Running Head: POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL

Group Case Study: Poor Comprehender and ELL (Junior)

Vivian Cai, Lauren Matsuba, Jazz Rai and Casey Shelley

Queen’s University: PME 843 Effective Intervention

Dr. Dee Cunning

16th November, 2019

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 1

Rationale

For the purpose of this project, we have created a detailed literacy plan for the use of a

fourth grade classroom teacher. There are two students who require extra support in the class:

Jasvinder and Maria. Both students struggle in the area of reading comprehension, while ELL

(English Language Learner) student Maria also struggles with vocabulary development and

fluency. While these students require significant support, we have been intentional in our

planning so that these needs are targeted equally with those of the whole class. Based on a

strategically planned classroom environment, a six month literacy plan that includes Tier 1 and 2

instructional methods and relevant assessment tools, our literacy plan will allow all students to

be full participants in whole class learning.

Classroom Environment

In order to effectively support the learning of all students, the teacher will make strategic

adjustments to the classroom environment. Specifically, student desks will be organized in a

“horseshoe” formation. This seating style encourages student engagement, as distractions are

minimized and each student has a clear view of the teacher and lessons taking place. It also

encourages student participation and interactions with peers in an open environment. Further, the

horseshoe formation allows the teacher to easily supervise the participation and engagement of

all students, who may otherwise become distracted. Guido and Pichierri (2016) explain that

student seating location ultimately plays a significant role in academic success: “classroom

seating arrangement significantly influences students’ behavior and students’ seating location has

an impact on achievement” (p. 1).

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 2

Along with the horseshoe seating design, the teacher will also provide students with

“flex-seating” opportunities. This option will include several specialized options (wobble stools,

and balance ball desk chairs, for example). Teachers can use these seats as motivation for

students, as only a few students will be chosen each day to sit on them. These seats can help to

keep students who become easily distracted engaged.

In promoting the growth of student vocabulary and reading comprehension, it is

important for the teacher to include a classroom library. Specifically, this library will consist of

books on a great variety of topics. As the school year goes on, the teacher should make an effort

to understand specific interests of their students. This will allow the teacher to include books on

these topics in the library and therefore foster student interest in reading. Coppens (2018)

emphasizes that it is essential to include popular titles and high-quality, high-interest books in

the classroom library as it leads to student excitement regarding reading. She also explains that

lower levelled books should be included and that ELL (English Language Learners) students

such as Maria should be asked for book suggestions. It is also important for the teacher to ensure

that students have been trained in the process of choosing “good fit books.” This requires the

student to consider the following components: why they want to read it, whether they know

many of the words throughout it, whether they can understand it and whether it interests them.

Another feature that will be introduced to the classroom is a word wall. This is important

as Maria and Jasvinder require support with their vocabulary, this is an area in which all students

can continue to grow: “All students benefit from word walls and vocabulary instruction, but

some of the students who benefit most are English Language Learners” (Coppens, 2018, p. 1).
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 3

While the teacher will fill the word wall with relevant grade level words, they will also use

several strategies in order to incorporate Tier 2 (high frequency/multiple meaning) and Tier 3

(subject related) words. This word wall will be labeled the “Vivacious Vocabulary Wall” and the

teacher will add words as the year goes on. Words may be found in class read-alouds,

student-suggested words through silent reading or part of student weekly homework

assignments. Teachers should encourage student participation in the creation of word walls in

order to foster interest. Coppens (2018) provides an example of this student participation:

“High-frequency terms are paired with visual connections, called ​realia​, to show meaning.

Realia​ are objects or photographs of visual representations, which students contribute to the

word wall” (p. 1). The word wall can help students to choose words for their writing, to better

understand what they are reading and to support them during oral conversations.

Continuing to design the classroom environment around student success, the teacher will

post reading strategies along classroom walls. These will act as a great reminder for students as

they read to self. It is important to note that these strategies will have been introduced during

guided reading sessions and whole class lessons, so the posters are simply a reminder for

students to use their prior knowledge when faced with reading challenges. It is important for

students to gain the independent ability of deciding which skill is most appropriate to use based

on their specific challenge.

Organization of Literacy Block:

Direct reading instruction will occur daily for 90 minutes. Reading instruction will start

with ten minutes of whole group instruction, followed by three 20 minute rotations. Students will
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 4

rotate between small group instruction, learning centers, and independent practice. Students will

then work in pairs for another ten minutes before concluding with ten minutes of whole group

instruction. Students enter independent practice following their small group instruction to allow

for immediate practice of the skills taught.

Table 1: Daily reading instruction schedule (IRIS, 2006)

10 minutes Whole Group instruction

20 minutes Small Group Instruction: ​Group 1

Learning Centers: ​Group 2
Independent Practice: ​Group 3

20 minutes Small Group Instruction: ​Group 2

Learning Centers: ​Group 3
Independent Practice: ​Group 1

20 minutes Small Group Instruction: ​Group 3

Learning Centers: ​Group 1
Independent Practice: ​Group 2

10 minutes Paired Instruction

10 minutes Whole Group Instruction

Whole group instruction is intended to either introduce the class to new concepts or

provide a review lesson. This instructional time may require more than ten minutes if a new

concept is being taught. It’s important that the teacher use this time to emphasize the objectives

of the day’s reading instruction. The concluding whole group instruction ties together the

concepts covered during the previous 80 minutes of reading instruction. It may include the

teacher reading a story to the class while highlighting or demonstrating the skills focused on

during the lesson.

The primary purpose of rotating through three small groups is to provide students with
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 5

differentiated reading instruction. This is where, and how, most of the year’s reading instruction

will take place. The teacher will explicitly model the skills being taught to the students. While

each group of students will receive the same reading lesson, these small groups allow for

scaffolding and differentiation to ensure each student is successful at developing the necessary

skills.

