ArticlePDF Available

Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth



The purpose of this article is to respond to a review of the report Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, written by our respected colleague Kathy Escamilla, which appeared in a recent edition of the Journal of Literacy Research. This will also give us the opportunity to offer a brief update of the research on effective reading and writing instruction for English-language learners that has appeared since 2002, the cut-off year for the inclusion of studies in the original panel report.
Journal of Literacy Research
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745
2010 42: 341Journal of Literacy Research
Diane August and Timothy Shanahan
Language Minority Children and Youth
Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on
Developing Literacy inResponse to a Review and Update on
Published by:
On behalf of:
Literary Research Association
can be found at:Journal of Literacy ResearchAdditional services and information for Alerts:
What is This?
- Sep 1, 2010Version of Record >>
by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Journal of Literacy Research, 42:341–348, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis G roup, LLC
ISSN: 1086-296X print/1554-8430 online
DOI: 10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745
Response to a Review and Update on
Developing Literacy in Second-language
Learners: Report of the National
Literacy Panel on Language Minority
Children and Youth
Diane August
Center for Appli ed Linguistics
Timothy Shanahan
University of Illinois
The purpose of this article is to respo nd to a review of the report Developing
Literacy in Second-language Lear ners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on
Language Minority Children and Youth, written by our respected colleague Kathy
Esc amilla, which appeared in a recent edition of the Journal of Literacy Research.
This will also give us the opportunity to offer a brief update of the research on
effective reading and writing instruction for English-language learners that has
app eared since 2002, the cut-off year for the inclusion of studies in the original
pan el report.
The U.S. Department of Education charged the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Childr en and Youth with the task of identifying, assessing,
and synth esizing research on the education of language-minority child ren and
Correspondence should be addressed to Diane August, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Center
for Applied Linguistics, 4500 Wetherill Roa d, Bethesda, M D 20816, USA. E-mail: daugust@
youth ages 3–18 with respect to their attainment of second-language lit eracy and
to p roduce a comprehensive report evaluating and synthesizing this literature.
The increase in students in U.S. schools who come to English as a second
language is remarkable and represents a major challenge to American educa-
tion. The Department of Educati on rightly wanted to provide research-based
information fo r schools on how best to facilitate their English learning. It was
necessary for t he panel to limit its inclu sion to studies that were publi shed in
Engli sh ( no matter what languages may have been the focus in the studies); thus,
the majority of such studies were conducted i n the United States, followed by
those from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, with some studi es from
the Netherlands, Finland, and Israel. A pr imary purpose of the report was to
establish a foundation for current and future research and as such was intended
primarily for researchers. Within the selection criteria established, the p anel was
comprehensive in its rev iew of the research: It focused broadly on language-
minority students, and included a variety of study types addressing a wide array
of questions pertinent to the literacy education of language-minority children.
Among the many findings of the report was that some amount of teaching
of stu dents in their home language was beneficial to English literacy learning
(better than English immersion) and that instru ct ion that focused on enhanced
teaching of particular literacy components (e.g., decoding, spelling, writing,
comprehension, fluency) was generally beneficial with second-language learners
(as t hey are with native English speakers). The results also showed, with some
amount and q uality of teaching, that second-language learners often match first-
language learners in the learning of English word-level skills, such as phonologi-
cal awareness, spelling, and decoding, but that even with instruction, equivalency
in hig her l evel Engl ish skills, such as comprehension, is rare. However, the
amount and quality of literacy teaching studies was circumscribed, and findings
were somewhat tentative.
Given this, prior to responding to Kathy Escamilla’s review of the report,
it would be useful to provide an update to the instructional research that was
summarized in it. Although the synthesis was extensive, the literacy teaching
reviews have attracted the most attention, and so our update will focus on these
studies, and specifically those that employ experimental designs.
