Brainstorming a Research Agenda on ELL Issues

Literacy experts meet to assess state of learning, assessment, and instructional issues of teachers and students

Because the number of limited English proficient children in the United States has soared in recent years—to about 20% of all students in 2000—and because the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 mandates that these students become proficient in English and meet state standards for adequate yearly progress, a great deal of attention is being focused on how to accomplish the daunting task. Of particular concern is the requirement embedded in NCLB that any language instruction curriculum used to teach limited English proficient children is to be tied to scientifically based research and must be demonstrated to be effective.

To help develop the knowledge base to make informed decisions about effectiveness, a score of educators, researchers, and administrators from organizations involved in English-language learner (ELL) literacy instruction met April 19, 2007, in Washington, DC, to brainstorm a preliminary research agenda on learning, assessment, and instructional issues.

Participating in the session were representatives from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), the International Reading Association (IRA), National Center for Education Research (NCER), the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), the University of Illinois, the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), Washington University, California State University, the University of Florida, the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the University of Michigan, the American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASHA), and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

Peggy McCardle, chief of the Child Development & Behavior Branch at NICHD, at the outset stipulated key points to frame the discussion. Participants were asked to accept as a given that a nonpartisan agenda was an extremely important goal, acknowledging that relevant research may be ongoing and that feedback on what’s happening in the field is important. Other underpinning included accepting that different strategies for teaching various subjects are necessary, that no “one size fits all,” and that textbooks should be rich in content, interesting, accessible, and challenging. The notion that children can learn more than one language simultaneously was spelled out, as well as the belief that learning a second language can lead to a higher degree of literacy in the first language.

The discussion was free-ranging and open, and each participant was asked to develop three research questions in three areas that could form the basis of actual studies. In the language and learning portion of the discussion, some participants suggested more study is needed on the interaction between reading and writing skills when two languages are involved, as well as on how to optimize positive results of successful programs. Some researchers said bilingualism has been shown to provide cognitive benefits and that promoting proficiency in a second language can help a native culture better preserve and strengthen its first language.

Assessments and their efficacy generated an outpouring of questions and opinions. Some areas of research to be explored, participants said, include the teacher’s role in assessment, what combination of formative and summative assessments best help teachers differentiate instruction, whether assessments developed specifically for ELLs can help other types of assessment, and the need for a measurement of comprehension in the first and second language. Secondary analysis of work already published was encouraged as a valid research tool, and the importance of longitudinal studies was stressed. The rate of progress in student learning may be a better predictor of future success than “snapshot” measures, many participants felt.

The use of technology in assessments was discussed, and it was agreed that if used as a tool to streamline data gathering then technology has an important role in future research. It also can be a tool for children to maintain their first language literacy. For example, some students use the Internet to communicate with others who speak the same first language. It was generally agreed that motivation can be a key factor in student success among ELLs, especially if the ELL is part of a population that is in poverty or suffers image or identity issues.

Instructional issues also generated a good exchange among participants, particularly the overarching question “What are universities doing to develop better teachers and support them?” That question led to the assessment dilemma again, but this time, that of teacher assessments. It was pointed out that merely “knowing theory” does not necessarily translate into effective teaching.

Again, a longitudinal study was posited that would follow a subset of teachers to see whether there is improvement in student achievement because of a specific teacher training pedagogy. Model programs that appear to work in various settings need more investigation, as do the role of paraprofessionals and teachers’ aides in helping ELLs achieve mastery of their second language. Participants wanted to know, too, what the role of parents is or should be in establishing a learning base for children in and out of school.

Future brainstorming sessions may occur involving other researchers in order to gather the best and most information available to develop an ELL research agenda to meet the challenges of NCLB, now in the reauthorization process. A similar workshop was held three years ago. The report from that workshop, entitled “Childhood Bilingualism: Current Status and Future Directions,” is available online at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/Childhood-Bilingualism_2005.pdf.

IRA’s Second Language Literacy and Learning Commission, comprised of about 20 educator/researchers, has been charged with tasks that parallel or complement the issues raised in the ELL Research Agenda meeting. The commission plans to complete a review of research findings on literacy development for second-language learners, review instructional methods and approaches for improving literacy development for second-language learners, recommend a plan for dissemination of the commission’s findings, and implement the commission’s final dissemination activities. It also will recommend a plan to IRA’s Board of Directors for continued future emphasis on second-language literacy.

Paul Boyd-Batstone, chair of the Department of Teacher Education at California State University, Long Beach, serves as chair of the commission. For more information about ELL issues, visit IRA’s Focus page on ELLs at www.reading.org/resources/issues/focus_ell.html.

Brainstorming a research agenda on ELL issues. (June 2007). Reading Today, 24(6), 6.