Selecting the students for each group is essential for the success of this type of

instruction. Students can be identified through core-reading placement tests or other universal

screening processes. The objective is not to have an equal number of students in each group but

to place them according to ability. For example, one group might include the students who

scored in the bottom 20-25% of the universal screening test, while another group includes the

high-performing students. ​Group 1​ are the low performing students, (bottom 25%), including

Jasvinder and Maria. ​Group 2​ are mid-performing students and ​Group 3 ​are high-performing

students.

Independent practice follows small group instruction to allow students to practice what

they just learned. Naturally, there will be one group who practices individually before the small

group instruction. Typically, this group is the high-performing group. It’s imperative that the

tasks assigned for this type of practice contribute authentically to student learning and does not

become busy work or catch up time.

Learning centers allow for students to practice some of the skills learned. The order in

which students are receiving their small group instruction will determine if they are practicing

skills from the current or the previous day’s lesson. Depending on the students, activities, and

skills learned, students have opportunities to practice individually or in pairs.

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 6

Students may rotate through centers that include vocabulary, listening, writing, computer

activities, reading, etc. While the activities themselves may differ, depending on the

skill/concept, the time for practice remains the priority. It’s important that the teacher is able to

track student progress. Some online activities allow teachers to check on student progress. Other

activities, not done online, may be kept in a student's reading journal. This allows for both the

student and the teacher to track progress and account for the activities. Teachers must set clear

expectations at the start of the year in order for this type of independent learning to be

meaningful and successful for students. It may require some extra time to ensure these

expectations are understood by all students.

Paired instruction provides students with time to practice their skills with a partner.

Students may practice vocabulary, reading sight words, fluency, reading with expression, etc. It’s

important that partners can model good reading and provide effective feedback. This is an

expectation that may require the teacher to model and practice for the students.

Partner selection should not be random or chosen by the students. Fuchs and Fuchs

(2005) suggests that “each pair includes a higher and lower performer. The teacher creates the

pairings by ranking the class on reading competence, halving the rankings at the median, and

combining the highest performer from the top half with the highest performer from the bottom

half and so on” (p. 35). While both students will practice the skill, the higher performing student

typically goes first so they can model the skill for the lower performing student.
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 7

6 month Classroom Literacy Instruction Plan

Literacy Focus/Goals*

September ● Conduct necessary assessments to understand student literacy needs

and plan for appropriate interventions.
● Understand students’ background knowledge, interests, and culture.

October ● Vocabulary development

November ● Reading fluency

December ● Reading comprehension

January ● Teach reading comprehension strategies

February ● Application of reading comprehension strategies

*While each month has a primary goal, it will not be the only literacy component of focus. Each
month will build upon the previous month.

It should first be noted that both Jasvinder and Maria will be pulled out of class each day,

at the same time, for thirty minute literacy sessions with a learning support teacher (LST). It

should also be noted that during each literacy block, the classroom teacher will make time to

work with small groups. For the specific students in question (Jasvinder and Maria), this small

Tier 2 intervention group time will be based upon the Fountas and Pinnell and/or Soar to Success

intervention reading program. These are levelled reading programs that build on student learning.

Both of these students will be provided with extra processing time in order to answer questions.

Maria will spend time working on independent sequencing activities in order to strengthen her

reading comprehension abilities. Visuals and manipulatives will also be used with Maria

throughout the day in order to help her connect to new material.

The overall literacy block for the classroom in question will be strategically planned by

the teacher in order to strengthen the areas of vocabulary development, reading comprehension
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 8

and fluency among all students. The teacher is interested in supporting ELL students and

struggling readers with their specific needs, along with the whole class: “… having ELLs in a

classroom can be a catalyst for providing effective instructional strategies in literacy and

language learning across the curriculum which benefits all students” (Ministry of Education,

2013, p. 3). Following are some Tier 1 whole class activities that will be implemented by the

teacher throughout each week of the school year.

The first area focused on will be vocabulary. This is an area of extra concern for ELL

Learners, as explained by Benson, De Palma, Frijters, et. al (2008): “A disadvantage in the

breadth and depth of English vocabulary knowledge characterizes ELL students and this gap is

not easily bridged” (p. 3). In order to effectively target this area, the teacher will assign students

a weekly homework assignment. This assignment will require them to, beginning on Monday

and being due on Friday, find two “new to them” words. On Friday morning, these words will be

presented to the class and their definitions discussed together. They will then be added to the

“vivacious vocabulary” word wall. This process requires students to continue to think about the

meaning of new words when reading on their own time and provides them with a sense of

ownership over their classroom word wall.

Continuing in the area of vocabulary development, the teacher will provide students with

opportunities to work in small groups, where conversation will be encouraged. The significance

of such discussion opportunities is outlined by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2013):

“Research has found that even very young children become aware of new terms/constructions in

conversation and try to use them when it is their turn to speak” (p. 4). A specific group activity to
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 9

be introduced will be “write the room”, where students will be required to walk around the

classroom in search of new vocabulary words. These words will be subject based and placed on

walls around the classroom by the teacher. Students will be provided with a recording sheet and

will write down any words that they find. Students will then be required to take this activity to

the next level by attempting to put the newfound vocabulary words into sentences. When all

students have completed the activity, the class will come together with the teacher and review the

words found along with their meanings.

In order to focus on reading comprehension with the whole class, the teacher will create

PowerPoint “story lessons.” These presentations will consist of a sequenced story. Students will

take turns reading the slides and at the end will be required to answer a series of questions. These

questions will begin at a basic level (true or false) and will eventually become more challenging,

requiring students to make text to text, text to self and text to world connections. This

progression of difficulty in questions is outlined by Portland Public Schools (2009) as important

in developing a comfortable level of comprehension among students.

