reviews

Early Identification and Interventions for English Language Learners (ELLs) With Suspected Learning Disabilities

Literature Review Draft

SPED 625

Caitlin

November 2nd, 2026

Literature Review Outline:

Topic: Early identification and interventions for English language learners (ELLs) with suspected learning disabilities.

I. Introduction

A. Importance of early identification

1. Identifying learning disabilities in English language learners can be challenging because language development and learning difficulties may look similar (Haager, 2007; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

2. Students may be identified incorrectly (this can be difficult for several reasons) or can experience delays in receiving needed support (Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

3. Early identification and supported interventions are important for supporting academic success (Gyovai et al., 2009; Haager & Windmueller, 2001).

4. A question is how schools can recognize and identify disability-related needs and support without treating second-language acquisition as evidence of a disability (Haager, 2007; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

B. Purpose of the literature review

1. Examine challenges related to identifying learning disabilities in English language learners.

2. Review assessment practices and interventions that may help students.

3. Consider how teacher preparation and collaboration influence student support. Looking at teacher education and preparedness for providing interventions.

C. Key Terms and Conceptual Framework

1. English language learner (ELL); Students with disabilities; Dual-identified students; Response to intervention (RTI); Progress monitoring.

2. Define these terms in the literature review and use RTI as a framework for considering students’ response to instruction. Distinguish language development from disability-related learning difficulties when interpreting assessment and progress-monitoring results (Barrera & Liu, 2010; Haager, 2007; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

II. Distinguishing Language Acquisition from Learning Disabilities: Identification and Assessment

A. Language Development, Educational Background, and Identification Challenges

1. Schools may struggle to determine whether academic difficulties are related to language acquisition, gaps in education or a learning disability (Haager, 2007; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

2. English proficiency and language development and other factors need to be considered during assessment (Barrera & Liu, 2010).

3. Research has identified achievement gaps among English learners with disabilities (Daniel, 2025).

B. RTI and Progress Monitoring as Assessment Tools

1. RTI can help schools provide additional instruction and monitor student progress (Haager, 2007; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

2. Progress monitoring provides information about how students respond to instruction (Barrera & Liu, 2010).

3. Schools need to be cautious when interpreting assessment results for English learners (Barrera & Liu, 2010; Haager, 2007).

4. Rinaldi and Samson (2008) and Haager (2007) discuss RTI in referral decisions, while Barrera and Liu (2010) raise measurement concerns for linguistically diverse learners. Together, they suggest that progress data needs to be interpreted in the context of language development.

III. Instructional Interventions Across Grade Levels

A. Early Reading Interventions and Student Response

1. Early reading interventions can improve basic reading skills for English learners who are at risk (Gyovai et al., 2009; Haager & Windmueller, 2001).

2. Students may respond differently to interventions and need different levels of support (Gyovai et al., 2009; Jitendra et al., 2004).

3. Ongoing monitoring can help determine whether additional intervention is needed (Gyovai et al., 2009).

4. Gyovai et al. (2009) and Haager and Windmueller (2001) both examined early reading support for at-risk English learners. Both studies focused on providing support early and using students’ responses to help understand their reading needs.

B. Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction

1. Instruction should consider students' language and cultural backgrounds (Klingner & Soltero-González, 2009).

2. Evidence-based literacy instruction is important for English learners with learning disabilities (Klingner & Soltero-González, 2009).

C. Secondary-Level Vocabulary Interventions

1. Early vocabulary interventions can help students who are English learners and have disabilities (Helman et al., 2015; O'Connor et al., 2022).

2. Targeted instruction remains important after students have been identified for special education (Helman et al., 2015; O'Connor et al., 2022).

3. Helman et al. (2015) examined science vocabulary at the high school level, whereas O’Connor et al. (2022) studied vocabulary intervention in eighth grade. Both studies focus on targeted vocabulary support for older English learners with disabilities.

IV. Teacher Preparation and Collaborative Support

A. Teacher Knowledge, Training, and Self-Efficacy

1. Educators may need additional training to support students who are dual identified as both ELL and special education (Reyes et al., 2024).

2. Teachers need to understand both language development and disability-related learning needs (Reyes et al., 2024; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

B. Collaboration Across School Roles

1. Communication between English learner teachers, special education teachers, and other school staff is important (Reyes et al., 2024).

2. School counselors can also play a role in RTI and student advocacy (Johnson et al., 2019).

3. Reyes et al. (2024) examine educator self-efficacy, while Johnson et al. (2019) address school counselors’ experiences with RTI. These studies look at different school roles involved in supporting English learners.

V. Research Evidence, Limitations, and Gaps

A. Strengths

1. Several studies provide examples of interventions that improved reading or vocabulary skills (Gyovai et al., 2009; Helman et al., 2015; O'Connor et al., 2022).

