Language Instruction Educational Programs 

(LIEPs): A Review of the Foundational Literature 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Prepared by: 

Molly Faulkner-Bond 

Sara Waring 

Ellen Forte 

edCount, LLC 

Washington, DC 

Rhonda L. Crenshaw 

Kathleen Tindle 

Bridget Belknap 

Synergy Enterprises, Inc. 

Silver Spring, MD 

May 2012 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-CFO-10-A0030/0001 with Synergy Enterprises, Inc. and its subcontractor, edCount, LLC. Beth Yeh served as 

project monitor. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any 

product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be 

inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Carmel Martin 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Stuart Kerachsky 

Director

May 2012

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; Policy and Program Studies Service; 

Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): A Review of the Foundational Literature, Washington, D.C., 

2012. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-

0852 or (202) 260-0818. 

Content Contact 

Beth Yeh 

(202) 205-5798 

Beth.Yeh@ed.gov 
iii 

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. vii

Purpose .........................................................................................................................................................vii

Context ........................................................................................................................................................viii

Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................viii

Clarification of Terms..................................................................................................................................ix

Findings ........................................................................................................................................................xv

What Research Says About LIEPs in General ...................................................................................xv

What Research Says About the English as a Second Language Approach ...................................xix

What Research Says About the Bilingual Approach ..........................................................................xx

General Emergent Themes......................................................................................................................xxii

1. High Standards and Challenging Content Are Good for ELs ...............................................xxii

2. Having a LIEP Is Important .......................................................................................................xxii

3. No One Approach or Model Is Appropriate for All ELs ......................................................xxii

4. Instructional Practices Are Important Variables in LIEP Design and 

Implementation.............................................................................................................................xxii

5. Literacy and Oral Language Development in English Are Critical Instructional 

Components for Any LIEP ........................................................................................................xxiii

6. Academic Language Seems To Be Important in EL Instruction .........................................xxiii

7. ELs Need Instruction That Is Specifically Cognizant of Their Needs as SecondLanguage Learners.......................................................................................................................xxiii

8. Teachers Need To Be Prepared to Teach ELs........................................................................xxiii

9. Newcomer Models Are a Programmatic Option That School Districts May Use to 

Meet the Needs of Newly Identified ELs at the Secondary Level .......................................xxiv

10. ELs’ Scores on Academic Content Assessments Should Be Interpreted With Great 

Care ................................................................................................................................................xxiv

11. Current Assessments May Not Be Sufficient Measures of the Linguistic Proficiency 

Necessary to Support Success in Mainstream Content Classrooms .....................................xxv

12. Culture and Community Matter..................................................................................................xxv

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

Project Purpose and Description ................................................................................................................ 1

Context ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Clarification of Terms................................................................................................................................... 3

What Is a LIEP?........................................................................................................................................ 3

Additional Terms ...................................................................................................................................... 5
iv 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 13

Research Questions.....................................................................................................................................13

1. Theories of Second-Language Acquisition (SLA) ......................................................................13

2. The Construct of Academic English Language ..........................................................................13

3. Models and Considerations for LIEP Design ............................................................................13

4. Instructional Practices and Professional Development (PD)...................................................13

5. School District, School and Community Culture.......................................................................13

6. Indicators and Evaluation of Success ..........................................................................................13

Findings ................................................................................................................................... 23

Theories of Second-Language Acquisition ..............................................................................................24

How is second-language acquisition theorized to occur, and how can or should this 

process inform or influence instruction or program design? ...................................................24

The Construct of Academic English Language ......................................................................................35

Models and Considerations for LIEP Design .........................................................................................45

English as a Second Language Models................................................................................................48

Bilingual Models......................................................................................................................................53

Beyond Approach: Newcomer Models ...............................................................................................59

Instructional Practices and Professional Development .........................................................................68

School District, School and Community Culture ...................................................................................95

Indicators and Evaluation of Success .................................................................................................... 100

Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 107

General Emergent Themes..................................................................................................................... 107

1. High Standards and Challenging Content Are Good for ELs ...............................................107

2. Having a LIEP Is Important .......................................................................................................107

3. No One Approach or Model Is Appropriate for All ELs ......................................................107

4. Instructional Practices Are Important Variables in LIEP Design and 

Implementation .............................................................................................................................107

5. Literacy and Oral Language Development in English Are Critical Instructional 

Components for Any LIEP .........................................................................................................108

6. Academic Language Seems To Be Important in EL Instruction ..........................................108

7. ELs Need Instruction That Is Specifically Cognizant of Their Needs as SecondLanguage Learners........................................................................................................................108

8. Teachers Need To Be Prepared to Teach ELs.........................................................................109

9. Newcomer Models Are a Programmatic Option That School Districts May Use to 

Meet the Needs of Newly Identified ELs at the Secondary Level ........................................109
v 

10. ELs’ Scores on Academic Content Assessments Should Be Interpreted With Great 

Care .................................................................................................................................................109

11. Current Assessments May Not Be Sufficient Measures of the Linguistic Proficiency 

Necessary to Support Success in Mainstream Content Classrooms .....................................110

12. Culture and Community Matter..................................................................................................110

What Research Says About the English as a Second Language Approach ..................................... 110

What Research Says About the Bilingual Approach ........................................................................... 115

What Research Says About Newcomer Models.................................................................................. 119

Gaps in the Literature and Need for Further Research...................................................................... 120

Construct Framework and Instructional Practices for Academic English...................................120

Better Data Collection and Use, Particularly Data That Differentiate Among 

Populations Within the EL Subgroup .......................................................................................120

EL-Specific Instructional Practices....................................................................................................120

Effective Professional Development Programs or Strategies for Teachers of ELs ...................120

Information About Program Implementation .................................................................................121

Evaluation Tools for the NCLB Era and Beyond ...........................................................................121

References.............................................................................................................................. 123

Appendix A. Literature Review Search Terms and Research Questions ............................. 135
vi 

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Definitions of models for language instruction educational programs ................................. x

Exhibit 2. Summary comparison of instructional traits across different language instruction 

educational program models .....................................................................................................xiii

Exhibit 3. Definitions of models for language instruction educational programs. ..............................vii

Exhibit 4. Summary comparison of instructional traits across different language instruction 

educational program models ......................................................................................................11

Exhibit 5. Criteria for including different kinds of literature in the LIEP literature review. ..............16

Exhibit 6. Summary of literature reviewed, by type and topic. ...............................................................23

Exhibit 7. Key articles on theories of second-language acquisition. ......................................................32

Exhibit 8. Key articles on the construct of academic English language................................................42

Exhibit 9. Key articles for models and considerations for LIEP design...............................................62

Exhibit 10. Promising instructional practices for ELs. ..............................................................................81

Exhibit 11. Key articles on instructional practices and professional development. ...............................88

Exhibit 12. Key articles on school district, school and community culture. ...........................................98

Exhibit 13. Indicators of success by relevant literature review articles and by theme. ....................... 102

Exhibit 14. Key articles for indicators and evaluation of success.......................................................... 106

Exhibit 15. Key articles on the English as a second language approach. ............................................. 112

Exhibit 16. Key articles on the bilingual approach. ................................................................................. 116

Exhibit 17. Key articles on the newcomer model. ................................................................................... 119

Exhibit 18. Location of references in literature review. .......................................................................... 136

Exhibit 19. Search hits by research question and database..................................................................... 155
vii

Executive Summary

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) contracted with Synergy Enterprises, Inc. 

and edCount, LLC, to complete a study titled Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): 

Lessons From the Research and Profiles of Promising Programs. This study includes a review of the 

foundational literature related to LIEPs, case studies of 20 school districts with well-designed and wellimplemented LIEPs, and a Lessons from the Field guide that integrates findings from the literature 

review and the case studies and provides practical information for local educators on selecting, designing, 

implementing and evaluating LIEPs.1

Purpose

This literature review is intended to lay a foundation for the LIEP study. It provides literature-based 

summaries for a range of topics that may factor into LIEP designs and functions, and supports school 

districts in their decisions about how to choose appropriate LIEPs for their students’ needs. The review 

summarizes critical ideas, findings, concepts, debates and practices that populate the literature on LIEP 

design, implementation and evaluation at present. The research questions driving this review are as 

follows: 

1. Theories of second-language acquisition. How is second-language acquisition (SLA) 

theorized to occur, and how can or should this process inform or influence instruction or 

program design?

2. The construct of academic English language. What is academic English language, and why 

does it matter? How can instructors support and encourage English learners (ELs) to acquire 

and use academic language?

3. Models and considerations for LIEP design. What are the characteristics of different models, 

and how can or should these be actualized in implementation? What characteristics of a model 

may be variable, and which are critical to its success?

4. Instructional practices and professional development. What specific practices and protocols 

can teachers adopt during their class instruction to support ELs’ acquisition of English or 

mastery of academic content? What are the content and components of promising professional 

development (PD) for teachers in LIEPs? How should PD be implemented and evaluated?

5. School district, school and community culture. What contextual and environmental factors 

in a school district, school or community may impact a LIEP’s ability to meet the requirements 

of Title III? What cultural and demographic factors in a school district, school or community are 

important to consider in implementing a LIEP?

6. Indicators and evaluation of success. What indicators might reflect whether a LIEP has been 

implemented successfully? How might these indicators vary in the initiation, scaling and 

maintenance phases? What indicators would reflect effectiveness of the LIEP in terms of its own 

stated goals? 

 

1 This literature review focuses on language instruction educational programs (LIEPs) in general, not specifically on 

those supported by Title III funding, and includes research on programs that may not have been funded by Title III. It is 

intended for any audience that may benefit from information about LIEP implementation and evaluation.
viii

Context

Indicators of academic success and progress suggest that English learners (ELs) are struggling in their 

education. On both state (Center on Education Policy 2010) and national (National Center for 

Education Statistics 2009a; National Center for Education Statistics 2009b) assessments, ELs 

consistently underperform peers who have never been ELs, and they disproportionately score in the 

“below Proficient” performance categories on assessments that measure academic content knowledge. For 

example, 94 percent of EL fourth-grade students scored below Proficient on the NAEP reading 

assessment in 2009 compared with 66 percent of all fourth grade students (NCES 2009b). 

The Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) of 1965, currently reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB) of 2001, provides that Title III’s first purpose is to “ensure that children who are limited 

English proficient, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency, develop high 

levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state academic content and 

student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet” (ESEA Section 3102(1)). 

One of Title III’s other stated purposes is “to develop high-quality language instruction educational 

programs designed to assist states, districts and schools in teaching limited English proficient children 

and serving immigrant children and youth” (ESEA Section 3102(3)). 

ESEA mandates also require that school districts evaluate their LIEPs regularly to ensure they are 

meeting student needs and achieving intended outcomes. While the Department does not provide 

guidance or regulations on how such evaluation should be structured, ESEA provides guidance on 

minimum expectations for any LIEP. 

Methodology

Four reviewers read more than 200 articles and reports identified through a vetted search protocol 

determined in collaboration with ED and members of the study’s expert panel. The search criteria are 

listed in Appendix A of this document. All reviewers used a Microsoft Access database entry form that 

captured information about a variety of topics, including the literature review category(s) to which the 

article pertained, the program type(s) it referenced, the grade level(s) to which it applied and a summary 

of key findings, conclusions or observations. Reviewers were required to provide their rationale for 

including or excluding each article from the final list included in this review, according to the 

predetermined inclusion criteria. Ultimately, reviewers included 173 documents that met established 

criteria and represent a range of voices and orientations toward LIEPs, EL instruction and other related 

topics. 

It is important to note that this review is not a meta-analytic one about program efficacy or outcomes, 

nor an effort to determine which LIEP(s) is (are) “best.” It cannot promise that certain programs 

definitively work, or guarantee specific outcomes, and, due to the nature of the literature and the field, 

does not support definite conclusions about program quality or efficacy. There simply are not enough 

experimental and quasi-experimental studies to sustain a comprehensive, outcome-oriented discussion 

about all the review topics. Thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about outcomes or 

effectiveness for any of these topics. 

Readers should also note that this review is not, in itself, meant to guide practitioners through the 

implementation process. Rather, the review may provide practitioners with information about the 

current general shape of the discussion and direct readers toward resources that may assist them in the 

implementation process. The forthcoming Lessons from the Field guide will provide more information 

about practices observed in the field and how-to’s for the implementation and evaluation processes. 
ix

Clarification of Terms

This review uses the following operational definitions for key terms: 

1. An approach is a broad, conceptual framework. Two approaches, “English as a second language 

(ESL)” and “bilingual,” vary primarily in terms of their use (or non-use) of a student’s native 

language (L1) during instruction that targets development of English as a second language (L2). 

Various models are subsumed under each approach. 

•

•

As its name implies, the ESL approach focuses on instruction in English as the primary means 

to help ELs acquire the language and ultimately meet high academic standards. Students learn 

and are taught in English exclusively or primarily—certain instructional materials or instructional 

techniques may make use of basic L1 vocabulary, but only as a means to support the students’ 

use of English. Models that follow the ESL approach may include both language instruction,

wherein English language is the instructional content itself, or content-based instruction, in 

which academic content is the object of instruction, but it is delivered in such a way as to 

support ELs’ acquisition of English as well. 

The bilingual approach to educating ELs is built on the increasing body of research indicating 

that L1 skills contribute positively to students’ acquisition of a second language (L2), and that L1 

instruction does appear to promote gains in English achievement (Thomas and Collier 2002; 

August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 

1991). The bilingual approach is based on a commitment to the understanding that instruction in 

students’ L1 will help them to meet the goals of attaining English proficiency and meeting high 

academic achievement standards. Beyond this common trait, bilingual models vary in their 

details and orientation—some see L1 development as an important goal in itself, while others see 

it as a scaffold or stepping-stone to English fluency. 

2. A model is a specific set of instructional services or a fully developed curriculum designed to help 

ELs acquire English proficiency and meet high academic standards. It comprises a set of 

characteristics, principles and practices that have been developed based on theory and research, and 

serves as a rough blueprint that classrooms, schools and districts may follow as an implementation 

guide. 

This review discusses several different types of models that are in use across the United States. See 

Exhibit 1 for brief descriptions of the elements that define these models; see Exhibit 2 for a 

comparison of instructional traits across the various language instruction educational program 

models.
Exhibit 1. Definitions of models for language instruction educational programs

Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables

English as a 

second language 

(ESL) 

instruction 

English language 

development 

(ELD) 

English for 

speakers of other 

languages 

(ESOL) 

ESL-certified teachera

provides explicit language 

instruction to students. 

Instruction focuses on 

development of proficiency 

in the English language, 

including grammar, 

vocabulary and 

communication skills. 

ESL Proficiency in 

English 

Class format—Students may have a 

dedicated ESL class in their school day, 

or may receive pull-out ESL instruction 

wherein they work with a specialist for 

short periods during other classes. 

Content-based 

ESL 

None ESL-certified teacher 

provides language 

instruction that uses 

content as a medium for 

building language skills. 

Although using content as 

a means, instruction is still 

focused primarily on 

learning English. 

ESL Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Class format—Students may have a 

dedicated ESL class in their school day, 

or may receive pull-out ESL instruction 

wherein they work with a specialist for 

short periods during other classes.

x
Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables

Sheltered 

instruction (SI)

Specially 

designed 

academic 

instruction in 

English (SDAIE) 

The Sheltered 

Instruction 

Observation 

Protocol (SIOP) 

is a specific 

version of the SI 

model with a 

considerable 

research base and 

specific strategies 

associated with it. 

Teacher provides 

instruction that 

simultaneously introduces 

both language and content, 

using specialized 

techniques to 

accommodate ELs’ 

linguistic needs. Instruction 

focuses on the teaching of 

academic content rather 

than the English language 

itself, even though the 

acquisition of English may 

be one of the instructional 

goals. 

ESL Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Class population—SI may be used for 

EL-only classrooms or for mixed 

classrooms with ELs and non-ELs. 

Instructor—Instruction is likely to be 

delivered by a general education teacher 

but may be delivered by an ESLcertified teacher. 

Transitional 

bilingual 

education (TBE) 

Early-exit 

bilingual 

Students begin in grade K 

or 1 by receiving 

instruction all or mostly in 

their L1, and transition 

incrementally over to 

English. 

Typically, transition to all 

English is complete by 

mid- to late elementary 

school. 

L1 is used to leverage L2 

acquisition, but L1 

proficiency is not a 

program goal. 

Bilingual Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Balance of L1 and L2—Some TBE 

programs begin with L1 exclusively, 

others begin with a majority of L1 and 

use some L2. The division of the 

languages across instructional time and 

content areas may vary from program 

to program. 

Exit point—Typically, students 

complete their transition by around 

grade 3, but may exit as early as grade 2, 

or as late as grade 5. 

xi
Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables

Developmental 

bilingual 

education 

(DBE) 

Late-exit 

bilingual 

Maintenance 

bilingual 

Students begin in grade K 

or 1 by receiving 

instruction all or mostly in 

their L1, and transition 

incrementally over to 

English. 

Regardless of when or 

whether students attain 

proficiency in English, the 

program is designed to 

keep them enrolled through 

its completion (typically, 

the end of elementary 

school), using a 50-50 

language balance through 

the end. 

Bilingual Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Bilingualism and 

biliteracy 

Balance of L1 and L2—Programs 

follow either a 50-50 model or a 90-10 

model (which ultimately transitions to 

50-50). Programs may balance 

languages by dividing instructional time 

according to content area, class period, 

instructor, week, unit or semester. 

Instructor(s)—Teachers may be 

bilingual, or teachers who teach in 

English may use sheltered instruction 

techniques to make their instruction 

accessible for ELs. 

Two-way 

immersion 

(TWI) 

Dual immersion ELs and non-ELs receive 

instruction in English and a 

non-English language. 

Bilingual Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Bilingualism and 

biliteracy 

Biculturalism 

Balance of L1 and L2—Programs 

follow either 50-50 model or 90-10 

model (which ultimately transitions to 

50-50). Programs may balance 

languages by dividing instructional time 

according to content area, class period, 

instructor, week or unit. 

Instructor(s)—Teachers may be 

bilingual, or teachers who teach in 

English may use sheltered instruction 

techniques to make their instruction 

accessible for ELs. 

xii
Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables

Newcomerb Newcomer 

center 

ELs who are recent 

immigrants and typically 

have low literacy and are 

new to formal education 

settings receive specialized 

schooling designed to 

acclimate them to the 

American school setting 

and prepare them to 

participate in mainstream 

classes. 

ESL or 

bilingual 

Preparation to 

participate in 

regular LIEP 

offerings 

Build foundational 

skills in content 

areas (basic 

literacy, math 

concepts, etc.) 

Program length—Newcomer programs 

may last anywhere from a semester to 4 

years. 

Program design—Newcomer programs 

may range from a half-day, in-school 

program to a full-time, self-contained 

school. 

Target population—Newcomer 

programs target a specific 

subpopulation such as recent immigrant 

students with interrupted formal 

education. 

Instructional content—Typically, 

newcomer programs will offer both 

language instruction and content 

instruction. Also, they may include 

instruction designed to familiarize 

newcomers with American culture and 

educational settings. 

Note: For more detailed information about the models, please refer to the “Models and Considerations for LIEP Design” section of this 

document. For a list of references to support this exhibit, please refer to “Exhibit 9. Key articles for models and considerations for LIEP design.” 

a Note: As used here, an ESL-certified teacher is a teacher with some sort of license, credential or certification to provide English language 

instruction to second-language learners. Different states and districts may use different naming conventions to refer to this kind of instructor. 

b Newcomer models tend to prepare students for participation in a regular LIEP rather than serve as a LIEP according to the legislative 

definition of language instruction educational programs. While implementation of this model typically does not include instructional goals that 

meet the legislative definition of a LIEP, the model is often part of a crucial pathway for entering recently immigrated students into a district’s or 

school’s regular LIEP. As such, this model has been included in this study to ensure a holistic depiction of how districts serve ELs. 

xiii
xiv 

Exhibit 2. Summary comparison of instructional traits across different language instruction 

educational program models

ESL approach Bilingual approach

Model trait ESL Newcomer

Contentbased 

ESL SI TBE DBE TWI

ELs and non-ELs 

receive instruction 

together. No No Yes No No Yes No 

Certified ESL 

instructor is primary 

teacher. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Maybe Yes 

Language and content 

goals are integrated. No Yes Yes Maybe Maybe Maybe No 

Bilingualism and 

biliteracy are program 

goals. No No No No Yes Yes No 

Requires teachers 

who are fluent in 

students’ L1. No No No Yes Yes Yes No 

Implemented for 

specific grade levels. No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Compatible with 

(other) ESL models. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Note: ESL = English as a second language; SI = sheltered instruction; TBE = transitional bilingual 

education; DBE = developmental bilingual education; TWI = two-way immersion. 

3. The term program as used here is synonymous with LIEP, meaning a real-life instance or example 

of one or more models in an actual school or school district. Although this definition, technically, 

applies only to LIEPs that receive Title III funding, this literature review will use the ESEA

definition for a LIEP, as follows (from Section 3301): 

(8) The term language instruction educational program’ means an instruction course— 

(A) in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and 

attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging state academic content and student 

academic achievement standards, as required by Section 1111(b)(1); and 

(B) that may make instructional use of both English and a child’s L1 to enable the child to 

develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English 

proficient children if such a course is designed to enable all participating children to 

become proficient in English and a second language. 
xv 

In order to serve ELs in all grade levels, at all proficiency levels, and from all backgrounds, it is likely 

that many school districts implement more than one LIEP—e.g., the school or school district might 

offer a (TWI) program as well as ESL classes. 

4. Instructional practices are specific classroom-level practices that teachers may apply to support 

students’ learning and comprehension. They are both more detailed and narrower than models. For 

example, they may refer to specific techniques for structuring a lesson or developing a certain skill. 

5. According to Section 9101(25) of ESEA, an English learner (EL), also referred to as a limited 

English proficient (LEP) student, is an individual: 

(A) who is aged 3 through 21; 

(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school; 

(C) (i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than 

English; 

(ii) (I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and 

(II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a 

significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; or 

(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes 

from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and 

(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing or understanding the English language may be 

sufficient to deny the individual—

(i) the ability to meet the state’s proficient level of achievement on state assessments described 

in 1111(b)(3); 

(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; 

or 

(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. 

The abbreviated term EL is used throughout this paper. 

Findings 

What Research Says About LIEPs in General

A great deal of scholarship about LIEPs in the past 20 years has focused on language of instruction, and 

this scholarship provides a general overview of the field. While findings from recent meta-analyses and 

systematic syntheses indicate the bilingual approach produces more positive outcomes for ELs 

than the ESL approach (August and Shanahan 2006; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; Rolstad, 

Mahoney, and Glass 2005; Slavin and Cheung 2005; Greene 1997), individual descriptive studies and 

expert opinions based on research also provide examples from both approaches that produce strong 

outcomes for ELs on various academic measures (e.g., Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 

2006; Howard, Christian, and Genesee 2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996). However, a recent largescale longitudinal experimental study funded by the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

(Slavin et al. 2011) and a quasi-experimental study (Irby et al. 2010) found that instructional practices 

may matter more than language of instruction (approach). Specifically, Slavin et al. (2011) found that 
xvi 

students enrolled in programs using the same instructional practices and curriculum in English (a 

structured English immersion [SEI] program) or Spanish (a transitional bilingual education [TBE] 

program) reached comparable levels of performance on English reading measures after 5 years, 

suggesting that the instructional practices and curriculum were likely to have produced the results, rather 

than the language used. Irby et al. (2010) found that students who participated in “enhanced” TBE or 

SEI programs (“enhanced” due to the use of specific professional development, class structure and 

instructional practices) performed better on reading measures than students who did not participate in 

these programs. Findings such as these suggest that well-implemented LIEPs go beyond simply choosing 

an approach, and they may be identifiable more by their instructional practices than by their model or 

approach. 

An important finding for the purpose of this review is that special instruction and tailored services 

provided to ELs, regardless of the type of LIEP, can offer academic benefits. At least one metaanalytic research synthesis (Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006) and one large-scale longitudinal quasiexperimental study (Thomas and Collier 2002) have found that ELs fare worst on academic measures 

(compared to ELs in other instructional scenarios) when they receive no special instruction of any kind 

and are simply placed into mainstream classrooms. Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) also conclude, 

based on their analysis of approximately 100 research articles, that providing English Language 

Development (ELD) instruction is better than not providing it. Although many instructional techniques 

that are effective for native English-speaking students may also be effective with ELs (D’Angiulli, Siegel, 

and Maggi 2004; August and Hakuta 1998; August et al. 2008; Goldenberg 2008), such practices may be 

less effective for ELs than for native English speakers (O’Day 2009; August et al. 2008; August and 

Hakuta 1998; D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004; Gersten 1996). Goldenberg (2008) notes, in a 

discussion of two large research reviews on instruction (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 

2006), that both panels found that instruction that is modified or that accommodates the special needs of 

ELs is more likely to help these students progress than instruction that is not modified. 

As for the specific instructional foci and practices that LIEPs should use, researchers largely agree about 

certain factors that appear to be critical in the design and implementation of any LIEP. These factors 

included specialized instruction that recognizes ELs’ unique needs as second-language learners, 

whether the instruction is focused on content or on language acquisition (August et al. 2005; Vaughn et 

al. 2008; Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 2003; Proctor et al. 2009; Walqui 2002; Saunders and Goldenberg 

1999; Gersten 1996; Manyak and Bouchereau Bauer 2009; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003; Goldenberg 

2008; Genesee et al. 2006; August and Shanahan 2008), with a specific focus on literacy development 

(Manyak and Bouchereau Bauer 2009; Genesee et al. 2006; Snow 2008; Snow, Lawrence, and White 

2009; August and Shanahan 2008; Nelson, Vadasy, and Sanders 2011; August et al. 2005; Gersten et al. 

2007; Graves, Gersten, and Haager 2004; Giambo and McKinney 2004; Vaughn et al. 2009; Shih 1992), 

and oral language development (Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; Padrón et al. 2000; Giambo and 

McKinney 2004; Royer and Carlo 1991a; Royer and Carlo 1991b; Genesee and Riches 2006; Saunders 

and O’Brien 2006; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Lesaux and Geva 2008). 

Teacher preparation and attitudes were also a common emphasis across all approaches and models. 

Many experts argued that any teachers who have ELs in their classrooms—including and especially 

mainstream content or general education teachers—should be prepared with specific instructional 

techniques to serve these students (Gersten 1996; Knight and Wiseman 2006; Manyak 2007; Saunders 

and Goldenberg 2010; Reeves 2004, 2006; Ray 2009; Aguirre-Munoz et al. 2001). Experts also suggested 

that teachers should be equipped with information and resources to help them understand ELs as a 

population, as individuals and as language learners lez and 

Darling-Hammond 1997; Minaya-Rowe 2004). 
xvii 

Beyond the classroom, a generally open and respectful school culture was also a common trait 

discussed about programs in the reviewed literature (Michael, Andrade, and Bartlett 2007; Miller and 

Endo 2004; Collier and Thomas 1997; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996), though the literature reviewed 

for this study did not yield any research that explicitly examined the relationship between school culture 

and student outcomes. While the form that these components take may vary depending on a program’s 

approach (e.g., oral language development may occur differently in bilingual vs. ESL programs), their 

presence appeared to transcend connection to a specific approach or model. 

In sum, the literature reviewed makes note that schools whose ELs perform strongly on academic 

measures often have positive, accepting cultural atmospheres (Berman et al. 2000; Lucas 1993; Necochea 

and Cline 2000; Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Collier and 

Thomas 1997; Thomas and Collier 2002). Parent and community involvement are also commonly cited 

features of high-quality programs (Genesee 1999; Boyson and Short 2003; August and Pease-Alvarez 

1996). 
xviii 

General Findings 

•

•

•

•

The research reviewed for this study suggests that ELs who receive some kind of language 

support or specialized instruction show better outcomes on various academic measures than 

those who receive no specific language learning support (Thomas and Collier 2002; Menken and 

Kleyn 2010; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001).

While multiple meta-analyses and large-scale research studies and systematic syntheses of 

research have found that models following the bilingual approach can produce better outcomes 

than ESL models, as measured by general academic content assessments or measures of reading 

comprehension or skills (Thomas and Collier 2002; Genesee et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008; 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; August and Shanahan 2008), other studies, including a recent 

large-scale quasi-experimental study and a recent large-scale experimental study, indicate that 

quality of instructional practices matters as well as language of instruction (Irby et al. 2010; Slavin 

et al. 2011). In other words, researchers have found examples of high-quality programs that 

come from both bilingual and ESL approaches, which suggests that no single approach (e.g., 

ESL or bilingual) is effective at all times and under all circumstances (Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 2006; Howard and Christian 2002; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996). 

Reviewers found less detail about instructional practice in literature pertaining to bilingual 

models, compared to literature pertaining to ESL models. Research on bilingual models tended 

to focus more on the models’ structure (e.g., balance of languages, transition between languages, 

and the like) and content (e.g., literature instruction, phonological processing instruction, 

vocabulary instruction) than on the specific instructional practices used at the classroom level 

(Genesee 1999; Gersten and Woodward 1995; Irby et al. 2010; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; 

Slavin et al. 2011).

In addition to ESL and bilingual models, the literature revealed a subgenre of scholarship on 

ELs who are most commonly referred to as “newcomers” (August et al. 2008; Boyson and Short 

2003; Genesee 1999; Rivera et al. 2010; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; Thomas and 

Collier 2002). Different sources may name or define this group differently, but broadly speaking, 

newcomers are typically conceived in the literature as students who are recent immigrants to the 

United States who have low literacy and who may lack or have interruptions in their formal 

schooling. 

o

o

Because of differences in the language demands at different grade levels, newcomers are 

often discussed at the secondary level, where their schooling interruptions or language 

barriers may present a more imposing obstacle than those faced by younger newcomers 

(Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991). 

Schools or school districts may offer special programs for newcomer students that address 

these students’ unique academic, linguistic and cultural needs compared to other ELs. The 

literature suggested that the goal for many newcomer models is to introduce and prepare 

students for formal education in American schools, as well as entry into the district or 

school’s regular LIEP, whether it is an ESL approach or a bilingual approach (Boyson and 

Short 2003).
xix 

What Research Says About the English as a Second Language Approach 

The ESL approach focuses on developing English skills and teaching in English; it makes minimal use, if 

any, of students’ L1. Models under this approach may focus on language instruction in itself, integrate 

language and content instruction together, or focus on providing content instruction using specialized 

methods to accommodate ELs. Multiple authors found or argued that the strongest programs 

incorporate both dedicated language instruction and specialized content instruction (Saunders 

and Goldenberg 2010; Genesee 1999; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Harper and de Jong 2004). 

Most of the instructional practice literature that reviewers found—research studies, research reviews and 

expert opinions based on research—focused on instructional practices in English. 

ESL Approach 

•

•

•

•

•

Some research suggests that models under the ESL and bilingual approaches may produce 

comparable results, if implemented well and thoroughly (Slavin et al. 2011), and there are 

examples across the country of ESL programs that are producing strong learning outcomes for 

their students (Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 2006; Smith, Coggins, and 

Cardoso 2008; Rivera et al. 2010; Echevarria and Short 2010).

There is evidence that ESL models (language- or content-based) are likely to produce better 

outcomes on various academic performance measures than general instruction in English that 

does not follow an ESL model or acknowledge ELs’ specific linguistic needs (Saunders and 

Goldenberg 2010; Goldenberg 2008; Genesee et al. 2006; August et al. 2008; Thomas and Collier 

2002). So despite delivering instruction in English, the ESL approach is not synonymous with 

“no LIEP.” In addition, effective strategies used in ESL programs under this approach could 

also be used in bilingual programs. 

Models under the ESL approach may focus on language instruction in itself, or they may 

integrate language and content instruction. Experts have argued that the strongest programs 

include both types—that is, dedicated language instruction (ESL, ELD or ESOL) in addition to 

specialized content instruction (SDAIE, SI or Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach 

[CALLA] [Saunders and Goldenberg 2010]).2

Models under the ESL approach can also be appropriate for use in the English portion of 

bilingual models. Therefore, teachers working with ELs should understand second-language oral 

and literacy development and know how to implement practices that enhance such development 

(Slavin et al. 2011; August and Shanahan 2008; Goldenberg 2008; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 

1991). 

ESL models may be a necessary or more practical choice for schools or school districts in states 

that restrict the use of native language for instruction of ELs or schools that lack linguistically 

qualified teachers. Reviewers also concluded, based on the available literature, that ESL models 

may also be more convenient for schools with linguistically heterogeneous EL populations, 

highly mobile EL populations or EL populations that are diverse in terms of students’ age or 

grade level (Goldenberg 2008; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Williams, Hakuta and Haertel 

2007).

 

2 Although reviewers did not find this discussed in the literature they reviewed, this finding could be—and likely is—also 

true of instruction delivered in models following the bilingual approach. 
xx 

What Research Says About the Bilingual Approach 

Overall, findings from recent meta-analyses and systematic synetheses indicate that the bilingual 

approach produces more positive outcomes for ELs than the ESL approach (August and 

Shanahan 2006; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; Rolstad et al. 2005). This, however, is not a claim 

that bilingual approaches are invariably better than any and all ESL approaches under any condition. 

Moreover, this difference (bilingual versus ESL approaches) may be attributable to underlying linguistic 

interdependences between students’ L1 and L2, and to transfer processes that occur between languages. 

Proficiency in students’ L1, and particularly literacy in L1, appears to be a predictor and correlate of 

higher L2 outcomes (Genesee et al. 2006). There is also evidence that students’ amount of prior 

schooling in L1 is a strong predictor of their L2 outcomes (Goldenberg 2008). 

As far as instruction, research about specific practices for bilingual classrooms is relatively scarce. There 

is evidence that some effective practices for literacy instruction in English also work in other 

languages (Slavin et al. 2011), and that effective instructional practices for ESL classrooms are also 

useful for the non-L1 instruction in bilingual approaches (Proctor et al. 2009; Fung, Wilkinson, and 

Moore 2003; Vaughn et al. 2006; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003). For instruction delivered in English in 

bilingual programs, the findings about effective instructional practices for the ESL approach apply. 

Bilingual programs that are discussed in the literature are generally intended for elementary school ELs; 

literature on all three models (TBE, DBE, and TWI) described them as designed to begin in kindergarten 

or first grade and provide bilingual education through, on average, third or fourth grade (TBE); fifth or 

sixth grade (DBE); or as high as eighth grade, even high school, for TWI programs. 
xxi 

Bilingual Approach 

•

•

•

•

•

Two meta-analytic research syntheses (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006), one 

expert’s analysis of these syntheses (Goldenberg 2008) and one large-scale descriptive study 

(Thomas and Collier 2002) found that students who receive L1 instruction go on to reach the 

same or higher levels of achievement in English as those who do not. These syntheses also 

found that L1 language skills play a positive role in the development and acquisition of L2 

language skills (Genesee et al. 2006; August and Shanahan 2008). One descriptive study also 

found evidence for transfer of academic language skills from students’ L1 to L2 (LaijaRodriguez, Ochoa, and Parker 2006). 

Models under the bilingual approach differ primarily by the extent to which they incorporate 

students’ L1 into instruction—some models use L1 to support and scaffold students’ 

development of English, and then gradually phase it out; others pursue full bilingualism and 

biliteracy as program goals (Bahamonde and Friend 1999). 

At least two research syntheses (Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; August and Shanahan 2008), 

one large-scale descriptive study (Thomas and Collier 2002) and one large-scale quasiexperimental study (Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991) have found that, with L1 instruction, more 

is better—bilingual programs with extended instruction in students’ L1 over time appear to 

result in better outcomes. 

Models under the bilingual approach can and should still employ ESL best practices or 

techniques for the portion of their instructional program that is delivered in English. When 

implementing models under the bilingual approach, teachers essentially employ bilingual 

instruction for some aspects of their programs in addition to ESL instruction for the other 

portions; effective strategies used in bilingual programs could also be used in ESL programs 

(Proctor et al. 2009; Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 2003; Vaughn et al. 2006; Linan-Thompson et 

al. 2003).

