Postulados básicos de la teoría del apego

Distinguishing Reading Difficulties Arising from Limited English Proficiency from Those Arising from Reading Disabilities in Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners

Identification of English language learners with learning disabilities is hampered by a lack of theory and empirical norms that describe the normal course of language and literacy development for English language learners and the

individual, school, and social factors that relate to that development. The context provided by profound differences in the nature of prior schooling cannot be ignored. One of the reasons for limitations in existing knowledge is that some necessary studies require the availability of comparable assessments or language- general identical assessments, neither of which has been available until recently. (Wagner, Francis, & Morris, 2005, p. 13)

The challenges associated with distinguishing learning disabilities from language acquisition processes in ELLs are well documented (August & Hakuta, 1997; August & Shanahan, 2006; Artiles & Klingner, 2006; Klingner et al., 2008; McCardle, Mele- McCarthy, & Leos, 2005; Ortiz, 1997; Wagner et al., 2005). Although the current study is not investigating reading or the process of identifying reading disabilities in SS-ELLs, it contributes to our knowledge of empirical norms with respect to literacy-related oral

language development. A brief review of literature addressing these challenges is thus included.

Wagner and colleagues (2005) discuss the advantages of adopting a social systems/dimensional perspective of LD versus the prevailing medical/categorical model. Learning disabilities, they maintain, are not well characterized by a medical model/categorical perspective, which relies on the presence or absence of criteria; rather, learning disabilities are characterized by a continuous and multivariate distribution of performance. The only way to classify presence or absence of a learning disability from a categorical perspective is to establish cut-points in the distribution. It is notoriously difficult to specify and to validate such cut-points because, unlike medically diagnosable low-incidence disabilities, learning disorders are socially and linguistically moderated; criteria differ from state to state and are dynamic across the lifespan, leading to instability of classification. Faulty, precarious, or unstable classification of LD carries implications for treatment and outcomes for individuals. Wagner and colleagues thus emphasize “in considering treatment effectiveness, we must get beyond group mean differences to consider for whom treatments are effective” (p. 9). The identification issues presented and discussed are complex even for the monolingual, English-speaking population of students. They are much more complex, however, for the population of ELLs. It is necessary, the authors maintain, but not sufficient, to develop comparable assessments for ELLs in both their native language and in English in order to gain a more complete understanding of a student’s knowledge, skills, and instructional needs. Beyond comparable assessments, sociocultural and linguistic variables complicate the process of identifying learning disabilities in this population. Research, such as that which the current study proposes, is needed to understand normative language and literacy

development for ELLs from various linguistic backgrounds and also to understand how learning disabilities present within this population.

Klingner, Artiles, and Barletta (2006) reviewed empirical research on ELLs with reading difficulties as well as ELLs with learning disabilities. Their purpose was to identify research indicators that may help to better differentiate ELLs who struggle with reading due to limited English proficiency from those who struggle because they have a reading-related learning disability. After selecting published research that addressed ELLs who struggle with reading, they reported findings thematically. Specifically, findings were reported under the following categories: a) population subtypes, b) the role of context in understanding ELLs who struggle to read, c) issues pertaining to prereferral and referral, d) assessment practices with ELLs who may have an LD, e) predictors of reading achievement, f) instructional interventions, and g) ways in which literacy acquisition processes in a first and a second language can inform LD identification. Their overriding conclusion was that much more research is needed, specifically research in which ELL participants are described in much greater detail than is commonly the case. Existing evidence indicates that some subpopulations of ELLs are more vulnerable to special education placement than are others, but not enough research describes these various subpopulations, particularly with respect to levels of language proficiency in their native languages and in English. Similarly, they emphasized the need to better understand the roles of language and culture in assessment practices and to devote research to developing detailed profiles of ELLs who struggle with literacy. They further stressed the importance of assessing ELLs’ strengths in alternative ways, such as the narrative assessment methods used in the current study, and considering numerous ecological, cultural and affective factors.

One ecological factor that must be considered when attempting to determine whether reading difficulties occur due to language acquisition or to learning disabilities is the quality of the educational environment itself. Ortiz and colleagues (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Garcia & Ortiz, 2006; Ortiz, 1997; Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney, & Kushner, 2006; Ortiz & Yates, 2001) elucidate contextual and systemic factors in educational environments that may serve to hinder or facilitate the effective education of ELLs and the appropriate identification of ELLs with disabilities. Attention to these factors is required if we are to reduce or prevent inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education. Effective school environments for ELLs prioritize: a) prevention and early intervention of learning problems, b) referral processes that take into consideration relevant and multiple data (including data from authentic, informal assessments such as the oral narrative assessments used in this study) and that minimize bias, c) assessment processes conducted by qualified bilingual evaluators, d) multidisciplinary teams composed of professionals with expertise in the education of ELLs, e) IEPs that are culturally and linguistically relevant, f) instructional programming in the least restrictive environment that addresses both disability-related and language needs, and g) annual reviews that evaluate progress and update language proficiency and dominance data (Ortiz & Yates, 2001). To the extent that ELLs are educated in school environments that don’t prioritize these recommended practices, we cannot rule out the possibility that learning difficulties are attributable to the lack of appropriate, culturally and linguistically relevant instruction and assessment. Prevention is therefore key and begins with the school and classroom contexts that promote an additive approach to cultural and linguistic diversity (Cummins, 2001), collaboration between schools and the communities they serve, academically rich programs, and highly skilled teachers. When concerns

linguistically responsive assessment practices are paramount to making appropriate eligibility decisions.

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Assessment Practices for ELLs

In order to develop culturally and linguistically responsive assessment practices to ensure the accurate identification of LDs in ELLs, several key research gaps need to be addressed. McCardle and colleagues (2005) discussed the themes emerging from the October 2003 National Symposium on Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners, at which research priorities and needs were discussed. The five major themes generated at the symposium were (1) identification and assessment of learning disabilities/reading disabilities, (2) understanding the language/literacy developmental trajectories of ELLs, (3) understanding individual and contextual factors affecting outcomes, (4) the intersection of each of these areas with neurobiology, and (5) developing and empirically validating effective interventions for LD in ELLs. With respect to identification and assessment of learning and reading disabilities in ELLs, there is a need to better understand how specific LDs will manifest in different languages. The development and validation of a theory-driven classification system of LDs in ELLs was thus emphasized.

With respect to the latter, Ortiz and Yates (2002) suggest that comprehensive language evaluations of ELLs ought not to rely exclusively on norm-referenced instruments, which provide incomplete profiles of language skills, but must incorporate language samples collected under more naturalistic conditions and which provide information about a range of language skills. They recommend using storytelling tasks to provide insight into children’s narrative skills, which include the ability to organize and sequence information, draw conclusions, and evaluate actions.