View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reading Development and Achievement of 4th-Grade Hmong Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reading Development and Achievement of 4th-Grade Hmong Students
Language: English
Authors: Mahowald, Megan, Loughnane, Megan
Source: Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2016 30(1):57-73.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Elementary Education
Descriptors: Grade 4, Reading Achievement, Reading Improvement, Reading Tests, Mixed Methods Research, Standardized Tests, Case Studies, Classroom Observation Techniques, Interviews, Oral Language, Asian American Students, English Language Learners, English (Second Language), Student Motivation, Language Acquisition, Hmong People, Sino Tibetan Languages
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language
DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2015.1107155
ISSN: 0256-8543
Abstract: Researchers and practitioners alike have noted that Hmong students in the United States do not achieve as well as their monolingual peers and other bilingual students. The current mixed-methods study is designed to describe reading development and achievement of 4th-grade Hmong students in one large, urban school district. This study explores the reading achievement of 4th-grade Hmong students through a quantitative analysis of standardized reading assessment scores; additionally, the researchers utilize a case study method to describe reading achievement in a classroom setting by studying cases of grade-level (achieving readers) and below-grade-level (struggling) readers. A protocol including reading and oral language assessment, interviews, and classroom observations is used to describe students' skills. The data were analyzed at the group level (collective case study) to describe patterns of achievement and at the individual level to create profiles of reading achievement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 39
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1085680
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHpeTczmLAkpsyszOAJ2J37AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEZL_8mCBJJOHYNOTgIBEICBmzQTnz0kHMFmnLAkJaq6A6nPbWWyd4Lqv1ubfnPI98EOf7FrMilZ_sVuwSS7AjA26LLc7HBOGTgioINPN5kwBGG2YKWxqC42T1A-rPh9YC6EAWGxLCJlD0r_Agcly7kneXqp1BWvttujcz0hy26CxQLNXGG6cVpg-fTFZpsH0uWMtVOhw8UQvHed43C2OdKUQ5eAl8h7yNUk7ZNS
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0111967904;40z01jan.16;2019Feb13.16:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0111967904-1">Reading Development and Achievement of 4th-Grade Hmong Students. </title> <p>Researchers and practitioners alike have noted that Hmong students in the United States do not achieve as well as their monolingual peers and other bilingual students. The current mixed-methods study is designed to describe reading development and achievement of 4th-grade Hmong students in one large, urban school district. This study explores the reading achievement of 4th-grade Hmong students through a quantitative analysis of standardized reading assessment scores; additionally, the researchers utilize a case study method to describe reading achievement in a classroom setting by studying cases of grade-level (achieving readers) and below-grade-level (struggling) readers. A protocol including reading and oral language assessment, interviews, and classroom observations is used to describe students' skills. The data were analyzed at the group level (collective case study) to describe patterns of achievement and at the individual level to create profiles of reading achievement.</p> <p>Keywords: Childhood literacy; English language learners; Hmong; language development; reading development</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to first present the history of the Hmong and then examine reading achievement for students from this unique cultural/linguistic group juxtaposed with reading achievement within the general English language learner (ELL) population in the United States. To gain in-depth insight about this experience, we chose to investigate 4th-grade Hmong students' reading development and achievement via a case study of 10 4th-grade Hmong students. The study was implemented in an urban school district (pseudonym—Lake View School District) in a Midwest state in the United States. Nearly one fourth of Lake View's student population is Hmong. The history of this cultural/linguistic group is explored, which leads into a discussion of reading instruction for Hmong students and the general ELL population. To more fully understand this population, a linguistic comparison will be made between Hmong and English and the education climate at the time of the study is discussed.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-2">Historical considerations of Hmong reading and language development</hd> <p>The Hmong struggle for literacy and access to reading instruction began well before coming to the United States. Historically, Hmong living in China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand did not have a written language (Duffy, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]). Even in the absence of their own written language, the Hmong did not learn to read and write in Chinese (the dominant culture). Survival took on prime importance for the Hmong people, many of whom were so focused on their continued existence that they did not take advantage of schooling even when it was an option. As a result of French colonialism, schools were established in Laos in the 19th century, but they were discriminatory to Hmong. Hmong students were instructed in a language other than their own (Laotian) and often could not speak, read, or write in the language of instruction. Despite the obstacles the Hmong people faced in adopting a written language, the value of reading and writing was well established. Duffy ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]) explains how Hmong perceived literacy:</p> <p>Literacy and education were seen as means by which the Hmong might achieve a measure of respect. ... Learning to read and write was not only an escape from the punishing manual labor of agricultural life, but it was also a statement of equality, a way of asserting the social and intellectual quality of Hmong with the Lao people. (p. 244)</p> <p>In the 1960s, Hmong student enrollment began to increase in schools just as the United States began bombing of the Laotian highlands. In the midst of a war, the Hmong people were once again thrust into survival mode. In the 1970s, young Hmong students were no longer sent to school, they were sent to battle. Without a home to return to, many Hmong made their way to the refugee camps in Thailand and Vietnam.</p> <p>Forty percent of adults inside the relocation camp of Wat Thamkrabok were unemployed (Lor, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]). Education options for camp residents were limited; parents had to pay to have their children attend the school within the camp, and it was not always possible or reasonable to do so. Parents could choose to send their children to school outside of the camp, attend school inside the camp, or home-school their children. When students attended school outside the camp, instruction was in Thai and no interpreters were available for Hmong students. Hmong students could attend school until 9th grade but had no opportunity for higher education. Instruction was rote memorization; students copied from a blackboard and had very little verbal practice. In 2003, English instruction became a part of the curriculum when they learned that the camp population would be resettled in the United States (Lor, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]). In 2004, Wat Thamkrabok closed and 15,000 Hmong refugees resettled to the United States. Approximately 5,000 of these refugees settled within the geographical area investigated (Ngo, Bigelow, & Wahlstrom, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]). Nearly 1,000 students matriculated into the Lake View School District.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-3">Reading achievement and instruction of Hmong and ELLs</hd> <p>Lake View embraces the charge of successfully educating Hmong students. At the time of this study, Lake View was home to nearly 38,000 students and was one of the largest school districts in its state. The demographics of Lake View were diverse; 75% of students were students of color, 71% of students received free or reduced-price lunch, and 36% of students had ELL status (45% of students were from homes where a language other than English was spoken). In all, students in this district speak more than 100 different languages and dialects. Lake View educators prided themselves as being highly trained and deeply dedicated to the education of its students. Seventy percent of the teachers had a master's level education, or some type of advanced degree, and the teachers are evaluated annually. Lake View's ELL program used a language academy model, in which students receive intensive English language services when they are new to speaking English. Students also received ELL services within the classroom and in a pull-out model. Regular education teachers were considered collaborators and receive support from the ELL department in increasing language understanding and use in the regular education curriculum. The Lake View ELL program was recognized in a 2011 federal report as an example of a school district showing progress in delivering ELL services. Comparatively, across the state, ELLs perform above the state average on state assessments. However, we found that some cultural/linguistic populations were still falling below expected levels.