Journal of Literacy Research

Download PDF
8 downloads 0 Views 127KB Size Report
Comment
Sep 1, 2010 - Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Lonstaff, J., et al. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading ...
Journal ofhttp://jlr.sagepub.com/ Literacy Research

Response to a Review and Update on Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth Diane August and Timothy Shanahan Journal of Literacy Research 2010 42: 341 DOI: 10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/42/3/341

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Literary Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Literacy Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/42/3/341.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

Journal of Literacy Research, 42:341–348, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1086-296X print/1554-8430 online DOI: 10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745

Response to a Review and Update on Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth Diane August Center for Applied Linguistics

Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois

The purpose of this article is to respond to a review of the report Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, written by our respected colleague Kathy Escamilla, which appeared in a recent edition of the Journal of Literacy Research. This will also give us the opportunity to offer a brief update of the research on effective reading and writing instruction for English-language learners that has appeared since 2002, the cut-off year for the inclusion of studies in the original panel report.

OVERVIEW The U.S. Department of Education charged the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth with the task of identifying, assessing, and synthesizing research on the education of language-minority children and Correspondence should be addressed to Diane August, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Center for Applied Linguistics, 4500 Wetherill Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA. E-mail: daugust@ msn.com

341

342

AUGUST, SHANAHAN

youth ages 3–18 with respect to their attainment of second-language literacy and to produce a comprehensive report evaluating and synthesizing this literature. The increase in students in U.S. schools who come to English as a second language is remarkable and represents a major challenge to American education. The Department of Education rightly wanted to provide research-based information for schools on how best to facilitate their English learning. It was necessary for the panel to limit its inclusion to studies that were published in English (no matter what languages may have been the focus in the studies); thus, the majority of such studies were conducted in the United States, followed by those from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, with some studies from the Netherlands, Finland, and Israel. A primary purpose of the report was to establish a foundation for current and future research and as such was intended primarily for researchers. Within the selection criteria established, the panel was comprehensive in its review of the research: It focused broadly on languageminority students, and included a variety of study types addressing a wide array of questions pertinent to the literacy education of language-minority children. Among the many findings of the report was that some amount of teaching of students in their home language was beneficial to English literacy learning (better than English immersion) and that instruction that focused on enhanced teaching of particular literacy components (e.g., decoding, spelling, writing, comprehension, fluency) was generally beneficial with second-language learners (as they are with native English speakers). The results also showed, with some amount and quality of teaching, that second-language learners often match firstlanguage learners in the learning of English word-level skills, such as phonological awareness, spelling, and decoding, but that even with instruction, equivalency in higher level English skills, such as comprehension, is rare. However, the amount and quality of literacy teaching studies was circumscribed, and findings were somewhat tentative. Given this, prior to responding to Kathy Escamilla’s review of the report, it would be useful to provide an update to the instructional research that was summarized in it. Although the synthesis was extensive, the literacy teaching reviews have attracted the most attention, and so our update will focus on these studies, and specifically those that employ experimental designs.

UPDATE In 2002, there were only 17 experimental and quasi-experimental studies focused on explicit instruction in literacy components such as decoding or comprehension, and 22 studies focused on more complex approaches, including 6 studies on encouraging reading and writing, 3 on reading to children, 2 on tutoring and remediation, and 11 studies that focused on addressing multiple

RESPONSE AND UPDATE ON DEVELOPING LITERACY

343

reading components simultaneously. All of these studies addressed the teaching of English or the teaching of the home language as preparation for English instruction in the context of English as a societal language (some other portions of the report considered the learning of other languages). The effectiveness of approaches to literacy instruction had to be evaluated by using experimental, quasi-experimental, or single-subject research designs that allowed the effects of an instructional approach to be isolated. While we reviewed ethnographies and case studies to address other questions, the “what works” nature of this question required that studies use experimental designs. Furthermore, the studies could not have design flaws or confounds so serious that it would be impossible to determine their results with any degree of certainty. The reason for this update is that, since 2002, approximately 20 additional experimental and quasi-experimental studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals that measure outcomes for six component literacy skills: phonological awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing. Most of these studies focused on phonological awareness and phonics (Calhoon, Otaiba, Cihak, King, & Avalos, 2007; Denton, Wexler, Vaughn, & Bryan, 2008; Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, & Gross, 2007; Giambo & McKinney, 2004; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005; Kamps et al., 2007; Lovett et al., 2008; McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao, 2008; Roberts & Neal, 2004; Solari & Gerber, 2008; Swanson, Hodson, & Schommer-Aikins, 2005; Troia, 2004). Findings generally confirm those of the previous review: The same principles of systematic and explicit phonologically based interventions that undergird instruction for English-proficient students also appear to benefit English language learners’ (ELLs) literacy development. These benefits were demonstrated through a number of measures, including assessments of reading comprehension, word reading, and word attack skills. Six studies assessed reading fluency (Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King, & Avalos, 2007; Denton, Wexler, Vaughn, & Bryan, 2008; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005; Kamps et al., 2007; McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao, 2008; Sáenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Rather than focusing solely on fluency, usually these studies examined fluency in the context of more comprehensive reading programs that also focused on phonological awareness, phonics, and/or comprehension. Although the specific approaches used in these studies varied, most found a significant positive impact on English-language learners’ oral reading fluency. Five studies had vocabulary outcomes. One study focused primarily on developing phonics knowledge but also had significant effects on measures of oral language or vocabulary development (Giambo & McKinney, 2004). The remaining studies used a combination of approaches that have been successful in building vocabulary in English proficient students (Graves, 2006), including direct instruction of individual words, immersing students in language-rich envi-

