Connecting Research and Practice: A Snapshot of Resources for
English Language Learners
March 5, 20083:30 – 5:00 PM
National Press ClubWashington, DC
Why are the SEE Forums needed?• More than ever, evidence in education is needed—
and demanded• Few mechanisms exist to link education decision-
makers with sound, relevant, and “actionable” evidence
• The SEE Forums provide a regular opportunity to connect the DC-based policymaking community with timely, relevant, and rigorous research and resources
Who we are:• American Institutes for Research (AIR), a
nonprofit, nonpartisan social science and education research and technical assistance organization (www.air.org)
• Supported through a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences (ies.ed.gov) of the U.S. Department of Education
What we do:• Hold six public forums for DC-based policymakers on
research and resources to promote evidence-based education
• Issue ResearchLinks publications, explaining and outlining the policy relevance of the evidence presented and linking it to additional resources
• Maintain a website (www.seeforums.org) that offers access to the information presented during the forums and serves as a “scientific evidence portal” to support policymaker efforts to apply rigorous evidence
Today’s Forum:
• Connecting Research and Practice: A Snapshot of Resources for English Language Learners
• Highlight two resources that help to connect rigorous research to policy and practice: – IES Practice Guide series– Doing What Works website
• Presentations by leading researchers and experts, observations from experienced practitioners, and a discussion on how to use the evidence provided
Agenda:• Welcome and Introductions
– Steve Fleischman• IES Practice Guide Series
– Rebecca Herman & Russell Gersten• Doing What Works Website
– Nikola Filby• Responses from the Field
– Delia Pompa & Maria Santos• Questions, Answers and Discussion
IES Practice Guides
Rebecca HermanManaging Research Analyst
American Institutes for Research
What are practice guides?
• Designed to provide evidence-based advice to practitioners
• Originated in health care• Hybrid of expert consensus panels and critical
reviews of the research
How can practice guides help?
• Fill a niche where there is a great need for guidance but limited strong impact evidence
• Written to be of immediate use to practitioners
What is the rigor of IES Practice Guides?
• Process– Systematic review of evidence– Expert judgment– Rigorous review of guide
• Research– Prioritize strongest evidence– Include a wide range of evidence
• Summarizing the evidence– Based on strength of the evidence and generalizability of the
findings– Recommendation can be supported by expert judgment and
theory
IES Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides
Strong Requires (1) studies whose designs can support causal conclusions (internal validity) and (2) studies that in total include enough of the range of participants and settings on which the recommendation is focused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized to those participants and settings (external validity).
Moderate Requires (1) studies that support strong causal conclusions but where generalization is uncertain or (2) studies that support the generality of a relationship but where the causality is uncertain.
Low Based on expert opinion derived from strong findings or theories in related areas and/or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or strong level. Low evidence is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards for the moderate or high level.
What topics are covered by practice guides?• Research-based practices to help K-5 English language learners
improve their reading skills• Research-based practices for encouraging girls in math and science• Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning• Research-based practices for turning around low performing schools• Research-based practices to help improve adolescent reading skills• Response to intervention: Reading• Response to intervention: Math• Behavior problems in regular classrooms• Teacher recruitment and retention• Postsecondary access for at-risk students
What is a Practice Guide? Case of the English Learners Practice
Guide
Russell Gersten, PhDResearch Director, RG Research GroupProfessor Emeritus, University of Oregon
Session Objectives
1. Orient group to the Practice Guide2. Provide a crisp overview of the state of scientific research and
how it can and should influence policy and practice3. Provide specific suggestions for implementation of structured
English immersion4. Discuss school level implementation
Search for Coherence• Panel struggles to develop 5 to 10 assertions that are:
• Forceful and useful• And COHERENT• Do not encompass all things for all
people• Do not read like a book chapter or article
Jump start the process by using individualswith topical expertise & complementary views
Panelists Russell Gersten (Chair)Robin ScarcellaTimothy ShanahanPenny Collins (formerly Chiappe)Scott K. BakerSylvia Linan Thompson
The Topics1. Early screening and identification2. Early Intervention 3. Vocabulary 4. Academic English 5. Peer assisted learning
Recommendation 1: Early Screening for RD using English Language Measures
• Level of Evidence: Strong • Twenty-two studies have demonstrated that three types of measures
are valid means of determining which English learners are likely to benefit from typical classroom reading instruction and which children will require extra support:
• Measures of phonological awareness
• Measures of familiarity with the alphabet, and the alphabetic principle in English
Recommendation 1: Continued
• Fights conventional wisdom of “wait until child is proficient in English”
• No need to wait until students have good oral proficiency in English before teaching reading
• No need to wait until students are proficient in English before screening for students who may need extra support
• Recent research (Lesaux, Journal of Educational Psychology, November 2007) shows still valid for fourth grade reading
Type of Research to Support the Assertion:
Descriptive/Longitudinal• Describes students’ progress over K, 1st and/or 2nd
• In other words, does not demonstrate causes (e.g. native language is better or worse than English reading instruction)
• Does show what can happen without any serious researcher involvement in instruction or curriculum
• Has been replicated and results are consistent
What Does the Research Say AboutEarly Identification?
