Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

download Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

of 55

Transcript of Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    1/55

    IES PRACTICE GUIDE

    Effective Literacy and

    English Language Instruction

    for English Learners

    in the Elementary Grades

    IES PRACTICE GUIDE

    Effective Literacy and

    English Language Instruction

    for English Learners

    in the Elementary Grades

    NCEE 2007-4011

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

    NCEE 2007-4011

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

    WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    2/55

    The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in educationto bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types o systemicchallenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs.

    Authors o practice guides seldom conduct the types o systematic literature searchesthat are the backbone o a meta-analysis, though they take advantage o such workwhen it is already published. Instead, they use their expertise to identiy the mostimportant 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 torigorous 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 particularrecommendations 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 dependon the expertise o their authors and their group decisionmaking, the content o apractice guide is not and should not be viewed as a set o recommendations that inevery case depends on and ows inevitably rom scientifc research.

    The goal o this practice guide is to ormulate specifc and coherent evidence-basedrecommendations or use by educators addressing a multiaceted challenge thatlacks developed or evaluated packaged approaches. The challenge is eective lit-eracy instruction or English learners in the elementary grades. The guide providespractical and coherent inormation on critical topics related to literacy instructionor English learners.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    3/55

    IES PRACTICE GUIDE

    Eective Literacy and

    English Language Instruction

    for English Learners

    in the Elementary Grades

    December 2007

    (Format revised)

    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

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    4/55

    This report was prepared or the National Center or Education Evaluation and RegionalAssistance, Institute o Education Sciences under Contract ED-02-CO-0022 by the WhatWorks Clearinghouse, a project o a joint venture o the American Institutes or Re-search and The Campbell Collaboration, and Contract ED-05-CO-0026 by Optimal So-lutions Group, LLC.

    DisclaimerThe opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors and do notnecessarily represent the opinions and positions o the Institute o Education Sciencesor the United States Department o Education. This practice guide should be reviewedand applied according to the specifc needs o the educators and education agency usingit 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 publication. This practice guideshould be used as a tool to assist in decision-making rather than as a cookbook. Anyreerences within the document to specifc education products are illustrative and donot imply endorsement o these products to the exclusion o other products that arenot reerenced.

    U.S. Department of EducationMargaret SpellingsSecretary

    Institute of Education SciencesGrover J. WhitehurstDirector

    National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional AssistancePhoebe Cottingham

    Commissioner

    December 2007(The content is the same as the July 2007 version, but the ormat has been revised orthis version.)

    This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is notnecessary, 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 EducationEvaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute o Education Sciences, U.S. Department oEducation. Retrieved rom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides .

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

    Alternate FormatsOn 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 AlternateFormat Center at (202) 205-8113.

    http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguideshttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguideshttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguideshttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguideshttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguideshttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    5/55

    ( )

    EffEctivE litEracy and English languagE instruction for English lEarnErs in thE ElEmEntary gradEs

    Contents

    Pee he ine En sene v

    a he h vii

    de pen n nee ix

    inn 1

    the Wh Wk cenghe n n he eene h ge 3

    Eee nn Engh ene 4

    oeew 4

    spe he pe ge 4

    chek yng he eenn 7

    reenn 1. seen eng pe n n pge 9

    reenn 2. Pe nene -gp eng neenn 15

    reenn 3. Pe exene n e y nn 19

    reenn 4. deep e Engh 23

    reenn 5. shee eg pee-e enng ppne 28

    appenx. tehn nn n he e 31

    reenn 1. seen eng pe n n pge 31

    reenn 2. Pe nene -gp eng neenn 32

    reenn 3. Pe exene n e y nn 33

    reenn 4. deep e Engh 35

    reenn 5. shee eg pee-e enng ppne 36

    reeene 38

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    6/55

    ( )

    List o tables

    te 1. ine En sene lee Eene 2

    te 2. reenn n epnng ee eene pp eh 6

    EffEctivE litEracy and English languagE instruction for English lEarnErs in thE ElEmEntary gradEs

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    7/55

    ( )

    Preamble romthe Institute oEducation Sciences

    What is a practice guide?

    The health care proessions have embraced

    a mechanism or assembling and commu-

    nicating evidence-based advice to practitio-

    ners about care or specifc clinical condi-

    tions. Variously called practice guidelines,

    treatment protocols, critical pathways, best

    practice guides, or simply practice guides,

    these documents are systematically devel-

    oped recommendations about the course o

    care or requently encountered problems,

    ranging rom physical conditions such as

    oot ulcers 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 willing to

    endorse. However, practice guides are gen-

    erated under three constraints that typicallydo not apply to consensus panels. The frst is

    that a practice guide consists o a list o dis-

    crete recommendations that are intended to

    be actionable. The second is that those rec-

    ommendations taken together are intended

    to be a coherentapproach to a multiaceted

    problem. The third, which is most important,

    is that each recommendation is explicitly

    connected to the level o 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

    fnds that the top level o evidence is drawn

    rom a body o randomized controlled trials,

    the middle level rom well designed studies

    1. Field & Lohr (1990).

    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 their

    expertise 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. Another

    distinction is that a practice guide, becauseit 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 guides

    are more like consensus panel reports thanmeta-analyses in the breadth and com-

    plexity o the topics they address. Practice

    guides are dierent rom both consensus

    reports and meta-analyses in providing

    advice at the level o specifc action steps

    along a pathway that represents a more or

    less coherent and comprehensive approach

    to a multiaceted problem.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    8/55

    ( )

    PrEamblE from thE institutE of Education sciEncEs

    Practice guides in education at theInstitute o Education Sciences

    The Institute o Education Sciences (IES) pub-

    lishes practice guides in education to bring

    the best available evidence and expertise tobear on the types o systemic challenges that

    cannot currently be addressed by single inter-

    ventions or programs. Although IES has taken

    advantage o the history o practice guides

    in health care to provide models o how to

    proceed in education, education is dierent

    rom health care in ways that may require

    that practice guides in education have some-

    what dierent designs. Even within health

    care, where practice guides now number in

    the thousands, there is no single template in

    use. Rather, one fnds descriptions o gen-

    eral design eatures that permit substantial

    variation in the realization o practice guides

    across subspecialties and panels o experts.2

    Accordingly, 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 recruita panel chair who has a national reputation

    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 requi-

    site expertise to be a convincing source o

    recommendations. IES recommends that at

    one least one o the panelists be a practi-

    tioner with experience relevant to the topic

    being addressed. The chair and the panel-ists are provided a general template or a

    practice guide along the lines o the inor-

    mation 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

    2. American Psychological Association (2002).

    that they are the authors and thus respon-

    sible or the fnal product.

    One unique eature o IES-sponsored practice

    guides is that they are subjected to rigorous

    external peer review through the same ocethat is responsible or independent review o

    other IES publications. A critical task o the

    peer reviewers o a practice guide is to deter-

    mine 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 reviews and

    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 ex-

    pertise 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 scien-

    tifc research. It is not only possible but also

    likely that two teams o recognized experts

    working independently to produce a prac-

    tice 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, provide substantially

    better advice than an individual school dis-trict might obtain on its own because the

    authors are national authorities who have

    to achieve consensus among themselves,

    justiy their recommendations with support-

    ing evidence, and undergo rigorous indepen-

    dent peer review o their product.

