Effects of a peer-mediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms.

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a supplemental peer-mediated reading program on reading achievement of first graders (N = 76) in a two-way bilingual immersion (TWBI) program. Nearly 80% of students were Hispanic; of these, 24 were identified as English language learners (ELLs). Classrooms were randomly assigned to peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS) or contrast condition. PALS students participated in a 30-hour peer-mediated early literacy intervention that was conducted three times a week. Results showed statistically significant differences, with large effect sizes favoring PALS on phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency. Additionally, disaggregated results analyzed by subgroups (ELLs and English proficient) revealed a differential pattern in response to intervention. Implications of findings in relation to research and practice are discussed.

**********

Helping all students read on grade level is an ambitious goal, and it is particularly challenging for schools serving students with English as a second language, or English Language Learners (ELLs), who are also from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (August & Hakuta, 1998; Donovan & Cross, 2002). In the past decade, the number of ELLs in American schools has increased nearly 70% to 5.5 million (Donovan & Cross, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2004). Eighty percent of ELLs have Spanish as their first language (McCardle, Mele-McCarty, Cutting, Leos, & D'Emilio, 2005) and are twice as likely as native English-speaking peers to have reading achievement levels significantly below average for their age (August & Hakuta, 1998). In fact, nearly 60% of Spanish-speaking fourth-grade students cannot read English at even a basic level (August & Hakuta, 1998). There is consensus that ELLs' reading development is constrained by their limited academic language (August & Hakuta, 1998; August & Shanahan, 2006; Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006).

Improving reading outcomes for Hispanic children, regardless of their English proficiency, is critical for several closely related reasons. For example, Hispanic students are more often retained, are disproportionately represented in special education programs (Shepherd, 2000), and are three times more likely to drop out of school than Anglo/Caucasian students (August & Hakuta, 1998). Furthermore, improving reading achievement for all students is the goal of the Reading First Program of the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 H.R.1). Under NCLB, selection of core reading programs and additional interventions is guided by scientifically based reading research (SBRR). SBRR derives largely from two important reviews of the literature on reading, Preventing Reading Difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffith, 1998) and the National Reading Panel report (NRP; 2000). These influential reports summarized 20 years of research demonstrating that reading difficulties can be prevented by explicitly and systematically teaching phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.

Although this research was conducted mainly with native English speakers, reviews of the literature on effective reading instruction of students with English as a second language, or English language learners (ELLs) found limited empirical evidence to support that the cognitive reading processes of second-language learners are different from those of native speakers (August & Hakuta, 1998; August & Shanahan, 2006; Fitzgerald, 1995; Genessee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Fitzgerald argued "there is little evidence to support the need for a special vision of second-language reading instruction" (2000, p. 520), other than the obvious need for assistance with vocabulary and comprehension support for grade-level reading materials. In fact, some researchers have shown that when children learn about phonological awareness and the alphabetic principle in one language, they tend to transfer this awareness to a second language (Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001).

More recently, after reviewing the existing literature base, Francis et al. (2006) identified several guiding instructional principles to improve ELLs' reading development: (a) provide early explicit code-focused instruction; (b) increase opportunities for vocabulary development through structured academic talk; (c) promote fluency through vocabulary and repeated readings in meaningful texts; and (d) train comprehension strategies using narrative and expository texts.

There is empirical support from a growing number of intervention studies that early explicit code-focused instruction, shown to improve reading outcomes for native English speakers (e.g., NRP, 2000), also prevents reading difficulties and leads to stronger reading outcomes for ELLs. A burst of recent research on effective beginning reading programs has begun to document positive effects of explicit and systematic phonics instruction in English for ELL students during class-wide instruction (Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Wooley, 2002; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998), as well as through supplemental pullout, small-group interventions (Al Otaiba, 2005; Gerber et al., 2004; Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000; Haager & Windmueller, 2001; Leafstedt, Richards, & Gerber, 2004; Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanaki, 2003; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005).

Across these studies, ELLs' pretreatment scores on phonological and alphabetic awareness were lower than those of native English speakers, yet their gains in decoding and oral reading fluency were comparable to those of native English speakers. Furthermore, ELLs' responsiveness to instruction did not appear to be mediated by their oral language proficiency in English, but rather by their initial phonological and alphabetic awareness. This finding is consistent with two reviews of responsiveness to early literacy interventions conducted predominantly with native English speakers (A1 Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez, 2003).

The present study extends this growing research literature by examining the effects of a supplemental peer-mediated reading program on reading achievement of ELLs and native English speakers in two-way bilingual immersion first-grade classrooms.

Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs

Two-way bilingual immersion (TWBI) programs, also known as dual language programs, are designed to integrate students who are ELLs and English proficient (EP) for content and literacy instruction in both languages (Lindholm-Leary, 2004). Some programs, like the one described in the present study, allocate equal amounts of time to both languages (50/50), whereas others begin with more instruction in the first language and less in English (90/10), transitioning into more instruction in English and less in first language (10/90). The theoretical framework of TWBI programs is that they give equal status to both languages and, therefore, are better at promoting language and positive interactions among students, as well as better attitudes toward school (Howard & Christian, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). The number of TWBI programs in the United States has grown over the past 15 years to over 260 programs nationwide (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2002).

At least three characteristics distinguish TWBI from other immersion programs. First, two languages, such as English and Spanish, are used for academic instruction. Second, there are roughly equal numbers of two groups of students: children who are monolingual English speakers and ELL students (Howard & Christian, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2004). Third, the students remain together during the majority of the school day for content-area and literacy instruction, not just for "specials" such as art, music, or physical education.

To date, findings from a small number of large-scale correlational studies (Lindholm-Leary, 2001, 2004; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002) suggest that reading scores of ELLs were consistently lower than scores of native English-speaking children, but after four to seven years in a TWBI program, (a) ELLs began to close the gap relative to grade-level norms, and (b) they outperformed ELL peers educated in English-only on statewide standardized reading test scores. Findings from several smaller-scale case studies are consistent with this finding (for a review, see Howard, Sugarman, & Christian, 2003).

The literature base describing the effects of participation in TWBI classrooms on beginning reading skills is even more limited (Howard et al., 2003), and therefore provides little guidance for first-grade teachers in TWBI classrooms. With the growing popularity of bilingual programs, including TWBI, teachers need research-based instructional strategies to optimize language input during beginning English language literacy instruction.

