
2/17

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education

to bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types o systemic

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs.

Authors o practice guides seldom conduct the types o systematic literature searches

that are the backbone o a meta-analysis, though they take advantage o such work

when it is already published. Instead, they use their expertise to identiy the most

important research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a searcho recent publications to assure that the research citations are up-to-date.

One unique eature o IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to

rigorous external peer review through the same oce that is responsible or inde-

pendent review o other IES publications. A critical task o the peer reviewers o a

practice guide is to determine whether the evidence cited in support o particular

recommendations is up-to-date and that studies o similar or better quality that

point in a dierent direction have not been ignored. Because practice guides depend

on the expertise o their authors and their group decisionmaking, the content o a

practice guide is not and should not be viewed as a set o recommendations that in

every case depends on and ows inevitably rom scientifc research.

The goal o this Practice Guide is to ormulate specifc and coherent evidence-based

recommendations or use by educators addressing a multiaceted challenge that

lacks developed or evaluated packaged approaches. The challenge is eective lit-

eracy instruction or English learners in the elementary grades. The Guide provides

practical and coherent inormation on critical topics related to literacy instruction

or English learners.


3/17

IES PRACTICE GUIDE

Eective Literacy and




Russell Gersten (Chair)RG RESEARCH GROUPAND UNIVERSITYOF OREGON

Scott K. Baker

PACIFIC INSTITUTESFOR RESEARCHAND UNIVERSITYOF OREGON

Timothy Shanahan

UNIVERSITYOF ILLINOISAT CHICAGO

Sylvia Linan-Thompson

THE UNIVERSITYOF TEXASAT AUSTIN

Penny Collins

Robin Scarcella

UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIAAT IRVINE

NCEE 2007-4011



4/17

This report was prepared or the National Center or Education Evaluation and Re-

gional Assistance, Institute o Education Sciences under Contract ED-02-CO-0022

by the What Works Clearinghouse, a project o a joint venture o the American In-

stitutes or Research and The Campbell Collaboration, and Contract ED-05-CO-0026

by Optimal Solutions Group, LLC.

Disclaimer

The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors and do

not necessarily represent the opinions and positions o the Institute o Education

Sciences or the United States Department o Education. This practice guide should

be reviewed and applied according to the specifc needs o the educators and edu-

cation agency using it and with ull realization that it represents only one approach

that might be taken, based on the research that was available at the time o pub-

lication. This practice guide should be used as a tool to assist in decision-making

rather than as a cookbook. Any reerences within the document to specifc educa-

tion products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement o these products to

the exclusion o other products that are not reerenced.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Phoebe CottinghamCommissioner

July 2007

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is

not necessary, the citation should be:

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella,

R. (2007). Eective Literacy and English Language Instruction or English Learners in

the Elementary Grades: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National

Center or Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute o Education Sci-ences, U.S. Department o Education. Retrieved rom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.

This report is available on the IES web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee

Alternate Formats

On request, this publication can be made available in alternate ormats, such as

Braille, large print, audio tape, or computer diskette. For more inormation, call the

Alternate Format Center at (202) 205-8113.