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-4">Hmong performance on state reading assessment</hd> <p>Focusing specifically on the Hmong population in Lake View, 23% of such students in this district are from homes where Hmong is spoken. This was the largest concentrated population of Hmong students in the state. Within this district, there had been no increase in performance for 4th-graders on state reading assessments from 2009 to 2010. Only 52% of students tested in Lake View were considered proficient according to state reading assessments. According to recent state assessment data, though scores are not necessarily limited to Hmong students, no increase in Asian Americans performances had been observed. Indeed, a decrease had been documented in some grades (3rd, 4th, and 6th). According to a review of data for 4th-graders in 2010, 35% of 4th-grade Hmong students met proficiency standards on the state reading assessment. Forty-three percent of students from any other home languages (non-English) met state proficiency standards in reading. These statistics reveal that 4th-grade Hmong students are scoring significantly lower on the state reading assessment when compared to students with other home languages and students who speak only English.</p> <p>Three studies were identified that investigated the reading development of Hmong students (Helman & Burns, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>]; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>])—a meager research base for this sizeable population of students. Helman and Burns ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]) examined the relationship between oral English proficiency and the acquisition of an English-based, sight word–based vocabulary in 43 2nd-grade students with Hmong-speaking backgrounds who received ELL services in school. They determined that oral language proficiency and acquisition rate of sight words for 2nd-grade Hmong students were related; students with lower oral language proficiency had the lowest rate for acquiring sight words. These results demonstrated that the role of language learning was connected to reading development within the Hmong ELL population, and the relationship between these skills merits further investigation (Helman & Burns, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]) demonstrated that for students whose primary language was Hmong, articulation of sounds influenced kindergarten phonemic awareness and 1st-grade word reading. In addition, Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]) found significant differences between children who spoke Hmong and children who spoke Spanish as their primary language during kindergarten and 1st grade. These differences were found in language variables from which children had received only minimal instruction, with Hmong students performing at lower levels than their Spanish peers. Finally, Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref13">31</reflink>]) examined how home storybook reading (in primary or secondary language) affected classroom storybook reading in preschool children. It was discovered that primary language storybook reading was at least as effective as reading storybook in English in increasing vocabulary.</p> <p>In addition, preliminary data suggest that Hmong students may have more difficulty learning English as a new language. Helman and Frederick ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]) found in their analysis of longitudinal case study data that, in relation to other linguistic groups, Hmong students show a weak developmental trajectory in English oral language and reading skills (Helman & Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]). Over the course of 3 years, though Hmong students were making some gains, their English language was less developed than their Latino/a and Somali counterparts (Helman & Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>These investigations lead to the question: What are the cultural and linguistic differences that may be disproportionately affecting the ability for Hmong students to succeed in reading? Some possible cultural and linguistic explanations seem plausible.</p> <p>Hmong students are a distinctive cultural and linguistic group; due to the historical and social contexts outlined above, the Hmong people have had potentially limited access to standard literacy practices that are valued in school settings. Another issue Hmong students may face is the discursive nature and practices of contemporary American pedagogy. For example, the way that activities are structured in school requires students to understand and express abstract concepts (Vang, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]). Abstract concepts are difficult for ELLs because visual referents are often unavailable, and there is no context to explore ideas through images. Therefore, Hmong students need to rely on language skills to make sense of academic topics. This is especially the case in upper elementary grades, when the language of instruction becomes even more abstract.</p> <p>Although language differences do not account entirely for the perceived discrepancy in achievement of Hmong students, language structures may play a role. There are substantial differences in the form and structure of the Hmong and English language. Hmong is a monosyllabic language utilizing 58 consonants, eight vowels, five dipthongs, and seven tones (Kan & Kohnert, 2005). English words are largely multisyllabic and contain many sound patterns, including 24 consonants, 14 vowels, and nine dipthongs. Hmong relies on word order; most notably, there are no word-level changes in words to create meaning (morphology). English utilizes tense markers, plurals, prefixes, and suffixes to change the meaning of words. Word meaning is derived from combinations of words in Hmong and the language is concept based—that is, meaning is derived externally (Kan & Kohnert, 2005). English relies on rules for combination of words and meaning, derived internally through sentence structure and tense markers (syntax or grammar). A great deal of meaning (such as past, present, and future tense in English) is carried in morphological features. This leads to difficulties for Hmong students learning English, because this is an absent component in their primary language.</p> <p>The paucity of studies of Hmong language development and reading achievement completed in the upper Midwest (Helman & Burns, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]) led us to this timely study.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-5">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>A comprehensive, balanced approach to reading assessment was utilized to design this study. Together, a reading framework, including various dimensions of decoding, comprehension, oral language, and perceptions, was used to inform the research questions and methods of the current study. This comprehensive and balanced approach was at the foremost of importance in selecting the assessments, but we also drew upon several theoretical frameworks of reading development and proficiency (language acquisition, sociocultural, cognitive, psycholinguistic, and affective; see Au, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]; Norton, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]; Stone, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref24">38</reflink>]). These frameworks were selected because language and literacy development is an interaction of innate or organic cognitive and linguistic processes and social relationships and interaction. Although it is understood that certain cognitive/linguistic predispositions exist for language acquisition and literacy development, these processes do not mature in isolation. These innate language-learning processes are developed through social interactions with caregivers, as well as in educational or employment settings. Language and reading development cannot be considered without recognizing the impact of the values, beliefs, and influence of cultural context. Employed together, these paradigms helped to set the parameters for the design of this study and to interpret assessment results. A qualitative collective and individual case study was conducted to fully illustrate the state of Hmong students' reading achievement (see Erickson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]; Patton, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Through their ground-breaking work, Valencia and Buly's ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]) framework of struggling readers also informs the current study. Valencia and Buly analyzed the specific reading abilities of a group of 108 4th-grade students who failed to meet the passing standards required by the state reading assessment. After administering one-on-one reading assessments with the students, using measures including word identification (word reading in isolation and context), meaning (comprehension and vocabulary), and fluency (rate and expression), they identified six separate cluster profiles of students who shared distinct strengths and weaknesses in their reading abilities. They found that the students who had failed state reading tests were not performing uniformly poorly in all areas of reading. Rather, students typically had strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others, making it possible to group them into distinct profiles. The finding that not all readers who are struggling are alike is carried forward into the framework and perspective of the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-6">Research questions</hd> <p>Using the Valencia and Buly ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]) study as a model, the following research questions were posed for this Hmong ELL population: How does oral language, decoding, and comprehension skills contribute to 4th-grade Hmong students' performance on state reading assessments? More specifically, what are the various profiles of 4th-grade Hmong students who pass or do not pass state reading assessments? We sought to explore the variation in reading behaviors by utilizing qualitative methods (collective and individual case study). We employed a qualitative, collective case study (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref29">39</reflink>]) design to provide in-depth description of participants' experiences and explore profiles of reading.