should provide meaningful and supportive context
with multiple concrete clues and interactive opportunities in connecting what the
students know (background knowledge) to the unknown should be emphasized.
An article in Teaching Reading (1996), states that literacy and early reading
programs must include the following instructional components for all students,
including English Language Learners (ELLs): (a) phonemic awareness, (b) letter
names and shapes, (c) systematic explicit phonics, (d) spelling, (e) vocabulary
development, (f) comprehension, (g) higher-order thinking, and (h) appropriate
reading materials. These instructional elements are similar to what are taught to the

29

learning disabled population, which is taught using more visuals and realia (real
objects) for concepts to be meaningful and relevant.
In meeting the needs of English language learners, teachers must be aware of
how this population of learners acquires English Phonology and language structure.
These students need to participate fully in the classroom program and receive
additional support in order to achieve. They will need instruction in the English
language, daily practice in rich oral language, speaking opportunities in order to hear
and develop the new sound system, and beginning reading instruction to support the
acquisitions of English phonology and initial language structures. Students should
receive pre-teaching on essential vocabulary, background information, and language
patterns. They also will need review of key lesson elements and their level of
understanding should be assessed following the reading and writing lesson.
Additional instructional time, differentiated instruction, flexible grouping and reduced
group sizes, should be utilized to provide the students the support to succeed in
reading/language arts.
Literacy Window to Acquisition
In connection with a strong reading curriculum that addresses the needs of all
students precisely, the learning disabled English language learner, it is vital in the
amount of instructional time spent on reading in kindergarten through Grade 3 be the
most significant, for learning to read at a proficient level (Core, 2000; Spear-Swerling,
2006). As children are promoted in grade levels, it is expected that they acquire and
master the basic foundational skills in reading achievement. By the end of 3rd grade,

30

children should be able to accurately and fluently read complex word forms (State of
California Reading/Language Arts Framework, 1999).
For this reason, scaffolding, an instructional process that provides support for
struggling readers, is an important reading strategy. It is used at different intervals
during reading activities and gradually removed as students become independent
readers (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). All children, including learning disabled
English language learners LD/ELL, need to acquire strategies provided with the
scaffolding process to decode words, read narrative and expository texts, and recall
sequence, main ideas, and supporting ideas to become successful readers.
Simultaneously, children need to develop writing skills which include describing
events and experiences, and constructing complete and well-structured sentences to
illustrate concepts. These skills are needed for continued student success and to allow
them the autonomy to be competitive in future academic, social, and economic
endeavors (State of California Reading/Language Arts Framework, 1999).
The first three educational years in a child’s academic journey focuses on
“learning to read.” If children are not able to progress effectively and proficiently
when they are subsequently asked to “read to learn,” they will risk falling further
behind in their development of literacy skills (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).
Research from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD) has found evidence that 10 million children of this student population will
have significantly difficulty learning to read (Special Edge, 2000). Failure to read
proficiently is directly related to why children drop out of school, are retained, or

31

referred to special education services and the possibility of qualifying to be placed in a
special class due to ability level not matching achievement levels (Special Edge,
2000). The statistical data for school dropouts are 10% to 15%, with a 2% chance of
these children ever completing a 4-year college program (Special Edge, 2000).
Equally as important are the statistical data that reflect the importance of literacy
accomplishment of LD/ELL as surveys of teenagers and young adults who have
criminal records, indicate that about 50% of these students have reading difficulties.
As an added prevention measure, and the knowledge that LD/ELL is the fastest
growing student population nationwide (Slavin & Cheung, 2004), it would behoove
educators to have an instructional plan to help LD/ELL succeed in school. Teacher’s
“Best Practices” of Guided Reading interventions is an avenue to be taken when
providing alternative implementation strategies to assist students to become productive
and self-reliant, and competent in the area of reading comprehension and independent
reading.
Reading Interventions
Children, who fail to read fluently by the end of 3rd grade, have only a
minimal chance of achieving literacy competence without specific interventions
(Felton & Pepper, 1995; Juel, 1988). In this regard, children who are English
language learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities (LDs) are at risk for achieving
below basic reading levels (Spear-Swerling, 2006). These populations of students
have great difficulties with the phonemic process that impact their ability to decode
and build vocabulary and word meaning (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). It is worthy

32

to note that although ELLs can reasonably learn to read in their primary language;
however, they continue to be deficient in the speaking and writing of the English
language, which can affect the development of their English literacy knowledge
(Spear-Swerling, 2006). This complexity of reading difficulties can affect all students,
and validates the rationale for the implementation of teaching students to read by the
end of 3rd grade as an important task undertaken by elementary schools.
During the first 3 years of school, children need to meet the reading standards
and school district expectations. For example, in the “learn to read” task, children
develop awareness between the spoken and written words and develop the ability to
conceptualize, develop phonological awareness, learn word recognition skills, learn to
decode and read fluently, and learn reading comprehension strategies (Greene, 1999;
Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 1996; Wilson, 1999). In other words, “Children need to
develop the capacity to interpret the written symbols for the oral language they have
been hearing since infancy” (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). The purpose is to
prepare children for the more difficult reading task that will challenge their ability to
gain purposeful meaning in subsequent grade levels. The rationale for addressing
reading deficits by 3rd grade. is that the educational purpose for reading changes in
4th grade. Concepts become more complex, and the standards that students are
expected to achieve are directed toward higher-order thinking skills (U.S. Department
of Education, 1996). When these additional demands of complexity and higher order
thinking skills are placed on children’s reading development, learning of other core
content materials becomes difficult for the incompetent reader. Coupled with

33

problematic learning and language deficiencies it then becomes apparent that the
issues of intense remediation can become very complex (U.S. Department of
Education, 1996).
In this literacy to “window acquisition,” there are also secondary concerns,
such as whether more boys or girls achieve the language arts standards by 3
rd
grade. A
review of literature indicates that there are no gender or grade level differences
(Special Edge, 2000). The National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, (1999) research has shown that deficiencies in reading affect boys and
girls roughly at the same rate, though boys are more likely to be referred for resource
assistance due to the attention focused on them by their misbehaviors (Special Edge,
2000). As for grade level differences by middle school, all students are expected to
read at proficient levels, and possess the vocabulary and comprehension skills for
understanding complex reading material. However, findings from previous research
indicate that adolescents with reading deficits are increasingly at risk for losing skills
acquired during elementary school (Stanovich, 1986).
As a major reading intervention, a small group approach of Guided Reading
(teacher supported) (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) will be utilized to assist students in their
role of self-regulation in learning to build capacity in the use of reading
comprehension strategies.
The Gradual Release Theory (Brunner, 1996) and Guided Reading Practices
(Fountas & Pinnell, 1996), are strategies that will enhance the learning of LD/ELLs by
teacher modeling of guided practices that will eventually lead to the gradual release of

34

responsibility to the student and with the end result being an independent reader. In
this regard, the purpose of this theory is the movement from teacher directed to student
directed. With the daily challenges of the LD/ELLs in the area of reading, the Guided
Reading (teacher supported) practices, will enable the student to learn from the
modeling of scaffold strategies to enhance his/her reading comprehension skills.
Prevention and Solutions
Failure in reading is largely preventable. Effective prevention and early
intervention programs can increase reading scores of 85% to 90% of poor readers to
average levels (Special Edge, 2000; The California Reading Initiative (CRI), 1999).
One such effective intervention strategy that has been tested and research is
Guided Reading (Pinnell, 2002). Guided reading is a teaching approach that allows
the teacher to work in a small group setting to make educational decisions on
differentiating instruction to facilitate reading comprehension (Fountas & Pinnell,
1996). The teacher then models specific reading strategies as contextual clues, letter
and sound knowledge, syntax or word structure. Matching the text to readers, the
guided reading instructional process assist teachers as they levels students (flexible
grouping) according to their reading ability using various assessments (i.e., DIBELS,
Running records) for fluency and comprehension (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). In this
regard, guided support extends to leading the students in text discussion and the
checking for comprehension through a writing assignment, analyzing text or other
activities (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).

35

In addition, some of the activities for Guided Reading are: Before reading, the
teacher sets the purpose for reading, “walks” through the text and helps students with
the vocabulary and making predictions. During the reading, the teacher guides the
students by giving them clues and strategies (i.e., “Try that again, Does that make
sense? Look at the beginning of the work”). After the reading, the teacher can
continue to inquire about the text through comprehension building (Fountas & Pinnell,
1996; Kreul, 1996). The ultimate goal of guided reading is for students to used taught
strategies independently (Kreul, 1996).
The Guided Reading Program is informed by scientifically–based research
(Pinnell, 2002). Each element of Guided Reading such as, Phonemic Awareness,
Phonics, Fluency and Comprehension has been researched and tested (Pinnell, 2002).
Research on Guiding Reading elements and the effects of three distinct instructional
strategies and the casual relationship of the approach to reading rate were studied.
Researchers used an alternating treatment design to investigate the effects of a
“phonics approach, meaning-based approach, and a balance approach” for beginning
readers. The treatments were randomly alternated until the effectiveness of one
treatment was more predominant than the other. Participants consisted of three 1st
grade students--two girls and one boy. The results indicated that the reading rate
method was not better than any other method. Therefore, the study recommended
utilizing phonics and “meaning-based” approaches (Linehan, 2002).
In teaching guided reading to English language learners, Enrique Puig (2004),
reports that guided reading instruction whether taught in English or Spanish has the

36

same components. In this connection, scaffolding reading instruction for the ELL,
includes small group instruction, use of realia (i.e., pictures, live products, etc.), and
implementation of total physical response (TPR) techniques that will make the reading
of text comprehensible. As with the instructing of the general population, the ELL
will benefit from the use of leveled readers in differentiating instruction, leading to
reading independence (Pinnell, 1966). A key component of guided reading instruction
include the enforcement of academic language with the introduction of vocabulary and
other concepts for active engagement of text at the student’s instructional level
(Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). In providing effective literacy development, there are
specific guided reading principles that need to be in place for the ELL. Guided
principles include building on student’s strength of their knowledge and language
base, the application of phonetic principles, and opportunities to read a varied amount
of text (1996).
Although there is limited literature on teaching guided reading with LD
students, a varied and wide amount of instructional strategies such as guided reading
components can be used in a modified version. As with the ELL, the ultimate goal for
LD students is for reading independence. For example, when teaching reading
elements in small group instruction, the teacher will also use realia, total physical
response (TPR) techniques by role playing and other movement activities for complete
comprehensible input of reading concepts.
Students who are LD/ELL will benefit from the daily scaffolding and literacy
development with the use of guided reading elements. The application of the guided

37

reading principles in conducting guided reading in small groups, to facilitate the
differentiating of instruction, using the phonetic principles and reading comprehension
elements, will lead to reading independence and success.
To be able to realize this, children will need to internalize the reading process
and its components during the primary grades to eliminate a lifelong struggle with
reading (The California Reading Initiative (CRI), 1996). Children will also need to
develop phonological awareness, word recognition, reading accuracy, and other
advanced skills for reading, through teachers’ “best practices” of guiding and
modeling comprehension skills and strategies in small group instruction.
To this end, research has confirmed and validated that all children go through
progressive developmental stages in their learning development to include LD/ELLs.
For effective learning and self-motivated independent practices, children need to be
afforded early exposure to the fundamentals of reading instruction. Effective reading
instruction should be systematic and explicit, while allowing children to independently
practice and approximate in the best way they know how through their zone of
proximal development (ZPD). Based on the works of Vygotsky (1978), this theory
advocated and confirmed the need for small group instruction to improve the child’s
reading achievement. The zone of proximal development is “the distance between the
children’s learning capacity and the capacity to function with assistance.” Teacher
assistance at the student’s ZPD assisted in positive student success. In this connection,
students should also be given the autonomy to read self-selected literature in order to
become strong and proficient readers, thus tapping in to their ZPD. Worthy and

38

McKool (1996) found in their research, that students had negative attitudes toward
reading when their opportunities to read independently, and self-select reading
materials were limited. In Guided Reading Practices, teachers scaffold reading
strategies to accomplish the end results of LD/ELLs becoming proficient and
impendent readers. Using these “best practices,” may assist in the prevention of
Reading failures if all students had more input into their reading program.
Conclusion
Students who do not “learn to read” during the first 3 years of school, will
experience difficulty and failure when asked to “read to learn.” During those 3 years
of a student’s schooling, they develop the capacity to learn the basics of a standards
based core content language arts curriculum. There is strong evidence that students
who are struggling readers, will need to be taught specific reading strategies as Guided
Reading (teacher supported) strategies to give them the skills and tap into their ZPD
by gradually releasing responsibility to them, so that they may independently read
self-selected materials or any materials that are of interest to them. The most
important piece of the academic core curriculum is reading. Reading is one of the
greatest challenges to more than 60% of all children. Research data indicates that
more than one child in six (17.5%), will encounter a problem in learning to read
during the first 3 years of school. If proficiency in reading is not rectified in the first
three grades of schooling, the process of reading failure will be in place. Also known
as illiteracy, these nonreaders will surely be confronted with non-productivity in life

39

that is characterized by school dropouts, incarcerations, and difficulties in finding
rewarding employment.
Interventions for learners who have difficulty with phonological awareness
must be early, strategic, systematic, and carefully designed. It must be based on a
curriculum that recognizes and balances the importance of both phonics and
appreciation of meaning. Without these principles in place the first 3 years of school,
academic life beyond the 3rd grade may be devastating, as the illiterate student
becomes increasingly unable to access the general curriculum.
To this end, we know as educators that English language learner (ELL)
students are educationally and linguistically challenged (Justin, 1970). The students
language “deficits” must be taken into account when construction meaning by
providing for cultural differences (Ogubu, 1990). As with the population of students
with learning disabilities (LD) who experience significant problems in reading,
teaching strategies must include listening comprehension components, and provide
systemic, explicit instruction in the English structure, accuracy, fluency, phonemic
awareness, and decoding. English language learners (ELL) and students with learning
disabilities (LD) must be immersed in a curriculum that will address their potential
strength, which will facilitate literacy development, rather than on an inherent
weakness (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987).

