Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(1), 2012 C© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.20615

THE USE OF VIDEO SELF-MODELING WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS:IMPLICATIONS FOR SUCCESS

JENNIFER ORTIZ, CHERYL BURLINGAME, CYBELES ONUEGBULEM, KOICHI YOSHIKAWA, AND ELIANA D. ROJAS

University of Connecticut

The efficacy of video self-modeling (VSM) to improve reading fluency for English language learn-ers (ELLs) is explored. A review of the literature demonstrates the success of VSM in improvingnon-ELL students’ fluency. Preliminary research with culturally and linguistically diverse studentsimplies that the intervention can be equally effective with these populations. A brief review ofsecond-language acquisition reveals the ways in which VSM complements the needs of ELLs atvarious stages of acquisition. Special considerations for educators of ELLs are also included. Con-tinued research is necessary to establish VSM as an effective research-based method for ELLs, butthe existing evidence base demonstrates the potential success of the intervention. C© 2011 WileyPeriodicals, Inc.

English language learner (ELL) status is associated with increased risk of a host of negative aca-demic and behavioral outcomes (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010), includingdropout and poor standardized test performance. These outcomes may result from a combination ofsocioeconomic or environmental factors, academic deficits resulting from a lack of second-languageproficiency, or different social norms, values, and expectations (Ortiz, Flanagan & Dynda, 2008). Byevaluating interventions with culturally and linguistically diverse populations, researchers strengthenthe evidence base for a method’s efficacy and increase the range of students whose needs can be metby the method.

Modeling is a component of many instructional methods, as well as common language devel-opment approaches (Liu & Shi, 2007). Providing students with a model of the behavior or skill ofinterest allows them to see correct execution and to mirror the behavior. When the self becomes themodel, the student has a visual of himself or herself executing the behavior correctly, which mayincrease students’ motivation and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). This article analyzes the processof second-language acquisition (L2A), the needs of ELLs as they develop their second language(L2), and how the use of video self-modeling (VSM) can address these needs within reading skilldevelopment. Reading is a critical skill for all students, because reading mastery is required to learncontent in other areas throughout students’ academic careers. It can be especially difficult for ELLs,who are attempting to master reading English before they have mastered speaking English.

SECOND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

An individual’s age of second-language acquisition refers to the age the learner is immersed inthe second-language context (Birdsong, 2006). This is distinct from the age of first exposure, whichcan occur in a variety of ways, including a formal schooling environment, extended contact withrelatives who speak the second language, or visits to a country where the second language is spoken.Age of acquisition is predictive of L2A outcomes because it is observed to correlate negatively withL2 proficiency attained at the end state (Birdsong, 2006). It is also the strongest predictor of ultimateattainment.

There is a distinction between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitiveacademic language proficiency (CALP; Cummins, 1984). BICS is described as conversational,informal language proficiency, often developed in 1 to 2 years, whereas CALP refers to academic

Correspondence to: Jennifer Ortiz, University of Connecticut, Department of Educational Psychology, SchoolPsychology Program, 249 Glenbrook Road, U-2064 Storrs, CT 06269. E-mail: jenmortiz@gmail.com

23

24 Ortiz et al.

language necessary to complete school tasks, requiring 5 to 7 years to acquire. Cummins’ (1984)developmental interdependence hypothesis, in which a common underlying proficiency enableseasier language transfer between the native language (L1) and L2, suggests that students who havenot developed CALP in their native language will experience academic delays in both L1 and L2.Instructional programs for bilingual students should address cognitive skills, academic content, andcritical language awareness (Cummins, 1999).

Hearne (2000) outlined four stages of L2A: Stage I, preproduction, is often characterized bya period of silence, in which the student focuses on comprehension and has little L2 productionfor the first 3 to 6 months of acquisition. During Stage II, early production, students produce briefresponses and may use phrases. Students are building oral skills, such as naming and answeringquestions. Students in Stage III, speech emergence, have increased comprehension and vocabularies,but continue to make grammatical errors. Goals of this stage include carrying on dialogues andexplaining events or subjects. Stage IV, intermediate fluency, is marked by conversational proficiencyand few grammatical errors. Narrative, opinion, and creative writing skills are developed at thistime.