5/17

iii

Contents

Foreword rom the Institte o Edcation Sciences iv

Preace rom the athors vi

Aot the athors ix

Disclosre o potential conicts o interest xi

Oeriew 1

Checklist or carrying ot the recommendations 2

Recommendation 1. Screen or reading prolems and monitor progress 5

Recommendation 2. Proide intensie small-grop reading interentions 10

Recommendation 3. Proide extensie and aried ocalary instrction 13

Recommendation 4. Deelop academic English 16

Recommendation 5. Schedle reglar peer-assisted learning opportnities 20

Appendix 1. Technical inormation on the stdies 22

Recommendation 1. Screen or reading prolems and monitor progress 22

Recommendation 2. Proide intensie small-grop reading interentions 23

Recommendation 3. Proide extensie and aried ocalary instrction 24

Recommendation 4. Deelop academic English 26

Recommendation 5. Schedle reglar peer-assisted learning opportnities 27

Appendix 2. Leels o eidence or the recommendations in the practice gide 29

Notes 31

Reerences 34


6/17

iv

Foreword from

the Institute of

Education Sciences

What is a practice guide? The health careproessions have embraced a mechanism

or assembling and communicating evi-

dence-based advice to practitioners about

care or specic clinical conditions. Vari-

ously called practice guidelines, treatment

protocols, critical pathways, best practice

guides, or simply practice guides, these

documents are systematically developed

recommendations about the course o care

or requently encountered problems, rang-

ing rom physical conditions such as ootulcers to psychosocial conditions such as

adolescent development.1

Practice guides are similar to the products

o expert consensus panels in reecting the

views o those serving on the panel and

the social decisions that come into play as

the positions o individual panel members

are orged into statements that all are will-

ing to endorse. However, practice guides

are generated under three constraints thattypically do not apply to consensus panels.

The rst is that a practice guide consists o

a list o discrete recommendations that are

intended to be actionable. The second is

that those recommendations taken together

are intended to be a coherentapproach to

a multiaceted problem. The third, which

is most important, is that each recommen-

dation is explicitly connected to the level

of evidence supporting it, with the level

represented by a grade (or example, high,moderate, or low).

The levels o evidence, or grades, are usually

constructed around the value o particular

types o studies or drawing causal conclu-

sions about what works. Thus, one typically

nds that the top level o evidence is drawn

rom a body o randomized controlled trials,

the middle level rom well designed studies

that do not involve randomization, and the

bottom level rom the opinions o respected

authorities. Levels o evidence can also be

constructed around the value o particular

types o studies or other goals, such as the

reliability and validity o assessments.

Practice guides can also be distinguished

rom systematic reviews or meta-analyses,

which use statistical methods to summarize

the results o studies obtained rom a rule-

based search o the literature. Authors o

practice guides seldom conduct the types

o systematic literature searches that are

the backbone o a meta-analysis, though

they take advantage o such work when it

is already published. Instead, they use theirexpertise to identiy the most important re-

search with respect to their recommenda-

tions, augmented by a search o recent pub-

lications to assure that the research citations

are up-to-date. Further, the characterization

o the quality and direction o the evidence

underlying a recommendation in a practice

guide relies less on a tight set o rules and

statistical algorithms and more on the judg-

ment o the authors than would be the case

in a high-quality meta-analysis. Anotherdistinction is that a practice guide, because

it aims or a comprehensive and coherent

approach, operates with more numerous

and more contextualized statements o what

works than does a typical meta-analysis.

Thus, practice guides sit somewhere be-

tween consensus reports and meta-analyses

in the degree to which systematic processes

are used or locating relevant research and

characterizing its meaning. Practice guidesare more like consensus panel reports than

meta-analyses in the breadth and com-

plexity o the topics they address. Practice

guides are diferent rom both consensus

reports and meta-analyses in providing

advice at the level o specic action steps

along a pathway that represents a more or

less coherent and comprehensive approach

to a multiaceted problem.


7/17

FOREwORD

The Institute o Education Sciences (IES)

publishes practice guides in education to

bring the best available evidence and exper-

tise to bear on the types o systemic chal-

lenges that cannot currently be addressed

by single interventions or programs. Al-though IES has taken advantage o the his-

tory o practice guides in health care to pro-

vide models o how to proceed in education,

education is dierent rom health care in

ways that may require that practice guides

in education have somewhat dierent de-

signs. Even within health care, where prac-

tice guides now number in the thousands,

there is no single template in use. Rather,

one fnds descriptions o general design

eatures that permit substantial variationin the realization o practice guides across

subspecialties and panels o experts.2 Ac-

cordingly, the templates or IES practice

guides may vary across practice guides and

change over time and with experience.

The steps involved in producing an IES-

sponsored practice guide are, frst, to se-

lect a topic, inormed by ormal surveys o

practitioners and requests. Next is to recruit

a panel chair who has a national reputa-tion and up-to-date expertise in the topic.

Third, the chair, working with IES, selects a

small number o panelists to coauthor the

practice guide. These are people the chair

believes can work well together and have

the requisite expertise to be a convincing

source o recommendations. IES recom-

mends that at one least one o the panelists

be a practitioner with experience relevant to

the topic being addressed. The chair and the

panelists are provided a general templateor a practice guide along the lines o the in-

ormation provided here. The practice guide

panel works under a short deadline o six to

nine months to produce a drat document.

It interacts with and receives eedback rom

sta at IES during the development o the

practice guide, but its members understand

that they are the authors and thus respon-

sible or the fnal product.

One unique eature o IES-sponsored prac-

tice guides is that they are subjected to

rigorous external peer review through the

same oce that is responsible or inde-

pendent review o other IES publications.

A critical task o the peer reviewers o apractice guide is to determine whether

the evidence cited in support o particular

recommendations is up-to-date and that

studies o similar or better quality that

point in a dierent direction have not been

ignored. Peer reviewers also are asked to

evaluate whether the evidence grades as-

signed to particular recommendations by

the practice guide authors are appropriate.

A practice guide is revised as necessary to

meet the concerns o external peer reviewsand gain the approval o the standards

and review sta at IES. The external peer

review is carried out independent o the

oce and sta within IES that instigated

the practice guide.

Because practice guides depend on the

expertise o their authors and their group

decisionmaking, the content o a practice

guide is not and should not be viewed as a

set o recommendations that in every casedepends on and ows inevitably rom sci-

entifc research. It is not only possible but

also likely that two teams o recognized

experts working independently to produce

a practice guide on the same topic would

generate products that dier in important

respects. Thus, consumers o practice

guides need to understand that they are,

in eect, getting the advice o consultants.

These consultants should, on average, pro-

vide substantially better advice than anindividual school district might obtain on

its own because the authors are national

authorities who have to achieve consensus

among themselves, justiy their recom-

mendations with supporting evidence, and

undergo rigorous independent peer review

o their product.

Institute o Education Sciences


8/17

i

Preace romthe authors

The goal o this Practice Guide is to ormu-

late specifc and coherent evidence-basedrecommendations or use by educators

addressing a multiaceted challenge that

lacks developed or evaluated packaged

approaches. The challenge is eective lit-

eracy instruction or English learners in

the elementary grades. At one level, the

target audience is a broad spectrum o

school practitionersadministrators, cur-

riculum specialists, coaches, sta develop-

ment specialists, and teachers. At another

level, a more specifc objective is to reachdistrict-level administrators with a Practice

Guide that will help them develop practice

and policy options or their schools. The

Guide includes specifc recommendations

or district administrators and indicates

the quality o the evidence that supports

these recommendations.

Our expectation is that a superintendent

or curriculum director could use this Prac-

tice Guide to help make decisions aboutpolicy involving literacy instruction or

English learners in the elementary grades.

For example, we include recommendations

on curriculum selection, sensible assess-

ments or monitoring progress, and rea-

sonable expectations or student achieve-

ment and growth. The Guide provides

practical and coherent inormation on

critical topics related to literacy instruc-

tion or English learners.

We, the authors, are a small group with

expertise on various dimensions o this

topic. Several o us are also experts in

research methodology. The range o evi-

dence we considered in developing this

document is vast, ranging rom expert

analyses o curricula and programs, to

case studies o seemingly eective class-

rooms and schools, to trends in the

National Assessment o Educational Prog-

ress data, to correlational studies and

longitudinal studies o patterns o typical

development. For questions about what

works best, high-quality experimental and

quasi-experimental studies, such as thosemeeting the criteria o the What Works

Clearinghouse, have a privileged position

(www.whatworks.ed.gov). In all cases we

pay particular attention to patterns o fnd-

ings that are replicated across studies.