40

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter highlights the methodology and research design employed in
this study. Components of this chapter include: (a) a methodological overview,
(b) research questions, (c) research design, (d) procedural integrity, (e) population and
sample, (f) data collection, (g) data analysis, and (h) conclude with a summary
discussion.
Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
1. What are the effects of Guided Reading (teacher supported) on reading
comprehension scores of Learning Disabled English language learners?
2. What are the effects of guided reading (teacher supported intervention)
on retelling scores of learning Disabled Language Learners?
Research Design
A single-subject multiple-baseline across subject design with visual analysis
(i.e., graphing of data), and data trends (i.e., direction and steepness of the slope of the
data across observation) were used in this study (Gall, et al., 1996; Neuman &
McCormick, 1995). The purpose for using single-subject multiple-baseline across
student design was to select participants on a smaller scale (i.e., as a single/individual,)
address the nature of the research question, and achieve an in-depth understanding of
the impact on selected individuals (Gall, et al., 1996; McMillan & Schumacher, 1993;
Neuman & McCormick, 1995). This design was chosen due to the small N (4), and

41

because the staggering of the introduction of the intervention allows the researcher to
analyze the potential benefits for the various participants. In the classroom this type of
design may assist teachers in differentiating instruction for students, a strategy that
will accommodate this population of students.
Single subject research provides evidence that causal relationships exist
between the independent and dependent variables. Single subject research utilizes a
systematic approach of comparing within and between subjects as a control for threats
to internal validity as well as a process for systematic replication to improve external
validity (Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 1999). The multiple baseline
across-subject design, addresses the impact of the independent variable on the same
behavior (or response) for different subjects (Neuman & McCormick, 1995). Once
the baseline rate for each dependent variable is stable, then the independent variable
(intervention) is applied to one subject, while still maintaining baseline conditions for
the other subjects. When there is some improvement in the first subject’s response,
the independent variable is then provided to both the first and second subjects. If the
response on the second subject improves, then the third subject is provided the
intervention, and so on until all the subjects have been exposed to the intervention
(Gall, et al., 1996; McMillan & Schumacher, 1993; Neuman & McCormick, 1995;
Schloss & Smith, 1994).
The multiple baseline design utilizes the strategy of staggering the initial
presentation of the intervention to each subject so that each individual’s potential with
the intervention can be analyzed (Neuman & McCormick, 1955). The rationale

42

behind this design is based on the fact that if each subject improves with the
intervention, it is more than likely that the intervention caused or is related to any
improvement in subject’s behaviors (Neuman & McCormick, 1995). The design also
allows teachers to be able to differentiate instruction for all students. The effective-
ness of the design is of value as long as the subjects involved are uninfluenced by one
another (McMillian & Schumacher, 1993).
Procedural Integrity
Procedural integrity, the ability to consistently measure a specific skill or
implementation of a given treatment within a timeline, environment, and across
subjects (Neuman & McCormick, 1995) was utilized. Due to the single subject-
specific design, it is critical that the same intervention is implemented to be able to
determine the effects of the treatment. A visual rather than a statistical analysis was
implemented for each subject’s graphed data. For the internal validity of the study,
two independent observers performed procedural integrity checks to confirm data
stability and standard measurement procedures. The observers/raters were trained by
the researcher prior to the beginning of the study. A checklist (Appendix B) was
utilized to ascertain if the teacher and the observer performed each procedure
sequentially.
Twenty five percent (i.e., 7.5) (Neuman & McCormick, 1995) of the total
research sessions (i.e., 30), were randomly selected and scored for procedural integrity
for each student. To maximize inter-rater reliability, both raters viewed the same
materials, while scoring independently. The goal was to have the raters scores be

43

within 90% of each other. To prevent teacher bias, a district substitute teacher, not
involved in the intervention, conducted all daily comprehension tests with the
students. The researcher trained the teacher in conducting two assessments. The first
assessment was modeled was Macmillan/McGraw-Hill “Spotlight on Literacy”
Assessment (1997) reading comprehension assessment using the Comprehension
Instrument Check (Appendix C). The second assessment modeled after the California
Reading and Literature Project’s Reading Results, Oral Text Reading:
Comprehension Story Retelling Assessment using the Comprehension Instrument
Check format (Appendix D) (1999/2000).
Population and Sample
The research site for this study was a public elementary school in a rural,
agricultural, primarily lower social economic (SES) district in Southern California in
Riverside County. At the time of the study, the school had a principal, assistant
principal, project teacher and a K-3 reading coach, 35 teachers, 10 instructional aides,
and served a community of 570 students, grades prekindergarten to 6
th
grade.
Kindergarten through 3rd grade was class size reduction (CSR) rooms with a ratio of
20 students to a teacher. Classes were designated according to the language of the
students. Designations were English Language Mainstream (ELM), Structured
English Immersion (SEI), and Alternative Program (AP).
According to school district data, the school’s ethnic composition of students
was 99.50% Hispanic, .30% Caucasian, .10% American Indian, and .10% Filipino. Of
this population 66% were identified as English Language Learners (ELL), 98.6% were

44

Title l eligible, 13% migrant, 2% were Learning Disabled (LD) with an approximate
intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70%-90, 6% were receiving special education services,
and 8% were in gifted and talented (GATE) classes. Socioeconomic data show that
30% of the students were from single parent or guardian homes and that 89% of the
students qualified for free or reduced lunch (School Report Card, 2006-2007).
The research site’s neighboring community was a rural and lower social
economic (SES) area, and embraced a Hispanic adult community comprised primarily
of farm workers. All four sets of the parents of the participants for this study, were
accommodating in attending two Institutional Review Board (IRB) mandated
informational meetings, and signing permission papers from the University to allow
their children to be in the research study.
Participants
Four 6
th
grade Hispanic participants, 2 males and 2 females, from a class
population of 10 students were selected for this study. The rationale for their selection
was that all four participants were second language learners with similar learning
disabilities. They had attended the same school since kindergarten and had been
exposed to the same curriculum. While it is optimal to remediate prior to the 3rd
grade, in this district the majority of referrals to a Special Day Class (SDC) occur
during 3
rd
grade or later, when students must read to learn rather than learn to read. A
pullout program (less than 50% of instructional minutes) with a specialist is no longer
sufficient to meet these students’ needs. The four participants spent 75% of their
academic time in a SDC, where 100% of their language arts and mathematics

45

instruction took place. The other 25% of their time was spent participating in science,
social studies, and physical education with a general education class (mainstreaming).
The participants were English language learners (ELL,) defined by the
California Department of Education as “students with a primary language other than
English who are limited-English proficient” (CDE, 2006). They were diagnosed as
learning disabled (LD) defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) 1977, Section 3030(j) as students with “a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or
written, which may manifest itself in an impaired ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, and having a severe discrepancy between
intellectual ability and achievement in one or more academic areas.”
These older students could especially benefit from an intervention that
increased their comprehension. A strong body of evidence shows that most students
who fall behind in reading skills never catch up with their peers to become fluent
readers (Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000). They fall further and further
behind in school, become frustrated, and drop out at much higher rates than their
classmates (Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998). They find it difficult to obtain
rewarding employment and are effectively prevented from drawing on the power of
education to improve and enrich their lives. Researchers speak of this syndrome as the
"Matthew Effect"—the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Stanovich, 1986). This
study focused on the effectiveness of the instructional method during guided and

46

independent reading rather than the age at which the participants received the
intervention.
Student 1 was a Hispanic female born in September, 1992. She lived with her
biological mother, a seasonal farm worker who spoke only Spanish. The student was
classified as limited English proficient (LEP) in September 1998 based on Language
Assessment Scale (LAS) scores of 4 in Spanish and 1 in English. A score of 1-3
indicates the student has limited ability to speak in that language. A score of 4-5
indicates the student is proficient in the language. The psychologist referred her for an
evaluation in early 2001 due to poor grades and attention problems. She was initially
tested in the spring of 2001, and it was determined that there were severe
discrepancies between the student’s ability and her achievement in all academic areas.
At the time of testing, the student was to begin 5
th
grade. Findings indicated that her
overall skills in both English and Spanish were more typical of a child in the 2nd
grade, based on her scores on the Bateria Woodcock-Munoz-Revisada (Cognitive
Battery) and Woodcock–Johnson-Revised (www.riversidepublishing.com). Her
comprehension-knowledge intelligence quotient (IQ) of 133 was determined to be in
the superior range and her oral language score was above average. Yet she scored low
in attention, well-below average in auditory processing and extremely low in visual-
motor processing. The student’s health, vision, and hearing were normal. In May
2001, she was placed in a Resource Services Program, (RSP) Special Education pull
out program. She continued to struggle academically in all areas, so she was placed in
a Special Day Class (SDC) in February, 2002.

47

Student 2 was a Hispanic female born in March, 1992. She lived with her
biological parents and two younger brothers. Her parents had some command of
conversational English however; they spoke only Spanish in the home. This student
was also classified as limited English proficient in September 1990, based on the LAS
scores of 4 in Spanish and 1 in English. She was referred for an evaluation by the
psychologist in 1995 due to concerns regarding her lack of expressive language in
both English and Spanish. She was initially tested in September 1995. The student
was then recommended to receive special education services under the classification
of Developmentally Delayed in the area of cognition, communication, pre-academics,
and social skills. Subsequent testing of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth
Edition (SB IV), Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R),
and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT), were administered in November,
1998. The testing results, using various assessments including the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-3
rd
Ed. (WISC-III) in October, 2001, did not support
the original classification of Developmentally Delayed. Results indicated a severe
discrepancy between ability and achievement in reading, as well as deficits in auditory
processing and visual-motor integration. The student’s health, vision, and hearing
were normal. It was determined that the discrepancy is a result of Learning
Disabilities and not other elements. In October 1997, she was placed in a Resource
Services Program, (RSP-Special Education pull out program) for kindergarten and
received speech services to improve expressive vocabulary. She continued to struggle
academically in all areas, so she was placed in a SDC in 1st grade and continued

48

speech services. She was exited from speech services by spring of 2002, but
continued in the special day class.
Student 3 was a Hispanic male born in May 1992. He lived with his biological
mother who spoke no English, and four younger siblings. Their home language was
Spanish. This student was also classified as limited English proficient in September
1998, based on LAS scores of 4 in Spanish and 1 in English. He was referred and
initially tested in June, 2000 for an evaluation by the psychologist due to academic
concerns in reading and spelling, and language difficulties. He fell well below age-
level in skills in English and Spanish based on the following assessment measures:
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 3
rd
Edition (WISC-III), Woodcock Munoz
Test of Cognitive Ability, Woodcock Munoz Test of Achievement–Revised (WM-R)
and other assessments. The WISC III performance scale yield a performance scale
score of 90, which placed the student in the average range of non-verbal intellectual
functioning when his scores are compared to that of children his own age. He
demonstrated a relative weakness in abstract visual organization. All other subtest
scores were average. The Woodcock Munoz Test of Cognitive Abilities was
administered in Spanish. The Comprehension-Knowledge subtest cluster measures
the ability to verbally communicate and to reason old information in new situations.
The student obtained a Comprehension-Knowledge score I.Q. of 78, which is in the
low range of ability and at the 7
th
percentile of his age peers. Woodcock Munoz Test
of Achievement–Revised (WM-R) scores were as follows: (a) reading passage
comprehension standard score of 42, and (b) broad reading standard score of 45. His

49

scores suggested a grade equivalent of 0, and reflected reading skills at or better than
.01 % of the children his age. Scores in math calculation skills were in the low
average range as reflected by a standard score of 80 representing skills at the 1.8 grade
equivalent. Overall writing skills were at or better than .01 % of the individuals his
age. Overall results indicated a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement
in all academic areas. He demonstrated learning disabilities in auditory processing
and long-term visual memory. The student’s health, vision, and hearing were normal.
In June 2000, he was placed in a Resource Services Program (RSP-Special Education
pull out program). He continued to struggle academically in all areas, so he was
placed in a Special Day Class (SDC) in October, 2000.
Student 4 was a Hispanic male born in February, 1992. He lived with his
maternal grandparents and two younger siblings. Their home language was Spanish.
This student was also classified as limited English proficient (LEP) in September
1998, based on LAS scores of 4 in Spanish and 1 in English. He was referred and
initially tested in March, 2000 for an evaluation by the psychologist due to academic
concerns and language difficulties. Initial assessment results indicated average
nonverbal intellectual ability with deficits noted in memory and perception. Academic
skills fell at the 1
st
grade level in math and below a primer level in reading and writing
skills. This student was retained in 2nd grade and was eventually placed in special
education in the same grade. During his 4
th
grade year he moved to another school.
No information from the previous school was available at the time of the study. This

50

student was referred for an evaluation that is mandated to occur at least every 3 years
while a student participates in a special education program.
The intent of this assessment, done in March 2003, was to provide assistance in
determining continued eligibility for special education services and current
educational needs. The student’s range of functioning was well below age level in
vocabulary skills in both English and Spanish based on the following assessment
measures: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 3
rd
Edition (WISC-III),
Woodcock–Johnson Achievement Test 3
rd
Ed. (WCJ-III), and other assessments. The
WISC III performance scale yield a performance scale score of 84, which placed the
student in the average range of nonverbal intellectual functioning when his scores are
compared to that of children his own age. In the area of language, the student fell at
an 8-age level in receptive vocabulary skills in Spanish, and approximately a 5-year-
old level in both receptive and expressive vocabulary skills in English. The student
continues to be classified as limited English proficient (LEP). He spoke in a mixture
of Spanish and English and acknowledged he felt comfortable in both languages. The
student spoke clearly and used complete sentences. In the area of Cognition, the
student’s range of functioning fell in the low average range of nonverbal intellectual
ability. He demonstrated weaknesses in his visual sequencing skills, nonverbal
reasoning skills, and visual scanning skills. All of these areas fell below the average
range. In the area of perceptual and/or motor in the auditory mode, the student fell
well below the average range in auditory processing skills in Spanish. He
demonstrated strength in his auditory word recall falling within the low average range.

