English Language Learners

In this section, I outline key findings about reading development for English language learners as well as point readers toward some helpful resources. During my research, I learned that there is a dearth of research about the education of English learners at a high school level. While writing this section about English learners, I was fortunate to consult with Claude Goldenberg, a professor from Stanford's School of Education who researches about classroom instruction for English learners. In this section, I have included quotations from his published texts as well as from email exchanges.

Many of the resources and findings overlap with general language learning since it is difficult to separate reading development entirely from language development and language development from learning content. After all, one important goal is for English learners "to learn language through content and to learn content using language" (from West Ed's summary of a recent study conducted by Linquanti and Hakuta). This section is focused specifically on reading development. English learners need additional supports and strategies in terms of listening, speaking and writing. Reading development certainly supports these other domains, and students need to listen, speak and write as they develop their reading skills. However, specific and additional instructional strategies, not mentioned in this section, are critical for the development of speaking, listening and writing.

The resources language minority students bring to schools and the needs they have are diverse, and whatever approaches teachers use need to be modified for individual students and/or groups of students.

Specifically, I have included the following:

• Other Areas on this Website that Specifically Refer to English Language Learners

• Resources for Research about Literacy for English Language Learners and Multilingual Students

• LTELs (Long-Term English Learners)

• Overview of Effective Literacy Strategies for English Language Learners

• Key Findings

• Master Schedule and Supporting ELs: SFUSD

Others Areas in this Website that Specifically Address Reading Instruction for English Language Learners:

• Phonics: SIFE students

• Section of the Assessment page

• School Models: “Schools to Learn From” and Flushing International

• Project-based learning (Reading is a key part of project-based learning, but this section does not specifically address reading instruction within project-based learning).

Resources

The following are the resources I found to be most helpful while researching this topic:

Within Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, Chapters 1, written by Claude Goldenberg and William Sanders, and Chapter 4, written by Diane August and Timothy Shanahan (2010), were particularly helpful in terms of reading development for English language learners.

Additionally, Claude Goldenberg’s chapter entitled "Reading Instruction for English Language Learners" in the Handbook of Reading Research Volume IV (Kamil, Pearson, Moje & Afflerbach, 2010) provides an excellent summary of the research about reading instruction for English learners and is one of the primary resources from which I drew for this section. I was unable to locate an open source version of this chapter. I encourage readers to read the entire chapter. The Handbook of Reading Research is a highly respected scholarly text and is widely available in university libraries.

Lastly, I have included a link to an open source article written by Claude Goldenberg entitled "Unlocking the Research on English Learners What We Know—and Don’t Yet Know—about Effective Instruction," which provides a review of the empirical research about instruction for English learners, including what the research does not support or at least does not support yet. Goldenberg describes the abundance of books about instruction for English language learners marketed to educators that are not based on empirical research. While Goldenberg’s article is not exclusively focused on reading instruction, some of the article is relevant to reading instruction.

LTEL (Long-Term English learners)

Most of the research I read did not distinguish between LTELs (Long-term English learners) and English learners who have been in the United States for fewer than seven years. Some of the research I read indicated different approaches for students with interrupted schooling (SIFE students). The research I did find about LTELs did not have an extensive research base in terms of actual implementation of programs and instructional practices.

Readers are encouraged to explore the many differences between instructional approaches for LTELs and English learners who have been in the country for fewer than seven years. Lori Olsen is perhaps the most well-known researcher on the topic of LTELs. The website Californians Together has the most comprehensive research about LTELs. Much of the research is preliminary, and more research is needed in this area.

I believe that much of what is included in this section is relevant to LTELs.

Overview of Effective Literacy Strategies for English Language Learners

Diane August and Timothy Shanahan, in “Effective Literacy Instruction for English Learners,” in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches (2010), outline eight key guidelines for literacy development for English learners. The guidelines are not specifically for secondary students. The following guidelines are excerpted directly from their chapter “Effective Literacy Instruction for English Learners”; the authors include detailed information and research to support each guideline in their chapter.

Guideline 1: Effective instruction for English learners emphasizes essential components of literacy.

Guideline 2: Effective instruction for English learners is similar to effective literacy instruction for native speakers.