    Institute o Education Sciences

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    9/55

    ( )

    About the authors

    Dr. Russell Gersten is executive director

    o Instructional Research Group, a non-

    proft educational research institute, as

    well as proessor emeritus in the College oEducation 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 on

    English 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

    Institutes or Research in Eugene, Ore-

    gon. He specializes in early literacy mea-

    surement and instruction in reading and

    mathematics. Dr. Baker is co-principal

    investigator on two grants unded by the

    Institute o Education Sciences, and he is

    the codirector o the Oregon Reading First

    Center. Dr. Bakers scholarly contributionsinclude conceptual, qualitative, and quan-

    titative publications on a range o topics

    related to students at risk or school di-

    iculties 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 pub-

    lic school improvement project serving

    437,000 children, in 200102. He received

    the Albert J. Harris Award or outstandingresearch on reading disability rom the In-

    ternational Reading Association. Dr. Sha-

    nahan served on the White House Assem-

    bly on Reading and the National Reading

    Panel, a group convened by the National

    Institute o Child Health and Human De-

    velopment at the request o Congress to

    evaluate research on successul methods

    o teaching reading. He has written or ed-

    ited six books, including Multidisciplinary

    Perspectives on Literacy, and more than

    100 articles and research studies. Dr.

    Shanahans research ocuses on the re-

    lationship o reading and writing, school

    improvement, the assessment o reading

    ability, and amily literacy. He chaired

    the National Literacy Panel on Language-

    Minority Children and Youth and the Na-

    tional Early Literacy Panel.

    Dr. Sylvia Linan-Thompson is an associ-

    ate proessor, Fellow in the Mollie V. Davis

    Proessorship in Learning Disabilities atThe 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 reading

    interventions or struggling readers whoare monolingual English speakers, English

    learners, and bilingual students acquiring

    Spanish literacy.

    Dr. Penny Collins (ormerly Chiappe)

    is an assistant proessor in the Depart-

    ment o Education at the University o

    Caliornia, Irvine. Her research exam-

    ines the development o reading skills

    or children rom linguistically diverse

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    10/55

    about thE authors

    ( )

    backgrounds and the early identifcation

    o children at risk or reading diculties.

    She is involved in projects on eective

    instructional interventions to promote

    academic success or English learners

    in elementary, middle, and secondaryschools. Dr. Collins is on the editorial

    boards oJournal o Learning Disabilities

    and Educational Psychology. Her work has

    appeared in Applied Psycholinguistics,

    Journal o Educational Psychology,Jour-

    nal o Experimental Child Psychology, and

    Scientic Studies o Reading.

    Dr. Robin Scarcella is a proessor in the

    School o Humanities at the University o

    Caliornia, Irvine, where she also directs

    the Program o Academic English/ESL. She

    has taught English as a second language

    in Caliornias elementary and second-ary schools and colleges. She has written

    many research articles, appearing in such

    journals as The TESOL Quarterlyand Stud-

    ies in Second Language Acquisition, as well

    as in books. Her most recent volume, Ac-

    celerating Academic English, was published

    by the University o Caliornia.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    11/55

    ( )

    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 members

    proessional 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 reportedby 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 program

    aimed 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.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    12/55

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    13/55

    ( 1 )

    Introduction

    The goal o this practice guide is to ormu-

    late specifc and coherent evidence-based

    recommendations or use by educators

    addressing a multiaceted challenge thatlacks developed or evaluated packaged ap-

    proaches. The challenge is eective liter-

    acy instruction or English learners in the

    elementary grades. At one level, the target

    audience is a broad spectrum o school

    practitionersadministrators, curriculum

    specialists, coaches, sta development

    specialists, and teachers. At another level,

    a more specifc objective is to reach dis-

    trict-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 about

    policy involving literacy instruction or

    English learners in the elementary grades.

    For example, we include recommenda-tions on curriculum selection, sensible

    assessments or monitoring progress,

    and reasonable expectations or student

    achievement and growth. The guide pro-

    vides practical and coherent inormation

    on critical topics related to literacy instruc-

    tion or English learners.

    We, the authors, are a small group with ex-

    pertise on various dimensions o this topic.

    Several o us are also experts in researchmethodology. The range o evidence we

    considered in developing this document is

    vast, rom expert analyses o curricula and

    programs, to case studies o seemingly e-

    ective classrooms and schools, to trends

    in the National Assessment o Educational

    Progress 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 those

    meeting 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 a

    fnding 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 the

    qualityas 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 classifcation system uses both

    the quality and quantity o available evi-dence to help determine the strength o the

    evidence base in which each recommended

    practice is grounded (see table 1).

    Strongreers to consistent and generaliz-

    able evidence that an approach or practice

    causes better outcomes or English learn-

    ers or that an assessment is reliable and

    valid. Moderate reers either to evidence

    rom studies that allow strong causal con-

    clusions but cannot be generalized withassurance to the population on which a rec-

    ommendation is ocused (perhaps because

    the fndings have not been suciently rep-

    licated) or to evidence rom studies that are

    generalizable but have more causal ambi-

    guity than oered by experimental designs

    (such as statistical models o correlational

    data or group comparison designs where

    equivalence o the groups at pretest is un-

    certain). For the assessments, moderate

    http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/
  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    14/55

    introduction

    ( 2 )

    Table 1. Institute o Education Sciences Levels o Evidence

    Strong

    In general, characterization o the evidence or a recommendation as strong requires both studies with

    high internal validity (i.e., studies whose designs can support causal conclusions), as well as studies with

    high external validity (i.e., studies that in total include enough o the range o participants and settings

    on which the recommendation is ocused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalizedto those participants and settings). Strong evidence or this practice guide is operationalized as:

    A systematic review o research that generally meets the standards o the What Works Clearing-

    house (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the eectiveness o a program, practice, or

    approach with no contradictory evidence o similar quality; OR

    Several well-designed, randomized, controlled trials or well-designed quasi-experiments that gen-

    erally meet the standards o the What Works Clearinghouse and support the eectiveness o a pro-

    gram, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evidence o similar quality; OR

    One large, well-designed, randomized, controlled, multisite trial that meets the standards o the

    What Works Clearinghouse and supports the eectiveness o a program, practice, or approach, with

    no contradictory evidence o similar quality; OR

    For assessments, evidence o reliability and validity that meets the Standards or Educational and

    Psychological Testing.