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0111967904-8">Researcher role and cautions</hd> <p>Within this study, the first author was an active participant in data collection and data analysis. The first author is a certified speech-language pathologist who, at the time, had worked in public schools for 7 years with various populations of children who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Although cultural, linguistic, and educational experiences are quite different from those of the students, the first author has expert and specific knowledge and experience in eliciting language and conducting assessments with ELL students. The second author did not have direct contact with participants but did assist in data analysis under the direct guidance of first author. It must be acknowledged that all student responses and behaviors are being interpreted through our own cultural and linguistic lenses. We recognize that our own subjectivities are present in all aspects of the study design and acknowledge that our own experiences and beliefs play a strong role in our interpretations.</p> <p>Due to the case study nature of our project, our sample size is small to provide a more detailed and in-depth description of the selected cases experiences. It is, therefore, difficult to make generalizations about larger groups of ELLs. In addition, because of the lack of normed, standardized assessments for Hmong students, we were not able to compare these children to a general sample, so assessments should be interpreted with caution.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-9">Setting</hd> <p>The setting for our study was a magnet school in Lake View, where the majority of students were Hmong (61%). In this school, only 43% of students met the proficiency level on the state reading assessment. This site was selected because there was a concentrated population of Hmong students. The school prides itself on being immersed in Hmong culture. Many references to Hmong culture can be found throughout the school, and the students attend a Hmong literacies program. During classes, students learn how to read and write in Hmong. Despite the Hmong cultural focus, nearly all instruction at the school is completed in English. ELL services are provided in either of two models: push-in (services provided in the regular education classroom) or pull-out (services provided in a separate classroom).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-10">Participants</hd> <p>The participants were 10 4th-grade Hmong students drawn from three 4th-grade classrooms. A bilingual Hmong speech-language pathologist introduced the study to the children in English and Hmong. Translated Hmong and English consent forms were sent home with the children. Once the consent forms were returned to the school, the participants were sorted into two groups. Twenty-one consent forms were returned, based on either a pass or fail result on the state reading assessment; five children were selected from each group (pass/fail) randomly but counterbalanced for gender. The 10 4th-grade participants are described in Table 1, part 2. Pseudonyms are used but the origins of the names were kept (so Hmong/Thai names were replaced with a Hmong/Thai pseudonym, and American names were replaced with an American pseudonym). At the time of the project, no students were receiving special education services, all students were enrolled in American schools since kindergarten, and all students received free/reduced-price lunch.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>State reading assessment score</td><td>Pass/fail</td><td>Classroom ID</td><td>Gender</td><td>Country of birth</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tony</td><td>E370</td><td>Pass</td><td>Classroom #1</td><td>M</td><td>United States</td></tr><tr><td>Destiny</td><td>M355</td><td>Pass</td><td>Classroom #2</td><td>F</td><td>United States</td></tr><tr><td>Houa</td><td>M359</td><td>Pass</td><td>Classroom #2</td><td>F</td><td>Thailand</td></tr><tr><td>Pa Chia</td><td>M353</td><td>Pass</td><td>Classroom #2</td><td>F</td><td>Thailand</td></tr><tr><td>Thao</td><td>P345</td><td>Pass</td><td>Classroom #3</td><td>M</td><td>Thailand</td></tr><tr><td>Lilly</td><td>D323</td><td>Fail</td><td>Classroom #1</td><td>F</td><td>United States</td></tr><tr><td>Chai</td><td>P346</td><td>Fail</td><td>Classroom #2</td><td>M</td><td>Thailand</td></tr><tr><td>Suefeng</td><td>D318</td><td>Fail</td><td>Classroom #2</td><td>M</td><td>Thailand</td></tr><tr><td>Charlotte</td><td>D325</td><td>Fail</td><td>Classroom #3</td><td>F</td><td>United States</td></tr><tr><td>Yang</td><td>M359</td><td>Fail</td><td>Classroom #3</td><td>M</td><td>United States</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0111967904-11">Materials and procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0111967904-12">District/state procedures</hd> <p>As noted in the previous section, the state assessment was utilized to determine participant group membership. The statewide reading assessment was designed to compare school sites and districts across the state, provide feedback on curriculum, and measure student academic growth from year to year. The findings helped determine statewide school compliance with national legislation (Minnesota Department of Education [MDE], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>]). Items were divided into in three categories reflecting the state standards in reading: comprehension, vocabulary expansion, and literature. According to the MDE, items for the 4th-grade reading assessment were written according to the following strands in reading (MDE, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref31">25</reflink>]). The <emph>comprehension strand</emph> is defined as the students' understanding of texts using a variety of comprehension strategies (including literal, interpretive, and evaluative comprehension) (11–19 items, or 23%–41%). <emph>Vocabulary expansion</emph> is defined as being able to use a variety of strategies to expand reading, listening, and speaking vocabulary (six–eight items, or 13%–17% of items). The literature strand assesses students' active engagement in the reading process in how they understand, respond to, analyze, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate a wide variety of fiction, poetic, and nonfiction texts (14–23 items, or 30%–50% on the assessment). Items within these categories were designed to reflect cognitive dimensions based on Bloom's Taxonomy (as cited in MDE, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>], p. 27). Passages were selected that were at the appropriate grade level in reading difficulty; these ran between 2,000 and 2,400 total words in length.</p> <p>Fourth-grade assessment occurred on state-specified testing days in April 2010. A scale score is derived from and includes the grade level in the first digit and the second two digits include the scale score range 1 to 99. An example of a 4th-grade score would be 450, with four representing 4th grade and 50 representing a scale score. An achievement level is also determined for each scale score. The four categories are: does not meet standard (D) (score ranging from 401–439), partially meets standard (P) (score ranging from 40–49), meets standard (M) (ranging from 50–62), and exceeds standard (E) (ranging from 64–99). These can be further subdivided in to proficiency levels (D and P are not proficient and M and E are proficient); achievement in reading is considered a scale score of 50 or above.</p> <p>The following primary data sources were used to determine profiles of 4th-grade Hmong students who pass and do not pass state assessments: language assessment in Hmong and English (standardized assessment and language samples) and reading assessment in English (reading inventory, spelling inventory, motivation assessment). A breakdown of the measures used and the areas evaluated can be found in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Measures used and items assessed.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Assessment measure</td><td>TACL-3</td><td>Language sample</td><td>Spelling inventory</td><td>Reading inventory</td><td>RSPS</td><td>State reading assessment</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Comprehension</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td>X</td><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Decoding</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Oral language</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary expansion</td><td /><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Literature</td><td /><td /><td /><td>X</td><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Self-perception</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>X</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. TACL-3 = Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language-3; RSPS = Reader Self Perception Scale.</p> <p>These individual assessments were completed over four to six sessions in an after-school program at a Hmong magnet school in Lake View School District. The students participated in assessment during the homework hour (either first or second hour of the after-school program). Once assessments were initiated, assessment sessions continued concurrently until all measures were completed. All assessments were completed in one-on-one testing sessions lasting approximately 20 to 45 minutes. All assessments were administered as prescribed by test procedures or manuals unless otherwise described below.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-13">Oral language assessment</hd> <p>The Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language–3rd Edition (TACL-3) was used to measure students' understanding of language in English and Hmong (Carrow-Woolfolk, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]). This test consists of three subtests: Vocabulary, Grammatical Morphemes, and Elaborated Phrases and Sentences. This assessment consists of reading a word, phrase, or sentence and asking the student to point to the correct picture. The TACL-3 was given in English first and then administered in Hmong in a separate testing session by a bilingual Hmong speech-language pathologist.</p> <p>The Hmong translation of the TACL-3 is an adaptation that contained only the appropriate Hmong translated items. Lake View designed this procedure and used this assessment frequently in language assessment for Hmong students. During this assessment's initial implementation, local norms were collected to determine a mean score at all grade levels. The adapted Hmong version of the TACL-3 has been used in this district for nearly 10 years. The three subtests of both versions were scored separately as well as combined to derive total score. There were no standardized scores for this measure. Rather, the raw scores were used.