In 2002, there were only 17 experimental and quasi-experimental studies fo-
cused on explicit instruction in literacy components such as decodi ng or com-
prehension, and 22 studies focused on more complex approaches, including
6 studies on encouraging reading and writing, 3 on reading to children, 2 on
tutoring and remediation, and 11 studies that focused on addressing multiple
reading components simultaneously. All of these studies addressed the t eaching
of English or the teaching of the home language as preparation fo r English
instruction in the contex t of English as a societal language (some other portions
of the report considered the learning of other languages). The effectiveness of
approaches to literacy instruction had to be evaluated by using experimental,
quasi-experimental, or single-subject research designs that allowed the effects
of an instructional approach to be isolated. While we reviewed ethnographies and
case studies to address other questions, the “what work s” nature of th is question
required that studies use experimental designs. Furthermore, the studies could
not have design flaws or confounds so serious that it would be impossible to
determine their results with any degree of certainty.
The reason f or this updat e is that, si nce 2 002, approximately 20 additional ex-
perimental and quasi-experimental studies have been published in peer-reviewed
journals that measure outcomes for six component li teracy skills: phonological
awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and
writing. Most of these studies focused on phonological awareness and phonics
(Calhoon, Otaiba, Cihak, King, & Avalos, 2007; Denton, Wexler, Vaughn, &
Bryan, 2008; Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, & Gross, 2007; Giambo & McKinney,
2004; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005; Kamps et al., 2007;
Lovett et al., 2008; McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao, 2008; Roberts & Neal,
2004; Solari & Gerber, 2008; Swanson, Hodson, & Schommer-Aikins, 2005;
Troia, 2004). Finding s generally confirm those of the previous review: The
same pr inciples of syst ematic and explicit phonologi cally based interventions
that undergird instr uction f or English-proficient students also app ear to benefit
Engli sh language learners’ (ELLs) literacy development. These benefits were
demonstrated throug h a number of measures, including assessments of reading
comprehension, word reading, and word attack skills.
Six studies assessed reading fluency (Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, K ing, &
Avalos, 2007; Denton, Wexler, Vaughn, & Bryan, 2008; Gunn, Smol kowski,
Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005; Kamps et al., 2007; McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao,
2008; Sáenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Rather than focusing solely on fluency,
usually these studies examined fluency in the cont ext of more comprehensive
reading programs th at also focused on phonological awareness, phonics, and/or
comprehension. Although the specific approaches used in these studies varied,
most found a significant positive impact on English-language learners’ oral
reading fluency.
Five studies had vocabulary ou tcomes. One study focused primarily on de-
veloping phoni cs knowledge but also had significant effects on measures of
oral language or vocabulary development (Giambo & McKinney, 2004). The
remaining studies used a combination of approaches that have been successful
in building vocabulary in English proficient students (Graves, 2006), inclu ding
direct instruction of individual words, immersing students in language-rich envi -
ronments (e.g., interactive reading, educational televisions), and teaching word
learning strategies. The studies were conducted by Rob erts (2008), Roberts and
Neal (2004), Sil verman (2007), and Uchikoshi (2005).
Our review located 10 studies with reading comprehension outcomes (Denton
et al., 2008; Ehri, Dreyr, Flugman, & Gross, 2007; Fung, Wilkin son, & Moore,
2003; Kamps et al., 2007; Liang, Peterson, & Graves, 2005; Lovett et al., 2008;
Roberts & Neal, 2004; Sáenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005 ; Solari & Gerber, 2008;
Swanson, Hodson, & Schommer-Aikins, 2005). Most studies investig at ed the
effect of comprehensive and multi-faceted literacy programs on the comprehen-
sion of ELLs. Our review located one study with writing outcomes (Echevarria,
Short , & Powers, 200 6). Findings indicated that using the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol (SIO P) model, which emphasizes strategies and techniques
to make new information comprehensible to ELLs, can improve t hese students’
We were disappointed at the paucity of experimental evidence on how to teach
literacy to English l ang uage learners and were quite tentative in our claims, based
upon so few studies. H owever, findings from studies conducted since 2 002 ap-
pear to corroborate those earlier findi ngs. The results taken together suggest that
the focus of effective literacy i nstruction is much the same for native speakers
and ELLs; h owever, some adjustments to t hese common inst ruction al routines
seem necessary and appropriate. While the nature of such adjustments needs to
be explored more directl y in future research, studies suggest the importance of
considerin g appropriate ways of using the native language within instructio nal
routines. They also point to the advisability of altering curriculum coverage,
depending on t he similarity between English and the native language and th e
student s’ levels of attainment of their native language (e.g., some letter–sound
correspondences do n ot need to be re-taught if already mastered in a native
language t hat shares these correspondences with English) and of fine-tu ning
instruction al routines. Several successful methods of fine-tuning appear in the
studies, including identifying and clarifying di fficult words and passages within
texts to facilitate comprehension, con solidating text knowledge through sum-
marization, and giving students extra practice in reading words, sentences, and
stories. Some studies also revealed the value of instructi onal routines that include
giving attention to vocabulary, checking comprehension, p resenting ideas clearly
both verbally and in writing, p araphrasing students’ remarks and encouragi ng
them to expand on those remarks, providing redu ndancy, and usi ng physical
gestures and visual cues to clarify meaning.