• For ELLs, as for Native speakers, Phonological processing measures are excellent predictors of potential at risk status
• Oral language proficiency measures (English) are poor predictors of subsequent reading performance
What Does the Research Say About Rate of Learning to Read in
English for ELLs?• The rate of ELL student learning can be the same as
their native English speaking peers.• This is true for word reading, reading
comprehension, phonological skill development in English
• Not true for discourse comprehension or memory for sentences (Woodcock measure)
RoadblocksSome teachers think that: • Reading problems may resolve themselves once English
learners develop proficiency in oral English. It is unfair to test a child in a language that she or he does not understand.
• Native language assessments are more valid than English language measures for this group of students. Fine to do both.
• It is inappropriate to teach phonological processing skills in a language that a child does not fully understand.
Recommendation 2: Intensive Small Group Reading
Interventions • Level of Evidence: Strong• Evidence: Four randomized controlled trials using
three curricula (What Works Clearinghouse website)
• The three curricula shared many common characteristics
• Impacts limited to reading and basic comprehension, no English language development effects
Suggestions• Use an intervention program with students who enter the
first grade with weak reading and prereading skills, or with older elementary students with reading problems
• Use it daily for at least 30 minutes in small, homogeneous groups of 3-6 students
• Provide training and ongoing support for teachers
Recommendation 3: Extensive and Varied Vocabulary
Instruction • Level of Evidence: Strong • Three intervention research studies demonstrate that
intense and explicit vocabulary instruction enhances reading comprehension
Suggestions
• Adopt a sound framework for vocabulary instruction that is evidence based.
• Develop district-wide lists of essential words for vocabulary instruction. Teach essential content words in depth.
• Vocabulary instruction for English learners should also emphasize the acquisition of meanings of everyday words and common words, phrases, and expressions that English Learners have not yet learned.
Roadblocks
• Teaching vocabulary effectively is difficult.• Some teachers may incorrectly assume that
English learners know a concept and the word for that concept in their primary language when, in fact, they do not.
• Especially true for academic terms such as “dividend”, ratio, abolish, compromise…..
Recommendation 4: Develop Academic English
Level of Evidence: Low Based on two intervention studies, on one
correlational study, and on expert judgment.English learners require considerable explicit
and deliberate instruction to learn academic English.
Suggestions• Adopt a policy clearly stating that English learners
must have a daily block of time devoted to development of academic English
• Develop or purchase curricula that can be used to teach and develop academic English
• Teach academic English in the earliest grades• Provide teachers with appropriate professional
development to help them learn how to teach academic English
Recommendation 5: Regular Peer-assisted Learning
Opportunities • Level of Evidence: Strong • Based on three high-quality experiments and quasi-
experiments • All of these studies demonstrated positive impacts on
reading achievement for students at varying ability levels
Suggestions
• Ensure that teachers of English learners devote at least two hours a week to instructional activities where pairs of students at different ability levels and/or different English language proficiencies work together on academic tasks in a structured fashion.
• These activities should provide practice and extension to material already taught.
U.S. Dept of EducationWebsite HighlightingEffective Practices
SEE Forum, March 5, 2008
Nikola Filby
http://dww.ed.gov
DWW Goal
Translate research-based practices into practical tools
that support & improve classroom instruction.
Overview
• Major initiative from the US Dept of Education• Directly addresses the needs of practitioners• Web-based resources on a wide range of topics
– Teaching Reading to English Learners in Elementary School
– Preschool Language & Literacy– Encouraging Girls in Math & Science– Cognition, Adolescent Literacy, Math & more
Putting It Together• Institute of Ed. Sciences (IES) research base
– Practice Guides, What Works Clearinghouse, national panels
• Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) manages the project
• Other ED offices support & disseminate• WestEd, RMC, AIR produce original content & tools to
show practices in action • Little Planet Learning is the web developer• Focus groups & experts provide feedback
Website Tour
• 5 separate practices on EL• Practice guides & research base• 30 + multimedia pieces on EL
– expert interviews– instructional presentations– interviews & sample materials from schools
• Tools & templates to implement practices
Getting the Most from DWW
• Find research & resources to support instruction• Incorporate into professional development• Use with study/discussion groups• Assist with state and local planning
http://dww.ed.gov