In targeting the area of fluency in reading, the teacher will provide students with

opportunities to participate in reader’s theatre. This will be a monthly project for students, who

will have time each week to work in their small groups in order to practice their story orally. At

the end of the month, each group of students will present their story to the class. It is important

for the teacher to emphasize the use of tone and consideration of the audience in preparing

students for this activity. Denton, Haring, Petscher, et. al. (2018) describe the importance of

teachers to use a systematic progression of instructional strategies. These should begin with
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 10

examples of fluent reading and later include explanation of punctuation mark usage and student

practice in reading in phrases rather than word-by-word (p. 10).

Another opportunity presented to students in order to encourage fluency will be partner

reading. Each day, students will spend some time reading with assigned partners. It should be

noted that partners will be strategically planned by teachers, assigning weaker readers with those

who are strong. This will allow for weaker readers to emulate the accurate fluency skills of their

peers. Partner reading will be introduced to students, along with daily read alouds from the

teacher in which proper fluency and expression will be modeled.

Finally, in regard to fluency, all students in the classroom will have the opportunity to

participate in the ​Raz Kids​ online reading program. This is a great program that allows students

to listen to fluent and expressive reading. The program is not free and does require a yearly

subscription. The teacher will provide each student with a unique login code, which will allow

them to access the program. Students will have the opportunity to access the program once a

week at school, during computer lab time. A great benefit of this program is that students can

also access it at home.

Case 1: Jasvinder
Causes or Contributors to the Exceptionality

Reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from text. Unlike

decoding, where there are limited ways to read isolated words or sentences, understanding of a

text poses an additional challenge: Each reader can understand a text in different ways (Foster,

2006; ​Instructional Accommodations: Special Connections​, n.d.). Consequently, reading

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 11

comprehension is a complex activity involving a combination of cognitive, affective, and

linguistic skills as well as strategies (Spencer & Wagner, 2018; Cotter, 2012; The IRIS Center,

2006; ​Instructional Accommodations: Special Connections​, n.d.). Readers must have intellectual

capacity, working and long-term memory, motivation to engage with the text, some language

proficiency, and knowledge of text and how to read it (fiction, non-fiction, structure,

metacognitive strategies) (Cotter, 2012; ​Instructional Accommodations: Special Connections​,

n.d.; Spencer & Wagner, 2018; The IRIS Center, 2006).

To become proficient, readers must also be able to: Match letters to sounds (decoding),

keep a good reading pace (fluency), follow the relationship between words (syntax), check if the

text makes sense (self-monitoring), recall information previously learned (background

knowledge), know the meaning of most words (vocabulary), retrieve explicit facts (factual

information), think of implicit messages (inference), form connections and/or opinions

(evaluation), and to communicate own ideas about the reading and/or the author’s message(s)

and intention(s) (Cotter, 2012; ​Instructional Accommodations: Special Connections​, n.d.;

National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(U.S.), 2000​; Spencer & Wagner, 2018; The IRIS Center, 2006).

Difficulty with reading comprehension can result from several factors, such as deficits in

cognition (executive function, attention, working memory), oral language skills (vocabulary),

decoding, fluency, self-monitoring, syntactic processing, background knowledge, inference

making, and reading comprehension strategies (Spencer, & Wagner, 2018; Cotter, 2012; The

IRIS Center, 2006). The IRIS Center (2006) points out that poor comprehenders either lack or

know a very limited number of strategies to help them interpret written material. They may not
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 12

make much sense of the information because they focus on decoding words instead of making

connections, use a dictionary (print or online) to look up words, or have yet to realize that

reading for meaning is the most important outcome of the activity.

Instructional Goals and Approaches

In Jasvinder’s case, decoding is an area of strength. The staff assessing his reading of

longer passages indicated he lacked expression, an element of fluency. Since there was no

explicit mention of Jasvinder reading at a pace so slow that it affected his performance,

expression will be excluded as an area of Tier 2 intervention for the next six months. In terms of

deficits, lack of background knowledge is affecting Jasvinder’s comprehension. Although he

had strategies to find the answers to factual questions, his retelling was very limited and he had

difficulty with items requiring making connections as well as drawing conclusions. He

acknowledged being at a loss when it came to selecting key information and how to help himself

to work out solutions for the challenges a text presented.

Based on the above description, the Tier 2 intervention will have as an overall goal to

improve Jasvinder’s literacy skills. This goal will entail three measurable instructional goals:

Expand his background knowledge, increase his vocabulary, and develop his reading

comprehension strategies. To achieve both overall and instructional goals, Jasvinder will

participate in a Tier 2 intervention for the next six months.

A Tier 2 intervention is a component of the Universal Design for Learning Model

(Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Tier 2 provides targeted and flexible guided reading instruction

frequently in a small group within the regular classroom and/or outside the classroom.

Intervention can be delivered by the classroom teacher or a Learning Support Team teacher
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 13

(LST) Jasvinder will be part of a small group that will meet for 30 minutes, 5 days a week for

guided reading. During this intervention, the instructional approach will involve the direct and

explicit teaching of reading within, beyond, and about the text, as Fountas & Pinnell (2017)

propose in their Literacy Continuum.