51

He also fell well below the average range in (a) auditory recall of numbers and
sentences, (b) auditory interpretation, (c) auditory reasoning, and (d) auditory
discrimination skills. These are all areas of significant weaknesses. In the visual non-
motor area, the student fell well below the average range in visual processing skills.
Significant weaknesses were noted in visual closure and spatial relations. In the area
of visual-motor integration, the student fell well within the low average to average
range in perceptual motor functioning. No significant weaknesses were noted in this
area. In academic achievement, the student obtained the following scores (Table 1):
Table 1. Students for Academic Achievement Results

Subtest GE Growth in last 3 years
Basic reading 2.2 2.2
Reading comprehension 1.8 1.8
Written language 1. 0.7 years
Math Computation 4.5 2.7 years
Math Reasoning 3.8 3.0 years

The student was assessed by the Resource Specialist. There was growth in all
academic areas. The student has gone from a nonreader to the 2
nd
grade level in
decoding and upper 1
st
grade level in comprehension skills. In math skills, the student
was at the 4
th
grade level in computation skills and upper 3
rd
grade level in applied
math. Writing continued to be a difficult area. The results of this re-evaluation
assessment continued to indicate a severe discrepancy of more than 1.5 standard
deviations between ability and achievement.

52

Parental Consent Procedure
Participants’ parents received a letter describing the research study, its
purposes and the expected duration of the students’ participation. A detailed
description of the experimental procedures to be followed was included. Parents were
notified about any reasonable foreseeable risks to the student as well as any additional
benefits. A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedure and a statement describing
the confidentiality of records was provided. Parents were notified of a contact person
for more information about this research, and research participant’s rights. A
statement explaining the voluntary nature of the research, including their right to
refuse to participate and withdraw at any time with no reprisal to the participant, or
loss of benefits, was provided.
Instrumentation
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable, the measurement of student assessment (reading
scores) in reading comprehension was two-fold: (a) a Retelling Instrument (Appendix
D) modeled from the California Reading and Literature Project’s Reading (CRLP)
Results; (b) the Oral Text Reading: Comprehension Check format, and (c) a
Comprehension Questions Instrument (Appendix C) modeled after Macmillan/
McGraw-Hill “Spotlight on Literacy” Assessment (1997). The nature of this study in
reading comprehension and independent reading is based on the Gradual Release
Theory. After the assessments were completed to determine the student’s reading
level, the following theories were utilized by the instructor as methods for effective

53

learning to achieve reading comprehension and independent reading. The Gradual
Release of Responsibility model of instruction is a process in which there is a move
from students to teachers having the majority of the responsibility in the student’s
completing a reading task, to a gradual move of the responsibility to the student. In
the end, the total responsibility is moved to the student (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).
Another theoretical method is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). It is
the difference between what a child can do with help, and what he or she can do
without guidance (Vygotsky, 1978). The last theoretical method utilized is the
Constructivist Theory (scaffolding), which is based on learning developing when a
strategy is taught in collaboration with the teacher in creating or “constructing” new
meanings for mastery and conceptualization of the taught skill to develop higher level
thinking (Ausubel, 1968; Bruner, 1966; Vygotsky, 1978).
Reading comprehension is a process where the reader demonstrates their
understanding of print (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). In assessing reading
comprehension, students are asked questions of elements of the story. The teacher
also observes how students responds to text, orally or written and if students uses
reading cues (i.e., contextual). A component of reading comprehension is Retelling.
Upon reading a story, the student is asked to recreate the story by “retelling” in their
own words (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).
For the retelling assessment, students retold a leveled story passage silently or
orally. Teacher began the assessment with, “Tell me about your read.” Follow up
prompts were, “Who else was in the story? Or can you tell me more about . . . ?”

54

Where does the story take place? What else happened? Each student was assessed by
their response beginning with elements of main characters, setting, problem, how
solved, one event from beginning, middle, end, of story, detailed description of one of
the elements above. Students were also given credit for retelling story accurately and
re-told in a clear manner. Retelling: CRLP is acknowledged and supported by the
State Board of Education Standards and the California Reading and Language Arts
Framework (http://www.csus.edu/crlp/sacramento/results-lv.stm). CRLP’s battery of
Reading RESULTS assessment was developed and researched by reading specialists
and university educators, including Marilyn Jaeger Adams, John Shelfelbine, and Jerry
Treadway. CRLP assessment results have also been used, by teachers, with the
Houghton Mifflin (HM) Reading Program. HM is a research based reading program
that has been aligned with the California English Language Arts Content Standards,
and was adopted by California as one of two reading programs that meet those
standards.
More specifically, reading comprehension of story grammar elements (main
characters, setting, events and/or problem and how solved) reading level, and
vocabulary were measured. Each student was taught a reading comprehension
strategy, daily. After a brief respite, of approximately 1 hour, students were given a
passage to read and their comprehension was measured by having each student answer
ten questions pertaining to the passage. Comprehension of vocabulary was measured
through student response to an inference and a vocabulary questions. Up to three
scripted prompts were allowed for the story grammar portion with the evaluator

55

circling any prompt used on the response sheet. Leveled reading books were used in
the study based on each child’s reading level. Reading levels were determined by an
informal reading inventory (i.e., Houghton Mifflin Leveled Reading Passages
Assessment Kit). The Leveled Reading Passages were individually administered and
teacher scored. The passages were specifically designed for diagnostic and assess-
ment purposes to yield in-depth results of each student’s reading abilities and
instructional reading level.
Independent Variable: Guided Reading
as the Experimental Condition
The process of reading is an interactive one with readers constructing meaning
about what is being read. The meaning derived from text is the critical piece of the
reading process (Braunger & Lewis, 1998; Clay, 1991; Pressley, 1998).
Comprehension is an element that has been established as a critical component of
literacy instruction (Pressley, 1998). Dowhower (1999) reports that the following are
examples of some of the strategies that should be included to enhance reading
comprehension: (a) activate prior knowledge, (b) predicting, (c) summarizing, and (d)
inference. The Houghton Mifflin Reading Series supports reading comprehension by
utilizing the following strategies: (a) Predicting/Inferring, (b) Phonics/ Decoding, (c)
Monitor/Clarify, (d) Questions, and (e) Evaluate and Summarize.
One highly valued reading approach is Guided Reading (teacher supported),
which enhances reading comprehension (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). Guided reading is
a literacy approach, based on theoretical principles, which enables teachers to provide

56

effective and productive support while engaging students in their understanding of
literacy learning (Learning Media, 2002). The goal is to have students use what they
have learned in guided reading and transfer it to independent reading.
Guided Reading is a small group instructional model in a balanced reading
program, where students read instructional level text, while being guided or supported
by their teacher (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). The teacher, through scaffolding, enables
the reader to learn and practice strategies, which increase reading comprehension. In
discussing stories, children learn how to analyze literary elements in stories and use
higher-level thinking and questioning strategies (California Language Framework,
1999). The children also develop comprehension skills through recalling and retelling
strategies of story elements. In guided reading the teacher asks open-ended questions,
and utilizes natural conversation to encourage students to participate in making
predictions in discussing the story. A critical component of the guided reading
experience is that it enables the teacher to use scaffolding in the instruction of
language structure and vocabulary based on the student’s prior knowledge and
experience and the student’s reading level (Routman, 1991; Wright Group, 1995).
For learning disabled, English language learner students, the reading level may
not necessarily be at their grade level. By facilitating learning via explicit skilled
instruction, based on assessed student needs, the teacher ultimately releases
responsibility for reading of text to the children (Cambourne, 1988; Fisher & Medvic,
2000; Wright Group, 1995).

57

The way students’ process text and their reading strengths are the makeup of a
Guided Reading (teacher supported) group. Instruction becomes focused and explicit
to the needs and challenges of student(s) in the Guided Reading (teacher supported)
Reading group (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). The rationale for Guided Reading (teacher
supported) is to individualize the needs of each student thus allowing the student to
increase their reading ability while being supported or reading independently. The
teacher selects a text at the student’s instructional level so that the teacher can teach
reading strategies; hence, students will utilize those strategies taught during the lesson.
The procedure for a guided reading lesson includes three steps:
1. Before reading. Activate prior knowledge and prediction to focus
student’s attention on the story, do a picture walk, introduce new
vocabulary, define the purpose, and discuss the strategies good readers
use.
2. During reading. Support and guide students as they read the story giving
prompts (i.e., Try that again, Does that make sense?). Clarify any
questions students may have.
3. After reading. Check predictions, discuss story elements (i.e., character,
setting, problem, solutions) (Kreul, 2005).
In this study, using Guided Reading (teacher supported) as the independent
variable, the goal was to see the impact of the variable on the student’s reading ability
when he/she was supported and guided, versus the student reading independently with
minimal assistance.

58

Procedures
Each of the four students in the study was their own control with each of them
being given the intervention. The independent variable was 20 minute blocks of daily
reading with 1:1 direct, explicit and systematic instruction in reading comprehension
strategies using Guided Reading (teacher supported).
Five areas of strategic focus were used in this research study related to Guided
Reading (teacher supported) to assist students in their reading comprehension. Taken
in account of the student’s limited English knowledge and structure, the teacher made
concepts comprehensible with the use of realia and other visual material. For
purposes of replication a script of each strategy appears in Appendix A.
Data Collection

Data collection occurred over approximately 30 days in the summer of 2004
from June 20 through July 31. The collection of baseline data took 5 or more days per
child, as the baseline period for each child was different. The baseline period
consisted of daily comprehension checks (Appendix B) using MacMillan McGraw
Hill Spotlight Leveled Readers at the student’s reading level for 1 to 2 weeks to
establish a baseline. During the baseline testing, data gathered were charted on a
graph to compare later with intervention data (Neuman & McCormick, 1995). The
Guided Reading (teacher supported) intervention during the research phase used
Houghton Mifflin (HM) Reading Program Anthology Stories at the student’s reading
level. The intervention was daily, direct, explicit instruction in comprehension
strategies via a 5-10 minute mini-lesson that included teacher modeling of the strategy,

59

followed by guided (teacher supported) student reading for 10-15 minutes using that
day’s focus strategy. Below in Table 2 is the daily strategy focus, repeated each week.
Table 2. Daily Strategy Focus
Monday Predicting/Inferring
Tuesday Phonics/Decoding
Wednesday Monitor/Clarify
Thursday Question
Friday Evaluate and Summarize

Data Analysis
Visual analysis inspection was used to compare the pooled means of the
baseline phases and pooled means of the intervention phases (Gall, et al., 1996).
Visual inspection included data and trend analysis of the descriptive graphs. Each
data point was plotted separately on the graph. The graphic data plot (Appendix C)
assisted in analyzing within each phase of the data point for the mean level of the
expected behavior and the direction of the slope. Adjacent phases for changes in mean
level, slope, and level between the last data point for one phase and the first data point
for the next phase, were compared to determine how much of a treatment effect
occurred (Gall, et al., 1996). Each student’s data was analyzed and described for both
reading comprehension and retelling:
Comprehension
Student 1: Comprehension
Student 1 had the longest baseline phase. Her comprehension scores showed a
slight positive slope during this phase, with an overall baseline mean of 5.59. After

60

the introduction of treatment, her comprehension scores continued an upward slope
with a final score that dipped down a few points. The continuation of a positive trend
established during the baseline phase does not indicate that the treatment had any
significant change on her scores, despite continued increases, (treatment mean = 7.87).
Student 2: Comprehension
M’s comprehension baseline had a lot of variability, with a high score of 6 and
a low score 0. There did not appear to be any slope or trend in the baseline data.
There continues to be a lot of variability in comprehension scores following the
treatment, complicating any interpretation of the data. Toward the end of the trial, a
trend towards positive change appears, indicating some latency of effect. While there
is still variability in scores, the highs and lows are more restricted with lows of 5 and
highs of 8. The baseline mean (3.69) and treatment mean (5.65) suggest some
improvement overall, as well.
Student 3: Comprehension
While student 3’s comprehension baseline showed some variability initially,
the final baseline scores appear to obtain some stability around scores of 4 and 5.
After introduction of the treatment, his comprehension scores increased in level nearly
immediately. Variability in scores, subsequently, tends to follow a positive slope with
a final level around scores of 7, 8, and 9. The baseline means and treatment means
also support an increase in learning (4.1 and 7.47, respectively).

