Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 259–279 | Cite as

Evaluating Responsiveness to Intervention for English-Language Learners: A Comparison of Response Modes on Letter Naming Rates

  • Donna Gilbertson
  • Janie Maxfield
  • John Hughes
Original Paper


An alternating treatments design was used to compare the effects of two response modes on acquisition and retention rates of letter naming fluency performance (LNF) by six kindergarten English Language Learners (ELLs) performing below the average letter naming level and slope of other ELL classmates. With equal amounts of practice opportunities, ELLs practiced by orally reading printed letters (see/say) or practiced by pointing to a printed letter that was orally read to them (hear/point). The see/say intervention practiced printed letter sounds to enhance oral reading competence. Alternatively, the hear/point intervention confirmed a non-verbal recognition of oral letter sounds to increase attention and information processing of oral and printed letters prior to an oral LNF assessment. The see/say intervention was moderately more effective on LNF rates than the hear/point intervention for all ELLs on the acquisition assessment and for 4 of the 6 ELLs on the retention assessment. Results are discussed in terms of efficiency as well as effectiveness when making decisions about selecting and implementing responsiveness to intervention assessments when ELLs students are not responding to an effective general education program.


English-Language Learners Early literacy Academic intervention Response mode Responsive to intervention 


  1. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.Google Scholar
  2. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.Google Scholar
  4. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2003). Direct instruction reading. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Del Vecchio, A., & Guerreo, M. (1995). Handbook of English language proficiency tests. Albuquerque, NM: Evaluation Assistance Center, Western Region.Google Scholar
  6. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning: Results from an experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. (2003). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-Language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbertson, D., & Bluck, J. (2006). Improving responsiveness to intervention for ELLs: A comparison of instructional pace on letter naming rates. Journal of Behavioral Education (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.Google Scholar
  12. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills 6th edition. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. At Scholar
  13. Good, R. H., & Shinn, M. R (1990). Forecasting accuracy of slope for reading curriculum-based measurement: Empirical evidence. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 179–193.Google Scholar
  14. Good, R., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., Kaminski, R., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Technical Report No. 11). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  15. Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. (2001). Best practices using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In: A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679–700). Washington, DC.: National Association of School Psychologist.Google Scholar
  16. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In: R. Bradley, & L. Danielson (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Hayes, J. A., Smith, P. M., & Murphy, V. A. (2005). Modality effects in compounding with English inflectional morphology. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 295–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.Google Scholar
  19. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become a critical consumer. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Marlowe, W., Egner, K., & Foreman, D. (1997). Story comprehension as a function of modality and reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 194–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martson, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 539–544.Google Scholar
  24. McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). English language learners and learning disabilities: Research agenda and implications for practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Noell, G. H., Gilbertson, D., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. (2005). Ecobehavioral assessment and intervention for culturally diverse at-risk students. In: C. L. Frisby, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 904–927). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P., Mace, H., & Williams-Wilson, S. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.Google Scholar
  28. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning rates by increasing student response rates: A summary of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313–325.Google Scholar
  29. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT Journal, 23, 6–30.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from Scholar
  33. VanDerHeyden, A. H., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.Google Scholar
  34. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In: F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, D. P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & J. R. R. Weber (Eds.), (Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and pitfalls. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedure of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  40. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations