Students are expected to comprehend and produce increasingly complex texts in upper elementary school, and academic language and literacy skills are considered critical to meeting these expectations. Notions of academic language are also controversial and require careful deliberation when applied to traditionally minoritized populations, including bilingual learners who negotiate more than one language in their daily lives and have varied linguistic repertoires. In the present study, the authors report on a quasi-experimental field trial of a theoretically grounded and language-based reading intervention framed around language components (semantics, syntax, and morphology), language functions, discussion, and reading comprehension. A sample of 239 Portuguese–English and Spanish–English bilingual students in grades 4 and 5 worked in small instructional groups to explore language, apply reading strategies, and discuss and write about big ideas in text. Half of the students were assigned to the intervention group (n = 119) and the other half (n = 120) to a business-as-usual control group. Classroom teachers (n = 12) and specialists (n = 10) implemented the intervention with small groups of four to six students. Results showed practically meaningful effects of the intervention on standardized measures of both academic language (Hedges’s g = 0.248) and reading comprehension (Hedges’s g = 0.166), with implications for theory, research, and classroom practice.

Abstract

学校要求小学高年级学生有能力理解和制作日益复杂的文本,而学术语言和读写技能是满足这些期望的关键所在。对学术语言这概念的见解也是有争议的,应用于在传统上被视作为少数群体时,就必须仔细考虑到这些群体,包括了双语学习者,他们在日常生活中使用多过一种语言来协商,而他们可用的语言本领也各不相同。在本研究中,本文作者报告了一个准实验现场试验,该试验是扎根于理论和以语言为基础的阅读干预教学计划,而该干预教学的框架主要是围绕着语言的构成部分(语义﹑语法和构词法)﹑语言功能﹑讨论和阅读理解。研究样本取自239名四年级和五年级葡萄牙语-英语和西班牙语-英语的双语学生,他们参加教学小组探索语言,应用阅读策略,并讨论和撰写文本中的重要想法。参与者当中有一半(n=119)被分配到干预教学组,另一半(n=120)则被分配到”一切照旧”的对照组。课堂教师(n=12)和专家(n=10)实施由4至6名学生组成的小组干预教学。标准化统计度量结果显示,干预教学对学术语言(Hedges’ g=0.248)和阅读理解(Hedges’ g = 0.166)均具有实际意义的影响,故对理论、研究和课堂实践均有实际意义的启示。

Abstract

Se espera que los estudiantes comprendan y produzcan textos cada vez más complejos en la escuela primaria superior, y se considera que el lenguaje académico y las habilidades de alfabetización son fundamentales para cumplir con estas expectativas. Las nociones de lenguaje académico también son controvertidas y requieren una deliberación cuidadosa cuando son aplicadas a poblaciones tradicionalmente minorizadas, incluyendo los estudiantes bilingües que negocian más de un idioma en sus vidas diarias y tienen variados repertorios lingüísticos. En el presente estudio, los autores informan sobre un ensayo de campo cuasi-experimental de una intervención de lectura basada en el lenguaje y teóricamente enmarcada en torno a los componentes del lenguaje (semántica, sintaxis y morfología), las funciones del lenguaje, la discusión y la comprensión de lectura. Una muestra de 239 estudiantes bilingües de portugués-inglés y español-inglés en los grados 4 y 5 trabajaron en pequeños grupos de instrucción para explorar el idioma, aplicar estrategias de lectura y discutir y escribir sobre grandes ideas en el texto. La mitad de los estudiantes fueron asignados al grupo de intervención (n = 119) y la otra mitad (n = 120) a un grupo de control habitual. Maestros de aula (n = 12) y especialistas (n = 10) implementaron la intervención con grupos pequeños de cuatro a seis estudiantes. Los resultados mostraron efectos prácticamente importantes de la intervención en medidas estandarizadas de lenguaje académico (g = 0.248 de Hedges) y de comprensión de lectura (g = 0.166 de Hedges), con implicaciones para la teoría, la investigación y la práctica en el aula.