There still are not enough studies explorin g w hat works with English learners.
New research can confirm the general findings summarized here, but these
studies are needed to examine the effects of interventions over time, the effects
for students with di fferent levels of first and second language proficiency, and
from different first language backgrounds. Moreover, most research has targeted
one or two components of literacy. Interventions that are more comprehensive
are needed as are studies of how to accommodate the language learning and
literacy needs within the same classroom of students with diverse skills and
capaciti es.
Finally, with regard to method s used in the studies, althoug h logically the
experimental paradigm allows for a determinat ion of causal relationships, even
when these designs are used cauti on is needed in interpreting results. Such stud-
ies may vary in quality—how well a st udy controls for alternative explanation s
of effects, how well its conditions match those in an actual classroom, and how
well it describes the intervention and context in which the intervention occurs.
Furth ermore, the results of even the b est studies are probabilistic; we have
greater confidence in results t hat have been successfully replicated many times
in independent studies, wh ich is not the case with the studies usi ng experimental
designs given the few stud ies focused on any given outcome.
We now turn briefly to the review of our work conducted by Kathy Escamilla.
The panel report is comprehensive; it focuses on seven major topics—develop-
ment of literacy, cross-linguistic relationshi ps, socio-cultural contexts and li ter-
acy development, instructional approaches and professional development, and
student assessment. Each section is guided by specific research questions and
systematically reviews studies that address these questions using the most recent
research synthesis methodolo gy.
Many of the reviewers’ comments reflect a struggle to come to terms with
the stated purpose of the report and the parameters of the review. The reviewers
would have preferred that the report focus on the development of bilingualism
instead of the learning of English. However, the charge to the panel from
the U.S. Department of Education was to summarize existin g research on the
development of English literacy in language minority students. Whil e the panel
report explicitly notes the value of bilingualism and thoroughly reviews the eval-
uation research that compares English-only instru ction to bilingual in struction,
it al so provided a rigorous and thorough review on second-language learning,
particularly in English. We believe that studying the development of bilingualism
in children is a critically important endeavor and encourage Dr. Escamilla to
conduct a tho rough and systematic rev iew of the research in this area given
her evident commit ment to t he issue. Beyond the finding t hat pri mary language
reading instruction promotes reading achievement in English the research left
many unanswered questi ons that such a review might address. These include,
for example, whether primary language in struction is more or less beneficial for
some students, whether more p rimary language instruction is better than less,
what are t he most effective ways to combine the primary language and English
into a coherent instructional program, and the effective use of the p rimary
language to support instruct ion in English.
Most of the other issues raised by the reviewers reveal a limited familiarity
with the repor t and its methods, and as such her review reflects some unfortunate
misunderstandings. Thus, for example, chapter 9 of the study reviews studies
that examine cross-lang uage influences of literacy knowledge, processes, and
strategies in students who are learning a second language. The app roach taken
in such studies is to examine the relationsh ips of literacy components across
languages, and a study may consi der what connections exist between vocabulary
development and word recognition skills across the two languages. Given the
nature of this research, it would not make sense t o combi ne these stud ies
with those that compare bilingual instruction to Eng lish-only instruction, as the
reviewers propo se. Such st udies address a different constellation of questions
and employ different methods to answer those questions (in fact, those studies
are thorough ly reviewed in chapter 14).