    Moderate

    In general, characterization o the evidence or a recommendation as moderate requires studies with

    high internal validity but moderate external validity, or studies with high external validity but moderate

    internal validity. In other words, moderate evidence is derived rom studies that support strong causal

    conclusions but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that support the generality o a relationship

    but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence or this practice guide is operationalized as:

    Experiments or quasi-experiments generally meeting the standards o the What Works Clearing-

    house and supporting the eectiveness o a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes

    and/or other conditions o implementation or analysis that limit generalizability, and no contrary

    evidence; OR

    Comparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence o groups at pretest and thereore

    do not meet the standards o the What Works Clearinghouse but that (a) consistently show enhanced

    outcomes or participants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have nomajor aws related to internal validity other than lack o demonstrated equivalence at pretest (e.g.,

    only one teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts o instructional time, highly biased

    outcome measures); OR

    Correlational research with strong statistical controls or selection bias and or discerning inuence

    o endogenous actors and no contrary evidence; OR

    For assessments, evidence o reliability that meets the Standards or Educational and Psychological

    Testingbut with evidence o validity rom samples not adequately representative o the population

    on which the recommendation is ocused.

    Low

    In general, characterization o the evidence or a recommendation as low means that the recom-

    mendation is based on expert opinion derived rom strong fndings or theories in related areas

    and/or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or strong

    levels. Low evidence is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards or the moderateor high levels.

    Source: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Councilon Measurement in Education (1999).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    15/55

    introduction

    ( 3 )

    reers to high-quality studies rom a small

    number o samples that are not represen-

    tative o the whole population. Lowreers

    to expert opinion based on reasonable ex-

    trapolations rom research and theory on

    other topics and evidence rom studies thatdo not meet the standards or moderate or

    strong evidence.

    The What Works Clearinghousestandards and theirrelevance to this guide

    In terms o the levels o evidence indicated

    in table 1, we rely on the What Works Clear-

    inghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards to

    assess the quality o evidence supporting

    educational programs and practices. The

    WWC addresses evidence or the causal

    validity o instructional programs and

    practices according to WWC Standards. In-

    ormation about these standards is avail-

    able at http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/

    reviewprocess/standards.html. The tech-

    nical quality o each study is rated and

    placed into one o three categories:

    Meets Evidence Standards(a) or random-

    ized controlled trials and regressiondiscontinuity studies that provide the

    strongest evidence o causal validity;

    Meets Evidence Standards with Reserva-(b)

    tionsor all quasi-experimental studies

    with no design aws and randomized

    controlled trials that have problems

    with randomization, attrition, or dis-

    ruption; and

    Does Not Meet Evidence Screens(c) or

    studies that do not provide strong evi-

    dence o causal validity.

    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 conditions

    expressed 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 recommenda-

    tion or necessarily an exemplary study in

    any way.

    http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    16/55

    ( 4 )

    Eective instructionor English learners

    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 the

    Hispanic designation, English learners as

    a group have only recently been disaggre-

    gated in the NAEP analyses. Recent analy-

    sis o long-term trends3 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).4

    Despite apparent progress in the earlier

    grades, major problems persist. For in-

    stance, the 2005 achievement gap o 35

    points in reading between ourth-grade

    English learners and non-English learners

    was greater than the Black-White achieve-

    ment gap.5 And the body o scientifc re-

    search on eective instructional strategies

    is limited or teaching English learners.6

    There have been some signifcant recent

    advances. 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

    3. See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/

    results2004/sub_reading_race2.asp (retrieved

    October 9, 2006).

    4. See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/

    reading_math_2005/s0015.asp (retrieved March

    16, 2007).

    5. See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/

    reading_math_2005/s0015.asp.

    6. August & Hakuta (1997); Shanahan & August

    (2006).

    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.7

    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 programs

    do, 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 practical rec-

    ommendations about aspects o instructionon which research has cast the sharpest

    light. This researchsuggestsas opposed

    to demonstratesthe practices most likely

    to improve learning or English learners.

    Scope o the practice guide

    Over the years many terms have been

    used to reer to children who enter school

    using a language other than English: lim-

    ited English profciency (LEP), English as asecond language (ESL), English or speak-

    ers o other languages (ESOL), second lan-

    guage learners, language minority stu-

    dents, 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

    7. Morrison Institute or Public Policy (2006).

    http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/sub_reading_race2.asphttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/sub_reading_race2.asphttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/sub_reading_race2.asphttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/sub_reading_race2.asp
  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    17/55

    ovErviEW

    ( 5 )

    profciency 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 andcomprehensive approachor improvingthe reading achievement and English lan-

    guage development o English learners in

    the elementary grades (see table 2).

    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 education

    system) and those who enter in grades 6

    to 12 and oten are making a transition to

    another language and another education

    system. 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 guidanceor all English learners, whether they are

    taught to read in their home language, in

    English (by ar the most prevalent method

    in the United States), or in both languages

    simultaneously. The recommendations are

    relevant or students regardless o their

    language o reading instruction. The best

    language to use or initial reading instruc-

    tion has been the subject o great debate

    and numerous reviews o the literature.

    Some experts conclude that students

    are best served by having some read-

    ing instruction in their native language,8

    others that students should be taught to

    read simultaneously in both English and

    their native language,9 still others that

    8. Greene (1997).

    9. Slavin & Cheung (2005).

    the results are inconclusive.10 Many re-

    views have cited serious methodological

    aws in all the studies in terms o inter-

    nal validity;11 others have not addressed

    the quality o the research design.12 Cur-

    rently, schools operate under an arrayo divergent policies set by the state and

    local school district. In most cases school

    administrators have little say on issues in-

    volving language o initial reading instruc-

    tion, so we do not take a position on this

    intricate issue or this practice guide.

    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 (i.e., the decontextualized lan-

    guage o the schools, the language o aca-

    demic discourse, o texts, and o ormal

    argument). This area, which researchers

    and practitioners eel has been neglected,

    is one o the key targets in this 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, andwe thank Charlene Gatewood o Optimal

    Solutions and the anonymous reviewers

    or their contributions to the refnement

    o this report.

    10. August & Hakuta (1997); Rossell & Baker(1996).

    11. August & Hakuta (1997); Francis, Lesaux, &August (2006).

    12. Greene (1997).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    18/55

    ovErviEW

    ( 6 )

    Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding level o evidence to support each

    Recommendation Level of evidence

    Conduct ormative assessments with English learners using English language measures o pho-1.

    nological processing, letter knowledge, and word and text reading. Use these data to identiy

    English learners who require additional instructional support and to monitor their reading

    progress over time.

    Strong

    Provide ocused, intensive small-group interventions or English learners determined to be at2.

    risk or reading problems. Although the amount o time in small-group instruction and the in-

    tensity o this instruction should reect the degree o risk, determined by reading assessment

    data and other indicators, the interventions should include the fve core reading elements (pho-

    nological awareness, phonics, reading uency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Explicit, direct

    instruction should be the primary means o instructional delivery.

    Strong

    Provide high-quality vocabulary instruction throughout the day. Teach essential content words3.

    in depth. In addition, use instructional time to address the meanings o common words, phrases,

    and expressions not yet learned.

    Strong

    Ensure that the development o ormal or academic English is a key instructional goal or Eng-4.

    lish learners, beginning in the primary grades. Provide curricula and supplemental curricula to

    accompany core reading and mathematics series to support this goal. Accompany with relevant

    training and proessional development.

    Low

    Ensure that teachers o English learners devote approximately 90 minutes a week to in-5.

    structional activities in which pairs o students at dierent ability levels or dierent Eng-

    lish language profciencies work together on academic tasks in a structured ashion. These

    activities should practice and extend material already taught.

