View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) Intervention for Multilingual English Learners

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) Intervention for Multilingual English Learners
Language: English
Authors: Jackie E. Relyea (ORCID 0000-0002-7560-7136), Dennis S. Davis (ORCID 0000-0003-2114-2860), Corrie Dobis (ORCID 0000-0002-1482-6669), Becky Huang (ORCID 0000-0003-3235-5298), Courtney Samuelson (ORCID 0000-0003-3299-3230)
Source: Grantee Submission. 2025.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 45
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A200283
Document Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Grade 3
Primary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Grade 5
Middle Schools
Descriptors: English (Second Language), Second Language Instruction, Second Language Learning, Elementary School Students, Multilingualism, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 5, Lesson Plans, Intervention, Teaching Methods, Faculty Development, Teacher Attitudes, Reading Instruction, Vocabulary Development, Achievement Gains, Text Structure, Reading Skills, Program Evaluation, Program Implementation, Time Management, Educational Resources, English Language Learners, Reading Comprehension, Specialists, Elementary School Teachers
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2024.2449035
Abstract: This study evaluated the feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) intervention, designed to support Grades 3-5 multilingual students classified as English learners (ML-ELs) in building content knowledge, language skills, and reading comprehension through inquiry-based small-group instruction. Feasibility was examined across five dimensions--acceptability, practicality, integration, implementation fidelity, and effectiveness--using teacher interviews, ratings, lesson observations, and student and teacher learning outcome assessments. Findings suggest that the intervention was generally well-received by teachers, with structured lesson plans and resources facilitating implementation. Teachers demonstrated increased knowledge in reading instruction and the intervention following professional development, and students showed gains in vocabulary, text structure awareness, and topic-specific knowledge. However, time constraints during standardized testing periods limited consistent implementation. These findings inform the refinement of the K.L.I. intervention for broader application, emphasizing the need to address contextual challenges and conduct future evaluations to support its larger-scale implementation and improve ML-ELs' literacy outcomes. [This paper will be published in "The Journal of Educational Research."]
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: ED664085
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHulL0KwbpTunlxM360u4xVAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOC0SdiHU5wL8mh-_gIBEICBm_FXyqH2rIQdUYbr0OSBQ-FBk-RYLr3WmFvwvh8amRVuWf_60srKFnutFvb6fjUPsUQTFIKJGRq9FetuICNj-MBx8J_35aci2NNBNK6rq6Mwebd1wIXqFajQGq2YC11_q0soMLTxMm_FAVf0vZ_wJH2yn2fotVqi1vWm2U8UImPa_VS42uJ5UWVfpmn9aenDCa8atQ8BQWqCSVsl
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182980759;ere01mar.25;2025Feb14.03:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182980759-1">Feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) intervention for multilingual English learners </title> <p>This study evaluated the feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) intervention, designed to support Grades 3–5 multilingual students classified as English learners (ML-ELs) in building content knowledge, language skills, and reading comprehension through inquiry-based small-group instruction. Feasibility was examined across five dimensions—acceptability, practicality, integration, implementation fidelity, and effectiveness—using teacher interviews, ratings, lesson observations, and student and teacher learning outcome assessments. Findings suggest that the intervention was generally well-received by teachers, with structured lesson plans and resources facilitating implementation. Teachers demonstrated increased knowledge in reading instruction and the intervention following professional development, and students showed gains in vocabulary, text structure awareness, and topic-specific knowledge. However, time constraints during standardized testing periods limited consistent implementation. These findings inform the refinement of the K.L.I. intervention for broader application, emphasizing the need to address contextual challenges and conduct future evaluations to support its larger-scale implementation and improve ML-ELs' literacy outcomes.</p> <p>Keywords: English learners; Intervention; Reading; Knowledge; Inquiry</p> <p>The growing population of multilingual students classified as English learners (ML-ELs)[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] in U.S. public schools represents a significant shift in the educational landscape. ML-EL students now represent 10.4% of the school-age demographic (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref2">63</reflink>]), underscoring the urgent need for effective language and literacy instruction tailored to this rapidly growing group. The presence of ML-ELs enhances the cultural and linguistic diversity of classrooms, providing educators with opportunities to implement inclusive pedagogical strategies (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]). However, ML-ELs often face substantial challenges in comprehending and engaging with content-rich informational texts, a key component of academic success, while simultaneously developing English proficiency (Abedi & Herman, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]). The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) illustrates the challenge, revealing that only 10% of Grade 4 ML-ELs achieved reading proficiency (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref5">63</reflink>]). This data emphasizes the pressing need to develop and implement effective literacy instruction aimed at improving ML-ELs' reading comprehension of informational texts (Goldenberg, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Reading comprehension in a second language is a complex, multifaceted process that involves a range of linguistic and cognitive dimensions (Grabe, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]; RAND Reading Study Group, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref8">72</reflink>]). While ML-ELs often develop foundational code-based literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness) at a rate comparable to their native English-speaking peers, acquiring more complex, unconstrained literacy skills (e.g., vocabulary and reading comprehension) presents a significant challenge (Mancilla‐Martinez & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref9">57</reflink>]). This discrepancy highlights the need for instructional approaches that support both foundational and more complex literacy skills (Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]; Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]), promoting their concurrent development of reading proficiency and content knowledge (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although recent research has increasingly focused on multi-component reading interventions that aim to strengthen meaning-focused reading skills for multilingual learners (e.g., Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref14">71</reflink>]; Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref15">81</reflink>]), the integration of content knowledge development into these instructional models remains underexplored (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref16">49</reflink>]). Content knowledge plays a critical role in readers' ability to understand and interpret texts by providing context for making sense of new information (Anderson & Freebody, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]; Hirsch, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref18">42</reflink>]; Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref19">51</reflink>]). For ML-ELs, content knowledge is especially important as it offers a framework that helps them connect new linguistic and cultural concepts with their existing knowledge base, enabling a more nuanced understanding of texts (Jiménez et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]; Relyea et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref21">74</reflink>]). Furthermore, a solid foundation in content knowledge reduces the cognitive load associated with the linguistic demands of reading in a second language, allowing them to allocate more cognitive resources to higher-order comprehension skills (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]; Goldenberg, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study investigates the feasibility of a new evidence-based, small-group reading comprehension intervention, the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) intervention, designed to improve reading comprehension among Grade 3–5 ML-ELs. This intervention emphasizes the development of content knowledge, language proficiency, and opportunities for structured inquiry. Feasibility research is vital as it helps determine the internal and external validity of an intervention by assessing the practicability and acceptability of its core components before conducting large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite its importance, feasibility research has been underrepresented in educational intervention studies, with limited guidance available for incorporating systematic feasibility evaluations into research endeavors (Gadke et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>]). Educational intervention research has traditionally focused on treatment outcomes, often neglecting the development and implementation process (Tickle-Degnen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref25">82</reflink>]). By prioritizing feasibility, this study aims to identify and address potential constraints in actual school settings, laying the groundwork for subsequent evaluations of the intervention effectiveness and ensuring its readiness for a broader scale-up.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-2">Theoretical underpinnings of the K.L.I. intervention</hd> <p>The K.L.I. intervention is a multi-component program designed for upper-elementary MLs who can benefit from additional support in informational text comprehension. The intervention is structured on three core principles: (a) a knowledge-focused approach, (b) a focus on language development, and (c) the integration of inquiry-based learning. This framework aims to enhance ML-ELs' reading comprehension by integrating theory-based and research-supported instructional practices.</p> <p>A central tenet of the K.L.I. intervention is that background knowledge is fundamental to reading comprehension. The Construction-Integration model (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref26">51</reflink>]) posits that comprehension hinges on a reader's ability to activate and refine existing knowledge, allowing them to construct a coherent mental model of the text. This process facilitates the integration of new information with preexisting schemas, fostering a deeper and more meaningful interpretation. Coherence is achieved when a reader's mental representation aligns with the text's content, the reader's preexisting schemas (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; Kendeou & van den Broek, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]; Kucan & Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref29">53</reflink>]), and the context and purpose of the reading task (RAND Reading Study Group, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref30">72</reflink>]). Activating and developing background knowledge is thus critical, bridging new information to established schemas and promoting more profound engagement with the text (Hattan et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>The K.L.I. approach also emphasizes the development of linguistic knowledge, specifically syntax, morphosyntax, semantics, and text structure, to bolster ML-ELs' reading comprehension. The Construction-Integration model (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref32">51</reflink>]) shows that linguistic knowledge aids initial text interpretation, which is deepened through inferential reasoning and integration with prior knowledge (McNamara & Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref33">60</reflink>]; Pearson & Cervetti, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref34">70</reflink>]). The Simple View of Reading similarly highlights the essential role of language comprehension in reading comprehension (Hoover & Gough, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref35">43</reflink>]). Mastering language at various levels is essential for proficient reading comprehension (Duke & Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]; Knecht et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref37">52</reflink>]; Oakhill et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref38">68</reflink>]). ML-ELs' multilingual backgrounds contribute to their strong metalinguistic awareness, which supports their engagement with and understanding of linguistic structures in the English language and written texts (Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref39">71</reflink>]). Thus, leveraging ML-ELs' linguistic experience can foster comprehension and academic success (Goodwin & Jiménez, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The third key principle of the K.L.I. intervention is the incorporation of structured inquiry-based learning. This feature is designed to promote active student engagement with texts through guided exploration around central questions. Using structured inquiry practices, teachers can foster a collaborative learning environment, where students engage with content, share their findings with peers, and assume the role of subject matter experts (Coiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]; Sekeres et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref42">78</reflink>]). This opportunity has the potential to bolster text comprehension and retention and stimulate students' interest and motivation in reading (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-3">K.L.I. instructional framework and core components</hd> <p>The K.L.I. intervention was designed to enhance reading comprehension among upper-elementary ML-ELs by integrating text-derived ideas with the readers' existing knowledge. This process aids in forming coherent mental models and developing new, transferable knowledge and perspectives (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]; Kimball & Holyoak, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref45">50</reflink>]; Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref46">51</reflink>]; Kucan & Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref47">53</reflink>]). We developed a structured instructional framework comprising core components that promote students' gradual autonomy through repeated, scaffolded routines. Collaborative interactions with teachers informed our design by highlighting existing instructional structures and limitations for small-group sessions. Our framework is organized into inquiry-topic modules such as <emph>Robotic Technology, Space Pollution, Animal Communication, A New Home</emph> (<emph>Immigrant Experiences</emph>), and <emph>Voting in a Democracy</emph>.