The reviewers further comment that “it would have strengthened the overall
report to emphasize the role that federal/state/local policies p lay in both edu-
cational opportunities for children and y outh and in opportunities for financial
and other support to do research. The report is a review of research, not a
political statement; nevertheless, it does examine t he role of educati onal polici es
in creating learning opportunities for children in the background sections of
various chapters (see, e.g., chapter 19) . However, even though we sought studies
on the impact of various educational policies, th ere were few studies pu blished in
peer-reviewed journals that reported research on this top ic, l imiting what could
be st at ed in a research review. H er review also complains that we neglected
studies that link hi gher education achievement in second generation immigrant
student s to the maintenance of their languages and cultures. It is essential that
research syntheses establish clear and consistent study selection criteri a and thi s
review focused specifically on studies of students ages 3–18, which necessaril y
precludes the inclusion of th e studies Dr. Escamilla wanted included.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report
of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Calhoo n, M. B., Al Otaiba, S., Cihak, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a peer-mediated
program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 1 69–184.
Denton, C. A., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008 ). Intervention provided to linguistically
diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 23(2), 79–89.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 19 5–210.
Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & Gross, A. (2007). Reading rescue: An effective tutoring
intervention model for languag e-minority students who are struggling readers in first grade.
American Educational Research Journal, 44 , 414–44 8.
Francis, D. J., Lesaux, N., & August, D. (2006). Language of instruc tion. In D. August & T.
Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy
Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 365–41 0). Mahwah , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Fung, I. Y. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to
improv e ESL students’ comprehension of En glish ex pository text. Learning and Instru ction, 13 ,
Giambo, D. A., & McKinney, J. D. (20 04). The effects of a phonological awareness in tervention on
the oral English proficiency of Spanish-speak ing kindergarten children. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1),
Graves, M. F. (2005). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College
Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., Black, C., & Blair, J. (2005). Fostering the development of
reading skill through supplemental instruction: Results for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students.
The Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 66–85.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Lonstaff, J., et al. (2007). Use
of eviden ce-based, small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary
grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3 0(2), 153– 168.
Liang, L. A., Peterson, C. A., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Investiga ting two approaches to fostering
childrens compre hension of literature. Reading Psychology, 26, 387–400.
Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., et al. (2008).
Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to interve ntion by ELL and EFL
struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333–352.
McMaster, K. L., Kung, S., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-assisted learning s trategies: A “Tier 1
app roach to promoting English learners’ respon se to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74(2),
Roberts, T. (2008). Home storybook re ading in primary or second language with preschool childre n:
Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-lang uage vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 103– 130.
Roberts, T., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English language learner’s oral pro-
ficiency in English, instructional experience and literacy development. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 29, 283–311.
Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English Langu age
Learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231–247 .
Silverman, R. D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language an d English-only learners in
kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383.
Solari, E. J., & Gerber, M. M. (2008). Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English
language learners: Teaching text-level re ading skills while maintaining e ffects on word-level skills.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(4), 155–168.
Swanson, T. J., Hodson, B. W., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2005). An examination of phonologi-
cal awareness treatment outcomes for seventh-grade poor readers from a bilingual community.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 336–345.
Troia, G. A. (2004). Migrant students with limited English proficienc y: Can Fast ForWord Lan-
gua ge
make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement? Remedial and
Spe cial Education, 25, 353–366.
Uchikoshi, Y. (2005). Narrative development in bilingual kindergarteners: Can Arthur help? Devel-
opme ntal Psychology, 41, 4 64–478.