</p> <p>English and Hmong language samples were also collected. For this assessment, students were required to describe an object in sight, an object out of sight, retell a story, explain a procedure, and solve a problem. A bilingual (Hmong/English) speech-language pathologist administered five tasks to obtain six to eight scoreable responses in Hmong. The same process was repeated using English. All responses were video- or audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed based on syntactic, morphologic, semantic, and discourse features.</p> <p>Grammaticality was scored (based on the Standard English dialect) by obtaining a percent accurate grammatical utterance. A measure of morphology was used by calculating the mean length of utterance (MLU), which divides the total number of morphemes used per utterance by total number of phrases used. MLU was calculated using the language analysis software (SALT) (Miller & Iglesias, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]). A measure of semantics in English and Hmong was calculated using type token ration (TTR) (Owens, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]), which assumed that a more complex and varied vocabulary in a short sample indicates the use of a more complex and varied vocabulary of the student. TTR was also calculated using the SALT software.</p> <p>A meaning or discourse level analysis on English and Hmong language samples was completed by utilizing a measure of amount of information conveyed by the speakers (Brookshire & Nicholas, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]). A total number of words was calculated per sample and then each "correct information unit" (CIU) was determined. CIUs were any information that carried meaning in the utterance (e.g., repetitions of words and pronouns with no referents were not counted as correct information units). Then, total %CIU was calculated by dividing the number of information units by the total number of words. The %CIU accuracy obtained was used to determine relative strengths in communicating information by comparing samples in English and Hmong.</p> <p>Reliability was calculated across quantitative measure on the language sample (CIU, grammar, and MLU). The second author transcribed and coded transcriptions for 40% of the sample (two grade level and two grade level chosen randomly). Inter-rater reliability was calculated by percent agreement across these individual scores and ranged from 90% to 91% agreement (90% for CIU, 91% for grammar and MLU).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-14">Reading assessment</hd> <p>The reading assessment protocol consisted of fluency/decoding, orthography, and comprehension assessments. Orthography was assessed by using a developmental spelling inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]). The spelling inventory was used to determine developmental spelling stage, total words correct, and total feature points.</p> <p>Rate, accuracy, and comprehension were assessed using an informal reading inventory. A 2nd-grade reading passage was chosen based on classroom information. Background knowledge questions were asked prior to reading the passage. Participants were then asked to read the passage aloud and they were timed and tracked for errors. Reading rate and accuracy were calculated using a correct words per minute (CWPM) measure. Following the reading, participants were asked to retell all the information they could remember from the passage. Ideas recalled were scored using the Qualitative Reading Inventory protocol (%ideas recalled). Following the retelling, participants answered a series of explicit and implicit questions (%comp questions). These were scored using the correct answers given in the manual (Leslie & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, reading and listening comprehension were assessed using a more authentic passage and task (one passage for reading comprehension and one passage for listening comprehension). Based on a pilot study conducted with 4th-grade Hmong students, an additional comprehension measure was included. From researchers' pilot study data, many students seemed disengaged when reading a standard assessment passage. High-quality passages that met predetermined criteria used in recently completed work on accessible reading assessments (Dillon, O'Brien, et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; Kelly, Mahowald, Dillon, & O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>]) were selected (described in Appendix A). The passages were presented and students selected the two stories that most piqued their interest. One story was read aloud; students read the other silently to themselves. Students were asked to summarize each story and received a reminder that a summary includes main ideas and supporting details. Following the summary, students answered seven multiple-choice comprehension questions about the passages (Dillon, Thurlow, O'Brien, Kelly, & Beaton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]). The summaries were scored using a summary rubric (see Appendix B) (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]; Taylor, Peterson, Pearson, & Rodriguez, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]) and totaled. The percent of correct responses was then calculated for the multiple-choice questions.</p> <p>Immediately following the comprehension tasks, the participants were asked a series of questions to determine what impressions they had of the passage after reading it. These questions consisted of the following: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) if they liked the passage, why or why not; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) if the passage was interesting, why or why not; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>) if the passage was hard to read, why or why not.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-15">Motivation assessment</hd> <p>Reading self-perception was assessed using the Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) and scoring sheet (Henk & Melnick, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]). The RSPS is a tool validated for measuring self-perceptions about reading with an overall score and in five different categories: general perception, progress, observational comparison, social feedback, and physiological states. Participants rated their responses on a Likert-type scale from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Participants were introduced to the task through an example, and all items were read out loud to ensure comprehension of the question. Children were encouraged to ask questions if they did not understand. We also avoided looking directly at their paper, so that they did not feel the pressure to respond how adults would want them to respond.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-16">Secondary data sources</hd> <p>Two secondary data sources were collected: a language/literacy interview and classroom observations. The rationale for collecting observational data in addition to assessment data was to determine if classroom behaviors support or refute the various reading assessment profiles. Classroom observations were completed during literacy block in a typical school day. The classrooms observed use the literacy curriculum mandated by Lake View district, which included 1-hour reading block with guided and independent reading. Each student was observed in independent reading and guided reading groups on three opportunities over the course of 2 months. The primary focus of classroom observations was to determine how students demonstrate reading skills and on-task behavior within the classroom context. These observations were holistic in nature (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The time sample procedure was utilized. Each student was observed (maximum of three students at one time) and a sample of behavior that occurred during the 1-minute interval was recorded (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]). The researcher observed each student for 10 seconds, took notes for 10 seconds, and then moved onto the next student, repeating the same procedure across every minute of literacy block. During guided reading groups, the researcher took copious notes on student behavior and what types of activities the students were engaged in during small groups. During independent reading, notes were taken on student behaviors and, when possible, what types of books students were reading. All notes were explicit in nature, such as, "Student writing and looking up at the teacher and "Student talking to friend, put pencil down and opens book." These notes were later coded as "on-task" or "off-task." <emph>On-task behavior during guided reading</emph> was defined as attention being focused on reading materials, teacher, or peers (as determined by eye gaze). <emph>On-task behavior in independent reading</emph> was defined as eye gaze on book and turning pages at a steady rate, or writing in book log or worksheets as given by the teacher.</p> <p>Additionally, each participated in a language/literacy interview, where student perceptions of language status, proficiency, learning, and identity were elicited (see Appendix C). Participants engaged in a 15- to 30-minute, semistructured interview conducted in English. Questions were asked verbatim, but follow-up questions could be asked to clarify or explore a topic at greater depth. Each interview was transcribed verbatim including errors in grammar and nonstandard forms. The interview data were organized by research question and reduced so that each student's response could be compared within itself and to the others using a question-by-question comparative analysis (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]). Frequency counts of responses were generated across particular and general descriptive data and subjected to an inductive analysis to allow themes to emerge from the data (Erickson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-17">Analytic methods</hd> <p>All data were analyzed in an ongoing manner throughout the collection process. First, all reading and language assessments were scored. Means, standard deviations, and ranges on all assessments were calculated for the two predetermined groups of students (students who passed state assessments and students who failed). Although the data produced were quantitative, the analytic methods used were qualitative. Patterns were observed in performance across the collective groups, determining which individual assessments were a relative strength or weakness and how these patterns of performance reflect the performance on the state reading assessment. In addition, consistency of performance for group members in particular assessments was determined.