</p> <p>Each module is guided by overarching inquiry questions that connect activities across 41 lessons (see Figure 1). Lessons follow a predictable sequence of five components: Discovery Reading, Confident Reading, Uncover the Structure, Breaking Words, and Sentence Workshop. Table 1 provides descriptions and recommended time allocations for each component. This structured repetition helps students become familiar with routines and take ownership of leading activities. The components are grounded in evidence-based approaches to reading instruction (e.g., Foorman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]; Shanahan et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref49">80</reflink>]; Vaughn et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref50">83</reflink>]; Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref51">84</reflink>]), incorporating accessible strategies for ML-ELs, such as visuals and multisensory features (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]; Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref53">40</reflink>]), and encouraging the use of their full linguistic repertoire during discussions (García & Kleifgen, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref55">71</reflink>]). Through the five core components, students explore new concepts and ideas related to the inquiry questions. As shown in Figure 1, every 12 lessons and at the end of each module, students document these insights in the Inquiry Space, either in a digital or physical space, that serves as a central repository for recording, assembling, and synthesizing knowledge. This process culminates in informal presentations to peers and teachers, providing ML-ELs with a platform to showcase their expertise and establish their identities as knowledgeable contributors in their school communities.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Animal communication module: overview of lessons and core components.</p> <p>Table 1. K.L.I. intervention core components and recommended time allocations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Component</td><td>Description</td><td>Recommended time allocation</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Discovery Reading</td><td>Students engage with text excerpts through structured discussions and metacognitive prompts (e.g., monitoring comprehension, visualizing, summarizing) to build topic knowledge and vocabulary. Teachers scaffold reading by breaking text into shorter segments and facilitating collaborative responses to guiding questions.</td><td char=".">20–30 min</td></tr><tr><td>Confident Reading</td><td>Students engage in repeated readings of texts on inquiry topics, guided by teachers to focus on linguistic features, fluency, and word recognition through progressively complex versions.</td><td char=".">15 min</td></tr><tr><td>Uncover the Structure</td><td>Using texts from Confident Reading, students analyze text structures, map ideas on graphic organizers, and write summaries based on the identified structure, guided by explicit routines.</td><td char=".">15 min</td></tr><tr><td>Breaking Words</td><td>Students analyze multisyllabic academic words related to the inquiry topic, focusing on sounds, spelling, meanings, and morphology to explore structural and meaning changes through activities like syllable segmentation and manipulating affixes.</td><td char=".">15 min</td></tr><tr><td>Sentence Workshop</td><td>Students build syntactic knowledge by unscrambling, constructing, and merging sentences related to the topic. They progressively work with sentences of increasing length and grammatical complexity.</td><td char=".">15 min</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. K.L.I. = Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-4">Assessing the feasibility of educational interventions</hd> <p>Evaluating the feasibility of educational intervention programs is a critical step in the process of design-based research and implementation science. Feasibility in this context refers to the practicality and viability of introducing and sustaining an intervention within the constraints of real-world school settings. This assessment includes considerations of a range of factors, including available resources, infrastructure, cultural dynamics, and the overall readiness of the educational environment to support the intervention (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>]). Feasibility evaluations not only determine the potential for implementation but also assess how effectively and sustainably an intervention can be delivered in a specific educational context.</p> <p>Feasibility studies are inherently exploratory, aiming to determine whether an intervention is suitable for a given school setting, what resources are needed for its implementation, and the potential barriers and facilitators to its success (Gadke et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]). This process often involves pilot testing the intervention on a small scale to gather preliminary data on its practicality and effectiveness, which then informs iterative refinement (Diamond & Powell, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref58">20</reflink>]; Durlak & Dupre, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]; Zucker et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref60">85</reflink>]). The value of feasibility studies lies in their ability to ensure that interventions are adaptable, implementable, and likely to be accepted in target settings, providing a foundation for large-scale efficacy studies.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-5">The importance of feasibility assessments</hd> <p>Feasibility assessments play an essential role in laying the groundwork for successful intervention implementation and scalability. They serve several critical purposes. First, feasibility evaluations allow for the early exploration of intervention process questions, facilitating the foundation for subsequent large-scale studies. This early-stage assessment can preemptively identify and mitigate potential challenges in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) related to acceptability, compliance, delivery integrity, and recruitment (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]; Gadke et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]; Tickle-Degnen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref63">82</reflink>]). Second, the implementation of educational interventions often encounters various constraints such as limited resources (e.g., funding, time, personnel), resistance from educators due to perceived increased workload or skepticism toward new programs, and the challenge of adapting interventions to fit diverse student populations within the existing curriculum (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]; Tickle-Degnen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref65">82</reflink>]). A thorough feasibility assessment is vital to navigating these constraints, ensuring interventions are realistically and practically designed for school environments, and mitigating the risk of failure in their integration despite theoretical frameworks (Elliott & Mihalic, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>]; Forman et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref67">27</reflink>]; Greenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref68">36</reflink>]). Finally, feasibility assessments are instrumental in informing necessary modifications to enhance suitability and acceptability. By understanding the specific contextual factors that influence implementation, these assessments can guide the development of strategies to address and overcome barriers (Domitrovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref70">33</reflink>]; Greenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]). This comprehensive approach grounds interventions in theory, while remaining practical and adaptable to the complex dynamics of school settings, enabling effective integration to maximize their overall impact.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-6">Intervention feasibility dimensions</hd> <p>Recent research in intervention studies has highlighted a framework for conducting feasibility research, focusing specifically on dimensions crucial for developing and evaluating interventions. These dimensions include acceptability (social validity), practicality, integration into existing systems, implementation, and effectiveness (Gadke et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref72">28</reflink>]). First, acceptability assessment examines the extent to which primary users (e.g., teachers) perceive the intervention as appropriate, reasonable, and potentially efficacious in addressing their needs (Carter, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]; Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref74">46</reflink>]; Nastasi & Truscott, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref75">62</reflink>]). Evaluating acceptability is an important aspect of feasibility research, as the success of an intervention partly depends on the acceptability of the implementation protocol and practices to key stakeholders (Sekhon et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref76">79</reflink>]). Second, practicality involves assessing whether the intervention can be implemented given contextual and practical constraints such as materials, resources, training, and time (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>]). Conducting a feasibility trial focusing on context-specific practicality before larger-scale implementation can help identify practical challenges that may not have been anticipated initially (McDonald & Howard, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref78">59</reflink>]). Third, assessing integration into existing systems in feasibility research aims to determine the extent to which a new intervention aligns with or can be integrated into existing approaches and system infrastructure (Durlak & Dupre, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]). Assessments of intervention "fit" determine whether a new intervention can be integrated into the current structure, maximizing implementation. Fourth, measuring implementation in feasibility research gauges the extent to which teachers implement the procedures of an intervention as intended and designed by the research team (Century et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; O'Donnell, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref81">67</reflink>]). A focus on implementation aims to identify variations in the degree to which an intervention is implemented with fidelity. Adherence (i.e., the number or percentage of intervention components implemented) has been the primary structural dimension used to measure implementation. Finally, effectiveness is integral to feasibility research, although the primary goal is to focus on the process (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>]) because a preliminary evaluation of intervention effectiveness using student assessment data can determine whether the intervention shows promising evidence of positive outcomes with the target population (Orsmond & Cohn, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref83">69</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-7">The current study context and aims</hd> <p>This study evaluated the feasibility of the K.L.I. intervention, a multi-component, evidence-based approach designed to enhance reading comprehension among upper-elementary MLs by developing their knowledge, language proficiency, and inquiry skills. The current investigation served as an integral component of a broader four-year design-based research project, which aimed at assessing the practical applicability and effectiveness of the newly developed intervention. During the initial two years of the project (Years 1 and 2), our research efforts were dedicated to evaluating the intervention's usability and instructional components. This evaluation was conducted through iterative design, implementation, observation, and refinement cycles. These systematic cycles were designed to iteratively refine the intervention program, enhancing its usability for the target population.