Hall, C., Roberts, G., Cho, E., McCulley, E., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4
English learners (ELs) comprise 9.2% of the national enrollment across kindergarten to grade 12 (Kena et al., 2015). In addition, the population of ELs is growing considerably faster (i.e., 63.3%) than non-ELs (i.e., 4%).
ELs frequently develop oral language and literacy skills in both their first and second languages while simultaneously learning academic content during their school years. However, one challenge is reading proficiency for grade-level content-based texts. The magnitude of this challenge is reflected in ELs’ performance on the National Assessment of Academic Progress. Specifically, the gap separating ELs and non-ELs was 39 points in grade 4, 45 points in grade 8, and 53 points in grade 12 (National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition and Instruction for Educational Programs, 2015). For this reason, an important focus across K–12 education is how to enhance instruction to close the reading proficiency gap that separates ELs and non-ELs.
To address this concern, Hall and colleagues (2016) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (empirical synthesis) of literature pertaining to reading instructional practices where English was the primary language of instruction for ELs in grades 4 to 8. This review investigated the impact of these practices on outcomes across academic contexts (e.g., social studies, science, English language arts) to address the following two research questions:
In brief, results indicated that across content areas and grades, ELs significantly benefit from high-impact approaches to reading instruction. Across studies, the mean effect size for all reading measures was g = .35, the effect size for measures of reading comprehension was g = .25, the effect size for measures of vocabulary was g = .38, the effect size for measures of content knowledge was g = .09, and the effect size for writing was g = .24. Results indicated that the effects were smaller for studies of higher quality. Finally, dosage of instruction was not a significant predictor of treatment effects. Below the primary results of this synthesis are summarized.
Results of the synthesis revealed several reading characteristics that were common across all or most studies that resulted in improved reading performance, including the following:
Method | Description |
---|---|
Word generation |
|
Academic Language for All Students (ALIAS) |
|
Vocabulary Improvement Program (VIP) |
|
Multicomponent reading instruction |
|
Content reading instruction |
|
Computer-supported instruction |
|
Method | Description |
---|---|
Five E teaching model |
|
Content reading instruction anchors | Short video or audio clip to anchor instruction in a meaningful way |
Word generation | Target vocabulary presented in meaningful, engaging contexts that are relevant to students’ interests and that built background knowledge |
Transactional literature circles |
|
Partner and small-group discussions |
|
Type of Instruction | Description |
---|---|
Vocabulary |
|
Vocabulary + Reading Comprehension | In addition to the vocabulary features described above, the following comprehension strategies were targeted:
|
In summary, the systematic review by Hall and colleagues (2016) suggests that the reading skills of ELs can be improved by increasing (a) the active engagement of students, (b) their motivation to learn, and (c) the first-language supports provided in general education content area classrooms.
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., . . . Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition and Instruction Educational Programs. (2015). Fast facts: English learners (ELs) and NAEP. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/OELA_FastFacts_ELsandNAEP.pdf