research questions for english language learners

129 List Of Research Topics In English Language Teaching [updated]

English Language Teaching (ELT) is a field dedicated to teaching English to non-native speakers. It’s important because English is a global language used for communication, business, and education worldwide. Research in ELT helps improve teaching methods, making it easier for students to learn English effectively. This blog will explore a list of research topics in English language teaching.

What Are The Areas Of Research In English Language Teaching?

Table of Contents

Research in English Language Teaching (ELT) encompasses a wide range of areas, including:

• Language Learning: Understanding how people learn English well, like when they learn a new language and if there’s a best time to do it.
• Teaching Ways: Looking into different ways teachers teach, like using conversations, tasks, or mixing language with other subjects.
• Curriculum Design and Syllabus Development: Designing and evaluating language curricula and syllabi to meet the needs of diverse learners and contexts.
• Assessment and Evaluation: Developing and validating assessment tools, exploring alternative assessment methods, and investigating the effectiveness of feedback and error correction strategies.
• Technology in ELT: Exploring the integration of technology in language teaching and learning, including computer-assisted language learning (CALL), mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), and online learning platforms.
• Teacher Education and Professional Development: Investigating pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, reflective practices, and challenges in teacher training.
• Cultural and Sociolinguistic Aspects: Examining the role of culture in language teaching and learning, sociolinguistic competence, and addressing cultural diversity in the classroom.
• Learner Diversity and Inclusive Practices: Researching teaching strategies for diverse learners, including young learners, learners with learning disabilities, and learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
• Policy and Planning in ELT: Analyzing language policies at national and international levels, exploring the implementation of ELT programs, and examining the role of ELT in national development.
• Research Methodologies in ELT: Investigating qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research approaches in ELT research, including action research conducted by teachers in their own classrooms.
• Future Trends and Innovations: Exploring emerging trends and innovations in ELT, such as the impact of globalization, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in language learning, and innovative teaching strategies.

129 List Of Research Topics In English Language Teaching: Category Wise

Language acquisition and development.

• Second Language Acquisition Theories: Explore different theories explaining how learners acquire a second language.
• Critical Period Hypothesis: Investigate the idea of an optimal age range for language acquisition.
• Multilingualism and Language Development: Study how knowing multiple languages affects language development.
• Cognitive and Affective Factors in Language Learning: Examine the role of cognitive abilities and emotions in language learning.
• Language Learning Strategies: Investigate the strategies learners use to acquire and develop language skills.
• Input Hypothesis: Explore the role of comprehensible input in language acquisition.
• Interaction Hypothesis: Examine the importance of interaction in language learning.
• Fossilization in Second Language Learning: Study why some learners reach a plateau in their language development.

Teaching Methodologies and Approaches

• Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Analyze the effectiveness of CLT in promoting communication skills.
• Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): Explore the use of real-world tasks to teach language.
• Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Investigate teaching subject content through English.
• Blended Learning in ELT: Study the integration of traditional and online teaching methods.
• Audio-Lingual Method: Assess the effectiveness of drills and repetition in language teaching.
• Grammar-Translation Method: Compare traditional grammar-focused methods with communicative approaches.
• Lexical Approach: Explore teaching vocabulary as a key component of language proficiency.
• Suggestopedia: Investigate the use of relaxation techniques to enhance language learning.

Curriculum Design and Syllabus Development

• Needs Analysis in ELT: Identify the language needs of learners and design appropriate curricula.
• Integrating Language Skills in Curriculum: Examine strategies for integrating reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills.
• Syllabus Types: Compare different types of syllabi, such as structural and task-based.
• Task-Based Syllabus Design: Design syllabi based on real-world tasks to promote language acquisition.
• Content-Based Instruction (CBI): Integrate language learning with academic content in syllabus design.
• Needs Analysis in Specific Contexts: Conduct needs analyses for learners in specific professional or academic contexts.
• Cross-Cultural Communication in Curriculum Design: Incorporate intercultural communication skills into language curricula.

Assessment and Evaluation

• Standardized Testing in ELT: Evaluate the reliability and validity of standardized English language tests.
• Alternative Assessment Approaches: Explore non-traditional assessment methods like portfolios and self-assessment.
• Feedback Strategies in Language Learning: Investigate effective feedback techniques for improving language proficiency.
• Washback Effect of Testing: Study how assessment practices influence teaching and learning.
• Authentic Assessment in ELT: Develop assessment tasks that mirror real-life language use situations.
• Portfolio Assessment: Investigate the use of portfolios to track language learning progress over time.
• Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT): Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of adaptive testing methods in ELT.

Technology in ELT

• Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL): Assess the impact of computer-based language learning programs.
• Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL): Study the effectiveness of mobile devices in language learning.
• Online Learning Platforms for ELT: Analyze the features and usability of online platforms for language education.
• Virtual Reality (VR) in Language Learning: Explore immersive VR environments for language practice and instruction.
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tutoring Systems: Assess the effectiveness of AI-based tutors in providing personalized language instruction.
• Social Media in Language Learning: Study the role of social media platforms in informal language learning contexts.
• Gamification in ELT: Investigate the use of game elements to enhance engagement and motivation in language learning.

Teacher Education and Professional Development

• Pre-service Teacher Education Programs: Evaluate the effectiveness of teacher training programs.
• Reflective Practice in Teaching: Investigate how teachers reflect on their practice to improve teaching.
• Challenges in Teacher Education: Identify challenges faced by educators in training and development.
• Teacher Beliefs and Practices: Examine how teachers’ beliefs about language learning influence their instructional practices.
• Peer Observation in Teacher Development: Explore the benefits of peer observation and feedback for teacher professional growth.
• Mentoring Programs for New Teachers: Evaluate the effectiveness of mentoring programs in supporting novice teachers.
• Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Models: Compare different models of CPD for language teachers and their impact on teaching quality.

Cultural and Sociolinguistic Aspects

• Language and Culture Interrelationship: Explore the relationship between language and culture in ELT.
• Sociolinguistic Competence and Pragmatics: Study how social context influences language use and understanding.
• Gender and Identity in Language Learning: Investigate how gender identity affects language learning experiences.
• Intercultural Competence in Language Teaching: Develop strategies for promoting intercultural communicative competence in language learners.
• Language Policy and Minority Language Education: Analyze the impact of language policies on the education of minority language speakers.
• Gender and Language Learning Strategies: Investigate gender differences in language learning strategies and their implications for instruction.
• Code-Switching in Multilingual Classrooms: Study the role of code-switching in language learning and classroom interaction.

Learner Diversity and Inclusive Practices

• Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL): Examine effective teaching strategies for children learning English.
• Addressing Learning Disabilities in ELT: Investigate methods for supporting learners with disabilities in language learning.
• ELT for Specific Purposes (ESP): Explore specialized English language instruction for specific fields.
• Differentiated Instruction in Language Teaching: Develop strategies for addressing diverse learner needs in the language classroom.
• Inclusive Pedagogies for Learners with Special Educational Needs: Design instructional approaches that accommodate learners with disabilities in language learning.
• Language Learning Strategies of Autistic Learners: Investigate effective language learning strategies for individuals on the autism spectrum.
• Language Identity and Learner Motivation: Explore the relationship between language identity and motivation in language learning.

Policy and Planning in ELT

• National and International Language Policies: Analyze policies governing English language education at different levels.
• ELT Program Implementation Challenges: Identify challenges in implementing ELT programs in diverse contexts.
• Role of ELT in National Development: Examine the contribution of English language education to national development goals.
• English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) Policies: Analyze the impact of EMI policies on educational equity and access.
• Language Teacher Recruitment and Deployment Policies: Evaluate policies related to the recruitment and deployment of language teachers in diverse contexts.
• Language Assessment Policy Reform: Propose reforms to language assessment policies to promote fairness and validity.
• Biliteracy Development Policies: Study policies aimed at promoting biliteracy development among bilingual learners.

Research Methodologies in ELT

• Qualitative Research Methods in ELT: Explore qualitative approaches like interviews and case studies in ELT research.
• Quantitative Research Methods in ELT: Investigate quantitative methods such as surveys and experiments in language education research.
• Mixed-Methods Approaches in ELT Research: Combine qualitative and quantitative methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of research questions.
• Ethnographic Approaches to ELT Research: Conduct ethnographic studies to explore language learning and teaching in naturalistic settings.
• Case Study Research in Language Education: Investigate specific language learning contexts or programs through in-depth case studies.
• Corpus Linguistics in ELT Research: Analyze language use patterns and learner language production using corpus linguistic methods.
• Longitudinal Studies of Language Learning: Follow language learners over an extended period to examine developmental trajectories and factors influencing language acquisition.

Future Trends and Innovations

• Emerging Technologies in ELT: Study the integration of technologies like AI and VR in language teaching.
• Innovations in Teaching Strategies: Explore new approaches to teaching language, such as flipped classrooms and gamification.
• Future Directions in ELT Research: Investigate potential areas for future research in English language teaching.
• Wearable Technology in Language Learning: Explore the potential of wearable devices for delivering personalized language instruction.
• Data Analytics for Adaptive Learning: Develop data-driven approaches to adaptive learning in language education.
• Augmented Reality (AR) Applications in ELT: Design AR-enhanced language learning experiences for immersive language practice.
• Global Citizenship Education and Language Learning: Investigate the role of language education in fostering global citizenship skills.
• Eco-Linguistics and Language Education: Explore the intersection of language education and environmental sustainability.
• Metacognition and Language Learning: Explore how learners’ awareness of their own learning processes affects language acquisition.
• Peer Interaction in Language Learning: Investigate the role of peer collaboration and discussion in promoting language development.
• Heritage Language Education: Study strategies for maintaining and revitalizing heritage languages among immigrant and minority communities.
• Language Learning Motivation in Adolescents: Examine factors influencing motivation and engagement in adolescent language learners.
• Phonological Awareness in Language Learning: Investigate the role of phonological awareness in literacy development for language learners.
• Pragmatic Development in Language Learners: Explore how learners acquire pragmatic competence and understanding of language use in context.
• Digital Literacies and Language Learning: Examine how digital literacy skills contribute to language proficiency and communication in the digital age.
• Critical Language Awareness: Investigate approaches to developing learners’ critical awareness of language use and power dynamics.
• Language Teacher Identity: Study how language teachers’ identities shape their beliefs, practices, and interactions in the classroom.
• Collaborative Learning in Language Education: Explore the benefits and challenges of collaborative learning environments for language learners.
• Motivational Strategies in Language Teaching: Develop and evaluate motivational techniques to enhance student engagement and persistence in language learning.
• Heritage Language Maintenance: Investigate factors influencing the maintenance and transmission of heritage languages across generations.
• Phonics Instruction in Language Learning: Examine the effectiveness of phonics-based approaches for teaching reading and pronunciation.
• Language Policy Implementation: Analyze the challenges and successes of implementing language policies at the institutional, regional, and national levels.
• Language Teacher Cognition: Explore language teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and decision-making processes in the classroom.
• Intercultural Communicative Competence: Develop strategies for fostering learners’ ability to communicate effectively across cultures.
• Critical Pedagogy in Language Education: Explore approaches to teaching language that promote critical thinking, social justice, and equity.
• Language Learning Strategies for Autodidacts: Investigate effective self-directed learning strategies for language learners outside formal educational settings.
• Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Higher Education: Examine the implementation and outcomes of CLIL programs in tertiary education.
• Sociocultural Theory and Language Learning: Explore how social and cultural factors influence language acquisition and development.
• Language Socialization: Investigate how individuals learn language within social and cultural contexts, including family, peer groups, and communities.
• Speech Perception and Language Learning: Examine the relationship between speech perception abilities and language proficiency in second language learners.
• Genre-Based Approaches to Language Teaching: Explore the use of genre analysis and genre-based pedagogy to teach language skills in context.
• Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Investigate strategies for promoting learner autonomy and independence in language education.
• Multimodal Literacy in Language Learning: Examine the integration of multiple modes of communication, such as text, image, and sound, in language instruction.
• Community-Based Language Learning: Study language learning initiatives that engage learners with their local communities and resources.
• English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Communication: Explore the use of English as a global means of communication among speakers from diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Research in English Language Teaching covers a wide range of topics, from language acquisition theories to the impact of technology on learning. By exploring these topics (from a list of research topics in english language teaching), we can improve how English is taught and learned, making it more effective and accessible for everyone.

Continuous research and collaboration among educators, researchers, and policymakers are essential for the ongoing development of ELT.

Related Posts

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics

A Reference Guide

• © 2021
• Hassan Mohebbi   ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3661-1690 0 ,
• Christine Coombe   ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7105-1644 1

European Knowledge Development Institute, Ankara, Türkiye

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), Dubai Men’s College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

• Provides a rich collection of research questions that are suggested by well-known experts in the field of language education research
• Offers guidance on finding relevant and original topics for future research
• Is a source of research inspiration from the undergraduate to postgraduate level

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education (SPTE)

61k Accesses

64 Citations

49 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

This volume encompasses the range of research questions on language-related problems that arise in language teaching, learning and assessment. The [150] chapters are written by experts in the field who each offer their insights into current and future directions of research, and who suggest several highly relevant research questions.  

