Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence

by Fred Genesee, Kathryn Lindholm-Leary, Bill Saunders, Donna Christian

Overview

Research on students in kindergarten to grade 12 is analyzed to provide this review of scientific research on the learning outcomes of students with limited or no proficiency in English in U.S. schools. The primary chapters of the book focus on these students' acquisition of oral language skills in English, their development of literacy (reading & writing) skills in English, instructional issues in teaching literacy, and achievement in academic domains (i.e., mathematics, science, and reading). The book provides a unique set of summary tables that supply details about each study.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780521859752
Publisher:	Cambridge University Press
Publication date:	01/23/2006
Pages:	256
Product dimensions:	5.98(w) x 9.02(h) x 0.75(d)

About the Author

Fred Genesee has conducted extensive research on second language education, including foreign language immersion programs for majority language students and bilingual education for minority language students. His research on bilingual acquisition focuses on the syntactic and communicative development of bilingual children with typical and impaired patterns of acquisition and addresses issues related to the capacity of the language faculty during the period of primary language development.

Kathryn Lindholm-Leary is Professor of Child and Adolescent Development at San Jose State University where she has taught for 17 years. Her research interests focus on understanding the cognitive, language, psychosocial, and societal factors that influence student achievement, with a particular emphasis on culturally and linguistically diverse students. Kathryn has worked with dual language education programs for the past 20 years and during that time has evaluated over 30 programs and helped to establish programs in over 50 school districts in 10 states.

William M. Saunders, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Fellow at CSU, Long Beach, UCLA, and LessonLab. He currently directs LessonLab's school-based programs for improving teaching, learning, and schooling. He has directed several research programs including longitudinal studies of the literacy development English learners, clinic trials of discrete instructional components, and prospective studies of school improvement. Formerly a high school teacher and Director of the Writing Project at the University of Southern California, Saunders has conducted school improvement and professional development programs in the Southern California region for the past twenty years. He is the author of numerous papers and chapters on literacy instruction, school change, assessment, and English language learners.

Donna Christian is President of the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) in Washington, DC. She has worked with CAL since 1974, focusing on the role of language in education, including issues of second language learning and dialect diversity. Among her activities, she directs a program on two-way bilingual immersion, including a study for the National Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE), funded by the U.S. Department of Education. She is also a senior advisor to the Heritage Languages Initiative, the Biliteracy Research Program, and the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth.

Read an Excerpt

Cambridge University Press
0521859751 - Educating English Language Learners - A Synthesis of Research Evidence - by Fred Genesee, Kathryn Lindholm-Leary, William M. Saunders and Donna Christian
Excerpt

1

Introduction

Donna Christian

This volume synthesizes research on the relationships among oral language, literacy, and academic achievement for English language learners (ELLs) in the United States, from pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12. It explores how these findings have been applied in school and classroom settings and recommends areas of focus for future studies in order to improve education for these students.

Why is it important to assess what we know about the education of ELLs? The most basic reason, of course, is that we seek to provide, for ALL students, a high quality education that takes into account their individual strengths and needs. The level of academic achievement for students with limited proficiency in English in the United States has lagged significantly behind that of native English speakers. One congressionally mandated study reported that ELLs receive lower grades, are judged by their teachers to have lower academic abilities, and score below their classmates on standardized tests of reading and mathematics (Moss and Puma, 1995). According to a compilation of reports from forty-one state education agencies, only 18.7 percent of students classified as limited English proficient (LEP) met the state norm for reading in English (Kindler, 2002). Furthermore, students from language minority backgrounds have higher dropout rates and are more frequently placed in lower ability groups and academic tracks than language majority students (Bennici and Strang, 1995; President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, 2003; Ruiz-de-Velasco and Fix, 2000).

These educational facts intersect with the demographic facts to strengthen the rationale for this research synthesis. Across the nation, the number of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds has risen dramatically. They represent the fastest growing segment of the student population in the United States by a wide margin. From the 1991-92 school year through 2001-02, the number of identified students with limited English proficiency in public schools (K-12) grew 95 percent while total enrollment increased by only 12 percent. In 2001-02, over 4.7 million school-aged children were identified as LEP (the term used in the survey), almost 10 percent of the K-12 public school student population (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2003). These students speak over 400 languages, but nearly 80 percent are native Spanish speakers. Of the remaining 20 percent, the largest language groups are Vietnamese (2 percent), Hmong (1.6 percent), Cantonese (1 percent), and Korean (1 percent) (Kindler, 2002).