Abstract

من المتوقع أن يفهم الطلاب وينتجوا نصوصًا متزايدة في التعقيد في المرحلة الابتدائية العليا ، وتعتبر اللغة الأكاديمية ومهارات القراءة والكتابة ضرورية لتحقيق هذه التوقعات. مفاهيم اللغة الأكاديمية هي أيضًا مثيرة للجدل وتتطلب مداولات دقيقة عند تطبيقها على الأقليات التقليدية ، بمن فيهم المتعلمون بلغتين الذين يتفاوضون مع أكثر من لغة في حياتهم اليومية ولديهم ذخيرة لغوية متنوعة. في هذه الدراسة ، يقدم المؤلفون تقريرًا عن تجربة ميدانية شبه تجريبية لتدخل قراءة ذات أساس نظري وقائمة على اللغة ومؤطرة حول مكونات اللغة (الدلالات ، بناء الجملة ، والتشكل) ، وظائف اللغة ، المناقشة ، وفهم القراءة. عَملتْ عينة من 239 طالبًا من ذوات اللغتين “البرتغالية والإنجليزية” “والإسبانية والإنجليزية” في الصفوف 4 و 5 في مجموعات تعليمية صغيرة لاستكشاف اللغة وتطبيق استراتيجيات القراءة ومناقشة الأفكار الكبيرة في النصوص وكتابتها. تم تعيين نصف الطلاب إلى مجموعة التدخل (ن = 119) والنصف الآخر (ن = 120) لمجموعة مراقبة بالعمل كالمعتاد. قام مدرسو الصف (ن = 12) والمتخصصون (ن = 10) بتنفيذ التدخل مع مجموعات صغيرة من أربعة إلى ستة طلاب. أظهرت النتائج آثارا ً ذات مغزى عملياً للتدخل على مقاييس موحدة لكل من اللغة الأكاديمية (Hedges ‘g = 0.248) وفهم القراءة (Hedges’ g = 0.166) ، مع انعكاسات على النظرية ، والبحث ، وممارسات الفصول الدراسية.

Abstract

К cтapшим клaccaм cpeднeй шкoлы oт yчaщиxcя oжидaют пoнимaния и нaпиcaния вce бoлee cлoжныx тeкcтoв, a для этoгo им кpитичecки вaжнo oвлaдeть aкaдeмичecким языкoм и нaвыкaми гpaмoтнocти. Caми пpeдcтaвлeния oб aкaдeмичecкoм языкe дocтaтoчнo пpoтивopeчивы, и cлeдyeт ocмoтpитeльнo пpимeнять иx тpaдициoннo выдeляeмым мeньшинcтвaм, в тoм чиcлe, к билингвaльным yчaщимcя, кoтopыe eжeднeвнo пoльзyютcя бoлee чeм oдним языкoм и имeют paзнooбpaзный языкoвoй peпepтyap. Aвтopы cтaтьи пpoвeли квaзиэкcпepимeнтaльнoe пoлeвoe иccлeдoвaниe: иx тeopeтичecки oбocнoвaннoe вмeшaтeльcтвo в чтeниe включaлo в ceбя языкoвыe кoмпoнeнты (ceмaнтикy, cинтaкcиc и мopфoлoгию), языкoвыe фyнкции, oбcyждeниe и пoнимaниe пpoчитaннoгo. Двyязычныe yчeники 4 и 5 клaccoв (n = 239) c языкoвыми пapaми пopтyгaльcкий-aнглийcкий и иcпaнcкий-aнглийcкий paбoтaли в нeбoльшиx yчeбныx гpyппax: изyчaли язык, пpимeняли cтpaтeгии чтeния, oбcyждaли и выдeляли вaжныe идeи в тeкcтe. Пoлoвинy yчeникoв включили в экcпepимeнтaльнyю гpyппy (n = 119), a дpyгyю пoлoвинy (n = 120) – в кoнтpoльнyю гpyппy, гдe зaнятия пpoxoдили кaк oбычнo. Пocтoянныe yчитeля (n = 12) и cпeциaлиcты (n = 10) пpoвoдили вмeшaтeльcтвo c нeбoльшими гpyппaми (4-6 yчeникoв). Peзyльтaты выявили пpaктичecки знaчимoe влияниe вмeшaтeльcтвa нa cтaндapтизиpoвaннoe oбyчeниe кaк aкaдeмичecкoмy языкy (g = 0.248), тaк и пoнимaнию пpoчитaннoгo (g = 0.166). Итoги вaжны для тeopии, дaльнeйшиx иccлeдoвaний и yчeбнoгo пpoцecca.

