For English Language Learners, is Good Instruction Always Good?

It seems a fairly safe assumption that English Language Learners (ELLs) would also benefit from strategies that are effective in helping native speakers with reading comprehension. After all, the whole focus is on strategies to deal with language, right?

A group of researchers studying the implementation of a balanced literacy approach within the San Diego school system put that assumption to the test, and the results were actually not straightforward.

The researchers compared the effects of specific instructional practices in literacy on the reading comprehension achievement of native English speakers and ELLs.

What were the results?

The strategies found to be most effective with proficient English speakers were: (1) higher-level questioning and discussion about the meaning of text; (2) incorporation of writing instruction; and (3) accountable talk, namely talk with a focus on ideas rather than facts and recall, featuring a press for evidence from the text to support arguments and where students responded to and elaborated on each other’s contributions.

The effect of these strategies on ELLs was still positive, but was substantially less than the effect on proficient English speakers and was not statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is that some of these activities were happening at a linguistic level that was beyond the ability of the ELLs.

During classroom observations, in addition to observing the specific strategies under study, teacher-student and student-student interaction patterns were coded and analyzed, with the following results: “Telling” (where a teacher simply provided information rather than engaging students in the creation of that information) had a negative effect on the learning of proficient English speakers, but a positive effect for ELLs.

The researchers hypothesize that ELLs needed to be provided more directly with background information in order to access the texts they were trying to read. Secondly discussion, as a general classroom interaction pattern, also had a positive effect on the literacy learning of ELLs. In fact, it had a greater positive effect for ELLs than for proficient English speakers. This would seem to support the researchers’ theory that in order to be of use, activities must take place at a level which is accessible for ELLs.

What does this mean for our classrooms? The results seem to suggest that applying these strategies on their own may have some positive effect for ELLs, but possibly only a minimal one.

We need to ensure that the activities are accessible to them. The classroom interaction patterns investigated suggest that two possible ways to achieve this are to directly tell ELLs the background information they need to understand a text, and to provide them with opportunities to talk about a text at a variety of levels of complexity.

It appears they may need time to engage in more literal discussions of the text before being expected to participate in discussions at more abstract levels.

Further suggestions for supporting ELLs come from interview and observation data collected as part of this study. This data suggests three factors that need to be considered.

First, use of ELLs’ native language: literacy in the native language can function as a bridge to success in English, since many strategies transfer between languages.

Second, differentiation: the program in San Diego had a substantial emphasis on differentiation, including using grouping strategies, specific scaffolding activities for individual learners, etc. The findings suggest that in the case of ELLs an emphasis in differentiation in general is insufficient. Teachers must recognize that strategies need to be tailored for ELLs; know enough about texts to analyze potential barriers to comprehension; and know enough about literacy and second language acquisition to diagnose and monitor the particular needs of ELLs.

Third, attention to English Language Development: the smaller effect sizes for ELLs suggest that it is important to include activities that build greater oral English proficiency at the same time as building literacy skills.

Reference:

O’Day, J. (2009) “Good Instruction is Good for Everyone - Or Is It? English Language Learners in a Balanced Literacy Approach”. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 14, pp. 97-119.

From TIE's October 2009 issue.

---

Please fill out the form below if you would like to post a comment on this article:

Nickname

(this will appear with your comments)

Email

Comments

---

Comments

There are currently no comments posted. Please post one via the form above.

MORE FROM

GORDON ELDRIDGE: LESSONS IN LEARNING