</p> <p>Individual case studies were completed through an analysis of assessments across individual participants instead of within a group. Participants were then regrouped based on their similar performance across measures. Data were analyzed to allow for generation of particular and general descriptive data to support claims at the group and individual level (Erickson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-18">Results</hd> <p>We sought to explore patterns of reading and language behavior of 4th-grade Hmong students who passed and did not pass state assessments. Collective and individual case study methods were utilized to describe these learners. It is important to use collective group and individual case–based methodology because nuanced behaviors can be lost in group data (Valencia & Buly, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]). The collective case study will be described first, followed by the individual results.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-19">Collective case study</hd> <p>To complete the group analysis, we focused on the reading and oral language skills that differed from the pass and fail groups (specifically, when participants in the pass group scored higher on assessments or responded differently than the participants in the fail group). Results are presented in terms of assessment scores, as well as themes that emerged from the data (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-20">Oral language assessment</hd> <p>The assessment results that showed differences favoring the participants who passed state assessments are presented in Table 3. Students who passed state assessments demonstrated a relative strength in Hmong receptive language (Hmong TACL-3, <emph>M </emph>= 91.6 for the pass group and <emph>M = </emph>89.6 for the fail group) and English expressive language, specifically in understanding and using grammatical morphemes (English TACL-3 Grammatical Morphemes, <emph>M = </emph>6.4 for the pass group, <emph>M </emph>= 5.2 for the fail group). In contrast, vocabulary did not show differences between students who passed (mean English %CIU is 75%) and who did not pass state assessments (mean English %CIU is 76%).</p> <p>Table 3. Means and ranges of collective case study results for individual oral language assessment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Group</td><td>Hmong TACL-3</td><td>English TACL-3 grammatical morphemes</td><td>English language sample MLU</td><td>English language sample Gram.</td><td>English %CIU</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pass</td><td>91.6</td><td>6.4</td><td>8.44</td><td>56%</td><td>75%</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n = </italic>5)</td><td>(84–96)</td><td>(5–9)</td><td>(6.04–9.92)</td><td>(35–73%)</td><td>(73%–78%)</td></tr><tr><td>Fail</td><td>89.6</td><td>5.2</td><td>8.16</td><td>44%</td><td>76%</td></tr><tr><td>(<italic>n </italic>= 5)</td><td>(85–94)</td><td>(5–6)</td><td>(6.81–10.14)</td><td>(22%–77%)</td><td>(71%–83%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>. TACL = Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language; MLU = Mean Length of Utterance; Gram. = Grammatical Utterances in Standard English; CIU = Correct Information Units.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-21">Reading assessment</hd> <p>Tables 4 and 5 display the results of the individual reading assessment. Students who passed state assessments had a relative strength in decoding (mean WCPM, <emph>M </emph>= 106.6) and comprehension (higher mean scores across all measures) compared to students who did not pass state assessment; WCPM, <emph>M </emph>= 82.4). Despite better performance on comprehension measures, even those students who passed state assessments demonstrated difficulty retelling and answering questions following passages (reading comprehension questions answered correctly was only 57% for the pass group, and 43% for the fail group).</p> <p>Table 4. Means and ranges of collective case study results in decoding assessments.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Word list</td><td>Word count per minute</td><td>Spelling inventory—Total points</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>At grade level <italic>n = </italic>5</td><td>91% (95%–100%)</td><td>106.6 (78–119)</td><td>60.6 (40–69)</td></tr><tr><td>Below grade level <italic>n = 5</italic></td><td>79% (45%–100%)</td><td>82.4 (61–110)</td><td>44 (14–67)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5. Means and ranges of collective case study results in comprehension skills.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>2nd-grade % ideas</td><td>2nd-grade % questions</td><td>Listening comp. summary</td><td>Listening comp. questions</td><td>Reading comp. summary</td><td>Reading comp. questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grade</td><td>23%</td><td>68%</td><td>2.6</td><td>57%</td><td>2.6</td><td>57%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n = </italic>5</td><td>(14%–36%)</td><td>(50%–88%)</td><td>(2–3)</td><td>(43%–100%)</td><td>(2–4)</td><td>(51%–71%)</td></tr><tr><td>Below</td><td>13%</td><td>30%</td><td>2</td><td>40%</td><td>1.6</td><td>43%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n = </italic>5</td><td>(2%–20%)</td><td>(0%–62.5%)</td><td>(1–3)</td><td>(29%–71%)</td><td>(1–3)</td><td>(29%–71%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 <emph>Note</emph>. Comp. = Comprehension.</p> <p>After reading the passages, students were asked if they liked the story. Only Charlotte (fail group) indicated that one passage was not interesting. Charlotte read the passage about a dog race. She said that the story was not interesting because though she liked dogs, she did not know a lot of information about them. All five students who passed state assessments indicated they liked the expository texts because the passages had "facts." Two of the students who failed the state assessments indicated that they liked the narrative text because they learned a lesson. The other three students who failed state assessments expressed difficulty with the passages because of "hard words" and unfamiliar ideas. Students who passed state assessments indicated that they knew the words or there were "some hard words and some easy words" (two students), that they had prior knowledge on the topic (one student), or liked learning new ideas (two students). Houa (passed state assessments) indicated that the passage she read was difficult and that it was the length of the passage that made it hard.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-22">Motivation assessments</hd> <p>Students who passed the state assessments perceived reading on dimensions of observational comparison, progress in reading, social feedback, and physiological states at a rate higher than those students who did not pass state assessments (pass <emph>M </emph>= 136, and fail <emph>M </emph>= 118).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-23">Individual cases</hd> <p>Individual student-level data were analyzed to determine commonalities and differences among Hmong 4th-graders who passed state assessments and who did not pass. We looked for strengths in background knowledge, self-perception, decoding skills, comprehension skills, and Hmong and English oral language skill—essentially, areas that emerged from the collective case study data as being important at the group level. Through this analysis, students were regrouped into reading profiles. Table 6 outlines the prototypical characteristics and mean scores of the students who make up each profile. Additionally, data from structured and unstructured interviews were included to illustrate points as well as information gathered from the classroom observations of reading behavior.</p> <p>Table 6. Mean characteristics of participant reading profiles.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Profile</td><td>State reading assessment (Pass/fail)</td><td>% CIU English</td><td>% CIU Hmong</td><td>English language sample- MLU</td><td>Decoding (Word count per minute)</td><td>Comprehension (% questions correct)</td><td>Reading self-perception (Self-report)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Profile #1: Strong English achieving reader: Destiny and Tony</td><td>Pass</td><td>76.6%</td><td>66%</td><td>8.15</td><td>113</td><td>43%</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Profile #2: Strong Hmong achieving reader: Houa and Pa Chia</td><td>Pass</td><td>74.5%</td><td>88%</td><td>7.97</td><td>114.5</td><td>71.5%</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Profile #3: Slow decoder: Thao</td><td>Fail</td><td>79%</td><td>63%</td><td>10.14</td><td>78</td><td>57%</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Profile #4: Struggling reader: Suefeng and Charlotte</td><td>Fail</td><td>74.5%</td><td>73.5%</td><td>7.11</td><td>85.5</td><td>59%</td><td>Negative</td></tr><tr><td>Profile #5: On-task struggling decoder: Chai and Lilly</td><td>Fail</td><td>77%</td><td>74.5%</td><td>8.22</td><td>76</td><td>36%</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Profile #6: Social reader: Yang</td><td>Pass</td><td>74%</td><td>79%</td><td>9.92</td><td>89</td><td>29%</td><td>Positive</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 <emph>Note</emph>. CIU = Correct Information Units; MLU = Mean Length of Utterance.