Research Method Section Checklist

Article (APA):

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan‐Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard‐Durodola, S., . . . Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of an english intervention for first‐grade english language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153-180.

Provide a short summary of the article:

This article examines the effectiveness of a seven-month daily intervention, in addition to their core reading instruction in English, for a group of forty-eight, first grade, English language learner students whose primary reading instruction was in Spanish. The study demonstrates that when ELLs are provided an intervention program designed for monolingual English first graders at risk for reading problems and modified to be used as an ESL reading intervention, then ELLs acquiring literacy skills can progress and meet grade-level expectations in reading.

I. Overview of Methods Section

Tradition named – Quantitative, Qualitative, and Experimental

Rationale provided: Many ELL students are at risk for reading problems in first grade due to their low oral skills in both English and Spanish. Educators and researchers have successfully progressed in designing effective interventions for monolingual English students at risk for reading problems, but there remains a gap of instruction and achievement for English Language learners. The study was designed to demonstrate a systematic and explicit intervention can be used to enhance reading outcomes for ELLs at risk for reading problems and learning to read in English.

II. Participants

Number - 4 schools; 13 teachers; 4 bilingual, intervention teachers; 48 first-grade students (24 intervention students and 24 contrast students); 50% female, 50% male; end of study consisted of 41 first-grade students (22 intervention students and 19 contrast students)

How selected - The four schools selected served large numbers of bilingual students and were selected based off the following criteria: (a) schools were providing English intervention for reading to at least two classes of first-grade students who were ELLs, (b) at least 60% of the population of the entire school was Latino, and (c) 80% or more of third-grade students passed the state reading achievement tests. Selection of students eligible for the intervention was based off their scoring below the twenty-fifth percentile for the first grade on the letter-word identification subtest in both Spanish and English, and inability to read more than one word from the list of simple words. The 48 students that were eligible were randomly assigned supplemental intervention or contrast conditions.

Demographics - 98% Hispanic (All students within the study were Hispanic), Population of Spanish-speaking ELLs in Kindergarten and first-grade: 48%-99%, free or reduced-lunch: 85%-100%

Setting described- large urban schools, Texas

III. Instruments

Type(s) - Fieldnotes, videotape, observations, Quantitative data-CTOPP, TOPP-S, WLPB-R, DIBELS, interviews

Details about instrument(s) provided-
Letter naming and letter-sound identification- Students were asked to identify and provide at least one sound for each of the 26 letters of the English alphabet and each of the 30 letters of the Spanish alphabet
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) -phonological awareness, rapid naming, and phonological memory
Test of Phonological Processes—Spanish (TOPP-S)- aligns the English CTOPP the Spanish language
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery—Revised: English and Spanish Forms (WLPB-R)- English and Spanish norms in letter-word identification (at screening only), word attack, passage comprehension, listening comprehension, picture vocabulary, verbal analogies, and memory for sentences (at pretest only)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)- reading fluency
Videotapes-bilingual intervention teachers implementing