Running head: USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

Detecting Reading Disabilities in English Language Learners What Insight does Miscue Analysis Provide? Jo Friesen University of Calgary

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

2

Detecting Reading Disabilities in English Language Learners What Insight does Miscue Analysis Provide? At the elementary school level, a main educational goal is to help all students to develop reading proficiency. Learning to read is a complex process that involves students combining their knowledge about how to read with their general knowledge, the particular texts they are asked to read and the environmental context they are in (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). Skilled readers develop their skills in social settings, through interactions with other students, educators and their families. They develop a variety of strategies that allow them to hone their skills in areas such as phonemic awareness, phonics, word study, syntax and vocabulary, all of which combine to build up their reading fluency and comprehension (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). For the majority of Native English Speakers (NS), this process happens smoothly, with a typical course of development. For 20% of students, the process is more challenging and they experience difficulty with learning to read. Studies based on response to intervention (RTI) strategies for diagnosing learning disabilities show that of those 20%, only 5-7% fail to respond to planned interventions and are considered to have a learning disability (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater & Cirino, 2006). Within those diagnosed with learning disabilities, a majority 56% have reading difficulties as their primary concern (Klinger, Artiles & Mendez Barletta, 2006). These findings show that if we are to meet the goal of helping all students to become proficient readers, we need to ensure we are considering not only those who develop typically, but those who have reading and general learning disabilities as well. In a country such as Canada, which has such a large, diverse and growing immigrant population, there is also a need to pay close attention to the development of English Language Learners (ELL), both in terms of their similarities and their differences to NS. This is important

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

3

both for those students who demonstrate typical reading development and those who may have a reading disability. Studies have found that in general, ELL have lower academic achievement, especially in terms of literacy (Klinger et al., 2006). Research has also shown that students diagnosed with learning disabilities have higher dropout rates, decreased self-concepts, are more likely to be kept back a grade, have fewer educational opportunities and show higher rates of loss of academic skills (Pray, 2009). Klinger et al., (2006) found that, when compared with their ELL peers without learning disabilities, ELL with learning disabilities had less access to language support services, were more likely to receive English only instruction and that the special education services they did receive were usually segregated. When all of this data is considered, it becomes clear that there is a significant need to be as careful and accurate in our assessment and support of ELL as possible, in order to provide them with the most appropriate instruction and interventions, in a timely manner, in hopes of helping them to reach their full academic potential. One of the challenges of this process is that educators are often hesitant to refer ELL because of the difficulty in differentiating between which students have a learning disability and which are experiencing reading difficulties due to second language acquisition issues (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). This difficulty is due in part to the wide variety of factors that need to be considered when assessing ELL students, including cultural and linguist differences (Wilkerson, Ortiz, Robertson & Kusner, 2006), and in part to the lack of research that looks specifically at ELL with learning disabilities (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006). These factors could also at least partially account for the fact that generally ELL students are underrepresented in special education services at the elementary school level (Wilkerson et al., 2006), which means they have less access to the specialized services they may need.

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

4

There is a need to develop assessment processes that provide better differentiation between ELL students who have reading disabilities, those who may simply be low achievers and those whose reading struggles are related to linguistic or cultural differences (Wilkerson et al., 2006). One piece of the assessment process that may play an important role in that differentiation is miscue analysis (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). Miscue analysis provides a means of finding patterns in the types of errors that students make, which can then be used both for planning effective instruction, as well as determining developmental levels and strategy use (McKenna & Picard, 2006). Further research into this area could also potentially yield information on how these patterns relate to cognitive processing and developmental progression, which could in turn lead to a better understanding of the differences between ELL with learning disabilities and those without.

Discussion

Reading Development For the typical student, reading development is a smooth, continuous process. Students progress from relying on decoding skills, to developing sight vocabulary. They begin to rely less on contextual cues and word recognition becomes more automatic. Their reading rate increases, as do their comprehension skills, as more cognitive process are available for these higher level reading tasks (Singleton, 2005). While all students make some errors when they read, skilled readers make fewer errors than novice readers and the errors they do make are more likely to preserve the meaning of the text (Linan-Thompson, Cirino & Vaughn, 2007). Students with reading disabilities show a different path of development. They may have trouble identifying printed words, they often demonstrate phonological difficulties that are

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

5

qualitatively different than those of beginning readers, they use less effective and fewer decoding strategies, they score lower on measures of auditory processing, and they show oral and written language deficits (Warde, 2005; Singleton, 2005; Klinger et al., 2006; Laing, 2002). When we then focus on ELL who may have learning disabilities, we find that one difficulty that arises is that many of the characteristics of second language acquisition can look very similar to those generally associated with learning disabilities in NS. This can include problems with behavior, attention, reading, spoken language and narrative skills (Pray, 2009). Therefore, there is a need to look for those areas of assessment that highlight differences between the development of students with learning disabilities and those who are simply progressing more slowly as they acquire a second language. Ideally, taking these differences into account will allow educators to pinpoint those areas that play a role in determining if an ELL is developing typically, although more slowly than NS peers, or if an ELLs slow progression is due to a learning disability.