Although we draw on evidence about the

eectiveness o speciic programs and

practices, we use this inormation to make

broader points about improving practice.

In this document we have tried to take afnding rom research or a practice recom-

mended by experts and describe how the

use o this practice or recommendation

might actually unold in school settings.

In other words we aim to provide sucient

detail so that a curriculum director would

have a clear sense o the steps necessary

to make use o the recommendation.

A unique eature o practice guides is

the explicit and clear delineation o thequalityas well as quantityo evidence

that supports each claim. To do this, we

adapted a semistructured hierarchy sug-

gested by the Institute o Education Sci-

ences. This classiication system uses

both the quality and quantity o available

evidence to help determine the strength

o the evidence base in which each rec-

ommended practice is grounded. (This

system appears in appendix 2.)

Strongreers to consistent and generaliz-

able evidence that an approach or prac-

tice causes better outcomes or English

learners or that an assessment is reli-

able and valid. Moderate reers either to

evidence rom studies that allow strong

causal conclusions but cannot be gener-

alized with assurance to the population

on which a recommendation is ocused


9/17

PREFACE ii

(perhaps because the fndings have not

been suciently replicated) or to evidence

rom studies that are generalizable but

have more causal ambiguity than oered

by experimental designs (such as statisti-

cal models o correlational data or groupcomparison designs where equivalence

o the groups at pretest is uncertain). For

the assessments, moderate reers to high-

quality studies rom a small number o

samples that are not representative o the

whole population. Lowreers to expert

opinion based on reasonable extrapola-

tions rom research and theory on other

topics and evidence rom studies that do

not meet the standards or moderate or

strong evidence.

In this English Learner Practice Guide we

use eect sizes or describing the magni-

tude o impact o a program or practice

reported in a study. This metric is increas-

ingly used in social science research to

provide a gauge o the magnitude o the

improvement in perormance reported in a

research study. A common index o eect

size is the mean dierence between the

experimental and comparison conditionsexpressed in standard deviation units. In

accordance with the What Works Clearing-

house criteria we describe an eect size o

+0.25 or higher as substantively important.

This is equivalent to raising perormance

o a group o students at least 10 percen-

tile points on a valid test.

For each recommendation we include an

appendix that provides more technical in-

ormation about the studies and our deci-sions regarding level o evidence or the

recommendation. To illustrate the types o

studies reviewed we describe one study in

considerable detail or each recommenda-

tion. Our goal in doing this is to provide

interested readers with more detail about

the research designs, the intervention

components, and how impact was mea-

sured. By including a particular study, we

do not mean to suggest that it is the best

study reviewed or the recommendation

or necessarily an exemplary study in any

way.

We have not addressed two main areas.

First, we did not address English learners

in middle school and high school. Schools

ace very dierent issues in designing in-

struction or students who enter school

when they are young (and oten have re-

ceived no education or minimal instruc-

tion in another language or educational

system) and those who enter in grades 6

to 12 and oten are making a transition to

another language and another educationalsystem. For that reason we chose to ocus

on only one o these populations, students

in the elementary grades.

Second, we did not address the language

o instruction. Our goal is to provide guid-

ance or all English learners, whether

they are taught to read in their home lan-

guage, in English (by ar the most preva-

lent method in the United States), or in

both languages simultaneously. The rec-ommendations are relevant or students

regardless o their language o reading

instruction. The best language to use or

initial reading instruction has been the

subject o great debate and numerous re-

views o the literature.

Some experts conclude that students are

best served by having some reading in-

struction in their native language,3 others

that students should be taught to read si-multaneously in both English and their na-

tive language,4 still others that the results

are inconclusive.5 Many reviews have cited

serious methodological laws in all the

studies in terms o internal validity;6 oth-

ers have not addressed the quality o the

research design.7 Currently, schools op-

erate under an array o divergent policies

set by the state and local school district.


10/17

iii PREFACE

In most cases school administrators have

little say on issues involving language o

initial reading instruction, so we do not

take a position on this intricate issue or

this Practice Guide.

We would like to thank the ollowing in-

dividuals or their helpul eedback and

reviews o earlier versions o this Guide:

Catherine Snow and Nonie Lesaux o Har-

vard University; Maria Elena Arguelles, in-

dependent consultant; Margaret McKeown

o University o Pittsburgh; Michael Coyne

o University o Connecticut; Benjamin S.

Clarke o University o Oregon and Jeanie

Smith o Pacifc Institutes or Research;

and Lana Edwards Santoro and Rebecca

Newman-Gonchar o RG Research Group.

We also wish to acknowledge the excep-

tional contribution o Elyse Hunt-Heinzen,

our research assistant on the project, and

we thank Charlene Gatewood o OptimalSolutions and the anonymous reviewers

or their contributions to the refnement

o this report.

Dr. Russell GerstenDr. Scott Baker

Dr. Timothy ShanahanDr. Sylvia Linan-Thompson

Dr. Penny CollinsDr. Robin Scarcella


11/17

ix

About the authors

Dr. Russell Gersten is executive director o

Instructional Research Group, a nonproft

educational research institute, as well as

proessor emeritus in the College o Edu-cation at the University o Oregon. He

currently serves as principal investigator

or the What Works Clearinghouseon the

topic o instructional research on English

language learners. He is currently princi-

pal investigator o two large Institute o

Education Sciences projects involving ran-

domized trials in the areas o Reading First

proessional development and reading

comprehension research. His main areas

o expertise are instructional research onEnglish learners, mathematics instruc-

tion, reading comprehension research,

and evaluation methodology. In 2002 Dr.

Gersten received the Distinguished Spe-

cial Education Researcher Award rom

the American Educational Research As-

sociations Special Education Research

Division. Dr. Gersten has more than 150

publications in scientifc journals, such as

Review o Educational Research, American

Educational Research Journal,Reading Re-search Quarterly, Educational Leadership,

and Exceptional Children.

Dr. Scott Baker is the director o Pacifc In-

stitutes or Research in Eugene, Oregon. He

specializes in early literacy measurement

and instruction in reading and mathemat-

ics. Dr. Baker is co-principal investigator on

two grants unded by the Institute o Edu-

cation Sciences, and he is the codirector

o the Oregon Reading First Center. Dr.Bakers scholarly contributions include

conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative

publications on a range o topics related to

students at risk or school diculties and

students who are English learners.

Dr. Timothy Shanahan is proessor o

urban education at the University o Illi-

nois at Chicago (UIC) and director o the

UIC Center or Literacy. He was president o

the International Reading Association until

May 2007. He was executive director o the

Chicago Reading Initiative, a public school

improvement project serving 437,000 chil-

dren, in 200102. He received the Albert J.Harris Award or outstanding research on

reading disability rom the International

Reading Association. Dr. Shanahan served

on the White House Assembly on Reading

and the National Reading Panel, a group

convened by the National Institute o Child

Health and Human Development at the

request o Congress to evaluate research

on successul methods o teaching read-

ing. He has written or edited six books,

including Multidisciplinary Perspectives onLiteracy, and more than 100 articles and

research studies. Dr. Shanahans research

ocuses on the relationship o reading and

writing, school improvement, the assess-

ment o reading ability, and amily literacy.

He chaired the National Literacy Panel on

Language-Minority Children and Youth

and the National Early Literacy Panel.

Dr. Sylvia Linan-Thompson is an associ-

ate proessor, Fellow in the Mollie V. DavisProessorship in Learning Disabilities at

The University o Texas at Austin, and

director o the Vaughn Gross Center or

Reading and Language Arts. She is associ-

ate director o the National Research and

Development Center on English Language

Learners, which is examining the eect o

instructional practices that enhance vo-

cabulary and comprehension or middle

school English learners in content areas.

She has developed and examined readinginterventions or struggling readers who

are monolingual English speakers, English

learners, and bilingual students acquiring

Spanish literacy.

Dr. Penny Collins (ormerly Chiappe) is

an assistant proessor in the Department

o Education at the University o Calior-

nia, Irvine. Her research examines the


12/17

x AbOuT ThE AuThORS

development o reading skills or children

rom linguistically diverse backgrounds

and the early identifcation o children at

risk or reading diculties. She is involved

in projects on eective instructional inter-

ventions to promote academic success orEnglish learners in elementary, middle,

and secondary schools. Dr. Collins is on

the editorial boards oJournal o Learn-

ing DisabilitiesandEducational Psychology.

Her work has appeared in Applied Psycho-

linguistics,Journal o Educational Psychol-

ogy,Journal o Experimental Child Psychol-

ogy, and Scientifc Studies o Reading.

Dr. Robin Scarcella is a proessor in the

School o Humanities at the University

o Caliornia, Irvine, where she also di-

rects the Program o Academic English/

ESL. She has taught English as a second

language in Caliornias elementary andsecondary schools and colleges. She has

written many research articles, appear-

ing in such journals as The TESOL Quar-

terlyand Studies in Second Language Ac-

quisition, as well as in books. Her most

recent volume, Accelerating Academic

English, was published by the University

o Caliornia.


13/17

xi

Disclosure o potentialconficts o interest

Practice guide panels are composed o in-

dividuals who are nationally recognizedexperts on the topics about which they are

rendering recommendations. IES expects

that such experts will be involved proes-

sionally in a variety o matters that relate

to their work as a panel. Panel members

are asked to disclose their proessional

involvements and to institute deliberative

processes that encourage critical examina-

tion the views o panel members as they

relate to the content o the practice guide.

The potential inuence o panel membersproessional engagements is urther muted

by the requirement that they ground their

recommendations in evidence that is docu-

mented in the practice guide. In addition,

the practice guide is subjected to indepen-

dent external peer review prior to publica-

tion, with particular ocus on whether the

evidence related to the recommendations

in the practice guide has been has been

appropriately presented.

The proessional engagements reported

by each panel members that appear most

closely associated with the panel recom-

mendations are noted below.

Dr. Gersten, the panel chair, is a co-author

o a orthcoming Houghton Milin K-6

reading series that includes material re-

lated to English learners. The reading

series is not reerenced in the practice

guide.

Dr. Baker has an author agreement with

Cambium Learning to produce an instruc-

tional module or English learners. Thismodule is not written and is not reerenced

in the practice guide.

Dr. Linan-Thompson was one o the pri-

mary researchers on intervention studies

that used Proactive Reading curriculum,

and she developed the ESL adaptations

or the intervention. Linan-Thompson co-

authored the research reports that are de-

scribed in the Guide.

Dr. Shanahan receives royalties on vari-

ous curricula designed or elementary and

middle school reading instruction, includ-

ing Harcourt Achieve Elements o Reading

Fluency (Grades 1-3); Macmillan McGraw-Hill

Treasures (Grades K-6); and AGS Glove-Pear-

son AMP (Grades 6-8). None o these prod-

ucts, though widely used, are aimed spe-

cifcally at the English learner instructional

market (the ocus o this practice guide).

Macmillan publishes a separate programaimed at the English learner population.

Shanahan is not involved in that program.

Dr. Scarcella provides on-going teacher

proessional development services on aca-

demic vocabulary through the University

o Caliornia Proessional Development

Institutes that are authorized by the Cali-

ornia State Board o Education.


14/17

1

Overview

The National Assessment o Educational

Progress (NAEP) has tracked the achieve-

ment o Hispanic students since 1975. Al-

though many English learners are in theHispanic designation, English learners as

a group have only recently been disaggre-

gated in the NAEP analyses. Recent analy-

sis o long-term trends8 reveals that the

achievement gap between Hispanics and

Whites in reading has been signifcantly

reduced over the past 30 years or 9-year-

olds and 17-year-olds (although not or

13-year-olds).9

Despite apparent progress in the ear-lier grades, major problems persist. For

instance, the 2005 achievement gap o

35 points in reading between ourth-

grade English learners and non-English

learners was greater than the Black-White

achievement gap.10 And the body o sci-

entifc research on eective instructional

strategies is limited or teaching English

learners.11

There have been some signifcant recentadvances. O particular note is the in-

crease in rigorous instructional research

with English learners. Districts and states

have increasingly assessed progress o

English learners in academic areas and in

English language development. Several ex-

amples in the literature illustrate success

stories among English learnersboth or

individual students and or schools. These

students, despite having to learn English

while mastering a typical school curricu-lum, have beaten the odds in academic

achievement.12

How can we increase the chances that

more English learners will achieve these

successes? To answer, we must turn frst

to research. Unortunately, there has not

been sucient research aimed at under-

standing how to improve the quality o

literacy instruction or English learners.

Only about a dozen studies reach the level

o rigor necessary to determine that spe-

cifc instructional practices or programsdo, in act, produce signifcantly better

academic outcomes with English learners.

This work has been analyzed and reviewed

by the What Works Clearinghouse(the

work o the Clearinghouseis integrated

into our text when relevant; new studies

will be added periodically).

Despite the paucity o rigorous experimen-

tal research, we believe that the available

evidence allows us to provide practicalrecommendations about aspects o in-

struction on which research has cast the

sharpest light. This researchsuggestsas

opposed to demonstratesthe practices

most likely to improve learning or Eng-

lish learners.

Over the years many terms have been used

to reer to children who enter school using

a language other than English: limited Eng-

lish profciency (LEP), English as a secondlanguage (ESL), English or speakers o

other languages (ESOL), second language

learners, language minority students,

and so on. In this Practice Guide we use

English learners because we eel it is the

most descriptive and accurate term or the

largest number o children. This term says

nothing about childrens language prof-

ciency or how many other languages they

may useit simply recognizes that they

are learning English.

This Practice Guide provides fve recom-

mendations, integrated into a coherent

and comprehensive approachor improv-ing the reading achievement and English

language development o English learners

in the elementary grades.


15/17

2 OvERvIEw

Recommendations

Conduct ormative assessments with1.

English learners using English lan-

guage measures o phonological pro-

cessing, letter knowledge, and wordand text reading. Use these data to

identiy English learners who require

additional instructional support and

to monitor their reading progress over

time (Level of Evidence: Strong).

Provide ocused, intensive small-group2.

interventions or English learners de-

termined to be at risk or reading prob-

lems. Although the amount o time in

small-group instruction and the inten-sity o this instruction should reect

the degree o risk, determined by read-

ing assessment data and other indica-

tors, the interventions should include

the fve core reading elements (phono-

logical awareness, phonics, reading u-

ency, vocabulary, and comprehension).

Explicit, direct instruction should be

the primary means o instructional de-

livery (Level of Evidence: Strong).

Provide high-quality vocabulary in-3.

struction throughout the day. Teach

essential content words in depth. In

addition, use instructional time to ad-

dress the meanings o common words,

phrases, and expressions not yet

learned (Level of Evidence: Strong).

Ensure that the development o ormal4.

or academic English is a key instruc-

tional goal or English learners, begin-

ning in the primary grades. Provide

curricula and supplemental curricula

to accompany core reading and math-ematics series to support this goal.

Accompany with relevant training and

proessional development (Level of

Evidence: Low).

Ensure that teachers o English learn-5.

ers devote approximately 90 minutes

a week to instructional activities in

which pairs o students at dierent

ability levels or dierent English lan-

guage profciencies work together onacademic tasks in a structured ashion.

These activities should practice and

extend material already taught (Level

of Evidence: Strong).

One major theme in our recommendations

is the importance o intensive, interactive

English language development instruction

or all English learners. This instruction

needs to ocus on developing academic

language (the decontextualized languageo the schools, the language o academic

discourse, o texts, and o ormal argu-

ment). This area, which researchers and

practitioners eel has been neglected, is

one o the key targets in this Guide.


16/17

3

Checklist orcarrying out therecommendations

Recommendation 1.Screen or reading problemsand monitor progress

Districts shold estalish procedres

orand proide training orschools to

screen English learners or reading pro-

lems. The same measres and assessment

approaches can e sed with English learn-

ers and natie English speakers.

Depending on resorces, districts sholdconsider collecting progress monitoring data

more than three times a year or English

learners at risk or reading prolems. The

seerity o the prolem shold dictate how

oten progress is monitoredweekly or i-

weekly or stdents at high risk o reading

prolems.

Data rom screening and progress moni-

toring assessments shold e sed to make

decisions aot the instrctional spportEnglish learners need to learn to read.

Schools with perormance enchmarks

in reading in the early grades can se the

same standards or English learners and or

natie English speakers to make adjst-

ments in instrction when progress is not

sfcient. It is the opinion o the panel that

schools shold not consider elow-grade-

leel perormance in reading as normal

or something that will resole itsel whenoral langage proiciency in English

improes.

Proide training on how teachers are to

se ormatie assessment data to gide

instrction.

Recommendation 2.Provide intensive small-groupreading interventions

use an interention program with st-

dents who enter the frst grade with weakreading and prereading skills, or with older

e lementary s tdents wi th reading

prolems.

Ensre that the program is implemented

daily or at least 30 mintes in small, homo-

geneos grops o three to six stdents.

Proide training and ongoing spport

or the teachers and interentionists (reading

coaches, Title I personnel, or paraedcators)who proide the small-grop instrction.

Training or teachers and other school

personnel who proide the small-grop in-

terentions shold also ocs on how to de-

lier instrction eectiely, independent o

the particlar program emphasized. It is im-

portant that this training inclde the se o

the specifc program materials the teachers

will se dring the school year. bt the train-

ing shold also explicitly emphasize thatthese instrctional techniqes can e sed

in other programs and across other sject

areas.

Recommendation 3.Provide extensive and variedvocabulary instruction

Adopt an eidence-ased approach to

ocalary instrction.

Deelop districtwide lists o essential

words or ocalary instrction. These

words shold e drawn rom the core read-

ing program and rom the textooks sed

in key content areas, sch as science and

history.


17/17

4 RECOmmENDATIONS

vocalary instrction or English learn-

ers shold also emphasize the acqisition o

meanings o eeryday words that natie

speakers know and that are not necessarily

part o the academic crriclm.

Recommendation 4.Develop academic English

Adopt a plan that ocses on ways and

means to help teachers nderstand that in-

strction to English learners mst inclde

time deoted to deelopment o academic

English. Daily academic English instrction

shold also e integrated into the core

crriclm.

Teach academic English in the earliest

grades.

Proide teachers with appropriate pro-

essional deelopment to help them learn

how to teach academic English.

Consider asking teachers to deote aspecifc lock (or locks) o time each day to

ilding English learners academic English.

Recommendation 5.Schedule regular peer-assistedlearning opportunities

Deelop plans that encorage teachers

to schedle aot 90 mintes a week with

actiities in reading and langage arts that

entail stdents working in strctred pairactiities.

Also consider the se o partnering or

English langage deelopment instrction.

Date post:	31-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anon-755928
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

description: tags: 20074011 intro

Documents