A Learning Support Team teacher (LST) will model and allow for practice in retrieving

factual information (who, what, where, when, why, how), making inferences, summarizing,

identifying the theme or topic, evaluating, and describing the text format. The LST teacher will

also point out the importance of background knowledge and vocabulary and implement activities

(​The IRIS Center, 2008)​. This practice will allow students to expand their knowledge and skills

in both areas (​McIntosh, K., MacKay, L., Andreou, T., Brown, J., Mathews, S., Gietz, C., &

Bennett, J. 2011; ​Rao, Ok, Smith, Evmenova, & Edyburn, 2019).

As the students become more familiar with the tasks required in reading, the teacher will

transition to including reciprocal teaching. For this approach, the instructor will prepare students

to take on the roles of summarizing, asking questions, predicting, and clarifying (vocabulary)

during the guided reading. Students will rotate in fulfilling these roles to have enough practice

and develop increasing independence (​Evidence-Based Practice Summaries, n.d.).

In terms of resources, it is important to point out that the teachers may use programs

addressing reading comprehension, such as SOAR to Success (​Cooper, & Chard, 2008). ​This

particular intervention includes visual aids and activities before, during, and after reading. The

LST teacher can also use graphic organizers (Venn diagrams, K-W-L charts, timelines, story

maps and cause-and-effect maps. Alternatively, the use of posters, oral expression, and drawings

could be used to show different ways of learning. Other activities, such as vocabulary-related
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 14

games, will enrich and/or supplement the intervention towards the literacy and instructional

goals while maintaining motivation and engagement (Breiseth, n.d.).

The proposed Tier 2 instructional plan will devote time to the three targeted areas within

the week. On Day 1, the teacher will focus on the importance of background knowledge, how to

activate and use it by examining a book cover, title, back cover, etc. The small group can share

what each participant knows about the topic, ask questions, or conduct a short online research

with support provided as considered pertinent. For Days 2 and 3, the teacher will guide students

through reading within, beyond, and about the text as well as key vocabulary. Day 4 will serve

as practice to clarify (vocabulary), organize and summarize information. In Day 5, students will

spend time writing about what they have learned and/or reflecting about their own learning.

Proposed Weekly Structure for Tier 2 Intervention

Day Targeted Aspects

1 Analysis of text features and background knowledge

2 Guided reading within, beyond, about the text and vocabulary

3 Guided reading within, beyond, about the text and vocabulary

4 Clarifying, organizing, summarizing information

5 Writing about information learned and/or self-reflection about learning

The sequence of instruction will follow the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, which presents a

hierarchy of cognitive skills, from easiest to hardest: Remember, understand, apply, analyze,

evaluate and create (Anderson & Bloom, 2014). Recalling prior knowledge, retrieving facts, and

vocabulary are relatively easier tasks than summarizing, identifying the theme, making

inferences, and evaluating. Therefore, the six-month intervention will follow the sequence

below:
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 15

Month 1: Background knowledge and factual information.

Month 2: Factual information and vocabulary.

Month 3: Vocabulary and summary.

Month 4: Summary and theme.

Month 5: Theme and making inferences.

Month 6: Making inferences and evaluation.

It is important to point out that an instructional plan can offer different sequences and all

of them be effective (​Response to Intervention / Comprehension, n.d.)​ According to literacy

expert Timothy Shanahan, in teaching foundational reading skills, such as phonics, “teachers

need a curriculum, and a curriculum will have to prescribe an orderly succession of letters and

sounds. But that succession is an arbitrary one.” Concerning comprehension, he added that what

is true for foundational skills is true for comprehension, too.” (Ball, Schaar, & Burgoyne, 2015).

Progress Monitoring

The assessment for Jasvinder will have two purposes:

a) To monitor reading comprehension development in the three targeted areas: background

knowledge, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills.

b) To monitor the effectiveness of the intervention. Response to Intervention (RTI) calls for

continuous assessment to document progress or lack of it in the implementation of instructional

plans across tiers (​Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010)​. Through formative (ongoing) or summative

(completion) assessments, teachers can track whether an intervention is leading to desired results

or not. If data shows gains, the plan can proceed; otherwise, teachers should revise the

intervention(s) and continue monitoring for effectiveness.

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 16

At the start of the Tier 2 intervention, the LST teacher or classroom teacher will use

DIBELS Maze and Jerry Johns’ Basic Reading Inventory (BRI). DIBELS is a well-researched

literacy assessment to track both student’s growth and effectiveness of an intervention. DIBELS

MAZE presents students with a long passage. Respondents must read sentences and select the

most appropriate word to fill in the blank(s) from three choices (​Good, Kaminski, & Moats,

2003). ​The BRI assessment includes tasks or items for all the areas of intervention. The reading

assessment begins by requesting the student to use background knowledge to predict the content

of the text based on the title. Once the student has finished the paragraph, the teacher can request

a retelling. The reading comprehension questions include one item for theme, six for facts, and

one for inference, evaluation, and vocabulary, respectively (​Johns, Elish-Piper, & Johns, 2017).

For resources used for instructional and assessment, it is important to point out that

school personnel may be restricted to using materials already available. Staff may not be able to

request the purchase of new literacy programs due to budget restrictions and/or high cost of

preferred intervention(s). DIBELS provides the administration procedures, student materials, and

benchmark charts for free. Although not free, the BRI is relatively affordable. Organizations

such as ReadWorks.org offer free levelled reading passages for fiction and non-fiction with

post-reading activities, including vocabulary and comprehension.