</p> <p>In the third year, after extensive refinement of the intervention, the focus of this study shifted to the implementation of the intervention by teachers. This phase aimed to determine how effectively and efficiently the intervention could be implemented within the constraints and requirements of real-world educational environments (Institute of Education Sciences, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]). The feasibility testing conducted at this stage was crucial for identifying any challenges to implementation and making the necessary adjustments to enhance the intervention's practicality and acceptability in authentic educational contexts. The current study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of the K.L.I. intervention, focusing on five specific dimensions and corresponding research questions (RQs):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1 (acceptability): How do teachers perceive the acceptability of K.L.I.?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2 (practicality): Can K.L.I. be implemented within available resources and contextual constraints?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ3 (integration): To what extent is the intervention aligned with existing systems?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ4 (implementation fidelity): Can teachers implement K.L.I. with fidelity?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ5 (preliminary effectiveness): Does preliminary evidence show improvements in student learning outcomes and teachers' knowledge from the professional development (PD) course?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0182980759-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182980759-9">Participants</hd> <p>The study participants included (a) seven English-as-a-second-language (ESL) specialists and two classroom teachers and (b) their ML-EL students in Grades 3 to 5 (<emph>N</emph> = 37; 65% girls). The nine participating teachers were recruited from two states in the U.S. through partnerships with school districts and our professional network. Table 2 displays the demographic characteristics of the teachers. Each teacher was responsible for implementing the intervention with a small group of ML-ELs. They purposefully selected these students who would benefit from supplemental reading comprehension instruction and who did not need intensive support related to phonological awareness, phonics, and/or word recognition abilities. The students' countries of origin were Afghanistan, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Yemen, and the U.S. Their home languages included Spanish, Pashto, and Arabic. The process to determine a student's EL status was conducted by school administrators following standard procedures in their state and district. In all study sites, EL identification was based on a home language survey and performance on the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 screener or the statewide English language proficiency assessment.</p> <p>Table 2. Characteristics of teacher participants, module completion, and adherence rate of each teacher's implementation by K.L.I. components.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Teacher ID</td><td>Demographic information</td><td>Module completion status</td><td>Adherence rate (the number of lessons observed)</td></tr><tr><td>State</td><td>Role</td><td>Gender</td><td>Race/ ethnicity</td><td>DR</td><td>CR</td><td>UTS</td><td>BW</td><td>SW</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>T1</td><td>A</td><td>ESL</td><td>Female</td><td>White</td><td>Completed 26 of 41 lessons in one module (<italic>Space Pollution</italic>)</td><td char=".">100% (2)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>A</td><td>ESL</td><td>Female</td><td>White</td><td>Completed one module (<italic>A New Home</italic>)</td><td char=".">88% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>A</td><td>ESL</td><td>Female</td><td>White</td><td>Completed 18 of 41 lessons in one module (<italic>Animal Communication</italic>)</td><td char=".">88% (1)</td><td char=".">83% (1)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>T4</td><td>A</td><td>Classroom teacher (G4)</td><td>Female</td><td>White</td><td>Completed two 41-lesson modules (<italic>Robotic Technology</italic> and <italic>A New Home</italic>)</td><td char=".">94% (2)</td><td char=".">92% (3)</td><td char=".">91% (1)</td><td char=".">86% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (2)</td></tr><tr><td>T5</td><td>A</td><td>ESL</td><td>Male</td><td>White</td><td>Completed one 41-lesson module (<italic>Voting in a Democracy</italic>)</td><td char=".">91% (2)</td><td char=".">92% (2)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">96% (1)</td></tr><tr><td>T6</td><td>A</td><td>ESL</td><td>Male</td><td>Latino</td><td>Completed 22 lessons of 41 lessons in one module (<italic>Space Pollution</italic>)</td><td char=".">88% (1)</td><td char=".">67% (1)</td><td>–</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">83% (1)</td></tr><tr><td>T7</td><td>B</td><td>ESL</td><td>Female</td><td>Black</td><td>Completed one 41-lesson module (<italic>Voting in a Democracy</italic>)</td><td char=".">85% (3)</td><td char=".">92% (2)</td><td char=".">73% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">75% (1)</td></tr><tr><td>T8</td><td>B</td><td>Classroom teacher (G3)</td><td>Female</td><td>Latina</td><td>Completed two 41-lesson modules (<italic>Robotic Technology</italic> and <italic>Animal Communication</italic>)</td><td char=".">94% (2)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">91% (1)</td><td char=".">100% (1)</td><td char=".">92% (2)</td></tr><tr><td>T9</td><td>B</td><td>ESL</td><td>Female</td><td>Latina</td><td>Completed two 41-lesson modules (<italic>Animal Communication</italic> and <italic>Robotic Technology</italic>)</td><td char=".">94% (4)</td><td char=".">83% (2)</td><td char=".">91% (1)</td><td char=".">96% (2)</td><td char=".">88% (2)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. ESL = English as a second language. G = grade. DR = Discovery Reading. CR = Confident Reading. UTS = Uncover the Structure. BW = Breaking Words. SW = Sentence Workshop.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-10">Procedure</hd> <p>Before implementing the K.L.I. intervention lessons, participating teachers engaged in a PD course developed by the research team. This module was delivered through asynchronous units, allowing teachers the flexibility to interact with the instructional material at their own pace. Each unit consisted of video lectures outlining the overarching framework of the K.L.I. intervention, its instructional components, and detailed guidance on the structure and content of specific lessons. Teachers were required to complete these units and the accompanying quizzes to support their understanding and preparation for effective intervention delivery. Teachers were incentivized with stipends to acknowledge their time and effort in completing the PD course and implementing the intervention modules.</p> <p>Students were then administered pretests to assess their baseline knowledge in critical areas: affix knowledge, text structure awareness, module-specific vocabulary, and module-specific topic knowledge. The intervention curriculum had two modules, one in the fall semester and another in the spring, with students and teachers using two to three books on the same topic for each module. Each module was conducted in small groups, consisting of 41 lesson segments. Randomly selected sessions (10% of all lessons) were video-recorded for lesson observation and assessed for implementation fidelity. After the intervention concluded, students were administered post-tests to measure their progress, and teachers participated in an interview and completed a feasibility rating survey to provide implementation feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-11">Data sources</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182980759-12">Teacher Acceptability Rating Scale</hd> <p>A 10-item rating scale, adapted from the System Usability Scale (Brooke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]), was employed to evaluate the acceptability of intervention lesson materials and implementations perceived by teachers (RQ1). Upon completing the intervention implementation, teachers rated their agreement with a series of statements regarding the intervention using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = <emph>Strongly Disagree</emph> to 5 = <emph>Strongly Agree</emph>). The survey items (see Table 3) encompassed various aspects of the intervention, including frequency of anticipated use, perceived complexity, ease of use, consistency, learnability, self-efficacy, and potential barriers to practical application.</p> <p>Table 3. Results of teacher acceptability rating scale<sups>a</sups> (<emph>N</emph> = 9).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Item</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>min.</td><td>max.</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. I think I would like to use this intervention frequently.</td><td char=".">4.67</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>2. I found the intervention too complicated to follow.</td><td char=".">1.33</td><td char=".">.50</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>3. I thought the intervention was easy to use.</td><td char=".">4.56</td><td char=".">.73</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>4. I think that I would need the support of an expert consultant or coach to be able to use this intervention.</td><td char=".">1.78</td><td char=".">.83</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>5. I think all the sub-components were well-integrated within this intervention.</td><td char=".">4.56</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this intervention.</td><td char=".">1.22</td><td char=".">.67</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this intervention very quickly.</td><td char=".">4.44</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>8. I found this intervention very cumbersome to use.</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">.33</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>9. I felt very confident using this intervention.</td><td char=".">4.56</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>10. I needed to learn a lot of new things before I could get going with this intervention.</td><td char=".">2.56</td><td char=".">1.51</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note.</emph><sups>a</sups>5-Likert scale: 1 = <emph>Strongly Disagree</emph> to 5 = <emph>Strongly Agree</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-13">Teacher interviews</hd> <p>To evaluate perceived practicality (RQ2) and integration of the intervention (RQ3), we conducted a semi-structured feasibility interview with participant teachers, facilitated individually <emph>via</emph> Zoom by trained research assistants. These interview sessions were conducted in early spring when teachers had progressed halfway through completing at least one K.L.I. module. The interview questions were designed to solicit teachers' feedback on several key areas: the organization and suitability of the materials for the target population, the clarity and appropriateness of protocols and lesson structures, and overall perceptions of the feasibility of integrating these components into the everyday school environment. Each interview lasted between 25 and 35 min and was audio-recorded for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-14">Implementation maps</hd> <p>In evaluating the fidelity of implementing the K.L.I. components (RQ4), we utilized implementation maps (see Table S1-S5 in Online Supplemental Materials) designed with observable, low-inference indicators based on video-recorded lessons. These indicators outlined the ideal enactment of each of the five components, grounded in our theoretical framework emphasizing sustained learning opportunities. Teachers were scored 1 for each instructional move enacted and 0 if it was not, providing a measure of adherence aligned with prior intervention studies (e.g., Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>]; Neuman et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref87">64</reflink>]). The indicators reflected adherence to specific instructional expectations and routines integral to K.L.I. and were rated by trained research assistants. A random sample of 15% of lessons was double-coded to establish reliability, with interrater agreement ranging from.83 to.95.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-15">Teachers' knowledge from the PD course</hd> <p>The PD course is an essential element of the K.L.I. intervention, designed to build teachers' knowledge and skills needed to implement its instructional routines effectively. To evaluate the effectiveness of the PD course (RQ5), we assessed teachers' learning outcomes using a researcher-designed knowledge assessment consisting of 35 multiple-choice items administered before and after the course. These items measured teachers' understanding of reading development, reading instruction in meaning-based domains (Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]), and the K.L.I. routines. Items were scored dichotomously as correct or incorrect, with the overall score representing the sum of correct responses. The knowledge assessment was piloted with a broader sample of teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 29), including those from the current study, and demonstrated high internal consistency (Kuder–Richardson reliability =.90). This assessment served as a key indicator of the PD course's effectiveness, providing evidence of its role in preparing teachers for delivering the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-16">Student measures</hd> <p>A series of student learning outcome measures were used before and after the implementation of the intervention to assess whether there were measurable improvements in students' performance (RQ5).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-17">Affixes</hd> <p>We used a researcher-designed affix measure to assess students' ability to manipulate prefixes and suffixes to form new words. The item format was patterned after a derivational morphology decomposition task used in previous research (Kieffer & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref89">48</reflink>]). Students were given a target word, followed by a sentence with one word replaced with a blank. The students had to write the target word's appropriate derived or inflected form in the blank. There were 12 items that required manipulation of prefixes and 27 with suffixes. The measure was administered before K.L.I. instruction began and at the end of the year. Teachers implemented the measures to their K.L.I. students in a group format. They used an administration script developed by the researchers that included all the instructions and practice items. Teachers read all the items aloud to students while they followed along and wrote their answers on individual copies. Items were scored by members of the research team using a scoring guide. Students were not penalized for spelling and were given credit for items if their spelling reasonably approximated the oral pronunciation of the correct word. The two forms contained the same items randomized in different orders. Internal consistency reliabilities were.97 and.95 at pre- and post-test, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-18">Text structure awareness</hd> <p>We administered a researcher-designed measure of text structure at the beginning and end of the school year. The measure was administered by teachers in a group format. Four expository structures were included in the measure: compare/contrast, cause/effect, description, and sequence. Teachers read all texts and items aloud to students as they followed along and marked responses on their copies of the measure. Three structure identification items asked students to mark which structure best matched the paragraph. Four items asked students to choose the completed graphic organizer that best matched the paragraph. Finally, students were asked to identify four signal words that marked the structure of an additional paragraph. Separate forms were used at pre- and post-intervention time points. To construct two parallel forms, we developed items in pairs and then randomly assigned one item from each pair to each form. The two items in each pair used texts with the same structure, length, and difficulty. Internal consistency reliabilities for the measures were low (.43 for the pretest version and.17 for the post-test), likely due to the small number of items. Other studies have also reported low reliabilities for text structure subtests with small numbers of items (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref90">84</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-19">Module-specific vocabulary</hd> <p>We assessed students' topic-specific vocabulary knowledge using a researcher-designed semantic association measure (Read, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref91">73</reflink>]). We created a separate instrument for each module. Each measure included 16 words taught during K.L.I. lessons. Each item was presented with a target word and four option words. Students were asked to select two of four options most semantically related to the target word. All items were read aloud to students, who circled their answers on individual copies. Scoring was based on correct selections (0, 1, or 2), allowing for a maximum score of 32. This assessment was conducted at module start and end, with randomized item order. Students completed assessments only for the modules they participated in, resulting in small sample sizes for each measure (<emph>Robotic Technology</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 15; <emph>Space Pollution</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 7; <emph>Animal Communication</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 12; <emph>A New Home</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 9; and <emph>Voting in a Democracy</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 7). Internal consistency was only calculated for modules with the largest samples for sufficient data, resulting in Cronbach's alphas of.93 and.84 (pre and post-test, respectively) for the <emph>Robotic Technology</emph> module,.66 and.87 for <emph>Animal Communication</emph>, and.69 and.70 for <emph>A New Hom</emph>e.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-20">Module-specific topic knowledge</hd> <p>Students' knowledge of each module topic was assessed using a researcher-designed measure. Students received 19 statements that reflected the central concepts of the modules, with a mixture of both accurate and inaccurate descriptions. Teachers read aloud the statements to students and asked students to mark each statement as <emph>True, False</emph>, or <emph>I Don't Know</emph>. Items were scored as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Answers to <emph>I Don't Know</emph> were scored as zero. These assessments were administered before and after module completion, with the order of items randomized. Students only completed this measure for the modules they engaged in. Reliability was calculated for the measures with the largest sample sizes, revealing Cronbach's alphas of.62 (pretest) and.70 (post-test) for the <emph>Robotic Technology</emph> module,.51 and.53 for <emph>Animal Communication</emph>, and.52 and.62 for <emph>A New Home</emph>. The relatively low reliabilities may be due to the limited number of items in each module.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-21">Data analysis</hd> <p>We employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to address the RQs in this study, utilizing a triangulation approach to enhance the validity of the findings. Each data analysis technique was carefully aligned with the specific nature of RQs, gaining insights into the K.L.I. intervention's acceptability, practicality, integration, implementation fidelity, and preliminary effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-22">Quantitative data analysis</hd> <p>For RQ1 (acceptability) and RQ5 (preliminary effectiveness), we conducted quantitative analyses using survey and assessment data. For the Teacher Acceptability Rating Scale, used to assess the intervention's acceptability among teachers, we computed descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for each item on the scale to summarize teachers' perceptions of usability, coherence, and overall complexity. To assess preliminary effectiveness (RQ5), paired-sample t-tests were conducted on pre- and post-test scores from both teachers and students. These tests evaluated changes in teacher knowledge following the PD course, as well as student learning outcomes.</p> <p>For implementation fidelity (RQ4), quantitative data were derived from implementation maps to assess teacher adherence to the intervention protocols. Adherence rates were calculated based on the extent to which each instructional component was delivered as intended, and fidelity scores were assigned accordingly. This quantitative data provided insights into how faithfully the intervention was implemented across different settings.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-23">Qualitative data analysis</hd> <p>To address RQ2 (practicality) and RQ3 (integration), we conducted a thematic analysis of teacher interview data. Our approach followed established qualitative research methodologies (e.g., Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref92">7</reflink>]; Guest et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]). This analysis involved several systematic stages. First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by thoroughly reviewing interview transcripts, allowing us to gain a deep understanding of teachers' experiences with the K.L.I. intervention (Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref94">66</reflink>]). Open coding was then used to identify key segments of the text related to the practicality and integration of the intervention. These codes emerged inductively from the data, ensuring that they were directly grounded in the data, reflecting the actual experiences and perspectives of the teachers rather than being based on preconceived theoretical frameworks (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref95">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>After generating initial codes, we grouped them into broader themes to capture recurring patterns across the data. Key themes, such as resource assessment (e.g., lesson materials, accessibility) and contextual constraints (e.g., time limitations, school scheduling), emerged as central to understanding teachers' perspectives on the practicality and integration of the K.L.I. intervention. To establish the reliability of the analysis, two independent researchers conducted the coding separately, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion to maintain trustworthiness in the presented findings (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref96">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Once the initial coding and theme identification were completed, the themes were further refined to ensure coherence and consistency with the data. This process involved revisiting the interview transcripts to verify that the themes accurately reflected teachers' responses. We also collapsed sub-themes where necessary to streamline the interpretation and make the data more manageable and meaningful. We employed peer debriefing to enhance the credibility of our analysis by using external feedback to ensure themes were well-grounded in the data and reflective of teachers' experiences (Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref97">66</reflink>]). Finally, we applied data triangulation by comparing the qualitative themes with the quantitative findings. This cross-validation between qualitative and quantitative data allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the intervention's practicality, integration, and overall feasibility in real-world classroom settings.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-24">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182980759-25">RQ1: acceptability</hd> <p>Results from the Teacher Acceptability Rating Scale provided evidence of the K.L.I. intervention acceptance among teachers. As shown in Table 3, teachers strongly preferred frequent intervention use (M<subs>item 1</subs> = 4.67, SD = 0.50). Perceived complexity was minimal, with the intervention rated as not overly complicated to follow (M<subs>item 2</subs> = 1.33, SD = 0.50). Usability was rated highly, reflecting ease of use (M<subs>item 3</subs> = 4.56, SD = 0.73). The need for specialized support was considered low (M<subs>item 4</subs> = 1.78, SD = 0.83), indicating that most teachers felt equipped to implement the intervention without external assistance. The coherence of the intervention components was also positively evaluated (M<subs>item 5</subs> = 4.56, SD = 0.53), and teachers reported high confidence in their implementation (M<subs>item 9</subs> = 4.56, SD = 0.53). Teachers anticipated that users would quickly become adept at using the intervention (M<subs>item 7</subs> = 4.44, SD = 0.53). The perceived inconsistency of the intervention was low (<emph>M</emph> = 1.22<subs>item 6</subs>, SD = 0.67), further underscoring its cohesiveness. The intervention was not cumbersome (M<subs>item 8</subs> = 1.11, SD = 0.33). However, responses suggested a moderate need to learn new aspects before using the intervention effectively (M<subs>item 10</subs> = 2.56, SD = 1.51).</p> <p>Overall, the survey results depict the K.L.I. intervention as user-friendly and well-received. These patterns were mirrored in the teacher interviews. Teachers provided positive appraisals of the intervention as well as suggestions for enhancing the acceptability for future iterations. We identified two themes in their responses related to improvements in acceptability: suggestions for enhancing scaffolding and engagement for students and PD and ongoing support.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-26">Enhancing scaffolding and engagement</hd> <p>Upon completing the K.L.I. intervention, teachers' suggestions during the interview indicated that refining the K.L.I. lesson plans and activities to make them more adaptable, engaging, and accessible was essential. T5 pointed out the challenge of material preparation as some materials, particularly for third graders, were challenging and required additional scaffolding. Similarly, T7 spoke about the complexity of social studies content (e.g., Voting in a Democracy), which was found to be challenging for younger ML-ELs to grasp. The teacher suggested the inclusion of supplementary materials to build up background knowledge. T3 also discussed the benefits of integrating visual aids and external media sources (e.g., YouTube clips) to supplement background knowledge for ML-ELs and clarify or extend complex content.</p> <p>In addition, teacher feedback indicated that enhancing student engagement and achieving effective curriculum integration were critical areas of focus in improving K.L.I. There was a call for more varied and engaging activities that can sustain student interest over time and for the inclusion of additional examples, particularly for the Inquiry Space, to aid in their practical implementation. Several teachers (T3, T7, and T8) provided specific suggestions for incorporating a variety of multimedia resources and real-world connections to make the K.L.I. topics more engaging and relatable for students. T7 specifically suggested including more hands-on activities and supplementary materials to aid knowledge building and provide additional scaffolding, particularly for younger ML-ELs or those who might find certain content challenging. Additionally, T8 highlighted the importance of incorporating tangible, real-life artifacts, especially in social studies lessons. This teacher's suggestion to use real-world examples would bring abstract concepts to life, making them more meaningful for students.