Effective beginning reading instructional practices make a difference, particularly for children at risk for reading difficulties. Graves, Gersten, and Haager (2004) observed literacy instruction in first-grade classrooms serving ELLs and found that a third to half of children whose first-grade teachers received low ratings on an observational measure of instructional practices (e.g., explicit instruction, opportunities to apply new skills, engagement, time spent reading, and structured student opportunities for English conversation) were at risk for future reading difficulties due to impaired oral reading fluency rates. Graves (2007) followed these students through seventh grade and reported that the majority of the at-risk ELLs who had received weaker beginning reading instruction were eventually identified as having learning disabilities. Other researchers have also expressed concern that even well-implemented beginning literacy instruction is often teacher-led. Consequently, ELLs who are struggling readers may not have adequate independent practice and may lack opportunities to engage in structured academic talk (cf., Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001).

The Promise of Peer Tutoring 

Over 10 years ago, Richard-Amato and Snow (1992) called peer tutors "the neglected resource" (p. 271). The authors cited research from the seventies that found students' reading (Harris, 1971; Klosterman, 1970), verbal skills (Shaver & Nuhn, 1971), and self-concept (Scruggs & Osguthorpe 1986) was improved through peer-mediated instruction. For ELLs, scaffolded, or supported, reading experiences in English are particularly important because of the memory load required in second-language reading processes. Richard-Amato and Snow suggested that peer tutoring could play an important role in ensuring that the meaning of stories is understood by ELLs while still ensuring that native English speakers' needs are met.

Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT; Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989) for reading has been shown to double or triple students' practice time and opportunities to respond. Peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS), used in the present study and described in greater detail in the Methods section, is a version of CWPT, which offers structured and reciprocal practice on phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hodge, & Mathes, 1994).

Over the past 10 years, a series of studies have shown that PALS has helped kindergarten-through-eighth-grade students, including many with disabilities, improve their phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension (e.g., Calhoon, 2005, 2006; Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Greenberg, King, & Avalos, 2006; Fuchs et al., 1997; Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, & Sanders, 1994; Mathes, Howard, Allen, & Fuchs, 1998). Additionally, PALS has been used as an effective inclusion strategy to promote social integration in inclusive classrooms (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Martinez, 2002).

PALS is recommended as a supplement to classroom core reading instructional programs and typically takes up 20 to 25% of the 90-minute reading block for approximately half the academic year. The first-grade version of PALS has been empirically validated in several studies (Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba et al., 2001; Mathes & Babyak, 2001; Mathes et al., 1998). Across these studies, students who began the study at risk for reading difficulties made significant improvement on measures of reading. Mathes and Babyak (2001) reported average effect sizes for low-performing PALS students compared to contrasts of .65. Furthermore, PALS has been recommended by the National Reading Panel (2000) as a "best practice."

A recent study investigating the effects of PALS on the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking ELLs who were in transitional bilingual education classrooms (Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005) showed that participation in PALS was associated with significantly higher comprehension for ELLs in grades third through eighth. Moreover, a study by Calhoon et al. (2006) demonstrated that PALS showed promise as a supplemental program to English-only classrooms in improving first-grade bilingual Hispanic students' early reading skills. One additionally relevant investigation studying the effects of CWPT on teaching spelling reported that ELLs in grades 1-5 made significant improvement (Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, Utley, Gavin, & Terry, 2001).

To our knowledge, no empirical investigations to date have studied the effects of first-grade PALS in TWBI classrooms that include ELLs and native English speakers. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of first-grade PALS for ELLs and English-proficient (EP) students in a TWBI program. Three research questions guided the study.

1. What are the effects of PALS conducted within a TWBI program on the reading fluency of first-grade students?

2. Do ELL and EP students respond differently to PALS?

3. Within TWBI classrooms, what are teacher and student perceptions about the effectiveness of the supplemental PALS program?

METHOD

Participants

Students. Participants consisted of 76 first graders whose parents requested they be enrolled in the TWBI program. The study began with 94 students; 18 were lost due to moving or transferring to another school. Of the remaining 76 students, 79% were Hispanic; of these, only 21 were determined by their schools to have limited English proficiency on the basis of their scores on the Idea Proficiency Test (IPT; Ballard & Tighe, 2001). The IPT is administered in three areas (oral, reading, and writing), and scores are established based on a scale of non-English, limited-English, or competent-English in each of the three areas. Any student whose score falls in the "limited" category or below on any of the tests and who has at least one other indicator (i.e., reading level, previous academic performance, or teacher judgment) is considered to be limited English proficient. The remaining students were EP, in other words "children whose performance on English language tasks is not impaired as a consequence of being English language learners" (Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005, p. 7).

A chi-square test of independence was calculated for gender, ethnicity, and years retained. No significant relationship was found for gender, [chi square] (1) = .324, p>.05, years retained, [chi square] (1) = .735, p>.05, or ethnicity, [chi square] (1) = .591, p>.05. However, a significant interaction for special education label was found, [chi square]2 (1) =. 10.36, p<.05, demonstrating that the contrast condition had a significantly higher number of students with special education labels. Additionally, within the subgroup of ELLs only a significant interaction for gender was found, [chi square] (1) = .049, p>.05, indicating that the PALS condition had a higher number of female students. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) run for age in years by treatment condition (PALS vs. contrast) indicated no statistically significant differences between conditions for age in years for the total group, the ELLs subgroup, or the EP subgroup. Student demographics are provided in Table 1.

Setting. Three Title 1 elementary schools in a southwestern school district, located near the border of Mexico, that provided 50/50 TWBI programs were recruited for the project. More than 80% of students in all three schools received free or reduced-cost lunch. The students' parents were given a choice from three types of programs for first grade: English-only, 50/50 TWBI, or 90/10 TWBI.

Teachers. Six first-grade teachers were selected based on their interest in and willingness to participate in the project and their current participation in the TWBI program. All utilized the 50/50 TWBI version, providing approximately equal amounts of English and Spanish instruction throughout the instructional day. Teachers were randomly assigned to either the PALS (three teachers each with one class implemented PALS) or contrast group (i.e., no peer-mediated reading activities; three teachers, each with one class).