61

Student 4: Comprehension
Student 4’s comprehension scores baseline varied between 5 and 7.
Introduction of treatment saw an immediate incline in slope from 6 to 8 and a brief
plateau at 8. Subsequently, the slope again increased to 10, with a few dips. One such
dip, at day 19, was accompanied by a large dip in Retelling as well and suggests an
environmental factor rather than a true decline in learning. The baseline mean of 5.8
and treatment mean of 8.4, also suggests a real increase in learning. The slope of the
treatment line was in the direction of positive change and the resulting treatment
plateau was at a higher level than the baseline condition. Apart from one large dip,
variability in the treatment scores tended to follow the positive slope and did not
return to baseline levels.
Retelling
Student 1: Retelling
Student 1 also showed a positive trend during the baseline phase for retelling
scores (mean, 7.45). Surprisingly, when treatment was begun, her retelling scores
immediately dropped 4 points. While her scores did improve steadily, they did not
reach levels already established during the baseline phase. The overall treatment mean
was marginally higher than the baseline mean (7.75). The interpretation of student 1’s
scores may be complicated by the relatively short treatment phase as compared to the
other participants. It was difficult to determine whether further treatment may have
had a more significant effect.

62

Student 2: Retelling
Student 2’s baseline data appears to be more stable for retelling scores. She
reliably scores in the 5 and 6 range. After treatment, her scores immediately jump to
8, but thereafter, show great variability and no trend or change in level is apparent.
The baseline and treatment means reflect some slight improvement (5.38 and 6.4,
respectively).
Student 3: Retelling
Student 3 retelling scores varied between 9 and 4, with a mean of 6.2 and mode
of 6, indicating that 6 was a good estimate of the “real” baseline level. After the
treatment, the level jumps to 8 and 9 with some large dips back to levels of 1 and 2,
which are so low they suggest some environmental effect. Overall, there was an
almost immediate, moderate jump in level and that was followed by a mild increase in
slope, with a moderate degree of variability. The treatment (7.1) was probably not a
good measure of treatment effect due to two very large dips during the treatment
phase.
Student 4: Retelling
Student 4 baseline scores for retelling varied between 7 and 8. Introduction of
the treatment resulted in some variability in scores, with some slight increases and
decreases from baseline levels. These scores began a more reliable upwards slope
towards the last few days of treatment, indicating some latency of effect. The final
few scores at levels of 9 and 10 indicate improvement; a result that is somewhat

63

obscured in the baseline and treatment means (7.6 and 8.3, respectively) because of
the length of time it took for the treatment to effect a change.
Summary
Visual analysis of the four participants’ score for comprehension and retelling
for baseline and treatment phases provides evidence that guided reading had a
moderate effect on literacy outcomes. With the exception of one participant, most of
the graphs displayed positive trends and increases in outcome levels after the
introduction of guided reading. The amount of variability in scores tended to vary
with each participant, suggesting individual factors, perhaps attention issues. The
overall means for baseline and treatment phases tended to support general increases in
literacy outcomes, but these were sometimes obscured by variability in scores as well
as latency in treatment effects.
Conclusion
The goal of the study was to explore the effects of Guided Reading (teacher
supported) on reading comprehension scores for primary students who were learning
disabled English language learners at one California public elementary school. Using
a rural setting in a low SES school district, this study utilized Hough Mifflin reading
materials and one to one Guided Instruction (teacher supported) on a daily basis for 6
weeks. Participants were selected from 6th graders in a special education classroom
who are learning disabled English language learners. Human subject requirements
with respect to permission from parents and all participating students were garnered
prior to the start of the study.

64

The dependent variable (i.e., retelling and comprehension), scores on the Oral
Text Reading: comprehension check was used to measure the comprehension scores
for each participant. A trained substitute teacher administered the comprehension test.
Due to the small sample size (n = 4), a single subject multiple base line design across
subjects, was used to address the nature of the research question and achieve an in
depth understanding of selected individual’s performance. Procedural integrity was
used to monitor the instructor by using raters to assure reliability in that strategies
were implemented sequentially and systematically. Data collection took approximately
6 weeks. This length of time decreased the likelihood that any change in
comprehension scores was a result of a transient effect (or “fluke”), thus increasing the
validity and reliability of the Research Study. Data analysis included visual
inspection, trend analysis, and pooled base line and intervention means. Findings
from the data are presented in chapter 4.

65

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the chapter was to explore whether the independent variable,
Guided Reading (teacher supported), a small group instructional model, would be a
viable piece in remediation of reading comprehension scores, the dependent variable,
for students who are learning disabled English language learners (LD/ELLs). The
second part of the chapter was directed to whether the treatment effects of the
intervention assisted in the students becoming independent readers, representing a
paradigm shift from the instruction being teacher-directed to student-motivated.
Specifically, this study looked at the effectiveness of a viable literacy program that
would guide and support the learner in small group instruction, while scaffolding
reading strategies at the student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). This process
gradually releases responsibility to the students to assist in independent reading while
improving their reading comprehension scores.
Summary of the Study
The research site was at a public kindergarten-6
th
grade elementary school.
The special education teacher was selected to provide such an intervention as Guided
Reading (teacher supported) to strengthen reading comprehension strategies. Four 6
th

grade learning disabled English language learners (LD/ELL) who were low reading
achievers, were the main sample of this study. The daily observations of the teacher’s
instructional approach of Guided Reading (teacher supported) instruction using

66

reading comprehension strategies demonstrated the consistency of each lesson when
doing interventions with students who are learning disabled English language learners
(LD/ELLs). While there was one single teacher implementing the intervention
procedures of guided reading strategies, a long-term substitute teacher performed the
assessments: (a) Comprehension Questions Instruments and (b) the Retelling
Instrument. After the teacher taught the Guided Reading strategies in infusing
comprehension components for each of the four participants, the students in the
baseline phase of reading comprehension read the text and were given 10
comprehension questions from the selected literature by the substitute teacher. In
retelling the story, another form of assessing reading comprehension, the students read
a story, independently, and retold the story with the substitute teacher using a
Retelling Reading Instrument as an assessment tool.
The study began with all participants starting at the baseline phase. When
indicators showed stable responding (improvement) in the data points on the graph,
then the independent variable, intervention Guided Reading (teacher supported), was
applied to one participant while still maintaining baseline conditions for the other
participants (Neuman & McCormick, 1995).
With single-subject research of multiple baseline design across subjects, and
because of human subject’s variability, behaviors can fluctuate on a daily basis. For
that reason, several opportunities were given to the students to display their stages of
responding. The baseline data were displayed on a graph to visually compare it with
intervention data at a later time. Because the research design was a multiple baseline,

67

across-subject design of repeated measures, the focus was on addressing the impact of
the independent variable, Guided Reading (teacher supported), on the same behavior
for different subjects. Throughout the intervention phase, students were taught
reading comprehension strategies on a daily basis and after a brief period after the
instruction, to give the students’ time to internalize the concept, were assessed in
reading comprehension and retelling of the text, which was modeled after Macmillan/
MacGraw-Hill’s Spotlight on Literacy Assessment (1997).
Findings
As documented by the student’s academic history in the psychological reports,
the research study participants struggled in their reading comprehension. The duration
of this study lasted for 30 days. During that time, the students displayed growth in
their reading scores as indicated by the recorded results. Data information from table
2 demonstrates each participants move into the treatment phase based on the
assessment results.
Research Question #1
What are the effects of Guided Reading (teacher supported) on reading
comprehension scores of Learning Disabled English Language Learners?
Table 3 is a tabulation of the student’s comprehension baseline scores. Each
student’s entry into baseline was determined by their daily assessment without
intervention. When the first student displayed stability in his/her scores, the student
was then placed into intervention. The comprehension baseline means for the students

68

Table 3. Baseline Results per Student Prior to Guided Reading Interventions Baseline Data for Comprehension Questions
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Baseline-Student 1
D a y : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Score: 7 3 4 7 3 5 3 3 6 8 6 3 6 7 7 4 5 8 5 8 7 8
Baseline-Student 2

Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Score: 5 5 4 5 3 4 0 4 1 6 6 4 1
Baseline-Student 3

Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Score: 5 2 2 6 4 4 4 5 5
Baseline-Student 4

Day: 1 2 3 4 5
Score: 5 7 5 7 5
_____________________________________________________________________

are as follows: (a) Student 1 with a total of 123 for 22 days had a mean score of 5.59,
(b) Student 2 with a total of 42 for 13 days had a mean score of 3.23,
(c) Student 3 with a total of 37 for 9 days had a mean score of 4.11, and (d) Student 4
with a total of 29 for 5 days had a mean score of 5.8.
The major intent of Single-Subject Experimental Research is being able to
surmise student’s ability level by the analysis of student data beginning with baseline
data collection. For this research study, results indicated that student participants
showed some positive gains in addition to low levels or stages of responding. While
in baseline, the students are their “own control” and displayed small data variations on
a daily basis.

69

Table 2 is an indicator of possible variations that was based on student’s
behavior patterns. In summarizing the baseline phase results, Student 1 demonstrated
a positive upward slope even though she was at that level for 22 days and received
intervention for only 7 days. She displayed some low scores on various days which
could have resulted from difficulty from the text genre or just some environmental
impact at home. Her mean baseline score was at 5.59. Additionally, Student 2
demonstrated some variability in her baseline but generally was consistent with the
low end of her mean score of 3.69. The third participant, Student 3 demonstrated
some variation in his ability to make meaning of selected readings. His baseline score
was 4.1. Lastly, Student 4 performances displayed a mean score of 5.8 indicating his
ability to display similar levels of responding across the 5 days assessment sessions.
Due to stable conditions, the student was in baseline for 5 days as he was able to
comprehend the readings during the repeated assessments (measures).
Although one of the participants, Student 1, displayed an unstable level of
responding (Neuman & McCormick, 1995), and remained in base line for an extended
amount of time because of the nature of the study, of staggering the participants, the
three other participants, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4, were able to move into
intervention by day 13. As an example, Student 4 was in baseline for 5 days and
showed stable performance during the graphing of his measurement sessions which
fell in the “narrow range” (Heward, 1987). Demonstrating a positive outcome,
Student 4 was able to receive intervention on the 6
th
day of the study. The second

70

Student 3, followed in receiving the intervention on the 10
th
day with a baseline score
of 4.1. Student 2 moved into intervention on day 13
th
.
A summary of both the retelling and reading comprehension scores will be
discussed in this section. A visual analysis was utilized in determining data stability
and student responses. Data trends, level of responding, latency effects, and
variability of scores all assist in determining the student’s level of learning. In
essence, data point’s stability is necessary for increased learning to occur. A sharp dip
in scores from an increased data trend can be attributed to not understanding the text
or to some environmental factor(s) (Figure 1).
Comprehension Appendix E-G raph 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Day
Score
Student 3
Student 2
Student 1
Student 4

Figure1: Comprehension, Appendix E: Graph 1

71

Student 1
Comprehension at baseline had a mean of 5.59 and an intervention mean of 7.87,
demonstrating that she had mostly an upward slope with a few data points dipping
down a few points. She was the longest in baseline due to the instability of her
baseline scores. Because of that, treatment may not have impacted her scores.
Student 2
Comprehension at baseline had a mean of 3.69 and an intervention mean of
5.647 demonstrating that she had some difficulty in understanding and comprehending
the text, although she had days were she was able to answer comprehension questions
correctly.
Student 3
Comprehension at baseline had a mean of 4.1 and an intervention mean of 7.47
indicating some huge learning gains with scores of 7, 8, and 9. It is apparent that he
was more able to answer questions using auditory recall in response to the compre-
hension assessment. His comprehension baseline score indicated that there was
evidence of data stability as there were three consecutive data points in the same
direction on a flat plane on day 3, 4, and 5.
Student 4
Comprehension at baseline had a mean of 5.8 and an intervention mean of 8.4
demonstrating that the intervention worked. Although his intervention scores
indicated some variability, there was some increasing trend on days 8, 14, 17, 18, 22,

72

27, and 28. Data stability and level of responding was apparent with more than 3
consecutive data points in the same direction (Barlow & Hersen, 1984) on days 9-13.

Figure 2. Retelling, Appendix D, Graph 2
Research Question # 2
What are the effects of Guided Reading (teacher supported) on retelling scores
of Learning Disabled English Language Learners?
Student 1
Retelling at baseline, student 1 had a mean of 7.45 and an intervention mean of
7.75, showed a positive trend during baseline as indicated by her scores. There were
some dips. Her longevity in baseline may have hindered her scores, although she did
well considering how long she was in baseline.

