Incorporating Vocabulary Instruction in Individual Reading Fluency Interventions With English Language Learners

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-81
Author(s):  
Lauren E. Johnston ◽  
Sterett H. Mercer ◽  
Rhonda Geres-Smith

The purpose of this preliminary study was to determine whether incorporating vocabulary instruction in individual reading fluency interventions for English Language Learners (ELLs) would improve reading comprehension. Two vocabulary instructional procedures were contrasted with a fluency-building only condition in an alternating-treatments design with four ELL students in Grades 3 and 5. Results indicated that the two vocabulary instructional procedures, on average, did not affect reading comprehension. Despite no consistent overall effects, one student had better comprehension of passages used in fluency-building activities when definitions of key target words were taught, and two students demonstrated better comprehension of untaught passages following vocabulary instruction that included processing questions; however, all effects were of small magnitude. Reducing instructional time spent on fluency-building activities to incorporate the vocabulary activities did not attenuate intervention effects on reading fluency. Practical recommendations and future directions for incorporating vocabulary instruction in individual reading interventions are discussed.

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-271

07–449Barber, Richard (Dubai Women's College, UAE), A practical model for creating efficient in-house placement tests. The Language Teacher (Japan Association for Language Teaching) 31.2 (2007), 3–7.07–450Chang, Yuh-Fang (National Chung Hsing U, Taiwan), On the use of the immediate recall task as a measure of second language reading comprehension. Language Testing (Hodder Arnold) 23.4 (2006), 520–543.07–451Hyun-Ju, Kim (U Seoul, Korea), World Englishes in language testing: A call for research. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.4 (2006), 32–39.07–452Mahon, Elizabeth A. (Durham Public Schools, North Carolina, USA), High-stakes testing and English language learners: Questions of validity. Bilingual Research Journal (National Association for Bilingual Education) 30.2 (2006), 479–497.07–453McCoy, Damien (Australian Centre for Education and Training, Vietnam), Utilizing students' preferred language learning strategies for IELTS test preparation. EA Journal (English Australia) 23.1 (2006), 3–13.07–454Menken, Kate (City U New York, USA), Teaching to the test: How no child left behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal (National Association for Bilingual Education) 30.2 (2006), 521–547.07–455Pae, Tae-Il (Yeungnam U, China) & Gi-Pyo Park, Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and differential test functioning.Language Testing (Hodder Arnold) 23.4 (2006), 475–496.07–456Rimmer, Wayne (U Reading, UK), Measuring grammatical complexity: The Gordian knot. Language Testing (Hodder Arnold) 23.4 (2006), 497–519.07–457Rupp, André A. (Humboldt U, Berlin, Germany) Tracy Ferne & Hyeran Choi, How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing (Hodder Arnold) 23.4 (2006), 441–474.07–458Vanderveen, Terry (Kangawa U, Japan), The effect of EFL students' self-monitoring on class achievement test scores. JALT Journal (Japan Association for Language Teaching) 28.2 (2006), 197–206.07–459Van Moere, Alistair (Lancaster U, UK), Validity evidence in a university group oral test. Language Testing (Hodder Arnold) 23.4 (2006), 411–440.


2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caralyn Ludwig ◽  
Kan Guo ◽  
George K. Georgiou

Despite concerted efforts to improve the reading skills of English language learners (ELLs), it remains unclear if the interventions they have been receiving produce any positive results. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine how effective reading interventions are in improving ELLs’ reading skills and what factors may influence their effectiveness. Twenty-six studies with reported outcomes for pretest and posttest were selected, and four moderators (group size, intensity of intervention, students’ risk status, and type of intervention) were coded. The results of random-effects analyses showed that the reading interventions had a large effect on ELLs’ reading accuracy ( d = 1.221) and reading fluency ( d = 0.802) and a moderate effect on reading comprehension ( d = 0.499). In addition, for real-word reading accuracy, intervention groups composed of more than five students were less effective than groups composed of two to five students, and longer intervention sessions were less effective than shorter ones. Overall, our findings suggest that reading interventions have positive effects on ELLs’ reading skills, and they should not be delayed until these students have reached a certain level of oral English proficiency.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Author(s):  
Sara L. Jozwik ◽  
Shaqwana Freeman-Green ◽  
Tara L. Kaczorowski ◽  
Karen H. Douglas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document