The sociolinguistic approach to L2A considers the impact of society and the social context onthe way language is used (Tarone, 2007). A strength of sociolinguistic research is the emphasis ontracking the ways in which contextual factors produce linguistic outcomes. Sociolinguistic researchon L2A examines the interdependence between the learner’s cognitive processes and the socialcontexts in which language is used that leads to language acquisition.

The audiolingual approach to teaching language is derived from linguistics and psychology,specifically behaviorism and reinforcement (Liu & Shi, 2007). Its roots are evident in the breakingdown of language skills into their most basic building blocks, repeated practice, and progressionof complexity of tasks. Although the approach has been criticized by linguists for diverging fromlanguage and learning theory, it is one of the most popular methods of L2 instruction. A mark ofaudiolingualism is the use of tape recordings and teacher modeling to teach language skills. Theimportance of the modeling component within this approach makes a case for the use of VSMwith students who are learning a language. Students not only see the skill modeled correctly (bythemselves in lieu of the teacher), but are able to visualize themselves executing the skill withouterror.

VSM FOR READING FLUENCY

Five studies were reviewed that addressed the use of VSM as an intervention for reading. Allinvestigations targeted reading fluency, and one also targeted reading comprehension. A techniqueoften referred to as video feedforward was used, in which student errors and unfavorable behaviorare not only edited out, but student performance is edited so that it appears to be at a level beyond thestudents’ capabilities at baseline (Dowrick, Kim-Rupnow, & Power, 2006). All studies took place inschool settings with students from first through 11th grade who had been identified as having readingskills deficits. In all five studies, students’ oral reading fluency scores increased from baseline topostintervention/follow-up.

Bray, Kehle, Spackman & Hintze (1998) coupled VSM and self-monitoring for use with 5students in third grade. Students’ initial videotapes were edited to show them reading about 10to 15 words per minute faster than their actual speed of reading. These videos were shown twicepreceding intervention, and during each intervention, session students were taped again. Each newvideo, unedited, was viewed in place of the original tapes during the following session. Studentswere aware of their scores and were encouraged to use the feedback from each session to considertheir overall progress. No other tutoring or training was involved. All students showed gains in oral

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

VSM With ELLs 25

reading fluency, maintained these gains at the 8-week follow-up, and reported satisfaction with boththe procedures and the results of the intervention.

In another study of third graders, Greenberg, Buggey, & Bond (2002) administered two probesduring baseline assessment that were used to determine students’ individual goals for the study andassessed students’ self-perceptions of their reading ability. Feedforward videos were created to showstudents reading at their goal levels. The videos were viewed daily for 4 weeks while oral readingfluency was continually assessed. During the follow-up phase, the videos were no longer used, butoral reading fluency probes continued, and students’ self-perceptions of their reading were assessedfor a second time. Although the researchers noted that there might not have been enough data insome phases to accurately determine the effects, the results of this study demonstrate that VSMwas successful in improving students’ oral reading fluency. Two students improved an entire gradelevel, whereas the third student, who had stronger skills at baseline than the other students, improvedto a lesser degree. All students improved on their self-perceptions of their abilities in reading, aswell.

Another analysis examined the combined effects of video feedforward and tutoring by trainedcommunity members using the Actual Community Empowerment (ACE) reading protocol (Dowricket al., 2006). Each video showed one of the 10 first-grade students reading fluently and rapidly, namingsight words on flashcards. Tutoring consisted of reading to the student, reading in unison with thestudent, echo reading (the student reads a line after the tutor reads it), and, lastly, the student readingto the tutor. The first intervention phase utilized tutoring alone, followed by a tutoring-plus-videofeedforward phase, and, finally, a return to tutoring alone. The greatest improvements in scores werenoted during the tutoring-plus-video phase. Overall intervention effects included increases of 7.2 to21.2 more words read correctly per minute.