 An important skill in reviewing the research literature is following a study’s “plan of attack.” Broadly, this means that before accepting and acting upon the findings, one considers a) the research question ( Is it clear and focused? Measurable? ), b) the subjects examined, the methods deployed, and the measures chosen ( Do they fit the study’s goal and have the potential to yield useful results? ), and c) the analysis of the data ( Do the data lead to the discussion presented? Has the author reasonably interpreted results to reach the conclusion? ). Mohebbi and Coombe’s book,  Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics: A Reference Guide,  helps budding researchers take the first step and develop a solid research question. As the field of language education evolves, we need continual research to improve our instructional and assessment practices and our understanding of the learners’ language learning processes. This book with its remarkable 150 topics and 10 times the number of potential research questions provides a wealth of ideas that will help early career researchers conduct studies that move our field forward and grow our knowledge base.  Deborah J. Short, Ph.D.,  Director, Academic Language Research & Training,  Past President, TESOL International Association (2021-22)

As a teacher in graduate programs in TESOL I frequently come across the frustration of students at centering their research interests on a particular topic and developing research questions which are worth pursuing so as to make a contribution to the field. This frustration stems from the fact that our field is so vast and interrelated, that it is often impossible to properly address all that interests them. Hence, I wholeheartedly welcome this most relevant and innovative addition to the research literature in the field of TESOL and Applied Linguistics. Coombe and Mohebbi have created a real  tour de force  that stands to inform budding researchers in the field for many years to come. Additionally, the cutting-edge depiction of the field and all it has to offer will no doubt update the research agendas of many seasoned researchers around the world. The 150 chapters are organized in a most powerful, yet, deceptively simple way offering a positioning within the topic, suggesting questions that might direct inquiry and offering a basic set of bibliographic tools to start the reader in the path towards research. What is more, the nine sections in which the chapters are organized leave no area of the field unexplored.  Dr. Gabriel Díaz Maggioli,  Academic Advisor, Institute of Education, Universidad ORT del Uruguay,  President, IATEFL

Chapter “Metacognition in Academic Writing: Learning Dimensions” is available open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License via link.springer.com.

Similar content being viewed by others

Towards Socio-material Research Approaches in Language Education

Key Issues in Doing and Supporting Language Teacher Research

Theoretical and Historical Perspectives on Researching the Sociology of Language and Education

• language skills teaching
• language skills assessment
• language learning through technology
• research methods in language education
• genre analysis
• form-focused language teaching
• language teacher development
• linguistics teaching

Table of contents (153 chapters)

Front matter, volume introduction: research questions in language education and applied linguistics: strategies for their conceptualization and development.

Christine Coombe

Teaching and Teaching-related Topics

Attending to form in the communicative classroom.

• Martin East

Blended Learning

• Lana Hiasat

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

• Zohreh R. Eslami, Zihan Geng

Content-Based Language Teaching

• Zübeyde Sinem Genç

Creativity and Language Teaching

Discourse analysis.

• Brian Paltridge

English Academic Vocabulary Teaching and Learning

• Sophia Skoufaki

English for Academic Purposes

• Helen Basturkmen

English for Specific Purposes

English-medium instruction.

• Keith M. Graham, Zohreh R. Eslami

Focus on Form in Second Language Instruction

• Alessandro Benati

A Genre-Based Approach to Writing Instruction in the Content Areas

• Luciana C. de Oliveira, Sharon L. Smith

Global Englishes and Teaching English as an International Language

• Heath Rose, Mona Syrbe

Identity in Language Learning and Teaching

• Bonny Norton

Inclusive Language Teaching

• David Gerlach

Increasing Reading Fluency

• Neil J. Anderson

Instructional Pragmatics

• Zohreh R. Eslami, Shaun Weihong Ko

Editors and Affiliations

Hassan Mohebbi

About the editors

Dr Christine Coombe is an Associate Professor of General Studies at Dubai Men’s College, Higher Colleges of Technology in the UAE.  She served as President of the TESOL International Association from 2011 to 2012. Christine has authored/edited over 50 books on different aspects of English language teaching, learning and assessment.  Throughout her career she has received several awards including the 2018 James E Alatis Award for exemplary service to TESOL.  In 2017 she was named to TESOL’s 50@50 list which honored 50 top professionals who have made an impact on ELT in the past 50 years.   

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics

Book Subtitle : A Reference Guide

Editors : Hassan Mohebbi, Christine Coombe

Series Title : Springer Texts in Education

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Education , Education (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-79142-1 Published: 14 January 2022

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-79143-8 Published: 13 January 2022

Series ISSN : 2366-7672

Series E-ISSN : 2366-7680

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XXVII, 889

Number of Illustrations : 1 b/w illustrations, 2 illustrations in colour

Topics : Language Education , Language Acquisition and Development , Education, general

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(9); 2021 Sep

Evidence-based reading interventions for English language learners: A multilevel meta-analysis

Associated data.

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

The number of English Language Learners (ELLs) has been growing worldwide. ELLs are at risk for reading disabilities due to dual difficulties with linguistic and cultural factors. This raises the need for finding practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve their literacy development and English reading skills. The purpose of this study is to examine the evidence-based reading interventions for English Language Learners to identify the components that create the most effective and efficient interventions. This article reviewed literature published between January 2008 and March 2018 that examined the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. We analyzed the effect sizes of reading intervention programs for ELLs and explored the variables that affect reading interventions using a multilevel meta-analysis. We examined moderator variables such as student-related variables (grades, exceptionality, SES), measurement-related variables (standardization, reliability), intervention-related variables (contents of interventions, intervention types), and implementation-related variables (instructor, group size). The results showed medium effect sizes for interventions targeting basic reading skills for ELLs. Medium-size group interventions and strategy-embedded interventions were more important for ELLs who were at risk for reading disabilities. These findings suggested that we should consider the reading problems of ELLs and apply the Tier 2 approach for ELLs with reading problems.

English language learners, Evidenced-based intervention, Meta-analysis, Reading.

1. Introduction

There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of quality education for learners who study in a language other than their native language ( Estrella et al., 2018 ; Ludwig et al., 2019 ). As cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversification takes place globally, the number of students studying a second language different from their native language is also increasing worldwide. In the United States, nearly 5 million learners who are not native speakers of English are currently attending public schools, and this figure has increased significantly over the past decade ( NCES, 2016 ). As the number of children whose native language is not English increased, the need for educational support also increased. Furthermore, the implementation of NCLB policy emphasizes the need for quality education for all students included in all schools. Accordingly, NCLB has emerged as a critical policy for learners to study in their second language. In other words, there is an urgent need to ensure that non-native English speakers receive appropriate education due to NCLB, which has not only increased the demand for education but also led to the practice of enhanced education for learners whose English is not their native language.

ELLs (English language learners) refer to the education provided for learners whose native language is not English in English-speaking countries ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2021 ). The education provided to these ELLs is called ESL (English as a second language), ESOL (English to speakers of other languages), EFL (English as a foreign language), and so on. Each term is adopted differently depending on the policy, purpose, and status of operation of the state and/or school district. While a variety of terms have been suggested, this paper uses the term ‘ELLs’ to refer to learners who are not native speakers of English and uses the terms ‘the English education program’ and the ‘ELL program’ to refer to the English education program provided to ELLs.

To ensure quality education, students identified as ELLs can participate in supportive programs to improve their English skills. These ELL programs can be broadly divided into two methods: “pull-out” and “push-in” ( Honigsfeld, 2009 ). In the pull-out program, students are taken to a specific space other than the classroom at regular class time and are separately taught English. In the push-in program, the ELL teacher joins the mainstream ELLs’ classroom and assists them during class time. Through these educational supports, ELLs are required to achieve not only English language improvements addressed in Title III of NCLB but also language art achievements appropriate to their grade level addressed in Title I of NCLB. ELLs are expected to achieve the same level of academic achievement as students of the same grade level, as well as comparable language skills.

A considerable amount of literature has been published on the achievement and learning status of ELLs ( Ludwig, 2017 ; Soland and Sandilos, 2020 ). These studies revealed that despite the intensive, high-quality education support for ELLs, they encounter difficulties learning and academic achievement. The National Reading Achievement Test (NAEP) results show that the achievement gap between non-ELLs and ELLs is steadily expanding in the areas of both mathematics and reading ( Polat et al., 2016 ). Ultimately, ELLs are reported to have the highest risk of dropping out of school ( Sheng et al., 2011 ). These difficulties are not limited to early school age. Fry (2007) reported that the results from a national standardized test of 8th-grade students found that ELLs performed lower than white students in both reading and math. Callahan and Shifrer (2016) analyzed data from a nationally representative educational longitudinal study in 2002 and found that, despite taking into account language, socio-demographic and academic factors, ELLs still have a large gap in high school academic achievement. Additionally, research has suggested that ELLs are less likely to participate in higher education institutions compared to non-ELL counterparts ( Cook, 2015 ; Kanno and Cromley, 2015 ).

Factors found to influence the difficulties of ELLs in learning have been explored in several studies ( Dussling, 2018 ; Thompson and von Gillern, 2020 ; Yousefi and Bria, 2018 ). There are two main reasons for these difficulties. First, ELLs face many challenges in learning a new language by following the academic content required in the school year ( American Youth Policy Forum, 2009 ). Moreover, language is an area that is influenced by sociocultural factors, and learning academic contents such as English language art and math are also influenced by sociocultural elements and different cultural backgrounds, which affects the achievement of ELLs in school ( Chen et al., 2012 ; Orosco, 2010 ). Second, it is reported that the heterogeneity of ELLs makes it challenging to formulate instructional strategies and provide adequate education for them. Due to the heterogeneous traits in the linguistic and cultural aspects of the ELL group, there are limitations in specifying and guiding traits. Therefore, properly reflecting their characteristics is difficult.

The difficulties for ELLs in academic achievement raise the necessity for searching practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve English language and academic achievement, including ELLs' English language art achievement. These needs and demands led to the conduct of various studies that analyze the difficulties of ELLs. Over the past decade, these studies have provided important information on education for ELLs. The main themes of the studies are difficulties in academic achievement and interventions for ELLs, including reading ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Roth, 2015 ; Shamir et al., 2018 ; Tam and Heng, 2016 ), writing ( Daugherty, 2015 ; Hong, 2018 ; Lin, 2015 ; nullP ) or both reading and math ( Dearing et al., 2016 ; Shamir et al., 2016 ). The influences of teachers on children's guidance ( Kim, 2017 ; Daniel and Pray, 2017 ; Téllez and Manthey, 2015 ; Wasseell, Hawrylak, Scantlebuty, 2017 ) and the influences of family members ( Johnson and Johnson, 2016 ; Walker, Research on 2017 ) are also examined.

Reading is known to function as an important predictor of success not only in English language art itself but also in overall school life ( Guo et al., 2015 ). This is because reading is conducted throughout the school years, as most of the activities students perform in school are related to reading. Furthermore, reading is considered one of the major fundamental skills in modern society because it has a strong relationship with academic and vocational success beyond school-based learning ( Lesnick et al., 2010 ). In particular, for ELLs, language is one of the innate barriers; thereafter, reading is one of the most common and prominent difficulties in that it is not done in their native language ( Rawian and Mokhtar, 2017 ; Snyder et al., 2017 ). In this respect, several studies have investigated reading for ELLs. These studies explore effective interventions and strategies ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Mendoza, 2016 ; Meredith, 2017 ; Reid and Heck, 2017 ) and suggest reading development models or predictors for reading success ( Boyer, 2017 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Rubin, 2016 ). For these individual studies to provide appropriate guidance to field practitioners and desirable suggestions for future research, aggregation of the overall related studies, not only of the individual study, and research reflections based on them are required. Specifically, meta-analysis can be an appropriate research method. Through meta-analysis, we can derive conclusions from previous studies and review them comprehensively. Furthermore, meta-analysis can ultimately contribute to policymakers and decision-makers making appropriate decisions for rational strategies and policymaking.

Although extensive research has been carried out on the difficulties of ELLs and how to support them, a sufficiently comprehensive meta-analysis of these studies has not been carried out. Some studies have focused on specific interventions, such as morphological interventions ( Goodwin and Ahn, 2013 ), peer-mediated learning ( Cole, 2014 ), and video game-based instruction ( Thompson and von Gillern ). Ludwig, Guo, and Georgiou (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. However, they divided reading-related variables into “reading accuracy”, “reading fluency”, and “reading comprehension” and examined the effectiveness of the reading-related attributes in each of the variables. Therefore, the study has limitations for exploring the various aspects of reading and their effectiveness for reading interventions.

Individual studies have their characteristics and significance. However, for individual studies to be more widely adopted in the field and to be a powerful source for future research, it is necessary to analyze these individual studies more comprehensively. Meta-analysis reviews past studies related to the topic by 'integrating' previous studies, analyzes and evaluates them through 'critical analysis', provides implications to the field, and gives rise to intellectual stimulation to future studies by ‘identifying issues’ ( Cooper et al., 2019 ). Through this, meta-analysis can be a useful tool for diagnosing the past where relevant research has been conducted, taking appropriate treatment for the present, and providing intellectual stimulation for future studies.

Therefore, the purposes of this study are to examine evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs presented in the literature to analyze their effects and to identify the actual and specific components for creating the most effective and efficient intervention for ELLs. The findings of this study make a major contribution to research on ELLs by demonstrating the implications for the field and future study.