Retelling Appendix D - Graph 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Day
Score
Student 1

Student 2

Student 3

X Student 4

73

Student 2
Retelling at baseline, student 2 had a mean of 5.38 and an intervention mean of
6.4. There was some variability with some latency effects.
Student 3
Retelling as indicated by his graph, student 3 at baseline had a mean of 6.2 and
an intervention mean of 7.3. There was also evidence that there was an increasing
trend on day 4 with a score of 9. However, on days 16 and 22, he had a decreasing
trend of a 2 and 1, respectively, which tend to indicate he may have had some
environmental or retention problems. Mean scores were derived from raw scores.
Student 4
Retelling at baseline, student 4 had a mean of 7.6 and an intervention mean of
8.32. He was in baseline for 5 days with a slight variability in scores between 7 and 8.
There was a data trend on a flat plane on days 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. A sharp
decrease on day 19 to a score of 3 suggests an environmental factor rather than an
academic decline.
Tables 4 and 5 demonstrate the baseline and intervention phase of the Retelling
section. It also includes the baseline and intervention phase of the Reading
Comprehension section, used to assist student reading performance in guided reading
which included the use of reading comprehension strategies of: Predicting/Inferring,
Phonics/Decoding, Monitor/Clarify, Questions, Evaluation and Summarizing.
The standard deviation is the average deviation of the scores from the mean. It
is an indication of how far apart the scores are within the baseline and intervention

74

sessions for each person; in other words, how inconsistent each subject was week to
week in their scores.
Table 4. Baseline and Intervention Comparison on the Comprehension and Retelling Phase of the Study.

Baseline Intervention

Mean SD Mean SD
Subject 1 6.20 1.39 7.30 2.04
Subject 2 5.38 1.01 6.40 1.25
Subject 3 7.45 1.86 7.75 1.48
Subject 4 7.60 0.87 8.32 1.10

Note. Subjects 1 and 4 were male. Subjects 2 and 3 were female.

Table 5. Baseline and Intervention Means for Comprehension

Baseline Intervention

Mean SD Mean SD
Subject 1 4.1 1.36 7.470 2.04
Subject 2 3.69 1.86 5.6470 1.25
Subject 3 5.59 1.74 7.870 1.48
Subject 4 5.80 1.42 8.400 1.10

Note. Subjects 1 and 4 were male. Subjects 2 and 3 were female.

Table 3 demonstrates the mean and standard deviation scores for each
student’s baseline and intervention on retelling and reading comprehension. Because
of the higher Retelling mean scores, it may seem that the students had a better
understanding of their reading and understanding of the text. On the other hand, the
students received the reading comprehension intervention giving them the necessary
strategies to read and comprehend independently. The addition of the standard
deviation scores demonstrated that the students showed growth on both variables.

75

Standard deviations are the average of the scores from the means. On both the
baseline and intervention for retelling and comprehension the statistical dispersion of
the data point sets showed how widely spread the values in the data set were. Given
the learning disability and their English language challenges, the data points were
close to the mean with little variation thus, a small standard deviation.
The following narrative provides some insight into the participants’ retelling
and reading comprehension scores. Based on Retelling (Appendix D) and Reading
Comprehension (Appendix E), demonstrates each student’s data findings upon
receiving the intervention/independent variable. The following narrative will illustrate
the pre- and post-development of each participant:
Student 1
Comprehension. Student 1 had the longest baseline phase of 22 days. Her
comprehension scores showed a slight positive slope during this phase, with an overall
baseline mean of 5.59. After the introduction of treatment, her comprehension scores
continued an upward slope with a final score that dipped down a few points. The
continuation of a positive trend established during the baseline phase does not indicate
that the treatment had any significant change on her scores, despite continued
increases (treatment mean = 7.87).
Retelling: Student 1 also showed a positive trend during the baseline phase for
retelling scores (mean 7.45). Surprisingly, when treatment was begun, her retelling
scores immediately dropped 4 points (Figure 4). While her scores did improve
steadily, they did not reach levels already established during the baseline phase.

76

Comprehension
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
3
5
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Score
Comprehension

Comprehension
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
3
5
7
9
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Score
Comprehension
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Score

Figure 4. Comprehension: Males and Females

Student 1
Baseline Treatment
Student 2
Student 3

77

Comprehension
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
24
26
28
30
Days
Score

Figure 4. Comprehension: Males and Females. (continued)

The overall treatment mean was marginally higher than the baseline mean (7.75). The
interpretation of student 1 scores may be complicated by the relatively short treatment.
Comprehension. Student 2 comprehension baseline had a lot of variability,
with a high score of 6 and a low score 0. There did not appear to be any slope or trend
in the baseline data. There continues to be a lot of variability in comprehension scores
following the treatment, complicating any interpretation of the data. Toward the end
of the trial, a trend towards positive change appears, indicating some latency of effect.
While there is still variability in scores, the highs and lows are more restricted with
lows of 5 and highs of 8. The baseline mean (3.69) and treatment mean (5.65) suggest
some improvement overall as well.
Student 2
Retelling. Student 2 baseline data appears to be more stable in her retelling
scores. She consistently scored in the 5 and 6 range. After treatment, her scores

Student 4

78

escalated to a score of 8, but thereafter, displayed great variability and no trend or
change in data level is apparent. The baseline and treatment means reflect some slight
improvement (5.38 and 6.4, respectively).
Student 3
Comprehension. While student 3 comprehension baseline showed a lot of
variability initially, the final baseline scores appear to sustain some stability around
scores of 4 and 5. After introduction of the treatment, his comprehension scores
increased in level nearly immediately. Variability in scores, subsequently, tends to
follow a positive slope with a final level around scores of 7, 8 and 9. The baseline
means and treatment means also support an increase in learning (4.1 and 7.47,
respectively).
Retelling. The retelling scores for student 3, varied between 9 and 4, with a
mean of 6.2 and mode of 6, indicating that 6 was a good estimate of the “real” baseline
level. After the treatment, the level jumps to 8 and 9 with some large dips back to
levels of 1 and 2, which are so low they suggest some environmental effect. Overall,
there was an almost immediate, moderate jump in level and that was followed by a
mild increase in slope, with a moderate degree of variability. The treatment (7.1) was
probably not a good measure of treatment effect due to two very large dips during the
treatment phase.
Student 4
Comprehension. Student 4 comprehension scores baseline varied between 5
and 7. Introduction of treatment saw an immediate incline in slope from 6 to 8 and a

79

brief plateau at 8. Subsequently, the slope again increased to 10 with a few dips. One
such dip, at day 19, was accompanied by a large dip in Retelling as well, and suggests
an environmental factor rather than a true decline in learning. The baseline mean of
5.8 and treatment mean of 8.4, also suggests a real increase in learning. The slope of
the treatment line was in the direction of positive change and the resulting treatment
plateau was at a higher level than the baseline condition. Apart from one large dip,
variability in the treatment scores tended to follow the positive slope and did not
return to baseline levels Retelling. Student 4 baseline scores for retelling varied
between 7 and 8. Introduction of the treatment resulted in some variability in scores,
with some slight increases and decreases from baseline levels. These scores began a
more reliable upwards slope towards the last few days of treatment, indicating some
latency of effect. The final few scores at levels of 9 and 10 indicate improvement; a
result that is somewhat obscured in the baseline and treatment means (7.6 and 8.3,
respectively) because of the length of time it took for the treatment to effect a change
(Figure 5).
Summary
Visual analysis of the four participants’ scores for comprehension and retelling
for baseline and treatment phases provides evidence that guided reading had a
moderate effect on literacy outcomes. With the exception of one participant, most of
the graphs displayed positive trends and increases in outcome levels after the
introduction of guided reading. The amount of variability in scores tended to vary
with each participant, suggesting individual factors, such as attention issues.

80

Retelling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
3
5
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Score
Retelling

Retelling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
3
5
7
9
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Score
Retelling
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Score

Figure 5. Retelling: Males and Females.

Student 1
Baseline Treatment
Student 2
Student 3

81

Retelling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
24
26
28
30
Days
Score

Figure 5. Retelling: Males and Females (continued).

The overall means for baseline and treatment phases tended to support general
increases in literacy outcomes, but these were sometimes obscured by variability in
scores as well as latency in treatment effects.
Student 4

82

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the findings of this study and the relationship to the
research questions. The effects of a guided small group instructional approach to
reading, its implication, conclusion and recommendations will be presented and
discussed.
Purpose
The purpose of the chapter was to examine the effects of a small group guided
reading instructional approach, on reading comprehension scores for students who are
learning disabled English language learners. The secondary purpose was to determine
whether the student was able to retell the sequence of the story, independently.
Research Questions of the Study
1. What are the effects of an individual guided reading (teacher supported)
intervention on reading comprehension scores of learning Disabled
Language Learners?
2. What are the effects of an individual guided reading (teacher supported)
intervention on retelling scores of learning Disabled Language
Learners?
Brief Description of Method
Based on the Single Subject Multiple Baseline Design, 30 guided reading and
independent reading sessions were conducted and observed. Students were in baseline
prior to receiving the reading intervention. Several sessions were audio-taped and

83

transcribed and were used to analyze the teacher’s comprehension instructional
strategies. An experienced and tenured special education teacher (K-6) participated in
this experimental study. A long-term substitute teacher assessed the students on a
daily basis during baseline and intervention. Two additional teachers were employed
to confirm inter-rater reliability 25% of the time at baseline and intervention.
Discussion

The key findings were that the independent variable, Guided Reading (teacher
supported), when taught on a regular basis with infusion of reading comprehension
strategies in a small group instruction, influenced the dependent variable, by
improving reading comprehension scores. This was validated by the daily input of
data scores, which were plotted on graphs for each participant. Because of the
individual academic and learning challenges of each participant, there was some data
variability on the student’s responding level on both their baseline and intervention
scores. Additionally, the data trends were taking into account, based on visual path
analysis inspection that were graphed and maintained throughout the study. Along the
same lines, the magnitude of change indicated some latency of effects and that the
difference in the mean level of response versus variability of response was that the
scores showed educational significance even though some days there were major
variability as indicated by peaks and valleys in the position of the data points.
For example, baseline mean for reading comprehension assessment for student
2 demonstrated by the position of the data points, at times, showed deep hills and at
other times showed valleys that there were occasions of variability during baseline on

84

days 7, 11, and 13, and major peaks during intervention. Even with such deep hills
and valleys, her scores indicated an elevation from 3.69 baseline mean score to 5.647
intervention mean scores, hence overall improvement.
The variability could be due to the specific strategy being introduced for that
day as well as the student’s inability to retain or comprehend the use of the strategy.
Testing students in mid-morning may be another reason for response variability, as
they may have need for nutrition by that time or they may be tired from the previous
evening activities. Baseline mean for retelling assessment showed consistent scoring
in the 5-6 range with some latency effects on day 3, 7, and 13. With treatment
infusion, some of the data points were placed on the 8th range with some variability
and changes in data levels. The student showed some slight improvement from a
mean of 5.38 during retelling baseline to a 6.4 mean after treatment effects.
Another example is student 3, whose reading baseline scores initially,
displayed some variability. After introduction of treatment, his comprehension scores
increased. Variability in scores was more of a positive slope with scores of 7, 8, and
9. The baseline and treatment means is an indicator of the strength of the intervention
with scores from 4.1 baseline mean to 7.47 interventions mean. Baseline mean for
retelling showed that student 3 had a mean of 6.2. Upon treatment the level jumped
from 8 and 9 with some regression to levels 1 and 2, indicating possible environmental
effects. Treatment scores were at 7.1 due to the large level of 1 and 2 dips. Treatment
effects indicated that male #1G did improve with the reading intervention and that it is
more than likely that the intervention caused or is related to any improvement

85

(Neuman & McCormick, 1995). However, due to the large level of 1 and 2 dips, that
may have been caused by environmental elements such as problematic issues at home
with family members, not having a balanced meal, sleep deprivation or illness, may be
factors that influenced his test scores thus, indicating that his achievement level was
lowered.
Although there was some variability in the scores, the students still showed
growth after treatment. Variables as environment al factors, language dominance and
each student’s learning style played a part in the student’s achievement levels. The
major overall theme, based on the data analysis, was that the students learned
strategies and displayed improvements from the baseline phase to the intervention
phase.
In answering the research questions, the data analysis did indicate that there
were some positive effects for LD/ELLs. With the Gradual Release of Responsibility
Theory and the scaffolding of literary concepts within the student’s ZPDs, it is
apparent that treatment of the intervention of the use of Guided Reading (teacher
supported) comprehension scores do transfer to independent reading as seen in the
findings presented in this section.
Summary of the Study
The research site was at a public kindergarten-6
th
grade elementary school.
The special education teacher was selected to provide such an intervention as Guided
Reading (teacher supported) to strengthen reading comprehension strategies. Four 6
th

grade learning disabled English language learners (LD/ELL) who were low reading

86

achievers were the main sample of this study. The daily observations of the teacher’s
instructional approach of Guided Reading (teacher supported) instruction using
reading comprehension strategies demonstrated the consistency of each lesson when
doing interventions with students who are learning disabled English language learners
(LDELLs). While there was one single teacher implementing the intervention
procedures of guided reading strategies, a long-term substitute teacher performed the
assessments: Comprehension Questions Instruments and the Retelling Instrument.
After the teacher taught the Guided Reading strategies in infusing comprehension
components for each of the four participants, the students in the baseline phase of
reading comprehension read the text, and were given 10 comprehension questions
from the selected literature by the substitute teacher. In retelling the story, another
form of assessing reading comprehension, the students read a story, independently,
and retold the story with the substitute teacher using a Retelling Reading Instrument as
an assessment tool.
The study began with all participants starting at the baseline phase. When
indicators showed stable responding (improvement) in the data points on the graph,
then the independent variable, intervention-Guided Reading (teacher supported) was
applied to one participant, while still maintaining baseline conditions for the other
participants (Neuman & McCormick, 1995).
With single-subject research of multiple baseline design across subjects, and
because of human subject’s variability, behaviors can fluctuate on a daily basis. For
that reason, several opportunities were given to the students to display their stages of