ELL students come to U.S. schools with many resources, including linguistic resources in their native language. However, they enter U.S. schools with a wide range of language proficiencies (in English and in other languages) and of subject-matter knowledge. They differ in educational background, expectations of schooling, socioeconomic status, age of arrival in the United States, and personal experiences coming to and living in the United States.

Among ELLs who are immigrants, some have strong academic preparation. They are at or above equivalent grade levels in the school curricula and are literate in their native language. Other immigrant students enter U.S. schools with limited formal schooling - perhaps due to war or the isolated location of their home. Ruiz-de-Velasco and Fix (2000) found that 20 percent of all ELLs at the high school level and 12 percent of ELLs at the middle school level have missed two or more years of schooling since age six. Among Hispanic students aged 15-17, more than one third are enrolled below grade level (Jamieson, Curry, and Martinez, 2001). These students are not literate in their native language; they have never taken a standardized test. They have significant gaps in their educational backgrounds, lack knowledge in specific subject areas, and often need additional time to become accustomed to school routines and expectations.

Students who have been raised in the United States but speak a language other than English at home may or may not be literate in their home language. Some have strong oral English skills; others do not. Most of the U.S.-born ELLs begin their education in the U.S. public schools. There they must learn basic skills, including initial literacy. They may have some preparation for schooling from participation in pre-school programs, but U.S.-born ELLs have as much diversity in backgrounds as older immigrant students.

Although English language proficiency is a critical factor in educational success in this country, there are many other factors that can put students at risk for educational failure, and a number of these factors tend to co-occur with limited English proficiency (Garcia, 1997; Tharp, 1997). These include economic circumstances, race, educational environment, geographic location, immigration status, health, and many others. Although research on all of those factors is relevant to improving the education of English language learners in general, this synthesis focuses on such factors only as they relate to oral language, literacy, and academic achievement.

The increasing number of students for whom English is an additional language is particularly significant in light of educational reform that calls for high standards and strong accountability for schools and students. Although many states exempt ELLs from state-mandated tests for a period of time, the amount of time may be insufficient for some ELLs to acquire and apply academic English. For example, an immigrant student who enters high school with no English proficiency may be expected to pass tests for graduation in mathematics, biology, English language arts, and other subjects, after three (or fewer) years of U.S. schooling.

Federal programs in the United States have also increased the emphasis on accountability. For example, No Child Left Behind, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, calls for annual tests of reading and mathematics for all students in Grades 3-12 (in schools receiving federal funds under the law) and deliberately includes ELLs in state accountability systems. Although schools may exempt ELLs from achievement testing in English for up to three years, they must assess English language proficiency annually (with no exemption period). Improved education is key to improving performance for ELLs on these tests, and research results can inform such improvements.

PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES FOR ELLs

English language learners face the dual challenges of mastering English and acquiring the academic skills and knowledge deemed essential for a sound education and a productive future life. Schools face the challenge of designing programs to help ELLs achieve these goals. As mentioned earlier, ELL students embody diversity at many levels, including their socioeconomic status, the types of neighborhoods in which they live, the varieties of English and/or other languages they speak, and their cultural backgrounds. The challenge is magnified by the fact that these students are entering U.S. schools at every grade level and at various times during the academic year. Students who enter at the elementary level, of course, have the advantage of more time to acquire the language and academic skills they need (compared to ELLs who enter at the secondary level). The availability of time, however, does not lessen the need for appropriate and challenging instruction, from the very beginning, through the first and/or second language.

Genesee (1999) discusses a set of program alternatives that may meet the diverse and complex needs of ELLs (see Table 1.1). Some of them incorporate content instruction in the native language. Two-way immersion programs serve ELLs who speak a common native language along with native English speakers (Howard and Christian, 2002). For both groups of students, the goals are to develop high levels of first and second language proficiency, academic development, and crosscultural understanding. All students experience an additive bilingual environment (one in which both languages are valued and developed), and academic content is learned through two languages. These are typically full K-6 or K-12 instructional programs.