6-month Sequence of Instruction

Proposed Calendar for Implementation of Instructional Plan

Month Focus Student assessment Intervention
assessment/review

November Background knowledge and BRI DIBELS Maze

factual information

December Factual information and BRI as needed based on BRI

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 17

vocabulary and other assessment(s)

January Vocabulary and Summary BRI as needed based on BRI

and other assessment(s)

February Summary and Theme BRI as needed based on BRI

and other assessment(s)

March Theme and Inference BRI as needed based on BRI

and other assessment(s)

April Inference and Evaluation BRI DIBELS Maze

Considerations for Classroom Physical Environment

Jasvinder will benefit from sitting with peers that can assist him in his goals. Small

grouped desks for group activities will be ideal for Jasvinder to feel safe in his environment and

in the class. If there is an educational assistant (E.A.) in the classroom it may be helpful to have

Jasvinder sit in the same group or close by to the student receiving E.A. support. The E.A. will

be able to provide additional support to Jasvinder if he is not able to get help or assistance from

his peers, classroom teacher or from the LST teacher. In addition, it may be helpful for Jasvinder

to sit close to the front of the class or near the teacher so that he is in reach for extra support.

Case 2: Maria

Causes or Contributors to the Exceptionality

The English Language Learner (ELL) designation is used in school systems to identify

students whose native language is not English but who are in the process of acquiring the English

language. The ELL designation is acquired through a series of school evaluations including

language assessments and comparison to grade level English proficiency standards (Klingner,

Boardman, Eppolito & Schonewise, 2012).

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 18

The amount of previous schooling and language experience differs with each individual

ELL and each student’s English proficiency and learning progresses at a different rate. Some

ELLs are “simultaneous bilinguals (Klingner et al., 2012, p.35)” meaning they speak both

English and another language at home, while learning both languages at the same time. Others

are considered “sequential bilinguals (Klingner et al., 2012, p.35)”, who come from homes where

they speak their native language exclusively and are now learning English as an additional

language. Although Maria is not fully proficient in reading and writing in any language, she is

considered a “sequential bilingual” as she speaks an indigenous language at home exclusively, is

fluent in Spanish, and is now learning English as an additional language.

Cummins (1984) makes the distinction between two different kinds of language

proficiency. Proficiency in Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) may be developed

quickly from exposure and practice in an English environment, while Cognitive Academic

Language Proficiency (CALP), mastery of academic English, takes roughly five to seven years

to develop (Ministry of Education, 2013). In Maria’s case, she has gained proficiency in BICS as

she has acquired basic conversational skills and is performing on par with the class in terms of

decoding skills. However, her mastery of CALP, involving vocabulary development and reading

comprehension in academic areas are not developing as quickly as other L2’s in her class.

As ELLs transition to intermediate grades, they struggle with increasing demands for

sophisticated language, academic literacy, and background knowledge. Although an ELL may

seem fluent in spoken conversational English, this oral language proficiency may disguise their

need for support in navigating content-based academic language. Many ELLs have broad

vocabularies that lack depth. These students struggle in content-area classrooms for a number of
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 19

reasons including academic English language ability, lack of knowledge of school and classroom

norms, academic tracking standards, poverty, and amount and quality of literacy instruction prior

to entering Canadian schools (Klingner et al., 2012; Janzen, 2008). After a few years of being in

an English school system. most ELLs participate in regular content area classes with their

English-proficient peers, like Maria. Most can read fluently, yet still have difficulty learning

subject specific material. Academic textbooks tend to be written in figurative or technical

language and use text structures that are not commonly understood (Klingner et al., 2012). They

may find it hard to express opinions about academic topics, challenge others' ideas, and explain

their thinking (Klingner et al., 2012) - which hinders their ability to participate in content area

classrooms such as Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies. In Maria’s case, she doodles as

an avoidance tactic because she struggles with comprehension of class lessons. It is clear that

based on the multiple challenges ELLs face in content area classrooms that intervention

strategies should be prioritized in order to enhance comprehension, extend academic language,

and set students up for future school success.

Instructional Goals and Approaches

Goal 1: Vocabulary Development

Although Maria has made improvements in reading and recognizing sight words, she is still

struggling with vocabulary development, particularly understanding what she has read. She

has difficulty retelling a story she has heard due to the inconsistencies in her vocabulary

proficiency. Maria has the ability to hold a basic conversation, so our instructional goal in

regards to vocabulary development is for Maria to develop more academic based vocabulary

related to classroom content. Below are two instructional approaches that would benefit Maria
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 20

in Tier 2 instruction. The Tier 2 instructor would focus on direct vocabulary instruction, which

involves the intentional focus on words and meanings (The IRIS Center, 2006).

Instructional Approaches

Pre-teach Vocabulary Content Specific Word Clouds

Vocabulary development is the primary To target content specific words that are

determinant of reading comprehension (Antunez, not commonly used, building word

2018). If a student cannot understand the context clouds to demonstrate contextual links

of what they are reading or hearing, they cannot between words can help ELLs link words

understand the meaning of the whole text. By and their meanings. Using programs such

pre-teaching important vocabulary prior to as Wordle, students can draw on their

teaching whole class content, doing an activity, or own background knowledge and find

reading a story, it will give a chance for ELLs to links to concepts. Word clouds can be

identify words, remember them, and place them in used to stimulate students’ thinking

context. about the meaning, importance, and

Vocabulary Development for ELLs​ (2013) suggests relationship of words as they create,

following these six steps to ensure mastery of more build, and analyze their word clouds

complex words and concepts in the pre-teaching (Dalton & Grisham, 2017). Maria has

process: good sight word vocabulary, but

1. Pre-select a word from an upcoming text or struggles with making connections

conversation. between related words. This is a fun way

2. Explain the meaning with student-friendly for her to link newly learned vocabulary

definitions. while engaging in cloud designs. This

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 21

3. Provide examples of how it is used. activity can be adapted for whole class

4. Ask students to repeat the word three times. use or in Tier 2 groups.

5. Engage students in activities to develop

mastery.