344

AUGUST, SHANAHAN

ronments (e.g., interactive reading, educational televisions), and teaching word learning strategies. The studies were conducted by Roberts (2008), Roberts and Neal (2004), Silverman (2007), and Uchikoshi (2005). Our review located 10 studies with reading comprehension outcomes (Denton et al., 2008; Ehri, Dreyr, Flugman, & Gross, 2007; Fung, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2003; Kamps et al., 2007; Liang, Peterson, & Graves, 2005; Lovett et al., 2008; Roberts & Neal, 2004; Sáenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005; Solari & Gerber, 2008; Swanson, Hodson, & Schommer-Aikins, 2005). Most studies investigated the effect of comprehensive and multi-faceted literacy programs on the comprehension of ELLs. Our review located one study with writing outcomes (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). Findings indicated that using the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model, which emphasizes strategies and techniques to make new information comprehensible to ELLs, can improve these students’ writing. We were disappointed at the paucity of experimental evidence on how to teach literacy to English language learners and were quite tentative in our claims, based upon so few studies. However, findings from studies conducted since 2002 appear to corroborate those earlier findings. The results taken together suggest that the focus of effective literacy instruction is much the same for native speakers and ELLs; however, some adjustments to these common instructional routines seem necessary and appropriate. While the nature of such adjustments needs to be explored more directly in future research, studies suggest the importance of considering appropriate ways of using the native language within instructional routines. They also point to the advisability of altering curriculum coverage, depending on the similarity between English and the native language and the students’ levels of attainment of their native language (e.g., some letter–sound correspondences do not need to be re-taught if already mastered in a native language that shares these correspondences with English) and of fine-tuning instructional routines. Several successful methods of fine-tuning appear in the studies, including identifying and clarifying difficult words and passages within texts to facilitate comprehension, consolidating text knowledge through summarization, and giving students extra practice in reading words, sentences, and stories. Some studies also revealed the value of instructional routines that include giving attention to vocabulary, checking comprehension, presenting ideas clearly both verbally and in writing, paraphrasing students’ remarks and encouraging them to expand on those remarks, providing redundancy, and using physical gestures and visual cues to clarify meaning. There still are not enough studies exploring what works with English learners. New research can confirm the general findings summarized here, but these studies are needed to examine the effects of interventions over time, the effects for students with different levels of first and second language proficiency, and from different first language backgrounds. Moreover, most research has targeted

RESPONSE AND UPDATE ON DEVELOPING LITERACY

345

one or two components of literacy. Interventions that are more comprehensive are needed as are studies of how to accommodate the language learning and literacy needs within the same classroom of students with diverse skills and capacities. Finally, with regard to methods used in the studies, although logically the experimental paradigm allows for a determination of causal relationships, even when these designs are used caution is needed in interpreting results. Such studies may vary in quality—how well a study controls for alternative explanations of effects, how well its conditions match those in an actual classroom, and how well it describes the intervention and context in which the intervention occurs. Furthermore, the results of even the best studies are probabilistic; we have greater confidence in results that have been successfully replicated many times in independent studies, which is not the case with the studies using experimental designs given the few studies focused on any given outcome.

RESPONSE TO REVIEW We now turn briefly to the review of our work conducted by Kathy Escamilla. The panel report is comprehensive; it focuses on seven major topics—development of literacy, cross-linguistic relationships, socio-cultural contexts and literacy development, instructional approaches and professional development, and student assessment. Each section is guided by specific research questions and systematically reviews studies that address these questions using the most recent research synthesis methodology. Many of the reviewers’ comments reflect a struggle to come to terms with the stated purpose of the report and the parameters of the review. The reviewers would have preferred that the report focus on the development of bilingualism instead of the learning of English. However, the charge to the panel from the U.S. Department of Education was to summarize existing research on the development of English literacy in language minority students. While the panel report explicitly notes the value of bilingualism and thoroughly reviews the evaluation research that compares English-only instruction to bilingual instruction, it also provided a rigorous and thorough review on second-language learning, particularly in English. We believe that studying the development of bilingualism in children is a critically important endeavor and encourage Dr. Escamilla to conduct a thorough and systematic review of the research in this area given her evident commitment to the issue. Beyond the finding that primary language reading instruction promotes reading achievement in English the research left many unanswered questions that such a review might address. These include, for example, whether primary language instruction is more or less beneficial for some students, whether more primary language instruction is better than less,