Although models under the bilingual approach could potentially be appropriate for older ELs 

based on the models’ potential to leverage students’ L1 skills, this review found only two 

examples of a bilingual program that was designed for students to enter later than first grade 

(Howard and Christian 2002; Freeman 2000). All other examples in the reviewed literature were 

designed for students to begin in kindergarten or first grade and did not suggest in their language 

that it was possible for students to enter the program after first grade (Genesee 1999; Christian 

et al. 1997; Gersten and Woodward 1995; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; Bahamonde and 

Friend 1999; Saunders 1999; Slavin et al. 2011; Montone and Loeb 2000; Bearse and de Jong 

2008; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001; DeJesus 2008). 
xxii 

General Emergent Themes

From the literature examined, the following 12 themes about LIEP design, implementation and 

evaluation emerged: 

1. High Standards and Challenging Content Are Good for ELs 

Various authors (Henze and Lucas 1993; Collier and Thomas 1997; Minaya-Rowe 2004; August and 

Pease-Alvarez 1996; Ray 2009) found or argued based on research that ELs benefit from being held to 

high expectations and challenging content and achievement standards. Callahan (2005), for example, 

found that the classes into which an EL is placed are a greater predictor of the child’s ultimate academic 

outcomes than linguistic proficiency, suggesting that reducing the rigor or substance of content 

instruction does not help, and may ultimately hurt, ELs’ academic achievement. While it is important 

that ELs receive instruction that is tailored to their language-based needs, this finding suggests that it is 

equally important that ELs not be held to lower academic standards as they build their linguistic 

proficiency. This finding also suggests, in combination with theme 7 (“ELs need instruction that is 

specifically cognizant of their needs as second-language learners”), that teachers who provide ELs with 

content instruction should be equally prepared to deliver challenging content instruction and to address 

ELs’ linguistic needs as they do so. 

2. Having a LIEP Is Important 

One descriptive study and three research reviews found that providing any kind of special program or 

instruction for ELs is better for these students than not providing any special services (Goldenberg 2008; 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Thomas and Collier 2002; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001). Simply 

placing ELs in the general program and treating them like English speakers is not likely to help these 

students overcome the barriers they face. 

3. No One Approach or Model Is Appropriate for All ELs 

Reviewers found examples in the literature of high-quality programs (usually defined by students’ 

performance on academic content assessments) based on all the reviewed models, at all grade levels and 

all over the United States (Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 2006; Boyson and Short 

2003; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; Howard and Christian 2002; August and Pease-Alvarez 

1996; Genesee 1999). Factors such as state law, population characteristics and availability of funding or 

resources may be the more immediate factors that drive a school district’s choice of program, and it may 

be the case that certain models are more or less practical for different EL subgroups based on factors 

such as age, formal education background or L1 literacy. 

4. Instructional Practices Are Important Variables in LIEP Design and Implementation

Irby et al. (2010) found via a large-scale quasi-experimental study that students who participated in 

“enhanced” TBE or SEI programs (“enhanced” due to the use of specific PD, class structure and 

instructional practices) performed better on reading measures than students who participated in typical 

programs following either model. And Slavin et al. (2011) found via large-scale experimental research 

that students enrolled in programs using the same instructional practices and reading curriculum in 

English (through an SEI program) or Spanish (through a TBE program) reached comparable levels of 

performance on English reading measures, suggesting that the instructional practices mattered more than 

the model. From an implementation standpoint, these findings suggest that, while their choice of model 

is still important, practitioners may be better served by focusing their energies on identifying and 
xxiii 

implementing effective instructional practices within that model, as these may play a more important role 

in a LIEP’s quality than the model itself. 

5. Literacy and Oral Language Development in English Are Critical Instructional 

Components for Any LIEP 

The reviewed literature repeatedly emphasized native language literacy and English oral language as 

important, noting that these factors transcended any particular approach or model. Two large-scale 

research syntheses (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006) found that oral language proficiency 

in L1 appears to facilitate literacy in L2, and multiple research studies argued or studied the effects of 

instruction designed to develop proficiency in these areas (Dalton 1998; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 

2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Garcia 1991; Gersten et al. 2007; Knight and Wiseman 2006; 

Rubinstein-Avila 2003; Saunders et al. 1999; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Young 1996). Experts 

recommended, based on extensive research reviews, that incorporating oral language practice and 

development into the structure of any LIEP seems likely to help ELs develop L2 literacy (Saunders and 

O’Brien 2006; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). Oral language was also found to play a potentially 

important role in the development of academic language specifically (Anstrom et al. 2010); see theme 11.

6. Academic Language Seems To Be Important in EL Instruction 

Many experts have argued or found evidence for a conceptually distinct linguistic register3

7. ELs Need Instruction That Is Specifically Cognizant of Their Needs as SecondLanguage Learners 

 that is specific 

to the school setting (Cummins 1979a; Cummins 1980; Belcher 2006; Scarcella 2003a; Bailey 2007). This 

register, most commonly referred to as academic language, academic English or academic English 

language, is distinct enough from social language that ELs may need special instruction to ensure that 

they acquire it. Preliminary descriptive research suggests that, like their non-EL counterparts, English 

learners must be proficient in this kind of language in order to meet grade-level standards in content 

areas and on assessments (Bailey, Butler, and Sato 2007; Bailey, Butler, Stevens et al. 2007; Stevens, 

Butler and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Butler and Castellon-Wellington 2000). 

In addition to using high-quality general instructional practices, teachers may serve ELs better if they 

understand and adopt instructional practices that are cognizant of these students’ specific needs 

(Goldenberg 2008). Preliminary research on such practices suggests benefits for ELs, as well as increased 

confidence and competency for teachers (Aguirre-Munoz et al. 2001; Echevarria, Powers, and Short 

2006; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003; Vaughn et al. 2006; Young 1996). While some studies have found 

that general instructional practices show promise for improving outcomes for all students, ELs and nonELs alike (D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004; Lee et al. 2008; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007), these 

practices, while promising, do not pledge to close the existing gaps between ELs and their Englishspeaking peers. At least one study also found that the effects of such “high-quality practices” may be 

smaller for ELs than for non-ELs (O’Day 2009). 

8. Teachers Need To Be Prepared to Teach ELs 

Multiple authors found or argued that EL-specific practices and preparation may be more promising for 

improving ELs’ achievement than general best practices for all students (Short and Echevarria 1999; 

Graves, Gersten, and Haager 2004; Garcia 1991; Ray 2009). In today’s academic world, any teacher in 

 

3 In sociolinguistics, a “register” refers to specific forms, patterns and linguistic devices whose use is dictated by the 

discourse setting, purpose or both. 
xxiv 

any state at any grade level in any subject may have one or more ELs in his or her classroom. As such, all 

teachers should be prepared with a basic understanding of who ELs are, how SLA may work and what 

practices will help these students to succeed academically. This knowledge may make a nontrivial 

difference in these students’ chances at success. Multiple experts argued that this preparation should 

begin in preservice training and carry through teachers’ careers as an ongoing professional development 

process lez and Darling-Hammond 1997; Minaya-Rowe 

2004). 

9. Newcomer Models Are a Programmatic Option That School Districts May Use to Meet 

the Needs of Newly Identified ELs at the Secondary Level

ELs who enter the American school system at the secondary level with limited literacy in their native 

language and with interrupted formal education face unique challenges based on the fact that the 

language demands of secondary classrooms are likely to be significantly greater than those for lower 

grade levels (Anstrom et al. 2010). When executed as actual programs, newcomer models are designed to 

help orient and prepare newcomer ELs with limited literacy in their L1 and interrupted formal education 

by providing targeted or intensive instruction to build foundational skills to get these students ready to 

enter into a district’s or school’s regular LIEP. As of a 2003 study by Boyson and Short, the most 

common configuration for a newcomer program was for it to last one school year and operate at 

students’ home schools as a full-day program. There are, however, many variations on this model, as well 

as variations in how newcomer students are defined and identified. It should be noted that 

implementation of this model typically does not include instructional goals that meet the legislative 

definition of a LIEP. Nonetheless, the model is often part of a crucial pathway for entering recently 

immigrated students into a district’s or school’s regular LIEP. As such, this model has been included in 

this study to ensure a holistic depiction of how districts serve ELs. 

10. ELs’ Scores on Academic Content Assessments Should Be Interpreted With Great 

Care 

The reviewed literature suggests that ELs’ scores on academic content assessments may not always be 

representative of these students’ actual content skills and knowledge. Research on accommodations for 

ELs suggests that, at best, many commonly used accommodations may be minimally effective for ELs. 

At worst, research suggests that these accommodations are inappropriate for ELs and may even hinder 

their performance (Rivera and Stansfield 2001; Rivera and Collum 2004; Willner, Rivera, and Acosta 

2008; Willner, Rivera, and Acosta 2009). Further, while English language proficiency assessments 

(ELPAs) are improving in terms of their capacity to measure the academic language used in content 

classrooms, early studies found that these assessments did not always measure the kind of language 

necessary to fully engage with the content assessments, let alone to provide adequate responses (Abedi 

2004; Abedi 2001; Butler and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 

2000). In states where this is true, this could mean that even former ELs may continue to face barriers to 

showing their knowledge on academic content assessments in English. Based on these uncertainties, 

practitioners and policy makers should interpret ELs’ content assessment scores with care, particularly 

when making placement or redesignation decisions (Ragan and Lesaux 2006; Linquanti 2001; Stevens, 

Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000). Practitioners should also ensure that the cut scores on their 

ELPAs are set appropriately, such that students who earn a proficient score truly have the necessary 

language skills to participate in and engage with academic content assessments in English. 
xxv 

11. Current Assessments May Not Be Sufficient Measures of the Linguistic Proficiency 

Necessary to Support Success in Mainstream Content Classrooms 

Although efforts are currently under way to develop a new generation of ELPAs that focus more closely 

on academic language skills, research suggests that at least some ELPAs in current or recent use do not 

use or measure language that is sufficiently complex to be representative of grade-level demands (Butler 

and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Bailey, Butler, and Sato 

2007; Abedi 2001). Although a 2006 survey found that eight of the 10 states that enroll more than 80 

percent of the nation’s ELs4

12. Culture and Community Matter 

 use additional measures to determine whether ELs who score “proficient” 

on the ELPA will also exit the LEP subgroup and stop receiving services (Ragan and Lesaux 2006), it is 

still important that ELPAs measure the kinds of language skills that students will need to succeed 

unsupported in classes where instruction is delivered in English. This concern is greater in states that use 

ELPA performance as the sole criterion for exit from the LEP subgroup under Title I. Students in such 

states may languish in mainstream classes without the language support they still need, and may never 

reach grade-level standards due to continuing language struggles that are no longer being addressed 

(Linquanti 2001; Bailey, Butler, Stevens et al. 2007; Bailey and Butler 2007; Gandara and Merino 1993; 

Parrish et al. 2006).

Although empirical research has not proven a relationship between culture and student outcomes 

(August and Shanahan 2006), literature reviewed about programs across the country has found 

repeatedly that they share the common characteristic of a strong and intentional community of respect 

and acceptance, both within and beyond the school (Berman et al. 2000; Lucas 1993; Necochea and 

Cline 2000; Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007). Descriptive evidence 

also suggests that cultural atmosphere can make a difference in student outcomes (Collier and Thomas 

1997). Therefore, it appears that a school’s attitudes and atmosphere about ELs, their languages and their 

cultures are important considerations in program design, implementation and evaluation. School districts 

that view other languages and cultures as valuable assets, rather than problematic obstacles, create 

positive environments in which ELs may thrive and achieve. Parent involvement was frequently named 

as an important feature of program design, particularly for ELs who are recent immigrants (Genesee 

1999; Boyson and Short 2003; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996).

 

4 As of 2006: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York 

and Texas (Ragan and Lesaux 2006).

1 

Introduction

Project Purpose and Description

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education contracted with Synergy Enterprises, Inc. and edCount, LLC 

to complete a study titled Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): Lessons from the 

Research and Profiles of Promising Programs. By the Department’s design, this study includes a review 

of the foundational literature related to LIEPs, case studies of 20 school districts with well-designed and 

well-implemented LIEPs, and a Lessons from the Field guide that integrates findings from the literature 

review and the case studies and provides practical information for local educators on selecting, designing, 

implementing and evaluating LIEPs. 

This literature review is intended to lay a foundation for the LIEP study. Its goal is to provide literaturebased summaries for a range of topics that may factor into LIEPs’ design and function, and to support 

school districts in their decisions about how to choose appropriate LIEPs for their students’ needs. The 

review summarizes critical ideas, findings, concepts, debates and practices that populate the literature on 

LIEP design, implementation and evaluation at present. 

This literature review focuses on LIEPs in general, not specifically those supported by Title III funding, 

and includes research on programs that may not have been funded by Title III. It is intended for any 

audience that may benefit from information about LIEP implementation and evaluation. 

It is important to note that this review is not a meta-analytic one about program efficacy or outcomes, 

nor an effort to determine which LIEP(s) is (are) “best.” It cannot promise that certain programs 

definitively work, or guarantee specific outcomes, and, due to the nature of the literature and the field, 

does not support definite conclusions about program quality or efficacy. There simply are not enough 

experimental and quasi-experimental studies to sustain a comprehensive, outcome-oriented discussion 

about all the review topics. Thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about outcomes or 

effectiveness for any of these topics. 

Rather, both the LIEP study and this literature review focus on implementation. One goal is to provide a 

description of key elements and components of the different types of LIEPs, both in theory and, to the 

degree that it can be determined from the research, in practice. Equally, this review aims to provide 

practitioners with indicators to consider when evaluating how well their programs are functioning and 

meeting ELs needs. 

Readers should also note that this review is not, in itself, meant to guide practitioners through the 

implementation process. Rather, it provides information about the current general shape of the 

discussion and directs readers toward resources that may assist them in the implementation process. The 

forthcoming Lessons from the Field guide will provide more information about practices observed in the 

field and how-to’s for the implementation and evaluation processes. 

Context

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, currently reauthorized as the No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, provides that Title III’s first purpose is to “ensure that children who are 

limited English proficient, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency, develop 

high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state academic content and 

student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet” (ESEA Section 3102(1)). 
2 

One of Title III’s specific additional purposes is “to develop high-quality language instruction 

educational programs designed to assist state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies 

(LEAs), and schools in teaching limited English proficient children and serving immigrant children and 

youth” (ESEA Section 3102(3)). 

Throughout this review, these students are referred to as ELs, as is the subgroup of students that the 

Department refers to as limited English proficient (LEP), defined as the following: 

According to Section 9101(25) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, an LEP 

student is an individual: 

(A) who is aged 3 through 21; 

(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school; 

(C) (i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than 

English; 

(ii) (I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and 

(II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a 

significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; or 

(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes 

from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and 

(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be 

sufficient to deny the individual— 

(i) the ability to meet the state’s proficient level of achievement on state assessments described 

in 1111(b)(3); 

(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; 

or 

(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. 

As of 2010, the 4.6 million ELs enrolled in the American school system represent approximately 10 

percent of the entire K–12 population and range from 1 percent to 29 percent of individual states’ 

student populations (National Center for Education Statistics 2011).Within the national EL population, 

diversity is a defining characteristic, as ELs are a remarkably heterogeneous group. An EL may be any 

age, come from any socioeconomic background, be native or foreign born to the United States, have a 

native language (L1) from among hundreds of represented languages in the United States, and enroll in 

school with any level of prior education. Although 68.5 percent of the nation’s ELs are Latino or Latina, 

the population as a whole comprises a remarkable diversity of languages, ethnicities and countries of 

origin—ELs may come from literally anywhere, including the United States itself (Editorial Projects in 

Education 2009). 

Indicators of academic success and progress suggest that ELs are struggling in their academic education. 

On the 2009 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), for example, more than 70 percent of 

all fourth- and eighth-grade ELs scored below Basic in reading and math, with the exception of fourthgrade math, in which 43 percent of ELs scored below Basic (National Center for Education Statistics 

2009a; National Center for Education Statistics 2009b). Almost across the board, 2009 figures represent 
3 

decreases in EL performance from the test’s 2007 administration. Further, many ELs are still excluded 

from NAEP participation (by their state or school district), which could mean that the least proficient 

ELs likely are not contributing to these already low numbers. 

The same trend in EL performance can also be seen on state assessments. For the 2008–09 school year, 

for example, in each of the five states with the highest EL student populations (as of 2011: California, 

Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois), between 29 percent and 49 percent fewer ELs scored at or above 

the proficient level on their state English language arts tests in grade 6 than their grade-level, English 

proficient peers (Center on Education Policy 2010). Despite different definitions for limited English 

proficiency and different tests across states, ELs consistently fare worse on tests of academic 

achievement than peers who have never been ELs. 

To some degree, this evidence of struggles at the student level may be indicative of struggles at the 

school district level. The end of the 2010–11 school year will mark the ninth year in which NCLB has 

served as the nation’s primary education policy, yet many questions remain unanswered about how best 

to serve ELs, even as school districts across the country attempt to do so every day. For many school 

districts, NCLB marked their first introduction to EL services and program design, and resources on 

how to serve ELs effectively may have been relatively scarce. 

Clarification of Terms

Clarified below are a number of key terms used throughout this report. 

What Is a LIEP?

An important first step in this effort is to clarify the meaning of “language instruction educational 

programs.” In Castañeda v. Pickard, 468F.2d (1981), the Court held that in educating EL students, school 

districts should adhere to the following principles:5

1. “[The] school system is pursuing a program informed by an educational theory recognized as 

sound by some experts in the field or, at least, deemed a legitimate experimental strategy”; 

 

2. “The programs and practices actually used by [the] school system are reasonably calculated to 

implement effectively the educational theory adopted by the school”; and 

3. “If a school’s program, although premised on a legitimate educational theory and implemented 

through the use of adequate techniques, fails, after being employed for a period of time 

sufficient to give the plan a legitimate trial, to produce results indicating that the language 

barriers confronting students are actually being overcome, that program may, at that point, no 

longer constitute appropriate action as far as that school is concerned.” 

 

5 The Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) policy with respect to national origin minority group students with 

limited English proficiency is broadly consistent with the principles articulated by the 5th Circuit in Castaneda v. Pickard, 

648 F.2d 989 (1981), referred to in this document as the “Castaneda principles.” However, this document is not 

intended to provide policy or guidance with respect to the legal requirements for compliance with Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. For information with respect to Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, please consult OCR (see www.ed.gov/ocr ) or the U.S. Department of Justice’s Educational 

Opportunities Section for information with respect to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (see 

www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/ ).
4 

The subset of states and school districts that receive funding through the Title III program within ESEA

face additional program requirements. Recipients of Title III funds must “develop high-quality language 

instruction educational programs designed to assist state educational agencies (SEA), local educational 

agencies (LEA), and schools in teaching LEP children and serving immigrant children and youth” 

(Section 3102(3)). ESEA specifically defines a LIEP as follows (Section 3301): 

(8) The term ‘language instruction educational program’ means an instruction course— 

(A) in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and 

attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging state academic content and student 

academic achievement standards, as required by section 1111(b)(1); and 

(B) that may make instructional use of both English and a child’s L1 to enable the child to 

develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English 

proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become 

proficient in English and a second language (L2). 

Two important points emerge from the ESEA definition: first, as clause (A) makes clear, LIEPs must 

treat second-language acquisition and academic content achievement as concurrent, rather than 

sequential, goals. Although a LIEP need not itself provide content instruction, it will not satisfy the 

Title III definition if it provides language instruction in a way that postpones opportunities for content 

learning and achievement. Second, through clause (B) the law explicitly remains neutral on the debate 

surrounding L1 instruction, allowing states and school districts to make their own judgments about how 

best to design and deliver instruction and populate classrooms. Accountability structures in Title III also 

highlight the necessity of program evaluation; LIEPs that do not meet program goals within a specified 

amount of time risk losing funds if they do not implement changes or improvement plans. 

ESEA guidelines suggest, and as many practitioners and researchers already know, the definition for a 

LIEP is broad and flexible; the matter of exactly how a given program meets the applicable requirements 

may vary from site to site based on a number of logistical factors. The Department annually collects 

information from states about their LIEPs via consolidated state performance reports (CSPRs), which 

list 10 models that were most commonly reported in the State Title III Biennial Report and an openended “other” option. The Department does not endorse any particular model by listing them. These 

models, as listed on the CSPR,6

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Bilingual; 

 are 

Transition bilingual; 

Two-way immersion (TWI); 

Developmental bilingual; 

Heritage language; 

Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE); 

Sheltered English instruction; 

Structured English immersion (SEI); 

Content-based English as a second language (ESL); and

Pull-out ESL.

 

6 From question 1.6.1 on Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs), 

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/csprpart10910.doc. 
5 

In addition, states may respond with an “Other” option and describe their program. Common responses 

for the 2007–08 CSPRs (some of which represent teaching configurations or program structure, rather 

than fully formed LIEPs) included the following: 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Push-in ESL; 

Newcomer centers; 

Coteaching;

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP); 

ESL as a content course in the school day; and 

Extended instruction time (i.e., before school, after school, Saturday school, summer school). 

Not all of the responses necessarily represent a fully formed LIEP; there may also be LIEP types or 

configurations that are not represented on this list. In addition, no definitions for these terms are 

provided on the CSPR, which means that different states may report using the same model despite 

significant differences in their implemented programs. 

Additional Terms

This literature review uses the following operational definitions for key terms: 

1. An approach is a broad, conceptual framework. Two approaches, “English as a second language 

(ESL)” and “bilingual,” vary primarily in terms of their use (or non-use) of an L1. Various models 

are subsumed under each approach. 

•

•

As its name implies, the ESL approach focuses on instruction in English as the primary means 

to help ELs acquire the language and ultimately meet high academic standards. Students learn 

and are taught in English exclusively or primarily—certain instructional materials or instructional 

techniques may make use of basic L1 vocabulary, but only as a means to support the students’ 

use of English. Models that follow the ESL approach may include both language instruction,

wherein English language is the instructional content itself, or content-based instruction, in 

which academic content is the object of instruction, but delivered in such a way as to also 

support ELs’ acquisition of English. 

The bilingual approach to educating ELs is built on the increasing body of research indicating 

that L1 skills contribute positively to students’ acquisition of a second language (L2), and that L1 

instruction does appear to promote gains in English achievement (Thomas and Collier 2002; 

August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 

1991). The bilingual approach is based on the understanding that instruction in students’ L1 will 

help them to meet the goals of attaining English proficiency and meeting high academic 

achievement standards. Beyond this common trait, bilingual models vary in their details and 

orientation—some see L1 development as an important goal in itself, while others see it as a 

scaffold or stepping-stone to English fluency. 

2. A model is a specific set of instructional services or a fully developed curriculum designed to help 

ELs acquire English proficiency and meet high academic standards. It comprises a set of 

characteristics, principles and practices that have been developed based on theory and research, and 

serves as a rough blueprint that classrooms, schools and school districts may follow as an 

implementation guide. More detailed descriptions of the models listed below can be found in the 

“Models and Considerations for LIEP Design” section of this document. This review discusses 
6 

several different types of models that are in use across the United States. Exhibit 3 provides brief 

descriptions of the elements that define these models; Exhibit 4 provides a comparison of 

instructional traits across the models.
Exhibit 3. Definitions of models for language instruction educational programs

Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables

English as a 

second language 

(ESL) 

instruction 

English language 

development 

(ELD) 

English for 

speakers of other 

languages 

(ESOL) 

ESL-certified teachera provides 

explicit language instruction to 

students. Instruction focuses on 

development of proficiency in 

the English language, including 

grammar, vocabulary and 

communication skills. 

ESL Proficiency in 

English 

Class format—Students may have a 

dedicated ESL class in their school 

day, or may receive pull-out ESL 

instruction wherein they work with a 

specialist for short periods during 

other classes. 

Content-based 

ESL 

None ESL-certified teacher provides 

language instruction that uses 

content as a medium for 

building language skills. 

Although using content as a 

means, instruction is still 

focused primarily on learning 

English. 

ESL Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Class format—Students may have a 

dedicated ESL class in their school 

day, or may receive pull-out ESL 

instruction wherein they work with a 

specialist for short periods during 

other classes. 7
Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables 

Sheltered 

instruction (SI) 

Specially 

designed 

academic 

instruction in 

English (SDAIE) 

The Sheltered 

Instruction 

Observation 

Protocol (SIOP) 

is a specific 

version of the SI 

model with a 

considerable 

research base and 

specific strategies 

associated with it. 

Teacher provides instruction 

that simultaneously introduces 

both language and content, 

using specialized techniques to 

accommodate ELs’ linguistic 

needs. Instruction focuses on 

the teaching of academic 

content rather than the English 

language itself, even though the 

acquisition of English may be 

one of the instructional goals. 

ESL Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Class population—SI may be used 

for EL-only classrooms or for mixed 

classrooms with ELs and non-ELs. 

Instructor—Instruction is likely to 

be delivered by a general education 

teacher but may be delivered by an 

ESL-certified teacher. 

Transitional 

bilingual 

education (TBE) 

Early-exit 

bilingual 

Students begin in grade K or 1 

by receiving instruction all or 

mostly in their L1, and 

transition incrementally over to 

English. 

Typically, transition to all 

English is complete by mid- to 

late elementary school. 

L1 is used to leverage L2 

acquisition, but L1 proficiency 

is not a program goal. 

Bilingual Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Balance of L1 and L2—Some TBE 

programs begin with L1 exclusively; 

others begin with a majority of L1 

and use some L2. The division of the 

languages across instructional time 

and content areas may vary from 

program to program. 

Exit point—Typically, students 

complete their transition by around 

grade 3, but may exit as early as 

grade 2 or as late as grade 5. 

8
Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables 

Developmental 

bilingual 

education 

(DBE) 

Late-exit 

bilingual 

Maintenance 

bilingual 

Students begin in grade K or 1 

by receiving instruction all or 

mostly in their L1, and 

transition incrementally over to 

English. 

Regardless of when or whether 

students attain proficiency in 

English, the program is 

designed to keep them enrolled 

through its completion 

(typically, the end of elementary 

school), using a 50-50 language 

balance through the end. 

Bilingual Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Bilingualism and 

biliteracy 

Balance of L1 and L2—Programs 

follow either a 50-50 model or a 90-

10 model (which ultimately 

transitions to 50-50). Programs may 

balance languages by dividing 

instructional time according to 

content area, class period, instructor, 

week, unit or semester. 

Instructor(s)—Teachers may be 

bilingual, or teachers who teach in 

English may use sheltered 

instruction techniques to make their 

instruction accessible for ELs. 

Two-way 

immersion 

(TWI) 

Dual immersion ELs and non-ELs receive 

instruction in English and a 

non-English language. 

Bilingual Preparation to 

meet academic 

achievement 

standards 

Proficiency in 

English 

Bilingualism and 

biliteracy 

Biculturalism 

Balance of L1 and L2—Programs 

follow either a 50-50 model or a 90-

10 model (which ultimately 

transitions to 50-50). Programs may 

balance languages by dividing 

instructional time according to 

content area, class period, instructor, 

week or unit. 

Instructor(s)—Teachers may be 

bilingual, or teachers who teach in 

English may use sheltered 

instruction techniques to make their 

instruction accessible for ELs. 

9
Model Alternate names Description Approach Goals Key design variables 

Newcomer b Newcomer 

center 

ELs who are recent immigrants 

and typically have low literacy 

and are new to formal education 

settings receive specialized 

schooling designed to acclimate 

them to the American school 

setting and prepare them to 

participate in mainstream 

classes. 

ESL or 

bilingual 

Preparation to 

participate in 

regular LIEP 

offerings 

Build 

foundational 

skills in content 

areas (basic 

literacy, math 

concepts, etc.) 

Program length—Newcomer 

programs may last anywhere from a 

semester to 4 years. 

Program design—Newcomer 

programs may range from a half-day, 

in-school program to a full-time, 

self-contained school. 

Target population—Newcomer 

programs target a specific 

subpopulation such as recent 

immigrant students with interrupted 

formal education. 

Instructional content—Typically, 

newcomer programs will offer both 

language instruction and content 

instruction. Also, they may include 

instruction designed to familiarize 

newcomers with American culture 

and educational settings. 

Note: For more detailed information about the models, please refer to the “Models and Considerations for LIEP Design” section of this 

document. For a list of references to support this exhibit, please refer to “Exhibit 9. Key articles for models and considerations for LIEP design.” 

a Note: As used here, “ESL-certified teacher” means a teacher with some sort of license, credential or certification to provide English language 

instruction to second-language learners. Different states and districts may use different naming conventions to refer to this kind of instructor. 

b Newcomer models tend to prepare students for participation in a regular LIEP rather than serve as a LIEP according to the legislative 

definition of language instruction educational programs. While implementation of this model typically does not include instructional goals that 

meet the legislative definition of a LIEP, the model is often part of a crucial pathway for entering recently immigrated students into a district’s or 

school’s regular LIEP. As such, this model has been included in this study to ensure a holistic depiction of how districts serve ELs. 

10
11 

Exhibit 4. Summary comparison of instructional traits across different language instruction 

educational program models

ESL Approach Bilingual Approach

Model Trait ESL

ContentBased 

ESL SI TBE DBE TWI Newcomer

ELs and non-ELs 

receive instruction 

together. No No Yes No No Yes No 

Certified ESL 

instructor is primary 

teacher. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Maybe Yes 

Language and content 

goals are integrated. No Yes Yes Maybe Maybe Maybe No 

Bilingualism and 

biliteracy are program 

goals. No No No No Yes Yes No 

Requires teachers 

who are fluent in 

students’ L1. No No No Yes Yes Yes No 

Implemented for 

specific grade levels. No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Compatible with 

(other) ESL models. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Note: ESL = English as a second language; SI = sheltered instruction; TBE = transitional bilingual 

education; DBE = developmental bilingual education; TWI = two-way immersion. 

3. Instructional practices are specific classroom-level practices that teachers may apply to support 

students’ learning and comprehension. They are more detailed than models, but also narrower; they 

may refer, for example, to specific techniques for structuring a lesson or developing a certain skill. 

13 

Methodology

Research Questions 

Six substantive areas were identified as critical to fully understanding the foundations of LIEPs. 

Reviewers treated these topics as transcendent across approaches, and sought to develop general 

knowledge for each, as well as any approach-specific considerations that emerged in the literature. 

These areas, and the research questions associated with each, are as follows: 

1. Theories of Second-Language Acquisition (SLA) 

How is second-language acquisition (SLA) theorized to occur, and how can or should this process 

inform or influence instruction or program design?

2. The Construct of Academic English Language 

What is academic English language, and why does it matter? How can instructors support and encourage 

ELs to acquire and use academic language?

3. Models and Considerations for LIEP Design 

What are the characteristics of different models, and how can or should these be actualized in 

implementation? What characteristics of a model may be variable, and which are critical to its success?

4. Instructional Practices and Professional Development (PD) 

What specific practices and protocols can teachers adopt during their class instruction to support ELs’ 

acquisition of English or mastery of academic content? What are the content and components of 

promising PD for teachers in LIEPs? How should PD be implemented and evaluated? 

5. School District, School and Community Culture 

What contextual and environmental factors in a school district, school or community may impact a 

LIEP’s ability to meet the requirements of Title III? What cultural and demographic factors in a school 

district, school or community are important to consider in implementing a LIEP?

6. Indicators and Evaluation of Success 

What indicators might reflect whether a LIEP has been implemented successfully? How might these 

indicators vary in the initiation, scaling and maintenance phases? What indicators would reflect 

effectiveness of the LIEP in terms of its own stated goals? 

Limits of this review. This literature review is not limited to experimental and quasi-experimental 

research studies only. The reasons for this decision were manifold. First, as stated previously, the goal for 

the LIEP study is not to rank or compare different models according to outcomes or efficacy; rather, the 

goal is to provide a summary of the available literature as it pertains to program theory, design and 

implementation. While data about model efficacy can play a role within this framework, it is not 

ultimately the sole factor to consider, and to focus on it exclusively would not provide an accurate 
14 

portrayal of the field. Indeed, many models lack any experimental research evidence in support or 

refutation of their design. 

Initial inclusion protocol. To gather texts (e.g., articles, books, reports and syntheses) for each of the 

review categories, reviewers conducted a variety of keyword searches on major academic databases such 

as JSTOR, PsycINFO, EBSCO and ProQuest. Search terms included stand-alone phrases such as 

“English language development” and “language instruction educational programs,” as well as Boolean 

composite search phrases such as “professional development and English learner” and “bilingual and 

program and English learner.” Readers may find a full list of search terms in Appendix A, as well as a 

matrix showing which articles were returned by each term. 

Because this literature review was intended to be descriptive in nature and was not a meta-analysis, 

reviewers used broad inclusion criteria in an effort to provide readers with a full representation of the 

available literature. For initial inclusion, selection criteria focused on authorship, publication date and 

publication vehicle; articles needed to have been published in the past 20 years7

Department personnel, project contractors and some expert panelists submitted additional texts for the 

initial review list. These additions tended to fall into one or more of three categories: (1) seminal articles 

or research studies that are critically important to their field (often, these fell outside of the 20-year cutoff); (2) additional texts for review categories that had not yielded a large pool of search hits (the 20-year 

cut-off was initially waived for these suggestions as well); and (3) very recent works that may not have 

garnered significant attention as yet, but that experts in the field consider important or promising. 

 (1990 or later), either in 

peer-reviewed journals, as publications of major research organizations (e.g., the American Institutes for

Research), as outputs of federally funded research centers (e.g., Center for Research on Education, 

Diversity and Excellence; Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; Center for 

Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk; Center for Research on the Educational 

Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners), or as publications of the Institute of 

Education Sciences and its associated Regional Educational Laboratories. 

By following these protocols, reviewers generated an initial list of more than 200 candidate texts for 

inclusion in the literature review. Four reviewers then read through these to determine which would be 

included in the final discussion. As they read, all reviewers used a Microsoft Access database entry form 

that captured information about a variety of topics, including the research question(s) to which the article 

pertained, the program type(s) it referenced, the grade level(s) to which it applied and a summary of key 

findings, conclusions or observations. Reviewers were required to provide a rationale for including or 

excluding each article from the final list, according to the predetermined inclusion criteria. The articles 

included here represent a range of voices and orientations toward LIEPs, EL instruction and other 

related topics. 

Final inclusion protocol. Ultimately, the vast majority of the articles returned by the search protocols 

and recommendations (173 out of 210) are included in this review. A Microsoft Access data base was 

created to document each article that was extracted in the search protocol. Information was gathered on 

the article, authorship and connection with the literature review topics. Articles were excluded only if 

they did not speak directly to one of the literature review topics, if they had strong tones of advocacy or 

bias, or if they made claims about efficacy or effectiveness without providing research to support such 

 

7 Although there have been significant changes in the political and philosophical landscapes regarding EL education 

since the implementation of NCLB in 2002, reviewers determined that limiting this review to only NCLB-era articles 

would ultimately provide an incomplete representation of the available research.
15 

claims. Reviewers used slightly different criteria to assess these conditions, depending on the nature of 

the article; these conditions are detailed in Exhibit 5. 

Because of the descriptive nature of this literature review, the goal was to include any and all literature 

that might be relevant to the topics at hand. Nonetheless, readers should note that while reviewers 

sought to include as wide a sample of the literature as possible, this review is not exhaustive. 
Exhibit 5. Criteria for including different kinds of literature in the LIEP literature review

Description Benefits of inclusion Inclusion or exclusion criteria 

Literature reviews and research syntheses 

Articles that summarize 

or analyze available 

literature or research on 

a given topic. 

Literature reviews provide a 

synthesis and summary of what 

has been said or studied and what 

(if anything) may be concluded 

safely about a given topic. These 

reviews may be descriptive,

providing a summary of the 

available research and literature 

on a topic, or meta-analytic, 

providing calculations of efficacy 

or other quantifiable conclusions 

based on quantitative syntheses 

of findings across different 

studies. 

For initial inclusion: 

1. Topic: Any literature reviews that focused specifically on practices or 

programs for ELs were included, provided the literature review (not the 

studies it reviewed) met the date-range criteria for inclusion. 

For final inclusion: 

1. Methodology: Reviewers included all meta-analytic literature reviews that 

used clearly explained rationales and processes. 

2. Neutrality: Literature reviews that were not meta-analytic were included 

only if their treatment of the topic was purely descriptive and made no 

attempt to claim efficacy or superiority of one practice or program over 

another. 