All six teachers were of Hispanic descent, were bilingual speakers, readers, and writers in both English and Spanish, and were certified in K-8 bilingual education; two with bachelor's degrees, three with master's + 30 hours, and one with master's + 60 hours. Five of the six teachers were female. A one-way ANOVA between conditions showed no significant difference for total years teaching, F(1,5) = .090, p> .05, years teaching dual language, F(1,5) = .062, p> .05, or number of hours of reading coursework, F(1,5) = .250, p> .05. Chi-square analyses demonstrated no relationship between age, [chi square](1) = .513, and highest degree earned, [chi square](1) = .513.

Measures

Reading achievement. Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Kaminski & Good, 1996) measures were selected because they are reliable predictors of later reading achievement, have alternate forms for monitoring progress, have multi-probe reliability exceeding .95, and are sensitive to responsiveness to early literacy interventions (Kaminski & Good, 1996). Three of the DIBELS reading subtests (Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation, Nonsense Word Fluency) were administered two weeks before (hereafter "Fall"), midway through ("Winter"), and immediately following the 16-week intervention ("Spring").

Good and colleagues generally suggest that the Letter Naming Fluency subtest only be administered in first grade during the Fall testing due to potential ceiling effects (Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001). However, because letter naming fluency has been shown to be an important risk factor associated with later reading achievement (Adams, 1990; Good et al., 2001), and because participating teachers told us that many of the ELLs did not already know the English alphabet, we decided to administer this subtest at all three points of time. We did follow Good et al.'s convention to administer the Oral Reading Fluency subtest only in Winter and Spring because of potential floor effects--in Fall of first grade, very few children would be expected to read more than a few words in connected text.

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) measures a student's ability to name letters. During administration of LNF, the examiner points to the probe and asks the student to name the letters. Students get one point for each letter named correctly. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) measures a student's ability to say the individual phonemes in three- and four-phoneme words. The examiner says a word and then asks the student to say the sounds in the word. Students get a point for each segment pronounced correctly in 1 minute, and raw scores are reported.

Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) measures students' ability to read letter sounds and to blend letters into words. The examiner presents the student with a sheet of paper with two- and three-letter nonsense words (e.g., ov, rav). As with the PSF administration, two practice items are given with feedback. Students get a point for each letter sound produced correctly, whether pronounced individually (e.g., /o/ /v/) or blended together (e.g., "ov").

Finally, Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) measures the number of words a student can read correctly in one minute in connected text. Students get one point for each word pronounced correctly in one minute.

Procedures

Teacher training. Teachers for the treatment conditions attended a one-day workshop conducted by the first author and research staff that provided explicit training on PALS. During the first half of the workshop, teachers were guided through the PALS manual step by step and observed each activity role-played by research assistants (RAs). During the second half of the workshop, teachers role-played each PALS activity. The first author and RAs were available to answer all questions. Teachers were also assigned an RA, who visited classrooms at least three times a week to observe the sessions. Additionally, the RAs provided ongoing support, answered questions, and offered corrective feedback throughout the 20 weeks of intervention to ensure high fidelity of implementation.

Implementation of PALS. The first-grade PALS teacher training manual and training protocol developed by Fuchs et al. (2000) was used. Teachers taught the routine for first-grade PALS to all students in their classes. In doing so, they followed carefully scripted lessons that included teacher presentation, student practice, and teacher feedback to students. Training occurred separately for each activity in the program. After training on all activities was complete, PALS was implemented three times a week.

Data collection. RAs trained in assessment administration conducted all DIBELS assessments with the students. The Fall administration was given two weeks prior to treatment implementation, the Winter administration was given during the eighth week of PALS implementation, and the final Spring administration was given immediately after treatment was concluded.

Questionnaires. To determine levels of satisfaction with PALS and address social validity, questionnaires were designed. A student questionnaire was administered to all students in the PALS condition. The sentences were worded so that students could answer by circling either a 1 or a 2 (1 = yes, 2 = no). Scripted introductions were presented to each class along with two sample sentences to ensure students understood the scale. The sentences were then read aloud in English, and students circled their answers.

Furthermore, a teacher questionnaire was administered to explore teacher perceptions and beliefs concerning the benefits of PALS. Ten questions were worded so teachers could answer on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not true, 2 = a little true, 3 = kind of true, 4 = mostly true, 5 = very true).

Treatment Program

PALS intervention. The first-grade PALS training manual provides the necessary materials for teachers (Fuchs et al., 2000). The manual describes how to conduct a series of introductory lessons showing students to follow standard PALS procedures and how to pair students, creating dyads with one high- and one low-performing reader. PALS is reciprocal, meaning that students switch roles, but during each lesson the higher performing student performs the role of coach first. Once students learn how to follow PALS procedures or "rules," PALS sessions follow a structured instructional routine as follows: (a) the teacher presents a brief teacher-directed model of the code-focused activities of the day, (b) students practice the PALS code-focused activities for about 15 minutes while the teacher circulates around the room to supervise, and (c) the teacher instructs students to switch to Story Sharing, a partner reading activity that also lasts about 15 minutes. Pairs are assigned to teams and work together for about four weeks. Teachers are told to divide their class into two teams comprised of equal numbers of pairs.

In the present study, students participated in 60 PALS sessions that lasted 30-35 minutes three times per week for 20 weeks. Session times were divided equally between Sounds and Words and Story Sharing and occurred during the English portion of reading instruction and followed standard procedures. The scope and sequence of Sounds and Words activities was carefully crafted based upon direct instruction principles to provide cumulative practice and review (Carnine, Silbert, & Kame'enui, 1997). Four activities were involved in Sounds and Words: (a) during "Letter sounds" pairs asked each other to "Say the sound" of letters and letter combinations; (b) "Hearing Sounds" provided segmentation practice as students stretched words such as "dog"; (c) "Sounding out" activities provided reading practice on decodable words with 3-5 phonemes per word, such as CVC (e.g., "cat"), CVCC (e.g., "fish"), CCVC (e.g., "stop"), CVCe (e.g., "cake"), and CVVC ("meat") patterns; and finally (d) "Sentences and Stories" enabled students to read to each other simple PALS stories comprised of previously taught decodable words and sight words.