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-24">Profile #1: Strong English achieving reader</hd> <p>Destiny and Tony demonstrated similar patterns of performance. Both students were in high-level reading groups in their class and demonstrated proficiency on state assessment and individual assessment. Both displayed strengths in English oral language, reading (decoding and comprehension), self-perceptions and, when observed in class, were on task a majority of the time in small-group discussion and independent reading. Tony and Destiny were born in the United States, and self-reports of language use indicated that they use English more than Hmong, speaking Hmong with parents and grandparents only and using English with friends, cousins, and siblings. These students, compared to others in the sample, demonstrated relative weaknesses in Hmong language. For example, Destiny was only able to give limited answers in the Hmong language sample (%CIU in Hmong = 64% compared to English = 78%) and Tony was only able to complete some of the tasks and often interjected with English (%CIU in Hmong = 68% compared to English = 75%). Tony and Destiny had strong decoding skills and relatively strong comprehension skills. Tony understood his strengths in reading, saying, "'cause when I am reading [my friends] come over and say, 'You're a good reader.'" This was also demonstrated in the classroom observation when his peers came over and he was explaining a book to three other boys. Destiny was more reserved, but she did say that her family, classmates, and teacher think she is a good reader. Both of these readers identified the importance of background knowledge and gathering information while reading, saying that they liked stories because "It gives information" and "It was easy because I knew what it was talking about in the book."</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-25">Profile #2: Strong Hmong achieving reader</hd> <p>Houa and Pa Chia demonstrate strengths across the board in their understanding and use of Hmong (%CIU in Hmong = 82%, compared to English = 73% for Pa Chia; and %CIU in Hmong = 94%, compared to English = 76% for Houa) and reading achievement on individual and state assessments; they passed state reading assessments. They also demonstrate on-task behavior for the majority of time when observed in small-group and independent reading. Although Houa and Pa Chia did demonstrate average (among the group) oral language skills in English, their English skills were less developed than other students in this sample (especially in understanding and using morphemes and standard English). When we asked Pa Chia what she thought of her reading ability, she remarked, "I feel proud of me." Houa also demonstrated pride in her reading skills. She brought the researcher into her classroom to show her 10 full pages of a book log indicating more than 100 books that she read. Again, both of these students were interested in what they read and indicated that they learned from reading: "Cause it tell you facts and you learn new things" (Pa Chia) and "It's only interesting because it tell facts" (Houa). Houa and Pa Chia speak English and Hmong but identify themselves as speaking only Hmong. Pa Chia notes that Hmong is the most important language to speak, "For me, I think Hmong is most important." Pa Chia and Houa were born in Thailand.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-26">Profile #3: Slow decoder</hd> <p>One student was classified as a slow decoder. This profile was characterized by weak decoding skills, reading self-perception, and on-task behavior, but relative strengths in comprehension and oral language skills. Thao was the one reader placed in a grade-level reading group who did not pass the state assessment. There was a discrepancy in his reading achievement on state and classroom-based assessments that may have been due to his rate of reading. Thao is a slow but accurate reader; he read only 78 WCPM but had only six errors while he was reading. In a standardized test situation, Thao may not have had sufficient time to read a passage carefully enough to answer comprehension questions. After reading the above passage, Thao was able to retell 36% of ideas in the passage, the highest number recalled from the sample of students. Again, this reflects a decent level of comprehension despite slow decoding. It is anticipated that Thao will continue to have difficulty in reading as text becomes more complicated. He demonstrates his mixed reading profile, saying, "I don't know [if I am good at reading] but I am good at math."</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-27">Profile #4: Struggling reader</hd> <p>Suefeng and Charlotte are characterized as struggling in all areas of oral language, decoding, and comprehension skills. They are also characterized by negative self-perceptions and off-task behavior in class. Both present similarly and were among the lowest achieving in individual and state/district assessments. Charlotte has fairly good decoding skills (reading 110 WCPM) but demonstrated more difficulty with spelling (spelling only 12 words correctly on the spelling inventory). Charlotte's reading comprehension in passages was also poor (answering only 34% of questions correctly). Suefeng demonstrated even more difficulty, reading 61 WCPM, retelling only one idea from the story, and not answering any questions correctly. Suefeng also had difficulty when a passage was read out loud to him (answering only 29% of questions correctly and giving a summary with a few details only). When Suefeng answered the question "What do your classmates think of you reading," he shrugged and said, "I'm not that good at reading." When asked if passages were interesting and what they liked about reading passages, Suefeng and Charlotte mentioned what the topic was about instead of what they thought about the passage: "The grasshopper has it and it is yellow" (Charlotte) and "Because it like the bubble with animal inside it" (Suefeng).</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-28">Profile #5: On-task struggling decoder</hd> <p>The struggling decoder is an unevenly developed reader, who is characterized by having strength in comprehension skills and poor decoding and spelling skills. Chai and Lilly demonstrate below average oral language skills in Hmong and English and poor decoding skills (71 and 76 WCPM, respectively) but have listening comprehension skills that match their grade-level peers. Lilly answered with 43% accuracy during listening comprehension, and Chai gave a summary that told the moral in a story. Both of these behaviors demonstrate strengths when these students are engaged in listening comprehension tasks. Chai and Lilly are also characterized by on-task behavior that is similar to their grade-level peers (greater than 70% in independent reading). Chai and Lilly presented a little differently in guided reading groups, Chai was actively participating nearly 80% of the time, whereas Lilly only participated 20% of the time. They did not meet proficiency on state/district assessment. Chai and Lilly have mixed perceptions about their abilities in reading. Chai indicated that his family thinks he is a good reader and explained, "Because they like always tell me to read, but sometime my mom tell me to read sometimes, because when I get tired, I kind of get confused and I don't know what to do." Lilly remarked that her teacher thinks she is a good reader because, "She listens to me read."</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-29">Profile #6: Social reader</hd> <p>The final profile is a social reader. Yang is the only student who is in this profile. Yang demonstrates strengths in decoding skills but struggles with comprehension skills and staying on-task during independent reading. He seems disengaged and needs interaction with peers to participate in reading activities. Yang was the only student who was placed in a below-grade-level reading group but passed state reading assessments. Yang was on task only 9% of 1-minute samples in independent reading, but participated actively nearly 80% of 1-minute samples in guided reading group. Yang was the only below-grade-level reader to perform higher on comprehension tasks when he read silently than when read out loud to. The most prevailing characteristic was that Yang seemed to need the social aspect of reading to focus and participate effectively. He was always surrounded by a group and appeared to be a leader in the classroom; when this energy was channeled in the guided reading group, Yang was successful.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-30">Discussion</hd> <p>The overall assertion that emerged from this data, which is supported by various other studies with monolingual and ELLs (Geva & Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]), is that there is no set "formula" for reading achievement in 4th-grade Hmong students. There are varying profiles for 4th-grade Hmong students who are passing state assessments and those who are not. These findings are similar to findings with other linguistic groups (Farnia & Geva, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]; Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer, & Pierce, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref59">18</reflink>]; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref61">22</reflink>]) and monolingual struggling readers (Valencia & Buly, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref62">36</reflink>]). What is different from these other studies of ELLs, however, is that we found that vocabulary (expressive and receptive in Hmong and English) was not different between these groups. Instead, factors of syntax—specifically, an ability to understand and use Standard English—differed among those who passed state assessments and those who did not. Given the differences between the English and Hmong languages (specifically, Hmong lacking in morphology), this difference in understanding and using Standard English is worth further exploration. Additionally, when analyzing individuals across assessments, rarely did these students demonstrate equal strength in Hmong and English; instead, they demonstrated relative strength in either one or the other language. The achieving readers in this study had various strengths across dimensions of oral language, decoding, comprehension, and self-perceptions. Likewise, the readers who were struggling also demonstrated various profiles (no "formula" set all struggling readers apart).