6. Ask students to say the word again.

Goal 2: Reading Fluency

Our second instructional goal is to improve Maria’s oral reading fluency. Fluency is defined as

the ability to read orally with accuracy, quickly and with expression. It is the link between

word recognition and comprehension, and must include automaticity, fast and effortless word

recognition, and expressiveness, the division of words into meaningful chunks (Rasinski &

Samuels, 2011). Currently, Maria can fluently read words in isolation, but cannot read phrases

with expressiveness. The goal of building reading fluency is to help readers read effortlessly,

as if they are speaking. Research shows that less fluent readers work hard to focus their

attention on decoding, which leaves them with little energy left to focus on comprehension

(Fluency, 2018). This may explain Maria’s inconsistencies with reading comprehension as

well.

Instructional Approaches

Repeated Reading RAVE-O

In Tier 2 instruction, Maria will participate in The premise of the RAVE-O (Retrieval,

repeated reading each time she works with Automaticity, Vocabulary, Engagement with

the LST teacher. Maria will select a relatively language, and Orthography) program is that
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 22

short (50 words) level-appropriate text, and the more a reader knows about a word, the

record the number of errors made each day quicker it will be retrieved during reading.

the text is read. Reading to a criterion has RAVE-O is specifically designed for students

been proven to be more powerful than who are approximately one-year behind on

reading to a specific number of times standardized tests or qualify for Tier 2 or Tier

(Hudson, 2011). After reading, teacher 3 instruction. Maria would benefit from this

feedback is provided, and students are asked program specifically in reading fluency and

to graph their scores. Many students will be vocabulary development. she is taught one set

visibly motivated by their improvements in of core words each week, and engages in a

reading rates and accuracy (The IRIS Center, series of activities that focus on building

2006). Students can move to another text knowledge of these words on multiple levels

only after they have reached a predetermined including semantics, syntax, morphology, and

goal or level of fluency. This approach can automaticity (Hudson, 2011).

also be used in Direct Instruction programs

with the whole class.

Goal 3: Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ability to understand written text, and occurs when students can

translate written text into spoken text. Comprehension strategies are important as it provides

access to knowledge that did not exist through personal experience. Identification of words,

retrieval of meanings, and assembly of mental images and prior knowledge combined together

to form good reading comprehension (Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, 2005). Maria struggles the
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 23

most in this area, particularly with academic material. She cannot retell a story she has heard,

and cannot make inferences based on texts that she has read. The Tier 2 instructional

approaches will address these gaps in Maria’s repertoire of reading comprehension strategies.

Instructional Approaches

Main Idea Instructional Program Making Inferences

A series of 8 lessons adapted from Inference making is a difficult skill to develop as it

teaching procedures derived from involves higher-order thinking. For an ELL like Maria,

successful studies of summarization she spends most of her energy trying to decode and

strategies, the Main Idea comprehend. To help Maria in inference making, text

Instructional Program teachers selection is essential to her success. The classroom

students how to identify main ideas teacher or LST can provide Maria with opportunities to

in passages by starting small. read texts that relate to her cultural and life experiences

Students first construct main ideas of to allow for her to access prior knowledge and make

a paragraph by naming the subject connections. When ELL students are familiar with the

and categorizing the action, and context, they are more likely to comprehend text (The

slowly transition to determining the IRIS Center, 2006).

who, what, when, why, and how in a Guiding students through the steps in making

paragraph with extraneous inferences provides them with the opportunity to

information (Jitendra & Gajria, synthesize newly learned information with prior

2011). knowledge.

Beginning with teacher modeling Use the following steps:

and guidance in each lesson, teachers ● We need to find clues to get some answers.
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 24

use a gradual release of ● We need to add those clues to what we already

responsibility approach to let know or have read.

students achieve independence in ● There can be more than one correct answer.

summarization strategies. This ● We need to be able to support inferences.

program can be used in a whole class For differentiated instruction for ELLs:

setting, or in Tier 2 small groups. ● Use graphic organizers such as “It Says, I Say,

So…”

● Model strategies often

● Reassure answers can be different from other

students as based on background knowledge

and culture, but should be based on evidence

from text.

(Inference, 2013)

6-month Sequence of Instruction

Although Maria no longer receives Tier 3 individual ELL support, she will receive Tier 2

small-group support with a learning support teacher (LST) this school year. The LST will see

Maria, Jasvinder everyday for 30 minutes. The daily 30 minutes will be taken from “special”

classes such as music or art, and also by taking time from two consecutive classes (The IRIS

Center, 2006). In addition to the 90 minutes of high-quality daily instruction given by the

classroom teacher, Maria will receive supplemental instruction with a specialist to remediate

skills deficits, review skills from Tier 1 lessons, and target the three predetermined instructional

goals using some of the evidence-based instructional approaches discussed above. The LST will
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 25

also provide opportunities for Maria to practice and provide immediate feedback in Tier 2

instruction. Collaboration between the classroom teacher and LST is essential so that the

intervention program is aligned with Tier 1 lessons (The IRIS Center, 2006).

Tier 2 Instruction Daily Schedule

Vocabulary Development 5 minutes

Reading Fluency 10 minutes

Inference Making 5 minutes

Reading Comprehension 10 minutes

Tier 2 interventions are delivered in explicit, systematic, and strategically differentiated

instructional methods (McIntosh et al., 2011). The sample schedule above is meant to be flexible

in order to build skills gradually and based on the needs of struggling learners. The LST may

also use literacy intervention programs such as Fountas & Pinnell or Soar to Success when

working with Maria. The duration of Tier 2 instruction is recommended to be a minimum of

10-12 weeks (The IRIS Center, 2006). In Maria’s case, she will participate for 3 months (12

weeks) in Tier 2 intervention working on her instructional goals. After the first round of Tier 2

instruction, a decision will be made by the LST and classroom teacher about where Maria goes

from here. If she has made adequate progress and meets the grade-level benchmark

requirements, she will discontinue with Tier 2 and only receive Tier 1 instruction. If she is

making some progress, but has not quite achieved criteria or her instructional goals, a second

round of Tier 2 intervention may be necessary. If she has not made adequate progress in Tier 2,

Maria may benefit from receiving Tier 3 individual intervention in the next three months.