87

responding. The baseline data were displayed on a graph to visually compare it with
intervention data at a later time. Because the research design was a multiple baseline,
across-subject design, the focus was on addressing the impact of the independent
variable, Guided Reading (teacher supported), on the same behavior for different
subjects. Throughout the intervention phase, students were taught reading compre-
hension strategies on a daily basis and after a brief period after the instruction, to give
students time to internalize the concept, were assessed in reading comprehension and
retelling of the text, which was modeled after Mcmillan/MacGraw-Hill’s Spotlight on
Literacy (1997).
Researched findings will be presented in this last chapter as it relates to the two
research questions that dealt with determining the effectiveness of a teaching approach
to reading. The basic findings are that small group explicit instruction of Guided
Reading, support and guide students who are learning disabled English language
learners(LD/ELLS) while allowing them to work at their Zone of Proximal Develop-
ment (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978).
The students in the study demonstrated that the intervention assisted them in
acquiring the strategies evidenced by their daily assessment of reading scores.
Although there was some variability in the graphed data, the mean scores indicated
that the students were able to make strides in using the guided reading intervention.
The rationale for this positive behavior is due to the consistency of daily input of the
intervention with the teacher scaffolding strategies to embed literacy concepts, while
integrating the Gradual Release of Responsibility Theory. Hence, the assessment

88

outcomes were meaningful and relevant, and showed signs of educational significance
based on each participant’s ability level while providing evidence that casual relation-
ship cans exist between the independent and dependent variables. The research design
was such that each participant was their own control. To this end, recommendations
for further research will be presented such as the implementation of Guided Reading
strategies as well as more formalized current research on students who are English
language learners with learning disabilities.
Implications for Practice
The Guided Reading Intervention demonstrated that there was dramatic
improvement in students with LD/ELL in their reading comprehension and retelling
abilities. For some students, it may take time to observe improvement. For example,
student 1 was the longest in the comprehension baseline phase. Her scores indicated a
slight improvement during this phase with a baseline mean of 5.59. During her
retelling baseline phase student 1 showed a positive trend with a mean of 7.45. When
treatment was introduced, her retelling scores dropped 4 points. Although student 1
showed improvement, she did not reach levels displayed during the baseline phase.
Student 1 is a prime example of time being the essence of observable and measurable
improvements for this student population.
In using the Guided Reading intervention there are some implications of
practice that need to be considered: expense of teacher preparation and teaching
student independence (i.e., self-regulation). The daily infusion to guide and give
students the necessary tools to increase reading comprehension can be costly in regard

89

to time spent in teacher preparation and teaching students to be independent. Teachers
prepare and plan, based on pre-assessment of student need, for specific strategy
lessons each day for small group instruction. An example is to prepare before the
reading--selecting appropriate text, during the reading-observes reader’s strategy
behaviors, and after the reading-assess students understanding (Fountas & Pinnell,
1996).
Each Guided Reading group will have leveled books matching student reading
ability and other realia (i.e, big books) that is required to enhance student under-
standing. In addition, teachers need to provide activities for students not in the small
group instruction by designing and organizing the learning environment. An example
is to have 20 minute group rotations of independent work addressing the core content
areas. Students should have access to a variety of text to read from the charts and
posters on the walls, at reading centers and a classroom library. To have quality
uninterrupted time, teachers model expected independent behaviors. A solution is to
provide peer leaders and other volunteers that will be “in charge” of each group with
specific expectation instructions. Rewarding students for their efforts will also assist
with student responsibility and independence.
Recommendations for Further Research
With an increasing number of LD/ELL arriving in American schools on a daily
basis, the reminder is that teachers are continuously faced with providing educational
services for a culturally and linguistically diverse population who are performing at a
below basics level on their test scores (Baca, 1994; Gersten, Bengleman, & Jimenez,

90

1994; Hodgkinson, 1993; O’Shea, Hammittee, Maninzer, & Crutchfield, 2000;
Maldonado, 1994; McCardle, McCarthy, Cutting, Leos, & D’Emillio, 2005).
It is imperative that we as a nation, “narrow the equity gap” through explicit
and focused reading instruction for all students (Reading First, 2008; Fountas &
Pinnell, 1996). For that reason, the need for specific reading practices as Guided
Reading (teacher supported) will enable students to work in their “zone” for maximum
learning. This process will then allow LD/ELL to be independent readers using the
taught comprehension strategies. These students will need the tools to be able to be
competitive in this diverse society and to earn a substantial wage to support
themselves and their families.
Administrators and teachers are faced with high expectations of state and
federal reforms that are standards–based aligned. An example is the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001. The fact that many school districts have not attain their target
scores in the area of language arts, it would behoove schools to explicitly use such
guided practices as the Guided (teacher supported) strategies. In this connection, the
use of the Gradual Release Theory in assisting students to move through their ZPD,
and the implementation of scaffolding taught concepts for better literary
comprehension is needed. As demonstrated in this study, such strategies do provide
students to become more independent readers.
Further studies are needed in the area of Guided Practice and the
differentiating of instruction for meeting of assessment benchmarks, specifically with
students who are LDELLs. More research needs to be conducted on LD/ELLs, and

91

how this guided process influences students in retaining the strategies not only in
reading but across the content areas. Such findings will net a great need in working
with this population of students. Sadly, there is not an ample amount of studies
directed to these students. Thus, this particular study is an avenue to initiate
continuing studies on the practices of guided reading and integrating the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) and the Gradual Release Theory with scaffolding
elements.
In this connection, future studies may be directed to the following concerns:
(a) LD students need more time in learning core concepts due to their disability; (b)
would the general education population (non-LD students) have as much variability in
their reading scores as LD students; (c) reading interventions using a single subject
design teaching students on a 1-1 basis with cost being an issue. Could this study be
done in small groups and (d) for this study, instruction was done in English. Would
there have been a difference in scores and aptitudes if the study was done in the
student’s first language?
Reading Publishers such as Houghton Mifflin, understand the need for more
effective reading tools for ultimate success with all students especially the subgroups
of LDELLs, and are infusing Language Arts with Universal Access (UA) time for
more small group instruction and practice.
Conclusions
There needs to be continued reading comprehension instruction along with the
Gradual Release Theory and student’s ZPDs, as these are critical elements during

92

guided practice. The goal of this study was to take a small group of readers and model
and scaffold comprehension strategies, enabling the students to realize their Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPDs), thus leading to their role of being an independent
reader.
The daily use of comprehension strategies which are communicated explicitly
to students will realize better readers (Arguelles, 2006). Guided practice as Guided
Reading (teacher supported) is necessary for students to increase their reading
comprehension skills and scores. Based on No Child Left Behind (2001) and Reading
First, a federally mandated reading program of Every Child a Reader by 3
rd
grade, the
call is to mandate that all classrooms used some form of guided practice to assist all
students in reading performance and insuring higher reader scores (API, AYP). Now
more than ever with a possible nationwide recession and budget cuts, specifically in
the area of education budgets, it is critical that teachers use a form of Guided Reading
(teacher supported) strategies to increase student achievement in reading. Reading
achievement will lead to student’s work attainment and job career options, higher
quality of life in society and for the greater good for all. For one reason or another,
there is a very limited amount of research directed to the needs of English language
learners who are learning disabled. To meet state and federal mandates, it is crucial
that we, as a nation, need to go above and beyond and look at our “special”
population.
In conclusion, to narrow the achievement gap and help our LD/ELLs become
independent and successful readers there needs to be the following: high expectations

93

with no excuses of “why Johnny can’t read,” highly qualified teachers teaching in an
conducive environment with adequate teaching materials(NCLB, 2001), weekly
grade-level meetings, Professional Learning Communities (PLC) for collaboration and
data analysis, staff development, continuing involvement of parent participation,
tutoring and mentoring with after school programs (California Educator, 2008).

94

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Reading Research and
Education Center.

Anderson, M., Beard, K., Delgado, B. , Kea, C., Raymond,20E., Singh, N., Sugai, G.,
Townsend, B., Voltz, D., & Webb-Johnson, G. (1998). Working with
culturally and linguistically diverse children, youth, and their families:
Promising practices in assessment, instruction and personnel preparation (A
white paper by the Multicultural Concerns Task Force Council for Children
with Behavior Disorders). Reston, VA: CCBD, a Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children.

American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Building on the best, learning from what
works: seven promising reading and English language arts programs.
Washington DC: American Federation of Teachers.

Arguelles, M.E. (2006). Components of Effective Instruction for ELL’s.
Westborough, MA: The Reading Institute, Inc.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S.C., & Palmer, J. (2004) Culturally diverse students in special
education: Legacies and prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.),
Handbook of research on multicultural education (2
nd
ed., pp. 716-735). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Baca, L., et al. (1994). “Language Minority Students: Literacy and Educational
Reform.” In Elllsworth, N., et al. (Eds.), Literacy: A redefinition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for
studying behavior change (2
nd
Edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Bisesi, T., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Combining single-subject designs with
qualitative research. Newark, DE. ERIC. ED. 381758.

Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The Cooperative research program in first-grade
reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5-142.

95

Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (1998). Building a knowledge base in reading. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Learning about learning. Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.

Burke, M., Hagan, S., & Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular design and strategies
accommodate diverse learners? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(1), 34-48

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter
knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 313-321.

California Department of Education (CDE). (1996). A balanced comprehensive
approach to teaching reading in prekindergarten through grade twelve. ERIC.
# 144. Washington, DC: GPO.

California Department of Education (CDE). ( 1999). Reading/language arts frame
work for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve.
California Department of Education: GPO.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2004). The California Reading
Language Art Framework: An instruction blueprint for teaching the English
Language Arts Standards [Speaker’s notes.] Retrieved Oct. 25, 2004, from
http://www.nobel.org/1wved/id35.htm

California Department of Education (CDE). (2006). English Language Learners.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/elfaq.doc

California Department of Education (CDE). (2008). August 2008 edition of the
Standards and Assessment Notes for the California English Language
Development Test. Retrieved on August 10, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/elfaq.doc

California Educator. (2008). Professional Development, 12(9).

The California Reading Initiative. (1996). Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education. Retrieved on August 10, 2008, from www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/
eltdiv/rdg_init.htm

96

California Reading Initiative. (1999). The California reading initiative and special
education in California: Critical ideas focusing on meaningful reform.
Sacramento, CA: CED Press.

California Reading Professional Development Institute: Focusing on Results.
(1999/2000). California Reading & Literature Project. CRLP, University of
California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA.

Cambourne, B. (1998). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of
literacy in the classroom. New York: Scholastic.

Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chard, D. J., & Kameenui, E., J. (2000). Struggling first grade readers: The
frequency and progress of their reading. The Journal of Special Education,
34(1),

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cloud, N. (2002). Culturally and linguistically responsive instructional planning. In
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (Eds.), English language learners with special
education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 107-132).
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a 2nd language for school (Directions in Language and
Education, 1(4). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education. Retrieved on October 23, 2001, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/
ncbepubs/directions.htm

CORE: Teaching Reading Sourcebook for kindergarten through eighth grade. (2000).
Novato, CA: Arena Press.

Cramer, S. C., & Ellis, W. (Eds.). (1996). Learning disabilities: Lifelong issues.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M. L.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,
Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

97

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.
Washington DC: National Academy Press

Dowhower, S. L. (1999). Supporting a strategic stance in the classroom: A
comprehension framework for helping teachers help students to be strategic.
The Reading Teacher, 52, 672-688.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6
th
ed.) Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In Barr, R., Kamil, M.
L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. 2, pp. 383-417). New York: Longman.

Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme: Phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read
words in English. In J. L. Metsala, & E. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in
beginning literacy (pp. 3-40). Mehwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

England, G., Collins, S., & Algozzine, B. (2002). Effects of failure free reading on
culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities.
Multiple Voices, 5(1), 28–37.

Felton, R. H., & Pepper, P. P. (1995). Early identification and intervention of
phonological deficits in kindergarten and early elementary children at risk for
reading disability. School Psychology Review, 24, 405-414.

Felton, R. H., Wood, F. B. (1992). A20Reading level match study of nonword
reading skills in poor readers with varying IQ. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25(5), 318-326.

Fisher, B., & Medvic, E. F. (2000). Perspectives on shared reading: Planning and
practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1999). The ‘California reading initiative’: A formula
for failure for bilingual students? ERIC # EJ 1577085. Language Arts, 76(3),
241-248.

Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on ‘The great debate: Code-oriented versus whole
language approaches to reading instruction.’ School Psychology Review, 24,
376-392.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading. Good first teaching for all
children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

98

Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. (2001). Guiding readers and writers, grades 3-6: Teaching
comprehension, genre and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Francis, D., Rivera, J., Lesaux, M., Kieffer, N., & Rivera, M. (2006). Practical
guidelines for the education of English language learners: research-based
recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Houston, TX:
Center of Instruction.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-
intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157-
171.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Synthesis of research reading
comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51, 62-68.

Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system
for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 367-395.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional
practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454-470.

Gersten, R., Baker, S., Marks, S., & Smith, S. (1991). Effective instruction for
learning disabled or at-risk English language learners: An integrative
synthesis of the empirical and professional knowledge bases. National Center
for Learning Disabilities. New York : New York

Gersten, R., Brengelman, S., & Jimenez, R. (1994). Effective instruction for
culturally and linguistically diverse students: A reconceptualization. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 27(3),

Good, Simmons & Smith (1998) Effective academic interventions in the United
States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills.
School Psychology Review, 27(1), 45-56.

Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: an unnatural act. Bulletin
of the Orton Society, 30, 179-196.

Green, J. F. (1999). Another change: Help for older students with limited literacy.
Perspectives, 25(3), 5-10.

Gresham, F. M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to
intervention. School Psychology Review, 20, 20-36.

99

Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of
supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic
students in early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 99-
103.

Hall, S. L., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading: How parents can
make a difference during the early years. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC/
Contemporary Publishing.

Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1996). Introduction to learning
disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of
reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Haskell, D.W, Foorman, B.R. & Swank, P.R. (1992). Effects of three
orthographic/phonological units on first grade units. Remedial and Special
Education, 13, 40-49.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6),
6-11.

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H. & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in
special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Helman, L. A. (2004). Building on the sound system of Spanish: Insights from the
alphabetic spellings of English-language learners. The Reading Teacher,
57(5), 452-460.

Hodgkinson, H. (1993). American education: The good, the bad, and the task. Phi
Delta Kappan, 74(8), 619-623.

Honing, B. L., Diamond, G. L., & Mahler, J. (2000). Teaching reading sourcebook
for kindergarten through eighth grade. Berkley, CA: Consortium on Reading
Excellence.

Hudson, R. R. & Smith, S. W. (2001, September). Intervention in School and Clinic,
37(1), 36-39.

100

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.
;1400 et seq. Washington D.C. : Government Printing Office

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from
first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., &
Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). Handbook of reading research, 2, 759-788. New York:
Longman.

Juel, C. (1994). Learning to read and write in one elementary school. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Justin, N. (1970). Culture Conflict and Mexican-American Achievement. School and
Society, 98,

Kamp, A., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Longstaff, J., Culpepper, M., &
Walton, C. (2007, Summer). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading
instruction for English Language Learners in elementary grades: secondary-tier
intervention. Learning Disability Quarter, 30, 153-168.

Kang, H. (1994). Helping 2nd language readers learn from content area text through
collaboration and support. Journal of Reading, 27, 646-652.

Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and
available educational programs and services: 2000-2001 summary report.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.

Klinger, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Mendez-Barletta, L. (2006). English language
learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39, 108-128.

Klinger, J. K. & Edwards, P. A. (2006, March). Cultural considerations with
Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly.

Knox, C., & Amador-Watson, C. (2002). Responsive instruction for success in
English. Barrington, IL: Rigby.

Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school
students. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 875-895.

Kreul, M. (1996). Guided reading in the primary classroom. Instruction Magazine:
Scholastic Inc.

101

Learning Media. (2002). The Guided Reading Approach. Wellington, New Zealand.

Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who
speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1005-
1019.

Leverett, R. G., & Diefendorf, A. O. (1992). Students with language deficiencies.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 30-35.

Levine, M. (1984, September). Learning abilities and disabilities, Harvard university
medical school health letter (pp. 1-2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Linehan, J. 2002. Exemplary Instruction for successful emergent readers. Retrieved
on January 29, 2006, from http://www.bridgew.e du/Library/
CAGS_Projects/JLINHAN/ web%20page/reviewsu

Linehardt, G. (1992). What research on learning tells us about teaching. Educational
Leadership, 49(7), 200-225.

Lovett, M. W., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Ransby, M. J., & Borden, S. L. (1990).
Training the word recognition skills of reading disabled children: Treatment
and transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 769-780.

Lyon, G. R. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 6, 54-77.

Lyon, G. R. (1997). Report on learning disabilities research. Testimony given before
the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Retrieved on July 10, 1997, from
www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/nih_report.html

Lyon, G. R. (1998, November). Critical advances in understanding reading
acquisition and reading difficulty. Paper presented at the North Carolina
Branch of the International Dyslexia Association, Boone, NC.

Lyon, G. R., & Chhabra, V. (1996). The current state of science and the future of
specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews, 2, 2-9.

Maldonado, J. A. (1994, Winter). Bilingual special education: Specific learning
disabilities in language and reading. The Journal of Educaitonal Issues of
Language Minority Students, 14, 127-148.

102

Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (1999). Instructor’s
resource manual for Research Methods: Learning to Become a Critical
Research Consumer. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, L., & D’Emilio, T. (2005). Learning
disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 1-5.

McMillan, J & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction. NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated readings to enhance fluency: Old
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49,283-306.

Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996). A case study of middle school reading
disability. The Reading Teacher, 49(5), 368-377.

Mueller, Eve & Markowitz, J. (2004, March). English language learners with
disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Project FORUM

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1997). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1998). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). Washington, DC; U.S.
Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1993, May). New study to look at
literacy in the United States. Washington, DC: NCES, U.S. Department of
Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). THE NAEP 1998 reading
report card for the nation and the states. NCES 1999-500. Washington, DC:
Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Cambell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002). Public school student, staff,
and graduate counts by state: School year 2000-2001, Washington, DC:
Author.

103

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). Language minority
learners and their labor market indications-recent trends. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (1999). Keys to
successful learning: A national summit on research in learning disabilities.
Retrieved June 11, 2003, from http://www.ldonline.org/
ld_indepth/reading/ncld_summit99.html

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction. National Institute of Health Publication No. 004769.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Institute for Literacy. (1998). Fast facts on literacy & fact sheet on
correctional education. Washington, DC: Author.

National Institute for Literacy. (n.d.). Workforce literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved on July 10, 2008, from www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/ workforce.htm
[Pinnell, Gay Su. Scholastic Guided Reading Program: Blue Edition.
Scholastic, 2002.l#corporate]

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development.

Neuman, S. B., & McCormick, S. (1995). Single-subject experimental research:
Applications for literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 Stat. 1425(2002).
Retrieved June 11, 2008, from www.ed.gov

O’Malley, E. (Ed.). (1999). Reading/language arts framework for California public
schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. California Department of
Education. Sacramento, CA. ERIC ED. 448451.

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (1996). Meeting the needs of
students with disabilities in the inner cities. Eighteenth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education
act (pp. 81-104). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

104

Ogubu, J. U. (1990). Minority status and literacy in comparative perspective.
Daedalus, 119(2), 141-167.

Ortiz, A., Garcia, S. Hotlzman, W., Palyzoi, E., Snell, W., Wilkinson, C., & Willig, A.
(1985). Characteristics of limited English proficient Hispanic students in
programs of the learning disabled: Implications for policy, practice and
research. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Handicapped Minority Research
Institute on Language Proficiency.

Ortiz, A., Garcia, S., Wheeler, D., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986) Characteristics of
limited English proficient students served in programs for the speech and
language handicapped: Implications for policy, practice and research. Austin,
TX: University of Texas, Handicapped Minority Research Institute on
Language Proficiency.

Ortiz, A. A. & Wilkinson, C. Y. (1991). Assessment and intervention model for the
bilingual exceptional student (AIM for the BEST). Teacher Education and
Special Education, 14, 35-42.

O'Shea, D. J., Hanmittee, D., Maninzer, R., & Crutchfield, M. D. (2000). From
teacher preparation to continuing professional development. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 23(2), 71-77.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading
comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.

Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. New
York: Scholastic.

Pinnell, G. S. (2002). Scholastic guided reading program: Blue edition. New York:
Scholastic, Inc.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
teaching. New York: Guilford.

Puig, Enrique. (2004). Guided Reading and Spanish-Speaking Children. New York:
Scholastic, Inc.

Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2007). A test of time: Unchanged priorities for student
outcomes. School Administrator, 64(3). (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. EJ757424). Retrieved September 17, 2007, from ERIC database.

105

Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for
English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,
71(3), 231-247.

Sawyer, D. J. (1992). Language abilities, reading acquisition, and developmental
dyslexia: A discussion of hypothetical and observed relationships. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 25, 82-95.

School Accountability Report Card 2006-2007. (2008, February). Coachella Valley
USD, Palm View Elementary School.

Segan, F. (1998). Teaching reading to bilingual students with disabilities. Routledge
Publishing : London, UK.

Slavin R. A & Cheung, A. (2004). Effective reading programs for English language
learners. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Learning disabilities in English language learners. LD
Online: Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners. Retrieved on
June 11, 2008, from http://www.idonline.org/ spearsswerling/8001

The Special Edge. (2000, Autumn). Why Children Succeed or Fail at Reading.
California Department of Education Division, Special Education Division,
12(l),

The Special Edge. (2001). California Department of Education Division, Special
Education Division.

Spotlight on Literacy Assessment. (1997). New York: McMillan/McGraw-Hill.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in Reading: Some consequences of
individual Differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, 360- 407.

Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the
development of verbal intelligence. Advances in Child Development and
Behaviour, 24, 133-180.

106

Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the
Development of Verbal Intelligence. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in Child
Development and Behavior, 24, 133–180. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. The Journal of Special
Education, 28, 259-274.

Teaching Reading. (1996). A balanced comprehensive approach to teaching reading
in pre-kindergarten through third grade. Reading Program Advisory.
Sacramento, CA: Reading Program Advisory.

Trelease, J. (2000). The read aloud handbook. New York: Penguin Group.

United Way. (2004). Retrieved on June 11, 2008, from
http://www.unitedwayla.org/getinformed/rr/socialreports/Pages/LiteracyRepro
t.aspx

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1993, July). Adult literacy and
new technologies. Washington D.C., : Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1990). U. S. Census. Washington, DC: Bureau of
the Census.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (1997). To assure the free appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities. Nineteenth Annual Report to
Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: GPO.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). American Library Association, Pizza Hut,
Inc., Scholastic, Inc., & Reading is Fundamental, Inc. America Reads
Challenge: Read* Write*Now! Activities for reading and writing fun.
Washington, DC: U. S. GPO.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). National assessment of educational progress.
Washington, DC: U. S. GPO.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Pursuing excellence (National Center for
Education Statistics Report No. 97-198). Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). America reads challenge. Retrieved on June
11, 2008, from www.ed.gov

107

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics. The NAEP 1998
reading report card for the nation and the states, NCES 1999-500, by
Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. Washington,
DC: GPO.

U. S. Department of Education. (2005). Institute of Educations Science National
Center for Education Statistics. National assessment of educational progress.
Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999).
Literacy in the Labor Force: Results from the National Adult Literacy Survey
NCES 1999-470 by Andrew Sum.

U.S. Department of Education, National Cernter for Education Statistics (2000).
Schools and staffing survey (SASS), 1999-2000, Public school questionnaire
and charter school questionnaire. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development . In Mind in
Society (pp. 79-91) (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Willig, A., Swedo, J., & Ortiz, A. (1987). Characteristics of teaching strategies
which result in high task engagement for exceptional limited English proficient
students. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Handicapped Minority
Research Institute on Language Proficiency.

Wilson, K. (1999). Note-taking in the academic writing process of non-native
speaker students: is it important as a process or a product? Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 26(2), 166-173.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Worthy, J., & McKool, S. (1996). Students who say they hate to read: The
importance of opportunity, choice, and access. In Literacies for the 21
st

century: Research and practice, Leu, D., Kinzer, C., & Hinchman, K. (Eds.)
(pp. 245-256). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

108

Wright Group. (1995). Guided Reading: A practical approach for teachers. Bothell,
WA: Wright Group.

Zehler, A. M. (1994). Working with English language learners: Strategies
elementary and middle school teachers. Washington DC: The National
Clearing House for Bilingual Education.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M., &
Sapru, S. (2003, September). Descriptive study of services to LEP students
and LEP students with disabilities: Volume I research report. Arlington, VA:
Development Associates, Inc.

109

APPENDIX A
GUIDED PRACTICE
T: Jose it is July 8 and you are doing your 2
nd
lesson on questioning. Last week, we
did an introduction lesson on questioning. I told you why it was important and I
gave you some tricks. This week I will give you more tricks to help you with
questioning. First let’s review. You will want to use your questioning especially
during the story and after the story. You can also use questioning before the
story when you look at the cover of a book and the title. Sometimes you may
have a picture and title that doesn’t match and that might cause some questions
right there. But whenever we look at a title you kind of want to know what the
story is about. So in your head you might be asking that question, I wonder what
the story is about. You can use knowledge you already have, so if something
doesn’t make sense you can ask you self a question. Like in Mrs. Brown Goes to
Town, why is Mrs. Brown living in a barn? Because you know from your head,
because you are smart that little old ladies do not live in barns. You can use the
words in the story and certainly you may use the pictures. Any time while you
are reading it is OK to stop ask questions of your self and see if you can find the
answers. And that makes reading more interesting cause if you ask yourself the
question and you want to prove yourself right you are going to pay more
attention to what you read then just reading cause Mrs. C told you so. The most
important thing with any of these strategies and with Questioning is that this
becomes automatic; it becomes a habit. Something you do while you are reading

110

and you are not even thinking about it. When you go to the library and you pick
up a book and you look at the front you are probably thinking I wonder what this
is about but you don’t stop and say I wonder what this is about. It happens
automatically in your head. If it looks like it is about something that you are
interested in you choose the book. And if you think it is about something you
don’t care about you put the book back. So you kind of asking yourself
questions without realizing it whenever you look at the front of a book. This
week what I would like to do to help you with questioning is, it is hard
sometimes to put things in a question form. And when we were practicing (all
the students) last week instead of asking a question, you were all telling me the
answer. What I want you to do is practice asking questions. First of all there are
“W” words; 5 “W” words that are at the beginning of questions. If you
remember the 5 W’s that can help you remember how to put things in a form of a
question. Do you ever watch Jeopardy on TV? Ever see that show? Well they
have to answer like a question. Well they have to answer like a question. Like
who is Abraham Lincoln? They can’t just say Abraham Lincoln. They have to
ask it in a question like, Who is Abraham Lincoln? So the 5 Ws are to help you:
WHO, WHAT WHEN WHERE AND WHY. Say them with me.
T: Who.
S: Who.
T: What.
S: When.