Assessment In order to begin the process of differentiating between language acquisition related difficulties and learning disabilities in ELL, it is necessary for educators to complete a thorough assessment. It is important that such assessments are age-appropriate, unbiased and take the individual students life and context into account (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). Due to the complexity of both the student and the reading process, it is necessary that a variety of assessment strategies, tools and contexts are used in order to develop as complete a picture of a students development as possible (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). The process should involve gathering information from a variety of sources, including family interviews, teacher observations, formal

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

6

and informal testing, and where appropriate, information from medical or other professionals (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). When it comes to formal and informal testing, there are a number of assessment tools that can be used when looking at miscue analysis. One option is standardized tests, such as the Gray Oral Reading Test 4, which looks at oral reading fluency through measuring reading rate and comprehension, or the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test which evaluates reading skills and comprehension through activities such as word attack, and letter identification (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). Another option is curriculum based assessment, where the teacher creates assessment tools based on the classroom curriculum and continually monitors progress (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). There are also a number of informal methods of gathering reading assessment information, such as oral descriptions, probes, cloze procedures, interviews, portfolios and retelling. These types of assessment allow for frequent assessment using a wide variety of observational methods and contexts (Cohen & Spenciner, 2011). In looking at formal test results alone, educators may be able to pinpoint specific academic deficits, but these tests do not necessarily provide information regarding the cause of those deficits (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006). However, once we incorporate the information gathered from family members, teachers and other specialists, a more complete picture emerges, and with it more opportunity to accurately determine the cause of the deficits. When we are investigating an ELL student with reading difficulties, it is important to look at causes outside of the students cognitive abilities that may be a factor. Areas to consider are the teaching environment, the type of instruction, type quality and quantity of any interventions, as well as familial factors, or medical factors (Wilkinson et al, 2006). Consideration also needs to be given to cultural factors, as some behaviours generally associated with a learning disability may actually be typical of a particular

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

7

culture (Klinger et al., 2006). Once all of these additional factors have been accounted for, educators can begin to look at the role the students cognitive abilities play in his or her academic deficits. When working with ELL, there is an additional challenge of finding culturally appropriate tools and staff who are equipped to not only administer those tools, but to understand the linguistic and cultural differences which the student brings to process (Wilkerson et al., 2006). If care is not taken, students are at risk of being mislabelled for special education services due to test, environmental or cultural factors, rather than based to cognitive abilities (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006).

Miscue Analysis One area of assessment that should be carefully considered when seeking to accurately assess ELL for reading development is miscue analysis of oral reading skills (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). Miscue analysis involves looking for patterns in the type and quantity of errors students make in order to glean information regarding their developmental levels and what learning strategies they are relying on (Warde, 2005). This can not only inform instructional practices, but can also provide insight into areas for intervention and help to monitor students progress (McKenna & Picard, 2006). In order to find value in miscue analysis as a differentiation tool, we first need to consider what research can tell us about different types of errors related to reading proficiency. In a study that looked at college students both with and without learning disabilities, Warde (2005), found significant differences in the types of errors they made during oral reading of college level reading passages. She found that the students with learning disabilities made more errors overall, their

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

8

errors were more likely to be graphically similar to the correct word, they made fewer self corrections and they made more errors that led to a loss of meaning, leading to lower comprehension results (Warde, 2005). In studying students with dyslexia, Singleton (2005) found that error patterns showed these students not only had a particular difficulty with phonology, but that difficulty was qualitatively different from beginning or slow progression readers without learning disabilities. He also found that the students with dyslexia made errors that were less similar in terms of both sound and appearance to the correct word. Although they may get the beginning or end of the word correct, they made letter substitutions which lead to real but inaccurate words (i.e. reading tail for tool) (Singleton, 2005). This research showed similar results to that conducted by Laing, (2002), who also found that students with learning disabilities made more real-word errors that were similar to the target word, but changed the meaning of the text, whereas typically developing students made errors that maintained accurate meaning in the text. She also found that while typically developing readers took both phonological and contextual information into account, readers with learning disabilities showed an over-reliance on context, which lead to errors that that had little phonemic resemblance to the target word (Laing, 2002). Other research has shown general patterns of errors students with learning disabilities which are specifically related to incomplete decoding abilities and strategies (Klinger et al., 2006). These research studies demonstrate that the errors made by students with learning disabilities, and those without, seem to differ both in terms of the quantity of errors and they type of errors made. While this research does not focus on ELL, it does provide specific information that is of value when considering the assessment process for ELL. However, there are too many additional differences culturally, linguistically, socially, and economically that exist between