Progress Monitoring
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 26

Maria’s progress will be monitored in two ways. The first is through universal screening

of all students. This will occur three times a year; in the fall, winter, and spring. Using

curriculum-based measurements(CBMs) such as DIBELS Maze and Jerry Johns’ Basic Reading

Inventory (BRI), struggling students will be identified early on in the school year.

The second is through Tier 2 progress monitoring by the LST once a month. Using data

from CBMs, Maria’s progress will be recorded and plotted on data graphs comparing Maria’s

actual progress to her instructional goals. The use of both performance level and rate of growth

has been proven to be the most reliable in terms of distinguishing between students who respond

to instruction and those who do not (McMaster, Fuch, Fuchs & Compton, 2002). Many Tier 2

intervention programs contain mastery tests which can be used to evaluate progress and growth

using data. If mastery tests are unavailable, CBMs can also be used to monitor student progress.

The LST can adjust instruction based on progress assessments and regroup students if necessary

after six weeks (What Works Clearinghouse, 2013).

Example of Tier 2 progress monitoring from The IRIS Center (2006)

POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 27

Considerations for Classroom Physical Environment

Due to Maria’s learning difficulties in the classroom, she tends to sit at the back of the

class and doodle during instructional time. Maria will benefit from sitting at the front of the class

with limited distractions, and preferably also near the word wall for easy access to newly learned

vocabulary and consistent exposure to the spelling of those words.

The classroom teacher will also pay attention to Maria’s emotional well-being. As a

refugee who has endured hard times at a young age, it is important to make Maria feel safe,

accepted, and welcomed at school. ELLs need to feel as if they are contributing members of the

class, and feel that their ability, prior experience, interests, and expertise are valued in the

classroom and school community. These factors are essential to her academic progress (Alberta

Education, 2010). If possible, Maria will sit beside another student who speaks Spanish, and near

some of the friends she feels comfortable talking to in English.

Finally, Maria should have easy access to assistive technology, such as an iPad, to assist

in literacy activities. She can use the iPad as a translator, and use it to type/spell check for

writing activities. She can listen to a story multiple times using audiobooks, especially if

comprehension was an issue when hearing it the first time. She can also use it to verbally record

her ideas instead of writing them down.

Recommendations of Effective Interventions

Studies by Orosco and O’Connor (2013) suggest that teachers of ELL students can

“create exemplary contexts for instruction if they understand the conditions (e.g., understanding

students’ home and community experiences) within which reading development takes place for

ELLs” (p. 526). Understanding students’ cultural beliefs and experiences can help to create an
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 28

inclusive environment which, in turn, allows for more successful interventions. This ​presentation

from the University of Albany (2017) can be presented to and/or shared with teachers.

RAVE-O is an intervention tool to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and deep

reading. It provides a variety of interactive activities for the classroom, small group instruction,

individual tutoring, or at-home intervention. Literacy specialists can share this ​overview​, from

What is RAVE-O (n.d), with teachers.

The revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is an effective tool because it can be used at both the

Tier 1 and Tier 2 intervention levels. Teachers can use this ​list of action verbs​, from Anderson

and Krathwohl (2001), while collaborating with colleagues to develop scaffolded literacy

lessons.
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 29

References
Alberta Education. (2010) ​Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with
differentiated instruction.​ Edmonton, Alberta: Albert Education Media. Retrieved from
https://education.alberta.ca/media/384968/makingadifference_2010.pdf

Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2014). ​A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a
revision of Blooms.​ Harlow: Pearson.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing,
Abridged Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Antunez, B. (2018, September 7). ​English Language Learners and the Five Essential
Components of Reading Instruction. R ​ etrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/english-language-learners-and-five-essential-com
ponents-reading-instruction

Ball, G., Schaar, L., & Burgoyne, J. (2015, July 22). ​What Is the Proper Sequence to Teach
Reading Skills?​ Retrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/​shanahan-on-literacy/what-proper-sequence-teach-
reading-skills.

Benson, De Palma, Frijters, et. al (2008). Interventions for Reading Difficulties. ​Journal of
Learning Disabilities​, 41 (4), 333-352. DOI: 10.1177/0022219408317859

Breiseth, L. (n.d.). ​Reading Comprehension Strategies for English Language Learners.

Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol5/511-breiseth.aspx.

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2010). ​Response to intervention principles and

strategies for effective practice.​ New York: Guilford Press.

Coppens, K. (2018). Strengthening your word wall. ​Science Scope,​ 42 (4), 28-31. DOI:
10.2505/4/ss18_042_04_28

Coppens, K. (2018). Creating a classroom library. ​Science Scope,​ 42 (1), 22-25. DOI:
10.2505/4/ss18_042_01_22

Cooper, J. D., & Chard, D. (2008). ​SOAR to Success. K-8 intervention​. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 30

Cotter, J. (2012). "Understanding the Relationship between Reading Fluency and Reading
Comprehension: Fluency Strategies as a Focus for Instruction.” ​Education Masters​.
Paper 224.

Culturally Responsive Teaching for ELLs. (2017). Retrieved from

https://www.albany.edu/mop/assets/Culturally_Responsive_Teaching_Summer_Institute.
pdf

Cummins, J. (1984) ​Bilingual Education and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and
Pedagogy.​ San Diego: College Hill.

Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2017). ​10 Ways to Use Technology to Build Vocabulary.
Retrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/10-ways-use-technology-build-vocabulary

Denton, Haring, Petscher, et. al (2018). Examining the Effects and Feasibility of a
Teacher-Implemented Tier 1 and Tier 2 Intervention in Word Reading, Fluency and
Comprehension. ​Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1​ 1 (2), 163-191.
DOI: ​10.1080/19345747.2017.1375582

Evidence-Based Practice Summaries. (n.d.). Retrieved from

​https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/resources/ebp_summaries/​.

Fluency. (2018). ​Reading Rockets.​ Retrieved from

https://www.readingrockets.org/teaching/reading-basics/fluency

Foster, G.​ (2006). ​What good readers do. Seven steps to better reading.​ Markham, ON:
Pembroke Publishers.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). ​The Fountas & Pinnell literacy continuum: a tool for
assessment, planning, and teaching.​ Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition,
fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. ​The Journal of Special
Education​, 39(1), 34-44. doi:10.1177/00224669050390010401

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Moats, L. C. (2003). ​Dibels: dynamic indicators of basic
early literacy skills​. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Inc.
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 31

Guido, G. and Pichierri, M. (2016). When the row predicts the grade: Differences in marketing
students’ performance as a function of seating location. ​Learning & Individual
Differences​, 49, p. 437-441. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.04.007

Higgins Averill, O., Baker, D., & Rinaldi, C. (2014). A blueprint for effectively using RTI
intervention block time.​ Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(​ 1), 29-38.
doi:10.1177/1053451214532351

Hudson, R. (2011). Fluency problems: When, why, and how to intervene. In R. E. O’Conner, &
P.F. Vadasy, (Eds.). ​Handbook of reading interventions​ (pp. 169-197). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Inference. (2013). Retrieved from ​https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/inference

Instructional Accommodations: Special Connections. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/~kucrl/cgi-bin/drupal/?q=instruction/instructio
nal_accommodations.

Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners in the Content Areas. ​Review of
Educational Research,​ 78(4), 1010-1038. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071153

Jitendra, A.K. & Gajria, M. (2011). Main idea and summarization instruction to improve reading
comprehension. In R. E. O’Conner, & P.F. Vadasy, (Eds.). ​Handbook of reading
interventions​ (pp. 198-219). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Johns, J. L., Elish-Piper, L., & Johns, B. (2017). ​Basic reading inventory: kindergarten
through grade twelve and early literacy assessments​. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt
Publishing Company.

Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., Eppolito, A. M., & Schonewise, E. A. (2012). Supporting
Adolescent English Language Learners’ Reading in the Content Areas. ​Learning
Disabilities -- A Contemporary Journal​, 10(1), 35–64.

McIntosh, K., MacKay, L., Andreou, T., Brown, J., Mathews, S., Gietz, C., & Bennett, J. (2011).
Response to intervention in canada: Definitions, the evidence base, and future directions.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26​(1), 18-43. doi:10.1177/0829573511400857
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 32

McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2002). Monitoring the academic
progress of children who are unresponsive to generally effective early reading
intervention.​ Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27​(4), 23–33.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). ​Universal design for learning: theory and
practice.​ Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing, an imprint of CAST, Inc.

Ministry of Education (2013). ​Capacity Building Series: Canadian-born English Language

Learners. Secretariat Special Edition #31.​ Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_CBELL.pdf

National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(U.S.). (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 : reports of the subgroups.​ Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of
Health.

Orosco, M. J., & O’Connor, R. (2014). Culturally responsive instruction for english language
learners with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 515-531.
doi:10.1177/0022219413476553

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N. & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In
M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme. ​The science of reading: A handbook​ (pp. 227 - 247).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Portland Public Schools (OR) (2009). ​Supporting ELLs in the Mainstream Classroom: Reading
Instruction. Reading Rockets.​ Retrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/supporting-ells-mainstream-classroom-reading-ins
truction

Rao, K., Ok, M. W., Smith, S. J., Evmenova, A. S., & Edyburn, D. (2019). Validation of the
UDL reporting criteria with extant UDL research.​ Remedial and Special Education,
74193251984775. doi:10.1177/0741932519847755

Rasinski, T. V., & Samuels, S. J. (2011). Reading fluency: What it is and what it is not. In S. J.
Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), ​What research has to say about reading instruction​ (4th
ed., pp. 94-114). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
POOR COMPREHENDER AND ELL 33

Response to Intervention / Comprehension. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.swsc.org/page/727​.

Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), ​What research has to say about reading instruction​ (4th ed.,
pp. 94-114). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Spencer, M., Wagner, R. K., & Petscher, Y. (2018). The reading comprehension and vocabulary
knowledge of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding:
Evidence from a regression-based matching approach. ​Journal of Educational
Psychology​, ​111​(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1037/edu0000274

The IRIS Center. (2008). ​CSR: A reading comprehension​ ​strategy.​ Retrieved from
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/csr/

The IRIS Center. (2006). ​RTI (part 2): Assessment.​ Retrieved from
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti02-assessment/

The IRIS Center. (2006). ​RTI (part 3): Reading instruction.​ Retrieved from
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti03-reading/

Vocabulary Development with ELLs. (2013, November 12). Retrieved from

https://www.readingrockets.org/article/vocabulary-development-ells​.

What is RAVE-O? (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2019, from

https://www.voyagersopris.com/literacy/rave-o/overview.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2013, November 7). ​Best Practice for RTI: Monitor Progress of
Tier 2 Students.​ Retrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/best-practice-rti-monitor-progress-tier-2-students