We review published single subject design (SSD) studies that examine the effects of interventions for English learners at–risk or with learning disabilities. Results of our literature search yielded 10 studies, five in reading, one in reading and behavior, and four in mathematics that met our inclusion criteria. Seven studies targeted Spanish–speaking English learners, and three studies included students who spoke other languages than English and/or English only students. Two studies in mathematics included native language instruction. Six studies included English learners in second grade and above, and one study included high school students. We were able to calculate effect sizes (Hedges g) for eight of the 10 studies. Findings indicated a significant effect of the intervention for 12 of the 18 dependent variables measured. SSD methodology has the potential to help researchers and practitioners better understand what interventions work for English learners, and under what circumstances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArtilesA. J., RuedaR., SalazarJ., & HigaredaI. (2005). Within–group diversity in minority special education disproportionate representation: The case of English language learners in California's urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
BakerD. L., BasarabaD., & PolancoP. S. (2016). Connecting the present to the past: Furthering the research on bilingualism and bilingual education. Review of Research in Education, 40, 821–883. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16660691.
4.
BakerD. L., Richards–TutorC., GerstenR., BakerS. K., & SmithJ. (2017). Building literacy for English learners within response to intervention. In LopezE. C., NahariS. G., and ProctorS. L. (Eds.), The handbook of multicultural school psychology. An interdisciplinary perspective (2nd ed.) (pp. 97–117). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BakerS. K., LesauxN., JayanthiM., DiminoJ., ProctorC. P., MorrisJ., et al. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014–4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx.
6.
CookB., & CookL. (2016). Research designs and special education research: Different designs address different questions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31(4), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12110.
7.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No 114–95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016). Retrieved from the US Department of Education website https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
8.
GastD. L., LloydB. P., & LedfordJ. R. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In GastD. L. & LedfordJ. R., Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 251–296). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., ComptonD., CoyneM., GreenwoodC., & InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi–experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164.
10.
GoldenbergC., ReeseL., & RezaeiA. R. (2011). Contexts for language and literacy development among dual–language learners. In Yücesan DurgunoğluA. & GoldenbergC. (Eds.), Language and literacy development in bilingual settings (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
11.
GoodR. H., & KaminskiR. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.
12.
*GyovaiL. K., CartledgeG., KoureaL., YurickA., & GibsonL. (2009). Early reading intervention: Responding to the learning needs of young at–risk English language learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 143–162.
13.
HedgesL. V., PustejovskyJ., & ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single–case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 224–239.
14.
HedgesL. V., PustejovskyJ., & ShadishW. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1086.
15.
HornerR. D., & BaerD. M. (1978). Multipleprobe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196.
16.
HornerR. D., CarrE., HalleJ., McGeeG., OdomS., & WoleryM. (2005). The use of single–subject research to identify evidence–based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.
17.
KazdinA. (2010). Single–case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
KenaG., Musu–GilletteL., RobinsonJ., WangX., RathbunA., ZhangJ., et al. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015–144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
19.
KratochwillT. R., HitchcockJ., HornerR. H., LevinJ. R., OdomS. L., RindskopfD. M., et al. (2010). Single–case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf.
20.
LesauxN. K., KiefferM. J., KelleyJ. G., & HarrisJ. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165.
21.
MarsoD., & ShadishW. R. (2015). DHPS Effect Size Macro [Computer Software]. Merced, CA: University of California, Merced.
22.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge.
23.
NeumanS. B. (2011). Single–subject experimental design. In DukeN. K. & MalletteM. H. (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 383–402). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
*OroscoM. J. (2013). The development of a math comprehension strategy in Spanish for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. International Journal for Research in Learning Disability, 1(2), 86–108.
25.
*OroscoM. J. (2014a). A math intervention for third grade Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 22(4), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.86535.
26.
*OroscoM. J. (2014b). Word problem strategy for Latino English Language Learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 45–53.
27.
*OroscoM. J., SwansonH. L., O'ConnorR., & LussierC. (2011). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107.
28.
*PreciadoJ. A., HornerR. H., & BakerS. K. (2008). Using a function–based approach to decrease problem behaviors and increase academic engagement for Latino English language learners. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313350.
29.
*RahnN. L., WilsonJ., EganA., BrandesD., KunkelA., PetersonM. et al. (2015). Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(1), 71–91.
30.
Richards–TutorC., BakerD. L., GerstenR., BakerS. K., & SmithJ. M. (2015). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483.
31.
*RossS. G., & BegenyJ. C. (2011). Improving Latino, English language learners’ reading fluency: The effects of small group and one–on–one intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 48(6), 604–618.
32.
SamsonJ. F., & LesauxN. K. (2009). Language minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 148–162.
33.
*SantoroL. E., JitendraA. K., StarostaK., & SacksG. (2006). Reading well with Read Well enhancing the reading performance of English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 105–115.
34.
SimmonsD. C., & Kame'enuiE. J. (2003). Scott Foresman early reading intervention. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
35.
ShadishW. R., HedgesL. V., HornerR. H., & OdomS. L. (2015). The role of between–case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing Single–Case Research (NCER 2015–002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from Institute website http://ies.ed.gov/.
36.
ShadishW. R., HedgesL. V., & PustejovskyJ. E. (2014). Analysis and meta–analysis of single–case designs with a standardized mean difference statistic: A primer and applications. Journal of School Psychology, 52(2), 123–147.
37.
SprickM., HowardL. M., & FidanqueA. (1998–2000). Read well: Critical foundations in primary reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
38.
SpringerK. (2010). Educational research: A contextual approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
39.
TongF., Lara–AlecioR., IrbyB., MathesP., & KwokO. (2008). Accelerating early academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1011–1044. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208320790.
40.
VaughnS., Linan–ThompsonS., MathesP. G., CirinoP. T., CarlsonC. D., Pollard–DurodolaS. D., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first–grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56–73.
41.
*Viel–RumaK., HouchinsD. E., JolivetteK., FredrickL. D., & GamaR. (2010). Direct instruction in written expression: The effects on English speakers and English language learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 97–108.