346

AUGUST, SHANAHAN

what are the most effective ways to combine the primary language and English into a coherent instructional program, and the effective use of the primary language to support instruction in English. Most of the other issues raised by the reviewers reveal a limited familiarity with the report and its methods, and as such her review reflects some unfortunate misunderstandings. Thus, for example, chapter 9 of the study reviews studies that examine cross-language influences of literacy knowledge, processes, and strategies in students who are learning a second language. The approach taken in such studies is to examine the relationships of literacy components across languages, and a study may consider what connections exist between vocabulary development and word recognition skills across the two languages. Given the nature of this research, it would not make sense to combine these studies with those that compare bilingual instruction to English-only instruction, as the reviewers propose. Such studies address a different constellation of questions and employ different methods to answer those questions (in fact, those studies are thoroughly reviewed in chapter 14). The reviewers further comment that “it would have strengthened the overall report to emphasize the role that federal/state/local policies play in both educational opportunities for children and youth and in opportunities for financial and other support to do research.” The report is a review of research, not a political statement; nevertheless, it does examine the role of educational policies in creating learning opportunities for children in the background sections of various chapters (see, e.g., chapter 19). However, even though we sought studies on the impact of various educational policies, there were few studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported research on this topic, limiting what could be stated in a research review. Her review also complains that we neglected studies that link higher education achievement in second generation immigrant students to the maintenance of their languages and cultures. It is essential that research syntheses establish clear and consistent study selection criteria and this review focused specifically on studies of students ages 3–18, which necessarily precludes the inclusion of the studies Dr. Escamilla wanted included.

REFERENCES August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Calhoon, M. B., Al Otaiba, S., Cihak, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a peer-mediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 169–184. Denton, C. A., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2), 79–89.

RESPONSE AND UPDATE ON DEVELOPING LITERACY

347

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–210. Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & Gross, A. (2007). Reading rescue: An effective tutoring intervention model for language-minority students who are struggling readers in first grade. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 414–448. Francis, D. J., Lesaux, N., & August, D. (2006). Language of instruction. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 365–410). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fung, I. Y. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13, 1–31. Giambo, D. A., & McKinney, J. D. (2004). The effects of a phonological awareness intervention on the oral English proficiency of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 95–117. Graves, M. F. (2005). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., Black, C., & Blair, J. (2005). Fostering the development of reading skill through supplemental instruction: Results for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. The Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 66–85. Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Lonstaff, J., et al. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 153–168. Liang, L. A., Peterson, C. A., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Investigating two approaches to fostering children’s comprehension of literature. Reading Psychology, 26, 387–400. Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., et al. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333–352. McMaster, K. L., Kung, S., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies: A “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74(2), 194–214. Roberts, T. (2008). Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 103–130. Roberts, T., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English language learner’s oral proficiency in English, instructional experience and literacy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 283–311. Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English Language Learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231–247. Silverman, R. D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language and English-only learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383. Solari, E. J., & Gerber, M. M. (2008). Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: Teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(4), 155–168. Swanson, T. J., Hodson, B. W., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2005). An examination of phonological awareness treatment outcomes for seventh-grade poor readers from a bilingual community. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 336–345. Troia, G. A. (2004). Migrant students with limited English proficiency: Can Fast ForWord LanguageTM make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement? Remedial and Special Education, 25, 353–366. Uchikoshi, Y. (2005). Narrative development in bilingual kindergarteners: Can Arthur help? Developmental Psychology, 41, 464–478.

348

AUGUST, SHANAHAN

Diane August is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Applied Linguistics as well as a consultant located in Washington, DC. Her recent work has appeared in a variety of journals including Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Applied Psycholinguistics, Scientific Studies of Reading, and Reading and Writing. Her current research focuses on the development of literacy in English-language learners. She can be reached at 4500 Wetherill Rd., Bethesda, MD 20816. E-mail: [email protected]. Timothy Shanahan is Professor of Urban Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he is director of the UIC Center for Literacy. Professor Shanahan was a member of the National Reading Panel, and chaired the National Early Literacy Panel and the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth. He was director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools and had a presidential appointment to the board of the National Institute for Literacy. Shanahan has published more than 200 research articles, chapters, and books on the teaching of reading and writing. His research focuses on the improvement of reading achievement, reading-writing relationships, and disciplinary literacy. He can be reached at 1040 W. Harrison (M/C 147), Chicago, IL 60606. E-mail: [email protected]. His Web site is www.shanahanonliteracy.com.