Practical Guidelines for the Education of English Language Learners David J. Francis, Ph.D. Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics Center on Instruction – ELL Strand University of Houston Presented at LEP Partnership Meeting Washington, DC October 28, 2006

The Center on Instruction is operated by RMC Research Corporation in partnership with the Florida Center for Reading Research at Florida State University; RG Research Group; the Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the University of Houston; and the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The contents of this PowerPoint were developed under cooperative agreement S283B with the U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government The Center on Instruction requests that no changes be made to the content or appearance of this product. To download a copy of this document, visit

Practical Guidelines for the Education of ELLs Collaborators:  Nonie Lesaux, GSE, Harvard University  Mabel Rivera, COI, TIMES, University of Houston  Michael Kieffer, GSE, Harvard University  Hector Rivera, COI, TIMES, University of Houston

Practical Guidelines for the Education of ELLs  Three books: Research-based Recommendations for Instruction and Academic Interventions Research-based Recommendations for Serving Adolescent Newcomers Research-based Recommendations for the Use of Accommodations in Large-scale Assessments

Guide to working with the Documents  Single document with separate sections vs. separate documents Intent was for documents that would work together, but which could also stand on their own Redundancy of some background material  Conventions Footnotes – for information the reader might need immediately while reading Endnotes – for references and more detailed explication of the literature behind a point

Key Reference Materials Instruction and Intervention August & Shanahan (2006) Genessee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian (2006) Newcomers August & Shanahan (2006); Genessee et al. (2006) Short & Boyson (2004) Accommodations Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord (2004). Sireci, Li, & Carpati (2003) Rivera, Collum, & Shafner Willner (2006)

ELLs and NCLB  Membership is defined by limited proficiency in an area that directly affects learning and assessment  Group membership is expected to be temporary  ELLs face unique set of learning challenges: to develop the content-related knowledge and skills that define state standards while simultaneously acquiring a second language, and particularly in the case of young children, at a time when their first language is not fully developed, and (possibly) to demonstrate their learning on an assessment in the second language

ELLs and NCLB  ELLs present a unique set of challenges to Teachers Administrators Assessment Systems Accountability Systems

Academic Language is the Key Organizing Principle  See Scarcella (2003) for detailed introduction to Academic Language  Development of academic language is fundamental to academic success in all domains is the primary source of ELLs difficulties with academic content at all ages and grades can remain a challenge even after students achieve proficiency on current state language proficiency tests affects ELLs performance on large-scale assessments

Academic Language  Impossible to overstate the role that academic language plays in determining students’ success  Good conversational English skills may be accompanied by limited academic language skills For example, in studies of elementary and middle school students, including those no longer designated as LEP, mean vocabulary scores below the 20 th percentile are not uncommon.

Academic Language  Academic Language is comprised of many skills Vocabulary knowledge (both depth and breadth)  Depth – knowing multiple meanings, both common and uncommon, for a given word  Breadth – knowing the meanings of many words, including multiple words for the same, or related, concepts Written vocabulary as distinct from oral vocabulary Understanding of complex sentence structures and syntax Understanding the structure of argument, academic discourse, and expository texts

General Organization  Foreword  Overview Description of the Population Organization and General Methods  Recommendations for …(multiple sections) Conceptual Framework Specific Recommendations

Who Are English Language Learners?  Comprise one of the fastest-growing groups among the school-aged population in this nation Over 9M students, roughly 5.5M classified as LEP ELL school-aged population has grown by more than 169% from 1979 to 2003 (vs. 12% growth in general) Expected to be 30% of school-aged population in 2015 Over 400 different home languages are represented Spanish is the predominant home language (70%)

Who Are English Language Learners?  Largest and fastest growing ELL populations are Students who immigrated before Kindergarten, and U.S. born children of immigrants  Compared to native English-speaking peers: On Grade 4 NAEP, ELLs were 1/4 th as likely to score proficient or above in Reading and 1/3 rd as likely in Math ELLs are less likely to score proficient on State tests  These results may be biased in so far as they reflect performance of students who retain the designation of LEP

Who Are English Language Learners?  Some states have begun to look at the performance of ELLs on State tests after they have gained proficiency in English  These reports show that some ELL students do well in school  Nevertheless, many students who have lost the formal LEP designation continue to struggle with academic text, content, and language  The documents were written with this latter group of current and former LEP students in mind

Book 1: Instruction and Intervention  Foreword  Overview  Reading Conceptual Framework Recommendations  Mathematics Conceptual Framework Recommendations

Guiding Principles for Planning Instruction and Intervention  Reading is fundamental to the development of content-area knowledge and academic success  Applies to all learners  We distinguish three functions for instruction: augmentation, prevention, remediation  To be effective, educators must have a clear understanding of the specific sources of difficulty or weakness for individual students and groups of students

Guiding Principles for Planning Instruction and Intervention  ELLs often lack the academic language necessary for comprehending and analyzing text  The great majority of ELLs experiencing reading difficulties struggle with the skills related to Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension  These areas are mutually interdependent

Recommendations on Reading Instruction and Intervention  ELLs need early, explicit, and intensive instruction in phonological awareness and phonics in order to build decoding skills These skills are highly correlated across alphabetic languages (i.e., correlations above.9)  K-12 classrooms across the nation must increase opportunities for ELLs to develop sophisticated vocabulary knowledge