In the second half of PALS, which consisted of a 15-minute Story Sharing session, partners previewed trade books and made predictions about the story, took turns reading the story, and then retold the story. Once a week, teachers took students to the school's media center and allowed them to select books from a collection of authentic texts on a first-grade reading level. Stories consisted of a range of genres, including nonfiction, decodable readers, folk tales, and other narratives.

Fidelity

Treatment fidelity was assessed by direct observations by the first author and an RA. The RA was trained to use observational checklists based on the instructional elements comprising the programs and to record whether the teacher or student implemented each element correctly. The score on each checklist was the percentage of correctly conducted elements, calculated as number of correct elements divided by the total number of elements. Because RAs reported that teachers and students were consistently faithful to PALS implementation, and because of considerable stability in implementation accuracy reported in other studies of PALS (Calhoon, 2005; Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba et al., 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Svenson et al., 2001), fidelity was assessed only once mid-way through the intervention. Teachers were not informed when observations were scheduled. The fidelity scores for PALS implementation ranged from 94.9% to 98.7% with a mean of 96.4%.

Contrast Condition

Core reading instruction. There were no apparent differences in reading instruction in classrooms assigned to PALS or the contrast condition. All teachers reported they spent approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes each day for their language arts block. However, due to the nature of the TWBI program, this block of time was split equally between teaching reading in Spanish and English. All teachers reported implementing a very eclectic approach using a variety of strategies. Houghton Mifflin was the "official" core reading program; nevertheless, teachers pulled from other basal series and trade books available in the classrooms, school libraries, and even home libraries. Furthermore, they tended to skip around in the core program rather than adhering to any established structure or sequence. Teachers reported implementing whole-group reading extensively in all classes.

RESULTS

Pretreatment Analysis

To establish that there were no pretreatment differences between PALS and contrast conditions, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted. No significant differences were found between the PALS and control conditions in reading performance at the Fall administration for PSF, F(1, 74) = 2.88, p> .05; NWF, F(1, 74) = 1.61, p> .05; LNF, F(1, 74) = .666, p> .05; or the Winter testing of ORF, F(1, 74) = .009, p> .05. Means and standard deviations for all testing administrations (Fall, Winter, Spring) are provided in Table 2.

Additionally, one-way ANOVAs disaggregated for ELL students showed no significant differences between the ELL PALS students and ELL control students at pretest on any of the measures [PSF, F(1,23) = .118, p< .05, NWF, F(1,23) = .149, p< .05, LNF, F(1,23) = 2.60, p< .05, and ORF, F(1,23) = 3.15, p< .05.]. Similarly, ANOVAs demonstrated no significant pretreatment differences between the EP students in PALS and control conditions [PSF, F(1, 51) = 2.87, p>.05, LNF, F(1, 51) = .009, p>.05, and ORF, F(1, 51) = .249, p>.05]. A significant difference, however, was found for NWF, F(1, 51) = 5.44, p< 05, demonstrating a higher level of NWF for the EP contrast students.

Effect of PALS on Overall Reading Achievement

The first research question addressed the overall effect of PALS within a TWBI program on the reading fluency of first-grade students. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted with Time (Fall, Winter, Spring) and Condition (PALS vs. contrast) for each reading subtest (PSF, NWF, LNF). Results showed statistically significant differences across time for both conditions on PSF, F(2,148) = 54.24, p = .001; NWF, F(2,148) = 108.68, p = .001; and LNF, F(2,148) = 189.52, p = .001. A significant Time x Condition interaction effect favoring PALS was demonstrated on PSF, F(2,148) = 4.38, p = .01 and NWF, F(2,148) = 4.30, p = .01. No significant Time x Condition interaction was found for LNF.

A repeated-measures AVOVA with Time (Winter, Spring) and Condition (PALS vs. contrast) demonstrated a significant gain in ORF across both conditions, F(2,148) = 63.73, p = .001. Furthermore, a significant Time x Condition interaction effect favored PALS on ORF, F(2,148) = 4.86, p = .001. Means and standard deviations for all subtests across all testing administrations (Fall, Winter, Spring) for all subgroups (Total Group, ELL, EP) are provided in Table 2.

Second, to evaluate the magnitude of differential growth, effect sizes were calculated; the difference between the two conditions' growth scores was divided by the pooled standard deviation of the growth scores using the square root of 2 (1-rxy) (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981). Moderate effect sizes of .53, .50, .51, and.36 favored students in PALS for PSF, NWF, ORF, and LNF, respectively. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for growth on all subtests.

Differential Response to Treatment for ELL Students and for EP Students

The second research question focused on the effects of treatment on the subgroups of ELL and EP students who received the intervention. Figure 1 displays the magnitude of these differences graphically.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

PALS condition versus contrast condition for ELL students only. To explore the response to treatment for ELL students, repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted with Time (Fall, Winter, Spring) and Condition (PALS vs. contrast) for each reading subtest (PSF, NWF, LNF). Statistically significant main effects of Time were found for both conditions on all four measures: PSF, F(2, 44) = 54.22, p<.001; NWF, F(2, 44) = 46.37, p<.001; and LNF, F(2, 44) = 51.87, p<.001. A significant Time x Condition interaction effect favoring PALS was demonstrated for two measures: LNF, F(2, 44) = 4.4.48, p<.05; and NWF, F(2, 44) = 5.38, p<.01; no significant interaction between conditions was found for PSF, F(2, 44) = .098, p>.05.

Additionally, a repeated-measures ANOVA was run comparing Time (Winter, Spring) and Condition (PALS vs. contrast) for ORF. The main effect for Time was significant, F(1, 22) = 11.56, p<.01. No significant Time x Condition interaction, F(1, 22) = .3926, p<.05, was present. Next, effect sizes were calculated on growth. Large effect sizes favored ELL students in the PALS condition for NWF, 1.29, and LNF, 1.15; a moderate effect size favored ELL students in the PALS condition for ORF, .38. However, a small effect size of .06 favored the contrast condition for PSF (see Table 3).

PALS condition versus contrast condition for EP students only. Again, repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted with Time (Fall, Winter, Spring) and Condition (PALS vs. contrast) for each reading subtest (PSF, NWF, LNF). Findings showed a significant effect for Time on PSF, F(2, 100) = 21.77, p<.001; NWF, F(2, 100) = 71.68, p<.001; and LNF, F(2, 100) = 156.65, p<.001. A significant Time x Condition interaction effect favored PALS students for PSF, F(2, 100) = 6.20, p<.01. No significant Time x Condition interactions were found for NWF, F(2, 100) = 1.63, p>.05; and LNF, F(2, 100) = .199, p>.05.