Diane August is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Appli ed
Linguistics as well as a consultant lo cated in Washington, DC . Her recent work
has appeared in a variety of journals inclu ding Reading Research Qu arterly,
Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Research on Educati onal Effec-
tiveness, Applied Psycholinguistics, Scientific Studies of Reading, and Reading
and Writing. Her current research focuses on the development of literacy in
Engli sh-language learners. She can be reached at 4500 Wetherill Rd., Bethesda,
MD 20816. E-mail: daug
Timothy Shanahan is Professor of Urban Education at the University of Illinois at
Chicago, where he is director o f the UIC Center for Literacy. Professor Shanahan
was a member of the National Reading Panel, and chaired the National Early
Literacy Panel and the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children
and Youth. He was director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools and had
a presidential appointment to the board of the National Institute for Literacy.
Shanahan has published more than 200 research articl es, chapters, and books on
the teaching of reading and writin g. His research focuses on the improvement
of reading achievement, reading-writing relationships, and disciplinary literacy.
He can be reached at 1040 W. Harrison (M /C 147), Chicago, IL 60606. E-mail: His Web site is
... The evidence to date suggests that L1 and L2 spelling draws on a similar set of cognitive and linguistic components (see Geva, 2006, for a review) and follows a comparable developmental trajectory irrespective of oral proficiency (see August & Shanahan 2006, for a review; Lesaux et al., 2006). What is different, however, is that many learners of L2 spelling have already cracked the alphabetic code and have developed phonemic and morphological awareness abilities in their L1. ...
Full-text available
Spelling is a fundamental and complex written language skill which relies on numerous sources of information (Berninger et al., 2006; Ehri, 2000; Treiman, 2017; Treiman & Kessler, 2014). Spelling requires the ability to connect the spoken word and its written form and to re-assemble phonological information as orthographic symbols. A good speller must have access to multiple linguistic, metalinguistic and processing skills. Spelling is challenging, and it is more difficult to learn than reading (Bosman & Van Orden, 1997; Ehri, 1997). First language (L1) spelling across diverse orthographies has been widely investigated in writing research, but second language (L2) or foreign language (FL) spelling in relation to cognitive key components has been under-researched so far. This article reviews four cognitive predictors underpinning L1 and L2 spelling. Well-known cognitive skills which are closely associated with the complex process of spelling acquisition are phonological awareness (PA), rapid automatised naming (RAN), working memory (WM) and phonological short-term memory (PSTM).
... Project-based learning seems ideal for bilingual students because of its ability to provide many opportunities for sophisticated literacy and numeracy experiences as well as to connect communities and schools. Historically, however, progressivist pedagogical approaches have been instituted in bilingual classrooms without attention to already understood effective bilingual instruction practices, including explicit instruction (Genesee & Riches, 2006;Goldenberg, 2013;Saunders, Goldenberg, & Marcelletti, 2013;, scaffolded instruction (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010;Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006;Walqui, 2006), and meaningful interactions for developing oral language (August & Shanahan, 2006;Genesee & Riches, 2006;Saunders, Goldenberg, & Marcelletti, 2013). Bilingual education scholars warn that pedagogical approaches developed within monolingual classrooms may leave out pedagogical, linguistic, and cultural considerations for emergent bilingual students, thus instruction in bilingual classrooms must remain authentic to the language of instruction and be tailored for bilingual learners (Escamilla et al., 2014;Gersten & Baker, 2000;Goldenberg, 2013). ...
... For younger ELLs, in particular, oral language proficiency is of vital importance to academic achievement, because it is associated with subsequent English literacy skills, which in turn account for school success (August & Shanahan, 2006). The scores on achievement tests in L2 reading comprehension classes indicate that students are not performing well (cited in Anderson, 2007). ...