3. Recency: Where reviewers found many reviews on the same topic (e.g., 

language of instruction), they opted to include the most recent one(s), since 

these included most of the same older articles, with more recent research 

included as a result of their more recent publication. 

16
Description Benefits of inclusion Inclusion or exclusion criteria 

Expert opinion based on research 

An expert (usually a 

researcher or a 

practitioner) provides a 

discussion of a topic, or 

advances a theory, based 

on demonstrated 

knowledge of the 

available research and 

underlying theory. 

Expert opinion can be 

particularly helpful for topics on 

which experimental research is 

relatively scarce. Experts may be 

in the best position to

(a) identify research needs; 

(b) identify technical challenges 

to studying or implementing 

programs related to a topic; and 

(c) propose or advance a theory 

to be tested, based on their 

knowledge of the issues. 

For initial inclusion: 

1. Author: Pieces were included if the author was a prominent figure in the 

field on which the piece comments, or 

2. Topic: Expert opinion pieces were included if they spoke to a topic on 

which reviewers found relatively little literature. 

For final inclusion:

1. Tone and neutrality: Expert opinion pieces were included if their 

arguments or recommendations were clearly research based (as evidenced 

by, for example, specific, explicit study citations to support statements). 

Articles with strong tones of advocacy or that focused on efficacy and 

effectiveness without data were excluded. 

2. Rationale and support: Articles that advanced theories were included if the 

theory was quoted or corroborated in other literature within the review, or if 

the theory was seminal or important enough to warrant inclusion based 

upon expert judgments (e.g., judgments rendered by the members of the 

study’s advisory panel). 

3. Availability of other literature on the topic: Expert opinion pieces were 

more likely to be included if they addressed topics on which other literature 

was relatively scarce. 

17
Description Benefits of inclusion Inclusion or exclusion criteria 

Descriptive studies 

These studies or reports 

describe in detail a reallife instance of a 

program, approach or 

strategy and its 

implementation. These 

studies may be 

descriptive only (e.g., an 

ethnographic study that 

describes a program in a 

particular school), or 

they may present and 

discuss descriptive data 

findings following 

implementation. 

Although descriptive studies 

cannot be read normatively, and 

are usually too specific to be 

generalizable, the anecdotal 

details they provide—particularly 

about resolving problems or 

circumnavigating obstacles—can 

be helpful both for practitioners 

(if they are implementing or 

planning to implement a similar 

program) and for researchers (if 

they wish to improve a model 

based on recurrent stumbling 

points experienced by school 

districts during implementation). 

Because this type of design lacks 

critical elements to ensure valid 

and sound findings, these results 

were not considered to be 

definitive evidence for or against 

an intervention’s efficacy or 

quality (rather, at best, as 

potential promise for continued, 

more rigorous research). 

For initial inclusion: 

1. Topic: Any descriptive studies that focused specifically on practices or 

programs for ELs were included, provided they met the date-range criteria 

for inclusion. 

For final inclusion: 

1. Neutrality: Studies that focused on implementation from a descriptive or 

ethnographic standpoint were included if they provided what appeared to be 

a neutral treatment of their subjects, rather than advocating for a model’s or 

program’s quality or superiority relative to others.

2. Detail: Preference was given to studies that provided in-depth descriptions 

and information about program implementation. Those that did not provide 

detail (e.g., “snapshot”-style program descriptions in some pieces) were not 

considered adequate as stand-alone descriptive studies.

3. Breadth and range of input: Articles that provided a comprehensive 

description of a program were preferred over pieces that included the 

opinions of only a few individuals.

4. Subpar quasi-experimental studies: Some studies that aimed to be quasiexperimental but did not meet design criteria were included if they provided 

useful information about implementation or instructional practices; they 

were, however, considered descriptive studies, and their results were not 

counted as evidence for outcome efficacy.

18
Description Benefits of inclusion Inclusion or exclusion criteria 

Quasi-experimental studies 

In these studies, 

treatment (intervention) 

and comparison groups 

are nonrandomly 

assigned, but are 

matched and controlled 

(often mathematically, as 

with regressions) to 

mitigate the potential for 

alternative explanations 

for any findings. 

Although quasi-experimental 

studies cannot, by design, 

completely rule out alternate 

explanations for findings, they 

may provide preliminary evidence 

to guide further research. 

For initial inclusion: 

1. Design: All studies about interventions, programs or practices for ELs that 

appeared to meet quasi-experimental design criteria were included. 

For final inclusion: 

1. Design: Reviewers scrutinized all literature that made the first cut to ensure 

that the study’s design did satisfy quasi-experimental design principles. 

When reviewers had reservations about design, quasi-experimental studies 

were included instead as descriptive studies.

Experimental studies 

These are randomized, 

controlled studies in 

which students, 

classrooms, schools, 

school districts or other 

comparable units (e.g., 

reading groups) are 

randomly assigned to an 

intervention or control 

group. 

Because of their design, which 

should serve to mitigate potential 

confounding variables or 

selection biases, experimental 

studies are considered the only 

true means of judging a 

program’s efficacy or 

effectiveness in terms of student 

or teacher outcomes. While this 

study does not aim to compare or 

rank different models or 

approaches, experimental studies 

are the best means by which to 

support claims that a certain 

approach, model or practice is 

“effective” for ELs in terms of 

facilitating certain outcomes. 

For initial inclusion: 

1. Design: Because there are so few experimental studies on the topics 

covered in this review, all candidates that met the date-range criterion were 

included. 

For final inclusion: 

1. Topic or focus: Experimental studies were included if they were designed 

so as to support drawing conclusions specifically about EL outcomes, or 

about EL-specific practices or interventions. 

19
20 

Challenges within the literature. As stated previously, there were not enough experimental or quasiexperimental studies to sustain a comprehensive discussion about all of the review topics that the 

reviewers and experts deemed important. Such a situation, while not unique to the study of LIEPs, is 

particularly acute in this area. Other authors who have attempted to compile literature reviews and 

research syntheses (August and Hakuta 1998; Genesee et al. 2006; Anstrom et al. 2010; August and 

Shanahan 2008; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010) also observed that well-designed and well-implemented 

research studies that are specific to ELs, or even that report on EL-specific outcomes as part of their 

overall findings, are far less common than studies on the general population. In a research synthesis that 

looked specifically at language of instruction, Slavin and Cheung (2005) provided a succinct discussion of 

the most common methodological flaws that undermine studies’ credibility, including the following: 

•

•

•

•

•

Lack of a control group; 

Lack of pretest data as a baseline for showing growth, and as a means to eliminate the possibility 

that differences in student performance are attributable to preexisting differences that were 

unmeasured before the intervention began; 

Insufficient study length to determine outcomes—often, the effect size of an intervention may 

depend on when a measurement is taken, and multiple studies have found that the performance 

of ESL versus bilingual cohorts may change relative to one another as students progress through 

and beyond a program 

Studies that begin after students have already been receiving an intervention; and 

Failure to track and account for attrition over time. 

Acknowledging Slavin and Cheung’s reservations, it is important to state that this review does include 

some studies that those authors deemed insufficient for inclusion in their meta-analysis (e.g., Thomas 

and Collier’s 2002, large-scale, longitudinal, national study of different models). The reviewers decided it 

was appropriate to include these studies, given the previously stated goal for this review, which was to 

describe models and practices, not to rank them according to efficacy. 

Previous review and synthesis efforts. Although this document does not include any analyses 

regarding outcomes or effect sizes of different models or practices, three major works that did attempt 

to draw these kinds of conclusions factor heavily into the discussion that follows. The primary point on 

which all three syntheses agree is that the current scope and scale of the research base on instructing ELs 

is small and insufficient to support strong conclusions. These reports, each a large-scale research 

synthesis of more than 100 studies, are as follows: 

•

•

Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence (Genesee et al. 2006), a report 

from the Institute of Education Sciences-funded Center for Research on Education, Diversity 

and Excellence. This report focused on oral language proficiency, literacy and academic 

achievement (independently and as interrelated constructs) and was based on a pool of 

approximately 200 peer-reviewed articles. Reviewers included peer-reviewed articles only, ruling 

out books and book chapters, and focused only on domestic research. 

Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners (August and Shanahan 2008), a report 

from the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. This report was 

self-described as a “more accessible” version of the Panel’s original 2006 report and was, 
21 

according to the authors, intended for researchers, teachers, practitioners and teacher educators. 

Both of the Panel’s reports summarized findings from a large-scale review of research on literacy 

instruction for language-minority children and youth. The review took place over 4 years and 

included approximately 300 texts. The Panel’s reviewers used the same criteria as Genesee et al. 

(2006) for certain instructional questions, but also included descriptive studies, international 

studies and studies where students’ L2 was something other than English, when such articles 

were deemed appropriate and beneficial to the discussion. 

• Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction (Saunders and Goldenberg 2010), the lead 

chapter in a research-based guide released by the California Department of Education. The 

chapter was based on approximately 100 articles, some of which were themselves syntheses, and 

cast the widest net within the literature, including research and syntheses on older and 

international populations where applicable, but classified their findings into three tiers according 

to the strength of their research base. 

Thus, while this literature review cannot support any statements that a practice or model is effective by 

any measure, some (not all) of the findings from these studies do represent syntheses—in some cases 

meta-analytic ones—of multiple studies on the same topic (e.g., literacy instruction). For findings that are 

supported by these works, the reviewers have sought to make clear that the evidentiary support for such 

findings is relatively stronger because of the rigor of these works. 

Findings

Exhibit 6 shows descriptive statistics summarizing the nature and makeup of the final pool of literature 

included in this review. The total number of articles that met established criteria was 173. The majority 

of the articles included were either research-based opinion pieces (n = 76, 45 percent) or descriptive 

studies (n = 46, 27 percent). Twenty-two articles (13 percent) are classified as literature reviews and 

syntheses, while 18 (10 percent) are quasi-experimental. As expected, the number of experimental studies 

was very small (n = 11, 6 percent), and reviewers did not find any studies of this type for inclusion in the 

discussions on district, school and community culture; indicators and evaluation of success; and the 

newcomer model. This research gap suggests that, for now, no definitive conclusions can be drawn 

about outcomes or effectiveness for any of these topics. 

When the search criteria and process were applied, researchers included approximately 20 to 30 articles 

for most topics. Instructional practices and professional development yielded the most articles that met 

established criteria. Fewer pieces were found on the newcomer model (6 articles) and on indicators and 

evaluation of success (11 articles), due to the limited number of articles identified through search efforts. 

Exhibit 6. Summary of literature reviewed, by type and topic 

NOTE: Some articles may have been appropriate for inclusion in the discussion on more than one topic. Thus, the 

figures in each row add up to the “Total articles” figure in the first cell, but those in columns will ultimately add up to 

more than 173. 

23 

Number of 

Total 

articles 

Number of 

literature 

reviews 

(percentage) 

Number of 

expert 

opinions 

(percentage) 

Number of 

descriptive 

studies 

(percentage) 

quasiexperimental 

studies 

(percentage) 

Number of 

experimental 

studies 

(percentage) 

Theories of second-language acquisition 

34 8 (24%) 12 (35%) 8 (24%) 4 (11%) 2 (6%) 

Construct of academic English language 

34 2 (6%) 21 (62%) 7 (21%) 3 (8%) 1 (3%) 

Models and considerations for program design 

ESL 34 6 (18%) 12 (35%) 10 (29%) 5 (15%) 1 (3%) 

Bilingual 32 9 (28%) 7 (22%) 10 (31%) 4 (13%) 2 (6%) 

Newcomer 6 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

Instructional practices and professional development 

80 12 (15%) 34 (43%) 15 (18%) 11 (14%) 8 (10%) 

School district, school and community culture 

19 1 (5%) 12 (63%) 6 (32%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

Indicators and evaluation of success 

11 0 (0%) 8 (73%) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 0 (0%) 
24 

The following sections of this document discuss the key findings and articles for each literature review 

topic. 

Theories of Second-Language Acquisition

Facilitating the acquisition of a second language (English) is a central goal for all LIEPs. These programs 

succeed or fail based on whether and how well they achieve this end for the students they enroll. As 

such, the second-language acquisition (SLA) process is an important starting point in a discussion about 

LIEP design, implementation or evaluation—certain design decisions or outcomes may reflect beliefs 

about how this process occurs, and program outcomes may in part depend on the degree to which the 

underlying model can specifically leverage and fortify this process. Given that models should bear some 

relation to theorized student learning processes, Title III requires that school districts base their LIEPs 

on “scientifically based research” (ESEA). In other words, a LIEP should be based on some theory of 

action that specifies why the program’s implementers should believe that its design will support students’ 

learning of English. 

Within this context, it is important to summarize the most commonly held and cited theories of SLA; 

these theories are important for understanding questions and findings about why models are designed in 

certain ways or why experts believe that certain models or practices are likely to work. For this topic, 

reviewers sought any articles that could help to answer the following question: 

How is second-language acquisition theorized to occur, and how can or should this 

process inform or influence instruction or program design?8

A few key variables within this broader discussion pertain to language learners’ age and existing linguistic 

skills. Is the process of learning a second language different from that of learning a first language? Does 

it vary based on the learner’s age? Does the learner’s proficiency in his or her L1 affect the acquisition 

process for L2? Below is a summary of key findings on this topic, followed by a detailed discussion; see 

Exhibit 7 at the end of this section for a list of articles on which these findings are based. 

•

•

•

•

By law, all LIEPs must be based on scientifically based research (ESEA). 

There is no one correct theory of second-language acquisition. There are three commonly cited 

approaches to this construct, which differ primarily in the degree to which they conceive the 

acquisition process as active versus passive. 

Different theories may support different instructional approaches or practices. 

Because of the gaps between theory and practice, and because theories are subject to change as 

research yields new evidence, no theory can guarantee a program’s quality or effectiveness. 

Program administrators should be diligent about evaluating their LIEPs to ensure they are 

implemented and functioning as intended. 

Seminal theories of second-language acquisition. Much of the literature reviewed in this document 

tested theories that were first published in the 1980s. These theories were often revisions to existing 

theories from the 1960s and 1970s. Krashen (1982) and Cummins (1979b) provided two of the most 

 

8 For a matrix representing how this literature review topic and questions relate to the review’s larger research questions, 

please refer to Appendix A. 
25 

commonly cited models for second-language acquisition in second-language learners. Cummins (1979b; 

1979a; 1980) contributed three critical concept hypotheses to the field, which are as follows: 

•

•

•

Transfer, a process by which learners’ skills or knowledge in one language can map onto and inform 

skills or knowledge they are learning in another language; 

Linguistic interdependence, which posits that the languages spoken by multilingual individuals do 

not operate as isolated sets of knowledge, but rather borrow from one another; and 

The threshold hypothesis, which posits that bilingual students may at first struggle to learn, but 

once they attain a critical mass of knowledge and skills, they will acquire the L2 very quickly and 

benefit from their L1 skills, based on the occurrence of transfer and linguistic interdependence. 

Cummins also introduced the distinction between social language and academic language (see below), a 

particularly important contribution, as will be discussed. 

Cummins’ hypotheses are pivotal in the debate about language of instruction for ELs (see below). 

Essentially, if transfer and interdependence are correct (“real”), then a case may be made for bilingual 

models being more likely to help students attain proficiency in English and in a shorter period of time. 

From a practice perspective, it appears that many experts and practitioners accept transfer and 

interdependence as real. For them, these two concepts seem to provide a satisfying explanation for data 

about relationships between L1 and L2 development and skills. From a research standpoint, transfer 

remains questionable, despite its general acceptance. As Snow (2008) observes, “transfer has an honored, 

but contested, place in thinking about language learning.” Further, in summarizing the findings of 

August and Shanahan’s (2008) large-scale research synthesis, Snow (2008) observes, “few of the research 

findings unequivocally support the conclusion that transfer exists.” Snow attributes the lack of solid 

evidence primarily to researchers’ failure thus far to be systematic about ruling out alternative 

hypotheses; as with all theories, lack of evidence does not automatically make the case for nonsupport. 

Instead, it could mean that exploration to date has been nonrigorous. For now, it appears that transfer 

remains a theory only, albeit an important and widely accepted one. 

Krashen (1982) offered a different vision of second-language acquisition, marked by a stronger stance on 

the learner’s limited role in his or her own learning. Krashen proposed five interrelated hypotheses that 

constitute the “monitor model” of SLA: 

•

•

•

The acquisition or learning hypothesis, which posits that language develops by two distinct but 

complementary processes: acquisition, which is passive and subconscious, and learning, which is 

active and comprises a conscious process. He also refers to acquisition as relating to “real 

communication,” which requires meaningful interaction in the target language, whereas learning 

amounts to knowing about language—for example, having knowledge of linguistic rules; 

The natural order hypothesis, which argues that language is acquired by natural progression—

specifically, regarding grammar and grammatical structures—and that learners acquire the rules of 

language in a predictable order; 

The input hypothesis, which argues that acquiring language involves being exposed to 

comprehensible input one step beyond learners’ current competence; 
26 

•

•

The monitor hypothesis, which explains the relationship between learning and acquisition and the 

influence of the former on the latter; it states that the only role for conscious learning in the 

development process is as a monitor or editor, and that the learner will apply the rules of a language 

to self-correct or self-repair; and 

The affective filter hypothesis, which posits that a variety of affective variables such as motivation 

and personality play a role in SLA, and that a low-anxiety learning environment is most conducive to 

language learning as a result. Anxiety may raise the affective filter, leading to mental blocks. 

In essence, Krashen’s theory leaves the learner in a somewhat passive position—he or she cannot 

control language development or change its arc or speed. As such, it follows from Krashen’s theories 

that the best way to help students acquire English is to put them in safe, nonthreatening academic 

environments, expose them to as much English as possible in a communication-rich environment, and 

teach them how to monitor their own language use and comprehension as they learn. Over the years, 

some of Krashen’s theories have been challenged, but others—most notably, the monitor and natural 

order hypotheses—remain valuable and viable to the field. 

As an alternative to Krashen’s view of self-monitoring as important but immutable in the acquisition 

process, others have argued that a student’s explicit attention to his or her own language learning and use 

can help that student acquire an L2. Form-focused instruction (Lyster 2004a; Lyster 2004b; Saunders and 

Goldenberg 2010), which draws student attention to linguistic form within a communicative context, is 

one example. Thus, instead of (or in addition to) learning about linguistic forms in decontextualized 

direct instruction (e.g., a lesson on verb conjugation), learners receive and benefit from prompts that lead 

them to attend to such forms while communicating (e.g., a teacher prompt that leads a student to correct 

an incorrectly conjugated verb while speaking). Prior to Chamot’s seminal work, Lyster (2004a), Long 

(1991) and Long and Robinson (1998) articulated a definition of focus on form. Specifically, they 

described “focus on form” as involving prerequisite engagement in meaning. They believe that this 

engagement in meaning is necessary before attention to linguistic features can be expected to be 

effective. As such, during instruction, students will experience occasional shifts of attention to linguistic 

code features in response to perceived problems with comprehension or production experienced by the 

student. This shift in attention is initiated by the teacher and/or other students. In the same vein, 

Chamot and O’Malley’s (1986) Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) is based on 

cognitive learning theory, “in which learners are viewed as mentally active participants in the teachinglearning interaction” (Chamot and O’Malley 1996). The CALLA framework emphasizes the role of 

students’ prior knowledge, the importance of collaborative learning, and the development of 

metacognitive awareness and self-reflection as key aspects of language learning. Students learn to assess 

their own progress and challenges as they engage with language or content, and use taught learning 

strategies to problem-solve or ask questions. 

Essentially, these three theories represent three distinct points on a spectrum of linguistic acquisition 

theory: Krashen argues that L2 acquisition occurs via passive exposure; Cummins suggests that language 

must be taught, but that processes like transfer and interdependence, which may operate subconsciously, 

enhance learning, particularly after students reach the proposed threshold of acquisition; and researchers 

such as Long, Lyster, Chamot and O’Malley posit that second-language acquisition, like all learning, 

occurs best when students actively engage in and monitor their own progress and comprehension. 

Theories of SLA play a critical role in the debate about the best programmatic and instructional services 

for ELs; presumably, the best instructional practices and models will complement the acquisition 

process, however it is theorized to occur. Both Krashen’s and Cummins’ theories support the use of 

students’ L1 in their education, but their divergent views on the degree to which the L2 acquisition 
27 

process can be actively enhanced or manipulated lead to different explanations as to why this instruction 

would be valuable. Per Krashen’s theories, exposure to English would be important as a means to bolster 

the L1 acquisition process but, because Krashen theorizes that the acquisition process is relatively 

predetermined, the use of L1 is important as an interim solution until students are sufficiently fluent in 

L2. Cummins, meanwhile, proposes a more malleable acquisition process, whereby L1 instruction would 

be seen to help students acquire L2 faster.

Second-language acquisition and language of instruction. Based on different views of the SLA 

process, language of instruction has been a hotly debated topic over the years; the central question has 

been, specifically, whether ELs benefit more from maximizing exposure to English, or from the use or 

development of their L1 skills as a means to promote English proficiency. Faltis and Arias (1993) note 

that discretionary grants awarded under the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968 (Title VII of ESEA

until 2001) tended to favor bilingual models, particularly at the elementary level, even though the 

program, despite its name, did not limit grant awards to bilingual models. During BEA’s 30-year 

duration, practitioners and researchers may have faced various financial, cultural, political and 

pedagogical incentives to determine whether bilingual models were more or less effective than ESL 

models. Particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of studies were staged to explore this issue, ranging 

from small-scale studies of a few classrooms to large-scale, multistate or longitudinal efforts (Thomas 

and Collier 2002; Rossell and Baker 1996; Collier and Thomas 1997; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; 

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; Slavin et al. 2011). 

Several research syntheses and meta-analyses have explored the language of instruction debate and found 

that the available evidence indicates that the bilingual approach can produce better outcomes when 

compared to ESL (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; 

Slavin and Cheung 2005; Rolstad 2005; Greene 1997). This, however, is not a claim that bilingual 

approaches are always better than ESL approaches. Instead, the statement about outcomes is based upon 

the quality of the current research evidence, including several syntheses and meta-analyses, that compare 

the two approaches. Systematic syntheses and meta-analyses aggregate the results of all existing studies. 

Therefore, the results of meta-analyses are more reflective of all existing evidence on a topic than are 

individual studies. The results from meta-analyses are especially strong because they weight individual 

studies according to methodological criteria so that the outcomes of the analysis favor stronger studies, 

making the results of meta-analyses more robust and generalizable than the results of individual studies 

because methodologically stronger studies play a predominant role in the analyses. In the National 

Literacy Panel synthesis, August and Shanahan (2006) identified 11 studies between 1973 and 1994 that 

used a randomized controlled design appropriate for inclusion in a meta-analysis. They found that “it 

seems reasonably safe to conclude that bilingual education has a positive effect on English reading 

outcomes that is small to moderate in size” (p. 139). For the Center for Research on Education, 

Diversity and Excellence synthesis, Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2006) found that, across 15 evaluation 

studies, students in bilingual programs almost universally did better in school when compared to 

students receiving no special service, and that large-scale studies (Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; 

Thomas and Collier 2002; Gersten and Woodward 1995) comparing bilingual programs to ESL 

programs all found the best results for students who received the most L1 instruction relative to other 

cohorts. Applying the “best evidence synthesis” approach, Slavin and Cheung (2005) also identified 17 

eligible studies that were either randomized multiyear studies (experimental), matched multiyear studies 

(quasi-experimental) or matched 1-year studies (quasi-experimental), 13 of which focused on elementary 

literacy instruction. They, too, found that the evidence favored bilingual approaches. Goldenberg (2008) 

notes that the syntheses for the National Literacy Panel and the Center for Research on Education, 

Diversity and Excellence were “the latest of five meta-analyses that reached the same conclusion,” and 

argues that this marks an unusually strong finding in the education field: “no other area in educational 
28 

research with which I am familiar can claim five independent meta-analyses based on experimental 

studies—much less five that converge on the same basic finding” (p. 12). 

Two syntheses (Genesee et al. 2006; August and Shanahan 2008) found strong evidence that students’ L1 

proficiency influences their L2 development. August and Shanahan (2008) found that both oral 

proficiency and literacy in students’ L1 can be used to facilitate literacy development in their L2; Genesee 

et al. (2006) echoed this finding, concluding that language knowledge and experiences in students’ L1 can 

facilitate their literacy development in their L2, with L1 literacy playing a particularly important role. 

August et al. (2008) also found evidence suggesting transfer on a number of smaller measures such as 

vocabulary, word recognition and reading comprehension—skills and ability in L1 did predict or support 

skills in L2. Laija-Rodriguez, Ochoa, and Parker (2006) also found evidence of cross-linguistic transfer in 

students’ cognitive academic language in Spanish and English, suggesting that transfer can occur with 

specialized academic language and usage (see the “Different Kinds of Language” section of this 

document). 

Together, these findings clearly suggest that students with strong L1 skills (particularly in literacy and oral 

language) will likely acquire English more quickly and more successfully than those without strong L1 

skills. By extension, these findings also suggest that any model that uses or develops L1 skills, particularly 

literacy and oral proficiency in students’ L1, is likely to be more effective and advantageous for ELs than 

one that does not. Indeed, research suggests that the more and longer a student receives L1 instruction, 

the better that student will fare (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008). 

These findings do not suggest that ESL models cannot also successfully help ELs to learn English and 

meet high standards. It may still be possible to leverage L1 literacy and oral proficiency skills without 

delivering instruction in students’ L1 (e.g., through modified instructional materials that highlight 

connections between L1 and L2 literacy skills or that encourage ELs to make use of their L1 knowledge 

to access instruction or classroom texts). Instructional quality makes a difference in this equation—there 

can be poorly designed and poorly implemented bilingual programs, and there can be well-designed and 

well-implemented ESL programs. 

Nonetheless, these findings do suggest that models that do not incorporate students’ L1 skills—at least 

by leveraging them or, at most, by actively developing them—are forgoing the use of a valuable resource 

in developing students’ L2 literacy and linguistic proficiency. 

A few additional caveats: first, the meta-analyses on this subject have focused specifically on literacy

development, not content area instruction. The basic finding supported by the five convergent metaanalyses is, as Goldenberg (2008) puts it, that “learning to read in the home language promotes reading 

achievement in the second language” (emphasis added) (p. 14). As such, the relative advantage of L1 

instruction may differ for other content areas; whether or not learning science in the home language 

promotes science achievement in the L2 remains to be seen. 

L1 instruction may also be less critical as an approach for students who are already fully literate in their 

L1 because, as suggested above, ESL programs may still be able to leverage these students’ existing 

language skills without actually delivering instruction in the L1. The picture may also be less clear for 

older ELs, because most research on literacy has, as mentioned earlier, focused on elementary programs, 

when all students are learning to read. Given that not all ELs with low reading and writing proficiency in 

English are in first grade, there may be a need to learn more about what kinds of literacy instruction are 

effective for older ELs. 
29 

Finally, no matter what recent and future studies find, it is important to note that a school’s or school 

district’s decision about what kind of approach to take may be influenced by factors other than research 

findings. Although, as noted earlier, Title III law explicitly remains neutral on the topic of language of 

instruction, school districts within states that restrict the use of native language for instruction of ELs 

will face much greater challenges in implementing bilingual programs.9

Different kinds of language. As discussed in greater detail in the next section of this document, 

second-language acquisition theories have increasingly posited that there are different registers of 

language that students may develop, and that these may develop differently and on different time frames. 

Cummins (1979a) articulated a distinction between what he named basic interpersonal communication 

skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Cummins argued that students attain 

what he called “conversational fluency” (BICS, 1 to 2 years) more quickly than they do “academic 

fluency” (CALP, 5 to 7 years), and that the two types of fluency differ in significant conceptual ways, 

such that a student’s proficiency in one register is not necessarily indicative of, predictive of or reducible 

to proficiency in the other. 

 Based on the review of the 

literature, the authors of this review concluded that bilingual education also tends to work best in areas 

where the EL population is young, linguistically homogeneous and stable—it is often recommended that 

students speak the same non-English language and that they stay in a program for 3 to 6 years 

(depending on its design) in order to achieve the program goals and attain fluency (Goldenberg, 2008). 

As a result, school districts with diverse EL populations, either in terms of age or in terms of languages 

spoken, or with a highly mobile population, might face additional challenges in serving their ELs when 

using models under the bilingual approach. As stated previously, however, experts have found exemplary 

ESL programs (Francis et al. 2010; Smith, Coggins, and Cardoso 2008; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 

2007; Rivera et al. 2010; Merickel et al. 2003; Parrish et al. 2006) that are producing strong student 

outcomes. 

If the BICS-CALP distinction is credible, as many believe it to be, then programs should be designed 

with this distinction in mind (Cummins 1979a). Specifically, if CALP is distinct from BICS and takes 

longer to develop, then students should receive linguistic support and instruction for long enough to 

ensure that they have mastered CALP, which they will need in order to meet high standards in 

classrooms where English is the language of instruction. Synthesizing other research on the topic, 

Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) report that it does appear that ELs typically achieve “early advanced” 

proficiency within about 4 to 6 years but often plateau at this level, taking much longer to progress to 

native speaker fluency, if they achieve this at all. They hypothesize that one cause for this may be that 

students often do not receive further language instruction once they reach this near-fluent level. 

Some findings about student performance in different models provide potential support for the BICSCALP distinction. For example, Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) found comparable growth and 

performance among students who were mainstreamed after 2 to 3 years via either an ESL or an early-exit 

transitional bilingual model, but significantly higher growth and performance for students in a late-exit 

model who were mainstreamed after 6 years. In other words, the language of instruction appeared to 

matter less than the length of instruction. A notable trait of late-exit models is that they retain students in 

the program through its end (usually in sixth grade), regardless of whether the students meet other 

proficiency standards in English. The next section discusses how and why such proficiency standards 

may indeed be based more on BICS than on CALP. However, the finding that students who stay in a 

LIEP longer fare better in the long run may provide support for the CALP concept and time frame. 

 

9 Many English-only states have waiver or bypass systems in place, whereby parents may petition for or request bilingual 

programs for their children. The exact conditions under which such exceptions are granted vary by state or even by site, 

depending on state and local policies, resources, and other factors.
30 

There may also be differences in how BICS and CALP are best learned or taught—specifically, it has 

been speculated that students may be more likely to acquire BICS based on Krashen’s theory (1982) but 

CALP must be taught (Anstrom et al. 2010). This belief is examined in greater detail in this literature 

review’s discussion of academic language (a contemporary conceptualization of CALP). While this idea 

has not been validated definitively, various efforts are under way to operationalize and define academic 

language, as well as to test and refine instructional practices that help students to learn it. 

The role of oral language in second-language acquisition. Oral language has been found to play a 

particularly important role in the second-language acquisition process, primarily because it appears to 

serve as leverage for developing other modalities—particularly L2 literacy. In a small-scale descriptive 

study of Spanish-speaking sixth graders, Royer and Carlo (1991a) found that L2 listening skills predict L2 

reading proficiency one year later. A larger research synthesis by Genesee and Riches (2006) found, 

similarly, that oral language skills in L2 can facilitate L2 literacy in second-language learners. Lesaux and 

Geva (2008) found that phonological processing was particularly important in this regard. In a smallscale experimental study in eight kindergarten classrooms, Giambo and McKinney (2004) found that 

elementary students who received explicit instruction in phonological awareness showed better scores on 

an oral proficiency measure than those who were simply read aloud to, suggesting that direct instruction 

in this area may help to accelerate students’ acquisition of L2 oral language proficiency. Together, all of 

these findings suggest that oral language development can play an important role in helping ELs to 

develop proficiency in other linguistic modalities (specifically, in reading), and that explicit instruction or 

practice in this area can facilitate the development process. 

From an instructional standpoint, oral language is also important because academic content instruction 

often occurs via, or accompanied by, oral delivery from teachers. Two large-scale studies, one descriptive 

(Padrón et al. 2000) and one quasi-experimental (Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991), and one research 

synthesis (Saunders and Goldenberg 2010) all found that in delivering instruction across a variety of 

models, teachers typically do most of the talking, and students either watch, listen or work 

independently. Thus students who struggle with aural proficiency (listening comprehension) are at risk of 

missing out on instructional content. 

Despite the generally teacher-dominated nature of classroom instruction, it is also the case that students 

sometimes must participate or demonstrate their comprehension by giving oral responses in class; they 

may also need to participate with other students in group interactions in class. Based on their review of 

nearly 100 studies for the California Department of Education, Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) reason 

that building L2 oral language proficiency may also be critical at the early stages of the L2 acquisition 

process because ELs may be particularly hesitant to speak up before they have amassed sufficient oral 

proficiency and confidence. The authors argue that increased L2 oral proficiency can lead to increased 

L2 use, essentially creating a positive feedback cycle that can eventually lead to improvements in literacy 

as oral language continues to improve (Saunders and Goldenberg, 2010). 

In light of findings like these, experts have emphasized the importance of actively developing oral 

language as an important component to the overall second-language acquisition process. Saunders and 

Goldenberg (2008) recommend that “[English language development] instruction should emphasize 

listening and speaking” (p. 36). In a research synthesis on oral language (part of Genesee et al. 2006), 

Saunders and O’Brien observe that “many [models] (that is, ESL pull-out, English immersion, 

transitional bilingual, developmental bilingual, and TWI) recommend daily oral English language 

instruction until students achieve at least a minimum level of proficiency in English” (p. 14). 

Theory as theory. Finally, as noted in the opening of this topic’s discussion, it is important to bear in 

mind the complexity of the role of second-language acquisition theories in education practice and 
31 

program implementation. On the one hand, such theories are critically important both to the quality of a 

model or program’s design and to a school district’s ability to meet statutory federal requirements. On 

the other hand, as Krashen (1982) notes, such theories are truly theories, in the sense that their primary 

purpose is to attempt to explain existing data and predict new data; they cannot, in other words, be 

proven—only supported or disproven. Clearly, if a theory explains existing data well and consistently 

predicts new data findings, this is likely a testament to the theory’s strength. Regardless, theories are 

always subject to change or revision, as must be any programs for which they form the conceptual basis. 