</p> <p>As we expected, these results are similar to the findings in Valencia and Buly ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref63">36</reflink>]). There are different profiles of students who need support in reading. Our research findings support this conclusion. The five below-grade-level readers had different manifestations of reading strengths and weaknesses. For example, similar to Valencia and Buly's profiles, Suefeng and Charlotte demonstrate weaknesses across all areas assessed (decoding, comprehension skills, oral language, perceptions, background knowledge, and classroom behavior). The remaining below-grade-level readers had more distinctive profiles. Lilly and Chai have strengths in listening comprehension and on-task behavior. The respective strengths of Lilly and Chai, for example, are masked by poor decoding and weak oral language skills. Their strengths in comprehension skills would not be uncovered in a typical classroom reading assessment due to decoding difficulties. Similarly, Yang, though also identified by his teacher as a below-grade-level reader, has strong decoding and oral language skills. He has difficulty staying on task and with comprehension skills. A potential explanation for his failing performance is that he is disengaged and not motivated to be a productive reader. Lilly, Chai, Suefeng, and Charlotte all demonstrate difficulty in decoding text that directly affects their performance on standardized reading assessments. Although he passed his state reading assessment in 3rd grade, Yang is not performing in classroom tasks and comprehension measures.</p> <p>Valencia and Buly ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref64">36</reflink>]) did not determine profiles for students who met proficiency standards; therefore, we extended their work through this study. We have observed that there are different profiles of students who achieve in reading. For example, Houa and Pa Chia have strengths in reading, Hmong oral language, reading self-perceptions, and classroom behavior. Tony and Destiny are also achieving at grade level in reading and have strength in English oral language. Thao presents as having weak decoding skills and on-task behavior but strengths in comprehension skills, strong perceptions of himself as a reader, and Hmong and English oral language. Thao was weak across the board in decoding, word recognition, and spelling skills. In many ways, Thao is a typical profile of a student in the 4th-grade slump. Although he is reading at a 4th-grade level, his proficiency level on the state reading assessment might be a sign of things to come. He may continue to have reading difficulty that affects his performance in the classroom and on state assessments. These profiles of proficient readers are equally important because they serve to illustrate pathways to successful attainment of reading proficiency and thus discourage a deficit view of struggling readers.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-31">Implications</hd> <p>This study leads to implications for reading development theory, reading assessment, and reading instruction. In the current study, 4th-grade Hmong students' reading proficiency was related to the synergy of many factors and facets of reading development. These explored relationships can begin to inform reading development theory and guide researchers and practitioners in the way that reading is conceptualized. For example, the students who were achieving in reading demonstrated different profiles of strengths across oral language. Therefore, we propose that current reading theory be expanded to include factors of oral language proficiency (in all languages) and motivation for reading. Additionally, these differentiating profiles beg that practitioners give rise to the need for comprehensive assessments (including aspects of oral language and motivation). These comprehensive assessments may lead to more informed and effective reading instruction and intervention. The stakes are high for achievement of all students. Any legislation at the state or federal level that suggests that all students should perform in the same way at the same age or grade level is falsifying the notion of this complex developmental model of reading and reading assessment that we have demonstrated exists within this small population. A "one-score" approach to assessment will fail to capture the full range of strengths and weaknesses within a particular child especially for ELLs (whose profile should include first-language assessment). Finally, more thorough instructional methods to address these different profiles of students, specifically, for Hmong students or ELLs, targeting English language instruction and comprehension skills in new and creative ways will be important in closing the gap between monolingual English and ELL peers.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-32">Future directions</hd> <p>Our findings encourage researchers to see reading as a complex endeavor for students from diverse linguistic groups. Researchers must aim to build a developmental research base regarding ELL students in all elementary grades and age levels. Researchers also need to use intervention/instructional studies to determine how instruction can be modified to maximize reading achievement. Future research should extend this study to younger and older grades, as well as various linguistic/immigrant groups. Ultimately, developmental trajectories need to be established for ELLs across language and literacy skills.</p> <p>Another logical extension is to create and test instructional changes to determine if placing emphasis on one or all factors (oral language, decoding, comprehension, or motivation) increases reading achievement for Hmong students. For example, one potential extension would be to design an intervention study that examines whether or not increasing students' understanding and use of English morphology increases students' reading comprehension.</p> <p>Most important, given the population and location of Hmong in the United States, additional studies of Hmong students are desperately needed. Extensions of studies investigating Hmong language and reading development across age levels, school districts, and regional locations would contribute to a valuable understanding of this understudied population. In addition, connecting home language and literacy development to school literacy must be investigated as well. With novel and creative research approaches, we can positively affect the trajectory of Hmong students' reading development and give Hmong students access to appropriate and effective education.</p> <hd id="AN0111967904-33">Appendix A: Passages used in the listening and reading comprehension task</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Passage Name</td><td>Text type</td><td>Summary</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bubble Power</td><td>Expository</td><td>How animals use bubbles to protect themselves</td></tr><tr><td>What in the World is a Wolverine?</td><td>Expository</td><td>What wolverines are like and where they live</td></tr><tr><td>Susie, Fudge and the Big Race</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Training for and participating in a dogsled race</td></tr><tr><td>Grandma's Quilt</td><td>Narrative</td><td>A grandma and granddaughter help homeless people</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0111967904-34">Appendix B: Summary rubric</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Score</td><td>Summary of skills</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Student offers little or no information about the selection, retelling is incomprehensible, stated ideas do not relate to the selection.</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Student relates details only, student is unable to recall the gist of the selection, retelling is incomplete or misconstrued.</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Student relates some of the main ideas and some supporting details, retelling is fairly coherent.</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>All major points and appropriate supporting details are included, high degree of completeness and coherence, student generalizes beyond the text.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0111967904-35">Appendix C: Categories and questions of the language and literacy interview</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Category</td><td>Questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Language context</td><td>Where do you live?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What languages are spoken in the United States?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What language(s) do you speak at home? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What language(s) do you speak at school? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What language(s) do you speak with your teachers or friends? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Is one language better for some things than for others? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Tell me what Hmong is good for, tell me what English is good for.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What do you like to do in English?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What do you like to do in Hmong?</td></tr><tr><td>Language development</td><td>Who is teaching you to speak in Hmong and in English?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>How do they teach you? How do you get better?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>When you were a little boy/girl, what language(s) did you speak?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>When you grow up, what language(s) will you speak?</td></tr><tr><td>Language status</td><td>What is the most important language to speak? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>When you were a little boy/girl, what language(s) did you speak? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>When you grow up, what language(s) will you speak? Why?</td></tr><tr><td>Language proficiency</td><td>Who do you know who speaks really good Hmong? How is it good?