Full-text available
Reading comprehension is a skill that is critical in the educational success of all individuals. So, it is necessary to help students to master this vital skill. By reading, the teachers can teach some skills such as (writing, speaking, vocabulary items, grammar, and spelling and other language aspects) at the same time. So by these features of reading, the students can expand their world knowledge, also the students can grow their interests, and finding solutions to their own problems. The main purpose of the present study was to discover the effect of oral summarizing of short stories on reading comprehension of elementary EFL learners. Fifty male and female students participated in this study. After the proficiency test, they were randomly selected as the participants of this study and were assigned into experimental and control groups. A set of reading comprehension items selected from IELTS1 was used as pre-test. Oral summarizing of short stories was used as the treatment in the experimental group and the routine instruction was applied in the control group. After 16 sessions, both groups were given an identical post-test; the items were taken from IELTS1.T-test was employed for statistical analysis. The result indicated that there was a significant difference between experimental and control group performance. It meant that oral summarizing of short stories had a positive effect on reading comprehension of elementary EFL learners. Key Words: Oral summarizing, Short Stories, reading comprehension, Literatur
... This may be particularly true in the case where English is not the only or first language for the child. As August and Shanahan [10] concluded in their US national review, "young Spanish-speaking students learning to read in English might make the best progress when given more work with particular phonemes and combinations of phonemes in English that do not exist in their home language" (p. 3). ...
Full-text available
We investigated a technology-based tool for teaching English letter-sound correspondences with bilingual children learning phonologically and typologically distant languages: English and Chinese. We expect that learning about print at the phoneme level may be particularly challenging, given children’s experience with the morphosyllabic language of Chinese. This randomized-controlled study with 90 kindergarteners examined the effects of an iPad-based supplementary reading program compared with a control condition. The See Word Reading® program utilized picture-embedded cues for teaching phonics within lessons directed at the letter, word, and text levels. Measures of decoding, word reading, and spelling were taken at the pretest, posttest, and follow-up for both groups. Results showed better gains in word reading for the reading group, indicating the positive impact of this supplementary reading tool. Further, data collected online from the app showed that different types of letter-sound pairings were more challenging to learn, including pairings that are inconsistent and with phonemes that are specific to English.
... A meta-analysis found a moderate correlation between reading and spelling and RAN, with a stronger association with word spelling over nonword spelling, and opaque orthographies over transparent orthographies (Chen et al. 2021). Previous research showed that LMBC might reach adequate decoding skills within their first two years of schooling (see August and Shanahan 2006). However, they may still underperform, when assessed only in L2, in words with increased orthographic complexity (Droop and Verhoeven 2003) or minor frequencies (Bellocchi, Bonifacci and Burani 2016). ...
Many studies have explored how Language-Minority Bilingual Children (LMBC) read and comprehend, while the way they learn to spell and write has received less attention. This study aimed to assess a comprehensive profile of spelling and writing skills in LMBC, comparing performances of 4th and 5th grade bilingual (n = 74) and monolingual (n = 131) children in word and nonword reading and multilevel spelling and writing tasks (word, nonword and passage dictation, and written narrative production). Furthermore, we explored the role of linguistic and cognitive predictors (nonverbal Intellectual Quotient, verbal knowledge, morphosyntactic comprehension, nonword repetition) in spelling and writing outcomes. Our findings showed that, overall, LMBC did not reach a monolingual-like proficiency in spelling by the end of primary school, while they were similar to monolinguals in reading tasks and were able to produce written narratives with adequate macrostructure, syntactic complexity, and lexical variety. Moreover, morphosyntactic comprehension predicted spelling in both groups. Nonverbal intelligence and verbal knowledge predicted spelling skills only for the bilingual group. With regards to writing skills, morphosyntactic comprehension emerged as a predictor exclusively in the bilingual group. These results are discussed with reference to educational and clinical implications. ARTICLE HISTORY
... the limited vocabulary knowledge mastered by students might be the source of reading comprehension difficulties (August & Shanahan, 2006). ...
Full-text available
A number of studies have shown that morphological awareness contributes to the improvement of the comprehension of student reading and vocabulary learning, interest in the importance of language acquisition and instruction of morphological awareness is increasing. This research emphasizes the use of morphological techniques used in reading comprehension to enhance the vocabulary awareness of prefixes and suffixes of students and to contribute to the development of vocabulary acquisition. This literature review was conducted to incorporate research results to assess whether such training led to increased understanding of reading and development of vocabulary. First, researchers need to collect relevant information related to morphological and teaching strategies in the teaching and learning process of English. Second, researchers can analyze data regarding the advantages and disadvantages of morphological strategies and instructions in the English teaching and learning process. Third, researchers identified the important role of morphological awareness that has been applied by students and the need to implement morphological strategies to help second language learners to acquire English language skills. Finally, learners can conclude some important things related to the application of morphology learning strategies to engage the teaching and learning process so that learners can achieve learning objectives regularly.