Thus, for the practitioner looking to design, implement or evaluate a program, sound underlying theory 

is a necessary, but by no means a sufficient, condition for that program’s success. This point is 

particularly critical as it pertains to program evaluation in schools and school districts. Similarly, as 

theories evolve, so must models and programs. Therefore, practitioners should never assume that a 

program’s theoretical basis is enough to guarantee high-quality functioning or outcomes; these goals 

almost always require monitoring, problem solving and adaptation at the school or school district level. 
Exhibit 7. Key articles on theories of second-language acquisition

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

August and Shanahan 2006 Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the 

national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth 

(Executive Summary) 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

August and Shanahan 2008 Developing reading and writing in second-language learners Literature review and synthesis 

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and professional development. In Developing reading and 

writing in second-language learners

Literature review and synthesis 

Chamot and O’Malley 1986 A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An ESL 

content-based curriculum 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1996 The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model 

for linguistically diverse classrooms

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Expert opinion based on 

research 

Cummins 1979a Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic 

interdependence, the optimum age question, and some other 

matters 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Cummins 1979b Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of 

bilingual children 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Cummins 1980 The construct of proficiency in bilingual education Expert opinion based on 

research 

Faltis and Arias 1993 Speakers of languages other than English in the secondary school: 

Accomplishments and struggles 

Descriptive study 

Francis, August, Carlo, and 

Vaughn 

2010 Optimizing educational outcomes for English language learners: 

IES final performance report 

Experimental study 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence 

Literature review and synthesis 

32
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Gersten and Woodward 1995 A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual 

education programs in one district 

Quasi-experimental study 

Goldenberg 2008 Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and 

does not—say 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Krashen 1982 Principles and practices in second language acquisition Expert opinion based on 

research 

Laija-Rodriguez, Ochoa, and 

Parker 

2006 The cross-linguistic role of cognitive academic language 

proficiency on reading growth in Spanish and English 

Descriptive study 

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006 Academic Achievement. In Educating English Language Learners: A 

Synthesis of Research Evidence

Literature review and synthesis 

Long 1991 Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching 

methodology. In Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Long and Robinson 1998 Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Focus on Form in 

Classroom Second Language Acquisition

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Lyster 2004a Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms Quasi-experimental study 

Lyster 2004b Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused 

instruction 

Quasi-experimental study 

Merickel, Linquanti, Parrish, 

Perez, Eaton, and Esra 

2003 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education 

of English learners, K-12: Year 3 report 

Descriptive study 

Padrón, Waxman, Brown, 

and Powers 

2000 Improving classroom instruction and student learning for resilient 

and non-resilient English language learners 

Descriptive study 

Parrish, Merickel, Perez, 

Linquanti, Socias, and Spain 

2006 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education 

of English learners, K-12 

Descriptive study 

Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991 Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English Immersion 

strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education 

programs for language-minority children (Executive summary) 

Quasi-experimental study 

33
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Rivera, Francis, Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English language learners: Principals from 

five states speak 

Descriptive study 

Rossell and Baker 1996 The educational effectiveness of bilingual education Literature review and synthesis 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010 Research to guide English language development instruction. In 

Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Literature review and synthesis 

Slavin and Cheung 2005 A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for 

English language learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

Slavin, Madden, Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and Hennessy 

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized 

evaluation of transitional bilingual education 

Experimental study 

Smith, Coggins, and Cardoso 2008 Best practices for ELLs in Massachusetts: Five years after the 

question 2 mandate 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Snow 2008 Cross-cutting themes and future research directions. In Developing 

Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners: Lessons From the Report 

of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth

Literature review and synthesis 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 

2007 Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some 

schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale 

survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and 

EL students 

Descriptive study 

34
35 

The Construct of Academic English Language

The academic English language (AEL)10

The discussion among experts about AEL usually focuses on one or more of the following three areas: 

(1) defining and operationalizing the academic English construct, (2) the importance of academic 

language (as opposed to social language) as the primary focus for English language proficiency 

assessment, and (3) teaching academic English to ELs. Building on these foci, reviewers included articles 

on this topic that provided insight to the following questions: 

 construct is in many ways a more modern counterpart to 

Cummins’ CALP construct (see preceding section). Theories of academic English build on Cummins’ 

observation that cognitive academic language is conceptually different, and develops differently and 

more slowly, than social language (BICS). To this they add the assertion that, because the two constructs 

(academic and social language) are conceptually distinct, policy and instruction should focus on 

proficiency with academic language as the true indicator that a student is prepared to succeed in 

mainstream classrooms. 

What is academic English language, and why does it matter? 

How can instructors support and encourage ELs to acquire and use academic language? 

Listed below are key concepts and findings on this topic, followed by detailed discussions on certain 

issues; see Exhibit 8 at the end of this section for a list of key articles pertaining to the construct of 

academic English language. 

•

•

•

•

•

Theorists from a number of different fields have argued that the kind of language used in 

academic settings (e.g., classrooms, assessments, textbooks) is distinct from the social language 

used in nonacademic settings (Bailey and Butler, 2007; Belcher 2006; Chamot and O’Malley 

1986; Anstrom et al. 2010; Scarcella 2003a; Coxhead 2000). 

Despite a great deal of conceptual overlap in the field, there is not a common working definition 

for academic English or academic language; rather, different experts define the construct 

differently, often based on the field and framework from which they approach it (Bailey and 

Butler, 2007; Coxhead 2000; Scarcella 2003a). 

Regardless of how they define or characterize academic language, experts and researchers on the 

topic agree that students need to master it in order to meet expectations and standards in 

academic settings (Bailey and Butler 2007; Coxhead 2000; Scarcella 2003a). 

Although ELs should be proficient with academic English in all linguistic modalities (reading, 

writing, speaking and listening), at least one literature review on the topic found that oral 

language development may be particularly important for developing proficiency in this type of 

language (Anstrom et al. 2010). 

There is some consensus in the field that academic English may need to be taught explicitly; 

instructors should not assume that students will acquire it independently or passively (Anstrom 

et al. 2010; Bailey and Butler 2007; Gersten et al. 2007; Heritage, Silva, and Pierce 2007).

 

10 Different experts refer to this construct by different names, such as English for academic purposes (EAP), academic 

language (AL) and academic English (AE). This review uses the phrase academic English language (AEL) for general 

discussion, though other authors’ terminologies are used when describing their work.
36 

•

•

Some experts believe that students may need more time to develop academic language than 

social language (Anstrom, et al. 2010). 

Although efforts are currently under way to develop a new generation of English language 

proficiency assessments that focus explicitly on academic English as opposed to general or social 

language, some assessments in current use may not measure academic English well, or at all. 

Where this is the case, policy makers and practitioners should be aware that students who attain 

proficiency on such assessments may not yet have the academic language skills they need to 

succeed in ESL classrooms (Abedi 2001; Abedi 2004; Linquanti 2001; Ragan and Lesaux 2006; 

Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Butler and Castellon-Wellington 2000). 

Policy context. The importance of AEL is in part a product of the current policy context surrounding 

LIEP design and implementation. NCLB provided a number of additional high-stakes incentives to 

serve and include ELs in assessments by introducing the following three requirements: 

1. States must develop and adopt standards for English language proficiency that raise the level of 

English proficiency for ELs and that are aligned to the achievement of the state academic 

content and student academic achievement standards expected of all children (Sec. 3113(b)(2); 

2. To meet annual accountability requirements for Title I, states must include at least 95 percent of 

all ELs (called limited English proficient [LEP] students in the law) in the same summative 

reading or language arts, mathematics and science assessments required of all students, and they 

must report these students’ performance as a disaggregated LEP subgroup; and

3. Under both Title I and Title III, states must annually test the English proficiency of all students 

in the LEP subgroup, and, for Title III accountability purposes, must report the number or 

percentage of students who are making progress toward the state’s definition of English 

proficiency and the number or percentage of students who are achieving English language 

proficiency. 

For both Title I and Title III, states must set annual accountability targets and receive federal approval. 

School districts that fail to meet these targets will, under Title I, be subject to increasingly intensive 

interventions and, under Title III, will be required to take corrective actions and risk losing funds. As an 

important note, states are encouraged, but not required, to use the same criteria for English language 

proficiency under Title I and Title III, such that students who are identified as proficient for Title III 

accountability purposes are also prepared to exit the LEP subgroup under Title I and be reclassified as 

“former LEPs”11

In practice, these requirements have meant that states have had to determine the following necessary 

subcomponents for themselves: 

 for Title I accountability purposes. 

1. How they will identify ELs (by what process and with which testing instrument); 

2. The content, organization and scaling of their English language proficiency standards; 

3. Which test they will use to annually assess their students’ English language proficiency; and 

 

11 ESEA also requires that states monitor the progress of former LEPs for at least 2 years once these students exit 

services; 34 CFR § 200.20(f)(2) also allows states to include students who are in this monitoring stage in the LEP 

subgroup for accountability purposes.
37 

4. How they will define proficiency in English, and how they will determine that ELs are ready to 

exit the Title III LEP subgroup, stop receiving services and be reclassified as former ELs 

(former LEPs). 

The ways in which these concepts are defined have significant implications for the education of ELs, and 

they may vary significantly from state to state. The first and fourth items cited above are particularly 

critical in this sense because each state must determine the specific processes it will use to ensure that 

ELs are appropriately identified to receive services and reclassified to stop receiving services—both highstakes decisions for the children they affect. 

AEL—however it is defined—has taken on a particular importance in light of this policy framework: 

because states must set standards for English proficiency, and must test and reclassify students according 

to these standards, it is important that these standards, and the instruments that test them, are valid and 

reliable measures of the linguistic skills that ELs need to engage in and benefit from academic instruction 

delivered in English without any special supports. In order to function as intended, this requires that 

students who score at or above the “proficient” level on their state’s English language proficiency 

assessment have the linguistic skills and knowledge necessary to engage with academic content 

instruction delivered in English without further support—in other words, that they are proficient 

specifically in academic English, sometimes called “the language of school” (Anstrom et al. 2010). 

Ragan and Lesaux (2006) found, in a survey of federal, state and local policies about identification and 

reclassification, that agencies at all three levels have focused primarily on the goal of quickly reclassifying 

ELs as fluent, at the potential expense of articulating a more long-term vision for these students’ overall 

success. At the federal level, they observed that ESEA and the Castañeda principles both seemed to focus 

on—and even overemphasize—English language skills at the expense of academic achievement. At the 

state level, in their sample they found that, generally, states seem not to attend to or have long-term goals 

for ELs’ academic achievement once they have attained proficiency according to the state’s ELP 

assessment. 

Implicit in Ragan and Lesaux’s (2006) concern is the idea that linguistic proficiency and academic 

proficiency are distinct skill sets, and that a student’s demonstration of proficiency in the former does 

not necessarily imply or guarantee proficiency in the latter. This disconnect is the underlying impetus for 

conversations about AEL: identifying and emphasizing the linguistic forms and practices that are specific 

to academic settings represents an effort to bridge the divide between language and content. 

Defining academic English language. Definitions of AEL appear to differ substantively even if they 

are functionally similar. Anstrom et al. (2010) noted in their review of the literature on this topic that 

“[academic English] is an evolving construct not agreed upon in the literature” and “has been contrasted 

with everyday language, equated with academic vocabulary, viewed as one of a continuum of social 

languages, and depicted as a foundation for developing [other specialized, content-specific registers]” 

(pp. 4, 12). The ways in which a researcher defines AEL will almost certainly depend on the individual’s 

field and orientation to conceiving of language more broadly. 

Belcher (2006) classifies “English for academic purposes” (EAP) as a subgenre of “English for specific 

purposes” (ESP), a sociocultural formulation in which learners are taught language according to the 

settings in which and means for which they need or are expected to use it; for K-12 learners, this setting 

would be ESL K-12 content classrooms and assessments. In the ESP approach, language is defined by 

its uses (purposes) and so becomes a tool for learners, rather than an object of instruction itself. By this 

definition, one might measure a student’s proficiency by assessing the success with which the student can 
38 

use and apply English for academic purposes in academic settings—which could include navigating a 

content assessment in English. 

Other experts have approached AEL from a more traditional linguistic angle, defining it in terms of its 

linguistic forms and structures. Although not attempting to exhaustively define AEL, Coxhead (2000), 

who uses the term “English for academic purposes” (EAP), created a resource known as the “academic 

word list,” which identifies 570 word families (e.g., variations on forms and roots) that appear nearly 10 

times more frequently in academic texts than in fiction or other nonacademic works. Although the list is 

primarily conceived for university students, it provides concrete evidence that the language used in 

academic settings and texts does indeed differ from that used in other linguistic settings. 

Scarcella (2003a) defines academic English as “a variety or register of English used in professional books 

and characterized by the specific linguistic features associated with academic disciplines,” also noting that 

it “includes many diverse sub-registers associated with different disciplines such as science, economics 

and mathematics” (p. 9). She defines AEL as comprising five linguistic components: phonological, 

lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic and discourse, as well as five components along a cognitive 

dimension: knowledge, higher-order thinking, strategic, metalinguistic awareness and sociocultural or 

psychological. The latter set of components marks the distinction between social and academic language, 

and Scarcella proposes that assessments of linguistic proficiency must also tap this second set of 

components to measure students’ facility with academic English accurately. 

Bailey builds on a previously articulated definition from Chamot and O’Malley (1994), who assert that 

academic language is “the language that is used by teachers and students for the purpose of acquiring 

new knowledge and skills,...imparting new information, describing abstract ideas, and developing 

students’ conceptual understanding” (Bailey, 2007, p. 9) Bailey further articulates that an individual’s 

proficiency in this register should be defined by the ability to “use general and content-specific 

vocabulary, specialized or complex grammatical structures, multifarious language functions, and 

discourse structures—all for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge and skills, interacting about a 

topic, or imparting information to others” (p. 10). Bailey also identifies lexical, grammatical and 

discourse features of AEL, and proposes a conceptual framework of AEL (Bailey and Butler, 2007) 

based on analysis of the language demands assumed in national content standards, state content 

standards, ESL standards, teacher expectations for language comprehension and production, and 

classroom exposure to AEL (through various modalities such as reading, speaking and listening). 

In support of this framework, and also as a means to demonstrate the gaps between English language 

proficiency or ESL demands and academic content demands, Bailey, Butler, and their colleagues have 

conducted intensive linguistic analyses on various standards (Bailey, Butler, and Sato 2007), assessments 

(Butler and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000) and other 

classroom materials (Bailey, Butler, Stevens et al. 2007). 

It is important to note here that many experts agree that academic English exists in both general and 

content-specific forms. Bailey and Butler (2007) talk about “common core AEL” and “content areaspecific AEL”; Anstrom et al. (2010) discuss “content area AEL” as opposed to general AEL. Some 

studies have looked specifically at building students’ AEL in particular content areas (Case 2002; 

Schleppegrell, Achugar, and Oteíza 2004; Lee et al. 2008). 

Assessing academic English. As discussed, assessment is a critical issue in the AEL discussion. The 

experts express two primary concerns: (1) older English language proficiency assessments, some of 

which remain in use, do not measure AEL, and (2) students in some states and school districts may be 

reclassified as fluent based solely on their performance on these assessments (Abedi 2001; Abedi 2004; 
39 

Linquanti 2001; Ragan and Lesaux 2006; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Butler and 

Castellon-Wellington 2000). In one study, Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington (2000) compared 

the language tested on a commonly used assessment, the Language Assessment Scales (LAS), with the 

language used on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Social Studies Test for Seventh Grade (Level 13), 

and found the language tested on the LAS to be more limited than the language that appeared on the 

ITBS. It is important to note that they reviewed the language of the ITBS test form—that is, the 

questions that appear on the test and to which students must respond—meaning that this finding implies 

that students who pass the LAS may not have the language skills necessary to even read and comprehend 

the questions on their content assessments, let alone to respond to them. Butler and CastellonWellington (2000) also found that reliability coefficients for ELs on the ITBS were low, indicating that 

the test is not providing consistent information for this population, and scores may lack the validity 

necessary to make their use appropriate for decisions about student needs or progress. Abedi (2001, 

2004) notes that validity is a major concern on summative content assessments for ELs for various 

reasons, including that students may score poorly due to language obstacles, rather than content 

knowledge (or lack thereof). 

Readers may be aware that newer ELP standards and assessments have been, and continue to be,

developed in the years since the studies above, and many of these newer materials focus more on 

academic language than their predecessors. In the fall of 2011, the Department awarded an Enhanced 

Assessment Grant (EAG) to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction to fund extensions to the 

ELPA system established in 2002 through the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment 

(WIDA) consortium. Twenty-four states were using the WIDA-designed ELPA as of March 2012. The 

priorities for the EAG competition required that the assessment systems be “aligned with a common set 

of English language proficiency standards that correspond to a common set of college- and career-ready 

standards in English language arts and mathematics” and “produce results that indicate whether 

individual students have attained the English proficiency necessary to participate fully in academic 

instruction in English and meet or exceed college- and career-ready standards.” It is important to note 

that this award will fund augmentations of an existing ELPA, but not the development of new ELP 

standards. 

As the field awaits the development of new and better assessment instruments for ELs, one option to 

improve assessment practices in the interim is to use additional indicators beyond ELP assessment 

scores to make decisions about redesignation. Valdez-Pierce and O’Malley (1992) propose a framework 

for using portfolio assessments for ELs; Royer and Carlo’s (1991b) sentence verification technique 

(SVT) for assessment, in which students respond to “yes” or “no” questions about reading and listening 

passages, has also shown promise in terms of reliability and validity. Linquanti (2001) provides a 

framework of practices for monitoring reclassified ELs to ensure that their needs are being met and that 

they are meeting high academic standards. 

Gandara and Merino (1993) and, more recently, Linquanti (2001) and Parrish et al. (2006) have also 

looked at exit criteria in various programs, and emphasized the necessity and importance of monitoring 

ELs’ academic growth well beyond their exit from services. Former ELs’ performance on content 

assessments has the potential to be a critical indicator both for program quality and for the validity of 

exit criteria; if students who are former ELs continue to perform significantly below students who have 

never been ELs, this suggests that the students may not be exiting with the skills necessary to meet 

academic achievement standards in ESL classrooms. Indeed, in a study comparing the performance of 

different student groups on the LAS and the Stanford Achievement Test Series (Stanford 9), Butler and 

Castellon-Wellington (2000) found that students who scored in the same “competent reader” category 

on the LAS showed significant differences among their scores on the Stanford 9, with former ELs 

underperforming non-ELs on the content assessment, despite scoring in the same range on the LAS. 
40 

This finding, although somewhat outdated at this point, underscores the potential danger of using poorly 

designed ELPAs to inform redesignation decisions for ELs. 

Teaching academic English. The necessity of building ELs’ skills in academic English transcends any 

particular model or approach. That said, because academic content instruction and associated 

assessments are both delivered in English once students are reclassified as proficient, it remains critical 

that students are adept at using academic language in English, no matter what other language(s) they 

encounter in their instruction. 

Experts researching AEL seem to agree that it must be explicitly taught to students, as students seem not 

to acquire it passively (Anstrom et al. 2010; Gersten et al. 2007; Bailey and Butler, 2007; Heritage, Silva, 

and Pierce 2007; Scarcella 2003a; Scarcella 2003b). This suggests that teachers must, by extension, 

understand and be familiar with AEL themselves, so that they can teach it to their students and 

recognize and evaluate it in their students’ work (Heritage, Silva, and Pierce 2007). Some argue that this 

explicit instruction is best achieved (or at least supported) by equipping students with metacognitive 

learning and self-monitoring strategies, so that they may play an active role in their own second-language 

acquisition (Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; Chamot and Beard El-Dinary 1999; Chamot and 

O’Malley 1996; Lyster 2004b; Lyster 2004a; Anstrom et al. 2010). Harper and de Jong (2004) observe 

that this notion of passive acquisition is a common misperception among educators; and a number of 

studies have sought to show that students who receive explicit instruction in academic English show 

greater progress than those who do not (Lee et al. 2008; Case 2002; Schleppegrell, Achugar, and Oteíza 

2004; Lyster 2004a; Lyster 2004b; Aguirre-Munoz et al. 2001). 

Oral language was emphasized as a particularly important component of AEL development. Anstrom et 

al. (2010) found that the literature they reviewed “focuses on how AE is developed through social 

interactions and in social settings,” and observed repeatedly that teaching AE requires a more balanced 

division of oral communication among teachers and students (as opposed to a configuration in which 

teacher talk dominates interactions) (p. vi). They found multiple texts recommending that teachers model 

oral discourse and questioning techniques, and reinforce these with small-group or independent practice. 

Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen (2004) encourage teachers of secondary ELs and immigrant youth to 

focus on promoting what they term “academic literacy,” specifically by integrating language and content 

learning and by creating literacy-rich environments that are stocked with various kinds of materials to 

support students’ literacy developments. For more specific strategies and practices, Anstrom et al. (2010) 

found that the majority of research on teaching AEL has focused on vocabulary instruction, and that this 

body has yielded recommendations for preteaching and previewing new vocabulary, explicitly identifying 

and classifying important vocabulary, and modeling or encouraging explicit vocabulary practice for ELs. 

The research in this area cautions that focusing solely on vocabulary is inadvisable, as AEL is ultimately 

more complex than just vocabulary, and includes grammar and higher-order language skills. 

Anstrom et al. (2010) found only a handful of studies focusing on these other aspects of AEL. The few 

studies on grammar instruction of AEL included expert recommendations, but Anstrom et al. (2010) 

noted that none of the proposed practices has been researched or tested enough to be linked to gains in 

AEL or general performance. Scarcella (2003b) does offer a comprehensive, though untested, resource 

in her text Accelerating Academic English: A Focus on the English Learner. 

Per Scarcella’s (2003a) suggestion that various kinds of comprehension are critical to academic English 

proficiency, August et al. (2008) found very few studies of reading comprehension in ELs, and rather 

bleak results in those they did find—effect sizes were consistently small or insignificant in 

comprehension studies or interventions, and student gains in reading comprehension were consistently 
41 

smaller than gains made in other areas such as word recognition. Although the research base is too small 

to draw any definite conclusions, these findings suggest that reading comprehension is an area in which 

ELs may struggle and require extra support, and that the field should attend more to this issue, in 

addition to addressing vocabulary or grammar. 
Exhibit 8. Key articles on the construct of academic English language

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Abedi 2001 Assessment and accommodations for English language learners: 

Issues and recommendations 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Abedi 2004 The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: 

Assessment and accountability issues 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Aguirre-Munoz, Park, 

Amabisca, and Boscardin 

2001 Developing teacher capacity for serving English language learners’ 

writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional 

linguistics 

Quasi-experimental study 

Anstrom, DiCerbo, Katz, 

Millet, and Rivera 

2010 A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K12 English language learners Literature review and synthesis 

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and professional development. In Developing Reading and 

Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis 

Bailey 2007 The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the 

test 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Bailey and Butler 2007 A conceptual framework for academic English language for broad 

application to education. In The Language Demands of School: Putting 

Academic English to the Test

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Bailey, Butler, and Sato 2007 Standards-to-standards linkage under title III: Exploring common 

language demands in ELD and science standards 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Bailey, Butler, Stevens, and 

Lord 

2007 Further specifying the language demands of school. In The Language 

Demands of School: Putting Academic English to the Test

Descriptive study 

Belcher 2006 English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and 

imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Butler and CastellonWellington 2000 Students’ concurrent performance on tests of English language 

proficiency and academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

42
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Case 2002 The intersection of language, education, and content: Science 

instruction for ESL students 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Chamot and Beard El-Dinary 1999 Children’s learning strategies in language immersion classrooms Descriptive study 

Chamot and O’Malley 1986 A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An ESL 

content-based curriculum 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1994 The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic 

Language Learning Approach 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1996 The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model 

for linguistically diverse classrooms 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Coxhead 2000 A new academic word list Descriptive study 

Gandara and Merino 1993 Measuring the outcomes of LEP programs: Test scores, exit rates, 

and other mythological data 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Gersten, Baker, Shanahan, 

Linan-Thompson, Collins, 

and Scarcella 

2007 Effective literacy and English language instruction for English 

learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Harper and de Jong 2004 Misconceptions about teaching English language learners Expert opinion based on 

research 

Heritage, Silva, and Pierce 2007 Academic English: A view from the classroom. In The Language 

Demands of School: Putting Academic English to the Test

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Lee, Maerten-Rivera, 

Penfield, LeRoy, and Secada 

2008 Science achievement of ELLs in urban elementary schools: Results 

of a first-year professional development intervention 

Experimental study 

Linquanti 2001 The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering 

meaningful accountability for English learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Lyster 2004a Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms Quasi-experimental study 

Lyster 2004b Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused 

instruction 

Quasi-experimental study 

43
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Parrish, Merickel, Perez, 

Linquanti, Socias, and Spain 

2006 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education 

of English learners, K-12 

Descriptive study 

Ragan and Lesaux 2006 Federal, state, and district level English language learner program 

entry and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language 

minority learners 

Descriptive study 

Royer and Carlo 1991a Assessing the language acquisition progress of limited English 

proficient students: Problems and a new alternative 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Scarcella 2003a Academic English: A conceptual framework Expert opinion based on 

research 

Scarcella 2003b Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English learner Expert opinion based on 

research 

Schleppegrell, Achugar, and 

Oteíza 

2004 The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction 

through a functional focus on language 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Spaulding, Carolino, and 

Amen 

2004 Immigrant students and secondary school reform: Compendium of 

best practices 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Stevens, Butler, and 

Castellon-Wellington 

2000 Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the 

progress of ELLs 

Descriptive study 

Valdez-Pierce and O’Malley 1992 Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority 

students 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

44
45 

Models and Considerations for LIEP Design

A wide range of models satisfy, at least in theory, the statutory definition and requirements for a LIEP 

put forth in the Title III legislation. Various models have been developed to serve ELs based on the 

available research information about the topics discussed so far (second-language acquisition and 

academic language), as well as other pedagogical and practical factors. Models become components of 

the LIEP program. Therefore, given the wide variety of their characteristics in terms of instructional 

time, class composition or teacher practices, practitioners will discover many viable alternatives. This 

section summarizes various models in terms of their design and approach, focusing primarily on theory 

and design, as well as implementation factors or lessons; instructional practices and professional 

development are addressed separately in the following section. The questions guiding reviewers’ 

exploration of this topic were as follows: 

What are the characteristics of different models, and how can or should these be 

actualized in implementation? 

What characteristics of a model may be variable, and which are critical to its success? 

To reiterate, this review does not aim to compare or rank different models; rather, it aims to present a 

comprehensive picture of the information available on each. The discussion pertains primarily to design 

and implementation, and includes a variety of literature types, ranging from large-scale experimental 

research reports to short, research-based expert opinion pieces and descriptive ethnographic studies. 

Many of the papers included in this section actually combine these different forms, providing conceptual 

research- or expert-based summaries for models, followed or supported by case studies of programs. 

Essentially, reviewers included any reports that granted insight into how different models are supposed 

to work or what they look like in action. 

As outlined earlier, reviewers grouped different models according to their general approach to secondlanguage acquisition and instruction, and the discussion is organized accordingly: ESL, bilingual or 

newcomer. Key findings and ideas for models and considerations for LIEP design are summarized 

below, followed by an in-depth discussion on a number of key ideas. See Exhibit 9 at the end of this 

section for a list of key articles on models and considerations for LIEP design. 

General Findings 

•

•

The research reviewed for this study suggests that ELs who receive some kind of language 

support or specialized instruction show better outcomes on various academic measures than 

those who receive no specific language learning support (Thomas and Collier 2002; Menken and 

Kleyn 2010; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006).

While multiple meta-analyses and large-scale research studies and systematic syntheses of 

research have found that models following the bilingual approach can produce better outcomes 

than ESL models, as measured by general academic content assessments or measures of reading 

comprehension or skills (Thomas and Collier 2002; Genesee et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008; 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; August and Shanahan 2008), other studies, including a recent 

large-scale quasi-experimental study and a recent large-scale experimental study, indicate that 

quality of instructional practices matter as well as language of instruction (Irby et al. 2010; Slavin 

et al. 2011). In other words, researchers have found examples of high-quality programs that 

come from both bilingual and ESL approaches, which suggests that no single approach (e.g., 

ESL or bilingual) is effective at all times and under all circumstances (Williams, Hakuta, and 
•

•

46 

Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 2006; Howard and Christian 2002; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996). 

Reviewers found less detail about instructional practices in literature about bilingual models than 

in literature about ESL models. Research on bilingual models tended to focus more on the 

models’ structure (e.g., balance of languages, transition between languages) and content (e.g., 

literature instruction, phonological processing instruction, vocabulary instruction) than on the 

specific instructional practices used at the classroom level (Genesee 1999; Gersten and 

Woodward 1995; Irby et al. 2010; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; Slavin et al. 2011).

In addition to ESL and bilingual models, the literature revealed a subgenre of scholarship on 

ELs who are most commonly referred to as “newcomers” (August et al. 2008; Boyson and Short 

2003; Genesee 1999; Rivera et al. 2010; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; Thomas and 

Collier 2002). Different sources may name or define this group differently, but broadly speaking, 

the literature typically describes newcomers as students who are recent immigrants to the United 

States, and who may lack or have interruptions in their formal schooling. 

o

o

Because of differences in the language demands at different grade levels, newcomers are 

often discussed particularly at the secondary level, where their schooling interruptions or 

language barriers may present a more imposing obstacle than those faced by younger 

newcomers.

School districts or schools may offer special programs for newcomer students that 

address these students’ unique academic, linguistic and cultural needs compared to other 

ELs. The literature suggested that the goal for many newcomer models is to introduce 

and prepare students for formal education in American schools and for entry into the 

district’s or school’s regular LIEP, whether it uses an ESL approach or a bilingual 

approach (Boyson and Short 2003).

Models Under the ESL Approach 

•

•

•

•

Some research suggests that models under the ESL and bilingual approaches may produce 

comparable results, if implemented well and thoroughly (Slavin et al. 2011), and there are 

examples across the country of ESL programs that are producing strong learning outcomes for 

their students (Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 2006; Smith, Coggins, and 

Cardoso 2008; Rivera et al. 2010; Echevarria and Short 2010).

There is evidence that ESL models (language or content based) are likely to produce better 

outcomes on various academic performance measures than general instruction in English that 

does not follow an ESL model or acknowledge ELs’ specific linguistic needs (Saunders and 

Goldenberg 2010; Goldenberg 2008; Genesee et al. 2006; August et al. 2008; Thomas and Collier 

2002). So despite delivering instruction in English, the ESL approach is not synonymous with 

“no LIEP.” In addition, effective strategies used in ESL programs under this approach could 

also be used in bilingual programs. 

Models under the ESL approach may focus on language instruction in itself, or they may 

integrate language and content instruction. Experts have argued that the strongest programs 

include both types—that is, dedicated language instruction (ESL, ELD, or ESOL) in addition to 

specialized content instruction such as SDAIE, SI or Cognitive Academic Language Learning 

Approach (CALLA) (Saunders and Goldenberg 2010).12

Models under the ESL approach can also be appropriate for use in the English portion of 

 

12 Although reviewers did not find this discussed in the literature they reviewed, this finding could be—and likely is—

also true of instruction delivered in models following the bilingual approach. 
47 

bilingual models. Therefore, teachers working with ELs should understand second-language oral 

and literacy development and know how to implement practices that enhance such development 

(Slavin et al. 2011; August and Shanahan 2008; Goldenberg 2008; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 

1991). 

• ESL models may be a necessary or more practical choice for schools or school districts in 

states that restrict the use of native language for instruction of ELs or schools that lack 

linguistically qualified teachers. Reviewers also concluded, based on the available literature, that 

ESL models may also be more convenient for schools with linguistically heterogeneous EL 

populations, highly mobile EL populations or EL populations that are diverse in terms of 

students’ age or grade level (Goldenberg 2008; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Williams, 

Hakuta, and Haertel 2007). 

Models Under the Bilingual Approach 

•

•

•

•

•

Two meta-analytic research syntheses (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006), one 

expert’s analysis of these syntheses (Goldenberg 2008) and one large-scale descriptive study 

(Thomas and Collier 2002) found that students who receive L1 instruction go on to reach the 

same or higher levels of achievement in English than those who do not. These syntheses also 

found that L1 language skills play a positive role in the development and acquisition of L2 

language skills (Genesee et al. 2006; August and Shanahan 2008). One descriptive study also 

found evidence for transfer of academic language skills from students’ L1 to L2 (LaijaRodriguez, Ochoa, and Parker 2006). 

Models under the bilingual approach differ primarily by the extent to which they incorporate 

students’ L1 into instruction—some models use L1 to support and scaffold students’ 

development of English, and then gradually phase it out; others pursue full bilingualism and 

biliteracy as program goals (Bahamonde and Friend 1999). 

At least two research syntheses (Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; August and Shanahan 2008;, 

one large-scale descriptive study (Thomas and Collier 2002) and one large-scale quasiexperimental study (Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991) have found that, with L1 instruction, more 

is better—bilingual programs with extended instruction in students’ L1 over time appear to 

result in better outcomes. 

Models under the bilingual approach can and should still employ ESL best practices or 

techniques for the portion of their instructional program that is delivered in English. When 

implementing models under the bilingual approach, teachers essentially employ bilingual 

instruction for some aspects of their programs, in addition to ESL instruction for the other 

portions (effective strategies used in bilingual programs could also be used in ESL programs) 

(Proctor et al. 2009; Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 2003; Vaughn et al. 2006; Linan-Thompson et 

al. 2003).

Although models under the bilingual approach could potentially be appropriate for older ELs, 

based on the models’ potential to leverage students’ L1 skills, this review found only two 

examples of a bilingual program that was designed for students to enter later than first grade 

(Howard and Christian 2002; Freeman 2000). All other examples in the reviewed literature were 

designed for students to begin in kindergarten or first grade and did not suggest in their language 

that it was possible for students to enter the program after first grade (Genesee 1999; Christian 

et al. 1997; Gersten and Woodward 1995; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; Bahamonde and 

Friend 1999; Saunders 1999; Slavin et al. 2011; Montone and Loeb 2000; Bearse and de Jong 

2008; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001; DeJesus 2008). 
48 

Genesee (1999) provides a clear and robust summary for the majority of the models for ELs that will be 

summarized here: SI, ESL, newcomer, TBE, DBE and TWI. For each model, he discusses the 

theoretical rationale, salient pedagogical program features (common features and variable features), 

necessary resources and necessary local conditions. Genesee also includes descriptions of real, exemplary 

programs for each model. In addition to Genesee’s (1999) snapshots, Thomas and Collier (2002) provide 

relatively detailed descriptions of the bilingual programs they include in their longitudinal study, which 

include 90-10 and 50-50 models for transitional, developmental (“one-way bilingual”) and TWI (“twoway bilingual”). Reviewers did find additional program descriptions for nearly all models in the literature, 

though such descriptions were rarely detailed enough to inform implementation fully. 

English as a Second Language Models

Technically, because even bilingual models deliver some of their instruction in English, all LIEPs may 

find the need to implement ESL models (or instructional practices thereof). ESL models focus on 

developing English and teaching in English—they make minimal use, if any, of students’ L1. As 

suggested above, schools or school districts that use exclusively ESL models may often do so out of 

necessity, based on factors such as policy, population or resources. Zehler et al. (2003) found in a 

nationwide survey that between 1992 and 2002, the percentage of ELs receiving ESL services increased 

from approximately a third to nearly half. However, EDFacts CSPR 2004–07 reports that bilingual 

models increased by 9 percent. As the nation’s EL population grows ever more diverse, and in the event 

that more states employ English-only statutes mandating the use of ESL models in their schools, it is 

likely that use of these models will continue to increase. 

It is important to note that ESL models do not call for simply placing unsupported ELs in mainstream 

classrooms. This approach, sometimes referred to as “submersion” (Collier and Thomas 1997), is not 

only ineffective for students (Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; Thomas and Collier 2002), it does not 

conform with federal civil rights requirements or federal education legislation (Forte and Faulkner-Bond 

2010). Although many instructional techniques that are effective for English-speaking students may also 

be effective with ELs (D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004; August and Hakuta 1998; August et al. 2008; 

Goldenberg 2008), these techniques would not likely be seen as sufficient support for ELs according to 

ESEA. Thus, ESL models constitute programs and instructional practices that deliver instruction that is 

specially tailored to support ELs in light of their linguistic challenges in the classroom. 

As mentioned above, ESL models generally fall into one of two further categories: content-based 

instruction and language-based instruction. In simplest terms, language instruction teaches English, and 

content-based instruction teaches subject content in English, but in a way that fosters language 

development. CALLA represents a hybrid approach that integrates content and language learning to a 

large degree. SDAIE and SI are two specialized content delivery models; some consider the former to be 

subsumed by the latter (Echevarria and Short 2010). Both of these models deliver content instruction 

using specific instructional practices and techniques that are designed to accommodate ELs’ needs as 

language learners. 

ESL models also differ according to who delivers instruction. For language instruction models (ELD or 

ESL), and for some content-based instructional models, the instructor is generally certified or 

credentialed in language instruction (however the state defines such qualifications). Specialized content 

instruction, meanwhile, is generally delivered by a general education content teacher. In most states, 

content instructors are not required to have any experience or knowledge for instructing ELs, meaning 

that teachers who deliver content-based ESL will almost certainly need additional special preparation 

before they are ready to provide specialized instruction for their ELs. 
49 

It is important to note that an effective ESL program should employ both kinds of ESL instruction 

(language and content). To put ELs in mainstream classes without language support would violate 

ESEA requirements to teach the English language and help ELs keep pace in content, and there is 

evidence that providing dedicated ELD instruction in addition to content-based ESL instruction better 

supports L2 acquisition and academic achievement (Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Harper and de Jong 

2004). As the previous paragraph suggests, ESL or ELD instruction may also provide ELs with an 

additional opportunity to receive instruction from a qualified individual who is more likely to be familiar 

with their needs. The practice of pairing ESL instruction with special content instruction is advocated or 

observed in some of the pieces reviewed below (Genesee 1999; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). 