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

9

NS and ELL for us to draw any definitive conclusions based on the presented research (USDOE & NICHD, 2003). We cannot assume that ELL with learning disabilities will present with the same pattern of reading errors as NS with learning disabilities, however we can look at the research to find a starting point to conducting further research that specifically addresses the question of the role miscue analysis could play in differentiating between ELL with and without learning disabilities. If we consider that the reading development process is qualitatively different for NS students with and without learning disabilities, and we consider the many similarities that exist between NS reading development and ELL reading development when no learning disabilities are present, we can begin the process of constructing a model regarding the developmental path of ELL with reading disabilities. We can see where the similarities between each of the groups (NS with LD, NS without LD, ELL with LD, ELL without LD) lie and where the differences may be. We can use good assessment practices to account for outside causes of academic deficits, and then narrow down those areas that seem to remain related to a students cognitive abilities. Further research into miscue analysis of ELL with and without learning disabilities may reveal similar patterns of errors as those seen in NS or may show different patterns altogether, but either result would provide an important, additional piece of the assessment puzzle.

Conclusion

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

10

Current research focuses on two areas at that are related to ELL and learning disabilities. One group of research looks at how typical reading development differs between NS and ELL students. The other group of research looks at differences in reading development between NS with learning disabilities and those without. There is as of yet little empirical research that combines these two areas of research (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006) and looks at the developmental differences between these four groups of students. When we consider the growing number of ELL in our school system, and the important implications of ensuring that students are accurately diagnosed when it comes to the area of learning disabilities, it is clear that this is an important area on which to focus further research. While we can form hypotheses regarding the differentiation of ELL with learning disabilities based on the current research findings, good empirical research is needed to test these hypotheses. A specific area of research is into the role of miscue analysis in diagnosing learning disabilities. Long used as an insightful tool for instructional planning (McKenna & Picard, 2006), the underlying patterns that might emerge from analysis of the type of miscues different students make could also yield valuable information in regards to determining if an ELLs slow reading development is typical progress, or if there may be an underlying reading or learning disability present. This differentiation not only has an impact in funding for student services, but may also impact the type and quality of instruction and intervention a student receives. When we consider the different developmental path we see for NS readers with and without learning disabilities, we can understand how different interventions would have different levels of efficacy for each group. If we assume it would be the same with ELL, we again see the need for accurate understanding of an individual students development. For example, an ELL who is misdiagnosed as having a learning disability may waste valuable instructional time participating in segregated, decoding

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

11

based interventions, when he or she would benefit more from social interactions with NS peers and vocabulary instruction. One the other hand, an ELL with a learning disability who is not identified as such may continue to flounder and struggle as he or she is pushed along the typical developmental path of instruction, and miss out on targeted interventions that focus on his or her specific deficits. In order to provide the best learning environments and academic opportunities for all students, and to help them to reach the goal of becoming proficient readers, we need to ensure we are carefully considering the unique aspects of all students. In our linguistically and culturally diverse Canadian society, this includes focusing attention on ELL students and ensuring our educators are equipped to provide not only high quality instruction, but empirically supported interventions for those students who face academic difficulties. The process is a complicated one as it is necessary to consider a myriad of variables and factors that contribute to each ELL learning environment and makes each student unique, but the value to all ELL, both those with and without learning disabilities, make the process well worth the time and effort.

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

12

References Cohen, L.G., & Spenciner, L, J. (2011). Assessment of children and youth with special needs (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Klinger, J.K., Artiles, A.J., & Mendez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108-128. Laing, S.P. (2002). Miscue analysis in school-age children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 407-416. Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P.T., Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English language learners response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 185-195. Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P.T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 390-398. McKenna, M.C., Picard, M.C. (2006). Revisiting the role of miscue analysis in effective teaching. The ReadingTeacher, 60(4), 378-380. Pray, L. (2009). Comparison of oral language usage among English language learners diagnosed with a learning disability and those in general education. International Multilingual Research Journal, 3(2), 110-110. Singleton, C. (2005). Dyslexia and oral reading errors. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(1), 414. U.S. Department of Education, & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2003). National symposium on learning disabilities in English language learners. Washington, DC: Authors.

USING MISCUE ANALYSIS TO DETECT RD IN ELL

13

Warde, B.A. (2005). Reading miscues of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36 (1), 21-36. Wilkinson, C. Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language learners with reading-related ld: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 129-141.