Full-text available
This is an English translation of a CPD handbook developed for teachers in Irish-medium/Gaeltacht schools to help them support students with special educational needs learning through Irish.
Research on making connections to texts has largely explored how making text connections supports reading comprehension. However, less attention has been paid to how readers make text connections through talk and in interaction during text-based discussions. In this study, I explore how text connections were co-constructed between students and their teacher in an English as a Second Language book group. Specifically, I look at the content of the connections one focal student made to the text, and how she used language to share these connections during book group meetings. Drawing on positioning theory and microethnographic discourse analysis, findings illuminate the different affordances and constraints of two participation strategies this student used to make text connections: protestation and piggybacking. This study suggests implications for future work on the complex and creative ways young, linguistically diverse readers participate in literacy discussions.
The histories of language policies and literacy policies have several parallels and places of intersection in the United States. From movements focused on assimilation and immersion to the emergence of an asset-based vision of bilingual education, approaches to instruction for students whose native language is not English reflect political and philosophical shifts in the understanding of language and culture over time. Moreover, the speed and degree to which students develop literacy in the language of instruction has always been directly related to academic success. This chapter examines themes of remediation, opportunities to learn, and the impact of teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions as it examines the integrated histories of language and literacy policies from the 1960s to the present.
Full-text available
This experimental/comparison study of secondary-level, small-group instruction included 318 first- and second-grade students (170 ELL and 148 English-only) from six elementary schools. All schools served high numbers of ELL students with varying school SES in urban and suburban communities. Experimental schools implemented a three-tier model of intervention. In addition to primary-tier reading instruction, the second-tier, small-group experimental interventions included use of (a) evidence-based direct instruction reading curricula that explicitly targeted skills such as phonological/phonemic awareness, letter-sound recognition, alphabetic decoding, fluency building and comprehension skills; and (b) small groups of 3 to 6 students. Students at comparison schools were not exposed to a three-tier reading program but received (a) an ESL intervention using balanced literacy instruction with a focus on word study, group and individual story reading, and writing activities; and (b) small groups of 6 to 15 students. The ESL/balanced literacy intervention was generally in addition to primary reading instruction. Results indicated generally higher gains for ELL students enrolled in direct instruction interventions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Full-text available
The authors examined a model of instruction for English-language learners (ELLs) who were learning academic English while they tried to meet content standards required by the nation's education reform movement. In previous work (J. Echevarria, M. E. Vogt, & D. Short, 2000), the authors developed and validated a model of instruction (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol; SIOP model) for ELLs. In this study, the authors tested the model for its effects on student achievement. Findings revealed that students whose teachers implemented the SIOP model performed slightly better than did a comparison group on an expository essay writing task, which closely approximated academic assignments that ELLs must perform in standards-based classrooms.
Full-text available
This study evaluated the efficacy of the computer-assisted intervention program known as Fast ForWord Language™ in a sample of migrant students in Grades 1 through 6 who were native Spanish speakers. Fast ForWord Language™ combines intensive training in multiple receptive English language skills with adaptive acoustic waveform lengthening and amplification to purportedly accelerate the English language learning skills of children who are nonnative English language speakers. Students either were randomly assigned to a treatment or no-contact control condition or were matched on grade, English language proficiency, and nonverbal IQ. All students were assessed in five domains before and immediately after the 4- to 8-week intervention: (a) spoken English language proficiency; (b) oral language competency; (c) phonological awareness; (d) basic reading skills; and (e) classroom behavior. Except for performance on a measure of sight-word recognition, on which children in the treatment group achieved a significantly greater gain than those in the control group, changes in test scores from pretest to posttest were equivalent for the two groups. However, when students who were least fluent in spoken English in each group were compared, the children in the treatment group demonstrated superior gains in expressive language, sight-word recognition, and pseudoword decoding. Thus, Fast ForWord Language™ had a substantial, albeit limited impact on the oral language skills and reading performance of migrant children in this study. However, due to methodological weaknesses and limited treatment fidelity, the study results must be interpreted cautiously.