    Strong

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    19/55

    ( 7 )

    Checklist or carrying outthe recommendations

    Recommendation 1. Screen for readingproblems and monitor progress

    d h eh pee

    n pe nng h

    een Engh ene eng p-

    e. the e ee n een

    pphe n e e wh Engh en-

    e n ne Engh peke.

    depenng n ee, h

    ne eng pge nng

    e hn hee e ye Engh

    ene k eng pe. the

    eey he pe h e hw

    en pge neweeky -

    weeky en hgh k eng

    pe.

    d eenng n pge n-

    ng een h e e ke

    en he nn pp

    Engh ene nee en e.

    sh wh pene enhk

    n eng n he ey ge n e hee n Engh ene n

    ne Engh peke ke jen

    n nn when pge n f-

    en. i he pnn he pne h

    h h n ne ew-ge-

    ee pene n eng n

    ehng h w ee e when

    ngge pfeny n Engh pe.

    Pe nng n hw ehe e

    e e een genn.

    Recommendation 2. Provide intensivesmall-group reading interventions

    ue n neenn pg wh -

    en wh ene he f ge wh wek

    eng n peeng k, wh e

    e eeny en w h eng

    pe.

    Ene h he pg peene

    y e 30 ne n , h-

    gene gp hee x en.

    Pe nng n ngng pp he ehe n neenn (eng

    he, te i penne, pe)

    wh pe he -gp nn.

    tnng ehe n he h

    penne wh pe he -gp ne-

    enn h n hw ee

    nn eeey, nepenen he

    p pg ephze. i p-

    n h h nng ne he e he

    pef pg e he ehe w

    e ng he h ye. b he nng

    h expy ephze h hee

    nn ehnqe n e e n he

    pg n he je e.

    Recommendation 3. Provide extensiveand varied vocabulary instruction

    ap n eene-e pph

    y nn.

    deep we eenw y nn. thee w

    h e wn he e eng p-

    g n he exk e n key

    nen e, h ene n hy.

    vy nn Engh en-

    e h ephze he qn

    enng eeyy w h ne

    peke knw n h e n neey

    p he e .

    Recommendation 4. Develop academicEnglish

    ap pn h e n wy n

    en hep ehe nen h n-

    n Engh ene ne

    e ee eepen e

    Engh. dy e Engh nn

    h e nege n he e

    .

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    20/55

    chEcklist for carrying out thE rEcommEndations

    ( 8 )

    teh e Engh n he ee

    ge.

    Pe ehe wh pppe p-

    en eepen hep he enhw eh e Engh.

    cne kng ehe ee

    pef k ( k) e eh y

    ng Engh ene e Engh.

    Recommendation 5. Schedule regularpeer-assisted learning opportunities

    deep pn h enge ehe

    hee 90 ne week wh

    e n eng n ngge hen en wkng n e p

    e.

    a ne he e pneng

    Engh ngge eepen nn.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    21/55

    ( 9 )

    Recommendation 1.Screen or readingproblems andmonitor progresscn e een wh

    Engh ene ng Engh ngge

    ee phng peng,

    ee knwege, n w n ex

    eng. ue hee eny

    Engh ene wh eqe n

    nn pp n n

    he eng pge e e.

    Level o evidence: Strong

    This recommendation is based on a large

    number o studies that used reading assess-

    ment measures with English learners.

    Brie summary o evidence tosupport this recommendation

    Twenty-one studies demonstrated that

    three types o measuresphonological

    processing, letter and alphabetic knowl-

    edge, and reading o word lists or connectedtextare valid means o determining which

    English learners are likely to beneft rom

    typical classroom reading instruction and

    which children will require extra support

    (see appendix 1 or details).13 The primary

    purpose o these measures is to determine

    whether interventions are necessary to

    increase the rate o reading achievement.

    13. Arab-Moghaddam & Snchal (2001); Baker

    (2006); Baker, Gersten, Haager, & Dingle (2006);Baker & Good (1995); Chiappe, Siegel, & Gottardo

    (2002); Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley (2002);

    Dominguez de Ramirez & Shapiro (2006); Geva

    & Yaghoub-Zadeh (2006); Geva et al. (2000);

    Larance & Gottardo (2005); Leastedt, Richards,

    & Gerber (2004); Lesaux & Siegel (2003); Limbos

    (2006); Limbos & Geva (2001); Manis, Lindsey,

    & Bailey (2004); Quiroga, Lemos-Britton, Mosta-

    apour, Abbott, & Berninger (2002); Swanson,

    Sez, & Gerber (2004); Verhoeven (1990, 2000);

    Wang & Geva (2003); Wiley & Deno (2005).

    These measures meet the standards o the

    American Psychological Association or

    valid screening instruments.14

    For students in kindergarten and grade 1.

    The early screening measures or kinder-garten and the frst grade ft into three

    categories:

    Measures o phonological awareness

    such as segmenting the phonemes in a

    word, sound blending, and rhyming

    are useul in both kindergarten and

    frst grade.15

    Measures o amiliarity with the alpha-

    bet and the alphabetic principle, espe-

    cially measures o speed and accuracy

    in letter naming and phonological re-

    coding, are useul in both kindergarten

    and frst grade.16

    Measures o reading single words and

    knowledge o basic phonics rules are

    useul in frst grade.17 Toward the mid-

    dle and end o the frst grade, and in

    the next ew grades, measures o read-

    ing connected text accurately and u-

    ently are useul.18

    For students in grades 2 to 5. Three stud-

    ies have demonstrated that oral reading

    luency measures are valid screening

    measures or English learners and are

    positively associated with perormance

    14. American Educational Research Association,

    American Psychological Association, & National

    Council on Measurement in Education (1999).

    15. Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley (2002); Geva

    et al. (2000); Larance & Gottardo (2005); Lesaux

    & Siegel, (2003); Limbos & Geva (2001); Manis et

    al. (2004).

    16. Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley (2002); Geva

    et al. (2000); Lesaux & Siegel (2003); Limbos & Geva

    (2001); Manis et al. (2004); Swanson et al. (2004).

    17. Limbos & Geva (2001); Swanson et al.

    (2004).

    18. Baker & Good (1995).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    22/55

    1. scrEEn for rEading ProblEms and monitor ProgrEss

    ( 10 )

    on comprehensive standardized reading

    tests. Oral reading uency is emerging as

    a valid indicator o reading progress over

    time or English learners.19

    These criterion-related validity studies areparticularly important because another

    set o studies has investigated whether

    English learners can attain rates o read-

    ing growth comparable with those o their

    monolingual peers. These studies have

    demonstrated that English learners can

    learn to read in English at the same rate

    as their peers in the primary grades (K

    2).20 Much o this evidence comes rom re-

    search in Canada and rom schools provid-

    ing intensive and systematic instruction

    or all children, supplementary instruction

    or those alling behind, and instruction in

    settings where growth in oral profciency

    is supported by both peer and teacher-

    student interactions. Evidence on reading

    interventions or English learners in the

    United States is the ocus o Recommen-

    dation 2.