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-27">Enhancing professional development and support</hd> <p>The PD component of the K.L.I. intervention emerged as another area for improvement. Teachers expressly indicated the need for PD sessions to be more interactive and segmented, focusing on the practical aspects of implementing K.L.I. in the classroom. For instance, T6 expressed that the onset of PD training felt overwhelming due to the information presented at once. Similarly, T7 mentioned that the PD videos were lengthy and could benefit from being divided into distinct sections, focusing separately on theoretical aspects and practical implementation. This teacher suggested that breaking the PD components into more manageable segments and including opportunities for dialogic discussion would be more effective. Additionally, teachers highlighted the potential benefits of incorporating more modeling into PD sessions. This involved showing additional classroom scenarios where K.L.I. was being implemented, providing teachers with concrete examples of how the intervention could be implemented effectively. T6, in particular, suggested more detailed demonstrations of the lesson components in the videos, which would provide a clear picture of the practicalities of implementing the K.L.I. intervention.</p> <p>However, while these suggestions aimed to enhance the acceptability of the PD, they also indicated the tension between what teachers found ideal and what was feasible and practical within the constraints of their working environment, which is the tradeoff between acceptability and practicality. Balancing these tradeoffs was crucial, as overly tailored approaches could strain resources and might not be universally applicable across different contexts, potentially limiting the scalability of the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-28">RQ2: practicality</hd> <p>In evaluating the practicality dimension of feasibility, we identified two themes based on the collected feedback from teachers who implemented the K.L.I. intervention: (a) a resource assessment with lesson materials and resources that affected practicality and (b) a contextual assessment focusing on significant challenges and constraints to implementing the intervention (cf. Tickle-Degnen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref98">82</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-29">Available resources</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182980759-30">Lesson materials</hd> <p>A consistent theme across the interviews was the high level of organization and accessibility of intervention materials. This organizational strength was evident in the preparation and clarity of the resources, including clearly labeled materials and structured lesson plans (T4, T8, and T9). Teachers noted that resources were comprehensive and user-friendly for teachers and students (T1). The organizational efficiency reduced preparation time and streamlined the teaching process (T8 and T9), which is particularly vital in diverse educational settings, where teachers often juggle multiple responsibilities and support diverse student needs. The structured, easy-to-follow lesson plans were another facet that teachers found highly practical (T1 and T3). These plans provided a clear roadmap for the K.L.I. instruction, which was especially beneficial for teachers with limited time to create and organize their materials for an intervention. The structured nature of these plans meant that teachers could efficiently navigate through the content, focusing more on engaging with students rather than on the logistics of lesson planning. Another critical positive aspect highlighted was the adaptability and engagement value of the K.L.I. intervention materials as critical factors in their implementation. Teachers reported that the diverse range of science and social studies content, especially with intriguing themes like robotic technology, animal communication, and voting in a democracy, was designed to appeal to student interests (T3, T5, and T8).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-31">Instructional routines</hd> <p>Teachers also highlighted the predictability and routine embedded in the activities as strengths of the K.L.I. intervention. Structured exercises like sentence-building and discussion prompts were particularly beneficial for students' abilities to establish a consistent learning routine in a group. These routines helped create a familiar learning environment for students, where they knew what to expect and could focus more on the content rather than the lesson's structure (T4 and T9).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-32">Contextual constraints</hd> <p>A key challenge repeatedly mentioned by teachers (T1, T3, T5, T6, T8, and T9) was time constraints. At least one or more components of the modules were designed to easily fit in the typical 30-minute blocks of time that teachers in earlier phases of the study had built into their ESL or small-group schedules. However, teachers often wanted additional time to complete planned activities. The impact of time constraints on implementing specific activities, particularly the Inquiry Space, emerged as a concern (T1, T3, and T9). Teachers noted that the intensive nature of this task often resulted in limited student involvement, with teachers having to take on a more substantial role due to time limitations. For example, T1 expressed a desire for students to be more actively involved in contributing to and developing the Inquiry Space but noted that time restrictions often made this challenging. Moreover, T2 specifically highlighted the inadequacy of 30-minute sessions. She desired sessions to last 45 min instead of 30, indicating that the additional time would significantly improve their ability to complete all lesson components.</p> <p>Time constraint also affects relationship-building between peer teachers and students. T2 mentioned that the need to have "free talk" or discussion with students, which is a critical element for creating a supportive learning environment and understanding individual student needs, was complex to accommodate within the tight time frame of 30 min, which was the amount of time she had available in her schedule for small-group instruction. Furthermore, other teachers (T1 and T3) noted that pulling students for the intervention twice a week was beneficial, yet achieving consistency without long pauses between lessons was difficult due to the limited time slots. The ideal implementation frequency would be maintaining a steady learning pace every other day. However, irregular attendance and difficulty scheduling consistent sessions due to competing academic priorities made this ideal hard to achieve.</p> <p>Beyond the duration of individual sessions, the broader context of school scheduling imposed additional constraints. In their interviews, teachers described the scheduling strategies they planned to use to support consistent implementation. Some teachers integrated the K.L.I. intervention into existing structures, such as pull-out ESL sessions, typically allocating 45 min four days a week. Others scheduled the intervention during protected small-group times or end-of-day blocks, ranging from 30 to 45 min, often twice a week. This scheduling allowed them to maintain a routine aligned with the intervention demands without significantly disrupting standard curriculum activities. However, as the year progressed, teachers experienced difficulties in allocating sufficient time for the K.L.I. program and integrating these sessions into the school timetable. Fixed academic blocks compounded this challenge, as did other intervention programs and standardized testing periods, further restricting the flexibility required for consistent implementation. T3 mentioned the challenge of fitting the 30-minute intervention sessions into a schedule packed with core subjects and other commitments. This difficulty was exacerbated by the rigid structure of school timetables, which often left little room for flexible scheduling for the intervention. Notably, a critical barrier was the disruption caused by the long ACCESS standardized testing window (T5 and T6). During the testing period between January and March, the regular schedule of ML instruction was significantly disrupted or paused, limiting the time available for the K.L.I. intervention.</p> <p>Another concern raised by the teachers was the stress associated with balancing the demands of integrating a new program with ongoing professional responsibilities in the limited availability of time for planning and preparation. As T8 acknowledged, despite the benefits that structured planning can bring to effectively integrating a new program, finding time is challenging in a teacher's already crowded schedule. Moreover, T8 highlighted the need for teachers to self-assess their capacity to manage the added stress of implementing new interventions. This self-assessment may be a critical step in ensuring that introducing new programs in school contexts does not overwhelm teachers, potentially compromising their well-being and the quality of student learning opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-33">RQ3: integration</hd> <p>The teacher interviews highlighted the alignment of the intervention with existing curricular practices. Teachers observed the coherence between the K.L.I. core components and their literacy program (T2), allowing for the integration of the new intervention into their existing routines and curricular frameworks. Teachers appreciated the compatibility of the K.L.I. intervention curriculum with their current teaching practices. For instance, the use of the existing curriculum in general classroom practice was echoed in the K.L.I approach, which either preloaded or reviewed those concepts (T2). This similarity eased the implementation process, as teachers could blend the intervention into their lesson plans without the need for extensive modifications. Moreover, teachers shared that the K.L.I. intervention's focus on collaborative learning and student interaction dovetailed with their teaching approach, particularly in fostering peer discussions and small-group group activities. This similarity in pedagogical approach was seen as beneficial for students and teachers, as it reinforced the learning environment that teachers had already cultivated, promoting active learning and student engagement (T2).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-34">RQ4: implementation fidelity</hd> <p>Implementation map data (see Table S1-S5) revealed generally high fidelity to the K.L.I. intervention, with adherence rates ranging from 60% to 100%. Most instructional components were implemented as intended across the nine teachers, with full adherence (100%) observed in several cases despite limited observations. Breaking Words and Sentence Workshop demonstrated consistently high adherence due to their structured routines and clear prompts. In contrast, Discovery Reading and Uncover the Structure exhibited greater variability, particularly in tasks requiring significant metacognitive scaffolding (Discovery Reading) and student-driven activities involving the Inquiry Space (Uncover the Structure). These findings are summarized in Table 2, which details module completion progress. Six teachers completed one or two full 41-lesson modules, while three completed 45–65% of a module.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-35">RQ5: preliminary effectiveness</hd> <p>Teacher learning outcomes from the PD course showed significant improvement, with pre-course mean scores at 23.6 (<emph>SD</emph> = 8.6) increasing to post-course mean scores at 32.1 (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.2). This statistically significant change, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref99">8</reflink>) = 3.53, <emph>p</emph> <.01, indicates the effectiveness of the PD course in enhancing teacher knowledge. The evaluation of the student assessment data revealed statistically significant improvements in student learning outcomes between pre-and post-test measures (see Table 4). The analysis demonstrated a significant increase in mean scores for affix knowledge and text structure awareness measures (<emph>ps</emph> <.001). Significant improvements were also noted in module-specific vocabulary knowledge for the modules of <emph>Robotic Technology</emph>, <emph>Space Pollution, A New Home,</emph> and <emph>Animal Communication</emph> (<emph>ps</emph> <.05). Furthermore, significant differences in module-specific topic knowledge were observed across all assessed modules (<emph>ps</emph> <.05).