TABLE 1.1. Characteristics of Program Alternatives for English Language Learners (Adapted with permission from Genesee, 1999)
	Two-Way Immersion	Developmental Bilingual	Transitional Bilingual	Newcomer	ESL	Structured English Immersion	Sheltered Instruction
Language Goals	Bilingualism	Bilingualism	English proficiency	English proficiency	English proficiency	English proficiency	Proficiency in academic English
Cultural Goals	Integrate into mainstream American culture & maintain/ appreciate ELL home culture	Integrate into mainstream American culture & maintain/ appreciate ELL home culture	Integrate into mainstream American culture	Integrate into mainstream American culture	Integrate into mainstream American culture	Integrate into mainstream American culture	Integrate into mainstream American culture
Language(s) of Instruction	L1 of ELLs and English	L1 of ELLs and English	L1 of ELLs and English	English (some programs use L1)	English	English	English
Students	Both native & non-native (with same L1) speakers of English	Non-native speakers of English with same L1; varied cultural backgrounds	Non-native speakers of English with same L1; varied cultural backgrounds	No/limited English Low level literacy Recent arrivals; varied L1 & cultural backgrounds	Non-native English speakers with various levels of Eng proficiency; varied L1 & cultural backgrounds	No/limited English; varied L1 & cultural backgrounds	Non-native speakers of English; varied L1 & cultural backgrounds
Grades Served	K-12	Primarily elementary	Primarily elementary	K-12; many at middle & high school levels	K-12	Primarily elementary	K-12
Typical Length of Participation	5-12 years	5-12 years	2-4 years	1-3 semesters	1-3 years	1 year	1-3 years

Developmental bilingual programs provide a similar additive bilingual environment, with a goal of high levels of proficiency in two languages, but the students served are primarily or solely ELLs. This model, also referred to as "late-exit" or maintenance bilingual education, uses both English and the students' native language for academic instruction and promotes sustained development of the first language as well as English. Students generally participate in these programs for five to six years.

In transitional bilingual programs (also known as "early-exit" bilingual education), academic instruction in the students' native language is provided while they learn English (to varying extents and for varying lengths of time) through ESL classes. As their English proficiency develops, students are exited from the program and placed in all English, mainstream classes, typically after one to three years.

Newcomer programs are specially designed programs for recent arrivals to the United States, who have no or low English proficiency and often limited literacy in their native language (Short and Boyson, 2004). The goal is to accelerate their acquisition of language and academic skills and to orient them to the United States and U.S. schools. Students typically participate in such programs for one to one and one-half years. Although newcomer programs exist in elementary schools, they are more prevalent at the secondary level. Some programs follow a bilingual approach; others focus on sheltered instruction in English (see the later discussion of sheltered instruction).

Other program models offer primarily English instruction to ELLs. This choice is often made when ELLs in a school come from many different language backgrounds. In English as a Second Language (ESL) programs (also known as English language development [ELD] programs), carefully articulated, developmentally appropriate English language instruction is designed to meet the needs of students at various levels of English proficiency. ELLs may receive content instruction from other sources while they participate in the ESL program, or they may be in self-contained classrooms. Students generally participate in ESL programs for one to five years, depending on their initial level of proficiency and rate of progress. Students often benefit greatly when programs provide various kinds of support after they have moved fully into English mainstream classes, to give targeted assistance as needed. Structured English immersion is a form of ESL program taught in self-contained classrooms where most instruction is provided in English, though use of the student's native language is possible. The core curriculum includes English language development (ELD), and content area instruction is taught using special techniques for second language learners (Baker, 1998). This program type has become most well known as the approach prescribed by state referenda (e.g., Proposition 227 in California) that restrict the use of bilingual education programs.

Another ESL-oriented program model is sheltered instruction, which is often found in school systems with ELLs from multiple language backgrounds. Sheltered programs offer ELLs a comprehensive, articulated program where the regular grade-level, core content courses are taught in English through instructional strategies that make the content concepts accessible to ELLs and that promote the development of academic English (Short and Echevarria, 1999). Sheltered instruction teachers should have ESL or bilingual education training in addition to training in the content area, and they often form a school team or learning community. Most sheltered instruction programs are designed to meet all the requirements for credit toward grade-level promotion or graduation. Students remain in them for two to three years. The term sheltered instruction may also be used to describe pedagogy rather than a program design. Sheltered instruction practices and individual sheltered instruction courses can be and often are implemented in conjunction with other program alternatives.

These program models differ in certain dimensions. Some set a goal of bilingualism for language development (two-way immersion, developmental bilingual), while others emphasize proficiency in English (ESL, sheltered instruction). The characteristics of the appropriate student population vary, particularly in terms of the homogeneity of native language backgrounds. The typical length of student participation also differs, with some programs being intended as short-term or transitional (one to four years) and others longer in duration (six or more years). The resources required vary from model to model, in terms of teacher qualifications (language skills and professional preparation), curricula and materials (how extensive bilingual offerings need to be), and so on.

METHODOLOGY FOR THE REVIEW

Our synthesis is based on a systematic review of the research literature. The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible in terms of the student population, to include ELLs from pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12 of diverse language backgrounds in educational programs in the United States. Given the demographic characteristics of the United States, however, most of the published research on ELLs focuses on low-income native Spanish speakers, and the largest number of studies involve elementary school-aged students. This will undoubtedly limit the generalizability of the results to other language and age groups, but it also highlights areas where future research is clearly needed.

We convened a thirteen-member team of researchers knowledgeable about the education of ELLs to conduct the synthesis of research in this area (see Preface for a list of team members). The team met three times during the two-year project period to set the parameters for the synthesis, review the findings of literature searches, and review drafts of sections of the synthesis.

The synthesis was conducted in three phases, parallel to the team meetings. In the first phase, the team defined the scope of the synthesis and the research to be reviewed. In the second phase, we conducted searches of the literature according to the defined parameters and evaluated the documents identified in the searches for relevance and quality. Finally, in the third phase, we synthesized the relevant research that met basic quality criteria and formulated our conclusions.

Phase 1: Inclusion Parameters

As mentioned previously, the focus of the research synthesis is the development of oral language, literacy, and academic achievement for ELLs in a variety of alternative programs, including English mainstream classrooms. The synthesis examined only English learners and did not consider research on ethnic minority or immigrant students except as the samples and results specifically address ELLs. For the searches of the literature, the following parameters were set to define which research studies to include:

• Empirical
• Conducted in the United States
• Published in English
• Focused on oral language development, literacy, and academic achievement among ELLs, with outcome measures in English
• Focused on pre-K through Grade 12
• Published in the last 20 years (may include seminal works conducted earlier)
• Published as peer-reviewed journal articles and selected technical reports (no books, book chapters, or dissertations)
• In the case of literacy, included reading, writing, or reading- or writing-related outcomes

Phase 2: Literature Searches and Quality Indicators

The synthesis was divided into three parts: oral language, literacy, and academic achievement. A subgroup of the team reviewed the literature in each area, considered which articles to include in the synthesis, and compiled the research. The subgroups conducted several types of searches. First, we searched three large databases of language and education materials using specific key terms - the Education Resources Information Left (ERIC), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), and PsycInfo. The key terms for the searches included limited English speaking, academic achievement (and math, science, social studies), English second language, bilingual education, literacy, reading, and oral language proficiency. In addition, team members searched a number of education journals by hand (see Appendix for list of journals searched) and reviewed technical reports from several federally funded research lefts (see Appendix for list). As a result of the computer and hand searches, over four thousand articles and reports were considered (at least by title, but most often by abstract).

To facilitate the processing and synthesizing of studies, we developed a coding system to record pertinent information for each study into a database. Each entry included the bibliographic citation, type of study, analytic methods, research questions addressed, information about the methodology, information about the sample, and the domain of the synthesis that the study addresses (oral language, literacy, and/or academic achievement).

We reviewed each of the abstracts obtained from the computerized searches for relevance to the topic and entered those that met the criteria into a database along with the articles and technical reports identified through hand searching. About five hundred articles and reports were reviewed at this level. In several instances, articles and reports were relevant to two subtopics. For instance, some studies fit into both literacy and academic achievement because student outcomes on both reading and mathematics were reported. Each subgroup reviewed all the studies relevant to their domain, so some studies were reviewed by more than one subgroup. We then obtained full texts of the articles, and reviewed their bibliographies to identify additional resources. When we found relevant articles in those bibliographies, they were added to the database as well. Each article was read and annotated, according to a coding framework for entries into the database. Based on this coding, articles that did not qualify for inclusion for relevance or quality reasons (discussed next) were rejected and not included in the synthesis. If two or more articles contained the same analyses based on the same data, only the more complete one was included.

The guiding principles for scientific research in education identified in the National Research Council report on Scientific Research in Education (Shavelson and Towne, 2001) formed the basis for the quality indicators used to examine the articles under consideration. The team looked for (a) appropriate research design to answer the questions being posed; (b) research that was well carried out and clearly described; and (c) conclusions that were supported by the evidence presented. Some particular qualifiers were:

• Careful description of study participants (including age, language and ethnic background, socioeconomic status, other relevant characteristics);
• Sufficient detail in description of study interventions (including length and type of treatment) to allow for replicability;
• Description of study methods sufficient to allow judgments about how instructional fidelity was ensured, where appropriate;
• Full description of testing instruments, data-collection procedures, outcome measures, and data analytic techniques (all of which are appropriate for the goals of the study);
• Empirical outcomes reported;
• Study conclusions and implications clearly and reasonably linked to data.