Furthermore, a repeated-measures ANOVA was run comparing Time (Winter, Spring) and Condition (PALS vs. contrast) for ORF. The effect for Time was significant, F(1, 50) = 59.53, p < .001. A significant Time x Condition interaction was present, F(1, 50) = 4.08, p < .05. Large and moderate effect sizes also favored the EP PALS students over the EP contrast students for PSF, .85; ORF, .56; NWF, .31; and LNF, .08 (see Table 3).

Student questionnaires. The students who participated in the PALS treatment overall had a positive perception of the program. Students reported that they liked PALS, it was a fun way to learn reading skills, they worked hard at PALS, and they enjoyed working with a partner. Additionally, the students perceived PALS helped them to read better. Table 4 depicts the means and standard deviation for students' responses on the questionnaire.

Teacher questionnaires. Teachers' perceptions and beliefs concerning the PALS program were also very positive. Specifically, teachers felt PALS (a) increased reading fluency, segmentation skills, and sounding-out skills for all their students; (b) engaged their student more actively engaged in their own learning; (c) was enjoyable for their students; and (d) was a strong factor in improving their students reading skills. Furthermore, teachers perceived that their students enjoyed participating in the PALS project and worked hard during PALS. All three teachers also noted that they would participate again in a PALS project. Table 5 displays the means and standard deviation of the teacher questionnaire responses.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the efficacy of PALS as a supplemental reading instruction program to improve the reading fluency subskills of first-grade students in TWBI programs. Three research questions guided the study. The first examined the effect of PALS conducted within a TWBI program on the reading fluency of first-grade students. The second explored whether ELL and EP students responded differently to PALS. The third assessed students' and teachers' beliefs and perceptions of the effectiveness of PALS as a supplemental reading program.

Overall Effect of PALS

PALS has been shown to be effective in helping teachers adapt instruction for students with different levels of achievement (i.e., high, average, low, learning disabled; Fuchs et al., 1997; Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba et al., 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Svenson et al., 2001; Mathes et al., 1998). The present study extends these findings to culturally and linguistically diverse first graders in TWBI classrooms.

On average, PALS students demonstrated significantly greater growth than contrast students on all but the letter naming fluency measure, with moderate effect sizes on phoneme segmentation fluency (.53), nonsense word fluency (.50), and oral reading fluency (.51). These findings corroborate prior PALS research in monolingual English first-grade classrooms (Mathes et al., 1998; Mathes & Babyak, 2001; Mathes, Torgesen, & Allor, 2001) as well as a recent study conducted with Hispanic first graders in an English-only classroom setting (Calhoon et al., 2006).

This initial validation of the efficacy of PALS in TWBI classrooms makes an important contribution, particularly given the larger range of language proficiency within Hispanic participants in the present study. It is likely that the positive effects for PALS in TWBI class rooms were due to the participants' high levels of engagement, opportunities to use literacy skills, time spent reading, and structured literate discourse about stories, which are all instructional strategies that have been associated with long-term positive effects for ELL students (Graves et al., 2004).

Given our distinctive population, it is noteworthy that the magnitude of the effect sizes is comparable to prior research findings across a range of measures. For example, Mathes et al. (2003) reported mean (averaged across phoneme segmentation fluency, word attack, word identification, and oral reading fluency) effect sizes of 0.55 (range--0.32 to 0.87) and Calhoon et al. (2006) reported mean effect sizes of 0.50 (range--0.00 to 0.93), favoring PALS students compared to contrast students. Likewise, Mathes and Babyak (2001) demonstrated an average effect size of 0.60 for high-performing students, 0.94 for average-performing students, and 0.67 for low-performing students.

Differential Response to PALS Treatment for ELL and EP Students in TWBI Classrooms

The second research question guiding this study explored the differential response of ELL and EP students to the PALS program. Participating students were predominantly Hispanic attending high-poverty schools, both of which are associated with an elevated level of risk for reading difficulties. Comparable pretreatment scores on all measures were demonstrated by students in both conditions and both English-language-proficiency (ELL and EP) levels. Given the uniqueness of the TWBI setting, it is encouraging that both ELL and EP students responded positively to PALS. However, a differential response to treatment was found for the two groups of students, as shown in Figure 1.

The magnitude of the effect sizes suggests that PALS might be somewhat more beneficial for EP students than for the ELL students in the areas of phoneme segmentation fluency (0.85 and -0.6, respectively) and oral reading fluency (0.56 and 0.38, respectively). Practical, but not statistically significant differences favored EP PALS students over EP contrast students on NWF. Our findings replicate Mathes et al. (1998), who also found statistically significantly more growth on PSF and ORF for PALS students than contrast students.

By contrast, PALS appeared more effective for ELL students than EP students in developing NSW (1.29 and 0.31, respectively) and LNF (1.15 and 0.08, respectively). Our results appear noteworthy given that most ELLs in the present study began first grade with little knowledge of letter names. Good and colleagues (2001) established a fluency benchmark for the end of kindergarten for this measure. Using this criterion at pretreatment, all ELL students in the study would be considered at high risk. By spring, LNF was no longer a risk factor for the PALS students, which is encouraging since young children's letter naming is one of the strongest risk factors related to future reading (Adams, 1990). Furthermore, using Good and colleagues' benchmarks for end-of-year NWF, it appears that word attack skills of the PALS ELL students were emerging while the ELLs in the contrast condition remained at high risk. This finding may be due to the emphasis PALS places on decoding skills.

These results are consistent with positive results demonstrated in prior studies of PALS specifically (Calhoon et al., 2006; Greenwood et al., 2001; Saenz et al., 2005) and the rapidly growing base of literature demonstrating positive effects for supplemental code-based reading instruction for ELL students in general (A1 Otaiba, 2005; Gerber et al., 2004; Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000; Haager & Windmueller, 2001; Leafstedt, Richards, & Gerber, 2004; Linan-Thompson et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 2005).