Abstract

On attend des élèves qu'ils comprennent et produisent des textes de plus en plus complexes dans les classes supérieures de l’école éllémentaire, et on considère qu'un langage académique et des compétences en littératie sont critiques pour répondre à ces attentes. Les notions de langage académique sont cependant discutées et demandent à être soigneusement définies quand elles s'appliquent à des populations traditionnellement minoritaires, y compris des apprenants bilingues qui utilisent plus d'une langue dans leur vie de tous les jours et ont différents répertoires linguistiques. Dans cette recherche, les auteurs rendent compte d'un travail de terrain quasi experimental, à savoir une intervention en lecture ayant une base théorique et linguistique structurée autour des composantes du langage (sémantique, syntaxe, et morphologie), des fonctions du langage, de la discussion, et de la compréhension de la lecture. Un échantillon de 239 élèves bilingues portugais-anglais et espagnol-anglais des classes 4 et 5 ont travaillé en petits groups d'apprentissage pour explorer le langage, aplliquer des stratégies de lecture, discuter et écrire à propos des grandes idées du texte. La moitié des élèves ont été assignés au groupe d'intervention (n = 119) et l'autre moitié (n = 120) à un groupe contrôle classique. Les maîtres des classes (n = 12) et des maîtres specialisés (n = 10) ont réalisé l'intervention avec de petits groupes de 4 à 6 élèves. Les résultats ont montré en pratique des effets significatifs de l'intervention sur des indicateurs standardisés, aussi bien pour le langage académique (g de Hedges = 0.248) que pour la compréhension de la lecture (g de Hedges = 0.166), ce qui a des implications pour la théorie, la recherche, et la pratique pédagogique.