The efficacy of VSM for diverse populations was investigated by Hitchcock, Prater, and Dowrick(2004) with 4 first-grade students of part-Hawaiian descent in a rural Hawaiian community, whowere referred for delays in reading fluency and comprehension. All students were in the lower third oftheir class and were identified as “at risk” on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills.Students received alternating treatments of community partner tutoring and tutoring plus VSM. Usingtexts slightly more advanced than the students’ current reading levels, two feedforward videos weremade of children showing greater mastery in reading fluency and reading comprehension (applying astory map and successfully answering comprehension questions). The tutoring intervention consistedof 30-minute daily sessions of unison reading, echo reading, 1-minute discussion to apply readingto the student’s own experiences, independent reading, and review of sight words. In the combinedtreatment phase, students viewed the 2-minute self-modeling video prior to the daily tutoring session.Sessions continued for 1 month following the intervention, and a follow-up was conducted at6 months.

Results indicated that the interventions increased both reading fluency (by 100%-300%) andreading comprehension skills, with the greatest increases associated with VSM for fluency. Gainsfor reading comprehension were consolidated, and variability was reduced with use of the video.Follow-up data and teacher and parent evaluations indicated maintenance and generalization ofreading skills at 6 months. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 students demonstrated improved internalizingand externalizing behaviors, including fewer teacher-reported attentional problems. The standardscores on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, however, provide little evidence for efficacy,revealing the difficulty of using standardized assessments in the measurement of progress (Ysseldyke& Algozzine, 1995).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

26 Ortiz et al.

Reading Fluency With ELLs

Initial support for the use of VSM with English learners is indicated in an oral reading fluencyintervention among 3 Marshallese high school students in Hawaii (Boisvert, 2007). Two-minutevideos were created from students’ echo reading of material slightly above their ability level. Thevideos used feedforward editing to show the students reading difficult material flawlessly. Duringthe intervention, students were shown the tapes prior to the start of each assisted repeated readingsession. Each session involved audio-recording the student reading culturally relevant materialsaloud to the researcher, who gave immediate corrective feedback. One student made a gain of onegrade level in oral reading fluency, and 2 students increased by two grade levels.

The five studies identified here all show improvements in students’ oral reading fluency withthe use of VSM. However, it should be noted that increased, recent allocation of additional attentionand one-to-one supports might account for a part of the observed improvements for some students(Greenberg et al., 2002). Researchers in one investigation also commented on the practice of askingstruggling readers to read aloud in front of the class. This practice can negatively impact the self-esteem of readers who are having difficulty (and even those who are not), and in turn, have a negativeeffect on their attitudes toward reading (Greenberg et al., 2002). An important consideration thatvideos in which students actually see themselves as successful readers may provide them with someemotional support (Boisvert, 2007) and could motivate them to continue to progress (Bray et al.,1998).

DISCUSSION

VSM has primarily been used to improve reading fluency by allowing the student to seehimself or herself performing without errors. The process has consistently yielded improvement influency, and may generalize to novel passages as well. The investigation of VSM with ELLs showedpositive outcomes for this population, consistent with the intervention’s growing evidence base(Boisvert, 2007). As described earlier, ELLs exhibit increased production during Stages III (speechemergence) and IV (intermediate fluency), but speech is characterized by grammatical errors atthese stages (Hearn, 2000). As students gain comfort with complex sentence structures, oral readingalso tends to lack fluency. Given the characteristics of ELL’s emergent speech and the ability touse VSM without the student already exhibiting the desired behavior (via feedforward/editing oferrors), VSM should be considered a potentially effective strategy for improving ELLs’ oral readingfluency.

Reading instruction often fills one of two molds: explicit instruction of reading skills atthe word level, or holistic reading practice at the text or literature level (Rasinski & Padak,2004). Recent research now advocates a balance of the two, although such a balance is dif-ficult to attain, requiring educators to reconsider their methods of class instruction, group ac-tivities, and selected texts. A comprehensive method is especially vital for educating ELLs, asthey attempt to acquire a great deal of English reading skills in a short time. Students’ previousacademic environments may not have emphasized the same skills expected in American class-rooms (Boisvert, 2007). By integrating the two types of instruction, students can build masteryof essential skills and apply them in authentic contexts. Hitchcock and colleagues (2004) demon-strated the efficacy of VSM to increase both reading skill (fluency) and comprehension within oneintervention.