Guideline 3: Effective literacy curriculum and instruction for English learners must be adjusted for their needs.

Guideline 4: Effective literacy instruction for English learners is comprehensive and multidimensional.

Guideline 5: Effective literacy instruction for English learners develops oral proficiency.

Guideline 6: Effective literacy instruction for English learners is differentiated.

Guideline 7: Effective literacy instruction for English learners requires well-prepared teachers.

Guideline 8: Effective literacy instruction for English learners is respectful of the home language.

Key Findings

Some related findings surfaced during my research on this topic. I have listed them below.

I wish I had more to report, but unfortunately, what I learned is that "the number of strategies that have been vetted through some sort of empirical study and found to produce at least some gains in student achievement is surprisingly low" (Goldenberg, email communication, October 2016). I only report findings with empirical evidence unless stated otherwise.

Finding 1: Many research-based approaches that are effective for native English speakers, including programs for students with reading difficulty, are also effective for English learners if key modifications are made to instruction.

Claude Goldenberg summarizes what I found to be a general consensus: “What we know about good reading instruction in general probably holds true for ELLs learning to read in English--to a point.” (Goldenberg, "Reading instruction for English language learners,” in Handbook of Reading Research, Volume IV, p. 694). August and Shanahan come to similar conclusions, as reflected in their first two guidelines for reading instruction for English learners cited above and below.

Guideline 1: Effective instruction for English learners emphasizes essential components of literacy.

Guideline 2: Effective instruction for English learners is similar to effective literacy instruction for native speakers.

Some of the key modifications are included below.

Finding 2: Extensive reading in English is helpful for English learners in their path to overall proficiency with English and in particular with reading comprehension.

Extensive reading in English outside of school hours is one effective instructional component of literacy instruction for native English speakers and has been found to be effective for reading growth in English language learners (Goldenberg, Handbook to Reading Research Volume IV, p. 698). "Extensive" reading generally refers to some type of choice reading of student-selected materials. A certain amount of class time is needed to promote a home reading program. Students need accessible books, and most students need scaffolded practice reading extensively; some of this practice needs to take place during class. But the majority of the reading takes place outside of class. A critical component of the success of outside reading programs is having accessible books that are age-appropriate. I did not find any clear studies that indicated at what stage of English proficiency extensive reading should be started and at what stage of English proficiency students will experience greatest gains when they read extensively.

One surprising finding is that more than one study found that encouraging older students to read in their L1 did not support English development. In fact, in one study for secondary students, encouraging reading in L1 had a negative effect. (See discussion in Goldenberg, Handbook to Reading Research Volume IV, p. 698). This finding conflicts with other findings about the significant benefits of developing L1 and L2 simultaneously at all ages. More research is needed to find out ways in which teachers can promote opportunities for L1 reading for secondary students while simultaneously developing reading in L2. I certainly would not discourage students from reading in their primary language, but given this finding, I would not use class time in an ELD class for students to read in their primary language.

Finding 3: Implementation of strategy instruction is different for English Learners, particularly for students with emerging levels of proficiency.

In an email communication with Claude Goldenberg, a research who has investigated this topic extensively, he summarized synthesized the research on this topic:

The effects of reading strategy instruction probably depends on the level of English proficiency and the language in which the instruction is provided. Younger students and students at the beginning levels of second language proficiency appear not to benefit from strategy instruction in English. Strategy instruction is more likely to be effective with older students at a higher L2 proficiency. However, strategy instruction can be provided in students' L1 and applied when reading in their L2. This is more likely to be effective with older students." (Goldenberg, email communication, October 2016).

In the Handbook of Reading Research (2011), Goldenberg concludes the following: "It seems highly likely that we can help ELLs improve their comprehension by teaching reading comprehension skills directly, although, if done in English, the impact will probably depend on the English proficiency level. There is no research with ELLs to corroborate this. A meta-analysis reported in Taylor, Stevens and Asher (2006), however, shows that reading strategy training for L2 learners of all sorts--individuals learning any language, including English as a foreign or second language--is not effective with students in their first year of second-language learning and students in the elementary grades, whereas reading strategy instruction is effective with older students and students with greater second-language experience" (p. 698).