Content and content-based instruction for ELs. As referenced earlier, content-based instruction for 

ELs seeks to integrate students’ instruction and learning of content and language. Teachers may use 

content lessons as opportunities to teach language, and also may modify their instruction or delivery to 

ensure that ELs can have access to content instruction in English. Content-based instructional models 

may vary both by how they balance English and content and by how they teach English (e.g., explicitly, 

indirectly, or via interaction). 

On one end of the spectrum, CALLA is an ESL content-based model based on cognitive learning 

theory, first proposed by Chamot and O’Malley (1986). CALLA’s general approach is not to modify 

instruction based on language needs; rather, it aims to equip learners with strategies that will help them 

decode and access content even as they are learning English. Its core premise is that students are active 

participants in their own learning and in the teaching-learning exchange. Chamot and O’Malley (1996)

specify the following as the model’s three central components: 

•

•

•

High-priority content topics; 

Academic language development based on the content; and 

Explicit instructions in learning strategies that can help students understand and remember both 

the content and the language.

As these components show, CALLA treats language as a “medium for communication” rather than a 

subject for learning, an orientation that leans toward Belcher’s (2006) English for specific purposes 

theory. Teachers emphasize and students learn to recognize the ways in which linguistic use permeates all 

content learning, and students are taught to apply the same kinds of learning strategies to their secondlanguage acquisition as they do to their content learning. In this way, language and content learning are 

closely interrelated in CALLA models. 

The learning strategies in the third component are one of the most important features of the CALLA 

model, and are further classified into three subtypes: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and 

social and affective strategies. These strategies are taught by teachers via a five-stage cyclical process that 

begins with very explicit instruction and gradually fades so that students may take responsibility for their 

own learning by using the strategies. The instructional stages for teaching strategies are introducing, 

teaching, practicing, evaluating and applying; these stages are rehearsed each time students encounter 

new content or skills until, ideally, they are comfortable and familiar enough to simply apply strategies 

(the fifth stage). 

Chamot and O’Malley (particularly the former) created the CALLA model and remain its most active 

proponents. Their research has focused on identifying the learning strategies used by strong learners 
50 

both as evidence for the theory and to inform program design (Chamot and Beard El-Dinary 1999). In 

various works, they have offered sample instructional materials and performance assessments (Chamot 

and O’Malley 1986; Chamot and Beard El-Dinary 1999; Chamot and O’Malley 1994). 

Toward the other end of the content-based instruction spectrum, SDAIE and SI focus more on 

modifying and delivering instruction in ways that are cognizant of ELs’ specific linguistic needs and 

challenges. Despite their different names, SDAIE and SI are more similar than different in many ways—

some even consider SDAIE to be a specific type of SI (Echevarria and Short 2010). 

SDAIE is a model used predominately in California; it shares many similarities with CALLA and also 

borrows from transitional models for students who are transitioning out of TBE models (discussed 

further below) into ESL classrooms. Like CALLA, SDAIE proposes a framework for teaching both 

language and content simultaneously; however, CALLA focuses more on individual learning strategies 

while SDAIE focuses on collaboration, cooperation and interaction as central concepts (Cline and 

Necochea 2003; Sobul 1995). 

In addition, SDAIE is designed for students with intermediate English skills or higher and strong L1 

skills (these stem from its derivation from transition models from TBE programs; the students in such 

programs would have strong proficiency in their L1 and some proficiency in English due to the nature 

and design of TBE models; see below). This fact is noteworthy in light of findings (Merickel et al. 2003; 

Parrish et al. 2006) that the number of students enrolled in SDAIE programs has increased in California 

since the passage of Proposition 227. Because Proposition 227 all but outlawed bilingual education in 

California, school districts have had to choose among ESL models to serve their ELs. The state has 

approved four program configurations from which districts may choose to design their programs, 

according to Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel (2007): 

1. ELD only;

2. ELD and SDAIE; 

3. ELD and SDAIE with primary language (L1) support; and 

4. ELD and academic subjects through L1. 

According to the available definitions for the SDAIE model, only options 3 or 4 would likely be 

appropriate for ELs who are true beginners. Information about distribution of these program 

configurations within the state was not available in any of the documents reviewed. 

Echevarria and Short (2010) cite the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing as defining 

SDAIE according to a cluster of instructional techniques that include “slower, enunciated speech; use of 

visuals and realia; sufficient repetition; hands-on learning tasks; [and] providing authentic language 

experiences” (p. 264). Cline and Necochea (2003) provide a more fleshed out conceptual framework for 

an SDAIE program, identifying eight critical program components to serve as a guide to policy makers 

and practitioners: 

1. Connect to previous learning; 

2. Visuals and manipulatives; 

3. Low-risk and safe environment; 
51 

4. Multiple access points; 

5. Cooperative and interactive; 

6. Chunking and webbing; 

7. Respectful of learner; and 

8. Primary language support. 

Reviewers were unable to find any comprehensive or detailed descriptions of SDAIE programs or 

instruction in schools, and Echevarria and Short (2010) argue that many teachers who use SDAIE may 

use or modify techniques selectively, which could result in wide variation as to what SDAIE actually 

looks like from school to school or from classroom to classroom. 

SI is similar to SDAIE in that it is content-based instruction and represents a general method for content 

instruction in which instructors modify their materials and delivery to support and accommodate the 

specific needs and challenges of ELs in content classrooms. SI may be used in EL-only content classes, 

or in mixed classes with ELs and non-ELs; it is also compatible with nearly every model described here, 

as it may help students to access content delivered in English until they become fluent enough to 

participate without additional help (Genesee 1999). 

Like SDAIE, SI is essentially a cluster of research-based instructional techniques that are believed to 

support both language and content learning for non-native speakers. Many of SI’s principles are actually 

derived from lessons learned from bilingual education and ESL instruction. At the same time, as 

Genesee (1999) notes, “SI uses many of the strategies found in high quality instruction for native English 

speakers, but it is characterized by careful attention to ELs’ distinctive L2 development needs and to 

gaps in their educational backgrounds” (p. 9). Pedagogical features for general SI include instructional 

tactics like scaffolding, providing ELs with supplemental adapted materials, and clearly identifying 

language and content objectives for each lesson (Genesee 1999). As a result of being a cluster of 

techniques, SI may look very different from one classroom to another (Short and Echevarria 1999). 

Although SI is a general model that may take on a number of forms in implementation, for many in the 

field it has become synonymous with a specific version of the model known as the SIOP model (Short 

and Echevarria 1999; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Echevarria and Short 2010; Echevarria, Powers, 

and Short 2006). Building on the best practices listed above, the SIOP model focuses on ensuring that 

teachers understand and apply good SI practices in very specific structured ways. As its creators have 

phrased it, “the SIOP model offers a framework for teachers to present curricular content concepts to 

ELLs through strategies and techniques that make new information comprehensible to the students” 

(Echevarria, Powers, and Short 2006, p. 201). SIOP grew out of a rubric its creators were using to do 

classroom observations; as they refined their rubric, they began to realize its potential value as a tool for 

teacher reflection. 

The model’s teacher-oriented central framework is a recursive cycle of planning, instruction, and review 

or evaluation. Within the instruction phase of the sequence, teachers self-evaluate and are evaluated 

based on how well they execute or incorporate the following instructional components: lesson planning, 

building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice or application, lesson 

delivery, and review and assessment. As such, SIOP is as much a PD model and program as it is one for 

student learning; it is designed to evaluate and support self-evaluation of teachers’ lessons, according to 

their success at incorporating certain SI techniques.
52 

SIOP incorporates a number of instructional techniques that overlap with SDAIE, such as “slower 

speech and clear enunciation, use of visuals and demonstrations, scaffolded instruction...and use of 

supplementary materials” (Echevarria, Powers, and Short 2006, p. 199), as well as some additional 

specific practices such as defining and displaying language objectives for each lesson, providing targeted 

vocabulary development and fostering student-to-student interaction (Echevarria, Powers, and Short 

2006; Echevarria and Short 2010; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004). These authors present the SIOP 

model in depth in a number of publications (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Short and Echevarria 

1999; Echevarria and Short 2010), and the next section of this review revisits some of the model’s 

specific instructional techniques. SIOP authors provide program descriptions of effective sheltered 

programs in a recent publication from the California Department of Education (Echevarria and Short 

2010). 

It is important to clarify that the SIOP model is a very specific form of SI (a product, essentially), and 

that SIOP is not synonymous with SI as a whole. In other words, not all programs that employ SI use 

SIOP specifically. The SIOP model’s creators describe it as the only tested and validated model for SI 

delivery (Echevarria and Short 2010) and, more important, they have found that teachers who used SI 

without the observation protocol did not deliver lessons that scored as highly on the rubric as those 

teachers who were familiar with the protocol, suggesting that the SIOP model does improve practice 

even for teachers who are already familiar with SI techniques (Echevarria, Powers, and Short 2006). 

Language instruction for ELs. In addition to content-based language instruction, ELs may receive, 

and will likely benefit from, instruction that focuses explicitly on language learning as instructional 

content in its own right. This kind of instruction is referred to as ESL instruction, ELD or ESOL,13

In the past, experts have expressed concern that ELD instruction isolates ELs from English-speaking 

peers for instruction (Harklau 1994; Lucas and Katz 1994) and also isolates language learning from 

content learning. Genesee, for example, notes that “direct language instruction that is separate from 

academic instruction is less effective” (1999, p. 9). More recently, however, Harper and de Jong (2004) 

argue that SI, though valuable for its role in ensuring that ELs can still access content, is insufficient to 

help ELs develop true proficiency. Essentially, modified content instruction helps ELs get around 

language barriers; it is also important to help ELs actually approach and surmount those barriers. 

depending primarily on where (in which state) the program is implemented. For the remainder of this 

section, the term ELD is used. The two most common configurations for ELD instruction are either 

self-contained ESL or pull-out sessions wherein language specialists pull students out of their regular 

classes to provide intensive language instruction and support (Diaz-Rico and Weed 2002). In the latter 

configuration, it is considered good practice for instructors to tie or align students’ pull-out instruction to 

the content classes from which they are being pulled, both so that students can make connections 

between their growing English skills and their content instruction, and so that they do not miss out on 

content instruction for the periods in which they receive pull-out instruction over time. 

Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) make a research-based argument for providing ELs with daily ELD 

instruction that includes direct instruction of key linguistic elements (e.g., grammar, syntax and 

functions). They argue that a critical benefit of ELD instruction is that it fosters greater opportunities for 

students to practice speaking, compared to content-based instruction. Research suggests that oral 

language proficiency can play a critical role in literacy development in both L1 and L2 (Genesee et al. 

2006; August and Shanahan 2008), particularly because increased oral proficiency can lead to increased 

 

13 The reviewers did not find any literature that used the name or term ESOL to describe an English language instruction 

model; it is included on this list because it remains familiar to many readers in various school districts and schools, but it 

is not used it in the discussions of language-based ESL models elsewhere in this document.
53 

use, which in turn leads to improvements in both oral language and literacy. Content classes do not 

always provide opportunities to practice speaking (Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; Padrón et al. 2000), 

and ELs may be particularly hesitant to speak up before they have amassed sufficient oral proficiency 

and confidence to interact with more fluent peers (Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). Notably, 

opportunities for speaking in content classes may occur only via interactive activities with Englishspeaking students, but the literature makes clear that interaction in itself is not necessarily helpful; 

activities must be carefully structured, and non-ELs must participate in certain ways, in order for such 

interaction to be successful (Saunders and O’Brien 2006; Genesee et al. 2005; Saunders and Goldenberg 

2010). 

In their ELD framework, Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) also advocate for a general emphasis on 

meaning and oral communication in ELD instruction, including carefully structured interactive activities 

among students, as well as explicit, corrective feedback from the teacher on language use. Not 

surprisingly, they argue that ELD instruction should maximize the use of English over L1 and should 

emphasize academic language in addition to conversational language. Exactly what these instructional 

practices might look like is discussed further in the section on instructional practices and PD. 

Although most of the literature reviewed focuses on oral language proficiency (listening or speaking), 

reading and writing are nonetheless important instructional components of ESL approaches. For 

instance, Saunders discussed the role of writing modality in literacy development by noting that writing 

provides students with opportunities to reflect on learning and to practice expression individually 

(Saunders 1999; Saunders and Goldenberg 1999; Saunders et al. 1999). In addition, August et al. (2005) 

points out the role of reading, particularly through read-alouds, as an important strategy in ESL that 

supports development of vocabulary and word recognition. Snow, Lawrence, and White (2009) likewise 

promote reading as instrumental in teaching academic English language and vocabulary. 

Bilingual Models

There are three primary models for LIEPs using the bilingual approach: TBE, DBE (which is also 

referred to as maintenance bilingual), and TWI. Bahamonde and Friend (1999) provide a succinct 

summary of each, as well as research-based strengths and weaknesses. While there are significant 

differences across these models, they do share a few basic features. First, all of these models use L1 

instruction as part of their design. As a result, a necessary condition for implementing any of these 

programs is a sufficiently sized population of ELs who speak the same language. Based on the 

composition of the United States’ EL population, the vast majority of bilingual models are SpanishEnglish programs (Howard and Christian 2002; Potowski 2004). 

Second, all bilingual models require teachers who are fluent in one or both of the languages of 

instruction. Depending on the program structure, this may be accomplished either by coteaching, 

wherein some teachers provide instruction in one language and some in the other (Howard and Christian 

2002; Bahamonde and Friend 1999), or by employing individuals who are themselves fluent bilinguals in 

the languages of the program. 

Finally, although reviewers did find exceptions in the literature (Rivera et al. 2010; Freeman 2000; Bearse 

and de Jong 2008; Montone and Loeb 2000), generally, bilingual models appeared to be designed to 

commence at the beginning of formal schooling, meaning students enroll in kindergarten or first grade, 

and the models continue through elementary or even middle school (depending on the specific model). 

The majority of articles that reviewers found about bilingual education described models that started at 

the elementary level, specifically kindergarten or first grade (Gersten and Woodward 1995; Howard and 

Christian 2002; Howard, Christian, and Genesee 2004; Christian et al. 1997; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 
54 

1991; Thomas and Collier 2002; Collier and Thomas 1997; Potowski 2004; Cazabon, Nicoladis, and 

Lambert 1998; Slavin et al. 2011). It was unclear from the literature whether this pattern is inherent to 

bilingual models by design or is a byproduct of the aforementioned finding that very little research on L2 

acquisition has focused on secondary students (August and Shanahan 2008). 

Bilingual models also differ from one another, most notably by their stance toward bilingualism. 

Transitional models recognize the value of L1 skills and development, but use these as a means to the 

end of developing English proficiency—this stance is sometimes referred to as “subtractive bilingualism” 

(August and Hakuta 1998). By contrast, developmental and two-way models take an “additive 

bilingualism” approach (August and Hakuta 1998) and hold biliteracy, bilingualism and biculturalism as 

goals. Whereas TBE models aim to get students into the mainstream as soon as possible, DBE models 

and TWI models are often designed to last a certain number of years (often 6 to 8), regardless of whether 

ELs meet English-language proficiency standards or requirements. 

As a note, the reviewers found significant variations in labeling conventions in the discussion of bilingual 

models. Some authors considered both early- and late-exit models to be variations of TBE (Bahamonde 

and Friend 1999). Others equated late-exit models with DBE (Genesee 1999) or continued to use the 

name “maintenance bilingual” or “bilingual maintenance” as synonymous with “developmental 

bilingual” (Bahamonde and Friend 1999; Medina 1991). Gersten and Woodward (1995) describe as 

“bilingual immersion” a program that aligned more closely to other reviewers’ descriptions of 

developmental models, primarily because the program did not appear to enroll non-ELs (or if it did, 

these students were not mentioned). 

Transitional bilingual education (TBE). Although this review includes TBE models under the 

bilingual heading, it is important to note that many in the field do not consider TBE models to be truly 

bilingual, because bilingualism is not a goal for these programs. Menken and Kleyn (2010) argue that ELs 

who enroll in subtractive TBE models are not able to experience the academic benefits that come with 

L1 development in schools because they do not have the advantage of a strong academic literacy 

foundation established in their L1 on which to build as they acquire English. This is compounded by the 

fact that these students are often moved in and out of bilingual, ESL and mainstream classrooms, 

thereby prolonging the length of time it takes to acquire sufficient academic English to succeed in the 

classroom. 

Transitional bilingual models are sometimes referred to as early-exit bilingual models, based on their 

design to have children receiving ESL instruction by the end of elementary school at the latest, and 

usually by grade 3. TBE models generally begin by providing L1 instruction for literacy and content for 

the first 2 to 3 years of school (usually grades K or 1 through grades 2 or 3), and then transition to 

instruction in English only over the course of 2 to 3 years (Genesee 1999; Gersten and Woodward 1995; 

Bahamonde and Friend 1999). 

Genesee (1999) identifies the following as salient pedagogical features of TBE models: 

1. Effective L1 instruction; 

2. Effective and continuous oral ELD; 

3. Additional support for students who have difficulty in the early grades; 

4. Effective transitional instruction; 
55 

5. SI strategies; 

6. Careful and accurate assessment; 

7. High standards and challenging curriculum; 

8. Mixing students for some subjects; and 

9. Parent involvement. (Genesee 1999, pp. 20–21) 

It is also important to note that, as a model that straddles the line between ESL and bilingual, TBE uses 

SI to support students through their transition to ESL instruction. Saunders (1999) describes a 

framework and indicators for a transition program based on the four principles of challenge, continuity, 

connections and comprehensiveness. His model paces students’ transition based on their attainment of 

measurable interim achievement benchmarks (i.e., the students must demonstrate certain skills in English 

literacy before advancing to the next phase of transition), meaning the transition is more tailored to 

student capacity and needs, rather than rigidly tied to grade levels. 

Reviewers found multiple studies that included TBE models in their cohorts and provided descriptions 

of the programs (August et al. 2008; Slavin and Cheung 2005; Gersten and Woodward 1995; Ramirez, 

Yuen, and Ramey 1991). Although these descriptions were not often detailed, they do offer some insight 

into what TBE programs look like in practice. Gersten and Woodward (1995) described a transitional 

program in which students receive all content instruction in their L1 (in this case, Spanish) in 

kindergarten, and begin receiving ESL instruction for 1 hour a day in first grade. Over the next few 

years, instruction in English increases, until students exit, usually by grade 4 or 5, into ESL instruction 

for all content classes. Slavin et al. (2011) described a transitional bilingual reading program in which 

students begin their literacy instruction entirely in their L1 (Spanish) in kindergarten, begin the transition 

to English in first grade, and are taught entirely in English by grade 3; for this study, the authors do not 

comment on how the participating students are instructed in content areas. Genesee (1999) described a 

TBE program in which students are expected to transition in grade 3 and begin receiving sheltered 

English instruction for math only starting in their second semester of grade 2. In preparation for the 

transition, students receive 45 minutes per day of ELD instruction and participate in mixed classes for 

art, music and physical education. Thomas and Collier (2002) described a Texas TBE program for 

elementary students with on-grade-level academic instruction that uses L1 for most of the school day up 

to grade 6. Thereafter, the TBE program offers on-grade-level academic instruction using the L2 

(English) for a greater majority of the school day. The program also uses approaches to teaching the 

academic curriculum through two languages and transforms the sociocultural context for language 

minority students’ schooling. 

In contrast to other TBE studies reviewed, Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) described a TBE program 

in which students only receive primary language instruction focusing on “the introduction of initial 

reading skills” for 30 to 60 minutes per day; in content classes, students receive primary language 

support, but instruction is delivered in English. This program also differed from others described in that 

it was very short; it aimed to exit all ELs into the mainstream by the end of first or second grade, and it 

delivered nearly all instruction in English by second grade. 

Developmental bilingual education (DBE). Developmental models (also referred to as maintenance 

bilingual and late-exit models in the literature) generally follow one of two configurations for distribution 
56 

of the two languages: 50-50 or 90-10.14

Most DBE models are designed to last throughout elementary school (through the end of fifth or sixth 

grade). As stated previously, the goal for the DBE model is not to exit students quickly—or at all—

rather, it is to keep them enrolled and learning (in) both languages for the duration of the program. 

Reviewers of the literature found it somewhat common for DBE programs to grow out of, alongside or 

in response to TBE programs in the same schools or school districts (Thomas and Collier 2002; Genesee 

1999; Gersten and Woodward 1995). That is, the research showed examples of school districts whose 

DBE programs had been developed either as an extension option to a TBE program, with some 

students exiting and some staying in (Thomas and Collier 2002); as an evolution of a TBE program over 

time (Genesee 1999); or as an alternative to a TBE program, based on community members’ (most 

often, parents and teachers) belief that the TBE program did not go far enough in its scope (Gersten and 

Woodward 1995). 

 In 50-50 models, instruction is split equally between the two 

languages throughout, so that students spend 50 percent of their class time receiving instruction in each 

language. In 90-10 models, the program begins such that the non-English language is used for 90 percent 

of the instructional time, and English the other 10 percent (Genesee 1999; Thomas and Collier 2002). 

Over time, this balance shifts to an even 50-50. In either design, the nature of this 50-50 split may vary 

from program to program—instructional time may be split by content area (e.g., students are taught 

certain subjects in each language for the duration of the year), by time (e.g., students are taught subjects 

in both languages and alternate by time periods such as weeks, months, semesters, or units) or by 

proportion (e.g., students receive instruction for all subjects in both languages). 

Program descriptions of 90-10 DBE programs strongly resembled TBE program descriptions, with the 

difference being that the transition to English stopped at a 50-50 split, rather than continuing to full 

English instruction for all subjects. Genesee (1999) describes a 90-10 DBE program that starts in 

kindergarten and shifts the language of instruction ratio by 10 percent each year, such that by grade 4, 

students have reached the 50-50 balance, which they continue with in grade 5 before the program ends. 

For both DBE and TWI programs, reviewers found examples of school districts that had feeder middle 

and high schools for students who wished to continue with their bilingual education beyond the end of 

their elementary school program (Thomas and Collier 2002; Christian et al. 1997). 

In terms of potential efficacy, in a quasi-experimental study, Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) found 

that students in a late-exit program fared better on reading and math measures than students in early-exit 

or ESL programs. In descriptive studies, Collier and Thomas (1997) discussed observations that the 

results reported by Ramirez et al. (1991) and Thomas and Collier (2002) also described positive 

outcomes among students participating in DBE models. It should be noted, however, that the 

descriptive nature of the Collier and Thomas (1997) and Thomas and Collier (2002) studies preclude 

their results from providing any evidence of relative effectiveness between DBE and TBE. 

Two-way immersion (TWI). Like DBE models, TWI models have bilingualism and biliteracy as their 

goals. They, too, typically follow either a 90-10 or 50-50 model and typically begin in kindergarten. The 

90-10 TWI model often strongly resembles 90-10 DBE programs (i.e., all students receive 90 percent of 

their instruction in the non-English language starting in kindergarten, then phase English in gradually, 

usually starting in the second or third grade), with the difference being that TWI programs also enroll 

English speakers. 

 

14 TBE programs may sometimes follow the 90-10 or 50-50 model as well (notably, see Thomas and Collier 2002), but 

this kind of classification was less common for TBE programs, and experts who reviewed this literature argued that it is 

very rare and unusual to hear TBE programs organized according to this distinction.
57 

In contrast to DBE, however, TWI models enroll equal populations of ELs and non-ELs, and instruct 

both groups in both languages, so that all students become fluent in each. As a result of this design 

feature, biculturalism is an important aspect of TWI programming as well—students from two different 

cultures interact regularly, learn one another’s L1 and, in the process, attain cultural appreciation for one 

another. Multiple authors emphasized that granting equal status to both languages and cultures is an 

important design component for TWI programs (Howard and Christian 2002; Genesee 1999; Potowski 

2004). 

Howard and Christian provided a comprehensive overview of two-way programs and identified eight 

criteria for a successful TWI program: 

1. Programs should provide a minimum of 4 to 6 years of bilingual instruction to participating 

students; 

2. The focus of instruction should be the same core academic curriculum that students in other 

programs experience; 

3. Optimal language input (input that is comprehensible, interesting and of sufficient quantity) as 

well as opportunities for output should be provided to students, including quality language arts 

instruction in both languages; 

4. The...[non-English] language should be used for instruction a minimum of 50 percent of the 

time (to a maximum of 90 percent in the early grades), and English should be used at least 10 

percent of the time; 

5. The program should provide an additive bilingual environment where all students have the 

opportunity to learn an L2 while continuing to develop their L1 proficiency; 

6. Classrooms should include a balance of students from the target language and English 

backgrounds who participate in instructional activities together; 

7. Positive interactions among students should be facilitated by the use of strategies such as 

cooperative learning; and 

8. Characteristics of effective schools should be incorporated into programs, such as qualified 

personnel and home-school collaboration. (Howard and Christian 2002, p. 4) 

At the secondary level, Montone and Loeb (2000) provided an implementation framework for secondary 

TWI programs, with guidance specifically pertaining to program planning; language distribution, 

curriculum and materials; student participation and motivation; attrition and late entries; student 

scheduling; teams, clusters and houses; staffing; transportation; and parent involvement. As mentioned 

previously, discussion of TWI at the secondary level was relatively rare in the literature reviewed; most 

program descriptions were for elementary programs. 

The reviewers found a number of in-depth program descriptions of TWI programs in the literature they 

reviewed. The most notable differences across programs were the ways in which they balanced the 

languages of instruction. The most common configuration was to see certain subjects assigned to specific 

languages: Genesee (1999) described a 50-50 program in which different subjects are assigned to 

different languages, with language arts, math, social studies and music taught in English, and language 

arts, science, physical education and art taught in Chinese. Freeman (2000) observed a program in which 
58 

students received math and science instruction in Spanish, and language arts and social studies 

instruction in English. Christian et al. (1997) described one program in which students receive language 

arts in both English and Spanish, in addition to having other languages assigned to different content 

areas (science and math in Spanish; social studies and special subjects like art or music in English), and 

another program in which students receive all instruction in Spanish through the end of third grade, after 

which they transition to social studies in English (fourth or fifth grade) and then science in English (sixth 

grade). In the latter program, 90 percent of instruction for all students (including English-dominant 

students) is in Spanish for the first 3 to 4 years before a transition begins. 

By contrast, some TWI programs may also balance language of instruction by time, or by instructor. 

Thomas and Collier (2002) described a 50-50 program in which students’ language of instruction 

alternates by day in grades 1 and 2, and by week in grades 3 to 5. Christian et al. (1997) described one 

program in which the language of instruction switches for students at midday, and another in which 

teachers alternate languages by unit. In the latter case, all instructors in the program were bilingual, and 

they would alternate languages themselves within instruction. In other programs, schools may employ 

native speakers of each language (Cazabon, Nicoladis, and Lambert 1998; Christian et al. 1997) and have 

students switch instructors periodically to provide exposure to each language. 

In all TWI programs, code switching, or alternating between the two languages, is generally discouraged 

for instructors (Thomas and Collier 2002; Freeman 2000; Christian et al. 1997), as this is believed to be 

detrimental to students’ second-language acquisition and undermines the true immersion experience. 

Students are often discouraged from code switching, too, though their use of language outside the 

classroom can be difficult to control. In an ethnographic study of language use by students in a K-8 TWI 

school in Chicago, Potowski (2004) found that students used Spanish more for on-task work, but were 

far less likely to use it when talking to each other outside of class, despite school policy. Freeman’s 

(2000) detailed ethnographic account of a Philadelphia middle school’s TWI program drives this point 

home: in that program, nearly all students were Puerto Rican, with some students identified as Spanishdominant and some as English-dominant, to give the program its necessary mix of English speakers and 

ELs. In this program, Freeman found that code switching was prevalent among teachers, many of whom 

assumed that all students in the program were fluent in Spanish, including those identified as English 

dominant. In addition, students’ attitudes toward English and Spanish were very nuanced, based on their 

language dominance and relationship to Puerto Rico, and their attitudes toward the use and value of 

Spanish versus English varied depending on whether they were in the classroom or outside it. 

Findings like Potowski’s (2004) and Freeman’s (2000) highlight an important dynamic that TWI 

programs often must balance: the relative dominance of English language in the larger culture. Although 

the TWI model emphasizes the importance of placing equal value on both languages and fostering 

respect and interest in other cultures for all student participants, there remains an inescapable power 

dynamic between the two groups of students based on the fact that only one language—English—is 

ultimately the language in wider use. A few authors did find that the value and meaning of TWI 

programs may be very different for ELs and English speakers enrolled in the program. Bearse and de 

Jong (2008) and Valdes (1997) both found that English-speaking students in TWI programs viewed their 

learning and use of another language as an enrichment opportunity that would serve them professionally 

in their postsecondary lives, whereas for ELs the program was not a bonus but a necessity. Consistent 

with this finding, Howard, Christian, and Genesee (2004) conducted a 3-year descriptive study 

comparing the performance of native English speakers and native Spanish speakers on language and 

literacy development in the two languages. All students participated in a TWI program. In the study, the 

researchers collected data on students in TWI and described their language development over the grades. 

Analysis of data collected showed that native English speakers consistently underperformed native 

Spanish speakers in Spanish oral proficiency, and that native Spanish speakers generally showed stronger 
59 

abilities in reading, writing and oral language in both English and Spanish than their native-Englishspeaking counterparts. Howard et al. attributed this outcome to greater opportunities among native 

Spanish speakers to practice and thus further develop both Spanish and English outside of the school 

environment. Christian et al. (1997) note that one of the programs they profiled began as a 50-50 

program and switched to an 80-20 model after finding that English speakers’ Spanish proficiency was 

weaker than their English skills, and weaker than Spanish speakers’ English proficiency, by comparison. 

Despite these potential concerns, however, plenty of authors have also found evidence that TWI 

programs can have positive effects of various kinds for both ELs and non-ELs (Lindholm-Leary and 

Borsato 2001; Cazabon, Nicoladis, and Lambert 1998; Christian et al. 1997; Potowski 2004). Multiple 

authors found that students in TWI programs had positive attitudes toward school, toward their 

program, toward other cultures, and toward postsecondary options, and they were less likely to drop out 

than students in other kinds of programs (Thomas and Collier 2002; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001; 

Cazabon, Nicoladis, and Lambert 1998; Potowski 2004). Some authors also found evidence that students 

in TWI programs either met grade-level standards in English or outperformed other ELs, including ELs 

in other bilingual models, on various achievement measures (Thomas and Collier 2002; DeJesus 2008; 

Lindholm-Leary 2005; Christian et al. 1997). 

Beyond Approach: Newcomer Models

In addition to bilingual and ESL models, reviewers found a subgenre of literature on newcomer 

programs. LIEPs that follow the newcomer model are generally intended for new immigrant students 

who enter schools in grades 6 to 12, with a particular focus on the subset of these students who have had 

interruptions in their formal education. 

The specific need for a newcomer model can stem from two potential facts. First, the academic English 

language demands of secondary classrooms are likely to be significantly greater than those for lower 

grade levels (Anstrom et al. 2010), meaning that older ELs may experience a greater gap (compared with 

younger students) between their language skills and the language demands of their instruction. They also 

may be more likely to need heavily modified instruction or materials in order to keep up. Second, the 

general assumption is that students in secondary grade levels already have at least basic literacy skills; 

except for students who are receiving specialized reading instruction or interventions, instruction at these 

grade levels does not generally focus on developing literacy. 

In response, many school districts offer the newcomer model to provide targeted or intensive instruction 

to build foundational skills designed to help orient and prepare students for participation in a school’s or 

district’s regular LIEP. Exact definitions of “newcomer” vary (Genesee 1999). In one publication, the 

newcomer model is defined as “one serving recent immigrant students who have very limited or no 

English language proficiency and who often have had limited formal education in their native countries” 

(Boyson and Short 2003 [Abstract]). Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen (2004) named newcomer centers or 

programs as a good practice to meet the needs of secondary students who have had little formal 

education in their home countries. It is important to note that what makes a student a newcomer is that 

he or she is new to education, not simply new to the country. Not all students who are recent immigrants 

have gaps in their formal education, which means that not all such students need newcomer programs. 

Due to their lack of formal schooling, newcomers may need instruction in far more than just English 

language, and newcomer programs are designed to meet these needs. Students who are illiterate or have 

low literacy in their L1, for example, must learn to read before they can be ready even for regular ESL 

classes or grade-level SI; literacy instruction is often a central feature of a newcomer program (Genesee 

1999). Notably, many of these students must learn to read for the first time—a challenge in itself—in a 
60 

language that is new to them (August et al. 2008). Students may also need to build basic skills in other 

content areas before they are ready for SI or any kind of participation in grade-level courses (e.g., they 

must have foundational math skills such as multiplication and division before they can access grade-level 

math instruction in pre-algebra). Newcomer students may also need more general orientation to 

American culture, and specifically the culture of American schools (Genesee 1999). 

Based on a national survey of 115 newcomer programs from around the country, Boyson and Short 

(2003) found that the most common newcomer configuration is a full-day program that lasts for one 

year, operates as a program within a school, and offers sheltered content instruction and American 

cultural orientation in addition to English language courses. They also describe common dimensions of 

variation on this model, as does Genesee (1999): 

1. Site location—In addition to the most common configuration of operating as a program within 

a school, newcomer programs may also run at independent nonschool sites, or as independent 

self-contained schools. 

2. Program goals—Most newcomer programs aim to prepare students for “the literacy and 

content demands of bilingual, ESL, or mainstream courses” (Boyson and Short 2003, p. 7); some 

programs, however—particularly those that operate as independent sites or schools—may have 

more or larger goals, such as helping newcomers graduate from high school. 

3. Length of daily program—Apart from the full-day design, programs may operate for half of 

the academic day or less, or take place after school. A combination of these other options was 

the most common configuration for the 1999–2000 school year, after the full day model (Boyson 

and Short 2003).

4. Exit criteria and maximum length of stay—Although one school year was the most common 

program length (Boyson and Short 2003), newcomer programs may be more (e.g., a school year 

plus a summer) or less time (e.g., one semester only). Both Genesee (1999) and Boyson and 

Short (2003) note that students often transition out of the program based on individual factors 

and preparation. Generally, there is likely a high incentive to integrate students into regular 

LIEPs as quickly as possible to minimize the amount of time that they are isolated from peers.

Notably, Boyson and Short (2003) are among the few authors who discuss funding sources for 

programs. They found that the majority of the secondary newcomer programs in their survey (82 

percent) received district-level funds, with a quarter of all newcomer programs (26 percent) supported by 

school district funds alone. The authors specifically noted that “the most effective and sustained 

programs seem to be those that receive strong support and a major share of their funding from the local 

school district” (Boyson and Short 2003, p. 14). This finding makes sense in light of the fact that a 

newcomer program must always be offered in addition to some other LIEP (because not all ELs are 

newcomers). 

The role of parent and community support and involvement is highlighted as a feature that is particularly 

important in newcomer programs (Genesee 1999; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; Boyson and 

Short 2003). Especially for students who are unfamiliar with the culture of formal education, acclimating 

them to an American school will necessarily involve acclimating their families as well, so that parents 

understand the expectations and customs of school. Some newcomer programs may even offer 

additional services for parents, such as adult ESL courses, General Educational Development (GED) 

courses, counseling and citizenship classes (Boyson and Short 2003; Genesee 1999). 
61 

Genesee (1999) and Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen (2004) both provided descriptions of different 

newcomer programs. Genesee (1999) gave brief summaries of five different newcomer programs from 

across the country, which range from a special course that newcomers take for one year as part of their 

curriculum to a full, self-contained, 4-year high school program. Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen (2004) 

provided similarly brief snapshots of four newcomer programs from around the country; all are for 

secondary students, and most are school-within-a-school programs that last for one year. 

 
Exhibit 9. Key articles for models and considerations for LIEP design

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Models under the ESL approach

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and professional development. In Developing Reading 

and Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis 

August and Hakuta 1998 Educating language-minority children Literature review and synthesis 

Belcher 2006 English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and 

imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life 

Expert opinion based on research 

Chamot and Beard ElDinary 1999 Children’s learning strategies in language immersion classrooms Descriptive study 

Chamot and O’Malley 1986 A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An ESL 

content-based curriculum 

Expert opinion based on research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1994 The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic 

Language Learning Approach 

Expert opinion based on research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1996 The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model 

for linguistically diverse classrooms

Expert opinion based on research 

Cline and Necochea 2003 Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE): 

More than just good instruction 

Expert opinion based on research 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Expert opinion based on research 

D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004 Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in 

English-language learners and children with English as a first 

language: A longitudinal study 

Quasi-experimental study 

Diaz-Rico and Weed 2002 The cross-cultural, language, and academic development 

handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide 

Expert opinion based on research 

Echevarria and Short 2010 Programs and Practices for Effective Sheltered Content 

Instruction. In Improving Education for English Learners: ResearchBased Approaches

Expert opinion based on research 

62
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Echevarria, Powers, and 

Short 

2006 School reform and standards-based education: A model for 

English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004 Making content comprehensible for English learners Expert opinion based on research 

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students Literature review and synthesis 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence 

Literature review and synthesis 

Harklau 1994 ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning 

environments 

Descriptive study 

Harper and de Jong 2004 Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners Expert opinion based on research 

Irby, Fuhui Tong, LaraAlecio, Mathes, Acosta, and 

Guerrero 

2010 Quality of instruction, language of instruction, and Spanishspeaking English language learners’ performance on a state 

reading achievement test

Quasi-experimental study 

Lucas and Katz 1994 Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in Englishonly programs for language minority students Descriptive study 

Merickel, Linquanti, Parrish, 

Perez, Eaton, and Esra 

2003 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the 

education of English learners, K-12: Year 3 report 

Descriptive study 

Padrón, Waxman, Brown, 

and Powers 

2000 Improving classroom instruction and student learning for resilient 

and non-resilient English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

Parrish, Merickel, Perez, 

Linquanti, Socias, and Spain 

2006 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the 

education of English learners, K-12 

Descriptive study 

Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991 Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English Immersion 

strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education 

programs for language-minority children (Executive summary) 

Quasi-experimental study 

Reeves 2004 “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for 

English language learners 

Descriptive study 

Reeves 2006 Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language 

learners in mainstream classrooms 

Descriptive study 

63
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Saunders and O’Brien 2006 Oral Language. In Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis 

of Research Evidence

Literature review and synthesis 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010 Research to guide English language development instruction. In 

Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Literature review and synthesis 

Short and Echevarria 1999 The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A tool for 

teacher researcher collaboration and professional development 

Expert opinion based on research 

Slavin, Madden, Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and Hennessy 

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized 

evaluation of transitional bilingual education 

Experimental study 

Sobul 1995 Specially designed academic instruction in English Expert opinion based on research 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 

2007 Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some 

schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale 

survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and 

EL students 

Descriptive study 

Zehler, Fleischman, 

Hopstock, Stephenson, 

Pendzick, and Sapru 

2003 Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students 

with disabilities 

Descriptive study 

Models under the bilingual approach 

August and Shanahan 2008 Developing reading and writing in second-language learners Literature review and synthesis 

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and Professional Development. In Developing Reading 

and Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis

August and Hakuta 1998 Educating language-minority children Literature review and synthesis 

Bahamonde and Friend 1999 Teaching English language learners: A proposal for effective 

service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching 

Expert opinion based on research 

64
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Bearse and de Jong 2008 Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary 

two-way immersion program 

Descriptive study 

Cazabon, Nicoladis, and 

Lambert

1998 Becoming bilingual in the Amigos two-way immersion program Descriptive study 

Christian, Montone, 

Lindholm, and Carranza 

1997 Profiles in two-way immersion education Descriptive study 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Descriptive study 

DeJesus 2008 An astounding treasure: Dual language education in a public 

school setting 

Descriptive study 

Freeman 2000 Contextual challenges to dual-language education: A case study of 

a developing middle school program 

Descriptive study 

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students Literature review and synthesis 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence 

Literature review and synthesis 

Gersten and Woodward 1995 A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual 

education programs in one district 

Quasi-experimental study 

Greene 1997 A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual 

education research 

Literature review and synthesis 

Goldenberg 2008 Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and 

does not—say 

Expert opinion based on research 

Howard and Christian 2002 Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a two-way 

immersion education program at the elementary level 

Expert opinion based on research 

Howard, Christian, and 

Genesee 

2004 The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: 

A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way 

immersion education 

Descriptive study 

Lindholm-Leary 2005 The rich promise of two-way immersion Expert opinion based on research 

65
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006 Academic Achievement. In Educating English Language Learners: A 

Synthesis of Research Evidence

Literature review and synthesis 

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001 Impact of two-way bilingual elementary programs on students’ 

attitudes toward school and college 

Quasi-experimental study 

Medina 1991 Native and Spanish language proficiency in a bilingual education 

program 

Quasi-experimental study 

Menken and Kleyn 2010 The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational 

experiences of secondary English language learners 

Expert opinion based on research 

Montone and Loeb 2000 Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary schools Expert opinion based on research 

Potowski 2004 Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion 

classroom: implications for second-language acquisition and 

heritage language maintenance 

Descriptive study 

Rivera, Francis, Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English language learners: Principals from 

five states speak 

Descriptive study 

Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991 Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English Immersion 

strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education 

programs for language-minority children (Executive summary) 

Quasi-experimental study 

Rolstad, Mahoney, and 

Glass 

2005 The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness 

research on English language learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

Saunders 1999 Improving literacy achievement for English learners in 

transitional bilingual programs

Experimental study 

Slavin and Cheung 2005 A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for 

English language learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

Slavin, Madden, Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and Hennessy 

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized 

evaluation of transitional bilingual education 

Experimental study 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

66
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Valdes 1997 Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note 

concerning the education of language-minority students 

Expert opinion based on research 

Newcomer model

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and professional development. In Developing Reading 

and Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis 

Boyson and Short 2003 Secondary school newcomer programs in the United States Descriptive study 

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students Literature review and synthesis 

Rivera, Francis, Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English language learners: Principals from 

five states speak 

Descriptive study 

Spaulding, Carolino, and 

Amen 

2004 Immigrant students and secondary school reform: Compendium 

of best practices 

Expert opinion based on research 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

67
68 

Instructional Practices and Professional Development

Simply choosing a model is not enough to establish a strong program. While models provide the broader 

structure for an EL’s education, the discrete instructional practices the student encounters on a day-today basis in the classroom are what give models substance. Thus, instructional practices play a critical 

role in the success and quality of LIEP implementation; variations in instructional practice may be the 

primary source of program variation from school to school or from district to district. Indeed, two 

recent large-scale experimental studies both found that instructional practices used in both SEI and TBE 

models appear to play a greater role in student outcomes than the LIEP model (Irby et al. 2010; Slavin et 

al. 2011). 

It is important to note that a LIEP model may not explicitly specify how instruction should be delivered 

or how best to build students’ skills and knowledge in support of their development of language or 

content. Instead, these decisions may be at the discretion of district- or school-level administrators, and 

the selected strategies may range from locally grown practices to off-the-shelf tools and methods 

designed by experts. 

Instructional practice for ELs is a broad topic that subsumes a variety of distinct subcategories. As the 

statutory language of Title III states, all LIEPs must help ELs both to acquire English proficiency and to 

stay on track with content instruction as they do so. Thus, instructing ELs involves teaching the students 

both content and English, and may involve delivering instruction in English, in students’ L1 or in some 

combination of the two. As a population that covers the full K-12 age range, ELs may respond to or 

benefit from different practices depending on their age or grade level; different instructional practices 

may also be more promising for students depending on their level of English language proficiency, their 

L1 proficiency or their formal education background. In light of these facts, it is likely the case that, as 

with models, there is no single instructional practice or set of practices that is a panacea for all ELs in all 

settings. 

Professional development also plays a key role in a discussion of instructional practices. Classroom 

instruction can only be as strong as the individuals who deliver it; teachers must have the training, 

support, knowledge and resources to deliver effective instruction to their EL students. Two descriptive 

studies (Reeves 2006, 2004) suggest that, in addition to the specific practices that teachers employ with 

ELs, teacher attitudes about ELs’ needs and abilities may also play a role in teachers’ ability to serve this 

population. Thus, the degree to which teachers are prepared to teach ELs—in terms of both what they 

teach and how they teach it—is a critical component of the instructional landscape. 

To shed further light on these topics, reviewers gathered articles that addressed the following questions: 

What specific practices and protocols can teachers adopt during their class instruction 

to support ELs’ acquisition of English or mastery of academic content? 

What are the content and components of promising professional development (PD) for 

teachers in LIEPs? 

How should PD be implemented and evaluated? 

Listed below are key ideas and findings related to instructional practices and professional development.
69 

Instructional Practices 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

In general, very few instructional practices have been validated by enough research to be 

considered definitively effective in a strong sense, particularly for ELs. 

Multiple examples of descriptive studies, expert opinion pieces and quasi-experimental studies 

suggest that high standards and challenging content are good for ELs (August and Pease-Alvarez 

1996; Dalton 1998; Gersten 1996; Rubinstein-Avila 2003; Saunders 1999; Thomas and Collier 

2002; Callahan 2005; Zetlin, MacLeod, and Michener 1998). These authors and others in the 

field (Henze and Lucas 1993; Collier and Thomas 1997; Minaya-Rowe 2004; Ray 2009) found 

that ELs, like all students, benefit from being held to high expectations and challenging content 

and achievement standards. 

Using What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) practice guide standards for evidence and efficacy, 

Gersten et al. (2007) conclude that monitoring ELs for reading risks is an instructional practice 

with strong research-based support. The WWC practice guides define “strong” as studies with 

both high internal validity and high external validity (Gersten et al. 2007, p. 2). Reviewers found 

multiple studies by a team of experts who have been staging small-scale quasi-experimental 

studies aimed at determining the efficacy of response to intervention (RTI) for ELs, and results 

are promising thus far (Gersten et al. 2007; Linan-Thompson, Cirino, and Vaughn 2007; Vaughn 

et al. 2006; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003; Vaughn et al. 2008). 

Interactive instruction and activities are often touted as promising practice for instructing ELs, 

but two research syntheses found that such interactions should be carefully structured to 

maximize their utility (Genesee et al. 2006; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). Goldenberg (2008) 

refers to “interactive instruction” as “instruction with give and take between learners and 

teacher, where the teacher is actively promoting students’ progress by encouraging higher levels 

of thinking, speaking, and reading at their instructional levels” (p. 18). Saunders and Goldenberg 

(2010) define “activities” as distinct from other systematic, explicit vocabulary and language 

teaching and involving tasks such as “sharing personal experiences, identifying and naming 

colors, describing picture cards, naming children in the class, and sing-alongs” (p. 35). ELs 

should potentially be required to produce oral language that relates to the learning objective as 

part of the interaction, and the non-EL participants in the interaction should have a clear 

understanding of their role in the interaction. 

Based on a synthesis of 17 studies, August et al. (2008) concluded that ELs benefit from 

instruction that focuses on the five key components of literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, 

fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension. Reviewers found a number of other articles in 

which experts made research-based arguments for focusing instruction on vocabulary and 

phonemics (Nelson, Vadasy, and Sanders 2011; August et al. 2005; Dalton 1998; Echevarria, 

Vogt, and Short 2004; Gersten 1996; Knight and Wiseman 2006; Gersten et al. 2007; Manyak 

and Bouchereau Bauer 2009; Manyak 2007; Teale 2009; Young 1996), whereas support for other 

literacy components—particularly text comprehension—was less common. 

One research synthesis concluded that providing ELs with explicit, language-specific feedback 

may both help instructors to feel more confident in their ability to serve ELs and help ELs to 

improve their language skills (Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). Reviewers found specific 

examples of this practice in small-scale descriptive studies that focused on writing (AguirreMunoz et al. 2001) and oral language (Lyster 2004b; Lyster 2004a). 

Reviewers found multiple experts who argued, based on research, that including explicit language 

objectives and identifying these clearly in each lesson is likely good practice, even (and especially) 
70 

in content-based ESL instruction (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Echevarria and Short 2010; 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). 

•

•

Learning strategies and self-monitoring strategies are also recommended by multiple experts as 

tools to help ELs acquire content or language skills (Chamot and O’Malley 1996; Lyster 2004a; 

Echevarria and Short 2010; Gersten 1996; Swain and Lapkin 1995; Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 

2003). 

Scaffolding and background-building are also commonly discussed instructional strategies, 

particularly for content instruction (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Cline and Necochea 2003; 

Gersten 1996; Saunders et al. 1999; Walqui 2002). 

Professional Development 

•

•

•

•

Multiple experts argued that teacher attitudes are critical when it comes to serving ELs, and that 

teachers who understand and accept ELs’ special needs are likely to be better equipped to serve 

these students (Gersten 1996; Knight and Wiseman 2006; Manyak 2007; Saunders and 

Goldenberg 2010; Reeves 2004, 2006; Ray 2009; Aguirre-Munoz et al. 2001).

It may be helpful for teachers to understand the second-language acquisition process, and how 

to recognize and support students’ needs according to where they are in this process (Harper 

and de Jong 2004; Pappamihiel 2002; Ernst-Slavit, Moore, and Maloney 2002). 

Multiple experts argued or observed that PD that is ongoing, collaborative and integrated into 

teachers’ experience on a regular basis is more likely to help teachers serve ELs appropriately 

- - lez and DarlingHammond 1997; Reyes 2002; Henze and Lucas 1993; Minaya-Rowe 2004; Zetlin, MacLeod, and 

Michener 1998). 

Teachers’ frustrations with serving ELs may stem from lack of confidence or understanding 

about how to serve these students; as teacher competence increases, attitudes may change 

(Arellano-Houchin et al. 2001; Gersten 1999; Ernst-Slavit, Moore, and Maloney 2002).

The discussion that follows is organized into instructional practices for language and literacy, 

instructional practices for content, and PD. Reviewers determined that most of the instructional 

practices and findings included in this review could be used in any model. Because even bilingual models 

still use English for some part of students’ instructional time, reviewers reasoned that any instructional 

practice that uses English predominately15

Others who have discussed the topic of instruction for ELs have organized findings according to a more 

pedagogical framework. Genesee et al. (2006, 2005), for example, sorted practices according to three 

types: direct, interactive and process based. Each type is as its name suggests: direct instructional 

practices involve explicit teaching of specific skills or strategies, interactive instructional practices 

 or exclusively could potentially be appropriate for any model. 

For the purpose of this discussion, practices in this subsection are further divided into two categories: 

those that specifically focus on language development (most of which focus on literacy and oral language 

development) and those that focus on teaching content (including practices in which language is taught 

via content). 

 

15 The phrase “predominately English” is used here because even some instructional techniques that make very basic or 

minimal use of students’ L1—e.g., the use of L1-L2 cognates to help students build vocabulary, or the use of L1-L2 

glossaries to accompany instructional materials in content classes—might be used in an ESL program such as SDAIE or 

sheltered instruction even without a trained bilingual instructor.
71 

emphasize interaction with other students (EL or non-EL) and with the teacher as a conduit to learning, 

and process-based instructional practices engage students in an inductive process wherein they derive 

language skills and strategies on their own through the use of holistic language and expression (Genesee 

et al. 2005, 2006). August and Shanahan (2008) distinguished among instructional practices that focus on 

specific literacy elements like vocabulary or phonemic awareness (which tend to require more direct 

instructional practices) and those that take a more complex pedagogy, where literacy is taught holistically 

(which they identify as more indirect). Genesee et al. (2006, 2005) found the most support in the 

research for direct strategies used in combination with interactive strategies, so most of the studies 

included in the current review focus on these two types. Readers should note, however, that some 

practices included in this review may employ any one or more of these three instructional practices. 

A note on teaching and learning. Because instruction is so closely tied to learning, outcomes and 

effectiveness are difficult metrics to avoid in this discussion. However, discussing instructional practices 

for ELs solely in terms of outcomes and research-based evidence presents a number of challenges. First, 

the research base for this population is neither as extensive nor as robust as one might like. While a great 

deal of research has been done about practices and strategies for the general population, far less research 

has attended specifically to ELs. In a large-scale review of literacy research pertaining to languageminority students and youth, for example, August et al. (2008) observed a general lack of research on 

either EL-specific interventions or on the effects of general interventions for ELs. Although the 

reviewers on that panel found more than 400 general studies about the effects of various literacy 

instruction practices, only 17 reported on or were designed for language-minority students. There is a 

need for experimental and quasi-experimental research on instructional practice specifically for ELs; as 

yet, however, the field lacks sufficient research of this type to support many definitive conclusions on 

how best to instruct this population. 

Second, the existing research is not always thorough or generalizable. In their research synthesis for the 

Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, Genesee et al. (2006) noted that most of 

the studies available are small in scale, and they frequently offer either narrative descriptions of practice 

or quantitative findings of effectiveness, but not both. August et al. (2008) echoed this observation, 

noting in the National Literacy Panel synthesis that many experimental and quasi-experimental studies 

did not provide much detail about the specific ways in which they modified instructional practices for 

ELs, making it difficult for others to replicate their experiments or findings. Both sets of reviewers, as 

well as the authors of this report, also opted to include descriptive studies in their discussions of 

instructional practice. Please note, as stated previously, that studies of this kind cannot rule out alternate 

explanations for their findings. 

Third, as a result of all these factors, much of the literature on this topic takes the form of expert opinion 

based on research and theory. For some questions, there simply is not a large enough experimental 

research base to speak definitively about recommendations. Two of the three large-scale research 

syntheses discussed in this section (August and Shanahan 2008; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010) also 

chose to expand their scope for certain research questions to include studies of older ELs (e.g., ELs in 

higher education settings or adult education), ELs in other countries (e.g., Canada and the United 

Kingdom), or second-language learners whose L2 is other than English (e.g., English-speaking students 

learning French as a second language), reasoning that such findings may add value to the discussion, 

even if education researchers cannot yet be certain whether such findings are applicable to or replicable 

within the K-12 population in the United States. 

A study by D’Angiulli et al. (2004) provides a representative snapshot of the strengths and weaknesses in 

the instructional practice research landscape: The authors described the results of a 5-year longitudinal 

study of a districtwide K-5 intensive literacy program. All three of Genesee et al.’s (2006) instructional 
72 

practices are featured in the program’s design: the students received direct instruction on sound-symbol 

relationships using an off-the-shelf reading curriculum with a heavy emphasis on phonemic awareness; 

the program included six reading components, including shared reading, home reading and “read aloud 

and respond,” as well as cooperative story writing, all of which are examples of interactive instruction; 

and students engaged in journal writing using “inventive spelling” and independent reading, both of 

which are holistic, process-based activities. Although the program was provided across the school 

district, inclusion in the study was limited to those families who gave consent (a self-selecting group). 

Further, there was no control group, although the authors compared student outcomes against trajectory 

projections based on student socioeconomic status (SES). The authors provided a brief description of 

the program’s instructional design, but said nothing about how teachers were prepared to deliver 

instruction, nor did they track teachers’ fidelity of implementation. The results suggest that, overall, the 

reading program showed promise for helping children (ELs and English speakers) who were at risk for 

reading failure, including students whose low SES posed a significant risk factor. The study was 

conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

As readers may observe, the D’Anguilli et al. (2004) study did many things well, making its findings 

potentially noteworthy. Its longitudinal nature and large cohort (1,108 students in all) lend the findings 

credibility, and the authors’ use of trajectories and attention to SES as a confounding variable help make 

the findings specific. Researchers disaggregated findings both by language status (ELs and English 

speakers) and by SES quartile to see whether and how the two variables interact. The literacy instruction 

includes many research-based practices that could feasibly produce results, and could be replicated if 

found to be effective. Despite these positives, the study’s design did not include a comparison group and 

therefore can produce only plausible explanations for the observed result patterns. The cohort was selfselecting (parents and students both must consent to participate) and unmatched (there is no control 

group). The research report mentioned nothing about whether or how teachers were trained to 

administer the program, and the authors did not collect any data about teachers’ fidelity of 

implementation. The program, though it includes many research-based practices, may also include so 

many that it would be difficult to determine whether certain practices within the overall design play a 

more significant role than others in student outcomes (e.g., perhaps only two of the many instructional 

practices are producing the majority of the results). The reviewers included the study based on its 

relatively promising discussion and findings, and based on the program’s use of instructional practices 

that other practitioners may be trying or may want to try. 

With this example in mind, and in light of the considerations raised above, readers should approach this 

section of the literature review carefully. To reiterate, the aim of this review is to summarize the ideas 

and findings that populate discussion in the field, not to recommend practices as effective or ineffective. 

Although the discussion is grounded in the findings of the research syntheses described below, very few 

of the practices discussed can be considered proven in terms of their quality or efficacy. Further research 

may yet show some of these practices to be ineffective or may suggest alternatives or modifications that 

will improve practices currently showing promise. At its core, this section summarizes the ideas and 

discussions that are current and ongoing on this topic, and makes no effort to identify topics within that 

discussion as more or less worthwhile. 

Readers may refer to Exhibit 10 for a summary of instructional findings in many of the key articles that 

will be discussed in the section that follows. 

General instructional findings. As a general first point, Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) argued, based 

on the available research, that providing ELs with dedicated English language development (ELD) 

instruction is likely to be beneficial for students in addition to any content-based language instruction 

that students may receive. As discussed previously, they argued that ELD instruction is likely to benefit 
73 

students in any kind of approach (bilingual or ESL), primarily because it provides ELs with critical 

opportunities to practice expressive language (i.e., writing and speaking), modalities that may get less 

practice or attention in content classes. They argued for this point based on the results of two moderatescale studies in California and Texas, both of which found that students in both bilingual and ESL 

programs performed better than matched counterpoints when they received dedicated ELD instruction. 

Another important general point is the previously noted finding that specialized instructional 

practices in the classroom show promise for helping ELs to learn English and meet high standards. 

Goldenberg (2008) notes, in a discussion of two large research reviews on instruction (August and 

Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006), that both review panels found that instruction that is modified or 

that accommodates the special needs of ELs is more likely to help these students progress than 

instruction that is not modified. Although there is no reason to believe that what counts as good 

instruction for English speakers is harmful for ELs, studies and reviews have found that such practices 

may be less effective for ELs than for native speakers (O’Day 2009; August et al. 2008; August and 

Hakuta 1998; D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004; Gersten 1996). Thus, providing well-designed and welldelivered general instruction for ELs is a good start but is not sufficient, nor is it likely to be as effective 

for these students as special instruction. 

Instructional practices for language and literacy. Most of the texts that reviewers found about 

instructing ELs focused on language development as opposed to content, and most of the language 

development works focused on literacy or oral language proficiency. Literacy appeared not only as a 

direct construct or subject in a number of studies, expert opinions and syntheses (the authors of this 

review found 73 articles that focused on literacy instruction, or components thereof), but also indirectly, 

as a central or sole metric by which some studies measured linguistic proficiency (Gersten and 

Woodward 1995; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991; Linan-Thompson, Cirino, and Vaughn 2007; LinanThompson et al. 2003; Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 2003; Irby et al. 2010; Slavin et al. 2011). Although 

literacy represents only one linguistic domain and should not necessarily be the sole measure of an EL’s 

linguistic proficiency,16

Two research syntheses found that, for teaching literacy, many instructional practices found to be 

effective for native speakers also show promise for ELs (August et al. 2008; August and Hakuta 1998); 

August et al. (2008) suggest, however, that such practices may be more effective if they are slightly 

tailored to account for ELs’ specific needs by, for example, giving special attention to vocabulary, 

presenting ideas using a variety of language modalities, or providing extra practice for ELs. August et al. 

(2008) also specifically identified five key components of literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, 

vocabulary and text comprehension, and found that direct instruction in these areas may help ELs make 

academic gains. That National Literacy Panel found 17 experimental and quasi-experimental studies that 

focused on direct instruction of one or more of these components, and found that instruction in these 

areas (which is generally direct and explicit, though not always) shows promising outcomes for ELs. 

August (2003) also provided a research synthesis and promising practice recommendation for each 

component independently. 

 its prevalence in the literature reviewed here suggests that many researchers view 

it as a particularly critical component of the language proficiency construct. Oral proficiency appears to 

facilitate literacy development (Genesee et al. 2006; August and Shanahan 2006; August 2003), and thus 

appears in the instructional practice literature to a fair degree as well. 

The authors of this review also found examples of experts and researchers advocating for specific 

strategies for teaching the components of literacy. Vocabulary instruction and word recognition were 

 

16 The current law requires that ELs be tested annually on their proficiency in the four language domains of reading, 

writing, listening and speaking for Title I purposes; for Title III, states also must produce a score for comprehension. 
74 

recommended in a number of articles, with examples in all four language modalities (reading, writing, 

speaking and listening). August, Carlo, Dressler, and Snow (2005) asserted that to help increase EL 

vocabulary development, educators should utilize the student’s L1, especially if it shares cognates with 

English; ensure that ELs know the meaning of basic (Tier 1) words that English-proficient students 

already know; and review and reinforce vocabulary, using read-alouds as a strategy. Other useful 

strategies include providing definitional and contextual information about each word’s meaning; 

involving students in word learning through talking about, comparing, analyzing and using target words; 

providing multiple exposures to meaningful information about each word; and word analysis. 

Gersten et al. (2007) advocated for “extensive and varied” vocabulary instruction as an instructional 

practice with strong evidence. WWC practice guides deem evidence as “strong” when such evidence is 

based on studies that have both high internal and high external validity. Manyak and Bouchereau Bauer 

(2009) identified six strategies to help ELs build vocabulary: (1) provision of explicit, intensive 

vocabulary instruction for all grades; (2) the inclusion of basic vocabulary in vocabulary instruction; 

(3) balance between basic and higher-level vocabulary; (4) development of students’ word consciousness; 

(5) application of EL-specific instructional strategies to known or proven practices for English speakers; 

and (6) the incorporation and integration of vocabulary instruction throughout the day and across 

subjects. Snow, Lawrence, and White (2009) investigated a vocabulary intervention program targeting 

sixth to eighth graders that focuses on deep reading, comprehension of current events topics, productive 

classroom discussion, developing arguments, and producing persuasive essays as useful strategies in 

teaching academic language and vocabulary. 

Giambo and McKinney (2004) described a small experiment with kindergarteners in which they 

attempted to build oral proficiency by explicitly teaching phonological awareness as a component of 

reading aloud with students. Although the reading aloud generally helped all students to build their 

receptive vocabulary, students with the explicit phonological instruction showed significantly greater 

gains in oral language proficiency, compared to control-group students, who experienced only the 

reading aloud. Nelson, Vadasy, and Sanders (2011) described an intervention designed to simultaneously 

develop root word vocabulary and reinforce decoding skills in kindergarteners through practice in 

phoneme blending and spelling of target vocabulary words and independent reading of decodable text. 

Vaughn et al. (2009) proposed four instructional strategies for improving vocabulary and comprehension 

knowledge: overview and vocabulary instruction, the use of brief videos and purposeful discussion to 

build concepts, the use of graphic organizers and other writing activities to build comprehension and 

vocabulary through writing, and structured paired grouping. Phonics is also featured strongly in the 

classroom instruction of a teacher deemed effective in a California study of teachers providing ESL 

instruction to students from a variety of linguistic backgrounds (Graves, Gersten, and Haager 2004). 

After addressing literacy components, one of the most commonly advocated instructional practices 

observed in the literature was grouping or providing ELs with opportunities for oral interaction

with other ELs, with English-speaking peers and with the instructor (Dalton 1998; Echevarria, Vogt, and 

Short 2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Garcia 1991; Gersten et al. 2007; Knight and Wiseman 

2006; Rubinstein-Avila 2003; Saunders et al. 1999; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Young 1996). While 

the findings of two research syntheses did support this practice (Genesee et al. 2006; Saunders and 

Goldenberg 2010), they also added two important caveats. First, both review panels observed that not all 

interactive activities are equally beneficial—e.g., not all students participate equally, or English-speaking 

students may not understand how to include ELs appropriately based on their language needs. Both 

Genesee et al. (2006) and Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) cautioned that interactive activities should be 

very carefully structured to ensure they are actually providing ELs with the appropriate opportunities to 

communicate and interact. 
75 

Second, Saunders, and Goldenberg (2010) in particular noted that, while grouping ELs according to 

ability for language instruction may make sense for some settings, such groupings should also be as fluid 

as possible and should provide students with opportunities to change groups and advance as soon, and 

as frequently as, they may demonstrate that they are ready. In combination, these findings on interaction 

and grouping suggest that a promising strategy would be to group ELs by proficiency level until they 

have built the foundational oral fluency and confidence necessary to support their interaction with more 

fluent peers, at which point they should be grouped with English-speaking peers instead. Genesee et al. 

(2006) noted that, after a basic level of oral proficiency is reached, a feedback loop is common in which 

students’ increased confidence leads to increased use, which leads to further improvement and more 

confidence. 

Many experts also advocated for directly teaching learning strategies to help students attack language 

or content tasks (Shih 1992; Gersten 1996; Knight and Wiseman 2006; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010). 

Such strategies are often more process based, to use Genesee et al.’s (2006) terminology, but may 

complement direct instruction (e.g., the SIOP Model, Echevarria and Short 2010, incorporates all three 

types of instruction, which may in turn contribute to the strong outcomes its authors are beginning to 

see). For example, Shih (1992) laid out a framework for building the text comprehension of intermediate 

and advanced ELs, in which students apply cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies to their 

reading. The authors listed strategies that ELs may be taught to use before, during and after reading to 

aid their comprehension; these include previewing and background building (before), self-questioning 

and setting vocabulary priorities (during), and summarizing and conceptual mapping (after). Similarly, 

Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore (2003) asserted that explicit teaching should be paired with reciprocal 

teaching as a means to enhance the reading comprehension skills of ELs. In reciprocal teaching, students 

learn how to monitor their comprehension by using the cognitive and metacognitive strategies of 

questioning, summarizing, clarifying and predicting, in collaborative small-group discussions using a 

common text. Multiple authors also advocated for the use of clear language objectives in lesson delivery, 

in addition to content objectives (if applicable) (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Teale 2009; Saunders 

and Goldenberg 2010). 

Feedback is also an instructional practice that appeared repeatedly in the literature reviewed, with the 

general consensus that explicit, direct feedback is likely to be helpful to students’ English language 

development. Aguirre-Munoz et al. (2001) described a study of a systemic-functional linguistic (SFL) 

writing intervention in which they taught teachers to analyze and respond to student writing using three 

primary concepts from SFL—field, tenor and mode—and provide students with specific, constructive, 

language-oriented feedback along these three dimensions. Samples (included in the article) of student 

work showed that ELs’ writing did improve as their teachers learned to apply their new evaluation 

techniques, and teachers reported greater confidence in their ability to serve ELs. Lyster (2004b) found 

that form-focused instruction, which draws student attention to linguistic forms in spoken 

communicative context, rather than in isolated instruction, was more effective when paired with teacher 

prompts for correction when students misspoke; prompts were found to be more successful than other, 

less direct forms of feedback. Feedback is also a key component of the SIOP model as part of the 

“review and assessment” component (Echevarria and Short 2010). 

Scaffolding instruction, in which teachers guide student learning by providing structures or 

frameworks that are gradually removed, was also commonly cited in the literature (Dutro and Kinsella 

2010; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Gersten 1996; Rubinstein-Avila 2003). Various researchers 

proposed doing this in different ways, ranging from visual scaffolding (Rubinstein-Avila 2003), writing 

scaffolds (Carrier and Tatum 2006), vocabulary scaffolds (Dutro and Kinsella 2010), oral scaffolds (e.g., 

think alouds, Echevarria and Short 2010), and, as noted below, scaffolds in science instruction (Case 

2002). Walqui (2002) described a model of scaffolding that emphasizes the interactive social nature of 
76 

learning. She proposed that instructional scaffolding is about both structure and process, and that there 

are six main types: modeling, bridging, contextualizing, building schema, representing text and 

developing metacognition. 

Saunders was one of few experts to focus on the role of the writing modality, both in itself and as a 

means to promote literacy (Saunders 1999; Saunders and Goldenberg 1999; Saunders et al. 1999). He 

argued that writing provides students with opportunities both to reflect on their own learning and 

comprehension and to practice their expression individually, and literature logs and writing assignments 

figure centrally in a literature program he designed for students transitioning out of transitional bilingual 

education programs into ESL. Saunders and Goldenberg (1999) found that a combination of writing 

(keeping literature logs) and engaging in instructional conversations about stories may have helped ELs 

to improve their comprehension, particularly of story themes. 

For ELs who do struggle with literacy, many experts are interested in exploring the extent to which 

response to intervention (RTI) can be applied for ELs. Gersten et al. (2007) named monitoring as a 

practice with strong evidence (based on studies that have both high internal and external validity), and 

reviewers found multiple studies by a group of researchers who have been developing and testing ELspecific RTI practices (Linan-Thompson, Cirino, and Vaughn 2007; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003; 

Vaughn et al. 2006). It should be noted that WWC practice guides deem evidence as “strong” when it is 

based on studies with both high internal and high external validity (Gersten et al. 2007, p. 2). In one 

small study, Linan-Thompson et al. (2003) tested an intervention that provided explicit instruction of 

various literacy components, including fluent reading, phonological awareness, instructional-level 

reading, word study and writing; in posttest outcomes, student scores increased significantly for word 

attack, passage comprehension and phoneme segmentation. Interestingly, a 4-month follow-up indicated 

significant gains for oral reading fluency, but losses in phoneme segmentation fluency. Vaughn et al. 

(2008) proposed an individualized intervention that features increased responsiveness to student needs. 

Decision making is based on student assessment results, and motivation is considered in text selection, 

instructional materials and curricula specification. 

Another theme that emerged from the literature is the benefit of implementing native-language 

instructional practices into literacy instruction for ELs. A study by Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore (2003) 

promoted utilizing students’ L1 in conjunction with English in L1-assisted reciprocal teaching, under the 

assumption that using a student’s stronger language to convey procedural knowledge would depict a 

more complete picture of reading comprehension. Students in the study were able to think aloud in their 

L1 when reading English text. Proctor et al. (2009) described a digital reading program that also 

incorporates students’ L1. These researchers argued that universal design provides a means of 

representing text and expressing student learning through the use of Spanish and English images, audio 

recordings and written language, and engages students through choice, feedback and multimedia. 

Notably, the descriptions of instruction in TBE, DBE and TWI models suggest that literacy instruction 

does not necessarily (and need not) vary according to language, meaning that promising instructional 

practices for ELs’ L1 literacy may be similar or identical to promising practices for their L2 literacy. 

Vaughn et al. (2006) and Linan-Thompson et al. (2003), for example, have conducted small experimental 

and quasi-experimental studies, respectively, on L1 reading interventions for Spanish-speaking ELs. 

These studies found that treatments that use strategies similar to those effective for struggling readers in 

English can also help struggling readers in Spanish to build their Spanish reading skills. The interventions 

focused on building students’ skills in phonemic awareness, phonemic decoding, word recognition and 

text processing, construction of meaning, vocabulary, spelling and writing (Vaughn et al. 2006). Notably, 

Vaughn et al. (2006) reported increases in reading comprehension, a particularly elusive improvement 

dimension (Snow 2008). 
77 

Content instruction for ELs. All ELs (even those experiencing TWI bilingual models) receive some, if 

not all, of their content instruction in English. Content instruction poses both dual opportunities and 

dual challenges, which are essentially the same: students must learn content somehow, and they may 

learn language as part of the process. Reviewers found less literature that focused specifically on content 

instruction, but what was found was published relatively recently, which indicates that research in this 

area may be increasing. Readers should note that many of the instructional practices discussed in the 

preceding section (e.g., setting language goals, scaffolding instruction, providing explicit vocabulary 

instruction) need not be limited to application in literacy instruction; these practices could potentially be 

appropriate for use in content instruction. 

August et al. (2009) investigated the Quality English and Science Teaching (QuEST) intervention, which 

was designed to develop both the science knowledge and the academic language of middle grade ELs. In 

addition to inquiry-based science learning, QuEST builds on the strengths of ELs by making content 

clear through visuals, modeling and ongoing discussion. August et al. (2009) describe QuEST as designed 

based on the rationale that oral proficiency can be developed through science instruction via explicit 

vocabulary instruction, guided reading and partnering with English-proficient classmates. Vaughn et al. 