Considerations for Educators of ELLs

It is important for school personnel to have a basic understanding of the second-languageacquisition process to appropriately evaluate ELLs’ capabilities and academic progress and to avoid

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

VSM With ELLs 27

making incorrect conclusions (Ochoa, 2005). Educators should bear in mind that it takes an averageof 4 to 7 years for ELLs to reach national norms on English achievement tests when they alsoreceive instruction in their native language, and 7 to 10 years without native language instruction(Thomas & Collier, 1997). Some key questions to consider regarding the relationship of second-language acquisition to dual-language instruction are: 1) Can the student’s difficulty in attainingEnglish proficiency be ascribed to insufficient development in his or her native language? 2) Canthe student’s academic difficulty be ascribed to a lack of attainment of cognitive academic languageproficiency (CALP)? 3) Was the student given enough instructional time in his or her native languageto develop CALP in it?

Understanding the normal learning processes that develop and evolve during L2A will helpprevent educators from assuming that a student is exhibiting deficiencies (Ochoa, 2005). Somelanguage behaviors may appear to be problematic, but are actually typical of the student’s currentstage of development. Such processes include interference (communicative behavior of L1 is carriedover into L2), interlanguage (combining elements of the language systems of both L1 and L2),a silent period (limited oral communication during the first 3–6 months of L2 exposure), codeswitching (shifting from one language to another when speaking), language loss (weakening L1 dueto a concentrated focus on L2 development), and following syntactic and grammar rules of L1 whenspeaking L2 (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002).

In the United States, significant, consistent gaps have been observed in standardized assess-ment performance between ELLs and their non-ELL peers (Rojas & Ortiz, 2010). Within the ELLcommunity, the past and current experiences of students of different backgrounds vary greatly withrespect to socioeconomic status, cultural identity, immigration, and educational background. In2005, Latinos comprised 80% of ELLs (NCES, 2005). Latinos are also significantly less likely tograduate high school than White, Black, or Asian students and less likely to perform at the levelof proficiency on standardized reading and math tests than White or Asian students (especially forthose living in inner cities; NCES, 2010). Latino ELLs enter classrooms with the dual challengesof cultural and linguistic diversity, and are at risk for the negative outcomes associated with both(Rojas & Ortiz, 2010).

Even in content areas such as math, which appear to have minimal language requirements,educators must consider each component of a math problem and the students we expect to master it(Martiniello, 2008). Mathematics language has its own register and differs from both conversationallanguage and general academic language, but these nuances may be overlooked when educatingELLs. For example, “square root” is a math-specific term, whereas “greater than” is a phrase witha different meaning in a math context. Students need to be familiar with both math-specific termsand mathematical meanings of general words, and be able to cognitively infer their relations tounderstand an item. If a student is unfamiliar with either piece of the mathematics register, then hisor her teacher cannot determine whether poor performance is due to a mathematics skill deficit, alanguage barrier, or both (National Research Council, 2000).

Despite the association with negative academic outcomes, ELL status should not be considereda barrier to success. ELLs enter American classrooms with prior knowledge of appropriate academicskills and behaviors that are unique to their background but may be divergent to expectations inAmerican classrooms (Ortiz et al., 2008; Rojas, 2010). Researchers analyzed family structure andinteraction in the United States, and found that Latinos more often have diverse household structuresand share resources with extended family and the community (Tapia, 2004). The context of their homelife influences students’ expectations, values, and level of support for academic success. Studentsdo not need to be reprimanded for their differences, and their differences will not hinder them fromprogressing. However, the lowered expectations of American educators who perceive ELLs’ pastexperiences as a burden may become a barrier to achievement. By building their own understanding

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

28 Ortiz et al.

of these differences, educators will be better prepared to help culturally and linguistically diversestudents adjust and progress in the classroom.