In the present study, however, the reliable advantage in decoding favoring ELLs in PALS did not result in a statistically significant difference on ORF. By winter, the first time ORF is administered, the ELLs in PALS read 11 WCPM, whereas ELLs in the contrast condition read only 7 WCPM. Further, at posttest, ELLs in PALS read 17 WCPM, compared to the contrast ELLs' 11 WCPM. The ORF rates of ELLs in PALS are similar to post-treatment ORF rates of low-achieving PALS first graders (who were native English speakers) in a study by Mathes and Babyak (2001).

Such low ORF scores are a concern given that prior research has shown that ELLs who read fewer than 20 wcpm are at high risk for future special education referrals (Graves et al., 2004). Nevertheless, Gunn et al. (2000) also reported that after an initial year of intervention, significant differences favoring treatment ELL students were only found for word attack. Following a second year of intervention, however, significant differences were also found on a measure of oral reading fluency. The obvious implication is that in order for ELL students to catch up, they need additional practice, and possibly even more intensive intervention conducted by trained teachers or research staff.

Past research has demonstrated that initial oral language skill in English did not mediate response to intervention (Chiappe et al., 2002; Gunn et al., 2000; Linan-Thompson et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 2005). Our results suggest that students who are already familiar with English, and who started the study with established or emerging skills, are likely to benefit more from peer-mediated approaches than peers who do not. Clearly, additional research on response to intervention for ELL students with larger sample sizes is needed to unpack differences in initial English proficiency from differences in initial skill.

Teacher and Student Questionnaires

It is important to note that PALS teachers not only attributed students' gains in reading to PALS, but also enjoyed teaching and participating in the PALS program. These results broaden prior research to a new population, linguistically diverse students in TWBI classrooms. The mean satisfaction with PALS measured through the 10-item questionnaires was consistently high. That is, on a Likert scale from 1-5, mean scores ranged from 5.00 to 4.66. Interestingly, the teachers strongly agreed that PALS helped increase students' segmenting, decoding, and reading fluency skills.

The students who participated in the PALS program were asked to answer five questions regarding their perceptions of PALS on a scale of I = yes or 2 = no. Overall, students responded positively to all questions, demonstrating they enjoyed PALS, thought it was fun, liked working with their partner, and thought PALS helped them read better. No differences were found between ELL students and EP students' answers. Therefore, as a supplement to existing reading programs, not only does PALS appear to improve reading levels for both ELL and EP students in TWBI classrooms, but the enjoyment of learning PALS and working with partners may lead to sustained program implementation.

Limitations, Directions for Future Research, and Implications for Instruction

The results demonstrate that PALS is a viable option for teaching reading skills in TWBI first-grade classrooms. PALS is consistent with research-based guidelines for improving reading development (Francis et al., 2006). Specifically, PALS (a) provides early explicit code-focused instruction, (b) increases opportunities for vocabulary development through structured academic talk, (c) promotes fluency through vocabulary and repeated readings in meaningful texts, and (d) trains comprehension strategies using narrative and expository texts.

The sample size was limited, and the findings, particularly the disaggregated findings related to ELL and EP students, should be interpreted with caution, while awaiting replication with larger populations. Additionally, our study sample was limited to TWBI and to Hispanic students. Children received half their instruction in Spanish, and their parents chose for them to be in this setting. Furthermore, the contrast condition included a significantly higher number of students with special education labels; however, no statistically significant difference was demonstrated between treatment and contrast classrooms at pretest. Clearly, future research is needed to replicate our results in other settings used for linguistically diverse students and with children with native languages other than Spanish.

In the present study, only the criterion-referenced DIBELS measures were used because of their efficiency and the limited funding available to the project. Although our effect sizes were comparable to those in others studies of first-grade PALS and although DIBELS has good reliability and validity, additional research using standardized measures is needed to determine whether children catch up towards national norms. Similarly, despite the high correlation between ORF and comprehension, it will be important in future research to include a measure of reading comprehension. Furthermore, the interesting difference in response to treatment for ELL and EP students highlights the need to administer language and reading measures in both English and Spanish.

Future work with PALS in TWBI classrooms and in other settings should also consider possible modifications to ensure optimal gains for ELLs. For example, students who are not making adequate progress may require greater intensity, through longer sessions or more sessions; or they may benefit from slower pacing. PALS could also be translated to create a companion program in Spanish that could be taught simultaneously with the English PALS.

Given the very low ORF scores among ELLs, additional research is needed to examine the effect of adding a fluency intervention. This could involve practice with more fluent partners during PALS Story Sharing. On the other hand, it could be more effective to train fluency using a program such as Read Well (Sprick, Howard, & Fiddanque, 1998), or Read Naturally (Ihnot, 1991) (which are available in English and Spanish), Great Leaps (Mercer & Campbell, 1998), which moves from fluency at the letter-sound level to connected text, or Quick Reads (Hiebert, 2003), which includes fluency practice on expository/content area texts. Furthermore, it will be important to explore which adaptations or additional fluency components are most effective for students at different levels of English proficiency. These modifications to the PALS program need to be researched to assess the possible extra assistance required by ELL students most at risk for special education identification, those with low levels of fluency in both languages (Artiles & Klingner, 2006).

Our findings have an important implication for teachers. It may be unrealistic to expect a supplemental peer-mediated program alone to successfully remediate students who begin first grade with very low phonological and alphabetic skills. Such students are likely to need sustained intensive intervention along with PALS provided by well-trained teachers to meet expectations. We are reminded of Fitzgerald's (1995) argument that what is good for native speakers is good for ELLs. If she is right, conceivably what is bad for at-risk native English speakers is also bad for ELLs. Given the stability of reading performance over the elementary years, we know it is bad for children to leave first grade as poor readers (fuel, 1988; Kennedy, Birman, & Demaline, 1986; Spira, Bracken, & Fischel, 2005).

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Al Otaiba, S. (2005). How effective is code-based tutoring in English for English language learners and their preservice teacher/tutors? Remedial and Special Education, 26(4), 245-254.

Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300-316.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on reading. Champaign, IL: The Center for the Study of Reading.

Artiles, A.J., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English language learners with special needs: Theoretical, population, and technical issues. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2187-2194.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Education language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

August, D. L., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ballard, W. S., Dalton, E. F., & Tighe, P. L. (1995). IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test in English (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Ballard and Tighe.

Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424-433.

Calhoon, M. B. (2006, Summer). Rethinking adolescent literacy instruction. IDA Perspectives. Publication of the International Dyslexia Association, 32(3), 31-35.