2. Research includes perspectives on both classroom instruction and school identification practices (Haager & Windmueller, 2001; Johnson et al., 2019; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

B. Limitations and Research Gaps

1. Some intervention studies have small sample sizes (Gyovai et al., 2009; Helman et al., 2015).

2. A lot of research focuses on early elementary students and early reading (Gyovai et al., 2009; Haager & Windmueller, 2001).

3. There is limited research specifically involving students identified as both English learners and students with learning disabilities (Klingner & Soltero-González, 2009).

4. Studies involving English learners who are at risk for learning disabilities may not be directly comparable to studies of students already identified with disabilities. This is important to consider when interpreting intervention findings.

5. The sources include elementary reading interventions and a smaller number of secondary vocabulary interventions; more research is needed on identification and sustained intervention across grade levels (Gyovai et al., 2009; Helman et al., 2015; O’Connor et al., 2022).

VI. Implications, Future Research, and Conclusion

A. Implications for schools

1. Schools need to consider language development when making special education referral decisions and identification (Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

2. Early interventions and progress monitoring can help schools make instructional decisions (Barrera & Liu, 2010; Gyovai et al., 2009).

3. Teacher training and collaboration may improve support for dual-identified students (Reyes et al., 2024).

B. Future research

1. More research is needed, specifically involving dual-identified students (Barrera & Liu, 2010; Klingner & Soltero-González, 2009).

2. Additional studies should examine identification and interventions at the secondary level (Barrera & Liu, 2010; Helman et al., 2015).

3. More research should explore effective collaboration between English learner and special education teachers (Johnson et al., 2019; Reyes et al., 2024).

C. Conclusion

1. Early identification of learning disabilities in English learners requires careful assessment and consideration of language development (Barrera & Liu, 2010; Haager, 2007; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

2. Interventions, progress monitoring, and collaboration are important parts of supporting students (Gyovai et al., 2009; Haager & Windmueller, 2001; Reyes et al., 2024).

3. Additional research is needed to better understand effective practices for dual-identified students.

4. Taken together, the reviewed literature points to the importance of interpreting assessment data carefully, evaluating instructional response, and coordinating support across educators.

Chapter 2

Literature Review:

Introduction

Identification of learning disabilities in English Language learners (ELLs) can be challenging because language development and a learning disabilitymay present similar. Schools need to consider whether a student who is struggling has difficulty with learning English or may need special education services. Haager (2007) and Rinaldi and Samson (2008) discussed the importance of considering factors when making decisions about instruction and special education referrals. When language acquisition is confused with a disability, students may be identified incorrectly or may experience delays in receiving support (Rinaldi & Samson, 2008).

Early identification and appropriate instructional support are important areas of research for students who are acquiring English as a second language. Gyovai et al. (2009) and Haager and Windmueller (2001) examined reading interventions for English Language learners considered at risk for learning disabilities. They provide examples of how direct instruction and student response should be considered before academic difficulties become more persistent. However, students who are at risk for a learning disability are not necessarily the same demographic as students who have already been identified as having a disability. This detail is important when reviewing intervention research.

The purpose of this literature review is to examine challenges related to identifying learning disabilities in English learners and to review current assessment practices and interventions that may help students (and educators). This review focuses on school-based identification, response to intervention (RTI), progress monitoring, reading and vocabulary interventions, and educator preparation and collaboration. Included, arestudies of students at risk for learning disabilities as well as studies of English learners who have identified disabilities. The review is limited primarily to the educational assessment and instructional practices addressed in the selected literature; it does not attempt to examine every disability category or every aspect of second-language development.

This review looks at how schools distinguish language acquisition from learning disabilities, including the use of RTI and progress monitoring. It then examines instructional interventions across grade levels, including early reading, culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, and vocabulary support for developmentally older students. This literature review willconsider teacher preparedness and collaboration, strengths and limitations of the research, and implications for schools and future research. These areas provide a framework for understanding how schools can interpret student needs and provide support.

Distinguishing Language Acquisition from Learning Disabilities: Identification and Assessment

Language Development, Educational Background, and Identification Challenges

One of the challenges in identifying learning disabilities among English learners is determining if the student is struggling due to language acquisition or a true academic difficulty. A student may be developing English proficiency while also learning grade-level academic content. Haager (2007) cautioned that response to intervention practices for English learners require careful consideration, and Rinaldi and Samson (2008) addressed referral considerations for this student population. Both sources emphasized the need to look beyond a student’s difficulty with English when considering whether special education evaluation or additional support and interventionsareappropriate.

Educational background is another consideration. Students may have different experiences with formal education, direct instruction, and opportunities to develop literacy skills. This can also happen with ELL students. They may not have had access to formal education in their home country. There may be gaps in formal education and language acquisition.These variables can complicate the interpretation of students’ academic performance. Rinaldi and Samson (2008) addressed the challenge of identifying language-related learning needs from concerns that might suggest a need for a special education referral or more support. Their discussion acknowledges that referral decisions should be informed by a broader picture of the student rather than one test or assessement.