The result was a set of articles that could be included in the synthesis for each topic. The final corpus included in the synthesis contained approximately two hundred articles and reports.

During the search and evaluation process, studies were coded according to information given by the authors of the research reports. Each of the following chapters includes tables summarizing relevant characteristics of the studies being synthesized in a given section (e.g., sample characteristics, outcome measures). The descriptions in these tables reflect the terms used by the authors of the articles, in order to avoid making any inferences about the characteristics (e.g., description of the sample students as " Hispanic," "Mexican American," or "Latino/a"). In addition, the categories of information provided in the tables vary in some cases across domains (the chapter topics) in order to suit the research represented (e.g., the tables in Chapter 4 include the category "instructional methods" while others do not). Definitions of abbreviations used in these tables are provided in Appendix A at the end of the book.

Phase 3: Synthesis of Research

As we reviewed the research studies for relevance and quality, we also sorted them by themes that captured the features of the research base. Within each domain (oral language, literacy, and academic achievement), we grouped together studies that addressed topics like instructional factors, home/community factors, assessment, and so on. At first, we planned to examine the research on each domain according to a common set of dimensions. However, it became clear that studies in each domain clustered in different ways, and we allowed those clusters to emerge from the research base. Thus, we developed a framework for characterizing the corpus of studies for each domain. In some cases, that corpus of studies was very eclectic and some subthemes clustered better than others. When we found several studies that addressed the same questions, we could draw stronger generalizations. When we found only one or two studies that looked at an issue, we could not generalize. In the discussion, we provide different levels of detail on different studies, depending on how well they fit with a group of studies to address certain questions. As a result, we may only briefly mention some studies in the database because they do not fit well into a cluster with other studies.

Once we identified the themes for each topic area, we reviewed the studies in each theme as a group and synthesized them. Various team members took the lead in drafting the synthesis chapters and then the entire team reviewed them. At the final meeting, team members revisited and revised the themes within domains to better fit the research base that was found, and they identified strengths and gaps in the research base. As the team finalized the syntheses of research by domain, it developed recommendations on future directions for research in this area.

ORGANIZATION OF THE VOLUME

The organization of the research synthesis parallels the major research areas that we explored: oral language, literacy, and academic achievement. Literacy is divided into two chapters, one dealing with crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues in literacy development and one on instructional issues. Different members of the team developed these sections, as authorship indicates, but worked closely together to ensure comparable methods and complementary scope. The full team reviewed all the sections. As mentioned earlier, the scopes of the three domains overlap, so some studies appear in more than one chapter. The final chapter offers conclusions that may be derived from the synthesis as well as recommendations for future research.

Before moving on to the synthesis itself, a note about terminology and labels may be useful. This is an area of considerable complexity in studies that involve students who come from homes where a language other than English is spoken. Research in the field suffers from inconsistency in definitions of categories into which the students may be grouped and inconsistent application of definitions to student populations by researchers and practitioners.

In this volume, "English language learner (ELL)" is used as the term for students who first learn a language other than English in their home and community (U.S.-born or immigrant) and then learn English as a new language. When they enter school in the United States, they may or may not have some knowledge of English, but they are not yet fully proficient. In the past, a more common label for these students was "limited English proficient" or "LEP." This term has a legislative history in the federal government and remains the one in use in federal-policy contexts. Detailed legal definitions are provided in such legislation as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in order to specify terms for eligibility for services and applicability of various requirements. Other terms often used include non-native English speaker, language minority student, ESL student, or bilingual student. In reporting the results of studies here, our best attempts were made to determine how the subject populations were characterized; however, this remains an area of concern in interpreting the research.

---

© Cambridge University Press

Table of Contents

1. Introduction; 2. Oral language; 3. Literacy: crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues; 4. Literacy: instructional issues; 5. Academic achievement; 6. Conclusions and future directions.

Editorial Reviews

"Supplemented by detailed summary tables of the studies reviews, this volume offers a clear and accessible overview for SLA researchers and scholars, teacher trainers, and novice and veteran teachers alike."
Matthew Prior, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

From the Publisher