2.1. Selection of studies

A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles on ELL reading interventions published between January 2008 and March 2018 was conducted. According to the general steps of a meta-analysis, data related to reading interventions for English language learners were collected as follows. First, educational and psychological publication databases, such as Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.co.kr ), ERIC ( https://eric.ed.gov/ ), ELSEVIER ( http://www.elsevier.com ), and Springer ( https://www.springer.com/gp ) were used to find the articles to be analyzed using the search terms “ELLs,” ESL,” “Reading,” “Second language education,” “Effectiveness,” and “Intervention” separately and in combination with each other. We reviewed the results of the web-based search for articles and included all relevant articles on the preliminary list. We selected the final list of the articles to be analyzed by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to the preliminary list of articles. Studies were included in the final list based on three primary criteria. First, each study should evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based reading intervention using an experimental or quasi-experimental group design. In this process, single case, qualitative, and/or descriptive studies for ELLs were excluded from the analysis. Second, we included all types of reading-related interventions (i.e., phonological awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension). Third, each study needed to report data in a statistical format to calculate an effect size. Fourth, we only included studies whose subjects were in grades K-12. The preliminary list had 75 articles, but since some of these studies did not meet the inclusion criteria, we excluded them from the final list for analysis. In total, this meta-analysis included 28 studies with 234 effect sizes (see Figure 1 ).

Prisma flow diagram.

2.2. Data analysis

2.2.1. coding procedure.

To identify the relevant components of the evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs, we developed an extensive coding document. Our interest was in synthesizing the effect sizes and finding the variables that affect the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. The code sheet was made based on a code sheet used in Vaughn et al. (2003) and Wanzek et al. (2010) . All studies were coded for the following: (a) study characteristics, including general information about the study, (b) student-related variables, (c) intervention-related variables, (d) implementation-related variables, (e) measurement-related variables, and (f) quantitative data for the calculation of effect sizes.

Within the study characteristics category, we coded the researchers’ names, publication year, and title from each study to identify the general information about each study. For the student-related variables, mean age, grade level(s), number of participants, number of males, number of females, sampling method, exceptionality type (reading ability level), identification criteria in case of learning disabilities, race/ethnicity, and SES were coded. We divided grade level(s) into lower elementary (K-2), upper elementary (3–5), and secondary (6–12). When students with learning disabilities participated in the study, we coded the identification criteria reported in the study. For race/ethnicity, we coded white, Hispanic, black, Asian, and others. Within intervention-related variables, we coded for the title of the intervention, the key instructional components of the intervention, the type of intervention, and the reading components of the intervention. The reading components coded were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and others. If an intervention contained multiple reading components, all reading components included in the intervention were coded. Fourth, within implementation-related variables, we coded group size, duration of the intervention (weeks), the total number of sessions, frequency of sessions per week, length of each session (minutes), personnel who provided the intervention (i.e., teacher, researchers, other), and the setting. Fifth, in measurement-related variables, we coded the title of the measurement, reliability coefficient, validity coefficient, type of measurement, type of reliability, and type of validity. We also coded quantitative data such as the pre- and posttest means, the pre- and posttest standard deviations, and the number of participants in the pre- and posttests for both the treatment and control groups. These coding variables are defined in Table 1 . The research background and sample information are in Appendix 1 .

Table 1

Coding variables.

2.2.2. Coding reliability

The included articles were coded according to the coding procedure described above. Two researchers coded each study separately and reached 91% agreement. Afterward, the researchers reviewed and discussed the differences to resolve the initial disagreements.

2.2.3. Data analysis

First, we calculated 234 effect sizes from the interventions included in the 28 studies. The average effect size was calculated using Cohen's d formula. In addition, we conducted a two-level meta-analysis through multilevel hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using the HLM 6.0 interactive mode statistical program to analyze the computed effect sizes and find the predictors that affect the effect sizes of reading interventions. HLM is appropriate to quantitatively obtain both overall summary statistics and quantification of the variability in the effectiveness of interventions across studies as a means for accessing the generalizability of findings. Moreover, HLM easily incorporates the overall mean effect size using the unconditional model, and HLM is useful to explain variability in the effectiveness of interventions between studies in the conditional model. The aim of the current study is to provide a broad overview of interventions for ELLs. To achieve this aim, we conducted an unconditional model for overall mean effect size and conducted a conditional model to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In regard to variables related to the effectiveness of interventions, we conducted a conditional model with student-related, measurement-related, intervention-related, and implementation-related variables. In the case of quantitative meta-analyses, it is assumed that observations are independent of one another ( How and de Leeuw, 2003 ). However, this assumption is usually not applied in social studies if observations are clustered within larger groups ( Bowman, 2003 ) because each effect size within a study might not be homogeneous ( Beretvas and Pastor, 2003 ). Thus, a two-level multilevel meta-analysis using a mixed-effect model was employed because multiple effect sizes are provided within a single education study. To calculate effect size (ES) estimates using Cohen's d, we use the following equation [1]:

The pooled standard deviation, SD pooled , is defined as

In HLM, the unconditional model can be implemented to identify the overall effect size across all estimates and to test for homogeneity. If an assumption of homogeneity is rejected by an insignificant chi-square coefficient in the unconditional model, this means that there are differences within and/or between studies. This assumption must go to the next step to find moderators that influence effect sizes. This step is called a level two model or a conditional model. A conditional model is conducted to investigate the extent of the influence of the included variables.

The level one model (unconditional model) was expressed as [3], and the level two model (the conditional model was expressed as [4].

In equation (3) , δ j represents the mean effect size value for study j, and e j is the within-study error term assumed to be theoretically normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance of V j . In the level two model equation [4], γ 0 represents the overall mean effect size for the population, and u j represents the sampling variability between studies presumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance τ .

Regarding publication bias, we looked at the funnel plot with the 'funnel()' command of the metafor R package ( Viechtbauer, 2010 ), and to verify this more statistically, we used the dmetar R package ( Harrer et al., 2019 ). Egger's regression test ( Egger et al., 1997 ) was conducted using the 'eggers.test()' command to review publication bias. Egger's regression analysis showed that there was a significant publication error (t = 3.977, 95% CI [0.89–2.54], p < .001). To correct this, a trim-and-fill technique ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ) was used. As a result, the total effect size corrected for publication bias was also calculated. The funnel plot is shown in [ Figure 2 ].

Funnel plot.

We analyzed 28 studies to identify influential variables that count for reading interventions for ELLs. Before performing the multilevel meta-analysis, the effect size of 28 studies was analyzed by traditional meta-analysis. The forest plots for the individual effect sizes of 28 studies are shown in Appendix 2. We present our findings with our research questions as an organizational framework. First, we showed an unconditional model for finding the overall mean effect size. Then, we described the variables that influenced the effect size of reading interventions for ELLs using a conditional model.

3.1. Unconditional model

An unconditional model of the meta-analysis was tested first. In the analysis, restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used. This analysis was conducted to confirm the overall mean effect size and to examine the variability among all samples. The results are shown in Table 2 .

Table 2

Results of the unconditional model analysis.

∗∗∗ p < 0.001, df: degree of freedom.

The intercept coefficient in the fixed model is the overall mean effect size from 234 effect sizes. This means that the effect of reading intervention for English language learners is medium based on Cohen's d. Cohen's d is generally interpreted as small d = 0.2, medium d = 0.5 and large d = 0.8. The variance component indicates the variability among samples. The estimate was 0.589 and remained significant (χ 2 = 1245.90, p < . 001). This statistical significance means that moderator analysis with dominant predictors in a model is required to explore the source of variability.

3.2. Conditional model

Moderator analysis using the conditional model was expected to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In this study, the moderator analysis was administered by nine critical variable categories: students’ grade, exceptionality, SES, reading area, standardized test, test reliability, intervention type, instructor, and group size. Variables in each category were coded by dummy coding. Dummy coding was used to identify the difference in dependent variables between the categories of independent variables. For example, we used four dummy variables to capture the five dimensions. The parameter estimates capture the differences in effect sizes between the groups that are coded 1 and a reference group that is coded 0. From a mathematical perspective, it does not matter which categorical variable is used as the referenced group ( Frey, 2018 ). We labeled one variable in each category as a reference group to make the interpretation of the results easier. We used an asterisk mark to denote the reference group for each category; if a word has an asterisk next to it, this indicates that it is the reference group for that category.

• 1) Student-related variables

The results of the conditional meta-analysis for students' grade variables are presented in Table 3 . In Table 3 , the significant coefficients mean that mean effect sizes are significantly larger for studies in reference conditions. For student grades, upper elementary students showed significantly larger mean effect sizes than secondary students (2.720, p = 0.000), but preschool students showed significantly lower mean effect sizes than secondary students (-0.103, p = 0.019). The Q statistic was significant for students’ grades ( Q = 27.20, p < 0.001) (see Table 4 ).

Table 3

Results of the moderator analysis for student grade.

df: degree of freedom.

Table 4

Results of the moderator analysis for exceptionality.

For the student-related variables, students with low achievement showed significantly larger mean effect sizes scores than general students (0.707, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. The Q statistic was significant for students’ exceptionality ( Q = 0.0278, p < 0.001).

Table 5 shows that low and low-middle SES was not significantly different from students with no information about SES (0.055, p = 0.666). Moreover, students with middle and upper SES did not have significantly smaller effect sizes than students with nonresponse (-0.379, p = 0.444). The Q statistic was significant for students’ SES ( Q = 68.50, p < 0.001).

Table 5

Results of the moderator analysis for SES.

• 2) Measurement-related variables

Table 6 shows the results of the moderator analysis for measurement types. The coefficient for the standardized measurement-related variable was not significant. The Q statistic was significant for the standardization of measurement tools ( Q = 5.28, p < 0.001).

Table 6

Results of the moderator analysis for standardization of measurement tools.

Table 7 shows the results of the moderator analysis for the reliability of the measurement tools. The coefficient for the measurement reliability-related variable was significant (0.409, p = 0.003), which means that the effect sizes of measurements that reported reliability (ES = 0.770) were significantly larger than the effect sizes of measurements that had information about reliability (ES = 0.361). The Q statistic was significant for the reliability of the measurement tools ( Q = 5.82, p < 0.001) (see Table 8 ).

Table 7

Results of the moderator analysis for reliability.

Table 8

Results of the moderator analysis for content of the intervention.

• 3) Intervention-related variables

The content of the intervention was divided into phonological awareness, reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and other areas. Studies measured other areas that functioned as a reference group. For the measurement area, all reading areas were significantly larger than other areas. Reading fluency (1.150, p = 0.001), reading comprehension (0.971, p = 0.000) and listening comprehension (0.834, p = 0.002) were significantly larger than those in the other areas. However, phonological awareness and vocabulary were significantly larger than other areas but lower than reading fluency, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension (0.528, p = 0.013; 0.442, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for the content of the intervention ( Q = 24.005, p < 0.001).

For intervention types, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, and computer-based learning were compared to other methods, which were fixed as a reference group. Table 9 shows that strategy instruction was significantly larger than other methods in mean effect sizes (0.523, p = 0.001). However, studies that applied peer tutoring and computer-based learning showed lower than other methods, but these differences were not statistically significant (-0.113, p = 0.736; -0114, p = 0.743). The Q statistic was significant for intervention types ( Q = 73.343, p < 0.001).

Table 9

Results of the moderator analysis for intervention types.

• 4) Implementation-related variables

For instructor-related variables, other instructor-delivered instructions were assigned as a reference group. Table 10 shows that the teacher and researcher groups showed significantly larger than the other instructors. Moreover, the teacher group showed larger than the researcher group (0.909, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for instructor-related variables ( Q = 14.024, p < 0.001).

Table 10

Results of the moderator analysis for instructor.

For group size, mixed groups were fixed as a reference group. Group size variables were divided into a small group (1 or more and 5 or less), a middle group (6 or more and 15 or less), and a large group or class size (16 or more). Table 11 shows that the middle group (6 or more and 15 or less) and the small group (1 or more and 5 or less) were significantly larger than the mixed group (0.881, p = 0.000; 0.451, p = 0.006). However, the difference between the large group and the mixed group was not significant (0.120, p = 0.434). The Q statistic was significant for group size variables ( Q = 17.756, p < 0.001).

Table 11

Results of the moderator analysis for group size.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the effects of reading interventions for ELLs and to identify research-based characteristics of effective reading interventions for enhancing their reading ability. To achieve this goal, this study tried to determine the answers to two research questions. What is the estimated mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs in K-12? To what extent do student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables have effects on improving the reading ability of ELLs in K-12? Therefore, our study was limited to recent K-12 intervention studies published between January 2008 and March 2018 that included phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension as intervention components and outcome measures. A total of 28 studies were identified and analyzed. To inquiry the two main research questions, a two-level meta-analysis was employed in this study. For the first research question, the unconditional model of HLM was conducted to investigate the mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs. The conditional model of HLM was conducted to determine which variables have significant effects on reading interventions for ELLs. Below, we briefly summarized the results of this study and described the significant factors that seem to influence intervention effectiveness. These findings could provide a better understanding of ELLs and support implications for the development of reading interventions for ELLs.

4.1. Effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs

The first primary finding from this meta-analysis is that ELLs can improve their reading ability when provided appropriate reading interventions. Our findings indicated that the overall mean effect size of reading interventions of ELLs yielded an effect size of 0.653, which indicates a medium level of effect. From this result, we can conclude that the appropriate reading interventions generally have impacts on reading outcomes for ELLs in K-12. This is consistent with prior syntheses reporting positive effects of reading interventions for ELLs ( Vaughn et al., 2006 ; Abraham, 2008 ).

Effect size information is important to understand the real effects of the intervention. Therefore, this finding indicated that supplementary reading interventions for ELLs will be developed and implemented. This finding also showed that states are required to develop a set of high-quality reading interventions for ELLs. Language interventions for ELLs have become one of the most important issues in the U.S. Increasing numbers of children in U.S. schools have come from homes in which English is not the primary language spoken. NCES (2016) showed that 4.9 million students, or 9.6% of public school students, were identified as ELLs, which was higher than the 3.8 million students, or 8.1%, identified in 2000 ( NCES, 2016 ). While many students of immigrant families succeed in their academic areas, too many do not. Some ELLs lag far behind native English speakers in the school because of the strong effect of language factors on the instruction or assessment. Although English is not their native language, ELLs should learn educational content in English. This leads to huge inequity in public schools. Thus, improving the English language and literacy skills of ELLs is a major concern for educational policymakers. This finding can support practitioners’ efforts and investments in developing appropriate language interventions for ELLs.

4.2. The effects of moderating variables

The second primary finding of this meta-analysis relates to four variable categories: student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables. Effective instruction cannot be designed by considering one factor. The quality of instruction is the product of many factors, including class size, the type of instructions, and other resources. This finding showed which factors affected the effectiveness of reading interventions. Specifically, we found that the variables that proved to have significant effects on reading outcomes of ELLs were as follows: upper elementary students, reliable measurement tools, reading and listening comprehension-related interventions, strategy instruction, and the middle group consisting of 6 or more and 15 or less. Teachers and practitioners in the field may choose to adopt these findings into their practices. ELL teachers may design their instruction as strategy-embedded instruction in middle-sized groups.

We found that grades accounted for significant variability in an intervention's effectiveness. Specifically, we found that reading interventions were substantially more effective when used with upper elementary students than secondary students. This means that the magnitude of an intervention's effectiveness changed depending on when ELLs received reading interventions. Specifically, the larger effect sizes on upper elementary students than secondary schools showed the importance of early interventions to improve ELLs' language abilities. Students who experience early reading difficulty often continue to experience failure in later grades. ELLs, or students whose primary language is other than English and are learning English as a second language, often experience particular challenges in developing reading skills in the early grades. According to Kieffer (2010) , substantial proportions of ELLs and native English speakers showed reading difficulties that emerged in the upper elementary and middle school grades even though they succeeded in learning to read in the primary grades.

Regarding students’ English proficiency and academic achievement, there was no statistically significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. Given the heterogeneity of the English language learner population, interventions that may be effective for one group of English language learners may not be effective with others ( August and Shanahan, 2006 ). This result is similar to the results achieved by Lovett et al. (2008) . Lovett et al. (2008) showed that there were no differences between ELLs and their peers who spoke English as a first language in reading intervention outcomes or growth intervention. This finding suggests that systematic and explicit reading interventions are effective for readers regardless of their primary language.

For students' socioeconomic status (SES), there was no significant difference between the low-middle group and the nonresponse group. However, we cannot find that students' SES is critical for implementing reading interventions. Low SES is known to increase the risk of reading difficulties because of the limited access to a variety of resources that support reading development and academic achievement ( Kieffer, 2010 ). Many ELLs attend schools with high percentages of students living in poverty ( Vaughn et al., 2009 ). These schools are less likely to have adequate funds and resources and to provide appropriate support for academic achievement ( Donovan and Cross, 2002 ). Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) highlighted multiple and complex factors that contribute to poor reading outcomes in school, including a lack of qualified teachers and students who come from poverty. Although this study cannot determine the relationship between the effectiveness of reading interventions and the SES of students, more studies are needed. In addition, these results related to students’ characteristics showed that practitioners and teachers can consider for whom to implement some interventions. Researchers should provide a greater specification of the student samples because this information will be particularly critical for English language learners.

Although many of the studies measured a variety of outcomes across all areas of reading, interventions that focused on improving reading comprehension and listening comprehension obtained better effects than other reading outcomes. This result is similar to those discussed in previous findings ( Wanzek and Roberts, 2012 ; Carrier, 2003 ).

With regard to effective intervention types, the findings indicated that strategy instruction was statistically significant for improving the reading skills of ELLs. However, computer-based interventions, which are frequently used for reading instruction for ELLs in recent years, showed lower effect sizes than mixed interventions. Strategy instructions are known as one of the effective reading interventions for ELLs ( Proctor et al., 2007 ; Begeny et al., 2012 ; Olson and Land, 2007 ; Vaughn et al., 2006 ). These strategies included activating background knowledge, clarifying vocabulary meaning, and expressing visuals and gestures for understanding after reading. Some studies have shown that computer-based interventions are effective for ELLs ( White and Gillard, 2011 ; Macaruso and Rodman, 2011 ), but this study does not. Therefore, there is little agreement in the research literature on how to effectively teach reading to ELLs ( Gersten and Baker, 2000 ). Continued research efforts must specify how best to provide intervention for ELLs.

With respect to the implementation of the intervention, teachers and researchers as instructors would produce stronger effects than other instructors. In this study, multiple studies showed that various instructors taught ELLs, including teachers, graduate students, and researchers. The professional development of instructors is more important than that of those who taught ELLs. This finding is consistent with Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) . They also did not find differences between researcher-delivered interventions and school personnel-delivered interventions. Continuing professional development should build on the preservice education of teachers, strengthen teaching skills, increase teacher knowledge of the reading process, and facilitate the integration of newer research on reading into the teaching practices of classroom teachers ( Snow et al., 1998 ). Overall, professional development is the key factor in strengthening the reading skills of ELLs.

This study showed that medium-sized groups of 6 or more and 15 or less had larger effect sizes than the mixed groups. In addition, the medium-sized group showed a larger effect size than the small group of 5 or less. This finding showed that a multi-tiered reading system should be needed in the general classroom. This finding is linked to the fact that the reaction to intervention (RTI) approach is more effective for ELLs. Linan-Thompson et al. (2007) pointed out that RTI offers a promising alternative for reducing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education by identifying students at risk early and providing preventive instruction to accelerate progress. Regarding interventions for ELLs who are struggling with or at risk for reading difficulties, Ross and Begeny (2011) compared the effectiveness between small group interventions and implementing the intervention in a 1/1 context for ELLs. They showed that nearly all students benefitted from the 1/1 intervention, and some students benefitted from the small group intervention. This finding is commensurate with a previous study investigating the comparative differences between group sizes and suggests research-based support for the introduction of the RTI approach.

However, most implementation-related variables, including duration of intervention, the total number of sessions, frequency per week, length of each session, settings, and instructor, did not have any significant effect on the reading ability of ELLs. That is, ELLs are able to achieve their reading improvement regardless of the duration of intervention, where they received the reading intervention, and who taught them. This finding is similar to those discussed by Snyder et al. (2017) . They also synthesized the related interventions for ELLs and showed that the length of intervention did not seem to be directly associated with overall effect sizes for reading outcomes. This finding is also the same as recent research on intervention duration with native English speakers ( Wanzek et al., 2013 ). Wanzek and colleagues examined the relationship between student outcomes and hours of intervention in their meta-analysis. The findings showed no significant differences in student outcomes based on the number of intervention hours. Elbaum et al. (2000) stated that the intensity of the interventions is most important for effectiveness. Our results somewhat support these researchers’ opinions, but we cannot be certain that a brief intervention would have the same overall effect on reading outcomes as a year-long intervention. Thus, we should consider the intervention intensity, such as student attendance at the sessions, with the duration of the intervention.

4.3. Implications for practice and for research

The most effective and efficient education refers to education that is made up in the right ways, that includes proper content, and that is delivered on time so that the students can benefit the most. To implement this, research to identify a particular framework based on the synthesis of research results through meta-analysis, such as this study, must be conducted. Furthermore, the implications based on the results must be deeply considered. In this respect, important implications for the practice and research of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers on enhancing reading competence for ELLs of this study are as follows.

First, reading interventions for ELLs are expected to be the most efficient when conducted on a medium-sized group of 6–15 students. This indicates that implementing reading interventions for ELLs requires a specially designed group-scale configuration rather than simply a class-wide or one-to-one configuration. Second, the implementation of reading interventions for ELLs is most effective when conducted for older elementary school students. This is in contrast to Morgan and Sideridis (2006) , who demonstrated the characteristics of students with learning disabilities using multilevel meta-analysis and showed that age groups were irrelevant in the effect size of reading interventions for students with learning disabilities. Therefore, it can be seen that the ELLs group, unlike the learning disability group, the students of which have reading difficulty due to their disabilities, is in the normal development process but has reading difficulty due to linguistic differences. Accordingly, it can be seen that the senior year of elementary school, in which a student has been exposed to the academic environment for a sufficiently long time and language is sufficiently developed, is the appropriate time for learning English for ELLs. Third, effective reading interventions for ELLs should be performed with a strategy-embedded instruction program. This is based on the fact that strategic instructions are effective for vocabulary or concepts in unfamiliar languages ( Carlo et al., 2005 ; Chaaya and Ghosn, 2010 ).

The above implications require the implementation of Tier 2 interventions for reading interventions for ELLs in practice. In Tier 2 interventions, students can participate in more intensive learning through specially designed interventions based on their personal needs ( Ortiz et al., 2011 ). In other words, in policymaking and administrative decision-making, intensive education programs for ELLs who have been exposed to the academic environment for a certain period but still have reading difficulties, including having achievements that fall short of the expected level, are needed.

Considering further applications, these findings could guide practitioners and policymakers to develop effective evidence-based reading programs or policies. The significant variables in this study can be considered to develop new programs for ELLs.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02103411).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

• Abraham L.B. Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: a meta-analysis. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2008; 21 (3):199–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D., Shanahan T. In: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. August D., Shanahan T., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 2006. Synthesis: instruction and professional development; pp. 351–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny J.C., Ross S.G., Greene D.J., Mitchell R.C., Whitehouse M.H. Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: a preliminary evaluation. J. Behav. Educ. 2012; 21 (2):134–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beretvas S.N., Pastor D.A. Using mixed-effects models in reliability generalization studies. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003; 63 (1):75–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman N.A. Effect sizes and statistical methods for meta-analysis in higher education. Res. High. Educ. 2003; 53 :375–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer K. The Relationship Between Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in Third Grade Students Who Are English Language Learners and Reading Below Grade Level. 2017. (Masters Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlo M.S., August D., Snow C.E. Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for English-language learners. Teach. Learn. Vocabul.: Bring. Res. Pract. 2005:137–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrier K.A. Improving high school English language learners' second language listening through strategy instruction. Biling. Res. J. 2003; 27 (3):383–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaaya D., Ghosn I.K. Supporting young second language learners reading through guided reading and strategy instruction in a second grade classroom in Lebanon. Educ. Res. Rev. 2010; 5 (6):329–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Ramirez G., Luo Y.C., Geva E., Ku Y.M. Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish-and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Read. Writ. 2012; 25 (8):1991–2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M.W. Speaking to read: meta-analysis of peer-mediated learning for English language learners. J. Lit. Res. 2014; 46 (3):358–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V., Valentine J.C., editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel S.M., Pray L. Learning to teach English language learners: a study of elementary school teachers’ sense-making in an ELL endorsement program. Tesol Q. 2017; 51 (4):787–819. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daugherty J.L. 2015. Assessment of ELL Written Language Progress in Designated ESL Noncredit Courses at the Community College Level. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dearing E., Walsh M.E., Sibley E., Lee-St. John T., Foley C., Raczek A.E. Can community and school-based supports improve the achievement of first-generation immigrant children attending high-poverty schools? Child Dev. 2016; 87 (3):883–897. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan M.S., Cross C.T. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2002. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Lockbox 285, 20055. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dussling T.M. Examining the effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention on the early literacy skills of English language learners. Liter. Res. Instr. 2018; 57 (3):276–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duval S., Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56 (2):455–463. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egger M., Smith G.D., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997; 315 (7109):629–634. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbaum B., Vaughn S., Tejero Hughes M., Watson Moody S. How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 92 (4):605–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Estrella G., Au J., Jaeggi S.M., Collins P. Is inquiry science instruction effective for English language learners? A meta-analytic review. AERA Open. 2018; 4 (2) 2332858418767402. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey B.B. Sage Publications; 2018. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R., Baker S. What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Except. Child. 2000; 66 (4):454–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Y., Sun S., Breit-Smith A., Morrison F.J., Connor C.M. Behavioral engagement and reading achievement in elementary-school-age children: a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015; 107 (2):332–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin A.P., Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Sci. Stud. Read. 2013; 17 (4):257–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrer M., Cuijpers P., Furukawa T.A., Ebert D.D. Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-On guide. from. 2019. https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong H. Exploring the role of intertextuality in promoting young ELL children’s poetry writing and learning: a discourse analytic approach. Classr. Discourse. 2018; 9 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Honigsfeld A. ELL programs: not ‘one size fits all’ Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2009; 45 (4):166–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• How J.J., de Leeuw E.D. In: Multilevel Modeling: Methodological Advances, Issues, and Applications. Reise S.P., Duan N., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. Multilevle model for meta-analysis; pp. 90–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson E.J., Johnson A.B. Enhancing academic investment through home-school connections and building on ELL students' scholastic funds of knowledge. J. Lang. Literacy Educ. 2016; 12 (1):104–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer M.J. Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educ. Res. 2010; 39 (6):484–486. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. Global Conference on Education and Research (GLOCER 2017) 2017. May). Influence of ELL instructor’s culturally responsive attitude on newly arrived adolescent ELL students’ academic achievement; pp. 239–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirnan J., Ventresco N.E., Gardner T. The impact of a therapy dog program on children’s reading: follow-up and extension to ELL students. Early Child. Educ. J. 2018; 46 (1):103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesnick J., Goerge R., Smithgall C., Gwynne J. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago; Chicago, IL: 2010. Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade: How Is it Related to High School Performance and College Enrollment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S.M. A study of ELL students' writing difficulties: a call for culturally, linguistically, and psychologically responsive teaching. Coll. Student J. 2015; 49 (2):237–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P.T., Vaughn S. Determining English language learners' response to intervention: questions and some answers. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2007; 30 (3):185–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu S., Wang J. Reading cooperatively or independently? Study on ELL student reading development. Read. Matrix: Int. Online J. 2015; 15 (1):102–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett M.W., De Palma M., Frijters J., Steinbach K., Temple M., Benson N., Lacerenza L. Interventions for reading difficulties: a comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. J. Learn. Disabil. 2008; 41 (4):333–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C. University of Alberta; Canada: 2017. The Effects of Reading Interventions on the Word-Reading Performance of English Language Learners: A Meta-Analysis (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C., Guo K., Georgiou G.K. Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. J. Learn. Disabil. 2019; 52 (3):220–231. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macaruso P., Rodman A. Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English language learners. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):301–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendoza S. Reading strategies to support home-to-school connections used by teachers of English language learners. J. English Lang. Teach. 2016; 6 (4):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meredith D.C. Trevecca Nazarene University; 2017. Relationships Among Utilization of an Online Differentiated Reading Program, ELL Student Literacy Outcomes, and Teacher Attitudes. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan P.L., Sideridis G.D. Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: a multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2006; 21 (4):191–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2021. English Language Learners in Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson C.B., Land R. A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Res. Teach. Engl. 2007:269–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosco M.J. A sociocultural examination of response to intervention with Latino English language learners. Theory Into Pract. 2010; 49 (4):265–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz A.A., Robertson P.M., Wilkinson C.Y., Liu Y.J., McGhee B.D., Kushner M.I. The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: implications for response to intervention. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):316–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pang Y. Empowering ELL students to improve writing skills through inquiry-based learning. N. Engl. Read. Assoc. J. 2016; 51 (2):75–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polat N., Zarecky-Hodge A., Schreiber J.B. Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth-and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. J. Educ. Res. 2016; 109 (5):541–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Grisham D.L. Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. J. Literacy Res. 2007; 39 (1):71–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawian R.M., Mokhtar A.A. ESL reading accuracy: the inside story. Soc. Sci. 2017; 12 (7):1242–1249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid T., Heck R.H. Exploring reading achievement differences between elementary school students receiving and not receiving English language services. AERA Online Paper Repositor. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards-Tutor C., Baker D.L., Gersten R., Baker S.K., Smith J.M. The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: a research synthesis. Except. Child. 2016; 82 (2):144–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross S.G., Begeny J.C. Improving Latino, English language learners' reading fluency: the effects of small-group and one-on-one intervention. Psychol. Sch. 2011; 48 (6):604–618. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth A. Northwest Missouri State University; United States: 2015. Does Buddy Reading Improve Students' Oral Reading Fluency? Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin D.I. Growth in oral reading fluency of Spanish ELL students with learning disabilities. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2016; 52 (1):34–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E. EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2016. June). Using technology to improve reading and math scores for the digital native; pp. 1425–1434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E., Pocklington D. MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING (MAC-EMM 2018); 2018. Can CAI Improve Reading Achievement in Young ELL Students? ECONOMICS; p. 229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheng Z., Sheng Y., Anderson C.J. Dropping out of school among ELL students: implications to schools and teacher education. Clear. House. 2011; 84 (3):98–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow C.E., Burns S.M., Griffin P. Predictors of success and failure in reading. Prevent. Read. Difficul. Young Child. 1998:100–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder E., Witmer S.E., Schmitt H. English language learners and reading instruction: a review of the literature. Prev. Sch. Fail.: Alter. Educ. Child. Youth. 2017; 61 (2):136–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soland J., Sandilos L.E. English language learners, self-efficacy, and the achievement gap: understanding the relationship between academic and social-emotional growth. J. Educ. Stud. Placed A. T. Risk. 2020:1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam K.Y., Heng M.A. Using explicit fluency training to improve the reading comprehension of second grade Chinese immigrant students. Mod. J. Lang. Teach Methods. 2016; 6 (5):17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Téllez K., Manthey G. Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners. Learn. Environ. Res. 2015; 18 (1):111–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson C.G., von Gillern S. Video-game based instruction for vocabulary acquisition with English language learners: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020; 30 :100332. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Kim A., Sloan C.V.M., Hughes M.T., Elbaum B., Sridhar D. Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: a synthesis of group design studies. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2003; 24 :2–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Martinez L.R., Linan-Thompson S., Reutebuch C.K., Carlson C.D., Francis D.J. Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: findings from two experimental studies. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 2009; 2 (4):297–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Mathes P., Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P., Carlson C., Pollard-Durodola S., Francis D. Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elem. Sch. J. 2006; 107 (2):153–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010; 36 (3):1–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker S.A. Chicago State University; 2017. Exploration of ELL Parent Involvement Measured by Epstein's Overlapping Spheres of Influence. Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Roberts G. Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2012; 35 (2):90–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Wexler J., Vaughn S., Ciullo S. Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research. Read. Writ. 2010; 23 (8):889–912. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Vaughn S., Scammacca N.K., Metz K., Murray C.S., Roberts G., Danielson L. Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013; 83 (2):163–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wassell B.A., Hawrylak M.F., Scantlebury K. Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: teachers’ expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM classrooms. Urban Educ. 2017; 52 (10):1233–1254. [ Google Scholar ]
• White E.L., Gillard S. Technology-based literacy instruction for English language learners. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2011; 8 (6):1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousefi M.H., Biria R. The effectiveness of L2 vocabulary instruction: a meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific J. Second Fore. Lang. Educ. 2018; 3 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]

References for studies included in the meta-analysis

• Amendum S.J., Bratsch-Hines M., Vernon-Feagans L. Investigating the efficacy of a web-based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Read. Res. Q. 2018; 53 (2):155–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Youth Policy Forum. (2009). Issue brief Moving English language learners to college and career readiness. Retrieved November 22,2009, from: www.aypf.org/documents/ELLIssueBrief
• Callahan R.M., Shifrer D. Equitable access for secondary English learner students: course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educ. Admin. Q. 2016; 52 (3):463–496. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho H., Brutt-Griffler J. Integrated reading and writing: a case of Korean English language learners. Read. Foreign Lang. 2015; 27 (2):242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chow B.W.Y., McBride-Chang C., Cheung H. Parent–child reading in English as a second language: effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners. J. Res. Read. 2010; 33 (3):284–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruz de Quiros A.M., Lara-Alecio R., Tong F., Irby B.J. The effect of a structured story reading intervention, story retelling and higher order thinking for English language and literacy acquisition. J. Res. Read. 2012; 35 (1):87–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook A.L. Exploring the role of school counselors. J. Sch. Couns. 2015; 13 (9):1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dabarera C., Renandya W.A., Zhang L.J. The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System. 2014; 42 :462–473. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dockrell J.E., Stuart M., King D. Supporting early oral language skills for English language learners in inner city preschool provision. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 80 (4):497–515. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filippini A.L., Gerber M.M., Leafstedt J.M. A vocabulary-added reading intervention for English learners at-risk of reading difficulties. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2012; 27 (3):14–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fry R. How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew Hispanic Center; Washington, DC: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamaludin K.A., Alias N., Mohd Khir R.J., DeWitt D., Kenayathula H.B. The effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the development of early reading skills among struggling young ESL readers. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 2016; 27 (3):455–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanno Y., Cromley J. English language learners’ pathways to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record. 2015; 117 (12):1–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J. Word meanings matter: cultivating English vocabulary knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Tesol Q. 2010; 44 (4):669–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMaster K.L., Kung S.H., Han I., Cao M. Peer-assisted learning strategies: a “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners' response to intervention. Except. Child. 2008; 74 (2):194–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olivier A.M., Anthonissen C., Southwood F. Literacy development of English language learners: the outcomes of an intervention programme in grade R. S. Afr. J. Commun. Disord. 2010; 57 (1):58–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollard-Durodola S.D., Gonzalez J.E., Saenz L., Resendez N., Kwok O., Zhu L., Davis H. The effects of content-enriched shared book reading versus vocabulary-only discussions on the vocabulary outcomes of preschool dual language learners. Early Educ. Dev. 2018; 29 (2):245–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Uccelli P., Biancarosa G., Mo E., Snow C., Neugebauer S. Improving comprehension online: effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Read. Writ. 2011; 24 (5):517–544. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez C.D., Filler J., Higgins K. Using primary language support via computer to improve reading comprehension skills of first-grade English language learners. Comput. Sch. 2012; 29 (3):253–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman R., Hines S. The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009; 101 (2):305–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R.E., Madden N., Calderón M., Chamberlain A., Hennessy M. Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educ. Eval. Pol. Anal. 2011; 33 (1):47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solari E.J., Gerber M.M. Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2008; 23 (4):155–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spycher P. Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classes. Elem. Sch. J. 2009; 109 (4):359–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Koch J. Integrating literacy and science for English language learners: from learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. J. Educ. Res. 2014; 107 (5):410–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Mathes P.G. English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: a 3-year longitudinal randomized study. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 2008; 30 (4):500–529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Yoon M., Mathes P.G. Hispanic English learners' responses to longitudinal English instructional intervention and the effect of gender: a multilevel analysis. Elem. Sch. J. 2010; 110 (4):542–566. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Lara-Alecio R., Irby B.J., Mathes P.G. The effects of an instructional intervention on dual language development among first-grade Hispanic English-learning boys and girls: a two-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Res. 2011; 104 (2):87–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend D., Collins P. Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: an intervention study. Read. Writ. 2009; 22 (9):993–1019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 102 (4):786–803. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: how language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Sci. Stud. Read. 2011; 15 (6):471–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Staden A. Reading in a second language: considering the 'simple view of reading' as a foundation to support ESL readers in Lesotho, Southern Africa. Per Linguam: J. Lang. Learn. 2016; 32 (1):21–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeung S.S., Siegel L.S., Chan C.K. Effects of a phonological awareness program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Read. Writ. 2013; 26 (5):681–704. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics A Reference Guide

2021, Springer

This volume encompasses the range of research questions on language-related problems that arise in language teaching, learning and assessment. The [152] chapters are written by experts in the field who each offer their insights into current and future directions of research, and who suggest several highly relevant research questions.

Related Papers

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Thomas Tinnefeld

JLLT Volume 14 (2023) Issue 1 https://www.journaloflinguisticsandlanguageteaching.com/published-issues/volume-14-2023-issue-1 edited by Thomas Tinnefeld I. Articles Gerald Delahunty (Fort Collins (CO), USA): Words, Pictures, and Arguments: A Relevance-Theoretic Synthesis Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 14 (1), 11-22 Abstract: Whether visual representation can function in arguments is a controversial issue. Those who claim they cannot, claim that only propositions may function thus and that as visuals cannot represent propositions, they cannot function in arguments. The current paper, invoking recent developments in Relevance Theory, demonstrates that visuals, specifically photographs, can represent propositions and can therefore function as and in arguments. The paper demonstrates that visuals also communicate more than propositions in that they provide evidence for a range of ‘impressions’ that support a ‘credal attitude’ toward the document in which they occur. Liam D. Wilson (Hong Kong S.A.R.): Key Stage 3 ELT Coursebook Speech Acts Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 14 (1), 35-57 Abstract: The area of pragmatics is an important aspect of the languages that we use in our everyday lives. Speech acts are central to this, and they are often initially presented to language learners in the coursebooks (or textbooks) they read and use during their schooling. This investigation analysed which speech acts were targeted for instruction in junior secondary 3 English language coursebooks used in Hong Kong as learners complete Key Stage 3. The pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information presented in these coursebooks was also examined. It was found that certain speech acts (such as advice) were featured far more frequently than others (such as requests). There is also potential for improvement for future coursebooks when it comes to the pragmalinguistic (such as presenting speech acts as part of model dialogues) and sociopragmatic information (such as presenting speech acts being used in situations involving power distance or level of imposition). Therefore, this research contributes valuable findings regarding the speech acts in ELT coursebooks to the field of second language pragmatics. Esa M. Penttinen (Helsinki, Finland) & Heiner Böttger (Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany): Cross-Linguistic Influences of Learning German in Finnish and German Upper Secondary Schools Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 14 (1), 59-77 Abstract: The aim of this study is to find out what importance upper secondary school learners of German attach to the cross-linguistic influence (CLI) regarding specific aspects of German language learning in Finland and Germany. Cross-linguistic learning gives learners additional skills to learn and understand structures and words in their mother tongue, a second language or a foreign language. The Finnish students (n=100) participating in our survey spoke Finnish as their mother tongue and studied German as a foreign language. German students spoke German either as their mother tongue (n=40) or as a second language (n=60), but they studied German as a native language. The survey data consisted of students' answers to one identical question that they were asked in the school years 2017-2020: 'How does the knowledge of the languages studied at school (Swedish, English, French, Spanish, Latin – cross-linguistic learning) affect their learning of German?' Our research methods were both quantitative and qualitative. The main results showed that the positive transfer on learning German was based on the perceived (objective) similarity of languages while the negative transfer was based on assumed (subjective) similarities which were in conflict with actual (objective) differences in German language learning processes and experiences of language learning. Skills in other languages contributed to learning German, but they also interacted positively and negatively with each other's learning. Learning to learn was found to be a unifying factor in language learning. Christine Ericsdotter Nordgren & Jorunn Nilsson (Stockholm, Sweden): Meeting each other or Meeting Learning Goals –Student and Teacher Values in an Intercultural Tandem Exchange Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 14 (1), 79-105 Abstract: In this paper, the findings from a qualitative analysis of student and teacher interviews following an online Japanese-Swedish tandem exchange in 2020 will be discussed. The main aim was to explore what students and teachers had valued in the exchange and to connect these values to the theoretical principles of reciprocity and autonomy in the tandem learning model (Little & Brammerts 1996). The results show that students valued reciprocal aspects, focusing on personal peer-to-peer experiences and the opportunity for natural language use, while teachers valued linguistic development, and seemed to implicitly assume a high degree of autonomy to be in place from the start, rather than it being developed or expanded underway. The findings are viewed in the light of the students’ rather different cultural-educational frames and add to building a more global perspective on tandem exchange, which has hitherto been dominated by data from European and American contexts (Lewis & O’Dowd 2016). Philip Oghenesuowho Ekiugbo (Aba, Nigeria) & Cecilia Amaoge Eme (Awka, Nigeria): Urhobo-English Loanwords Coda Adaptation: A Constraint-Based Account Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 14 (1), 107-120 (PDF) Abstract: This study examines how codas of Urhobo-English loanwords are adapted and shows that the strategies adopted in repairing loanword coda in Urhobo are driven by syllabification constraints and universal conventions. Syllabification conditions in languages that forbid filled coda will require that all the consonant sounds in a phonological word that are to be found in the phonetic string are parsed as onsets. Assuming this is true, it has implications for loanword adaptation. Urhobo exclusively permits the open syllable type. Implicitly, all the coda elements of loanwords are likely to be licensed as onsets, which may result in a possible ‘illicit’ onset cluster given the onset condition requirement of the language. Accordingly, this study examines the attested patterns of adaptation of English coda in Urhobo loanwords and their motivations as well as implications. The discussion is built around the theory of constraints and repair strategies. II. Book Review Bernd Klewitz (Osnabrück, Germany): Inez De Florio: From Assessment to Feedback. Applications in the Second / Foreign Language Classroom. New York et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2023 (X + 267 pages) (ISBN 978-1-109-21893-1) Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 14 (1), 123-128

Kimberly White

The goal of Working papers in Educational Linguistics (WPEL) is to present works in progress by students and professors on topics ranging from speech act analysis and classroom discourse to language planning and second language acquisition. Papers offered are generally based on research carried out for courses offered in the language in education division of the graduate school of education. WPEL is intended to be a forum for the exchange of ideas among scholars of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania and at universities with similar programs in educational and applied linguistics around the world. Articles in this issue include the following: &quot;Teacher and Peer Responses as a Source of Negative Evidence to L2 Learners in Content-Based and Grammar-Based Classroom Activities&quot; (Teresa Pica, Bruce Evans, Victoria Jo, and Gay Washburn); &quot;EFL Teaching and EFL Teachers in the Global Expansion of English&quot; (Oleg Tarnapolsky); &quot;Standards, Exit Exams, and the ...

The European Educational Researcher

Jean-Marc Dewaele

Overview of recent developments in Language Education and Applied Linguistics

Nancy Hornberger

Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl , Stephen May , Nancy Hornberger

Johanna Ennser-Kananen

Working Papers in Educational Linguistics

Rita Elaine Silver

Ahmar Mahboob , Caroline Lipovsky

Studies in Applied Linguistics and Language Learning brings together new and original studies in the area of critical applied linguistics, language policy and planning, and language learning and teaching. The book, divided into three sections, first offers critical views on various aspects of language in society, ranging from the construction of national identity, language and justice, racial and identity issues in the ELT industry, to language in business discourse. It then reports on language policy in the school curriculum, language learning in tertiary education, and Aboriginal languages policy. In the third section, it addresses issues in language learning and teaching, such as the role of parents in literacy learning, multiple script literacy, and language learning and maintenance strategies.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Language and Education

Language Teaching Research Quarterly

Christine Coombe

Global Academy Publishing House

Bernhard Forchtner

The Modern Language Journal

Kate Mastruserio Reynolds

Richard Young

Francis M. Hult

Geetha Durairajan

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Heekyeong Lee

David Cassels Johnson

The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology

Aek Phakiti

Dayanna Guañuna

Instructed Second Language Acquisition

Hassan Mohebbi

academypublisher.com

AbdulMahmoud Ibrahim

Spolsky/Handbook

Lyle Bachman

Alberto Wentelemn

Catherine Snow

Nigel Bruce

Language Teaching

Alison von Dietze

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Career & Technical Education
• Early Learning
• English Learners
• Equity & Diversity
• Native Education
• Postsecondary Success
• School System Improvement
• Youth, Family & Community
• Applied Research
• Continuous Improvement
• Equitable Evaluation
• Implementation & Coaching
• Professional Development
• Research Partnerships
• State & Federal Technical Assistance
• Training & Curriculum Development
• Virtual Learning Development
• Senior Fellows
• Board of Directors
• Nelson Scholarship

What the Research Says on Instruction for English Learners Across Subject Areas

It takes multiple years for English learners to gain a high enough level of language proficiency to perform on par with their native English‐speaking peers. English learners cannot wait until they are fluent in English to learn grade‐level content. Instead, they must continue to develop their math and reading skills as well as their knowledge of social studies and science, even while learning English. This can happen through a variety of program models.

Our librarians recently compiled this list of recent studies and articles on teaching practices, programs and protocols for English learner instruction to help students meet the academic demands of state standards and close the achievement gap.

Check out the research-based principles we share in a companion resource titled, “What All Teachers Should Know About Instruction For English Language Learners.” See additional principles that apply to teachers in specific subject areas: language arts , mathematics , social studies and science .

For Teaching in All Classrooms

Teaching academic content and literacy to english learners in elementary and middle school (2014).

This practice guide from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) provides four recommendations that address reading and content area instruction for English learners.

Each recommendation includes extensive examples of activities that can be used to support students as they build the language and literacy skills needed to be successful in school, including examples of how the recommendations align with Common Core and other contemporary state standards. The recommendations also summarize and rate supporting evidence. This guide is geared toward teachers, administrators and other educators who want to improve instruction in academic content and literacy for English learners in elementary and middle school.

High-Leverage Principles of Effective Instruction for English learners. From College and Career Ready Standards to Teaching and Learning in the Classroom: A Series of Resources for Teachers (2016)

The purpose of this resource is to provide teachers of English learner students with effective, high-leverage learning and teaching principles that can be incorporated into daily instructional plans and routines. Instruction that addresses students' needs should include four key considerations included in the resource.

A Review of the Literature on Teaching Academic English to English Language Learners (2014)

Academic English refers to the language used in school to help students acquire and use knowledge. This article reviews current literature to determine what is known about the nature of academic English within the context of K–12 schooling with a focus on English learners. The article raises critical challenges in defining and operationalizing academic English for instruction and suggests areas for further inquiry.

Converging Recommendations for Culturally Responsive Literacy Practices: Students with Learning Disabilities, English Language Learners and Socioculturally Diverse Learners (2015)

This study examines culturally responsive pedagogy across the fields including multicultural literacy education and teaching English learners. Educators are encouraged to adopt a critical and responsive stance that incorporates students' cultural knowledge and lived experiences when implementing these recommendations. Creating classrooms that promote culturally responsive and effective instruction is grounded in the definition of literacy as a social practice and leads to more equitable learning opportunities in all areas.

Principles of Effective English Language Learner Pedagogy (2012)

This literature review identifies the most effective instructional principles for English learners as documented by prominent researchers in the field and existing research reviews. The review lists the most effective principles for English learner instruction and documents the supporting research evidence for those principles.

Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What We Know—and Don't Yet Know—about Effective Instruction (2013)

In calling for students to read complex texts, college and career ready standards place an even greater emphasis on content knowledge and literacy skills than prior state standards. This review of available research will help educators bolster the efforts of English learners to understand more-demanding academic content as they also learn English.

For Teaching Reading, Writing and Language Arts

Effective literacy and english language instruction for english learners in the elementary grades (2007).

This IES/WWC practice guide provides five evidence-based recommendations for improving the reading achievement and English language development of elementary-level English learner students. The target audience for this guide is a broad spectrum of school practitioners such as administrators, curriculum specialists, coaches, staff development specialists and teachers who face the challenge of providing effective literacy instruction for English language learners in the elementary grades. The guide also aims to reach district-level administrators who develop practice and policy options for their schools.

Bridging English Language Learner Achievement Gaps through Effective Vocabulary Development Strategies (2016)

This research paper conducted a review of philosophical and scholarly literature which displayed evidence that vocabulary development is a major section that educators should consider focusing for better achievement with English as Second Language students. Implementing educational practices that promote high-frequency vocabulary learning were found to be effective strategies. The paper includes recommendations for administrators and education professionals in various learning environments.

The Effectiveness of Reading Interventions for English Learners: A Research Synthesis (2016)

This article reviews published experimental studies from 2000 to 2012 that evaluated the effects of providing reading interventions to English learners who were at risk for experiencing academic difficulties, including students with learning disabilities. The interventions in these studies included explicit instruction and 10 used published intervention programs. Moderator variables, such as group size, minutes of intervention and type of personnel delivering the intervention, were not significant predictors of outcomes.

Developing Literacy in English Language Learners: Findings From a Review of the Experimental Research (2014)

This commentary reviews the available data on optimal approaches to reading instruction for ELL students, covering the components of literacy (decoding, oral reading fluency, vocabulary and writing) as well as key issues such as differentiating instruction, repetition and reinforcement, scaffolding and capitalizing on a student's first language strengths. We conclude with implications for school psychologists, who are often among the first professionals to be consulted as schools attempt to identify and provide appropriate educational services for these students.

Effective Practices for Developing Literacy Skills of English Language Learners in the English Language (2012)

This literature review presents instructional strategies that have proven to be effective in envisioning what "all" teachers need to know and be able to do to teach English language arts to English learners. Three areas of effective practice are emphasized. The first area is that teachers should recognize that literacy skills in English learners' native languages might influence the ways in which they process linguistic information in English. The second area highlights the argument that teachers should find ways to facilitate English learners' mastery of academic vocabulary. The third area covers the significance of enhancing English learners metacognitive reading skills. The review also discusses two broad pedagogical skills that emerge from both the normative and empirical studies reviewed and are closely related: (a) the teachers' ability to help ELLs construct meaning from the texts or speech represented in the language arts classroom and (b) the teachers' ability to engage English learners in actively learning to read and write.

For Teaching Math, Science and Social Studies

Sheltered instruction observation protocol - what works clearinghouse intervention report (2013).

The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol is a framework for planning and delivering instruction in content areas such as science, history and mathematics to English learners as well as other students. This review focuses on research that examines its impact on the learning of English language learners in grades K-8.

Instruction for English Language Learners in the Social Studies Classroom: A Meta-synthesis (2016)

This paper reviews the extant literature on English learners in the social studies classroom. Discussion of the findings provides three primary implications: (1) the need for linguistically and culturally responsive instruction for English learners in social studies classes, (2) the need for increased training for inservice and preservice social studies teachers in preparation for teaching English learners and (3) the need for future research among English learners in the social studies context.

Language Challenges in Mathematics Education: A literature Review (2016)

It is now accepted that language and mathematics are connected in mathematics learning and teaching and, the potential challenges of language in mathematics have been investigated by a number of researchers. This paper reviews research by applied linguists and mathematics educators to highlight the linguistic challenges of mathematics and suggests pedagogical strategies to help learners in mathematics classrooms. Research on pedagogical practices supports developing mathematics knowledge through attention to the way language is used, suggesting strategies for moving students from informal, everyday ways of talking about mathematics into the registers that construe more technical and precise meanings.

Teacher Education That Works: Preparing Secondary-Level Math and Science Teachers for Success with English Language Learners through Content-Based Instruction (2014)

This article reports on the effects of a program restructuring that implemented coursework specifically designed to prepare pre-service and in-service mathematics, science and ESL teachers to work with English learners in their content and ESL classrooms through collaboration between mainstream STEM and ESL teachers, as well as effective content and language integration. The article presents findings on teachers' attitudes and current practices related to the inclusion of English learners in the secondary-level content classroom and their current level of knowledge and skills in collaborative practice.

Share This Post

Additional recommendations.

Integrated English Language Development

Supportive School Systems for Newcomer Immigrant Youth

Supportive School Systems for Newcomer Immigrant Youth wit…

Building a clear path toward equitable education for all, together

Never miss the latest resources and insights.

• Areas of Work

Education Northwest 1417 NW Everett St, Ste 310 Portland, OR 97209 Phone: 503.275.9500

Satellite Office 322 E Front St. Boise, ID 83702

Copyright Education Northwest © 2024 | Terms of Use

Teaching English-Language Learners: What Does the Research Tell Us?

• Share article

Leer en español (read in Spanish)

Nearly 3 in 4 American classrooms now includes at least one English-language learner, and these students make up roughly 1 in 10 public school students.

While their numbers continue to rise quickly, the evidence on what works best to help non-native speakers become proficient in English—particularly the more formal academic language needed for school success—has been harder to come by.

What does the federal law say about how schools should approach ELL instruction?

The federal requirement stems from the landmark 1974 case Lau v. Nichols , in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Chinese-American English-learners in California who were not given educational accommodations to help them learn English did not receive equal access to education.

In essence, this was discrimination due to their language and national origin, a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Lau ‘s mandate has been preserved in subsequent versions of the main federal K-12 law, including the version approved by Congress late last year which states that school districts must take “affirmative steps” to counter students’ language barriers and ensure ELLs can “participate meaningfully in schools’ educational programs.”

In 2015, the Education Department’s office for civil rights issued a letter updating how districts should approach ELLs. Districts must use instructional practices and programs that are backed by scientific evidence and effective in helping students speak, listen, read, and write English and meet challenging state content standards.

What are the most common types of instruction for students learning English as a second language?

Most U.S. schools use variations on one or all of the following:

Pullout/push-in tutoring : English-learners attend core academic classes in English, while being provided separate instructional support in the language either by an ELL specialist during the class or in a separate session outside of class. This method is most often used for English-learners with at least some proficiency in the language.

Sheltered English instruction : English-learners, particularly those with low English proficiency, are taught in a stand-alone classroom. The teacher may focus several hours of the day on direct language instruction as well as academic content. Within a classroom, students often are grouped by their English proficiency so that lessons can be tailored for different levels. Most of these programs are designed to be short—as little as a single year—but some critics have argued that such programs can delay ELLs’ access to regular content. Among the most common versions of this is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol, or SIOP. Three states—Arizona, California, and Massachusetts—have laws requiring sheltered English instruction and limiting the use of bilingual instruction. (California voters will have an opportunity to overturn the restrictions on bilingual education later this year.)

Bilingual instruction : Students receive ongoing language and subject matter instruction in both their native language and English. These programs may serve ELLs only, in a multiyear “developmental” program or a short-term “transitional” program. By contrast, dual-language immersion programs include both native and non-native speakers. These often begin with most of the content taught in the target, or non-English language. Gradually, the time spent teaching in both languages is evenly split, with the goal of making all students exit the program proficient in both languages. This is most commonly used for programs with a high percentage of ELL students of a single native language, such as Spanish or Chinese.

What does research say about the effectiveness of different ELL instructional methods?

While all three main types of ELL instruction have been in use for decades, there is relatively little rigorous research on the general effectiveness of each method, and evidence is particularly scarce on the most effective methods for specific ELL populations, such as young versus older ELLs, or those of different language groups. This is particularly concerning since federal civil rights law requires districts to take into account an ELL’s English-proficiency level, grade, educational background, and in some cases, native-language background to determine appropriate services.

A series of Stanford University studies, including a 2015 study in the journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, found that English-learners in bilingual programs had language arts and math scores that grew as fast or faster than those of ELLs in sheltered English immersion, but students in developmental bilingual programs showed slower growth in math than those in other types of bilingual and sheltered-English instruction.

See where English-language learners live and which home languages they speak.

English-Language-Learner Statistics

Moreover, in 2015, a four-year randomized controlled trial evaluation of the Portland, Ore., dual-language immersion programs found that students who participated in the programs outperformed their other English-learner peers in English-reading skills by a full school year’s worth of learning by the end of middle school.

A rigorous federal research review in 2013 found that no evaluations of sheltered English immersion met its quality standards. There have been a few studies since then, including a cluster-randomized study of Project GLAD, a version of sheltered immersion, which found mixed results for the approach, in part because teachers implemented it very differently from school to school.

“It would be hard right now to do a good [randomized controlled trial] of SIOP because of its broad spread in schools,” said Theresa Deussen, a co-author of the Project GLAD study. “Most teachers don’t use [structured immersion] as a coordinated package of integrated strategies. ... Instead, they think of it as [individual] ‘tools in the toolbox.’”

What instructional practices help ELLs learn academic content?

Regardless of the overall program structure, the Institute of Education Sciences, the Education Department’s research agency, has identified rigorous evidence that the following teaching practices are effective in teaching academic content to ELLs:

• Teach a set of academic vocabulary words intensively, over several days and a variety of activities.
• Integrate instruction in spoken and written English into content-area teaching, such as using science laboratory reports to teach writing in English.
• Provide ongoing, structured chances to develop writing skills.
• Provide small-group interventions for students struggling with specific problems in literacy or language development.

How long does it typically take for English-language learners to become proficient in English?

A landmark study of California ELLs in 2000 found students in both bilingual and sheltered English programs typically took three to five years to become proficient in oral English and five to seven years to become proficient in academic English. This timeline is still generally considered standard by ELL educators, but the new version of the federal K-12 law gives districts three years to bring students to full proficiency and allows them to include former English-learners in the ELL accountability subgroup for up to four years.

A 2015 study by Education Northwest of ELLs entering kindergarten in Washington state found that half reached proficiency in 3.8 years, but 18 percent of the students were not proficient within eight years. The timelines varied significantly by the English level students had upon entering kindergarten, and also by their home language.

English-Language Learners and Schools: Resources for Parents and Educators

• Education Week ’s Learning the Language blog – Daily news and analysis on issues that impact English-language learners, their parents, and their teachers.
• Education Week ’s English-Language Learners Topics page - A collection of news articles, blog posts, and information on English-language learners.
• The White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for Hispanics
• The Council of Great City Schools’ parent guides to the Common Core English/language arts and math standards in Spanish. For math — Guía para los padres , For English/language arts — Guía para los padres
• Seal of Biliteracy - The Seal of Biliteracy is an award given by a school, district, or county office of education in recognition of students who have studied and attained proficiency in two or more languages by high school graduation.
• Californians Together – A research and advocacy group with key information on long-term English-language learners.

For example, Korean-speaking students reached proficiency on average in less than three years, while Spanish-speaking students took on average more than four years. However, the study did not have enough data to suggest why ELLs of different language groups had different rates of learning English.

“It seems like it would be more difficult for a Chinese speaker to learn English than a Spanish speaker, but it doesn’t always hold true,” said Jason Greenberg Motamedi, an Education Northwest senior researcher and the author of the study.

“It may be less the fact that they speak a particular language than other characteristics we can’t see here. ‘Spanish’ may be just standing in for a whole host of other things [such as low income or immigrant status]. Half of the Spanish speakers are second or third generation in Washington. They’ve grown up there, but clearly there are structural barriers that are preventing them from [reaching English proficiency].”

How long it takes students to reach proficiency has a huge bearing on longer-term outcomes.

A 2013 study found English-learners who reached proficiency by the end of kindergarten showed no academic gap with native English speakers, while students who did not reach proficiency by the end of 1st grade showed significant gaps in reading and math compared to native English speakers. While these gaps narrowed in reading over time, they grew in math.

Is effective ELL instruction the same for immigrant and native-born students?

While many English-learners do arrive as immigrants, the vast majority—some 80 percent—are born in the United States and enter U.S. schools at the beginning of their academic careers.

For ELLs who enter the United States before the start of their school years, the instructional approach is generally the same, though Motameti and other researchers’ studies have found that students who enter kindergarten with very low English proficiency take longer to catch up. There have not been significant studies looking at whether particular instructional approaches are more effective for immigrant versus native-born ELLs who start in kindergarten or preschool.

Research suggests older ELLs, particularly “newcomers” who enter in middle and high school, have needs, particularly in content-area language and instruction, that are quite separate from those of ELLs who were born in the United States or who came in early grades.

A 2015 case study of so-called “newcomer schools” in Ohio and New York City suggested that they can be more supportive environments for older ELLs, but may be associated with lower academic achievement. An earlier three-year study by the Center for Applied Linguistics found that the most effective “newcomer schools” provided: flexible course scheduling; teachers skilled and regularly trained in ELL supports; basic adolescent literacy interventions coupled with ELL interventions; content instruction designed to fill gaps in academic learning; and ongoing monitoring of student progress.

The most effective programs also provided significant extended-learning time, including before and after school, on Saturdays, and in summer. They connected immigrant students with family and social services, and provided supports to help students transition to college, careers, and practical life after high school.

Do federal civil rights laws related to ELL instruction apply to charter schools, too?

Yes. The Education Department’s office for civil rights issued guidance in 2014 confirming that charter schools, like any public schools, must take steps to support students learning English and ensure their admissions, disciplinary, and other policies do not disproportionately affect ELLs or their parents. For example, OCR entered a resolution agreement with the BASIS DC Public Charter School after finding that students who did not speak English at home were not appropriately screened for their English-language skills, and teachers incorrectly believed that only the school’s reading lab teacher was responsible for providing ELL services.

Is there a bilingual advantage?

Students who become fully fluent in multiple languages generally perform better academically than either fluent monolingual students or students who are not fully proficient in more than one language. However, researchers are still not sure how much of an advantage there is or what accounts for it.

In the past decade, cognitive and neuroscience studies have suggested that fully bilingual students can switch between cognitive tasks faster than monolingual students. However, a 2014 analysis in the journal Psychological Science found that studies between 1999 and 2012 that found a link between bilingualism and executive control were more likely to be published than those that found either no effect or a negative result. This suggests that journals may be more willing to publish studies that find bilingual benefits.

What can we expect from ELL research in the near future?

More than 45 states now use one of two English-language proficiency assessments: the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment, or WIDA, or the new ELPA 21 test. Because these two tests have become so common, researchers are in the process of developing crosswalk studies to compare proficiency and achievement across different states. This would enable better comparisons of different state and district approaches to identifying, supporting, and eventually reclassifying English-learners.

“For the first time ever we can get an image of what proficiency development looks like across the nation,” Motameti said. “A year ago or two we couldn’t do that.”

A version of this article appeared in the May 11, 2016 edition of Education Week as Teaching English-Learners: What Does the Research Tell Us?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Our Mission

Dismantling Barriers for English Language Learners

English language learners with diverse abilities can thrive with simple supports in an an equity-driven learning environment.

With increasing numbers of English language learners (ELLs)—especially those with diverse abilities (hidden and identifiable physical, emotional, and mental differences)—the demands of literacy have transformed dramatically in all grades. 

ELLs are in a unique position of acquiring a new language while being in the immersion process in the mainstream classroom. Now that educators are more aware of myriad approaches for a spectrum of diverse abilities, there are more opportunities for intentional change. Without appropriate implementation of instructions and accommodations, ELLs with diverse abilities are at an academic disadvantage compared with their peers. Aside from acknowledging and accommodating the students’ linguistic needs, students with diverse abilities benefit from being in an equity-driven learning space that makes them feel valued while learning.

With the appropriate considerations, students with diverse abilities will be accommodated and thriving members of the classroom team.You can utilize new and updated teaching methodologies to help your students receive immediate and long-term benefits.

Consult With Students’ Accommodation Plans Frequently

Many students with identifiable diverse abilities who have been medically diagnosed might have an accommodation plan. An individualized education program or a 504 intervention plan contains specific interventions that can be implemented to support students in their lessons. In your teaching practice, you can include additional time on an assignment or assessment, chunking the text, working with a partner, etc. These actions can help the student focus more on achieving the objective and master the intended goals.

Understand That Students Come With Knowledge

ELLs—no matter the level of their language acquisition—all enter the classroom with some knowledge. It’s useful to find out the extent of their knowledge and interests and include them in the classroom community. Research posits that to better support this population of students, teachers should integrate Gloria Ladson-Billings’ culturally responsive teaching practices to meet their students’ cultural and linguistic needs.

For example, in English, I use real-world global content that my students can relate to in order to help them engage with a text or in a discussion. Our discussions this year included powerful exchanges where students sometimes chose the topic—such as societal and cultural norms, identity, academic expectations, race, and religion. Students make academic gains when they feel themselves represented positively in the classroom. Equity pedagogy supports teachers in utilizing instructional strategies that embrace linguistic and cultural diversity.

A lack of culturally responsive background knowledge, teaching strategies, and concepts minimizes teachers’ impact when working with diverse learners and limits their academic success. Try incorporating texts representing a variety of cultures into your classes, or find some that fit your students’ needs: Amy Tan’s Fish Cheeks ; The House on Mango Street , by Sandra Cisneros; Coming to America: A Muslim Family’s Story , by Bernard Wolf; Tea Time , by Lawrence Tolbert; and Testing the Ice: A True Story About Jackie Robinson , by Sharon Robinson.