Calhoon, B., Al Otaiba, S., Greenberg, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2006). Boosting the intensity of reading instruction for culturally diverse first grade students: The promise of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21(4), 261-272.

Carnine, D., Siebert J., & Kame'enui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2002). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in the United States. Available: http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Wooley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(4), 369-400.

Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C., Whorton, D., Carta, J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535-542.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 453-465.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145-190.

Fitzgerald, J. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 520-521.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Foorman, B. F., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203-212.

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://www. centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Martinez, E. A. (2002). Preliminary evidence on the social standing of students with learning disabilities in PALS and no-PALS classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 200-215.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to academic diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Svenson, E., Thompson, A., Yen, L., McMaster, K. N., Al Otaiba, S., & Yang, N.J. (2000). Peabody peer assisted learning strategies: First grade-reading. Unpublished training manual, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O'Connor, R. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251-267.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Svenson, E., Al Otaiba, S., Yang, N., Nyman, K., Prentice, K., Kazdan, S., & Saenz, L. (2001). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in reading: Extensions to kindergarten/first grade and high school. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 15-21.

Genessee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerber, M., Jimenez T., Leafstedt, J., Villaruz, J., Richards, C., & English, J. (2004). English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for k-1 English learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 239-251.

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.

Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 530-542.

Graves, A. (2007, April). A longitudinal study of the impact of effective beginning reading instruction on English language learners. Presentation at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Graves, A. W., Gersten, R., & Haager, D. (2004). Literacy instruction in multiple language first-grade classrooms: Linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 262-272.

Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Utley, C. A., Gavin, K. M., & Terry, B.J. (2001). ClassWide peer tutoring learning management system: Applications with elementary-level English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 34-47.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Together we can: ClassWide Peer Tutoring for basic academic skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 89-102.

Haager, D., & Windmueller, M. (2001). Early literacy intervention for English language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235-250.

Harris, M. (1971). Learning by tutoring others. Today's Education, 60, 48-49.

Hiehert, E. H. (2003). Quick Reads. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning Group.

Howard, E., & Christian, D. (2002). Two-way immersions 101: Designing and implementing a two-way immersion education program at the elementary level. Educational Practice Report (Report No. CREDE-EPR-9). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 473082)

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from www.csos.ju.edu

Ihnot, C. (1991). Read Naturally. St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25(2), 215-227.

Kennedy, M. M., Birman, M., & Demaline, B. (1986). The effectiveness of Chapter 1 services. Second interim report from the National Assessment of Chapter 1. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).

Klosterman, R. (1970). The effectiveness of a diagnostically structured reading program. The Reading Teacher, 24, 159-162.

Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 252-261.

Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickmann-Davis, P., & Kouzekanaki, K. (2003). Effective reading instruction for English language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 221-238.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2004). The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 56-59.

Mathes, P. G., & Babyak, A. O. (2001). The effects of Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional mini-skills lessons. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 28-44.

Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Henley, A. M., & Sanders, A. (1994). Increasing strategic reading practice with Peabody Classwide Peer Tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 44-48.

Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first grade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 62-94.

Mathes, P., Torgesen, J., & Allot, J. (2001). The effects of Peer-Assisted literacy strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional computer-assisted instruction in phonological awareness. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 371-410.

Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., Clancy-Mencetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholas, K., Robinson, C., & Grek, M. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer-assisted instruction to struggling first-grade readers. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 459-479.

McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., & D'Emilio, T. (2005). Learning disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 1-5.

Mercer, C., & Campbell, K. (1998). Great leaps. Gainesville, FL: Diarmuid.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Author.

Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 255-267.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, (H. R. 1).

Richard-Amato, P. A., & Snow, M. A. (1992). The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71 (3), 231-247.

Scruggs, T., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1986, April). Tutoring interventions within special educational settings: A comparison of cross-age and peer tutoring. Psychology in Schools, 23, 187-193.

Shaver, J., & Nuhn, D. (1971). The effectiveness of tutoring underachievers in reading and writing. Journal of Educational Research, 65, 107-112.

Shepherd, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Hodge, J. P., & Mathes, P. G. (1994). Importance of instructional complexity and role reciprocity to classwide peer tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 203-212.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffith, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Spira, E. G., Bracken, S., & Fischel, J. E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first-grade reading difficulties: The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology, 41, 225-234.

Sprick, M., Howard, L., & Fiddanque, A. (1998). Read well: A research-based primary reading program. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Center on Bilingual Education. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from: http://ncbe.gwu.ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness/index.html.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://ncbe.gwu.ncbepubs/resource/llaa/1.1_final. html.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2004). Annual report to Congress: Fiscal year 2003. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. (2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 58-67.

Wagner, R., Francis, D., & Moris, R. (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 6-1.

NOTES

This research was supported by Grant No. 84.027A from the State of New Mexico Department of Special Education. Statements should not be interpreted as official agency positions.

Please address correspondence to: Mary Beth Calhoon, Educational Psychology and Special Education Department, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3979, Atlanta, GA 30302-3979; [e-mail]

MARY BETH CALHOON, Ph.D., assistant professor, Georgia State University.

STEPHANIE AL OTAIBA, Ph.D., associate professor, Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University.

DAVID CIHAK, Ph.D., assistant professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

AMBER KING, Deming Public Schools.

ANNALISE A VALOS, Gadsden Independent School District.

Table 1

Student Demographic Data

                               PALS                       Contrast
                             (N = 43)                     (N = 33)

Variable               M     (SD)          N (%)          M     (SD)

Age in Years (a)      6.57   (.53)                       6.49   (.52)
Gender (a)
Female/Male                          27/16 (62.8/37.2)
Years Retained (a)
None/One Year                         40/3 (93.0/7.0)
Special
Education Label (a)                   40/3 (93.0/7.0)
Ethnicity (a)
  Hispanic                               33 (76.7)
  Caucasian                              10 (23.3)
ELLS (b)                                 13 (69.8)
  Age in Years        6.66   (.61)                       6.71   (.43)
  Female/Male                         9/4 (69.2/30.8)

                          Contrast
                          (N = 33)
                                                 [chi
Variable                    N (%)          F    square]

Age in Years (a)                          .37
Gender (a)
Female/Male           17/16 (51.5/48.5)           .32
Years Retained (a)
None/One Year          30/3 (90.9/9.1)            .73
Special
Education Label (a)   25/8 (75.8/24.2)          10.36 *
Ethnicity (a)
  Hispanic                27 (81.8)               .59
  Caucasian               6 (18.2)
ELLS (b)                  11 (33.3)
  Age in Years                            .02
  Female/Male          5/6 (45.5/54.5)            .24

Note. PALS = Peer Assisted Learning Strategies; ELLS = English
Language Learners.