Assessmentsalso present challenges because progress monitoring may not capture learning in the same way for all students. Barrera and Liu (2010) examined challenges of general outcomes measurement when RTI (Response to Intervention) progress monitoring is used with linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Their discussion raised questions about how schools interpret measurement results for students whose language experiences differ. In this context, English proficiency, language development, and instructional history are relevant when considering what assessment results mean (Barrera & Liu, 2010).

This extends beyond the initial referral process. Daniel (2025) reviewed achievement gaps using records from approximately 2.5 million Year 6 students in England. The study examined the intersection of English as an Additional Language (EAL) status and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and reported persistent challenges for students in both groups, particularly in reading. Because this research used England’s educational categories and student population, the findings provide a unique and different perspective on achievement but should not be taken as direct evidence about special education referral practices in the United States.

RTI and Progress Monitoring as Assessment Tools

RTI (Response to intervention) is one approach schools use to provide additional instruction and interventions and observe how students respond. Haager (2007) discussed both the positive and cautions of using RTI with English learners, while Rinaldi and Samson (2008) considered RTI in relation to referral decisions. RTI may help educators examine whether a student makes progress after receiving targeted support (tiers of support), rather than relying only on academic progress.The use of RTI does not eliminate the need to consider language development and whether the instruction provided is appropriate.

Progress monitoring is an integralpart of this process because it provides information about changes in student performance over time. Barrera and Liu (2010) discussed measurement challenges associated with monitoring linguistically diverse learners. Their work suggests that progress data needs to be interpreted carefully, particularly when language proficiency may influence their performance on academic measures. A student’s progress can help guide instructional decisions, but the results should not be treated as a complete explanation of why the student is struggling.

The three sources contribute different perspectives and possibilities to the same identification question. Rinaldi and Samson (2008) focused on referral considerations, Haager (2007) addressed the potential benefits and cautions of RTI, and Barrera and Liu (2010) examined measurement concerns. Looking at these together, the literature supports using student response as one source of information while also being aware of language development, educational background, and assessment limitations. This is especially important when schools are trying to avoid both incorrect identification and delays in providing needed intervention.

Current identification and assessment literature provides a foundation for reviewing instructional interventions. If schools are using students’ responses to instruction to understand their needs, the type of instruction provided by schools and the way progress is monitored become important. The next section of the review considers reading and vocabulary interventions for English learners at different grade levels.

Instructional Interventions Across Grade Levels

Early Reading Interventions and Student Response

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction

Secondary-Level Vocabulary Interventions

Teacher Preparation and Collaborative Support

Teacher Knowledge, Training, and Self-Efficacy

Collaboration Across School Roles

Research Evidence, Limitations, and Gaps

Strengths

Limitations and Research Gaps

Implications, Future Research, and Conclusion

Implications for Schools

Future Research

Conclusion

References:

Barrera, M., & Liu, K. K. (2010). Challenges of general outcomes measurement in the RTI progress monitoring of linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Theory into Practice, 49(4), 273–280. https\://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2010.510713

Daniel, J. (2025). Achievement gaps for English learners with disabilities. Learning and Instruction, 96, Article 102072. https\://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102072

Gyovai, L. K., Cartledge, G., Kourea, L., Yurick, A., & Gibson, L. (2009). Early reading intervention: Responding to the learning needs of young at-risk English language learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 143–162. https\://doi.org/10.2307/27740365

Haager, D. (2007). Promises and cautions regarding using response to intervention with English language learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 213–218.

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

Helman, A. L., Calhoon, M. B., & Kern, L. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(1), 40–52.

Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Starosta, K., Sacks, G., Jacobson, L. A., & Choutka, C. M. (2004). Early reading instruction for children with reading difficulties: Meeting the needs of diverse learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 421–439. https\://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370050501

Johnson, L. V., Shell, E. M., Tuttle, M., & Groce, L. (2019). School counselor experiences of response to intervention with English learners. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–11.

Klingner, J. K., & Soltero-González, L. (2009). Culturally and linguistically responsive literacy instruction for English language learners with learning disabilities. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 12(1), 4–20.

O’Connor, R. E., Sanchez, V. M., Jones, B., Suchilt, L., Youkhanna, V., & Beach, K. D. (2022). Continuing CHAAOS: Vocabulary intervention for students with disabilities in eighth grade who are also English learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 108–120.

Reyes, J. M., Gentry, J. E., Atchley, S., & Phillips, J. (2024). Special education directors and special education teachers’ self-efficacy for serving students with English learner and special education needs. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 71(4), 573–589.

Rinaldi, C., & Samson, J. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral considerations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6–14.