Limitations

The primary limitation of VSM for reading is its small, yet positive, evidence base. Furtherresearch with reading fluency and comprehension is needed to advance the support of the inter-vention. There has been little use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations, althoughthe preliminary results look promising. An advantage of VSM is that the student does not need toalready perform the desired behavior correctly; however, if there is very little production at all, thestudent cannot be captured performing the behavior with errors. Stage I of L2A (preproduction) isalso referred to as a period of silence or retraction (Ochoa, 2005). During this phase, L2 productionis limited to short responses, due purely to a lack of proficiency. Because of the nature of this stageof acquisition, most reading interventions (including VSM) would be inappropriate during this time,as students focus on building basic comprehension of L2.

Future Directions

Despite the history of success with VSM and the promising results of replication with diversestudents, continued research with culturally and linguistically diverse students is necessary to es-tablish the method as a best practice. Researchers should also consider integrating comprehensiondevelopment with fluency in future investigations. Moreover, the use of VSM for stuttering has yetto be evaluated with ELLs. Some researchers hypothesize that ELLs who do not stutter in theirprimary language may begin to stutter in their second language as a result of deficits in fluency orgrammar and exposure to novel, complex sentences or vocabulary (“Stuttering and the BilingualChild,” 2004). This could be an interesting and successful avenue for future VSM research.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56, 9 –

49.Boisvert, P. C. (2007). Video self-modeling and assisted repeated readings: A fluency intervention with adolescent English

learners (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3251040)Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., Spackman, V. S., & Hintze, J. M. (1998). An intervention program to increase reading fluency.

Special Services in the Schools, 14, 105 – 125.Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual

Matters.Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the distinction. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.Dowrick, P. W., Kim-Rupnow, W. S., & Power, T. J. (2006). Video feedforward for reading. The Journal of Special Education,

39, 194 – 207.Greenberg, D., Buggey, T., & Bond C. (2002). Effects of video self-modeling on reading skills and attitudes of at-risk readers.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED471091).Hearn, D. (2000). Teaching second language learners with learning disabilities: Strategies for effective practice. Oceanside,

CA: Academic Communication Associates.Hitchcock, C. H., Prater, M. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: Examining the effects of

tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27,89 – 103.

Liu, Q. & Shi, J. (2007). An analysis of language teaching approaches and methods: Effectiveness and weakness. US-ChinaEducation Review, 4, 69 – 71.

Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English language learners in math word problems. HarvardEducational Review, 78, 333 – 368.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistics, 2005. Washington, DC: Author.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

VSM With ELLs 29

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Highlights from the status and trends in the education of racial and ethnicminorities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/index.asp#1

National Research Council. (2000). Testing English language learners in US schools: Report and workshop summary(K. Hakuta & A. Beatty, Eds.) Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ochoa, S. H. (2005). Bilingual education and second language acquisition: Implications for assessment and school-basedpractice. In R. L. Rhodes, S. H. Ochoa, & S. O. Ortiz (Eds.), Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: Apractical guide (pp. 57 – 75). New York: Guilford Press.

Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Dynda, A. M. (2008). Best practices in working with culturally and linguistically diversechildren and families. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V, (pp. 1721 – 1738).Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2004). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading difficult (3rd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rojas, E. D. (2010). Using mathematics as equalizer for gifted Latino/ adolescent learners. In: J. A. Castello & A.D. Frazier(Eds.), Special populations in gifted education. Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds (pp.353 – 382). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rojas, E. D., & Ortiz, J. (2010). A research based analysis on students’ individual achievement and standardized testing:Linguistical, cultural and social complexities, and its impact on students’ failure. Revista Boletın de InvestigacionEducacional, 25, 151 – 168.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Multicultural students with special language needs (2nd ed.). Oceanside, CA: AcademicCommunication Associates.

Stuttering and the bilingual child—New ways to help. (2004). Childhood Education, 80(4), 206.Tapia, J. (2004). Latino households and schooling: Economic and sociocultural factors affecting students’ learning and

academic performance. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17, 415 – 436.Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research-1997 – 2007. The Modern Language

Journal, 91, 837 – 848.Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC:

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.thomasandcollier.com/Downloads/1997 Thomas-Collier97.pdf

Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, R. (1995). Special education: A practical approach for teachers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits