There are some common practices in schools that have no research base or worse, studies show the practice or idea isn’t effective. Yet these practices persist.
For this month’s blog, I turned to colleague Claude Goldenberg, to get his take on how research studies with English learners can translate into classroom practice. He is Professor Emeritus in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and an expert on English learners.
Let’s start with what research is. There are lots of practices in schools that are said to be “research-based.” What does that mean or should it mean? What can accurately be counted as research?
Well, there isn’t an easy answer. The NRC (National Research Council) 2002 report, Scientific Research in Education, lays out a reasonable definition. It includes systematic investigations posing questions that can be answered empirically, investigating questions directly and transparently, looking for replication and generalization, identifying and further investigating limits to our understanding.
We generally hold up RCTs (randomized control trials) as the ultimate in scientific research, and these are of course very valuable to establish causal relations between a practice, curriculum, or technique on the one hand and some desired (or UNdesired) outcome on the other. For example, does a certain vocabulary intervention result in increased (or decreased!) word knowledge, or does a certain program accelerate English language development? Not just one RCT but a number of RCTs converging on common findings might be the strongest way to demonstrate the effect of some practice or procedure. But that’s not always possible, and generally rare in education, so we often have to deal with less than ideal evidence.
The key thing educators need to ask when they look at or read about a study is, “Does the study ask a question that’s relevant to what I want to do or what I need to know?” Teachers typically want to know whether doing this will work better than doing that. For example, if I use heterogeneous grouping will students do better than when grouped by skill or language proficiency? Or we might want to learn about a group of students from different parts of the world. Research that addresses questions about these students’ customs and practices can be very informative. So that’s the first thing: Look for studies that address questions that will help inform your practice. If a study doesn’t, then even if it’s peer reviewed it’s unlikely to be helpful.
Next, the study needs to have collected credible empirical evidence, aka data, that answers the question. Typically—but not always— a study published in a peer-reviewed journal will have collected data that are at least reasonably credible. But we often come across studies not found in peer reviewed journals, so the best thing to do is to read all research skeptically, which means actively looking for ways the data, and therefore the findings, might be biased or misleading. Ask questions such as, How were subjects recruited, and could the recruitment process tilt the findings one way or another? What measures were used, and do they address the question adequately and fairly? What claims is the author making, and do the data support the claims, or are the claims speculation that goes beyond what the study actually found?
But, again, it all begins with a clear and relevant question that can be addressed by collecting and analyzing relevant data. That’s the bottom line. Or lines, I guess.
For English learners, what are the most important research findings that teachers can implement in their classrooms?
Effective instruction for ELs has many similarities with effective instruction for non-ELs. A non-all-inclusive list includes clear, relevant, and meaningful goals and expectations; well-organized, clear instruction and engaging materials and activities directly related to goals and expectations; formative assessments and checking for understanding; feedback that is useful for accomplishing goals and meeting expectations.
With respect to beginning reading instruction specifically, ELs need the same foundational instruction as anyone else: That letters represent sounds; how letters are used to sound out words; and how to fluently read words, sentences, and paragraphs so that reading development can proceed. (This is true whether ELs are learning to read in English or in their home language.) Things get more complex as students get to intermediate and advanced reading levels, but, again, ELs need to learn the same things as non-ELs do.
While there are important similarities in effective instruction for ELs and non-ELs, ELs receiving instruction in English require additional support, primarily with regard to English language development. ELs (and their teachers) face the double-barreled challenge of learning the academic content everyone must learn while simultaneously learning to become proficient in oral English. Unfortunately, we don’t have good evidence about how to narrow the achievement gap in English when students are not yet proficient in English. We have some tools and ideas that might help, but we have a long ways to go. I’d put primary emphasis on figuring out how to help ELs accelerate their English language development. This doesn’t mean exclusively all-English instruction. When tried, English-only policies have not been successful. Rather, there’s evidence that long-term bilingual education at least through middle school, in contrast to short-term transition bilingual education and English-only instruction, can help accelerate English language proficiency. We must work on improving ELs’ English language instruction and development regardless of the program they are in.
Since English learners don’t understand the language of instruction well, how would you suggest that teachers compensate so students understand subject matter content?
The only practice that I know of that has been especially helpful for ELs, more so than for non-ELs, is using video to help students understand key concepts and vocabulary. A study a few years ago found that showing ELs in preschool to second grade short video clips explaining and illustrating key science concepts significantly helped them learn the vocabulary and concepts, so much so that they closed the gap with their non-EL peers on those items.
Other learning opportunities are also probably important, e.g., opportunities for students to discuss the content and use the target language while reinforcing content concepts, incorporating visual aids and providing hands-on learning opportunities, and building on and leveraging students’ experiences and knowledge to tie instruction to content that’s familiar to them. Probably the most important thing—although we don’t have very good data on this—is to accelerate ELs’ English language development. Absent that, it’s unlikely we’ll close the achievement gap.
To be very clear, “accelerating English language development” does not automatically mean full-on English immersion. To the contrary, we have evidence that over the long term, dual language instruction can hasten the English proficiency. “Accelerating English language development” simply means what it says, and that can be done in both bilingual and English-only programs. A study with kindergarten and first graders found that a few years ago.
What is one common misconception about teaching English learners?
That ELs require an entirely different set of instructional tools, strategies, and techniques than do non-ELs.
If you had one piece of advice for teachers who have ELs in their classes, what would it be?
Use what we know about effective teaching. That’s the main grist for the mill. Clear, focused instruction with the attributes listed above. In addition, as with all students, connecting with their life experiences helps make things relevant for them. For example, it used to be that parents wrote letters home to family in their country of origin and writing letters was a regular occurrence in my classroom. I’d give a homework assignment to write a letter to their abuelita or other relative. Now they text, phone, email or TikTok to communicate. Try to connect with students’ lived experiences in a way that leverages those experiences to help you teach what you want to teach and they need to learn.
Culturally relevant pedagogy (or culturally responsive or culturally sustaining) is an important idea, but there is very little evidence that, in and of itself, it positively impacts achievement. Ideally, it would be part of—but it can never replace—clear, focused instructional practice that helps students acquire content knowledge, academic skills, and English language proficiency. And, again, these can be done in bilingual programs or in English-only programs. My personal preference, because of the value of bilingualism and biliteracy, is for long-term bilingual education programs that actively promote bilingualism and biliteracy. If it were up to me, all students—ELs and non-ELs—would graduate high school proficient in at least two languages, sort of like what most of the rest of the world does.
We’re grateful to Claude for discussing his perspective on research with us. Long-time readers of this blog will recognize that SIOP incorporates the specific practices mentioned for making subject matter comprehensible. In addition, students have opportunities to use and produce English in their content classrooms.