    How to carry out therecommendation

    1. d h eh pee

    n pe nng h een

    Engh ene eng pe. the

    e ee n een pphe

    n e e wh Engh ene n ne

    Engh peke.

    Research shows that early reading mea-

    sures, administered in English, can be

    used to screen English learners or read-

    ing problems. This fnding is importantbecause until recently it was widely be-

    lieved that an absence o oral profciency

    in English prevented English learners rom

    19. Baker & Good (1995); Dominguez de Ramirez

    & Shapiro (2006); Wiley & Deno (2005).

    20. Chiappe & Siegel (1999); Chiappe, Siegel, &

    Wade-Woolley (2002); Lesaux & Siegel (2003); Lim-

    bos & Geva (2001).

    learning to read in English,21 thus limiting

    the utility o early screening measures.

    The common practice was to wait until

    English learners reached a reasonable

    level o oral English profciency beore as-

    sessing them on measures o beginningreading. In act, oral language measures

    o syntax, listening comprehension, and

    oral vocabulary do not predictwho is

    likely to struggle with learning to read.22

    Yet research has consistently ound that

    early reading measures administered in

    English are an excellent means or screen-

    ing English learners, even those who know

    little English.23

    It is very important to assess phonological

    processing, alphabet knowledge, phonics,

    and word reading skills. These measures,

    whether administered at the middle or

    end o kindergarten (or at the beginning

    o the frst grade) have been shown to ac-

    curately predict later reading perormance

    in all areas: word reading,24 oral reading

    uency,25 and reading comprehension.26

    So, it is essential to administer some type

    o screening to provide evidence-based be-

    ginning reading interventions to students

    in the primary grades.

    In no way do these fndings suggest that

    oral language profciency and comprehen-

    sion are unimportant in the early grades.

    These language abilities are critical or

    21. Fitzgerald (1995); Krashen (1985).

    22. Bialystok & Herman (1999); Geva, Yaghoub-

    Zadeh, & Schuster (2000); Limbos & Geva (2001).

    23. Chiappe & Siegel (1999); Chiappe, Siegel, &Wade-Woolley (2002); Lesaux & Siegel (2003); Lim-

    bos & Geva, (2001).

    24. Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Wooley (2002); Geva

    et al. (2000); Lesaux & Siegel (2003); Limbos &

    Geva (2001); Manis et al. (2004); Swanson et al.

    (2004).

    25. Geva & Yaghoub-Zadeh (2006); Lesaux & Sie-

    gel (2003).

    26. Chiappe, Glaeser, & Ferko (2007); Lesaux,

    Lipka, & Siegel (2006); Lesaux & Siegel (2003).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    23/55

    1. scrEEn for rEading ProblEms and monitor ProgrEss

    ( 11 )

    long-term success in school.27 We expand

    on this point in Recommendation 4, by dis-

    cussing the importance o directly teach-

    ing academic English. The assessment

    fndings point to eective ways to screen

    English learners or reading problems andto determine whether they are making

    sucient progress in oundational areas

    o early reading.

    2. depenng n ee, h

    ne eng pge nng

    e hn hee e ye Engh

    ene k eng pe. the

    eey he pe h e hw

    en pge neweeky -

    weeky en hgh k eng

    pe.28

    3. d eenng n pge n-

    ng een h e e ke

    en he nn pp

    Engh ene nee en e.

    Data rom ormative assessments should

    be used to modiy (and intensiy) the read-

    ing and English language development (or

    ESL) instruction a child receives. These

    interventions should be closely alignedwith the core reading program. Possible

    interventions are described in Recom-

    mendation 2.

    Caveat: Measures administered at the be-

    ginning o kindergarten will tend to over-

    identiy students as at risk.29 A better

    indication o how students will respond

    to school instruction comes rom peror-

    mance scores rom the middle and end

    o kindergarten. These scores should beused to identiy students requiring seri-

    ous instructional support. Scores rom the

    27. Miller, Heilmann, Nockerts, Iglesias, Fabi-

    ano, et al. (2006); Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow

    (2005).

    28. Baker & Good (1995); Dominguez de Ramirez

    & Shapiro (2006).

    29. Baker (2006).

    beginning o kindergarten can provide a

    general sense o students early literacy

    skills, but these scores should not be used

    as an indication o how well students are

    likely to respond to instruction.

    4. sh wh pene enhk n

    eng n he ey ge n e he e

    n Engh ene n ne

    Engh peke ke jen n n-

    n when pge nfen. i

    he pnn he pne h h h

    n ne ew-ge-ee pene

    n eng n ehng h w

    ee e when ngge pfeny

    n Engh pe.

    Using the same standards or successul

    reading perormance with English learn-

    ers and native English speakers may mean

    that a higher percentage o English learn-

    ers will require more intensive reading in-

    struction to reach the benchmarks, but we

    believe that this early emphasis on strong

    reading instruction will be helpul in the

    long run. Providing intensive early read-

    ing instruction or English learners does

    not imply they have a reading disability or

    they are not able to learn to read as wellas other students. It means that while they

    are learning a new language and learning

    to read in that language simultaneously,

    they ace challenges other students do not

    ace. The instruction they receive should

    reect the nature o this challenge.

    A score on a screening measure indicat-

    ing that an English learner may be at risk

    or reading diculties does not mean the

    child has a reading disability. Being at riskmeans that the English learner needs extra

    instructional support to learn to read. This

    support might simply entail additional

    time on English letter names and letter

    sounds. In other cases additional support

    might entail intensive instruction in pho-

    nological awareness or reading uency.

    Additional diagnostic assessments can

    be administered to determine what areas

    require instructional attention.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    24/55

    1. scrEEn for rEading ProblEms and monitor ProgrEss

    ( 12 )

    Unless districts have considerable re-

    sources and expertise, they should not

    try to develop the ormative assessment

    materials on their own. Several screen-

    ing and progress monitoring materials

    that have been developed and tested withnative-English-speaking students are ap-

    propriate to use with English learners. In-

    ormation about ormative assessments

    can be ound rom a number o sources,

    including the Web and commercial devel-

    opers. Please note that the authors o this

    guide did not conduct a comprehensive re-

    view o available assessments (such a large

    undertaking was beyond the scope o this

    project), and individual schools and dis-

    tricts should be careul when selecting as-

    sessments to use. It is important to select

    assessments that are reliable and valid.

    5. Pe nng n hw ehe e

    e e een ge

    nn.

    The primary purpose o the ormative

    assessment data is to determine which

    students are at risk (or not making su-

    cient progress) and to increase the inten-

    sity o reading instruction systematicallyor those students.We recommend that

    school-based teams o teachers be trained

    to examine ormative assessment data to

    identiy which English learners are at risk

    and to determine what instructional ad-

    justments will increase reading progress.

    These teams can be or one grade or across

    grades. We believe that the reading coach,

    in schools that have one, should play a key

    role on these teams. Although principals

    should also play an important leadershiprole, it may be dicult or them to attend

    all meetings or be extensively involved.