</p> <p>Table 4. Descriptive statistics of pre and post-test student measures and comparison results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Measures</td><td>Pretest</td><td>Posttest</td><td><italic>t</italic>(<italic>df</italic>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>N</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Affixes</td><td char=".">22.71</td><td char=".">11.92</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">30.29</td><td char=".">8.27</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">5.47 (34)***</td></tr><tr><td>Text structure awareness</td><td char=".">4.18</td><td char=".">2.07</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">6.32</td><td char=".">1.66</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">4.68 (33)***</td></tr><tr><td>Module-specific vocabulary</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Space Pollution</td><td char=".">23.14</td><td char=".">1.77</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">26.29</td><td char=".">3.55</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">2.98 (6)*</td></tr><tr><td> A New Home</td><td char=".">22.33</td><td char=".">4.12</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">25.78</td><td char=".">3.99</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">2.71 (8)*</td></tr><tr><td> Animal Communication</td><td char=".">24.42</td><td char=".">3.68</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">27.58</td><td char=".">4.66</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">3.06 (11)*</td></tr><tr><td> Robotic Technology</td><td char=".">21.93</td><td char=".">6.84</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">27.00</td><td char=".">3.93</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">2.53 (14)*</td></tr><tr><td> Voting in a Democracy</td><td char=".">13.71</td><td char=".">5.65</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">22.57</td><td char=".">6.21</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">2.32 (6)†</td></tr><tr><td>Module-specific topic knowledge</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Space Pollution</td><td char=".">9.14</td><td char=".">2.67</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">13.57</td><td char=".">3.10</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">3.44 (6)*</td></tr><tr><td> A New Home</td><td char=".">12.00</td><td char=".">3.08</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">18.56</td><td char=".">2.74</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">5.11 (8)***</td></tr><tr><td> Animal Communication</td><td char=".">11.33</td><td char=".">3.55</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">16.25</td><td char=".">3.05</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">4.57 (11)***</td></tr><tr><td> Robotic Technology</td><td char=".">11.07</td><td char=".">3.53</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">16.60</td><td char=".">3.56</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">5.95 (14)***</td></tr><tr><td> Voting in a Democracy</td><td char=".">7.57</td><td char=".">2.64</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">13.29</td><td char=".">3.73</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">5.07 (6)**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. †<emph>p</emph> <.10, *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-36">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study evaluated the feasibility of the K.L.I. intervention, an innovative approach aimed at improving language proficiency, reading comprehension, and content learning among ML-ELs in Grades 3 to 5. By focusing on the feasibility of the new intervention, this study contributes to a broader understanding of how to refine and adapt programs to better serve ML-ELs' language and reading comprehension needs. Unlike traditional approaches that often isolate language development from content learning, the K.L.I. intervention integrated structured inquiry into language instruction, which aligns with research suggesting that content knowledge plays a critical role in reading comprehension, particularly for ML-ELs (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]; Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref101">9</reflink>]; Relyea et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref102">74</reflink>]). This integrated approach provides them with the tools to simultaneously enhance their language repertoire and reading comprehension while engaging with complex academic content, particularly in subjects such as science and social studies (Goldenberg, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref103">31</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref104">71</reflink>]; Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref105">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>A central contribution of this study lies in its systematic evaluation of the feasibility of the intervention, which is a crucial step often overlooked in educational research (Gadke et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref106">28</reflink>]; Tickle-Degnen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref107">82</reflink>]). The focus on feasibility is crucial because educational interventions often falter when practical constraints are not adequately considered in the early stages of development (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref108">6</reflink>]; Zucker et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref109">85</reflink>]). By examining the five dimensions of feasibility—acceptability, practicality, integration, implementation fidelity, and preliminary effectiveness—this study contributes insights into how the K.L.I. intervention can be effectively implemented and sustained within authentic school contexts. This comprehensive feasibility evaluation provides evidence that the intervention is both theoretically sound and practically viable, offering a potential model for how such programs can be scaled and adapted across diverse settings (Durlak & Dupre, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref110">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-37">Acceptability and practicality of the K.L.I. intervention</hd> <p>The findings indicate that the K.L.I. intervention was generally well-received by teachers, as reflected by strong ratings for usability, coherence, and ease of use. Teachers consistently reported that the intervention was accessible for everyday instructional use, integrating effectively into their existing teaching practices. High acceptability is critical for the successful implementation of educational interventions, as teacher buy-in plays a key role in supporting sustained use and overall effectiveness (Sanetti & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref111">77</reflink>]). When teachers feel confident in their ability to implement an intervention with ease, they are more likely to continue its use, which can lead to better outcomes for students. The positive reception of the K.L.I. intervention suggests it aligns well with teachers' professional responsibilities, particularly in supporting the dual development of language and content knowledge for ML-ELs.</p> <p>One key factor contributing to the positive reception was the structured nature of all lesson plans, which allowed teachers to focus more on engaging their students with the material rather than being burdened by the logistics of lesson delivery. The clarity and organization of the materials likely contributed to the high ratings for usability and coherence, as well as teachers' confidence in integrating the intervention into their regular classroom routines. This organizational structure is especially important in classrooms with diverse learners, where teachers should balance varying language proficiency levels while covering academic content. Teachers appreciated the K.L.I. intervention's ability to streamline this process, viewing it as a significant benefit.</p> <p>Despite these positive attributes, the need for additional scaffolding, particularly for younger ML-ELs, was highlighted as an area for improvement. Teachers noted that certain topics, especially in social studies (e.g., <emph>Voting in a Democracy</emph>), were difficult for them to navigate without supplementary background knowledge or support. This finding reflects a common tension in educational design: creating interventions that are both accessible and sufficiently rigorous to promote deep learning. Even structured interventions must allow for flexibility to accommodate students with different levels of language and content proficiency. Incorporating additional scaffolding through multimedia tools and real-world artifacts could support their access to academic content, enabling younger or less proficient learners to fully engage with the material (García & Kleifgen, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref112">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the K.L.I. intervention's aims and approaches align well with teachers' expectations for an effective reading intervention, which is crucial for fostering a positive attitude toward its implementation (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref113">76</reflink>]) and ensuring sustained use in practice (Eckert & Hintze, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref114">24</reflink>]; Gresham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref115">37</reflink>]; Leko, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref116">54</reflink>]). The minimal perceived complexity and high usability scores indicate that the intervention is perceived as straightforward and manageable within typical school contexts. These factors are likely to facilitate the adoption and sustainability of the intervention, which are as crucial as its effectiveness. However, moderate scores on the need to learn new aspects before using the intervention suggest that initial teacher training could be enhanced to bridge any gaps between the theoretical underpinnings and practical implementation.</p> <p>In terms of practicality, our findings show that the K.L.I. intervention was bolstered by its organizational efficiency, accessibility, and adaptability. Teachers praised the well-structured and clearly labeled materials for reducing preparation time and streamlining the teaching process, enabling them to focus more on student engagement (Bowen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref117">6</reflink>]). The structured lesson plans provided a clear roadmap for K.L.I. instruction, which is particularly valuable in settings where time constraints limit the ability to create and organize materials. The accessibility of the intervention's materials, especially beneficial in small-group settings with diverse learner needs, was another key factor in its practicality. The materials were designed to accommodate the needs of ML-ELs, offering additional support in language development and reading comprehension.</p> <p>The synergy between well-organized materials and their accessibility likely improved the feasibility of the intervention by reducing the cognitive load on teachers. This aspect matters when time is scarce, and teachers are pressured to maximize instructional impact. By alleviating logistical challenges, the K.L.I. materials enabled teachers to concentrate more on addressing individual student needs. The content diversity of the intervention, with engaging themes like <emph>Robotic Technology</emph> and <emph>Animal Communication</emph>, helped maintain student engagement and fostered a deeper connection to the reading materials, enhancing their overall learning experience (Guthrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref118">39</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref119">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, teacher interviews revealed that time constraints posed significant barriers to the consistent implementation of the intervention in school contexts. The broader school context, including fixed academic schedules, other intervention programs, and standardized testing periods, further compounded these challenges, leaving little room for the flexibility needed to implement the K.L.I. intervention effectively. Time constraints can directly impact the depth and quality of learning for ML-ELs, as teachers must balance individualized attention with the demands of a comprehensive curriculum (Samson & Collins, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref120">75</reflink>]). Additionally, these constraints place additional pressure on teachers, potentially leading to inconsistent implementation (Menken & García, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref121">61</reflink>]). Without sufficient time for planning, preparation, and implementation, the potential benefits of the intervention for ML-ELs may not be fully realized (de Jong & Harper, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref122">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Addressing these time constraints may necessitate a multifaceted approach. One potential strategy could involve expanding the scope of the intervention beyond ESL teachers to include additional general classroom teachers, distributing the responsibility across a broader range of educators. This expansion would provide more opportunities for integrating the intervention into regular classroom schedules and help bridge the gap between ESL and reading instruction for ML-ELs (Gersten et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref123">30</reflink>]). Furthermore, incorporating the intervention components into the general education curriculum would allow classroom teachers to create a more cohesive and inclusive learning environment for ML-ELs, offering additional learning opportunities. Two of the teachers in the current study were classroom teachers, and they were able to fully implement two modules with their students. A collaborative approach among teachers working with ML-ELs would foster a more integrated framework for language and literacy development (Babinski et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref124">4</reflink>]), which is particularly beneficial in addressing time constraints more effectively (Maheady et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref125">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-38">Integration of K.L.I. into existing school systems</hd> <p>The findings that teachers could incorporate the K.L.I. intervention into existing literacy programs across the existing school systems highlight its compatibility with established educational frameworks. This compatibility suggests that the intervention can be adopted without substantial changes to current teaching methods, which is critical for its acceptance and sustainability in real-world educational settings. When an educational intervention aligns well with the pedagogical needs and existing infrastructures of schools, it can effectively address gaps within current programs without burdening teachers with entirely new methodologies and improve the services and outcomes for ML-ELs (Locke et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref126">55</reflink>]; Noell et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref127">65</reflink>]). The K.L.I. instructional components likely complemented rather than complicated teachers' instructional strategies, allowing teachers to maintain continuity in their practices while introducing metacognitive strategies that enhance their language and text comprehension and enrich their learning experience. Further development of the intervention could explore how K.L.I. could be tailored to align with other content-area (e.g., science and social studies) educational standards and frameworks. This adaptation could broaden its applicability and adoption across various content-area lessons, contributing to ML-ELs' content knowledge-building and literacy development.