(2009) conducted two experimental studies in seventh-grade social studies classrooms with ELs. ELs in 

the study improved in their word knowledge and social studies comprehension through the use of 

materials and strategies such as videos, small-group discussions, writing activities and paired grouping 

with classmates. ELs also showed word gains at the rate of non-LEPs. Case (2002) proposed a science 

learning cycle with many characteristics that appeared repeatedly throughout the literature on instruction 

for ELs: he recommended teaching the language of science as an integrated component of instruction, 

scaffolding intersections between language and content, and assessing students with multiple measures to 

determine what they know and can do.

In their first-year report on a longitudinal experimental study of a science curriculum and PD program 

aimed to improve outcomes for ELs, Lee et al. (2008) described the approach and teacher preparation to 

deliver a science curriculum consisting of nine units with specially designed materials and practices to 

support students’ comprehension and second-language acquisition. The curriculum in the study involves 

many of the same instructional practices discussed above, including vocabulary instruction, scaffolding, 

modified materials, visual materials and realia, writing practice, varied grouping, and multiple modes of 

expression and communication. Although the study of the curriculum is ongoing, thus far ELs and 

English speakers have all shown similar, statistically significant gains in math and science compared to 

the control group; although achievement gaps did not close, they did not widen either. 

Schleppegrell, Achugar, and Oteíza (2004) presented a framework for providing language and content 

instruction in history, with a specific focus on grammar. Their model proposes teaching and coaching 

students in the practice of identifying various important concepts in history writing (events, participants) 

and higher order concepts (information organization, relationships between participants and events) with 

grammar instruction integrated as part of the exercise. 

Professional development. Evidence for a relationship between the quality, experience and preparation 

of teachers and the outcomes of students has been established, even if its nuances remain debatable 

(Darling-Hammond 1997; Sanders and Rivers 1996; Wright, Horn, and Sanders 1997; DarlingHammond, Berry, and Thoreson 2001; Weisberg et al. 2009; Goe and Stickler 2008; Graves, Gersten, 

and Haager 2004). Buysse, Castro, and Peisner-Feinberg (2010) advocated intensive ongoing PD for 

pre-K teachers who serve ELs. They proposed three components to a beneficial program: PD institutes 

to promote teachers’ acquisition of core content knowledge and skills; individualized consultation 

sessions to support teachers in implementing new instructional strategies in the classroom; and 

community of practice meetings to provide teachers with opportunities for feedback, reflection and 
78 

collaborative problem-solving. Results of the intervention displayed improvements in overall quality of 

teachers’ language and literacy practices, especially regarding ELs, as well as greater gains in children’s 

phonological awareness skills in their primary language. 

Multiple experts have found or argued that, like all students, ELs generally benefit from high 

expectations and challenging curricula (Henze and Lucas 1993; Collier and Thomas 1997; Minaya-Rowe 

2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Ray 2009). Callahan (2005) found that the classes into which ELs 

are placed are a stronger predictor of academic achievement than students’ language status—those 

students who are placed in lower classes on a tracking system are less likely to do well, presumably 

because the instruction they receive in such classes is less challenging and of lesser quality. Zetlin, 

MacLeod, and Michener (1998) reported that teachers with high expectations had students who showed 

fewer behavior issues, more accelerated learning, gains in social skills and increased motivation. When 

instruction was delivered by teachers who had low expectations and structured their learning 

environments around intellectually limited exercises and low-level literacy skills, ELs struggled and 

outcomes were poor, by comparison. Thomas and Collier (2002) also found that students in segregated, 

remedial programs tended to languish after exiting into the mainstream. 

In a largely anecdotal piece, Kaplan (2009) discussed the design and delivery of a research-based 

mandatory PD course for Arizona instructors to learn more about ELs, and observed that, despite the 

program being mandatory for all teachers, those teachers who seemed to contribute to and benefit most 

from the program were those whose attitudes toward ELs were already positive. In short, this was the 

population of teachers who were least likely to need the PD, and those who may have been most likely 

to pursue PD in the area anyway. Kaplan reported more difficulty in engaging with teachers who were 

resistant to the program’s focus on ELs and who were clearly there only because it was mandatory. 

The literature also suggests that teachers should understand that ELs have specific educational needs 

based on their linguistic status and that they require different instructional treatment as a result (August 

and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Young 1996; Reeves 2004, 2006; Kaplan 2009; Rubinstein-Avila 2003). 

Teachers must not only know this but understand and accept it—teachers with attitudes that nonEnglish languages are a burden or that EL needs are inconvenient to deal with are not likely to produce 

supportive learning environments for these students. In light of this suggestion, the importance of 

school culture on EL education—that is, the attitude of the larger community in which teachers are 

embedded—is likely connected strongly to teachers’ individual attitudes. Saunders and Goldenberg 

(2010) note that it is often easier to implement and sustain a strong ELD program when the school or 

school district makes this a priority. 

Research also suggests that prejudice is not necessarily the reason why teachers may feel hesitant about 

serving ELs. Rather, teachers’ sense of urgency and competency with regard to their EL students may be 

a key factor in teacher attitudes. In interviews with teachers in California, for example, Arellano et al. 

(2001) found that the interviewees’ primary frustration with the shift to ESL instruction after 

Proposition 227 was that they had had to change their teaching style without receiving adequate support 

or training to do so; many did not feel as though they had adequate training to implement the state’s new 

ESL approach. Gersten (1999) interviewed three California teachers and found that one primary 

frustration in serving ELs stemmed from tension in balancing expectations for correct linguistic usage 

with efforts to push students to express themselves in whatever way they can. The interviewees also 

asked for potential solutions to the problems that they observed. Ernst-Slavit, Moore, and Maloney 

(2002), meanwhile, maintained that teachers will be able to serve students better, and feel more 

competent, if they understand the stages of the second-language acquisition process and how to provide 

instruction that will meet students’ needs at each phase. 
79 

In a research synthesis on teacher preparation specifically for serving ELs, Knight and Wiseman (2006)

found a body of work on best practices for teaching ELs, but very little about how to help teachers learn 

or implement these practices. York-Barr, Ghere, and Sommerness (2007) provided helpful data detailing 

teachers’ positive and negative reactions to a PD effort over 2 school years, and noted that 

instructionally focused collaboration among teachers was beneficial for the LIEP in which they worked 

as well. Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond (1997) provided a comprehensive framework for preparing 

teachers to work with immigrant students (a subset of ELs, as not all ELs are immigrants), in which they 

also delineated some critical characteristics to PD design and delivery. Gersten et al. (2007) characterize 

effective PD as PD that is designed and delivered based on teacher needs and adult learning styles, and 

requires a systemic commitment of time and resources (ongoing in nature) from the school to yield 

results. It is described as job embedded, collaborative among all EL instructors and focused on fidelity of 

instructional techniques with time allotted for teachers to practice. Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond 

(1997) noted that it may be years before the expected changes from the PD are measurable, and so the 

school district must be committed to sustaining and supporting its program. They also encourage the 

inclusion of teachers in the PD design or planning process. 

A commonly repeated characteristic of effective PD was to embed it in teachers’ regular routines and 

community, rather than presenting it as an event or task that is isolated from daily practice lez 

and Darling-Hammond 1997; Reyes 2002; Henze and Lucas 1993; Minaya-Rowe 2004; Zetlin, MacLeod, 

and Michener 1998; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; York-Barr, Ghere, and Sommerness 2007). In 

a study on science instruction and PD, Lee et al. (2008) required the participating teachers to attend PD 

workshops throughout the school year, and found promising outcome data in their student cohort in the 

first year (the study is longitudinal and ongoing). Notably, Lee et al.’s PD involved teachers as active 

agents in the planning process, and encouraged them to communicate and collaborate with one another 

about beliefs and practice. 

On a similar note, professional learning communities (PLCs) were another frequently repeated 

characteristic of effective PD. In their descriptions of PD frameworks for in-service and preservice 

teachers, Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond (1997); Minaya-Rowe (2004); Reyes (2002), Henze and Lucas 

(1993); Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen (2004); York-Barr, Ghere, and Sommerness (2007); and Zetlin, 

MacLeod, and Michener (1998) all named collaboration, community building and collegiality as 

important features of effective PD, both as program characteristics and as program outcomes. 

Collaboration, in particular between language specialists and general educators or content teachers, can 

be especially important, particularly in school districts that use ESL models that integrate language and 

content learning. 

Self-reflection and evaluation also surfaced in many authors’ discussions of PD, implying that PD need 

not always be a top-down or outside-in phenomenon for teachers, but also a self-oriented strategy that 

all teachers can apply to their own practice. Indeed, reflective self-evaluation is a central characteristic of 

the SIOP model (Echevarria, Powers, and Short 2006; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004; Short and 

Echevarria 1999). As mentioned previously, the creators of the SIOP model are working to show the 

model’s effects on student outcomes; in at least one study (Echevarria, Powers, and Short 2006), they 

found results indicating that students of teachers using the SIOP model to deliver their SI performed 

slightly better than students who received SI without the model’s support. Minaya-Rowe (2004) also 

found that using SIOP techniques to deliver PD to preservice teachers in their nondominant language 

both improved teachers’ L2 and helped them to understand EL needs and experiences better in the 

process. 

In the vein of reflective practice, August and Pease-Alvarez (1996) included in their summary of 

attributes of effective ESL programs a tool that provides benchmarks for school staff so that they may 
80 

compare their practices with those considered exemplary, and develop their routes to effectiveness. 

Exhibit 10 presents promising instructional practices for ELs, while Exhibit 11 displays the key articles 

reviewed as part of this section. 
Exhibit 10. Promising instructional practices for ELs

Instructional 

practices

Vocabulary 

instruction

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs

High standards and 

expectations

Monitoring and 

feedback

August et al. (2009)

Inquiry-based learning, 

visuals, modeling, 

ongoing discussion 

Language and literacy 

development in the 

context of content 

area; 

Explicit vocabulary 

instruction 

Use students’ L1s to 

facilitate instruction 

Partnering with 

English-proficient 

classmates 

Curriculum aligned 

with national standards 

Provide PD to 

teachers 

August and Pease-Alvarez (1996)

Individualized 

instruction 

Schoolwide 

curriculum is 

inclusive of other 

cultures and 

languages 

Small group work; 

Cooperative 

learning; 

Peer tutoring 

Core curriculum is 

aligned with rigorous 

content standards; 

ELs have equal access 

to high-quality 

resources 

Dalton (1998)

Instructional 

conversation 

Language 

development 

Contextualization Joint productive 

activity 

Challenging activity 

81
Instructional 

practices 

Vocabulary 

instruction 

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness 

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs 

High standards and 

expectations 

Monitoring and 

feedback 

Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2004)

Clear content and 

language objectives, 

materials, meaningful 

activities; 

Appropriate speech, 

clear explanations, 

variety of techniques; 

Hands-on materials or 

manipulatives, apply 

content and language 

knowledge, integrate all 

language skills 

Concepts linked to 

experience and key 

vocabulary 

Interaction by 

grouping 

Scaffolding with 

questions to promote 

higher order thinking 

Regular feedback; 

Objectives are 

supported, students 

engaged, pacing; 

Assessment of 

student 

comprehension 

Garcia (1991)

Instruction of basic 

skills and academic 

content 

Collaborative 

learning techniques; 

Functional 

communication 

between teacher and 

students and among 

fellow students 

Gersten (1996)

Structures, 

frameworks, scaffolds 

and strategies 

Relevant background 

knowledge and key 

vocabulary concepts 

Respect for and 

responsiveness to 

cultural and 

personal diversity 

Active involvement 

of all students 

Challenge (implicit and 

explicit) 

Mediation and 

feedback 

82
Instructional 

practices 

Vocabulary 

instruction 

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness 

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs 

High standards and 

expectations 

Monitoring and 

feedback 

Gersten et al. (2007)

Provide intensive 

small-group reading 

interventions; 

Develop students’ 

academic English 

Provide extensive 

and varied 

vocabulary 

instruction 

Schedule regular 

peer-assisted 

learning 

opportunities 

Screen for reading 

problems and 

monitor progress 

Knight and Wiseman (2006)

Developing language 

and literacy across 

the curriculum 

Making meaning—

connecting school 

to students’ lives 

Teachers and 

students producing 

together; 

Teaching through 

conversation 

Teaching complex 

thinking 

Manyak (2007)

Explicit code and 

comprehension 

instruction; 

An additive approach 

to literacy instruction 

Language-rich 

instruction 

Socioculturally 

informed instruction 

83
Instructional 

practices 

Vocabulary 

instruction 

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness 

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs 

High standards and 

expectations 

Monitoring and 

feedback 

Manyak and Bouchereau Bauer (2009)

Enhance knowledge or

proven vocabulary 

instruction practices for 

non-ELs by applying 

additional strategies 

that are specifically 

known to help ELs 

Include basic 

vocabulary in 

vocabulary 

instruction; 

Develop students’ 

word consciousness; 

Incorporate 

vocabulary 

instruction and 

activities throughout 

the day and across 

subjects 

Provide explicit, 

intensive vocabulary 

instruction for all 

grades; 

Balance basic with 

higher level vocabulary 

Rubinstein-Avila (2003)

Slowing speech; 

Visual scaffolding; 

Activate prior 

knowledge; 

Supplemental sources 

such as visual aids 

Opportunities to 

interact academically 

with peers or nonELs 

Hold high expectations 

for all learners 

84
Instructional 

practices 

Vocabulary 

instruction 

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness 

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs 

High standards and 

expectations 

Monitoring and 

feedback 

Saunders (1999)

Instruction is delivered 

to students in small, 

homogenous groups 

based on proficiency 

level; 

Achieve continuity in 

curriculum and 

instruction across 

grades; 

Build connections 

between prior 

knowledge and 

curriculum; 

Address both meaning 

and skills, both higher 

level thinking and 

appropriate drill 

Teacher provides 

lessons on specific 

conventions 

(punctuation, 

capitalization, 

grammar) 

Challenge students 

academically 

85
Instructional 

practices 

Vocabulary 

instruction 

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness 

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs 

High standards and 

expectations 

Monitoring and 

feedback 

Saunders and Goldenberg (2010)

ELD instruction 

should be planned and 

delivered with specific 

language objectives in 

mind; 

ELD instruction 

should integrate 

meaning and 

communication to 

support explicit 

teaching of language 

ELD instruction 

should explicitly 

teach elements of 

English (e.g., 

vocabulary, syntax, 

grammar, functions, 

and conventions) 

Teachers should 

attend to 

communication and 

language-learning 

strategies and 

incorporate them 

into ELD 

instruction 

ELD instruction 

should include 

interactive activities, 

but they must be 

carefully planned 

and executed 

ELD instruction 

should provide 

students with 

corrective feedback 

on form 

Teale (2009)

Clear learning 

objectives; 

Texts with content 

familiarity 

Comprehension, 

vocabulary, 

phonological 

awareness, phonics 

and word 

recognition, reading 

fluency, writing 

Culturally 

compatible 

instruction 

Consolidating text 

knowledge by 

having the teacher, 

other students and 

ELs paraphrase 

Assessment and 

instruction linked on 

an ongoing basis 

86
Instructional 

practices 

Vocabulary 

instruction 

Teacher attitudes 

and cultural 

awareness 

Interaction with 

fluent non-ELs 

High standards and 

expectations 

Monitoring and 

feedback 

Vaughn et al. (2009)

Use of brief videos and 

purposeful discussion 

to build concepts 

Explicit vocabulary 

and concept 

instruction; 

Use of graphic 

organizers and 

writing activities to 

build comprehension 

and vocabulary 

through writing 

Collaborative or 

cooperative learning 

with heterogeneous 

groups 

Young (1996)

Meaning-based 

instruction; 

Language experience 

approaches; 

Language drills

Sheltered vocabulary Cooperative learning 

Additional articles

González and DarlingHammond (1997); Case 

(2002); Carrier and 

Tatum (2006); 

Echevarria, Powers, 

and Short (2006); Fung, 

Wilkinson, and Moore 

(2003); Proctor et al. 

(2009); Snow (2009); 

Walqui (2002) 

August (2003); 

August et al. (2005); 

Nelson, Vadasy, and 

Sanders (2011) 

Reeves (2004); 

Reeves (2006); 

Kaplan (2009); Ray 

(2009); AguirreMunoz et al. (2001) 

Henze and Lucas 

(1993); Collier and 

Thomas (1997); Ray 

(2009); Zetlin, 

MacLeod, and 

Michener (1998); 

Thomas and Collier 

(2002); Callahan (2005) 

Shih (1992); Chamot 

and O’Malley (1996); 

Vaughn et al. (2008) 

87
Exhibit 11. Key articles on instructional practices and professional development

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Aguirre-Munoz, Park, 

Amabisca, and Boscardin 

2001 Developing teacher capacity for serving English language learners’ 

writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional 

linguistics 

Quasi-experimental study 

Arellano-Houchin, 

Flamenco, Merlos, and 

Segura 

2001 Has California’s passage of Proposition 227 made a difference in 

the way we teach? 

Descriptive study 

August 2003 Supporting the development of English literacy in English 

language learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

August, Carlo, Dressler, and 

Snow 

2005 The critical role of vocabulary development for English language 

learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and professional development. In Developing Reading and 

Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis 

August, Branum-Martin, 

Cardenas-Hagan, and Francis

2009 The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and 

language learning of middle grade English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

August and Pease-Alvarez 1996 Attributes of effective programs and classrooms serving English 

language learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

August and Shanahan 2006 Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the 

national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth 

(Executive summary) 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

August and Shanahan 2008 Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners Literature review and synthesis 

Callahan 2005 Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to 

learn 

Descriptive study 

Carrier and Tatum 2006 Creating sentence walls to help English-language learners develop 

content literacy 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Case 2002 The intersection of language, education, and content: Science 

instruction for ESL students 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

88
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Chamot and O’Malley 1996 The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model 

for linguistically diverse classrooms 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Cline and Necochea 2003 Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE): More 

than just good instruction 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Expert opinion based on 

research 

Dalton 1998 Pedagogy matters: Standards for effective teaching practice Expert opinion based on 

research 

D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004 Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in 

English-language learners and children with English as a first 

language: A longitudinal study 

Quasi-experimental study 

Darling-Hammond 1997 Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching Expert opinion based on 

research 

Darling-Hammond, Berry, 

and Thoreson 

2001 Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence Literature review and synthesis 

Dutro and Kinsella 2010 English language development: Issues and implementation at 

grades six through twelve. In Improving Education for English Learners: 

Research-Based Approaches

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Echevarria and Short 2010 Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. 

In Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Echevarria, Powers, and 

Short 

2006 School reform and standards-based education: A model for 

English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004 Making content comprehensible for English learners Expert opinion based on 

research 

Ernst-Slavit, Moore, and 

Maloney 

2002 Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students Literature review and synthesis 

Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 2003 L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ 

comprehension of English expository text 

Quasi-experimental study 

89
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Garcia 1991 Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective 

instructional practices 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2005 English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research 

findings 

Literature review and synthesis 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence 

Literature review and synthesis 

Gersten 1996 Literacy instruction for language-minority students: The transition 

years 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Gersten 1999 Lost opportunities: challenges confronting four teachers of 

English-language learners 

Descriptive study 

Gersten, Baker, Shanahan, 

Linan-Thompson, Collins, 

and Scarcella 

2007 Effective literacy and English language instruction for English 

learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Giambo and McKinney 2004 The effects of a phonological awareness intervention on the oral 

English proficiency of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children

Experimental study 

Goe and Stickler 2008 Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of 

recent research 

Literature review and synthesis 

Gonzalez and DarlingHammond 

1997 New concepts for new challenges: Professional development for 

teachers of immigrant youth 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Graves, Gersten, and Haager 2004 Literacy instruction in multiple-language first-grade classrooms: 

Linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice 

Descriptive study 

Harper and de Jong 2004 Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners Expert opinion based on 

research 

Henze and Lucas 1993 Shaping instruction to promote the success of language minority 

students: An analysis of four high school classes 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Irby, Fuhui Tong, LaraAlecio, Mathes, Acosta, and 

Guerrero 

2010 Quality of instruction, language of instruction, and Spanishspeaking English language learners’ performance on a state reading 

achievement test 

Quasi-experimental study 

90
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Kaplan 2009 The impact of English-only legislation on teacher professional 

development: Shifting perspectives in Arizona 

Descriptive study 

Knight and Wiseman 2006 Lessons learned from a research synthesis on the effects of 

teachers’ professional development on culturally diverse students 

Literature review and synthesis 

Lee, Maerten-Rivera, 

Penfield, LeRoy, and Secada 

2008 Science achievement of ELLs in urban elementary schools: Results 

of a first-year professional development intervention 

Experimental study 

Linan-Thompson, Cirino, 

and Vaughn 

2007 Determining English language learners’ response to intervention: 

Questions and some answers 

Quasi-experimental study 

Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, 

Hickman-Davis, and 

Kouzekanani 

2003 Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade 

English language learners with reading difficulties 

Quasi-experimental study 

Lyster 2004b Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused 

instruction 

Quasi-experimental study 

Manyak 2007 English learners: A framework for robust literacy instruction for 

English learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Manyak and Bouchereau 

Bauer 

2009 English learners: English vocabulary instruction for English 

learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

Menken and Kleyn 2010 The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational 

experiences of secondary English language learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Minaya-Rowe 2004 Training teachers of English language learners using their students’ 

first language 

Descriptive study 

Nelson, Vadasy, and Sanders 2011 Efficacy of a Tier 2 supplemental root word vocabulary and 

decoding intervention with kindergarten Spanish-speaking English 

learners 

Experimental study 

Pappamihiel 2002 English as a second language students and English language 

anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom 

Descriptive study 

91
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Proctor, Dalton, Uccelli, 

Biancarosa, Mo, Snow, and 

Neugebauer 

2009 Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary with 

bilingual and monolingual fifth graders 

Quasi-experimental study 

Ray 2009 A template analysis of teacher agency at an academically successful 

dual language school 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Reeves 2004 “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for 

English language learners 

Descriptive study 

Reeves 2006 Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language 

learners in mainstream classrooms 

Descriptive study 

Reyes 2002 Professional development in a bilingual adult learning community Descriptive study 

Rubinstein-Avila 2003 Facing reality: English language learners in middle school classes Expert opinion based on 

research 

Sanders and Rivers 1996 Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student 

academic achievement 

Literature review and synthesis 

Saunders 1999 Improving literacy achievement for English learners in transitional 

bilingual programs 

Experimental study 

Saunders, O’Brien, Lennon, 

and McLean 

1999 Successful transition into mainstream English: Effective strategies 

for studying literature 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Saunders and Goldenberg 1999 Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on 

limited- and fluent-English-proficient students’ story 

comprehension and thematic understanding 

Experimental study 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010 Research to guide English language development instruction. In 

Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Schleppegrell, Achugar, and 

Oteíza 

2004 The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction 

through a functional focus on language 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Shih 1992 Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading 

class 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

92
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Short and Echevarria 1999 The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A tool for teacher 

researcher collaboration and professional development 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Slavin, Madden, Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and Hennessy

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized 

evaluation of transitional bilingual education 

Experimental study 

Snow 2008 Cross-cutting themes and future research directions. In Developing 

Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners: Lessons From the Report 

of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth

Literature review and synthesis 

Snow, Lawrence, and White 2009 Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle 

school students 

Quasi-experimental study 

Spaulding, Carolino, and 

Amen 

2004 Immigrant students and secondary school reform: Compendium of 

best practices 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Swain and Lapkin 1995 Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A 

step towards second-language learning 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Teale 2009 Students learning English and their literacy instruction in urban 

schools 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, 

Mathes, Cirino, Carlson, 

Pollard-Durodola, CardenasHagan, and Francis 

2006 Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English 

language learners at risk for reading difficulties 

Experimental study 

Vaughn, Fletcher, Francis, 

Denton, Wanzek, Wexler, 

Cirino, Barth, and Romain 

2008 Response to intervention with older students with reading 

difficulties 

Descriptive study 

Vaughn, Martinez, LinanThompson, Reutebuch, 

Carlson, and Francis 

2009 Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for 

seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two 

experimental studies 

Experimental study 

93
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Walqui 2002 Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual 

framework 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, 

and Keeling 

2009 The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on 

differences in teacher effectiveness 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Wright, Horn, and Sanders 1997 Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: 

Implications for teacher evaluation 

Descriptive study 

York-Barr, Ghere, and 

Sommerness 

2007 Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A threeyear urban elementary case studyDescriptive study 

Young 1996 English (as a second) language arts teachers: The key to 

mainstreamed ESL student success. 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Zetlin, MacLeod, and 

Michener 

1998 Professional development of teachers of language minority 

students through university-school partnership 

Descriptive study 

94
95 

School District, School and Community Culture

In addition to instructional approaches in the classroom and broader curricular and program design 

features, the LIEP picture involves consideration of the community in which such practices and models 

are implemented and the role these features play in a program’s success. More than other students, ELs 

may be vulnerable to negative cultural environments as a result of their language minority status; 

conversely, they may also benefit significantly more from a supportive culture than other students. To 

collect literature on this topic, reviewers compiled articles that spoke to the following questions: 

What contextual and environmental factors in a school district, school or community 

may impact a LIEP’s ability to meet the requirements of Title III? 

What cultural and demographic factors in a school district, school or community are 

important to consider in implementing a LIEP? 

Key ideas and findings for school district, school, and community culture are listed below, followed by a 

discussion of the findings. See Exhibit 12 at the end of this section for a list of key articles on school 

district, school, and community culture.

•

•

•

•

•

Although reviewers did not find any experimental or quasi-experimental research on this topic, 

they did find many examples of experts who discussed indications that cultural and 

environmental factors at the classroom, school and district levels may play a role in ELs’ comfort 

and ability to learn in the academic environment (Michael et al. 2007; Dryfoos 1996). 

An environment that is welcoming and respectful of different cultures is a commonly cited trait 

in well-implemented LIEPs (Reeves 2004). 

Experts believe that teachers can be particularly important ambassadors to ELs and their families 

in the classroom and community (Pappamihiel 2002; Miller and Endo 2004; Curran 2003; 

Freeman and Freeman 2001). 

Experts believe that teachers’ attitudes may play a significant role in EL outcomes—negative or 

misguided attitudes can be harmful, and positive attitudes and respect can be highly beneficial to 

students’ success (Reeves 2006; Harper and de Jong 2004). 

Parent and community involvement, believed to be important factors in the educational success 

of all students, may be particularly important—and also require particular effort—for ELs 

(Dryfoos 1996; Genesee 1999; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 

1996; Berman et al. 1995; Berman et al. 2000; Curran 2003; Freeman and Freeman 2001). 

Collier and Thomas (1997) report that schools with positive sociocultural environments (“additive 

bilingual contexts”) for minority languages and language-minority students were associated with students’ 

long-term academic success. Additive bilingualism perspectives consider other languages and cultures to 

be valuable resources; these contrast with subtractive perspectives, which consider other languages and 

cultures to be negative obstacles. Indeed, every one of the evaluation models in the next section 

(“Indicators and Evaluation of Success”), many of which were derived by identifying common traits of 

exemplary programs, include community or cultural relation as an important evaluation metric, 

suggesting that this realm is important and related to EL success (Berman et al. 2000; Lucas 1993; 

Necochea and Cline 2000; Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007). On a 

larger scale, studies or reviews often identify cultural factors that are common across different programs 

(August and Pease-Alvarez 1996). 
96 

Community and parent involvement are also commonly cited practices that enhance a school or school 

district’s ability to support ELs (Dryfoos 1996; Genesee 1999; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; 

August and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Berman et al. 1995; Berman et al. 2000; Curran 2003; Freeman and 

Freeman 2001). Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen (2004) proposed six practices to foster parent 

involvement with newcomer programs: 

1. Provide explicit information to immigrant families about the expectations, challenges and 

opportunities in the U.S. educational system. 

2. Develop communication strategies that are mindful of cultural and linguistic differences between 

the home and the school. 

3. Encourage families of ELs to support L1 maintenance. 

4. Design parent involvement activities with multiple channels for familial contributions. 

5. Partner with adult education programs and community organizations to develop parent 

education, leadership and ESL programs.

6. Facilitate two-way planning that allows parents and extended families of ELs to be full 

educational partners with schools. 

Teachers also play a critical role in creating welcoming environments for ELs, both in the classroom and 

in the school at large. Pappamihiel (2002) found that ELs’ anxiety levels, particularly in mainstream 

classrooms, could be quite high and sometimes led to avoidance behaviors from students who did not 

feel comfortable expressing themselves. Miller and Endo (2004) noted that teachers have many means at 

their disposal to create a positive learning environment by taking active steps to ensure that their 

teaching strategies are sensitive to ELs’ cultural, cognitive and language loads in the classroom. Beyond 

straight instructional practices, Curran (2003) noted that teachers may help ELs to feel more welcome in 

the classroom by learning more about the students’ backgrounds, pairing ELs with non-ELs in a buddy 

system until ELs feel more comfortable and secure, and respecting, rather than stifling, language 

diversity in the classroom. These authors also noted that teachers often serve as an important bridge 

between parents and the school (Miller and Endo 2004; Curran 2003; Freeman and Freeman 2001). 

As suggested in the previous section, measuring and altering teacher attitudes may be difficult, but can be 

critical. In a survey of 279 teachers, Reeves (2006) found that many participants claimed to have a 

welcoming attitude, yet also believed that ELs should enter mainstream classes only after they have a 

minimum level of English proficiency. This finding suggests that these teachers might act less welcoming 

toward students who have not achieved this minimum level of proficiency, as these teachers might view 

these students’ presence in their classrooms as inappropriate. Meanwhile, Harper and de Jong (2004) 

noted that a common misconception among teachers is that second-language acquisition will occur 

without active instruction, so that teachers may take a more hands-off attitude about ELs’ acquisition of 

English. From a cultural standpoint, this may have the effect of excluding ELs and making them feel 

anxious, as discussed by Pappamihiel (2002). 

On a related point, teachers and administrators who wish to foster a culturally inclusive environment 

may need to counteract the feeling among some that recognizing ELs’ differences is somehow harmful 

or inappropriate. Reeves (2004) compared the approaches of “differentiation” versus “universalism” to 

equalizing educational opportunity for students, where the former provides tailored services and 

instruction according to student needs, while the latter seeks to provide the same services to all students. 
97 

She found that although teachers espouse difference-blindness as a fairer option, such attitudes may be 

less neutral than they first appear, and may fail to benefit, or may even harm, ELs’ well-being and 

outcomes in school settings. 

For particular case studies and program reviews in the area of culture, Michael, Andrade, and Bartlett 

(2007) described the efforts at one high school in New York City to create a culturally positive 

environment in which students’ cultural and linguistic resources are valued and prioritized, specifically by 

creating a culture in which Spanish was viewed as a high-status skill. Dryfoos (1996) described a New 

York school with a comprehensive parent involvement schema, and identified other exemplary parent 

programs in New York and California. 
Exhibit 12. Key articles on school district, school and community culture

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

August and Pease-Alvarez 1996 Attributes of effective programs and classrooms serving English 

language learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Berman, McLeod, Nelson, 

McLaughlin, Minicucci, and 

Woodworth 

1995 School reform and student diversity, volume I: Findings and 

conclusions: Studies of education reform 

Descriptive study 

Berman, Aburto, Nelson, 

Minicucci, and Burkart 

2000 Going schoolwide: Comprehensive school reform inclusive of 

limited English proficient students: A resource guide 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Expert opinion based on 

research 

Curran 2003 Linguistic diversity and classroom management Expert opinion based on 

research 

Dryfoos 1996 Full-service schools Expert opinion based on 

research 

Freeman and Freeman 2001 Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition Expert opinion based on 

research 

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students Literature review and synthesis 

Harper and de Jong 2004 Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners Expert opinion based on 

research 

Lucas 1993 Applying elements of effective secondary schooling for language 

minority students: A tool for reflection and stimulus to change 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Michael, Andrade, and 

Bartlett 

2007 Figuring “success” in a bilingual high school Descriptive study 

Miller and Endo 2004 Understanding and meeting the needs of ESL students Expert opinion based on 

research 

Necochea and Cline 2000 Effective educational practices for English language learners within 

mainstream settings 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

98
Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004 Towards promoting biliteracy and academic achievement: 

Educational programs for high school Latino English language 

learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Pappamihiel 2002 English as a second language students and English language 

anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom 

Descriptive study 

Reeves 2004 “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for 

English language learners 

Descriptive study 

Reeves 2006 Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language 

learners in mainstream classrooms 

Descriptive study 

Spaulding, Carolino, and 

Amen 

2004 Immigrant students and secondary school reform: Compendium of 

best practices 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 

2007 Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some 

schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale 

survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and 

EL students 

Descriptive study 

99
100 

Indicators and Evaluation of Success

This review emphasizes program evaluation as a critical (and federally mandated) feature of LIEP 

success (Berman et al. 2000). How to conduct a high-quality evaluation, however, is not always 

immediately clear to school districts. Although the concept may be simple—identify program goals and 

then determine whether and how well the program is meeting them—in practice, this task can be more 

complicated than it first appears. Specifically, high-quality evaluation requires that school districts 

identify indicators of success and of problems; one must know not only where to look for these, but 

how to interpret findings and what kinds of findings reflect success or trigger concerns. This section 

looks to the literature to answer the following questions: 

What indicators might reflect whether a LIEP has been implemented successfully? How 

might these indicators vary in the initiation, scaling and maintenance phases? 

What indicators would reflect effectiveness of the LIEP in terms of its own stated goals? 

Key ideas and findings for indicators and evaluation of success are listed below, followed by a more indepth discussion. Exhibit 13 (later in this section) lists indicators of success, by literature review articles 

and by theme, while Exhibit 14 (at the end of this section) lists key articles related to indicators and 

evaluation of success.

•

•

•

•

•

Under Title III, school district programs must self-evaluate, may be monitored to determine 

effective implementation, and must make changes to any programs that are failing to perform as 

intended (Berman et al. 2000). 

Evaluation of implementation requires a more holistic and varied approach compared to 

evaluation for effective performance or outcomes (Berman et al. 2000; Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 2007). 

Various evaluation rubrics from the past 20 years include similar indicators and metrics for 

assessing a program’s implementation. Many indicators for LIEP success are similar or identical 

to indicators of any program’s success (e.g., access to and allocation of resources (Lucas 1993; 

Berman et al. 2000; Collier and Thomas 1997; Necochea and Cline 2000; Ochoa and CadieroKaplan 2004; Smith, Coggins, and Cardoso 2008; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007). 

Judging by the proposed evaluation tools in the literature and by reviews of high-quality 

programs around the country, indicators of successful implementation transcend curriculum and 

instruction and may include more general areas such as school culture and resources (Lucas, 

1993). 

The most useful evaluation models include both indicators of effective implementation and a 

framework or rubric for how to operationalize an evaluation of these indicators and draw 

conclusions from findings (Necochea and Cline 2000; Berman et al. 2000). 

Although evaluation as a concept is present in conversations about LIEPs, reviewers found relatively few 

studies or reports about effective evaluation models for practitioners. The SIOP model was one 

exception in this area (Echevarria, Powers, and Short 2006; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004); a rubric 

for assessing lessons is a critical facet of the model’s design, such that practitioners are evaluating and 

being evaluated on the fidelity and quality of their implementation on an ongoing basis. Notably, 
101 

however, the SIOP rubric evaluates the implementation of a specific model, not of an entire 

comprehensive program in a school or school district. In addition, Howard et al. (2007) published the 

Guide for Principles for Dual Language Education. This document has been designed for practitioners who use 

models under the bilingual approach. It is a tool for planning, self-reflection and growth. The guiding 

principles are based largely on Dual Language Standards developed by Dual Language Education of New 

Mexico. 

