Current vocabulary research indicates that both contextual and morphemic analysis is effective in helping secondary students, with and without disabilities, and English Language Learners (ELLs) improve vocabulary acquisition. However, a...
moreCurrent vocabulary research indicates that both contextual and morphemic analysis is effective in helping secondary students, with and without disabilities, and English Language Learners (ELLs) improve vocabulary acquisition. However, a dearth of vocabulary research has been conducted with secondary ELLs with Reading Disabilities (RD). This study investigated the effects of a combined contextual and morphemic analysis strategy, the CLUES Strategy, to help students predict and analyze unknown science vocabulary words. Four 9 thand 10 th grade ELLs with RD in an urban high school participated in this study. A multiple-probe across-participants design was employed. Students were taught the CLUES strategy to improve their vocabulary acquisition. CLUES instruction consisted of 4 training lessons to introduce the terms to students (e.g., context, morphemes, prefixes, roots, and suffixes) and 10 CLUES Instructional lessons to teach 10 common science (e.g., biology and life science) roots. Dependent measures included CLUES Probes, Reading Comprehension-4 (Brown, Hammill, & Widerholt, 2008) Word Knowledge test, Word Part test, and Word Mapping/Strategy Use test. Students' ability to generalize the CLUES strategy without the use of the CLUES graphic organizer and their maintenance of the CLUES Strategy also was investigated. In addition, each participant's acceptability of the CLUES Strategy was assessed using an adapted version of the Child Intervention Rating Profile (CIRP; adapted from Witt & Elliott, 1985). The results of this study indicated that the students benefitted from the use of the CLUES Strategy and both contextual and morphemic strategies generalized to novel science word meanings. Each student maintained his or her ability to use this strategy over time. Students were generally satisfied with the CLUES Strategy, and recommended its use with other peers. 2 Chapter I Statement of the Problem Importance of Reading Reading can be defined as an active, complex process that involves the understanding and interpreting of meaning from text for a variety of purposes and situations and continues to evolve throughout the reader's life span (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2012). One of the most pivotal factors associated with being able to compete in the global economy is the ability to read, write, think, and engage in complex communication (National Academics, 2005). If students are to leave high school prepared for college and career it seems evident that they need to be able to proficiently read and write (Miller, 2009). Beyond the need for students to skillfully read for a variety of academic and professional purposes, proficient reading impacts their ability to engage in activities that influence their general quality of life (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). Hirsch (2006) accentuates the vital role that proficient reading plays in being able to participate in a democratic society: "Reading ability correlates with almost everything that a democratic education aims to provide, including the ability to be informed citizens who can actively participate in the self-government of a democracy" (p. 3). The National Reading Panel (NRP) identified five reading components, phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency, as specific reading skills that need to be instructed and developed for students to become skillful readers. Students become proficient readers as they engage in effective instruction across all five instructional components. The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) found that readers who mastered these five components had successful academic outcomes. Research Questions Research Question 1: Will the CLUES Strategy result in an increase in ELLs with RD's accuracy of writing word parts, word part meanings, and whole science word meanings? It was hypothesized that the CLUES Strategy would result in improved accuracy of writing word parts, defining word parts, and predicting science word meanings among ELLs with RD. Research Question 2: Will the Clues Strategy result in an increase the accuracy of their writing the CLUES steps among ELLs with RD? It was hypothesized that the CLUES Strategy would result in an increase in CLUES steps accurately written by ELLs with RD. Research Question 3: Will the CLUES Strategy result in an increase in the number of science words ELLs with RD can define from pre-to post-test? It was hypothesized that the CLUES Strategy would result in an increase in the number of science words ELLs with RD could define from pre-to post-test. Research Question 4: Will ELLs with RD maintain their use of CLUES use two weeks and one month post-intervention? It was hypothesized that ELLs with RD would maintain their CLUES use both 2 weeks and one month following the CLUES intervention. 12 Research Question 5: Will ELLS with RD generalize the CLUES strategy to sentences from science text without using a graphic organizer? It was hypothesized that ELLs with RD would generalize their ability to use the CLUES with regular science text without the use of a graphic organizer. Research Question 6: Are ELLs with RD who receive the CLUES Strategy satisfied with the intervention? It was hypothesized that ELLs with RD would find the CLUES instruction acceptable and would be satisfied with the intervention. Robertson-Courtney, & Kushner, 2006). In fact, ELLs with RD may be under-or overrepresented if they are not properly assessed (Hallahan et al., 2005). Problems with standardized assessments include content bias (e.g., unfair test items) and linguistic bias (e.g., complex directions and multisyllabic vocabulary; Shore & Sanbanti, 2009). Therefore, ELLs may not understand assessment questions due to linguistic complexity (Chu & Flores, 2011). The controversy surrounding assessment and accurate identification is one reason reading research for ELLs with RD has remained limited. In spite of assessment limitations, the terms LD, RD, ELL, and ELLs with RD were defined in the next section along with description of the similarities and differences between general education students and second language learners' (ELLs) reading skills. Finally, the characteristics differentiating ELLs and ELLs with RD will also be described. Current definition of Learning Disabilities. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA, 2004), Learning Disabilities (LD) is defined as a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia and does not include learning problems that are not primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, or economic disadvantage, or cultural or linguistic difference (IDEIA, 2004 CFR 300.8 (c)(10)). Issues with identifying students with LD have been an increasing concern over the past decade (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004). A broad definition of LD refers to a variety of disorders that affect the acquisition, retention, understanding, organization, or use of