    Possible roadblocks and solutions

    1. se ehe eee h eng p-

    e y ee heee ne Engh

    ene eep peny n Eng-

    h. s, hey e hen ee hee -

    en n ne pe

    nene nn n nn e

    egnnng eng.

    There is no evidence to support the po-

    sition that early reading problems expe-

    rienced by English learners will resolvethemselves once oral language skills in

    English are established.30 Districts should

    develop and disseminate materials ex-

    plaining that using English oral language

    profciency is as accurate as ipping a coin

    to decide which English learners are likely

    to have diculty learning how to read.

    To demonstrate that phonological, letter

    knowledge, and word reading measures

    are eective screening measures, princi-

    pals and reading coaches can look at data

    rom their own schools and see the links

    between scores on these measures in kin-

    dergarten and the irst grade and later

    scores on state reading assessments.

    2. se ehe y ee h n

    e h n ngge h he he e

    n nen.

    Although this is true in many areas, it is

    not true or tasks involving phonologicalprocessing, as long as the child under-

    stands the nature o the task.31 I students

    possess phonemic awareness o a word

    such as cake or an, even without know-

    ing the meaning they should be able to tell

    the examiner the frst, middle, and last

    sounds in the word. Phonological aware-

    ness is an auditory skill that greatly helps

    students with reading development, and it

    transers across languages. That is, i stu-

    dents learn the structure o sounds in onelanguage, this knowledge will help them

    identiy individual sounds in a second lan-

    guage without being taught explicitly what

    those individual sounds are. It is possible

    30. August & Hakuta (1997); August & Shanahan

    (2006); Geva et al. (2000).

    31. Cisero & Royer (1995); Gottardo (2002); Hsia

    (1992); Mumtaz & Humphreys (2001).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    25/55

    1. scrEEn for rEading ProblEms and monitor ProgrEss

    ( 13 )

    to demonstrate this to teachers by having

    them pull apart the sounds in words rom

    an unamiliar language, such as Russian or

    Arabic. Reading coaches can demonstrate

    that once a student knows how to identiy

    the beginning, ending, or middle sound oa word, knowing the meaning o a word is

    irrelevant in being able to reproduce the

    sound.

    Teachers should be clear that, or pho-

    nological processing tasks to be valid,

    English learners have to understand the

    task, but this is dierent rom knowing

    word meanings. For an assessment to be

    valid the examiner must clearly explain

    the nature o the task and the child must

    understand what she or he is being asked

    to do. I possible, adults who are uent in

    the childs native language can be hired

    and trained to administer assessments.

    But good training is essential. When ap-

    propriate, the examiner can explain or

    clariy the task in the language the child

    understands best. For districts with many

    native languages and ew proessional ed-

    ucators uent in each native language, it

    is possible to make CDs o instruction in

    the appropriate native languages.

    Make sure at least two or three practice

    items are provided beore ormal admin-

    istration, when the task is modeled or the

    child and corrective eedback is provided.

    This will give all children (especially Eng-

    lish learners) the opportunity to under-

    stand what the task requires o them. An

    important consideration or all assess-

    ments is to ollow the testing guidelines

    and administration protocols providedwith the assessment. It is acceptable to

    provide practice examples or explanations

    in the students native language outside

    the testing situation. During the testing,

    however, it is essential that all assessment

    directions and protocols be ollowed. Re-

    member, the purpose o the assessment

    is to determine whether children are pho-

    nologically aware or know the letters o

    the alphabet. It is not to determine how

    quickly or well children learn the orma-

    tive assessment task when they are given

    explicit instruction in how to complete

    the task.

    3. se ehe y ee h ne n-gge een e e hn

    Engh ngge ee h gp

    en.

    Formative early reading assessments in

    English are valid or English learners.32

    I district and state policies permit test-

    ing a child in her or his native language,

    it is possible to get a richer picture o her

    decoding skills or amiliarity with the

    alphabet. But this is not necessary or

    phonological awareness because it easily

    transers across languages. Students who

    have this awareness in their native lan-

    guage will be able to demonstrate it on an

    English language assessment as long as

    they understand the task.33 In other words,

    even students who are limited in English

    will be able to demonstrate knowledge o

    phonological awareness and decoding in

    English.

    4. d h npe h h whe eneny ew en

    he en g nng e -

    een, epey ey n he pe.

    It is important to remind school personnel

    that data collection is just one step in the

    process. The goal o collecting ormative

    assessment data is to identiy students

    who are not making adequate progress

    and to increase the intensity o instruction

    or these students. In a system where theperormance o all children is assessed

    multiple times a year, it is easy to become

    consumed by ways o organizing, analyz-

    ing, and presenting data and to lose sight

    32. Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley (2002); Geva

    et al. (2000); Limbos (2006); Manis et al. (2004);

    Townsend, Lee, & Chiappe (2006).

    33. Cisero & Royer (1995); Gottardo (2002);

    Quiroga et al. (2002).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    26/55

    1. scrEEn for rEading ProblEms and monitor ProgrEss

    ( 14 )

    o the primary purpose o data collection:

    to determine which students need extra

    support and which do not.

    5. in h he he e ey e-

    ng g n n Engh enen nn-Engh ene, key h he

    en pene ny Engh en-

    e w e ew hee n.

    Although the average perormance o Eng-

    lish learners may be lower than that o

    non-English learners, there is no reason to

    assume that English learners cannot make

    the reading progress necessary to reach

    high standards o perormance.34 This

    progress will require providing more in-

    34. Chiappe & Siegel (2006); Chiappe, Siegel,

    & Wade-Woolley (2002); Lesaux & Siegel (2003);

    Geva et al. (2000); Limbos & Geva (2001); Verho-

    even (1990, 2000).

    tensive instruction than the district might

    normally provide in both reading and lan-

    guage development.

    6. tehe y h n wh

    eephne k, eng -y, n eng enyn ne-

    ge nn n pehenn n

    y.

    In monitoring student progress in phono-

    logical processing, phonics, and reading

    uency, instruction in the development

    o comprehension and higher order think-

    ing skills may be overlooked. But these

    skills should not be neglected. Instruc-

    tion in comprehension and higher order

    skills should receive attention in the ear-

    liest phases o reading development. The

    challenge or schools will be to maintain a

    strong instructional ocus on both higher

    and lower order skills.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    27/55

    2. ProvidE intEnsivE small-grouP rEading intErvEntions

    ( 15 )

    Recommendation 2.Provide intensivesmall-group readinginterventions

    Pe e, nene -gp

    neenn Engh ene

    eene e k eng

    pe. ahgh he n

    e n -gp nn n

    he neny h nn h

    ee he egee k, eene

    y eng een n

    he n, he neenn

    h ne he fe e eng

    eeen (phng wene,

    phn, eng eny, y,

    n pehenn). Exp, e

    nn h e he py

    en nn eey.

    Level o evidence: Strong

    This recommendation is based on our

    high-quality randomized controlled trialsat various sites with dierent interven-

    tions that share core characteristics in

    design and content.