111

T: Where.
S: Where?
T: Where?
S: Where?
T: I am going to write this on the board and we are going to practice the 5 Ws: 5
Ws and answering questions. If you start a sentence with one of these words it is
going to wind up as a question isn’t it? (Teacher has student repeat the 5 Ws two
times along with her). Now you do it.
S: Who, what, when, where, why.
T: Why. Any one of those 5 Ws, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You start that sentence with a “W”
word, it is going to be in a question form. There is one other one that is not a
“W.” That’s a good one. You know which word?
S: He.
T: How?
S: How?
T: You are right it is spelled with exact same letters as “Who,” but the letters are
switched. So, how is another one. If I say, “How are you today?”
S: Fine.
T: You have to answer me. So it was a question wasn’t it? If I say, how old are
you?
S: Five.

112

T: See you had to answer. How is another one that works. So when you are asking
yourself questions, who, what, when, where, why, or how will help you.
T: What we are going to do today is I am going to take the story, Fluff and the Long
Nap, we have been reading and I am going to have you tell me a sentence from
the story, and I will turn it into a question using one of these words on the board.
Then I am going to take, Mrs. Brown Went to Town and we’ll switch. I will
give you some sentences, and you’ll have to turn it into a question using those
words. So we will have practice making questions. So here is Fluff and the
Long Nap, and just read any sentence from there and read it to me.
S: Who wants to be a dog?
T: Who wants to be a dog? Well you already did a good job. I was going to turn it
into a question for you. What I want you to do is read to me the sentence.
S: Who?
T: Fluff.
S: Fluff wants to be a dog.
T: To make it a question, you are right. Who wants to be a dog? Or I can say, Why
does Fluff want to be a dog? Either one of those is right. If I am reading this, I
might say why Fluff wants to be a dog because she is a cat. See if we can find a
sentence that you can just read me the sentence and I will turn it into a question.
S: She pulled something out of her pocket.
T: The sentence is: she pulled something out of her pocket. Now if I want to make
it a question with one of these (“W” words), I might say, what did she pull out of

113

her pocket? Hopefully, I will find the answer in the story. I would not say
where she pulled it from cause it already tells me. Maybe, what did she pull out
of her pocket is the question I may have. How about a sentence from here? You
read the sentence and I will do that part because you are going to do yours from
Mrs. Brown . . . .
S She wants to lick the mud off of her paws.
T: Repeated the sentence. So I might ask who wants to lick mud off her paws, the
dog or the cat? And I could go back and re-read and answer my question, Fluff
did not lick, cause Fluff is the cat. I could also want to know why does she care,
why does she want to lick the mud off her paws. Well because she is a cat and
cats are very clean. Dogs don’t care if they get dirty. But the cat does. I can also
ask how did she get the mud on her paws? How did she? Go back in the story,
well, she got mud on her paws by playing chase at the park. Let’s do one more.
Do the first sentence.
S: Just then the front door bell rang.
T: Just then the front door bell rang, is the sentence. If I want to turn that into a
question I could say Who’s at the door? Or I could say . . .
S: Who rang the door bell?
T: Who rang the door bell? Exactly. So do those Ws help you? Those words? I
learned them on my hands, the 5 who, what, when, where, why. I am going to
pick the sentences from Mrs. Brown went to town. And you are going to turn
them into a question for me.

114

T: They dried off in front of a roaring fire.
S: Who?
T: Yes. Who. Who is what you would use. So who dried off in front of the roaring
fire. W hat would I use to find out?
S The pig.
T: Right. All you had to do was look at the picture to solve it. You did not even
need to move on. Let’s find another one. The floor beneath them began to
quake. Which one of those words you would use for questions?
S: What?
T: The floor beneath them began to quake. What would you want to know?
S: Where?
T: Ok, where are they? So, where are they?
S: Bedroom.
T: In the bedroom and you can see that. The other question that came to my mind is
this one. What about this one?
S: Where?
T: Why?
S: (repeats) Why?
T: Yes, if all of a sudden this floor we are on the floor started shaking and quaking I
want to know why. Why is it shaking and quaking like that?
S: All the animals are on there and it is too heavy.

115

T: Yes, all the animals are on there and it is too heavy. Does it say in the story that
all the animals were too heavy? No but were you able to answer your own
question? Yes and that helps you understand the story better. See how it works?
Awesome job.
T: Let’s do one more. I am going to read the sentence and you are going to ask the
questions. An ambulance race all the way from town and carried away poor
Mrs. Brown. Do we know who? Mrs. Brown, right? Do we know what
happened? Yes. Do we know what happened? Remember this word? That’s
the word, why.
S: Why? Oh why?
T: That’s right why did the ambulance take her? It does not tell us but use what
you already know. What happened on this page?
S: The 2nd floor breaks.
T: Right, the 2nd floor breaks and then what happens to everybody on the bed?
S. They all got hurt.
T. Does it say that they all go hurt?
S: No.
T: No, but you figured it out. So why is the ambulance coming?
S: So nobody can get hurt.
T: Okay, so who got hurt?
S: Mrs. Brown.
T: Mrs. Brown, right. It turns out as we read on was it just Mrs. Brown?

116

S: No.
T: It was all the animals. So asking questions we use who, what, where, when,
why, and how.
S: Who, what, where, when, why, and how.
T: We will work on “How” a little more next week. Who, what, when, and why.
T: How could we use questions when the floor broke? How did the floor break or
why did the floor break?

117

APPENDIX B

RATER CHECKLIST

Observe the entire lesson. Mark an X in the appropriate column. YES NO
Date:_______________ Focus Strategy:_________________

1. Is the learner receiving instruction individually?

2. Is the learner receiving direct, explicit instruction in a comprehension strategy?

3. Does the lesson include a 5-10 minute mini-lesson with teacher modeling the
strategy?

4. Does the lesson include 10-15 minutes of teacher supported student reading,
practicing the strategy?

5. Is the reading selection at the learner’s level of literacy development?

6. Is the learner treated as a reader and given responsibility with the text?

7. Is the learner actively engaged with text rather than merely observing?

8. Are approximations encouraged as a natural part of learning?

9. Is feedback specific, timely and frequent enough?

10. Does the learner have 20 minutes of uninterrupted Strategy instruction?

118

APPENDIX C

GRAPH TABLES

M-J

Baseline Treatment
M-G
F-M

119

F-B

120

APPENDIX D

COMPREHENSION RETELLING INSTRUMENT

Modeled after California Reading & Literature Project
K-6 Reading Results
2001-2002 California Professional Development Institute

Student _________________________________ Date _________________
Title____________________________________ by __________________

Teacher Prompt Student Responses Score
Story Retelling
Tell me about what you
read.

Follow-up prompts:
1. Who else was in the
story?
OR
2. Can you tell me more
about?
3. Where does the story
take place?
4. What else happened?

Each correct answer
receives one point. Circle
any prompts used?

Main character (s). Give
full point if character is
well described OR all
characters are
mentioned.

Setting

Problem

How Solved

One event from
-beginning
-middle
-end
of story

Detailed description of one
of the elements above
(character, setting,
problem, solution, or
event)

____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

121

Story retold accurately (no
missing information)

______________________
Retold in a coherent/clear
manner

_______________________

Total Score______________/10

Direct students to read the passage silently or orally before you ask the comprehension
questions.

122

APPENDIX E

COMPREHENSION INSTRUMENT

Modeled after Macmillan/McGraw-Hill
“Spotlight on Literacy” Assessment, 1997

Student _________________________________ Date _________________
Title____________________________________ by __________________
(Of Story) (Author)

Teacher Prompt Student Responses Score
Comprehension Questions

1. Inference Question

“_______________________?”
Tell why or why not.

Ex: “Is Polar Moon a patient
mother?”

Ex: “Why did the scientist
want to study gorillas?”

2. Vocabulary

In the story it says:
“______________________”

What does the word
“________” mean?

Ex: It’s time for your first
swimming lesson…”

What does the work “lesson”
mean?

Score:

0 – No answer
illogical answer
1 – Logical answer, no
logical reason given
to support answer.
2 – Logical answer and
reasoning to support
answer

0 - No definition,
incorrect definition or
uses vocabulary word
in the definition.
1 – One word definition,
or no definition but
correct example.
2 – Detailed definition, or
short definition with
correct example.

______/2

_____________________

______/2

123

3. Compare
“Compare 2 characters from the
story. Tell 2 ways they are
alike.” (If only 1 character in
story, ask student to: “Compare
this character with one from a
story this reminds you of. Tell
2 ways they are alike.”
0 - No answer, illogical
or incorrect answers.
1 – One correct logical
answer
2 – 2 or more correct/
logical answers

_______/2

4. Contrast
“Contrast 2 characters from the
story. Tell 2 ways they are
different.” If only 1 character
in story, ask student to:
“Contrast this character with
one from a story this reminds
you of. Tell 2 ways they are
alike.”

Score:

0 – No answer
illogical answer
1 – One correct/ logical
answer
2 – 2 or more
correct/logical
answers

______/2

5. Cause and Effect
“Use one event, something that
happened in the story, to give
an example of cause and
effect.”
0 -No example, or
example not
from the story
1 – Correct cause or
effect
2 – Correct examples of
both cause and effect.

_______/2

Total Score

_______/10

124

APPENDIX F

SIX PHASES OF READING ACQUISITION

Six phases of reading acquisition; three phases of word learning (1, 2, 3) (Ehri, 1998):

1. Logographic Phase

Pre-Alphabetic Phase: Students are in Chall’s Stage 0: Pre-reading. They read
words from memory guess words using context and pretend to read supplementary
text. They also must have predictable text while doing guided reading activities.

Partial Alphabetic Phase: Students begin to distinguish letters in words and use
partial alphabetic cues and context to read words. They are also learning letter
sounds and directionality of text.

2. Spelling-Sound Phase

Spelling-sound connections are used when reading and writing Full-Alphabetic
Phase: Students are in Chall’s Stage 1: Initial Reading or decoding stage. They
associate sounds to letters that they see in words; they decode unfamiliar words.
Decoding fluency increases as they do daily practices. Predictable text is used for
guided reading activities.

Consolidated-Alphabetic Phase: Students focus on spelling patterns and chunks of
letters while reading words by analogy.

3. Automatic Phase:

Chall’s Stage 2: Confirmation, Fluency, Ungluing from Print Stage. Children are
proficient, fluent and automatic in their word recognition. They are able to read
words effortlessly in or out of context, focus attention on text meaning. Guided
reading activities emphasize trade books, context area reading and core literature.

4. Efficiency of Reading

In this phase, reading is used to gather information.

Chall’s Stage 3: Reading is now used for Learning the New--From One Viewpoint
Stage. Children learn how to learn from reading literature. Content areas are from
other curricular areas (i.e., science, history, geography, math and magazines and
newspapers).

125

5. Multiple Point of View Phase

By the time students achieve this level they have learned to read with depth and
are able to cope with surmountable facts and concepts.

Chall’s Stage 4: Multiple Viewpoints Stage. The content area in the text has
varied points of view, theories and facts. This process is acquired through formal
education, exposure to and immersion in Literature, reference work in the
biological, physical and social sciences. Other viewpoints are garnered from the
reading of newspapers, journals, magazines, and the Internet.

6. Selected Reading Phase

In this phase, children read for a specific purpose.

Chall’s Stage 5: A World View. The children’s concepts of acquired knowledge
shifts from a quantitative sense of “rightness” to a qualitative assessment of
observations and relationships within a context, exposure and immersion in
Literature, reference work in the biological, physical, and social sciences
(California’s Reading/Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools K-
12, California Department of Education, 1999).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study focused on specific instructional methods that a primary special education teacher utilized with Learning Disabled English Language Learners in Guided Reading (teacher supported). The teacher was observed during seven (25%) Guided Reading (teacher supported) sessions during baseline and intervention by two elementary teacher raters to confirm inter-rater reliability. Reliability was at 100%. Both teacher raters were observing the primary teacher for use of specific Guided Reading (teacher supported) strategies that were taught on a daily basis: On Monday-Predicting/Inferring, Tuesday-Phonics/Decoding, Wednesday-Monitor/Clarify, Thursday–Question, and Friday-Evaluate/Summarize. Students were assessed daily by another teacher with a criterion referenced comprehension and retelling questions instrument after a stable baseline.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

Asset Metadata

Creator Montoya, Lei'ala Patricia Ann Chong (author)

Core Title Effects of guided reading (teacher supported) on reading comprehension scores for primary students who are learning disabled English language learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/18/2008

Defense Date 07/11/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag English language learners,guided reading,learning disabled,OAI-PMH Harvest,reading comprehension scores

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email lmontoya@coachella.k12.ca.us,ohana96@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1680

Unique identifier UC1248350

Identifier etd-Montoya-2370 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-117355 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1680 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Montoya-2370.pdf

Dmrecord 117355

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Montoya, Lei'ala Patricia Ann Chong

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu