A Comparison of the Reading Progress of English Language Speakers and Learners

A large body of research supports the use of intensive, explicit, structured, phonics-based programming (IESPP) for achieving positive outcomes for students at-risk for reading failure. Few studies included English language learners. The purpose of this study was to determine whether students participating in IESPP became proficient readers and to identify site characteristics contributing to successful implementation. The sample consisted of 199 third grade students from three schools in a district in the Southwest using IESPP. Participants were assigned to one of four groups: English speakers (n=89), English learners (n=79), English speakers with learning disabilities (LD) (n=13), and English learners with LD (n=18). Phase 1 targeted student outcomes from the four groups from the first year of IESPP implementation. Independent t tests of group means compared the progress between the four groups on three measures of reading fluency: Oral Reading, Retell, and Word Usage. All groups evidenced gains. Students without LD were found to have made statistically significant gains in Oral Reading Fluency compared with students with LD. No significant differences were found between students with and without LD. English as a second language did not appear to impact relative performance. In Phase 2, principals, reading coaches, and the reading coordinator participated in semi-structured interviews identifying the elements contributing to successful implementation of IESPP. Elements included: (a) site leadership and external training support, (b) teacher commitment and cooperation, and (c) common terminology in reading instruction. Challenges identified in schools implementing the IESPP included: (a) structuring changes involving lessons, coordination with other teachers, and philosophic differences in instruction, (b) training in progress monitoring and data interpretation, (c) identifying gaps in students' cultural literacy, and (d) acquiring additional time and personnel for intervention. Primary implications included the need for: (a) involving key site leaders, (b) providing resources and IESPP supports to sites based on identified student weaknesses, (c) anticipating teacher reactions while addressing change, and (d) continuing research of the IESPP model's impact on English language learners and students with LD. Further implications and recommendations for districts, site leaders and reading coaches implementing IESPP are included.