    Brie summary o evidence tosupport this recommendation

    In the past several years our high-quality

    randomized controlled trials have been

    conducted on reading interventions or

    struggling English learners. These stud-ies appear as Intervention Reportson the

    What Works Clearinghouse website.35 Ap-

    pendix 1 provides technical details on the

    methodology used in these studies, the

    key fndings, and statistical signifcance

    levels. These interventions used the ol-

    lowing three programs:

    35. For urther inormation on the What Works

    Clearinghouse, visit www.whatworks.ed.gov.

    Enhanced Proactive Reading. 36

    Read Well. 37

    SRA Reading Mastery/SRA Corrective

    Reading.38

    The participants in these research studies

    were English learners in grades 15 with

    serious reading problems (reading at least

    one year below grade level or scoring in the

    lowest quartile on standardized tests). Read-

    ing achievement was assessed on a wide

    range o measures, including word reading,

    comprehension, and vocabulary. The What

    Works Clearinghouse ound that all three

    curricula demonstrated potentially posi-

    tive eects on reading achievement. The

    designation potentially positive reers to an

    eect supported by at least one study but

    not enough studies to support the Clearing-

    houses highest evaluation opositive.

    An important fnding was that in two o

    the our studies the interventions demon-

    strated lasting eectson reading peror-

    mance. In investigating the longitudinal

    eects oEnhanced Proactive Reading,

    positive achievement outcomes were main-tained when students who received the in-

    tervention in the frst grade were assessed

    at the end o the second grade.39 Students

    in the frst grade intervention group read

    at higher levels than students in the con-

    trol group one year ater the intervention

    ended. For the SRA program the positive

    reading eect was maintained two years

    ater the intervention ended.40

    The programs used in these studies hadmany characteristics in common. They

    36. Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006); Vaughn, Mathes,

    et al. (2006).

    37. Denton et al. (2004).

    38. Gunn et al. (2002).

    39. Cirino et al. (2007); Gunn et al. (2002).

    40. Gunn et al. (2002).

    http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/
  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    28/55

    2. ProvidE intEnsivE small-grouP rEading intErvEntions

    ( 16 )

    ormed a central aspect o daily reading

    instruction and took between 30 and 50

    minutes to implement per day. In each

    study program implementation involved

    intensive small-group instruction ollow-

    ing the principles o direct and explicit in-struction in the core areas o reading.

    How to carry out therecommendation

    1. ue n neenn pg wh en

    wh ene he f ge wh wek eng

    n peeng k, wh e eeen-

    y en wh eng pe.41

    Because there are many similarities be-

    tween the three programs assessed here,

    we conclude that other programs that ol-

    low the same principles o direct and ex-

    plicit instruction to teach core reading el-

    ements in small groups are likely to have

    the same benefcial eects. The major in-

    structional principles that characterize the

    three programs are:

    Multiple opportunities or students to

    respond to questions.

    Multiple opportunities or students to

    practice reading both words and sen-

    tences, either in a small group or with

    a peer.

    Clear eedback rom the teacher when

    students make errors.

    Explicit instruction in all areas o read-

    ing, including explicit comprehension

    instruction and explicit vocabulary

    instruction. Sucient coverage o fve

    areasphonological awareness, pho-

    nics, reading uency, vocabulary, andcomprehensionshould be a key cri-

    terion in selecting an intervention pro-

    gram or use in the school district.42

    41. Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck

    (2004); Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, & Black (2002);

    Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006); Vaughn, Mathes,

    et al. (2006).

    42. August & Siegel (2006); Quiroga et al. (2002);

    Shanahan & Beck (2006).

    2. Ene h he pg peene

    y e 30 ne n , h-

    gene gp hee x en.

    Students make gains in reading when

    they have daily instruction in small ho-mogeneous groups based on reading

    skill and receive explicit, clear, direct

    instruction.43So, there is no compelling

    reason why all students in the group need

    to be English learners. In act, we think

    there could be advantages to groups that

    include native English speakers and Eng-

    lish learners because native English speak-

    ers can provide models o more advanced

    English language usage. But to ensure that

    students can accelerate their learning,

    students who are making solid progress

    based on ongoing assessments should be

    regrouped (or example, move students

    making rapid progress to higher perorm-

    ing groups).44

    3. Pe nng n ngng pp

    he ehe n neenn (e-

    ng he, te i penne, p-

    e) wh pe he -gp

    nn.45

    Each o the our research studies that

    produced a positive impact on reading

    achievement involved extensive training

    o the teachers and interventionists. This

    training is most eective when all person-

    nel who work with English learners par-

    ticipate together in the same proessional

    development activities.46

    43. Denton et al. (2004); Gunn et al. (2002);Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006); Vaughn, Mathes,

    et al. (2006).

    44. Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman-Davis

    (2003).

    45. In two o the our intervention studies, in-

    structional assistants were trained to provide the

    instruction. Gunn et al. (2002); Vaughn, Cirino,

    et al. (2006); Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006); Cirino

    et al. (2007).

    46. Haager & Windmueller (2001).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    29/55

    2. ProvidE intEnsivE small-grouP rEading intErvEntions

    ( 17 )

    One key aspect o these interventions is

    pacing. It is particularly important that

    the teachers and interventionists receive

    training in how to teach these programs at

    an appropriate pace. This critical aspect o

    instruction is requently overlooked. Whenit is missing rom instruction, it is easy or

    children to become bored or to lose ocus,

    which can lead to behavior problems.

    The three intervention programs

    studiedand others like themcontain

    highly engaging activities o short du-

    ration. The Panel believes that teachers

    should implement the activities, whatever

    their ocus, as outlined in the teacher man-

    uals and training materials.

    4. tnng ehe n he h

    penne wh pe he -gp

    neenn h n hw

    ee nn eeey, nepenen

    he p pg ephze. i

    pn h h nng ne he e

    he pef pg e he eh-

    e w e ng he h ye. b he

    nng h expy ephze

    h hee nn ehnqe n e

    e n he pg n heje e.47

    Examples o these techniques include in-

    structional pacing, providing eedback

    to students, including error corrections,

    modeling, and providing wait time or

    student responses. For many teachers this

    ast-paced interactive instruction will be

    unamiliar, and coaching support in the

    classroom will be critical or them to be

    eective. This training and coaching in theclassroom should be provided by master

    teachers with experience in the specifc

    program.

    47. Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006); Vaughn, Mathes,

    et al. (2006). Gunn et al. (2002).

    Possible roadblocks and solutions

    1. tehe y e ne enyng

    en n eng nn

    he Engh ngge k e w.48

    English language profciency is not a good

    gauge o how well English learners can

    respond to additional reading instruction

    (see Recommendation 1). In addition to

    helping with the development o critical

    reading skills, extra instructional time

    devoted to vocabulary, reading compre-

    hension, and listening comprehension will

    help directly with the development o Eng-

    lish language profciency.

    2. sen ey e pe

    he ee (h peeh, Engh n-

    gge eepen, Engh en

    ngge). Png en n

    eng nn ke he nn

    y gene.

    A ragmented instructional day is a legiti-

    mate concern (and not just or English learn-

    ers). But the Panel believes that reading de-

    velopment is too important to withhold any

    opportunity or small-group instruction.Reducing ragmented instruction must in-

    volve the eective coordination o services

    or English learners, who requently receive

    additional services in multiple areas and

    rom multiple unding sources.