Secondary teachers can take the following away from this discussion:

• Strategy instruction in English in the first year of language learning may not be productive. Strategy instruction in students' primary language during the first year of L2 instruction could be effective.

• For students beyond their first year of language learning, strategy instruction is very likely to be helpful, particularly at a secondary level. This strategy instruction could be in English. Even with students with higher levels of proficiency, strategy instruction provided in L1 could be beneficial. Please see the finding about primary language support on this website for more information.

The same cautions about strategy instruction for native English speakers exist for English learners. Please see the section about "Cautions with Strategy Instruction" in the Comprehension Instruction section of this website.

Finding 4: ELs need additional supports during reading instruction.

While it is clear that ELs need additional supports, we do not have empirical evidence to support many of them. I have outlined those that appear to have the most backing. However, I do not have specific evidence. In the words of Goldenberg, these are the "best we have." The following are examples of supports that can be provided in English:

• use of graphic organizers

• "use of redundant key information presented visually"

• identifying and clarifying difficult words and portions of text

• the teacher and ELLs summarizing and paraphrasing

• "providing extra practice to build automaticity and fluency"

• "use of highly engaging extended interactions between teacher and peers"

• "use of familiar content and linking new learning to student background and experience"

excerpted directly (when quotations appear) and paraphrased from Goldenberg's "Reading Instruction for English Learners" Handbook of Reading Research Volume IV (2011), p. 700

All of these support the literacy development of native English speakers as well. Please see the next section for specific supports that can be provided in the students' primary language.

Finding 5: Research points to the benefits of using the primary language strategically (and sparingly) even when the goal of the class English proficiency.

This finding has been paraphrased from this open source resource: "English Language Development: Guidelines for Instruction," by William Saunders, Claude Goldenberg, David Marcelletti 2013.

In addition to the additional supports that can be provided in English for English learners, an additional support is primary language support. Goldenberg points out that "although most of the research on primary language support use in the classroom has focused on primary language instruction--that is, teaching children academic skills and knowledge in their primary language--another way to use primary language is for support. In this case, instruction is essentially in English; however, the teacher can use students' primary language strategically to help students gain additional benefit from otherwise all-English instruction" (Handbook of Reading Research Volume IV, p. 699).

While researchers have different opinions about how much and when students and teachers can leverage students’ primary language for the purpose of developing English proficiency, the academics I interviewed (with one exception), and the research I was able to find on the topic all point to the strategic role that primary language can have in English language development classes, not just in content classes or in bilingual programs. Development of students’ primary language is an important goal independent of English language development; however, the development of L1 for its own sake, a goal I support, is not the subject of this website.

In discussing and reading about the strategic use of L1 in ELD and ESL classes, Sarah Lynn’s description is one that I found particularly helpful. The following comes from her open source blog entitled, “Using the Native Language in the ESL Classroom: Stepping Stone or Roadblock?”

The following are Lynn’s words on the topic taken from her website:

The ESL maxim has always been English only in the classroom, but our practice is rarely so pure or so indiscriminate. Over my years of teaching and reading research, I’ve come to understand why being an English-only purist in the classroom is not always the most effective approach.

Over the years I have arrived at the following teaching principle: The native language is an asset when it is used to learn English. For example: when a student asks his classmate in Spanish about the meaning of a word, he is still learning English, but when he with his classmate chat in Spanish about weekend plans, they spoil an opportunity to learn English. When two students converse in Chinese to clarify the teacher’s directions they enhance their performance of the task, but when they together translate the whole of a text so they may answer comprehension question more easily, they are impeding their learning. Sarah Lynn (2014)

Please see the entire blog post on this topic for more information.

Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. For example, William Saunders, Claude Goldenberg and David Marcelletti, renowned researchers of second language acquisition, conclude the following: “If a practical goal of ELD instruction is increased use of English, that goal will be served best by instruction delivered and tasks carried out primarily in English. However, we can imagine using the primary language in a limited but strategic manner during ELD instruction to ensure that students understand task directions, pay attention to cognates, and master language learning and metacognitive strategies.” (2013-See this link to read the open source resource also referenced above).

