Upload
keith-wheeler
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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/practiceguides8/8/2019 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.asp8/8/2019 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