References

Adesope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803
Alexander, P.A., & Fox, E. (2019). Reading research and practice over the decades: A historical analysis. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy ( 7th ed., pp. 35–64). New York, NY: Routledge.
Anglin, J.M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10). https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D.J. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903217623
August, D., Kenyon, D., Malabonga, V., Louguit, M., & Caglarcan, S. (2001). Extract the Base Test. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bailey, A.L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C.P., Morris, J., … Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Bartolomé, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.64.2.58q5m5744t325730
Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E., Boland, E.M., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 447–494. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002447
Bear, D.R., Templeton, S., & Invernizzi, M. (2008). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beeman, K., & Urow, C. (2012). Teaching for biliteracy: Strengthening bridges between languages. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
Brisk, M.E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogies for K–5 classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brisk, M.E., & Zhang-Wu, Q. (2017). Academic language in K–12 contexts. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 82–100). New York, NY: Routledge.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2011.0007
Carlisle, J.F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(3), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007839
Carlo, M.S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C.E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D.N., … White, C.E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.39.2.3
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). The Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Chinn, C., Anderson, R.C., & Waggoner, M.A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Farnsworth, M. (2012). Who's coming to my party? Peer talk as a bridge to oral language proficiency. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01178.x
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5
Flores, N. (2015, October 1). Is it time for a moratorium on academic language? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/is-it-time-for-a-moratorium-on-academic-language/
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Gándara, P., & Santibañez, L. (2016). The teachers our English language learners need. Educational Leadership, 73(5), 32–37.
Ganske, K. (1999). The developmental spelling analysis: A measure of orthographic knowledge. Educational Assessment, 6(1), 41–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0601_4
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gebhard, M., Chen, I.A., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.003
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners’ academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and don't yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2): 4–11, 38.
Goodwin, A.P., & Jiménez, R. (2016). TRANSLATE: New strategic approaches for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 69(6), 621–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1400
Goodwin, A.P., & Perkins, J. (2015). Word detectives: Morphological instruction that supports academic language. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1342
Grosjean, J. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hall, C., Roberts, G.J., Cho, E., McCulley, L.V., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar ( 4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hedges, L.V., & Hedberg, E.C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706
Hernández, A.C., Montelongo, J.A., & Herter, R.J. (2016). Using Spanish-English cognates in Children's Choices picture books to develop Latino English learners’ linguistic knowledge. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1511
Hoover, W.A., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799;
Hox, J.J., Moerbeek, H., & van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications ( 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kamil, M.L., Borman, G.D., Dole, J., Kral, C.C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Kauermann, G., & Carroll, R.J. (2001). A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456), 1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501753382309
Kieffer, M.J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39(6), 484–486. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10378400
Kieffer, M.J., & Lesaux, N.K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.2.3
Kieffer, M.J., & Vukovic, R.K. (2013). Growth in reading-related skills of language minority learners and their classmates: More evidence for early identification and intervention. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9410-7
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
LaHuis, D.M., Hartman, M.J., Hakoyama, S., & Clark, P.C. (2014). Explained variance measures for multilevel models. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114541701
Lesaux, N.K., Crosson, A., Kieffer, M.J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.004
Lesaux, N.K., Kieffer, M.J., Kelley, J.G., & Harris, J.R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165
Lipson, M. (1995). The effect of semantic mapping instruction on prose comprehension of below-level college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079509558192
Lu, B., Preisser, J.S., Qaqish, B.F., Suchindran, C., Bangdiwala, S.I., & Wolfson, M. (2007). A comparison of two bias-corrected covariance estimators for generalized estimating equations. Biometrics, 63(3), 935–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00764.x
Ma, S., Zhang, J., Anderson, R.C., Morris, J., Nguyen-Jahiel, K.T., & Miller, N., … Grabow, K. (2017). Children's productive use of academic vocabulary. Discourse Processes, 54(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2016.1166889
MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. (2002). Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests ( 4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N.K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019135
McCoach, D.B., & Adelson, J.L. (2010). Dealing with dependence (part I): Understanding the effects of clustered data. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210363076
McNeish, D.M. (2014). Modeling sparsely clustered data: Design-based, model-based, and single-level methods. Psychological Methods, 19(4), 552–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000024;
McNeish, D., & Stapleton, L.M. (2016a). Modeling clustered data with very few clusters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1167008
McNeish, D.M., & Stapleton, L.M. (2016b). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Indicator 7: Racial/ethnic concentration in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rbe.asp