This study determined the effectiveness of Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (K-PALS) for English Learners (ELs). We compared 20 K-PALS ELs to 20 Control ELs and to 20 K-PALS non-ELs on early reading skill acquisition, using a pretest-posttest control group design with matched samples. We also compared proportions of ELs unresponsive to K-PALS to ELs unresponsive to traditional instruction. Teachers implemented K-PALS 4 times per week for 18 weeks. Following intervention, analyses ofcovariance on posttest measures indicated that K-PALS ELs performed reliably higher than Control ELs on measures of phonemic awareness and letter sound recognition, and they performed similarly to K-PALS non-ELs. Findings are discussed in terms of K-PALS efficacy for Els in a response-to-intervention framework.
This study assessed the effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), a reciprocal classwide peer-tutoring strategy, on the reading performance of native Spanish-speaking students with learning disabilities (LD) and their low-, average-, and high-achieving classroom peers. Participants were 132 native Spanish-speaking English language learners (ELL) in Grades 3 through 6, along with their 12 reading teachers. Teachers were assigned randomly to PALS and contrast groups. PALS sessions were conducted 3 times a week for 15 weeks. Students were tested before and after treatment. PALS students outgrew contrast students on reading comprehension, and those effects were not mediated by student type.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a supplemental peer-mediated reading program on reading achievement of first graders (N = 76) in a two-way bilingual immersion (TWBI) program. Nearly 80% of students were Hispanic; of these, 24 were identified as English language learners (ELLs). Classrooms were randomly assigned to peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS) or contrast condition. PALS students participated in a 30-hour peer-mediated early literacy intervention that was conducted three times a week. Results showed statistically significant differences, with large effect sizes favoring PALS on phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency. Additionally, disaggregated results analyzed by subgroups (ELLs and English proficient) revealed a differential pattern in response to intervention. Implications of findings in relation to research and practice are discussed.
The Reading Rescue tutoring intervention model was investigated with 64 low–socioeconomic status, language-minority first graders with reading difficulties. School staff provided tutoring in phonological awareness, systematic phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. Tutored students made significantly greater gains reading words and comprehending text than controls, who received a small-group intervention (d = 0.70) or neither intervention (d = 0.74). The majority of tutored students reached average reading levels whereas the majority of controls did not. Paraprofessionals tutored students as effectively as reading specialists except in skills benefiting nonword decoding. Paraprofessionals required more sessions to achieve equivalent gains. Contrary to conventional wisdom, results suggest that students make greater gains when they read text at an independent level than at an instructional level.
This study examined how providing either primary- or English-language storybooks for home reading followed by classroom storybook reading and vocabulary instruction in English influenced English vocabulary acquisition. Participants in the study were preschool children (N = 33), from low socioeconomic status families, whose primary language was either Hmong or Spanish. There were two 6-week sessions of home combined with classroom storybook reading. Children were randomized to either a primary- or English-language home storybook-reading treatment in the first session. In the second session, children switched treatment and participated in home storybook reading with books written in the alternate language. Children learned a substantial number of words from the combined home and classroom storybook-reading experiences. Home storybook reading in a primary language was at least as effective as home storybook reading in English for English vocabulary learning. Significant gains in vocabulary recognition were documented after home reading and again after classroom experiences in English. Family-caregiver participation in the parent-support part of the program rose from 50% to 80% between the two 6-week sessions. Family caregivers' English oral-language skills and the number of English-language children's books in the home were related to English vocabulary learning. Discussion focuses on the viability of combining primary- or second-language home storybook reading with second-language classroom storybook reading as a means to enhance second-language vocabulary learning.