Recommendations on Reading Instruction and Intervention  Reading instruction in K-12 classrooms must equip ELLs with strategies and knowledge to comprehend and analyze challenging narrative and expository texts  Instruction and intervention to promote ELLs’ reading fluency must focus on vocabulary development and increased exposure to print

Recommendations on Reading Instruction and Intervention  In all K-12 classrooms across the U.S., ELLs need significant opportunities to engage in structured, academic talk  Independent reading is beneficial, BUT it must be structured and purposeful, and there must be a good reader-text match

Recommendations on Mathematics Instruction and Intervention  Generally much less research to guide recommendations  Academic language is as central to mathematics as it is to other academic areas a significant source of difficulty for many ELLs who struggle with mathematics  ELLs need early, explicit, and intensive instruction and intervention in basic mathematics concepts and skill  ELLs need academic language support to understand and solve the word problems that are often used for mathematics assessment and instruction

Book 2: Adolescent Newcomers  Foreword  Overview  Elements of Effective Instruction  Organizational Elements of Effective Programs

Elements of Effective Instruction for Adolescent Newcomers  Short & Boyson (2004)  August & Shanahan (2006)  All middle and secondary school classrooms must address the language and literacy skills adolescent newcomers need for content area learning  All adolescent newcomers need instruction in academic language, which they need for text comprehension and school success

Elements of Effective Instruction for Adolescent Newcomers  Adolescent newcomers need direct, explicit instruction to support their comprehension of challenging texts  Adolescent newcomers must receive intensive instruction in writing for academic purposes  Effective classroom instruction begins with systematic assessment of students’ strengths and needs, as well as ongoing monitoring of students’ progress  Students with word-reading difficulties need targeted and explicit intervention

Organizational Elements of Effective Newcomer Programs  Empirical research is limited  Systematic support for assessment and placement of students  Heterogeneous grouping  Extended instructional time  Coordinated efforts: newcomer programs, programs for advanced ELLs, and mainstream classes  Targeted resources for language and literacy instruction

Book 3: Accommodations  Foreword  Overview  Review of State Policies  Meta-analysis  Technical Appendices

Use of Accommodations in Large-scale Assessments  Rivera, Collum, & Shafer Willner (2006)  Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord (2004).  Sireci, Li, & Carpati (2003)

Content Knowledge and Language Proficiency  Assessments of content knowledge are influenced by students’ language proficiency Assessments with the most linguistically challenging content show the largest performance gaps between ELLs and native English speakers  It is easier to separate language proficiency from content knowledge in some domains (e.g., mathematics) than in others (e.g., reading language arts)  Appropriate accommodations for ELLs will address their linguistic needs either directly or indirectly

State Policies  Educational agencies across the nation provide accommodations to ELLs as needed  The criteria for selection and strategies for implementation vary by state, according to many factors  Rivera, Collum, & Shafer Willner (2006) have developed a comprehensive taxonomy for thinking about accommodations

Partial Listing of Accommodations Responsive to Needs of ELLs  Accommodations of Testing Conditions Extended time* Breaks offered between sessions Bilingual glossaries* Bilingual dictionaries* English glossaries* English dictionaries*  Accommodations as Test Modifications Directions read in English Directions read in native language Directions translated into native language Simplified English* Side-by-side bilingual version of the test* Native language test* Dictation of answers or use of a scribe Test taker responds in native language

Criteria for Evaluation of Accommodations  Effectiveness Do ELL students who receive the accommodation outperform ELL students who do not receive the accommodation?  Validity Does the accommodation alter the construct validity of the test? Do non-ELL students who receive the accommodation outperform non-ELL students who do not receive the accommodation?  Practicality

Effective Accommodations for ELLs: Results of a Meta-Analysis  11 studies Each study used random assignment of ELLs and non-ELLs to testing conditions with and without accommodations Involved 37 different samples of students Reported 37 different tests of the effectiveness of accommodations for ELLs

Study Descriptions  Grades included 4 th : n=11 8 th : n=22 5th or 6 th : n=2 each  Subject Areas Math: n = 17 Science: n=19 Reading: n=1  Type of test NAEP items: n=22 NAEP and TIMSS: n=6 State Accountability Assessment: n=9 (two different states)

Study Descriptions (cont.)  Types of accommodations Simplified English (n=15) English dictionary/glossary (n=11) Bilingual dictionary/glossary (n=5) Extra time (n=2) Spanish language test (n=2) Dual language questions (n=1) Dual language booklet (n=1)

Results for Fixed Effects Model

Results for Random Effects Model

Summary of Results  Of the seven types of accommodations used, only one had an overall positive effect on ELL outcomes: English language dictionaries and glossaries Produced an average effect, which is positive and statistically different from zero No indication that this effect varied across the studied conditions

Summary of Results  Findings for native language tests and bilingual glossaries are mixed  Results varied across studies as evidenced by homogeneity test  Too few studies to say conclusive what the important factors are, but some reasonable candidates are: Matching language of assessment with language of instruction Ensuring that students are literate in L1

Summary of Results  Results for Simplified English were less promising than expected  Test of heterogeneity was not rejected, indicating that the small average effect is a reasonable characterization of the results of the current studies

Conclusions  For any accommodation to be successful in the testing situation, students must have experience with it during regular instruction  The alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment is crucial to the academic success of all students  Accommodations alone will not be effective in raising test scores of ELLs

Conclusions  Lack of effects in these studies for Simplified English is not an indictment of universal design  Research base is limited in important ways: Few studies involving State accountability tests Few studies in reading and language arts No accommodation has been studied definitively