The following list is summarized from Claude Goldenberg's literature review about possible opportunities for primary language support in an ELD classroom:

• Clarifications and explanations provide by the teacher, peer or instructional associate

• Preview-review in the primary language

• Pointing out the similarities and differences between L1 and L2

• Teaching reading strategies in the primary language and then students apply them in English. A study in which students were first taught reciprocal reading strategies in the primary language first and then transferred the knowledge to English had positive results in comparison to when the students learned and applied the strategies only in L2.

(paraphrased from Handbook of Reading Research, Volume IV, p. 699-700)

Translanguaging is one practice that could possibly, but not necessarily, involve more extensive use of L1. Christina Celic and Kate Seltzer (2014) wrote the following open source document that explains uses of translanguaging. The main way that I observed translanguaging being used during my school visits was to give students access to complex, grade-level texts. In such cases, students often needed more L1 support to access complex texts. I do not think we have the research to answer the question of what is more productive for students who are learning both content and language in high school ELA/ELD classrooms: maintain L2 exclusively, even if the content would need to be less complex, or use texts at a variety of levels and provide L1 and other supports when students read the more complex texts.

From my interviews and from what I read, it seems that there is a stronger research base for using L1 strategically and sparingly than using L1 more extensively in classes where the focus is learning English. In contrast, when the goal of instruction is to teach content, using more primary language to teach content might be desirable depending on the English proficiency level of the students and the goal of the class. I was unable to find any empirical research studies about translanguaging and the literacy outcomes for English learners using this approach. However, there may be some research that I did not discover. While I did not find any empirical research supporting the use of translanguaging, I visited a number of schools whose students use translanguaging extensively and are thriving academically. Also, some schools described in the report “Schools to Learn From” incorporate translanguaging into their practice.

Master Schedule and Supporting Literacy for English Learners

With permission, I am linking to SFUSD’s placement English Learner Placement Guidelines (2015-2016). During my exploration this year, I read and heard that SFUSD has had success in terms of achievement of ELs in California. Here is one source that references SFUSD’s achievement. I was unable to independently verify this achievement, but in meeting leaders in the field, SFUSD repeatedly came up as a district developing promising programs with limited resources. Updated information as of fall of 2017: SFUSD has received the highest achievement results for English Learners compared to the other large districts in California according to this article: Article from SFGate

A few components of SFUSD’s master schedule for students with CELDT levels 1 and 2 seem promising in terms of supporting literacy development. The double ELA/ELA block also mirrors the master schedule that my own district, Sequoia Union High School District, uses. Students with CEDLT levels 1 and 2 have a double block of ELD and ELA with the same teacher. Based on my experience visiting and talking with teachers in SFUSD and in other districts, I believe that core classes are more effective than single period classes for literacy and language development. The nature of core classes results in teachers having reduced student contacts; the teacher can use formative assessments more effectively and personalize instruction with fewer overall students even if class size is not reduced. Also, the teacher can integrate content (in most cases, ELA content) with ELD standards in a core class.

With the new designated and integrated ELD framework, some schools provide an ELD class that directly supports a mainstream ELA class rather than a double period ELA/ELD core class. For students with CEDLT levels 1 and 2, and possibly CELDT level 3, I believe a core class of ELD/ELA is more effective than this model of two single-period classes, particularly in a large comprehensive high school when a close connection between the two classes is unlikely to occur. Also, when the two classes are closely linked, the teacher teaching the content class often has to follow a rigid schedule in order to be aligned with the support/ELD teacher, which can compromise the content teacher's ability to teach responsively. Additionally, in a large comprehensive high school, students might benefit from the sense of community that is often created in double-period core classes. A double-period core class allows students to connect with one teacher and one group of students, and, because they have reduced student contacts, teachers can personalize instruction. One disadvantage of double period core classes in that students are homogeneously grouped (by proficiency level) for two periods rather than one. For students with emerging and expanding levels, I believe the advantages of a core class outweigh the potential disadvantages.

In terms of literacy development, the topic of this website, I believe a key in terms of content for a core ELA/ELD class is for teachers to use a combination of grade-level texts to give students access to grade-level curricula (ELA) as well as accessible texts that students can read with less support to develop fluency and comprehension skills. Core classes are one option of a master schedule that can support this approach of using a combination of texts at varying levels of difficulty.