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-39">Implementation fidelity and effectiveness of K.L.I</hd> <p>The findings demonstrate generally high implementation fidelity across the teachers, highlighting the feasibility of the intervention in small-group instructional settings. This consistency can largely be attributed to the PD course, which provided the teachers with a clear understanding of the intervention framework and practical strategies for implementation. Structured components like Breaking Words and Sentence Workshop were implemented with consistently high adherence, reflecting their alignment with teachers' existing practices and the clarity of their instructional routines. In contrast, variability was observed in components requiring higher cognitive engagement or student-driven activities, such as Discovery Reading and Uncover the Structure. Tasks involving metacognitive scaffolding or facilitation of independent student activities were less consistently implemented, suggesting the need for additional scaffolding and practical tools to support the teachers in implementing these cognitively demanding components more consistently. Variations in intervention dosage also emerged, which were likely influenced by external constraints, including time limitations imposed by WIDA ACCESS assessments during the spring semester. These constraints highlight the importance of addressing scheduling barriers and enhancing support for implementing more demanding components in future iterations to maximize the intervention's feasibility and scalability.</p> <p>The K.L.I. intervention also demonstrated its effectiveness, as evidenced by improvements in students' abilities to manipulate affixes, understand text structures, and acquire module-specific vocabulary and topic knowledge, which are crucial competencies for informational text reading comprehension. Without a comparison group, we cannot make strong causal claims about these changes, but the pre- to post-intervention changes are still noteworthy. Improving ML-ELs' ability to manipulate affixes is crucial for decoding multisyllabic academic words, a fundamental skill for developing vocabulary knowledge and enhancing reading comprehension (Kieffer & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref128">48</reflink>]). Additionally, increasing students' text structure awareness is vital for navigating expository texts effectively and improving information retention and organization (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref129">84</reflink>]).</p> <p>The significant increases in module-specific vocabulary and topic knowledge in science and social studies also underscore the effectiveness of the intervention in bolstering content knowledge. Vocabulary knowledge represents the "tip of the conceptual iceberg" (Anderson & Freebody, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref130">3</reflink>], p. 82), a gateway to deeper content understanding and academic language proficiency. By improving targeted domain-specific vocabulary, the K.L.I. intervention aids ML-ELs in language development and in establishing a foundation for content learning, which is essential for engaging with the school curriculum more profoundly.</p> <p>The improvements in teachers' knowledge scores also highlight the effectiveness of the PD course as a key element of the K.L.I. intervention. These gains reflect the role of the course in deepening teachers' understanding of reading development and instructional routines, which are critical for delivering the intervention with fidelity. By building this foundational knowledge, the PD course prepares teachers to address the instructional demands of the intervention. These findings provide promising preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of the PD course in supporting teacher preparation and underscore its importance in the overall feasibility and potential scalability of the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-40">Implications and conclusion</hd> <p>This study provided critical insights into the feasibility of the K.L.I. intervention, designed to enhance language and reading comprehension among upper elementary-grade ML-ELs. The findings affirmed the intervention's potential and informed the next steps for refinement and broader implementation. Future iterations of the K.L.I. intervention may benefit from increased flexibility to accommodate the constraints of school schedules, which is a key aspect highlighted in this study. While the intervention was well-received, its implementation faced barriers due to the rigid and often unpredictable nature of school timetables, particularly during standardized testing periods.</p> <p>Additionally, the intervention could be strengthened by offering clearer guidelines and support for teachers on integrating K.L.I. activities into Tier 1 general classroom instruction. Enhanced PD sessions should promote collaborative strategies between ESL and classroom teachers, fostering a unified approach to implementing literacy instructional strategies and intervention content across various instructional contexts. This unified approach could help create a more cohesive educational experience for ML-ELs (Babinski et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref131">4</reflink>]). Training ESL teachers in literacy and informational text comprehension through the K.L.I. framework may also provide them with strategies to better support ML-ELs in navigating complex texts and academic content. These PD opportunities have the potential to empower teachers and increase the overall effectiveness of the intervention, maximizing the benefits for all learners.</p> <p>This study also highlights the importance of conducting feasibility research before scaling educational interventions (Gadke et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref132">28</reflink>]). By systematically evaluating multiple dimensions, such as acceptability, practicality, integration, implementation fidelity, and preliminary effectiveness, this study not only assessed the potential of the intervention but also identified key implementation barriers. Addressing these challenges early in the development process can enable researchers and practitioners to refine intervention design and delivery, improving the likelihood of success on a larger scale. Furthermore, this study can serve as an example of how feasibility research can be conceptualized and inform educational intervention development. One caveat in interpreting the findings is the low number of participating students and teachers, along with variability in completed lessons and modules. While the results are promising, they should be interpreted within the context of these constraints. Future design-based research should focus on increasing participant consistency and providing adequate exposure to intervention components to enable more robust evaluations of feasibility.</p> <p>This feasibility evaluation has meaningful implications for developing informed and sustainable literacy instructional practices aimed at improving reading comprehension for ML-ELs and supporting their teachers. The findings emphasize the importance of understanding and addressing the multifaceted challenges of real-world implementation early in the intervention design process to promote the use of responsive and practical strategies that align with the instructional and learning needs of ML-ELs' reading comprehension development.</p> <hd id="AN0182980759-41">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182980759-42"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> In this study, we use the term "multilingual student classified as English learner" (ML-EL) to reflect an asset-based view of multilingualism while maintaining the specificity needed to identify students eligible for English language support under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Mavrogordato et al., [58]). This term emphasizes both the strengths of multilingualism and the educational challenges experienced by this group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2024.2449035.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0182980759-43"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abedi, J., & Herman, J. (2010). Assessing English language learners' opportunity to learn mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 112 (3), 723 – 746. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32 (8), 10 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77 – 117). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref124" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Babinski, L. M., Amendum, S. J., Knotek, S. E., Sánchez, M., & Malone, P. (2018). Improving young English learners' language and literacy skills through teacher professional development: A randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 55 (1), 117 – 143. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217732335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school. (NCEE 2014-4012). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications%5freviews.aspx">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications%5freviews.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref56" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., & Fernandez, M. (2009). How we design feasibility studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36 (5), 452 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref92" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref85" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189 (194), 4 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Capin, P., Stevens, E. A., Stewart, A. A., Swanson, E., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Examining vocabulary, reading comprehension, and content knowledge instruction during fourth grade social studies teaching. Reading and Writing, 34 (5), 1143 – 1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10106-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter, S. L. (2008). Further conceptualization of treatment acceptability. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 135 – 143.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31 (2), 199 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Roberts, G. J., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (6), 982 – 1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coiro, J., Sekeres, D. C., Castek, J., & Guzniczak, L. (2016). Exploring the impact of inquiry-based learning on the development of reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 48 (3), 123 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16654657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts (Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, H. (2014). Creating cultures of engagement: Fostering literacy through student inquiry. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, D. S., Samuelson, C., Grifenhagen, J., DeIaco, R., & Relyea, J. (2022). Getting KnERDI with language: Examining teachers' knowledge for enhancing reading development in code-based and meaning-based domains. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (3), 781 – 804. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32 (2), 101 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond, K. E., & Powell, D. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33 (1), 75 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111400416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domitrovich, C. E., Moore, J. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of social-emotional interventions for young children through high-quality implementation of evidence-based interventions. In B. Kelly & D. F. Perkins (Eds.), Handbook of implementation science for psychology in education (pp. 207 – 229). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013949.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S25 – S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (3–4), 327 – 350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eckert, T. L., & Hintze, J. M. (2000). Behavioral conceptions and applications of acceptability: Issues related to service delivery and research methodology. School Psychology Quarterly, 15 (2), 123 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 5 (1), 47 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:Prev.0000013981.28071.52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade. (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: <ulink href="http://whatworks.ed.gov">http://whatworks.ed.gov</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield, S. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 28 (2), 77 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadke, D. L., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gettinger, M. (2021). Incorporating feasibility protocols in intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 84, 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2020). Translanguaging and Literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (4), 553 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2007-4011. What Works Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S131 – S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. (2016). TRANSLATE: New strategic approaches for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 69 (6), 621 – 625. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39 (1), 3 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242780203900101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2005). The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research, and practice. Promotion of Mental Health and Prevention of Mental and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 1 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. The American Psychologist, 58 (6-7), 466 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18 (1), 37 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1989.12085399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (3), 403 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, C., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., McCulley, L. V., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (4), 763 – 794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattan, C., Alexander, P. A., & Lupo, S. M. (2024). Leveraging what students know to make sense of texts: What the research says about prior knowledge activation. Review of Educational Research, 94 (1), 73 – 111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, E. D. (2019). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2 (2), 127 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute of Education Sciences. (2023). Request for applications: Special education research grants. US Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (1), 90 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12 (4), 493 – 506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(81)80087-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 235 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 21 (8), 783 – 804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relyea, J. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Elmore, J. (2021). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (1), 3 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimball, D. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). Transfer and expertise. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 109 – 122). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knecht, R., Larson, L., & Townsend, D. (2023). Exploring teacher and student knowledge of sentence‐level language features. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 66 (6), 344 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kucan, L., & Palincsar, A. S. (2013). Comprehension instruction through text-based discussion. International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko, M. M. (2014). The value of qualitative methods in social validity research. Remedial and Special Education, 35 (5), 275 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514524002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke, J., Hugh, M. L., Pullmann, M. D., Cook, H., Coifman, J., McRee, E., Joshi, M., Lyon, A. R., & Schwartz, I. (2021). Exploring individual and organizational mechanisms of implementation of evidence-based practices for the inclusion of elementary students with autism: Study protocol. International Journal of Educational Research, 108, 101779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maheady, L., Smith, C., & Jabot, M. (2016). Field-based teacher preparation in inclusive, evidence-based practices for English learners with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39 (3), 226 – 240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mancilla‐Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers' word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82 (5), 1544 – 1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mavrogordato, M., Bartlett, C., Callahan, R., DeMatthews, D., & Izquierdo, E. (2024). Supports for multilingual students who are classified as English learners. Overview Brief# 15: Vulnerable Populations. Updated. EdResearch for Action. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED656680.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, P., & Howard, E. (1998). Practicality in curriculum design: The degree to which an innovation is practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 28 (2), 207 – 223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22 (3), 247 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools. Educators as Policymakers. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nastasi, B. K., & Truscott, S. D. (2000). Acceptability research in school psychology: Current trends and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 15 (2), 117 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). English learners in public school. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers' word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster‐randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (3), 249 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Gilbertson, D., Ranier, D. D., & Freeland, J. T. (1997). Increasing teacher intervention implementation in general education settings through consultation and performance feedback. School Psychology Quarterly, 12 (1), 77 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 33 – 84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orsmond, G. I., & Cohn, E. S. (2015). The distinctive features of a feasibility study: Objectives and guiding questions. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 35 (3), 169 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449215578649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In P. D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.), Research- based practices for Common Core literacy (pp. 1–24). New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., Jones, R. L., & Hartranft, A. M. (2020). Teaching bilingual learners: Effects of a language‐based reading intervention on academic language and reading comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (1), 95 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined. In B. Laufer & P. Bogaards (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp. 209 – 227). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.10.15rea</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Relyea, J. E., Kim, J. S., Rich, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2024). Effects of tier 1 content literacy intervention on early-grade English learners' reading and writing: Exploring the mediating roles of domain-specific vocabulary and oral language proficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116 (7), 1172 – 1195. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000882</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners. Center for American Progress.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanetti, L. M. H., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2017). Treatment integrity: Evidence-based interventions in applied settings. In L. A. Theodore (Ed.), Handbook of evidence-based interventions for children and adolescents (pp. 3 – 14). Springer Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2014). Introduction: Treatment integrity in psychological research and practice. In L. M. H. Sanetti & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Treatment integrity: A foundation for evidence-based practice in applied psychology (pp. 3 – 11). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14275-001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sekeres, D. C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Guzniczak, L., & Henry, L. A. (2014). Inquiry-based discussions in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 30 (4), 355 – 381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.878643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M., & Francis, J. J. (2017). Acceptability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Services Research, 17 (1), 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES practice guide. NCEE 2010-4038 What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, R. D., Proctor, C. P., Harring, J. R., Taylor, K. S., Johnson, E. M., Jones, R. L., & Lee, Y. (2021). The effect of a language and literacy intervention on upper elementary bilingual students' argument writing. The Elementary School Journal, 122 (2), 208 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1086/716897</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tickle-Degnen, L. (2013). Nuts and bolts of conducting feasibility studies. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy: Official Publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, 67 (2), 171 – 176. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.006270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Taylor, M. J., Newman-Gonchar, R., Krowka, S., Kieffer, M. J., McKeown, M., Reed, D., Sanchez, M., St. Martin, K., Wexler, J., Morgan, S., Yañez, A., & Jayanthi, M. (2022). Providing reading interventions for students in grades 4–9. (WWC 2022007) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. P., Kao, J. C., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., Cheng, R., & DeBonis, D. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (8), 1061 – 1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zucker, T. A., Carlo, M. S., Landry, S. H., Masood-Saleem, S. S., Williams, J. M., & Bhavsar, V. (2019). Iterative design and pilot testing of the developing talkers tiered academic language curriculum for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12 (2), 274 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1519623</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jackie E. Relyea; Dennis Davis; Corrie Dobis; Becky Huang and Courtney Samuelson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref127"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED664085
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) Intervention for Multilingual English Learners
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jackie+E%2E+Relyea%22">Jackie E. Relyea</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7560-7136">0000-0002-7560-7136</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dennis+S%2E+Davis%22">Dennis S. Davis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2114-2860">0000-0003-2114-2860</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Corrie+Dobis%22">Corrie Dobis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-6669">0000-0002-1482-6669</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Becky+Huang%22">Becky Huang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3235-5298">0000-0003-3235-5298</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Courtney+Samuelson%22">Courtney Samuelson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-3230">0000-0003-3299-3230</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Grantee+Submission%22"><i>Grantee Submission</i></searchLink>. 2025.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 45
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A200283
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingualism%22">Multilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lesson+Plans%22">Lesson Plans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Text+Structure%22">Text Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Management%22">Time Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Resources%22">Educational Resources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Specialists%22">Specialists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00220671.2024.2449035
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study evaluated the feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) intervention, designed to support Grades 3-5 multilingual students classified as English learners (ML-ELs) in building content knowledge, language skills, and reading comprehension through inquiry-based small-group instruction. Feasibility was examined across five dimensions--acceptability, practicality, integration, implementation fidelity, and effectiveness--using teacher interviews, ratings, lesson observations, and student and teacher learning outcome assessments. Findings suggest that the intervention was generally well-received by teachers, with structured lesson plans and resources facilitating implementation. Teachers demonstrated increased knowledge in reading instruction and the intervention following professional development, and students showed gains in vocabulary, text structure awareness, and topic-specific knowledge. However, time constraints during standardized testing periods limited consistent implementation. These findings inform the refinement of the K.L.I. intervention for broader application, emphasizing the need to address contextual challenges and conduct future evaluations to support its larger-scale implementation and improve ML-ELs' literacy outcomes. [This paper will be published in "The Journal of Educational Research."]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED664085
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED664085
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00220671.2024.2449035
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 45
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multilingualism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lesson Plans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Text Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Resources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Specialists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Feasibility of the Knowledge, Language, and Inquiry (K.L.I.) Intervention for Multilingual English Learners
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jackie E. Relyea
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dennis S. Davis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Corrie Dobis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Becky Huang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Courtney Samuelson
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 09
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Grantee Submission
              Type: main
ResultId 1