Incorporate Varying Levels of Technology

During the Covid-19 pandemic, we had no choice but to utilize technology to meet our students’ needs. When I access certain technological resources, I feel more equipped to support my ELLs with diverse needs. My ninth-grade professional learning community (PLC) used Microsoft Teams and the BigBlueButton platform to focus on enrichment and remediation. I also often use fun resources like Kahoot, Quizizz, and Nearpod , which give students the option to work collaboratively or individually.

Use the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

I always consider which stage of the language acquisition process my students are in, to ensure that as they progress through their zone of proximal development, I’m scaffolding appropriately and allowing them enough time and space to master the tasks.

When I understand where my students are, then I can apply the gradual release of responsibility model as needed. This method of teaching was especially useful this year with the ongoing pandemic, as many teachers relied heavily on it to simultaneously engage learners who were face-to-face and those who were virtual. In this model, the students can work together in small groups or practice the concept on their own to help achieve mastery.

Prepare to Pivot

Students with diverse abilities might need more time to process the information being delivered. There will be days when you might need to pivot or change course from the curriculum sequence. A lesson might need more differentiation in delivery (review ideas in small chunks, focus on one area of discussion at a time) and practice as well as more intentional scaffolding to help students with varying abilities master smaller pieces of information.

For example, some students can quickly answer writing prompts and use complex graphic organizers. Alternate options for students with diverse abilities are sentence stems with fill-in-the-blanks or a graphic organizer that is partially filled out with some answers, which help the students feel like they have an attainable task. Additionally, having the students use the turn-and-talk method or giving them the option to work in groups of two to discuss ideas allows a level of support that is outside of the teacher.

Give Brain Breaks

ELLs with diverse abilities may be unable to focus for periods as long as their peers can. They might need more opportunities to relax their minds before moving on to the next lesson.

Brain breaks are a simple way to counter the monotony of a lesson or aid students in processing the information. I use turn-and-talk, stretches, and computer games in my classes to give students a well-deserved brain break. I also incorporate music and sometimes change locations of learning from the classroom to an outside setting. My PLC and I have even planned and visited each other’s classrooms to give the students a change of pace, scenery, and delivery of lessons. These pauses in instruction activate the brain and are instrumental in deterring fatigue.

With the appropriate considerations, students with diverse abilities will be accommodated and thriving members of the classroom team. You can utilize new and updated teaching methodologies to help your students receive immediate and long-term benefits.

Jump to navigation Jump to Content

• Newsletters

• Supporting ELLs Through COVID-19
• New to Teaching ELLs?
• ELL Glossary
• Special Populations
• Resources by Grade
• ELL Resources by State
• ELL Policy & Research
• ELL News Headlines
• Serving and Supporting Immigrant Students
• Special Education and ELLs
• Social and Emotional Support for ELLs
• ELL School Enrollment
• Bilingual & Dual-Language Education: Overview
• COVID-19 & ELLs
• College Readiness for ELLs
• ELL Program Planning
• Events During the School Year
• Programs for Success
• School Libraries
• ELL Family Outreach
• For Administrators
• For Paraprofessionals
• Supporting Newcomer Students: Resource Gallery
• Creating a Welcoming Classroom
• ELL Classroom Strategy Library
• ELL Strategies & Best Practices
• Language & Vocabulary Instruction
• Literacy Instruction
• Content Instruction for ELLs
• Common Core
• Technology & ELLs
• The Role of ESL Teachers
• Navigating Tough Topics in the Classroom: Tips for ELL Educators
• Help Your Child Learn to Read
• Learning Together at Home
• The Preschool Years
• Schools and Families: An Important Partnership
• School Success
• Raising Bilingual Kids
• Technology at Home
• Resources for Parents of Teens
• Visiting the Public Library
• When Your Children Need Extra Help
• Colorín Colorado Book Finder
• Books for Young Children
• Books for Kids
• Books for Young Adults
• Books for Professionals
• Diverse Books: Resource Guide
• Pura Belpré: Her Life and Legacy
• Literacy Calendar
• Meet the Authors
• Classroom Videos
• Advice for New Teachers of ELLs
• Meet the Experts
• Meet the Administrator
• Facebook Live Series
• PBS Show: Becoming Bilingual
• Being Bilingual Is a Superpower!
• Family Literacy: Multilingual Video Series
• Supporting ELLs During COVID-19: Educator Voices
• Administrators
• Paraprofessionals
• Parents & Families
• ELL Resource Collections
• Guides & Toolkits
• Multilingual Tips for Families
• Reading Tips for Parents (Multilingual)
• Reading Tips for Educators
• Topics A to Z
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Research & Reports
• Web Resources
• Colorín Colorado Blog
• Natural Disaster Resources for Schools
• Responding to a Crisis

ELL Topics A to Z

• Academic Language
• Back-to-School
• Bilingual & Dual-Language Education
• Collaboration
• Content Strategies
• Culturally Responsive Instruction
• ELL Placement and Programs
• Language Acquisition
• Language Arts
• Leading Professional Development
• Long-Term ELLs
• Math Instruction for ELLs
• Multicultural Literature
• Policy & Research
• Reading Instruction for ELLs
• Reading Non-fiction
• School Libraries and ELLs
• Science Instruction for ELLs
• Social Studies Instruction for ELLs
• Social and Emotional Issues
• Speaking & Listening Skills for ELLs
• Special Education
• Special Populations*

Especially for Parents

• When Your Child Needs Extra Help

*This section includes information on Refugees, Children in Migrant Farmworker Families, Unaccompanied Minors, Newcomer Students, Long-Term ELLs, and Internationally Adopted ELLs.

Most Popular

10 Strategies for Building Relationships with ELLs

Culturally Responsive Instruction for Holiday and Religious Celebrations

Language Objectives: The Key to Effective Content Area Instruction for English Learners

12 Ways Classroom Teachers Can Support ELLs

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

News and Media

• News & Media Home
• Research Stories
• School’s In
• In the Media

You are here

Stanford research points to how schools can support english learners.

A new report from researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Education suggests there are specific practices that schools can put in place to help students whose primary language is not English reach their full potential.

Further, the report finds that these practices not only help English Language Learners (ELLs), they lift all students.

New education standards have created new challenges for ELLs yet most schools do not have a good idea of how they can support these students, who number nearly 4 million and represent about 10 percent of the student population in school districts across the United States.

The researchers studied six U.S. high schools with strong college and career outcomes for ELLs. They noted that all of the schools shared certain values that guided daily actions and decision-making and they all incorporated specific design elements and instructional practices that allowed ELLs to thrive.

The report — Schools to Learn From: How Six High Schools Graduate English Language Learners College and Career Ready — was released by Understanding Language , a language and literacy initiative at Stanford GSE aimed at supporting educators shifting to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. It was funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

"These visionary schools employ a myriad of innovative and effective research-based practices to shift the goalpost for ELLs toward higher learning," said Tina Cheuk, one of the report's authors. "The schools provide promise and hope to all educators striving to make sure every student can reach his or her potential."

Five of the schools that were studied are in New York City. They are: High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies; It Takes a Village Academy; Manhattan Bridges High School; Marble High School for International Studies; and New World High School. The sixth school is in Massachusetts: the Boston International High School and Newcomers Academy.

Teams of researchers conducted site visits, observed classrooms, interviewed principals, teachers, students and parents, and reviewed documents outlining key practices and messages of the school.

"These schools share a deep commitment that all their students will be prepared for college and careers, and have coherent structures and practices implemented … around their vision and values," said co-author Maria Santos.

Conditions for success

The researchers said all six schools hold a mindset of continuous improvement, responsibility is shared throughout these schools for students' success, and the schools cultivate positive respect for and pride in students' home cultures and languages.

The schools also implement design elements and institutional practices such as shared leadership, ongoing and intentional language and literacy assessment and multicultural and multilingual staffing.

For example:

• School staff members often are immigrants and former ELLs, speak students' home languages, and have significant travel experience;
• A guidance team typically works closely with students and their families through conversations, meetings and home visits, and connects families to outside resources related to health, housing, employment and community services;
• Students own their growth and progress. They revise their own work, present their learning through portfolio presentations in front of an audience, and work collaboratively on project-based learning tasks;
• Teachers are in charge of their own professional learning, which is tailored to their particular needs;
• The schools organize their schedules to be creative and flexible to meet the needs of students, and they may incorporate block schedules or weekend tutoring.

"There is no one 'magic formula,'" co-author Martha Castellón said. Cheuk elaborated, "Schools are living, breathing and evolving complex systems, and all of the factors we observed work together in an interwoven way to support the outcomes we see."

The reported noted that schools are legally required to provide ELLs with an educational program that is based on sound educational theory, is implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel, and is regularly evaluated.

"These schools, however, far exceed the legal standard and constantly push the expectations and outcomes for their students," co-author Rebecca Greene said.

The report is intended to help guide educators in other schools when coming up with a plan to address ELL achievement, and help reshape the national conversation on how best to educate ELLs. It includes in-depth case studies on each school, including the questions asked by researchers in interviews and other documents.

"We invite audiences to dive in and be inspired and empowered by these schools' stories of success," co-author Diana Mercado-Garcia said.

The authors will host a public webinar on March 21 to discuss the report and answer questions. To participate in the webinar, contact Rebecca Greene at [email protected] for details.

The full list of authors is, in alphabetical order: Martha Castellón, Tina Cheuk, Rebecca Greene, Diana Mercado-Garcia, Maria Santos, Renae Skarin, and Lisa Zerkel. A direct link to the paper is here.

More Stories

⟵ Go to all Research Stories

Get the Educator

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

• Contact Admissions
• GSE Leadership
• Site Feedback
• Web Accessibility
• Career Resources
• Faculty Open Positions
• Explore Courses
• Academic Calendar
• Office of the Registrar
• Cubberley Library
• StanfordWho
• StanfordYou

Improving lives through learning

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

INVESTIGATING THE FACTORS CAUSING WRITING ANXIETY AMONG ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) LEARNERS

Ratu, Aisyah Fajarinaya (2018) INVESTIGATING THE FACTORS CAUSING WRITING ANXIETY AMONG ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) LEARNERS. S1 thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Baca Full Text klik disini

Penelitian ini meneliti faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan kecemasan menulis pada pelajar universitas bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing (EFL) di salah satu universitas di Bandung. Para peserta dalam penelitian ini adalah 36 orang pelajar semester delapan (tahun keempat) jurusan bahasa Inggris. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian deskriptif kualitatif desain, yang datanya diperoleh dari kuesioner dan wawancara. Selain itu, informasi yang dihasilkan dari wawancara menjadi tambahan untuk mengisi ruang dalam menjawab pertanyaan yang dirumuskan. Kuesioner dalam penelitian ini mengadopsi kuesioner yang dikembangkan oleh Cheng (2004) yaitu Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) yang terdiri dari 22 pertanyaan dan 3 subskala; Kecemasan Somatik, Kecemasan Kognitif dan Perilaku Menghindari. Penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa di antara peserta didik yang berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini, tidak satupun dari mereka (0%) diindikasikan memiliki Kecemasan Rendah, (32%) peserta didik diindikasikan memiliki Kecemasan Moderat dan hanya empat peserta didik (11%) memiliki tingkat "Kecemasan Tinggi" dan hampir semua peserta didik terdeteksi memiliki kecemasan kognitif yang ditemukan bahwa salah satu faktor yang menyebabkan kecemasan dalam menulis menggunakan bahasa Inggris adalah harapan tinggi yang diberikan dari dosen kepada peserta didik dan hal tersebut menjadi penyebab mayoritas pelajar memiliki kecemasan dalam menulis. Oleh karena itu, para pelajar menjadi kurang termotivasi terhadap tulisan yang mereka hasilkan dan lebih sering membedakan tulisan mereka dengan yang lain. Temuan ini dibuktikan oleh analisis mendalam di seluruh wawancara atau rekaman suara dan beberapa teori landasan yang terkait dengan kuesioner dalam penelitian ini. Dengan demikian, berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, peserta didik yang terlibat dalam penelitian ini dideteksi memiliki kecemasan kognitif dan hanya empat peserta didik diindikasikan memiliki tingkat Kecemasan Tinggi.;--- This research investigated factors causing writing anxiety among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university learners at one of universities in Bandung. The participants in this study were 36 eighth semester (fourth year) EFL university learners majoring in English. The method used was descriptive qualitative research design, of which the data were obtained from questionnaire and interview. In addition, information resulted from interviews was added to fill the space in answering the formulated question. For the writing anxiety questionnaire, this research adopted a questionnaire proposed by Cheng (2004) namely Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) consisting of 22 questions and 3 subscales; Somatic Anxiety, Cognitive Anxiety and Avoidance Behavior. The research revealed that among learners participated in this study, none of them (0%) were indicated as Low Anxiety, (32%) learners were indicated as Moderate Anxiety and only four learners (11%) belong to “High Anxiety” level and almost all learners were detected to have a cognitive anxiety which found that one of factors causing writing anxiety is high expectation given from the lecturer to the learners and it is the majority cause learners writing anxiety. Hence, the learners became less motivated toward their writing and differentiated their writing with others’. This finding proved by the deep analysis throughout all transcription or audiotaped interview and some grounding theories related to the questionnaire in this subject matter. Thus, based on this research, learners who were involved in this research were detected to be a cognitive anxiety and only four learners were indicated to have High Anxiety level.

Actions (login required)