A Systematic Review of Discourse’s Outcomes for English Language Learners in K-12 Mathematics and Science Classrooms Lindsay K. Lightner, Angela J. Witters, & Laura E. Grant llightner@wsu.edu Abstract Findings Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of systematic review methods Over the past three decades, a substantive body of literature has emerged regarding classroom discourse and argument based inquiry to enhance student learning. There has, however, been no systematic review of this literature base as it relates to English language learners (ELLs). This study examines the literature regarding discourse’s influences on student outcomes in K-12 science and mathematics educational contexts. The review found that discourse supports ELLs’ conceptual understanding, deepens their use of academic language, and positions students as doers of math and science. Three overarching uses of discourse in teaching ELLs are: Discourse to increase the use and understanding of mathematics and science terminology, especially to deepen academic language and improve conceptual understanding; Discourse to deepen conceptual understanding through negotiation, including using evidence to defend claims and co-constructing understanding through classroom interactions; Discourse to position students as competent and to situate students’ identities as doers of mathematics and science. Several broad trends in the literature emerged: Grade band: More studies concerned elementary learners (n=17) than secondary (n=4), but the reasons why are unclear. Theoretical lenses: Researchers overwhelmingly used sociocultural and situated learning theories as frameworks. Subject: Articles were nearly evenly split between math (n=11) and science (n=10), but more math articles than science explicitly connected outcomes with ELLs’ discourse. 2557 records identified via database searching Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, ERIC, and PsycINFO (“Math* Education” OR “Science* Education”) AND (“Discourse” OR “Classroom talk” OR “Classroom interactions” OR “Classroom conversations” OR “Teacher questioning”) 102 full-text articles excluded Exclusion/inclusion criteria above plus: ELLs/multilingual students not focus of study 12 articles unavailable 834 abstracts further screened on exclusion and inclusion criteria 1278 abstracts excluded Exclusion criteria: Before 1988 Not written in English Not a peer-reviewed journal article Outside math/science education Practitioner-focused article or journal Outside K-12 Not formal or informal learning context Discourse and student outcomes not discussed 711 abstracts excluded Exclusion criteria above plus: Object of study not discourse Discourse is written or using online technology Focus of study is how teacher practices influence student outcomes Theoretical, foundational, or review article Inclusion criteria applied: Focus of study is student discourse Connections between discourse and student outcomes are discussed Empirical study 21 studies included in qualitative synthesis 123 full-text articles assessed for eligibility 2112 non-duplicate abstracts screened on exclusion criteria Introduction Classroom discourse and argument-based methods of student inquiry have become prominent areas of study in science and mathematics education. The outcomes of such discourse, however, often have been assumed rather than explicitly studied by researchers.  In a time of heightened teacher accountability and funding constraints, knowing the outcomes of instructional interventions is vital. At the same time, ELLs represent the largest-growing school population in the US, and other countries face greater linguistic diversity as well.1 To determine these outcomes, our research team conducted a systematic review to answer the question, “How does discourse influence student outcomes in K-12 science and mathematics educational contexts?” ELLs subsequently were selected as a subgroup for further study. . Discussion Implications for teachers:  Discourse can support ELLs’ cognitive development by utilizing students’ full range of language abilities and allowing them to leverage their funds of knowledge.  At the same time, discourse can support ELLs’ acquisition of more precise academic language, developing their content understanding and language skills simultaneously. Implications for policy makers:  ELLs’ cognitive and social development are helped, not hindered, by incorporating their languages, social worlds, and epistemologies into the classroom.  This can be accomplished by building dual language program capacities, strengthening teacher development in discourse, and tracking exited ELLs to evaluate their continuing language development needs and the impact of interventions.   Implications for researchers:  While there is a wealth of research on both discourse and English language learners, opportunities exist to study the specific outcomes of discourse for all students, especially ELLs.  Understanding the ways in which the learning environment and discourses are constructed, and the outcomes of discourse, can strengthen teaching practice and inform policy. Methods The research team performed a systematic review per the methods detailed in Figure 1, illustrating the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Inter-rater reliability exercises were conducted at each round of reviews, with inter-rater reliability at 89% and 84% for the two rounds of abstract reviews. 123 records were reviewed as full-text articles and coded for grade level, study methodologies, and student demographic data. Subsequently, the 115 available articles were re-reviewed to confirm eligibility and determine focus on ELLs. 21 articles were retained for further study and coded for subject, theoretical framework, discourse’s role, and student outcomes. English-language learner (2013, August 29). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/english-language-learner Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Andy Cavagnetto for review and suggestions, Amy Roth McDuffie for discussion regarding ELLs and mathematics, and David Slavit and the Mathematics and Science Education PhD program at Washington State University for poster funding.