Newell, G.E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Parra, M.O. (2018). “En español es distinto”: Translanguaging for linguistic awareness and meaningful engagement with texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Parra, M.O., Wagner, C.J., Proctor, C.P., Leighton, C., Robertson, D.A., Paratore, J., & Ford-Connors, E. (2016). Dialogic reasoning: Supporting emergent bilingual students’ language and literacy development. In C.P. Proctor, A. Boardman, & E.H. Hiebert (Eds.), Teaching emergent bilingual students: Flexible approaches in an era of new standards (pp. 119–137). New York, NY: Guilford.
Perfetti, C.A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Poza, L.E. (2015). Mecanismos de exclusión: Ideologías lingüísticas y ambigüedades en la conceptualización de lenguaje académico [Mechanisms of exclusion: Linguistic ideologies and ambiguities in the conceptualization of academic language]. Miríada Hispánica, 10, 225–243.
Proctor, C.P., & Bacon, C. (in press. Demographic realities and methodological flexibility in literacy teaching and research. In E.B. Moje, P.P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N.K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Longman.
Proctor, C.P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a multimedia hypertext environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960709336758
Proctor, C.P., Dalton, D., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C., & Neugebauer, S. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9218-2
Proctor, C.P., Silverman, R.D., Harring, J.R., & Montecillo, C. (2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1635–1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9336-5
Puzio, K., Keyes, C.S., Cole, M.W., & Jiménez, R.T. (2013). Language differentiation: Collaborative translation to support bilingual reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.845118
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S.W., Spybrook, J., Congdon, R., Liu, X.F., Martinez, A., & Bloom, H. (2011). Optimal Design Software for Multi-Level and Longitudinal Research (Version 3.01) [Computer software]. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
Reed, D.K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952
Rights, J.D., & Sterba, S.K. (2018). Quantifying explained variance in multilevel models: An integrative framework for defining R-squared measures. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000184;
Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Salazar, M.C. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12464032
Samson, J.F., & Collins, B.A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
SAS Institute. (2015). SAS/STAT 9.4 user's guide. Cary, NC: Author.
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shin, S.J. (2013). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014217
Silverman, R.D., Proctor, C.P., Harring, J.R., Doyle, B., Mitchell, M.A., & Meyer, A.G. (2014). Teachers’ instruction and students’ vocabulary and comprehension: An exploratory study with English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual students in grades 3–5. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.63
Silverman, R.D., Proctor, C.P., Harring, J.R., Hartranft, A.M., Doyle, B., & Zelinke, S.B. (2015). Language skills and reading comprehension in English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in grades 2–5. Reading and Writing, 28(9), 1381–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9575-y
Snow, C.E., Lawrence, J.F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167042
Stoddard, K., Valcante, G., Sindelar, P., O'Shea, L., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Increasing reading rate and comprehension: The effects of repeated readings, sentence segmentation, and intonation training. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079309558133
Taboada, A., Bianco, S., & Bowerman, V. (2012). Text-based questioning: A comprehension strategy to build English language learners’ content knowledge. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(2), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.522884
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711003604468
Uccelli, P., Barr, C.D., Dobbs, C.L., Phillips Galloway, E., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641400006X
Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C.D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C.L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104
Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., & Qin, W. (in press). The language for school literacy: Widening the lens on language and reading relations. In E.B. Moje, P.P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N.K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Longman.
Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2/3), 102–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050408667804
Vaughn, S., Martinez, L.R., Linan-Thompson, S., Reutebuch, C.K., Carlson, C.D., & Francis, D.J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167018
Wagner, C.J., Parra, M.O., & Proctor, C.P. (2017). The interplay between student-led discussions and argumentative writing. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.340
Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., Rivas, B.K., Jones, F.G., Kent, S.C., … Mehta, P. (2017). Effects of a year long supplemental reading intervention for students with reading difficulties in fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1103–1119. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000184;
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). What Works Clearinghouse^™ standards handbook version 4.0. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
WIDA. (2015). ACCESS for ELLs 2.0. Madison, WI: Author.
Wilkinson, I.A.G., Soter, A.O., & Murphy, P.K. (2010). Developing a model of quality talk about literary text. In M.G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 142–169). New York, NY: Guilford.
Wilkinson, P.A., & Patty, D. (1993). The effects of sentence combining on the reading comprehension of fourth grade students. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 104–125.
Woodcock, R.W., Muñoz-Sandoval, A.F., Ruef, M.L., & Alvarado, C.G. (2005). Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey–revised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Zhang, J., Anderson, R.C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2013). Language-rich discussions for English language learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.003

Literature Cited

Citing Literature

Volume55, Issue1

January/February/March 2020

Pages 95-122

Teaching Bilingual Learners: Effects of a Language-Based Reading Intervention on Academic Language and Reading Comprehension in Grades 4 and 5

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

References

Literature Cited

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Teaching Bilingual Learners: Effects of a Language-Based Reading Intervention on Academic Language and Reading Comprehension in Grades 4 and 5

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

References

Literature Cited

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information