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Who do you know who speaks really good English? How is it good?</td></tr><tr><td>Academic/reading</td><td>How much do you talk at school?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What do you say at school?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What is a good student?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Are you a good student?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>When you talk to your parents about school, what do you talk about?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Does your teacher think you are a good reader? How do you know?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>How do you feel when your classmates hear/listen to you read? Why?</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Do you think you are a good reader? Explain how you know.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>What does your family think of your reading? Explain how you know.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0111967904-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297–319. doi:10.1080/10862969809548000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref38" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary and spelling instruction (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brookshire, R. H., & Nicholas, L. E. (1994a). Speech sample size and test‐retest stability of connected speech measure for adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 399‐407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brookshire, R. H., & Nicholas, L. E. (1994b). Test‐retest stability of measures of connected speech in aphasia. Clinical Aphasiology, 22, 119‐133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Test for auditory comprehension of language (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref42" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dillon, D., Thurlow, M., O'Brien, D., Kelly, C., & Beaton, A. (2009, December). Selecting motivating and challenging passages for large-scale accessible reading assessments. Paper presented at annual meeting of International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., Kelly, C., Biggs, B. A., Mahowald, M., & Scharber, C. (2009, December). Creating motivating reading assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Duffy, J. (2000). Never hold a pencil: Rhetoric and relations in the concept of "preliteracy." Written Communication, 17, 224–257. doi:10.1177/0741088300017002003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. III, pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E., & Genesee, F. (2006). First-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 185–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helman, L., & Frederick, A. (2009, December). The symbiosis of language acquisition and literacy learning for young ELLs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helman, L. A., & Burns, M. K. (2008). What does oral language have to do with it? Helping young English-language learners acquire a sight word vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 62, 14–19. doi:10.1598/RT.62.1.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48, 470–482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English: Lexical-semantic skills in L1 and L2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 372–383. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/026)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, C., Mahowald, M., Dillon, D., & O'Brien, D. (2011, April). The influence of choice on large-scale accessible reading assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners' word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2009b). Qualitative reading inventory (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lor, P. (2009). A photo essay of the Hmong experience at Wat Thamkrabok in Thailand. Hmong Studies Journal, 10, 1–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701.</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, J., & Iglesias, A. (2010). SALT 2010: A clinical tool for analyzing language samples. Madison, WI: SALT Software, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minnesota Department of Education. (2009a). MCA-II test specifications for reading. St. Paul, MN: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minnesota Department of Education. (2009b). Technical manual for State's Title I and Title III assessments. St. Paul, MN: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ngo, B., Bigelow, M., & Wahlstrom, K. L. (2007). The transition from Wat Tham Krabok Hmong children to St. Paul Public Schools: Perspectives of teachers, principals and Hmong parents. Hmong Studies Journal, 8, 1–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409–429. doi:10.2307/3587831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens, R. E. (2008). Language development: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, T. A. (2005). Articulation accuracy and vocabulary size contributions to phonemic awareness and word reading in English language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 601–616. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, T. A. (2008). Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 103–130. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, C. A. (2004). Contemporary approaches to the study of language and literacy development. In C. A. Stone (Ed.), Handbook of language & literacy (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. Elementary School Journal, 104, 3–28. doi:10.1086/esj.2003.104.issue-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). What matters most in promoting reading growth?: Considering curricular and teaching components of reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 40–69. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking inside classrooms: Reflecting on the "how" as well as the "what" in effective reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56, 270–279. doi:10.1598/RT.56.3.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57, 134–146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vang, C. T. (2005). Hmong-American students still face multiple challenges in public schools. Multicultural Education, 13, 27–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Megan Mahowald and Megan Loughnane</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref61"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1085680
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reading Development and Achievement of 4th-Grade Hmong Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mahowald%2C+Megan%22">Mahowald, Megan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Loughnane%2C+Megan%22">Loughnane, Megan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Childhood+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Childhood Education</i></searchLink>. 2016 30(1):57-73.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <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="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Improvement%22">Reading Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Tests%22">Reading Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mixed+Methods+Research%22">Mixed Methods Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Observation+Techniques%22">Classroom Observation Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oral+Language%22">Oral Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Asian+American+Students%22">Asian American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Acquisition%22">Language Acquisition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hmong+People%22">Hmong People</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sino+Tibetan+Languages%22">Sino Tibetan Languages</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Test+for+Auditory+Comprehension+of+Language%22">Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02568543.2015.1107155
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0256-8543
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Researchers and practitioners alike have noted that Hmong students in the United States do not achieve as well as their monolingual peers and other bilingual students. The current mixed-methods study is designed to describe reading development and achievement of 4th-grade Hmong students in one large, urban school district. This study explores the reading achievement of 4th-grade Hmong students through a quantitative analysis of standardized reading assessment scores; additionally, the researchers utilize a case study method to describe reading achievement in a classroom setting by studying cases of grade-level (achieving readers) and below-grade-level (struggling) readers. A protocol including reading and oral language assessment, interviews, and classroom observations is used to describe students' skills. The data were analyzed at the group level (collective case study) to describe patterns of achievement and at the individual level to create profiles of reading achievement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 39
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1085680
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1085680
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02568543.2015.1107155
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 57
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mixed Methods Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Observation Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Oral Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Asian American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Acquisition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hmong People
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sino Tibetan Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reading Development and Achievement of 4th-Grade Hmong Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mahowald, Megan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Loughnane, Megan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0256-8543
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Childhood Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1