    3. sen w e nn

    e n he e.

    Although students will miss some instruc-

    tion in other areas while they are receivingadditional small-group reading instruc-

    tion, learning to read is critical to all other

    learning demands. So, time spent ensuring

    that students acquire strong reading skills

    will pay o in the long run. Evidence or

    48. Franklin (1986); Limbos & Geva (2001).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    30/55

    2. ProvidE intEnsivE small-grouP rEading intErvEntions

    ( 18 )

    this claim can be ound in the sustained

    eects o intervention studies.49

    4. angng ng-ee ge-ee

    hee h w n -

    gp nn pex pe.in ehe y ee h hey

    n he he e ee pe

    n -gp nn hee

    en.

    Dierent proessionals can provide small-

    group reading interventions, and schools

    will have to consider the options seriously

    49. Gunn et al. (2002); Cirino et al. (2007).

    i barriers to time and scheduling are to

    be overcome.50 The key is training and col-

    laboration among all personnel who pro-

    vide instruction to English learners. This

    requires a shared ocus and commitment.

    The benefts o having a pullout programor interventions are that students can

    be homogeneously grouped, receive ad-

    ditional time on task, and be regrouped

    regularly as needed to maximize learning

    opportunities.

    50. In the intervention studies, teachers and in-

    structional assistants were trained to provide

    instruction.

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    31/55

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    32/55

    3. ProvidE ExtEnsivE and variEd vocabulary instruction

    ( 20 )

    provided in classrooms.58 Researchers

    converge in noting that eective vocabu-

    lary instruction includes multiple expo-

    sures to target words over several days

    and across reading, writing, and speaking

    opportunities. A small but consistent bodyo intervention research suggests that Eng-

    lish learners will beneft most rom rich,

    intensive vocabulary instruction that em-

    phasizes student-riendly defnitions,59

    that engages students in the meaningul

    use o word meanings in reading, writing,

    speaking, and listening,60 and that pro-

    vides regular review.61 The goal o rich

    vocabulary instruction is or students to

    develop an understanding o word mean-

    ings to the point where they can use these

    and related words in their communication

    and as a basis or urther learning.62

    The core reading program used in the

    classroom is a good place to begin choos-

    ing words or instruction and methods

    or teaching them. For English learners

    additional words need to be identiied

    or instructional attention, and teaching

    procedures need to be much richer and

    more extensive than instruction usu-

    ally recommended within core readingprograms.63

    Valuable or proessional development,

    teacher study groups and lesson study

    groups can get teachers engaged in plan-

    ning eective vocabulary instruction.64

    These study groups can be guided by avail-

    58. National Institute o Child Health and Human

    Development (NICHD) (2000).

    59. Carlo et al. (2004); Perez (1981).

    60. Carlo et al. (2004); Perez (1981); Rousseau,

    Tam & Ramnarain (1993).

    61. Carlo et al. (2004); Perez (1981).

    62. Gersten, Dimino, & Jayanthi (in press).

    63. August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow (2005); Bla-chowicz, Fisher, Ogle, & Watts-Tae (2006).

    64. Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro

    (2006).

    able texts that provide evidence-based ap-

    proaches to vocabulary instruction. Activi-

    ties in these study groups should include a

    good number o hands-on activities, such

    as transorming textbook defnitions into

    student-riendly defnitions, identiyingcrucial words in the texts students will

    read, and developing daily lesson plans or

    intensive vocabulary instruction.65

    2. deep we een w

    y nn. thee w

    h e wn he e eng p-

    g n he exk e n key

    nen e, h ene n hy.

    A major part o any vocabulary curricu-

    lum is speciying the words to be taught.

    It is the Panels opinion that adopting a

    districtwide core vocabulary list or Eng-

    lish learners will help ocus instruction on

    valuable words and reduce unnecessary

    duplication. A core vocabulary list does

    not prevent teachers or students rom

    adding to this list when problem words

    arise in the classroomin act, some dis-

    tricts even build in space or the addition

    o such words.

    The lists currently identifed in core read-

    ing programs are inadequate or this pur-

    pose.66 They oten ail to emphasize the

    words most critical or understanding a

    story or most useul or the childs lan-

    guage development. For example, many

    vocabulary lists stress decoding issues

    rather than meaning. Thus, to accomplish

    vocabulary instruction goals, districts

    must develop their own lists and provide

    access to these lists or their teachers.

    Words or instruction should be selected

    careully. Long lists o words cannot be

    taught in depth because rich vocabulary

    instruction is time intensive. Only a hand-

    ul o words should be taught in intensive

    65. Gersten et al. (2006).

    66. Hiebert (2005).

  • 8/8/2019 Effective Literacy IES Practice Guide

    33/55

    3. ProvidE ExtEnsivE and variEd vocabulary instruction

    ( 21 )

    ways at any one time. Some authorities

    recommend teaching only about eight to

    ten words per week this way, while others

    suggest teaching two to three words per

    day (but always with lots o uture review

    and extension).67

    Reading coaches, teacher teams, curricula

    specialists, and summer workshops or

    teachers can generate vocabulary lists or

    intensive instruction. A key is or teachers

    to have these lists as they teach reading,

    social studies, and science units, so they

    know in advance which words to teach in

    depth. Study groups and grade-level teams

    can do this work.

    3. vy nn Engh en-

    e h ephze he qn

    enng eeyy w h ne

    peke knw n h e n neey

    p he e .68

    The vocabulary gap between English learn-

    ers and native English speakers is substan-

    tial because English learners do not know

    many o the simpler words or conversa-

    tional words that native English speakers

    acquire beore they enter school or learnin school without explicit teaching. Many

    o these words are crucial or understand-

    ing text and other academic content. For

    example, English learners may not know

    such words as bank, take, sink, or can.

    Textbook publishers assume that students

    know these words and do not include

    them as vocabulary targets. Nor do they

    provide recommendations or how to ad-

    dress teaching these words should teach-

    ers have students who do not know them.English learners can acquire these words

    easily i teachers provide them with brie

    instruction during lessons. This instruc-

    tion can emphasize the meanings o com-

    67. Beck, Peretti, & McKeown (1982); Biemiller

    (1999).

    68. August et al. (2005).

    mon phrases and expressions, not just

    single words.

    During reading instruction, teachers

    can teach many o these common words

    explicitlyin roughly the same way thatthey teach content words, but much more

    quickly. They can teach many words as

    they arise in the classroom, drawing at-

    tention to the potentially conusing words

    and phrases. District practice should en-

    sure that these words are also taught

    and reviewed during English language

    development.

    Possible roadblocks and solutions

    1. tehng y eeey f.

    mny ehe w gge enng hw

    pe eee y nn

    Engh ene.69

    Concerted proessional development and

    coaching will be necessary to ensure that

    all teachers learn to provide eective vo-

    cabulary instruction to English learners.

    Teacher study groups can be an excellent

    vehicle or work on vocabulary instruc-

    tion, giving teachers a way to share theirrustrations and jo