(a) = df (1,75); (b) = df (1,23).

* p<.01.

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for DIBELS Reading Subtests

                                    PALS

                       Total
Dependent            Group (a)     EP (b)     ELLs (c)
Variable             (N = 43)     (N = 30)    (N = 13)

PSF
  Fall        M        17.27       21.53        7.46
             (SD)      14.25       14.19        8.60
  Winter      M        34.41       37.60       27.07
             (SD)      14.53       13.67       14.30
  Spring      M        40.11       42.96       33.53
             (SD)      11.39        9.13       13.62
NWT
  Fall        M        17.90       23.00        6.15
             (SD)      12.89       11.78        5.41
  Winter      M        50.11       56.86       34.53
             (SD)      25.62       26.87       13.22
  Spring      M        59.16       65.33       44.92
             (SD)      29.71       32.05       17.08
LNF
  Fall        M        26.74       31.66       15.38
             (SD)      14.72       13.89        9.59
  Winter      M        50.32       57.40       34.00
             (SD)      19.01       15.57       16.29
  Spring      M        56.30       62.13       42.84
             (SD)      18.35       16.24       16.13
ORF
  Winter      M        27.51       34.70       10.92
             (SD)      30.51       33.43        5.93
  Spring      M        39.53       49.46       16.61
             (SD)      33.95       35.80       11.00

                                 Contrast

                      Total
Dependent             Group         EP         ELLS
Variable             (N = 33)    (N = 22)    (N = 11)

PSF
  Fall        M       21.66       28.04        8.90
             (SD)     15.43       12.91       11.96
  Winter      M       28.72       29.48       27.00
             (SD)     14.42       15.48       12.55
  Spring      M       36.18       36.40       35.72
             (SD)      8.90        9.14        8.81
NWT
  Fall        M       22.51       31.18        5.18
             (SD)     16.95       13.39        6.91
  Winter      M       41.72       53.40       18.36
             (SD)     32.00       31.11       18.51
  Spring      M       51.69       65.27       24.54
             (SD)     31.57       29.52       11.91
LNF
  Fall        M       24.45       32.00        9.36
             (SD)     14.45       10.25        8.50
  Winter      M       46.48       58.86       21.72
             (SD)     21.95       12.34       14.51
  Spring      M       48.84       61.27       21.00
             (SD)     20.85        9.69       13.26
ORF
  Winter      M       28.12       38.95        6.45
             (SD)     26.11       25.51        6.37
  Spring      M       34.93       47.59        9.63
             (SD)     30.29       29.13        9.83

Note. PALS = Peer Assisted Learning Strategies; EP = English
Proficient; ELL = English Language Learner; PSF = Phoneme
Segmentation; NWF = Nonsense Word Fluency; L.NF = Letter Naming
Fluency; ORF = Oral Reading Fluency.

(a) df = 1,75, (b) df = 1,51, (c) df = 1,23; * p<.05.

Table 3

Growth for Subgroups on DIBELS Reading Subtests

                 PALS             Contrast
               (N = 43)           (N = 33)

Subtests      M      (SD)       M      (SD)        F       ES (a)

Total Group
PSF         22.87    16.37    14.51    14.25     5.38 *      .53
NSW         41.25    23.88    29.18    23.80     4.78 *      .50
LNF         29.55    14.82    24.39    13.76     2.41        .36
ORF         12.02    10.26     6.81    10.11     4.86 *      .51

EP
PSF         21.43    17.25     8.36    11.80     9.37 *      .85
NWF         42.33    26.25    34.09    27.37     1.20        .31
LNF         30.46    16.03    29.27    13.12      .08        .08
ORF         14.76    10.29     8.63    11.47     4.08 *      .56

ELL
PSF         26.07    14.22    26.81    10.38      .02       -.06
NWF         38.76    17.92    19.36     9.02    10.56 *     1.29
LNF         27.46    11.85    14.63     9.33     8.43 *     1.15
ORF          5.62     7.07     3.18     5.40      .92        .38

Note. PALS = Peer Assisted Learning Strategies; EP = English
Proficient; ELL = English Language Learner; PSF = Phoneme Segmentation;
NWF = Nonsense Word Fluency; LNF = Letter Naming Fluency; ORE = Oral
Reading Fluency.

(a) ES = difference between means divided by the pooled standard
deviation.

* p<.05.

Table 4

Percentages for PALS Student Questionnaire

                                         Yes             No

Question                              N      (%)      N     (%)

1. I liked PALS.                      39    (90.7)    4     (9.3)
2. I worked hard at PALS.             38    (88.4)    5    (11.6)
3. PALS helped me read better.        39    (90.7)    4     (9.3)
4. PALS was fun.                      37    (86)      6    (14)
5. I liked working with a partner.    36    (83.7)    7    (16.3)

PALS = Peer Assisted Learning Strategies.

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations for PALS Teacher Questionnaires

Question                                                  M      SD

 1. I enjoyed participating in the PALS reading
    project this year.                                   5.00   (.00)
 2. The PALS reading materials contributed to impro-
    ving my students' reading skills.                    5.00   (.00)
 3. I would participate in PALS next year.               5.00   (.00)
 4. PALS helped increase the reading fluency of my
    students.                                            4.66   (.57)
 5. PALS helped increase the segmentation skills of my
    students.                                            4.66   (.57)
 6. PALS helped increase the sounding-out skills of my
    students.                                            4.66   (.57)
 7. My students enjoyed participating in PALS this
    year.                                                5.00   (.00)
 8. My students enjoyed working with partners.           4.66   (.57)
 9. I feel my students were more actively involved in
    their own learning during PALS.                      4.66   (.57)
10. My students worked hard during PALS.                 4.66   (.57)

Note. Responses are scores on a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

PALS = Peer Assisted Learning Strategies.