For large-scale evaluations, reviewers found seven articles that either proposed research-based 

frameworks for self-evaluation or external monitoring, or that listed common observed traits across 

programs that were known to be effective according to outcome-related measures (Lucas 1993; Berman 

et al. 2000; Collier and Thomas 1997; Necochea and Cline 2000; Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004; 

Smith, Coggins, and Cardoso 2008; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007). Across these different pieces, 

reviewers observed a number of repeated, common themes about indicators of success; Exhibit 13 arrays 

these according to general thematic trends: curriculum and instructional goals; resources, training or 

professional development; accountability or assessment; family, school or community support; and 

other.
Exhibit 13. Indicators of success by relevant literature review articles and by theme

Program design or 

approaches

Curriculum and 

instructional goals

Resources, training 

or professional 

development

Accountability or 

assessment

Family, school or 

community support Other

Collier and Thomas (1997)

Interactive, discovery 

learning and other 

current approaches 

to teaching 

Integration with the 

mainstream 

Sociocultural support 

Necochea and Cline (2000)

Incorporation of 

primary language and 

culture 

Curriculum 

alignment 

Ongoing staff 

development; 

Allocation of 

resources and 

materials 

Accountability Leadership; 

Incorporation of 

primary language and 

culture 

Validation of current 

practices 

Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan (2004)

Program approaches Value for learners; 

Expectations for 

learners; 

Instructional goals 

Resources Accountability and 

assessment 

Parent involvement 

or engagement 

Williams, Hakuta and Hartel (2007) 

Prioritizing student 

achievement, using 

measurable and 

monitored objectives 

Implementing a 

coherent, standardsbased curriculum and 

instructional program 

Ensuring availability 

of instructional 

resources 

Using assessment 

data to improve 

student achievement 

and instruction 

102
Program design or 

approaches 

Curriculum and 

instructional goals 

Resources, training 

or professional 

development 

Accountability or 

assessment 

Family, school or 

community support Other 

Smith, Coggins, and Cardoso (2008)

Multiple program 

offerings; 

Flexibility in 

structure and format 

of classes; 

Tiered reclassification 

process 

Use of training, 

resources and PD 

Positive teacher 

attitudes toward 

immigrants; 

Support for ELs 

beyond the 

classroom 

Lucas (1993)

Use and development 

of students’ L1 

High expectations; 

Curriculum design to 

account for the 

various needs of 

language-minority 

students (LMs) 

Development for 

teachers and staff 

Staff features: 

• Knowledgeable; 

• Prioritize 

languageminority 

education; 

• Support 

programs and 

services for 

LMs; 

• Committed to 

empowering 

LMs through 

education 

Value of students’ 

languages and 

cultures; 

Families encouraged 

to become involved 

in schooling; 

Counselors give 

attention to LMs; 

Support services and 

extracurricular 

activities are designed 

to serve and include 

LMs 

Longevity: Elements 

of effective schooling 

are present throughout 

time in school; 

Pervasiveness: 

Elements of effective 

schooling are present 

across all educational 

experiences 

103
Program design or 

approaches 

Curriculum and 

instructional goals 

Resources, training 

or professional 

development 

Accountability or 

assessment 

Family, school or 

community support Other 

Berman et al. (2000)

Curriculum and 

instruction; 

Language 

development 

School vision; 

School structure; 

Organizational 

culture; 

Community relations 

104
105 

Readers may note that some of the thematic indicators identified in Exhibit 13 are relatively generic (e.g., 

accountability, leadership), whereas others may be more specific to the needs and challenges of serving 

ELs (e.g., sociocultural support, incorporation of primary language and culture). To this point, it is worth 

noting that Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel (2007), in their survey of teachers and principals at 237 

California schools that ranked between the 25th and 35th percentiles on the EL academic performance 

index (EL-API), found four indicators that correlated most highly with EL performance. These were all 

generic indicators that the authors had previously used to identify indicators of success in general 

education programs. Thus, the four characteristics that correlated most highly with higher performing 

schools in the sample were not strictly EL-specific. Within the third indicator, however (implementing a 

coherent, standards-based curriculum), the authors did find correlations between higher EL-API scores 

and schools with certain characteristic: the schools had implemented new EL programs in the past 4 

years, used pull-out programs with resource teachers and delivered math instruction using ESL or 

SDAIE. 

One critical way in which the evaluation articles differed was the degree to which the authors included 

tools or a framework for operationalizing their indicators, over and above simply proposing them. For 

example, Necochea and Cline (2000) provided research-based arguments for using a conceptual systemic 

evaluation model based on the components identified in Exhibit 13, but did not propose a framework or 

method for operationalizing their model. Lucas (1993), by contrast, provided an evaluation tool based on 

research-based findings about effective instruction and service for ELs, with a checklist that probes users 

to reflect on program elements in the areas of school context, curriculum and staff features, noting the 

degree to which the elements are present, and providing space for users to document evidence and ideas 

for improvement. Berman et al. (2000) also provided a set of rubrics to evaluate programs in six 

domains, and these authors suggested an “action-inquiry cycle” for evaluation—a reiterative process of 

identifying priorities for action and setting specific reform goals, creating an action plan, adapting plans 

during implementation and evaluating change. 

Tasked with the project of evaluating middle and high school programs in a California school district, 

Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan (2004) devised a framework of eight research-based indicators, then also 

devised a scale and cut scores for satisfactory and unsatisfactory program performance. During teambased school visits and classroom observations, evaluators used a Likert-scaled (1 to 5) rubric to capture 

performance for each dimension; subscores for each indicator were tallied to devise an overall score, 

which was measured against the scale to determine whether the program implementation was satisfactory 

or not. Although they collected descriptive data only, Rivera et al. (2010) surveyed principals at 49 

promising schools in California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas and found that student 

demographics, school size, teacher credentialing and PD were common factors that effective programs 

in different states at all grade levels (elementary, middle and high school) shared. 

The role of different approaches in evaluation frameworks is worth noting. The metrics for certain 

indicators, particularly in the realm of curriculum, will likely need to vary depending on a program’s 

approach. Because bilingualism is not a program goal for ESL models, for example, evaluation tools for 

ESL models should reflect this and not necessarily seek to evaluate a program based on the amount of 

L1 instruction it offers to ELs. However, the majority of indicators in these tools and studies transcend 

curriculum, and thus may transcend approach as well. A culturally welcoming atmosphere, for example, 

might be a strong trait for any school district, regardless of the actual curricular model it follows. 

Ultimately, this reduces to the more general point that a critical component of evaluation is the clear 

articulation of program goals prior to commencing the evaluation process. 
Exhibit 14. Key articles for indicators and evaluation of success

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

Berman, Aburto, Nelson, 

Minicucci, and Burkart 

2000 Going schoolwide: Comprehensive school reform inclusive of 

limited English proficient students: A resource guide 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Expert opinion based on 

research 

Echevarria, Powers, and 

Short 

2006 School reform and standards-based education: A model for 

English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004 Making content comprehensible for English learners Expert opinion based on 

research 

Howard, Sugarman, 

Christian, Lindholm-Leary, 

and Rogers 

2007 Guiding principles for dual language education Expert opinion based on 

research 

Lucas 1993 Applying elements of effective secondary schooling for language 

minority students: A tool for reflection and stimulus to change 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Necochea and Cline 2000 Effective educational practices for English language learners within 

mainstream settings 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004 Towards promoting biliteracy and academic achievement: 

Educational programs for high school Latino English language 

learners 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Rivera, Francis, Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English language learners: Principals from 

five states speak 

Descriptive study 

Smith, Coggins, and Cardoso 2008 Best practices for ELLs in Massachusetts: Five years after the 

question 2 mandate 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 

2007 Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some 

schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale 

survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and 

EL students 

Descriptive study 

106
107 

Synthesis

General Emergent Themes

The following themes about language instruction educational program (LIEP) design, implementation 

and evaluation emerged from the literature that was examined for this review: 

1. High Standards and Challenging Content Are Good for ELs 

Based on research, various authors (Henze and Lucas 1993; Collier and Thomas 1997; Minaya-Rowe 

2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Ray 2009) found that English learners (ELs) benefit from being 

held to high expectations and challenging content and achievement standards. Callahan (2005), for 

example, found that the classes into which an EL is placed are a greater predictor of the child’s ultimate 

academic outcomes than linguistic proficiency, which suggests that reducing the rigor or substance of 

content instruction does not help, and may ultimately hurt, ELs’ academic achievement. While it is 

important that ELs receive instruction that is tailored to their language-based needs, this finding suggests 

that it is equally important that ELs not be held to lower academic standards as they build their linguistic 

proficiency. This finding also suggests in combination with theme 7 (“ELs need instruction that is 

specifically cognizant of their needs as second-language learners”) that teachers who provide ELs with 

content instruction should be equally prepared to deliver challenging content instruction and to address 

ELs’ linguistic needs as they do so. 

2. Having a LIEP Is Important 

One descriptive study and three research reviews found that providing any kind of special program or 

instruction for ELs is better for these students than not providing any special services (Goldenberg 2008; 

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Thomas and Collier 2002; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006). Simply 

placing ELs in the general program and treating them like English speakers is not likely to help these 

students overcome the barriers they face. 

3. No One Approach or Model Is Appropriate for All ELs 

Reviewers found examples in the literature of high-quality programs (usually defined by students’ 

performance on academic content assessments) based on all the reviewed models, at all grade levels and 

all over the United States (Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Parrish et al. 2006; Boyson and Short 

2003; Spaulding, Carolino, and Amen 2004; Howard and Christian 2002; August and Pease-Alvarez 

1996; Genesee 1999). Factors such as state law, population characteristics and availability of funding or 

resources may be the more immediate factors that drive a school district’s choice of program, and it may 

be the case that certain models are more or less practical for different EL subgroups based on factors 

such as age, formal education background or native language (L1) literacy. 

4. Instructional Practices Are Important Variables in LIEP Design and Implementation

Increasingly, researchers and experts have been finding that the quality and consistency of instructional 

practices used within a LIEP may be more important than the model itself. Echevarria and Short (2010) 

have found that teachers who follow their Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model, a 

particular version of sheltered instruction (SI) with structured protocols for lesson planning and delivery, 

produce better lessons (according to validated rubrics) and potentially better outcomes (according thus 

far to quasi-experimental research; experimental research is under way at the time of publication) than 

teachers who implement SI in an ad hoc or less structured way. Irby et al. (2010) found via a large-scale 
108 

quasi-experimental study that students who participated in enhanced transitional bilingual education 

(TBE) or sheltered English immersion (SEI) programs (so-called due to the use of specific professional 

development [PD], class structure and instructional practices) performed better on reading measures 

than students who participated in typical programs following either model. And Slavin et al. (2011) 

found via large-scale experimental research that students enrolled in programs using the same 

instructional practices and reading curriculum in English (through an SEI program) or Spanish (through 

a TBE program) reached comparable levels of performance on English reading measures, which suggests 

that the instructional practices mattered more than the model. From an implementation standpoint, 

these findings suggest that, while the choice of model is important, practitioners may be better served by 

focusing their energies on identifying and implementing effective instructional practices within that 

model, as these may play a more important role in a LIEP’s quality than the model itself. 

5. Literacy and Oral Language Development in English Are Critical Instructional 

Components for Any LIEP 

Native language literacy and English oral language were emphasized repeatedly as important in the 

literature reviewed, and these elements transcended any particular approach or model. Two large-scale 

research syntheses (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee et al. 2006) found that oral language proficiency 

in L2 appears to facilitate literacy in L2, and multiple research studies argued or studied the effects of 

instruction designed to develop proficiency in these areas (Dalton 1998; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 

2004; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996; Garcia 1991; Gersten et al. 2007; Knight and Wiseman 2006; 

Rubinstein-Avila 2003; Saunders et al. 1999; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010; Young 1996). Experts 

recommended, based on extensive research reviews, that incorporating oral language practice and 

development into the structure of any LIEP seems likely to help ELs develop second-language (L2) 

literacy (Saunders and O’Brien 2006; Saunders and Goldenberg 2010); oral language was also found to 

play a potentially important role in the development of academic language specifically (Anstrom et al. 

2010) (see theme 11). 

6. Academic Language Seems To Be Important in EL Instruction 

Many experts have argued or found evidence for a conceptually distinct linguistic register that is specific 

to the school setting (Cummins 1979a; Cummins 1980; Belcher 2006; Scarcella 2003a; Bailey 2007). This 

register, most commonly referred to as academic language, academic English or academic English 

language, is distinct enough from social language that ELs may need special instruction to ensure that 

they acquire it. Preliminary descriptive research suggests that, like their non-EL counterparts, English 

learners must be proficient in this kind of language in order to meet grade-level standards in content 

areas and on assessments (Bailey, Butler, and Sato 2007; Bailey et al. 2007; Stevens, Butler, and CastellonWellington 2000; Butler and Castellon-Wellington 2000). 

7. ELs Need Instruction That Is Specifically Cognizant of Their Needs as SecondLanguage Learners 

In addition to using high-quality general instructional practices, teachers may serve ELs better if they 

understand and adopt instructional practices that are more cognizant of these students’ specific needs 

(Goldenberg 2008). Preliminary research on such practices suggests benefits for ELs, as well as increased 

confidence and competency for teachers (Aguirre-Munoz et al. 2001; Echevarria, Powers, and Short 

2006; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003; Vaughn et al. 2006; Young 1996). While some studies have found 

that general instructional practices show promise for improving outcomes for all students, ELs and nonELs alike (D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004; Lee et al. 2008; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007), these 

practices, while promising, do not pledge to close the extant gaps between ELs and their English-
109 

speaking peers. At least one study also found that the effects of such “high-quality practices” may be 

smaller for ELs than for non-ELs (O’Day 2009). 

8. Teachers Need To Be Prepared to Teach ELs 

Multiple authors found or argued that EL-specific practices and preparation may be more promising for 

improving ELs’ achievement than general best practices for all students (Short and Echevarria 1999; 

Graves, Gersten, and Haager 2004; Garcia 1991; Ray 2009). In today’s academic world, any teacher in 

any state at any grade level in any subject may have one or more ELs in his or her classroom. Therefore, 

all teachers should be prepared with a basic understanding of who ELs are, how second-language 

acquisition (SLA) may work and what practices will help these students to succeed academically. This 

knowledge may make a nontrivial difference in these students’ chances at success. Multiple experts 

argued that this preparation should begin in preservice training and carry through teachers’ careers as an 

ongoing professional development process (Zet lez and 

Darling-Hammond 1997; Minaya-Rowe 2004). 

9. Newcomer Models Are a Programmatic Option That School Districts May Use to Meet 

the Needs of Newly Identified ELs at the Secondary Level

ELs who are recent immigrants and who enter the American school system at the secondary level with 

limited literacy in their native language and with interrupted formal education face unique challenges, 

based on the fact that the language demands of secondary classrooms are likely to be significantly greater 

than those for lower grade levels (Anstrom et al. 2010). When executed as actual programs, newcomer 

models are designed to help orient and prepare newcomer ELs by providing targeted or intensive 

instruction to build foundational skills before ELs are ready to enter into a district’s or schools’s regular 

LIEP. As of a 2003 study by Boyson and Short, the most common configuration for a newcomer 

program was for it to last one school year and operate at students’ home school as a full-day program. 

There are, however, many variations on this model, as well as variations in how newcomer students are 

defined and identified. It should be noted that implementation of this model typically does not include 

instructional goals that meet the legislative definition of a LIEP. Nonetheless, the model is often part of 

a crucial pathway for entering recently immigrated students into a district’s or school’s regular LIEP. As 

such, this model has been included in this study to ensure a holistic depiction of how districts serve ELs. 

10. ELs’ Scores on Academic Content Assessments Should Be Interpreted With Great 

Care 

The reviewed literature suggests that ELs’ scores on academic content assessments may not always be 

representative of these students’ actual content skills and knowledge. Research on accommodations for 

ELs suggests that, at best, many commonly used accommodations may be minimally effective for ELs. 

At worst, research suggests that these accommodations are inappropriate for ELs and may even hinder 

their performance (Rivera and Stansfield 2001; Rivera and Collum 2004; Willner, Rivera, and Acosta 

2008; Willner, Rivera, and Acosta 2009). While English language proficiency assessments (ELPAs) are 

improving in terms of their ability to measure the academic language used in content classrooms, early 

studies found that these assessments did not always measure the kind of language necessary to fully 

engage with content assessments or provide adequate responses (Abedi 2004; Abedi 2001; Butler and 

Castellon-Wellington 2000; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000). In states where this is true, 

this could mean that former ELs may continue to face barriers to showing their knowledge on academic 

content assessments in English. Based on these uncertainties, practitioners and policy makers should 

interpret ELs’ content assessment scores with care, particularly when making placement or redesignation 

decisions (Ragan and Lesaux 2006; Linquanti 2001; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000). 
110 

Practitioners should also ensure that the cut scores on their ELPAs are set appropriately, such that 

students who earn a proficient score truly have the necessary language skills to participate in and engage 

with academic content assessments in English. 

11. Current Assessments May Not Be Sufficient Measures of the Linguistic Proficiency 

Necessary to Support Success in Mainstream Content Classrooms 

Although efforts are currently under way to develop a new generation of ELPAs that focus more closely 

on academic language skills, research suggests that at least some ELPAs in current use do not use or 

measure language that is sufficiently complex to be representative of grade-level demands (Butler and 

Castellon-Wellington 2000; Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington 2000; Bailey, Butler, and Sato 

2007; Abedi 2001). Although a 2006 survey found that eight of the 10 states that enroll more than 80 

percent of the nation’s ELs17

12. Culture and Community Matter 

 use additional measures to determine whether ELs who score proficient on 

the ELPA will also exit the limited-English-proficient (LEP) subgroup and stop receiving services 

(Ragan and Lesaux 2006), it is important that ELPAs measure the kinds of language skills that students 

will need to succeed unsupported in classes where instruction is delivered in English. This concern is 

greater in states that use ELPA performance as the sole criterion for exit from the LEP subgroup under 

Title I. Such students may languish in mainstream classes without the language support they still need, 

and may never reach grade-level standards due to continuing language struggles that are no longer being 

addressed (Linquanti 2001; Bailey, Butler, Stevens et al. 2007; Bailey and Butler 2007; Gandara and 

Merino 1993; Parrish et al. 2006).

Although empirical research has not proven a relationship between culture and student outcomes 

(August and Shanahan 2006), literature reviewed about programs from across the country have found 

repeatedly that they share the common characteristic of a strong and intentional community of respect 

and acceptance, both within and beyond the school (Berman et al. 2000; Lucas 1993; Necochea and 

Cline 2000; Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007). Descriptive studies 

suggest that cultural atmosphere can make a difference in student outcomes (Collier and Thomas 1997). 

As such, it appears that a school’s attitude about ELs, their languages and their cultures are important 

considerations in program design, implementation and evaluation. School districts that view other 

languages and cultures as valuable assets, rather than as problematic obstacles, create positive 

environments in which ELs may thrive and achieve. In particular, parent involvement was frequently 

named as an important feature of program design, particularly for ELs who are recent immigrants 

(Genesee 1999; Boyson and Short 2003; August and Pease-Alvarez 1996). 

In addition to addressing these 12 cross-cutting themes, the literature reviewed says specific things about 

each approach to language learning and EL education: 

What Research Says About the English as a Second Language Approach

Exhibit 15 lists the key articles from this review that provided information about the English as a second 

language (ESL) approach. Based on the findings and conclusions of these articles, the following 

statements can be made about the ESL approach. 

 

17 As of 2006: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York 

and Texas (Ragan and Lesaux 2006).
111 

The ESL approach focuses on developing English and teaching in English; it makes minimal use, if any, 

of students’ L1. Models under this approach may focus on language instruction in itself, they may 

integrate language and content instruction together or they may focus on providing content instruction 

using specialized methods to accommodate ELs. Multiple authors found or argued that the strongest 

programs incorporate both dedicated language instruction and specialized content instruction (Saunders 

and Goldenberg 2010; Genesee 1999; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Harper and de Jong 2004). 

The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) is one model under the ESL approach. 

It is an example of a content-based model because it integrates language and content learning; its general 

approach is not to modify instruction based on language needs; rather, it is to equip learners with 

strategies that will help them decode and access content even as they are learning English (Chamot and 

O’Malley 1994; Chamot and O’Malley 1986; Chamot and O’Malley 1996). 

Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) and SI are two specialized content delivery 

models under the ESL approach that, like English language development (ELD) instruction, are thought 

by some to be two ways of naming the same model (Echevarria and Short 2010). Both models focus on 

delivering content instruction using specific instructional practices and techniques that are designed to 

accommodate ELs’ needs as language learners. Unless a school or school district provides specific 

implementation guidance, neither SDAIE nor SI is strict or specific about how or which practices should 

be applied, meaning that their exact form or implementation may vary from classroom to classroom or 

from school to school (Echevarria and Short 2010). 

In the literature reviewed, ESL instruction and ELD instruction were discussed as language-based 

models under the ESL approach; reviewers found that variations in the use of these two names was 

dictated more by geography than by substantive differences in the models themselves, with the term 

“ELD” being used more commonly in California than elsewhere. The models under this approach focus 

on teaching and learning the English language in or for itself, and the two most common configurations 

for this kind of instruction are self-contained ESL classes that take place during the school day and 

during pull-out sessions, wherein language specialists work with ELs during other class periods to 

provide intensive language instruction and support (Diaz-Rico and Weed 2002). Saunders and 

Goldenberg (2010) suggested emphasizing oral language development, particularly during ELD 

instruction. 

ESL programs can and should support and value the native languages and cultures of ELs, even if they 

do not include L1 instruction. Research suggests that schools whose ELs perform strongly on academic 

measures often have positive, accepting cultural atmospheres (Berman et al. 2000; Lucas 1993; Necochea 

and Cline 2000; Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan 2004; Williams, Hakuta, and Haertel 2007; Collier and 

Thomas 1997; Thomas and Collier 2002); parent and community involvement are also commonly cited 

features of high-quality programs (Genesee 1999; Boyson and Short 2003; August and Pease-Alvarez 

1996). 
Exhibit 15. Key articles on the English as a second language approach

Author(s) Year Title Type of Study

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and Professional Development. In Developing Reading 

and Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis 

August and Hakuta 1998 Educating language-minority children Literature review and synthesis 

Belcher 2006 English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and 

imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life 

Expert opinion based on research 

Chamot and Beard ElDinary 1999 Children’s learning strategies in language immersion classrooms Descriptive study 

Chamot and O’Malley 1986 A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An ESL 

content-based curriculum 

Expert opinion based on research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1994 The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic 

Language Learning Approach

Expert opinion based on research 

Chamot and O’Malley 1996 The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model 

for linguistically diverse classrooms

Expert opinion based on research 

Cline and Necochea 2003 Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE): 

More than just good instruction 

Expert opinion based on research 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Expert opinion based on research 

D’Angiulli, Siegel, and Maggi 2004 Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in 

English-language learners and children with English as a first 

language: A longitudinal study 

Quasi-experimental study 

Diaz-Rico and Weed 2002 The cross-cultural, language, and academic development Expert opinion based on research 

Echevarria and Short 2010 Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. 

In Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Expert opinion based on research 

Echevarria, Powers, and 

Short 

2006 School reform and standards-based education: A model for 

English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2004 Making content comprehensible for English learners Expert opinion based on research 

112
Author(s) Year Title Type of Study

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students Literature review and synthesis 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence 

Literature review and synthesis 

Harklau 1994 ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning 

environments 

Descriptive study 

Irby, Fuhui Tong, LaraAlecio, Mathes, Acosta, and 

Guerrero 

2010 Quality of instruction, language of instruction, and Spanishspeaking English language learners’ performance on a state 

reading achievement test

Quasi-experimental study 

Harper and de Jong 2004 Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners Expert opinion based on research 

Lucas and Katz 1994 Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in Englishonly programs for language minority students Descriptive study 

Merickel, Linquanti, Parrish, 

Perez, Eaton, and Esra 

2003 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the 

education of English learners, K-12: Year 3 report 

Descriptive study 

Padrón, Waxman, Brown, 

and Powers 

2000 Improving classroom instruction and student learning for resilient 

and non-resilient English language learners 

Quasi-experimental study 

Parrish, Merickel, Perez, 

Linquanti, Socias, and Spain 

2006 Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the 

education of English learners, K-12 

Descriptive study 

Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991 Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English Immersion 

strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education 

programs for language-minority children (Executive summary) 

Quasi-experimental study 

Reeves 2004 “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for 

English language learners 

Descriptive study 

Reeves 2006 Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language 

learners in mainstream classrooms 

Descriptive study 

Saunders and O’Brien 2006 Oral Language. In Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis 

of Research Evidence

Literature review and synthesis 

113
Author(s) Year Title Type of Study

Saunders and Goldenberg 2010 Research to guide English language development instruction. In 

Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Literature review and synthesis 

Short and Echevarria 1999 The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A tool for 

teacher researcher collaboration and professional development 

Expert opinion based on research 

Slavin, Madden, Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and Hennessy 

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a multi-year randomized 

evaluation of transitional bilingual education 

Experimental study 

Sobul 1995 Specially designed academic instruction in English Expert opinion based on research 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

Williams, Hakuta, and 

Haertel 

2007 Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some 

schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale 

survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and 

EL students 

Descriptive study 

Zehler, Fleischman, 

Hopstock, Stephenson, 

Pendzick, and Sapru 

2003 Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students 

with disabilities 

Descriptive study 

114
115 

What Research Says About the Bilingual Approach

Exhibit 16 lists the key articles from this review that provided information about bilingual models. The 

findings and conclusions of these articles suggest several characteristics of the bilingual approach: 

Overall, research suggests that the bilingual approach may yield more positive outcomes for ELs than 

the ESL approach (August and Shanahan; 2006; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato, 2006; Rolstad et al. 2005). 

This difference (bilingual versus ESL approaches) may be attributable to underlying linguistic 

interdependences between students’ L1 and L2, and to transfer processes that occur between languages. 

Proficiency in students’ L1, and particularly literacy in L1, appears to be a predictor and correlate of 

higher L2 outcomes (Genesee et al. 2006). There is also evidence that students’ amount of prior 

schooling in L1 is a strong predictor of their L2 outcomes (Goldenberg 2008). 

Models under the bilingual approach vary primarily according to two factors: the role of the primary 

language and the balance between the languages of instruction. TBE, which stands at the threshold 

between the ESL approach and the bilingual approach, uses L1 instruction as a means to transition 

students into ESL classrooms, usually by mid-elementary school. TBE models usually begin entirely or 

primarily with L1 instruction, then transition to ESL over the course of 2 to 3 years. The DBE and TWI 

models, by contrast, set bilingualism and biliteracy as explicit targets, and ultimately aim for a 50-50 split 

between the two languages (though some may begin with a 90-10 distribution, favoring the non-English 

language). The primary difference between DBE and TWI is that the latter also enrolls English speakers 

and attempts to keep a 50-50 balance between the two populations. 

As far as instruction, research about specific practices for bilingual classrooms is relatively scarce. There 

is evidence that some effective practices for literacy instruction in English also work in other languages 

(Slavin et al. 2011), and that effective instructional practices for ESL classrooms are also useful for the 

non-L1 instruction in bilingual approaches (Proctor et al. 2009; Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore 2003; 

Vaughn et al. 2006; Linan-Thompson et al. 2003). For instruction delivered in English in bilingual 

programs, the findings about effective instructional practices for the ESL approach apply. 

Bilingual programs that are discussed in the literature are generally intended for elementary school ELs; 

literature on all three models described them as designed to begin in kindergarten or first grade and 

provide bilingual education through, on average, third or fourth grade (TBE), fifth or sixth grade (DBE) 

or as high as eighth grade, or even high school (for TWI programs). 
Exhibit 16. Key articles on the bilingual approach

Author(s) Year Title Type of study

August and Shanahan 2008 Developing reading and writing in second-language learners Literature review and synthesis 

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and professional development. In Developing Reading 

and Writing in Second-Language Learners

Literature review and synthesis 

August and Hakuta 1998 Educating language-minority children Literature review and synthesis 

Bahamonde and Friend 1999 Teaching English language learners: A proposal for effective 

service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching 

Expert opinion based on research 

Bearse and de Jong 2008 Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary 

two-way immersion program 

Descriptive study 

Cazabon, Nicoladis, and 

Lambert 

1998 Becoming bilingual in the Amigos two-way immersion program Descriptive study 

Christian, Montone, 

Lindholm, and Carranza 

1997 Profiles in two-way immersion education Descriptive study 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language minority students Descriptive study 

DeJesus 2008 An astounding treasure: Dual language education in a public 

school setting 

Descriptive study 

Freeman 2000 Contextual challenges to dual-language education: A case study of 

a developing middle school program 

Descriptive study 

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students Literature review and synthesis 

Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, 

Saunders, and Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence 

Literature review and synthesis 

Gersten and Woodward 1995 A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual 

education programs in one district 

Quasi-experimental study 

Greene 1997 A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual 

education research 

Literature review and synthesis 

116
Author(s) Year Title Type of study

Goldenberg 2008 Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and 

does not—say 

Expert opinion based on research 

Howard and Christian 2002 Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a two-way 

immersion education program at the elementary level 

Expert opinion based on research 

Howard, Christian, and 

Genesee 

2004 The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: 

A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way 

immersion education 

Descriptive 

Lindholm-Leary 2005 The rich promise of two-way immersion Expert opinion based on research 

Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2001 Impact of two-way bilingual elementary programs on students’ 

attitudes toward school and college 

Quasi-experimental study 

Medina 1991 Native and Spanish language proficiency in a bilingual education 

program 

Quasi-experimental study 

Menken and Kleyn 2010 The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational 

experiences of secondary English language learners 

Expert opinion based on research 

Montone and Loeb 2000 Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary schools Expert opinion based on research 

Potowski 2004 Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion 

classroom: implications for second language acquisition and 

heritage language maintenance 

Descriptive study 

Rivera, Francis, Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English language learners: Principals from 

five states speak 

Descriptive study 

Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991 Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English Immersion 

strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education 

programs for language-minority children (Executive summary) 

Quasi-experimental study 

Rolstad, Mahoney, and 

Glass 

2005 The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness 

research on English language learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

Saunders 1999 Improving literacy achievement for English learners in 

transitional bilingual programs

Experimental study 

117
Author(s) Year Title Type of study

Slavin and Cheung 2005 A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for 

English language learners 

Literature review and synthesis 

Slavin, Madden, Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and Hennessy 

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized 

evaluation of transitional bilingual education 

Experimental study 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic achievement 

Descriptive study 

Valdes 1997 Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note 

concerning the education of language-minority students 

Expert opinion based on research 

118
119 

What Research Says About Newcomer Models

Exhibit 17 lists the key articles from this review that provided information about newcomer models. The 

findings and conclusions of these articles suggest several characteristics of the newcomer model: 

Students identified as newcomers are generally defined as recent immigrants who are secondary students 

(grades 6 to 12) with limited formal education, low literacy or low linguistic proficiency in their L1 

(Boyson and Short 2003). These students often enter school with shortfalls in their academic 

backgrounds and may require targeted or intensive instruction to build foundational skills before they are 

ready to enter into a district’s or school’s regular LIEP. Newcomer models can help to address these 

needs and prepare such students for participation in regular content or ESL classes. The most common 

configuration of a newcomer model is a full-time design that lasts for one school year and provides 

students with literacy and language instruction, sheltered content instruction, and orientation and 

acculturation to the customs of the American school environment (Boyson and Short 2003). Specific 

programs designed as newcomer models may vary, based on the specific needs and resources in a school 

district or school. Because of its specialized nature, the newcomer model should not be a school district’s 

only LIEP offering. There is very little research available about literacy instruction for students in this 

age range, particularly in an L2. 

It appears, moreover, that the majority of the secondary newcomer programs in the United States are 

funded exclusively or primarily by district-level funds or special funding for refugee programs (Boyson 

and Short 2003), suggesting that school districts with smaller operating budgets may struggle to 

implement such programs even if they have a need. 

Exhibit 17. Key articles on the newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title Type of study 

August, Beck, Calderon, 

Francis, Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Developing reading and writing in 

second-language learners 

Literature review and 

synthesis 

Boyson and Short 2003 Secondary school newcomer 

programs in the United States 

Descriptive study 

Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for 

linguistically diverse students 

Literature review and 

synthesis 

Rivera, Francis, 

Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and 

Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English 

language learners. Principals from 

five states speak 

Descriptive study 

Spaulding, Carolino, 

and Amen 

2004 Immigrant students and secondary 

school reform: Compendium of 

best practices 

Expert opinion based on 

research 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school 

effectiveness for language minority 

students’ long-term academic 

achievement 

Descriptive study 
120 

Gaps in the Literature and Need for Further Research

Although many helpful findings emerged from this and other reviews of literature and research, that 

which is unknown still generally predominates in the field of EL education. The current review suggests 

that the field would benefit significantly from further inquiry in the following areas, either because they 

are severely underexplored at this point, or because findings thus far are inconclusive: 

Construct Framework and Instructional Practices for Academic English 

Although the evidence is building that academic English is critical to EL success and requires special 

instruction, information is still lacking about how best to define and operationalize academic English, let 

alone to ensure that ELs acquire it. It would also be helpful to know more about how to make texts, 

assessment and instruction more accessible to ELs who have not yet mastered the academic register. An 

important aspect of this operational definition would be insight into how to determine (by what criteria, 

and by what metric) that a student is proficient enough in academic English to exit services. 

Better Data Collection and Use, Particularly Data That Differentiate Among Populations 

Within the EL Subgroup 

The EL population is highly heterogeneous in terms of students’ L1s, educational backgrounds, cultural 

backgrounds, L1 proficiency and age (Editorial Projects in Education 2009). In light of this, it seems 

logical to conclude that what works best for a given EL student may vary depending on any one of these 

variables. At present, however, most state and school district data systems are not set up to capture 

information at this level of detail, and most research does not differentiate EL students according to 

these dimensions in treatment groups (with the exception of studies that may focus on recent immigrant 

students with limited L1 literacy and formal education, referred to as newcomer students). More finegrained information about ELs by subgroup would be helpful both to practitioners and to researchers, to 

help them determine practices and assessments that may provide more effective support that targets the 

specific needs of different EL subpopulations. 

EL-Specific Instructional Practices 

Given that instructional practices may be more critical to a LIEP than its model or overarching 

approach, the field needs more and better research about the efficacy of different instructional practices 

for ELs. At present, little is known about how to support the literacy and content learning of ELs 

specifically, despite the fact that much research has been conducted in these areas for the general 

population. General studies could contribute information simply by tracking and reporting how the 

interventions they test affect ELs. Because there is evidence to suggest that EL-specific interventions 

often serve ELs better than do general best practices, more research into practices designed for this 

population would be helpful and appropriate (August and Shanahan 2008). 

Effective Professional Development Programs or Strategies for Teachers of ELs 

More research may be needed about how to design and deliver effective PD in general. For the purposes 

of EL instruction, however, information specifically about how to help teachers—both language 

specialists and general educators—adopt and implement classroom practices that will support ELs would 

be useful. As mentioned previously, nearly all teachers today have or will have ELs in their classrooms, 

meaning every teacher should know how to serve these students. More and better information about 

how to help teachers do this—both in terms of their preservice training and by way of in-service and 
121 

ongoing PD, would help to ensure that more teachers feel competent and prepared to serve their EL 

students. 

Information About Program Implementation 

There are significant challenges involved in taking a conceptual model and turning it into a real-life 

school district program, and these may be difficult for practitioners to anticipate. In addition, researchers 

and experts might benefit from knowing what real-life challenges practitioners do face and how they deal 

with these. To benefit everyone in the field—researchers and practitioners alike—more ethnographic 

studies and program reviews, with detailed information about real programs and how they have evolved 

to their current forms, would provide information that, currently, is virtually absent. The forthcoming 

Lessons from the Field guide, to be produced as part of this study, is one such effort to fill this void. 

Evaluation Tools for the NCLB Era and Beyond 

NCLB introduced significantly more, and significantly more detailed, requirements about serving ELs 

that did previous legislation. States and school districts are required to evaluate their programs on a 

regular basis to ensure that their programs continue to be both compliant and effective. Little 

information exists, however, about how best to do this, particularly in the current policy era. Howard et 

al. (2007) developed a toolkit that provides guiding principles for dual-language instruction. However, 

more is needed for other programs. Valid indicators, rubrics or practices to support the implementation 

progress would support practitioners in this way. 

123 

References

Abedi, J. 2001. Assessment and accommodations for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Policy 

Brief 4. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. 

———. 2004. The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and 

accountability issues. Educational Researcher 33 (1): 4–14.

Aguirre-Munoz, Z., J. Park, A. Amabisca, and C. Boscardin. 2001. Developing teacher capacity for 

serving English language learners’ writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional 

linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, no. 31: 295–322. 

Anstrom, K., P. DiCerbo, A. Katz, J. Millet, and C. Rivera. 2010. A review of the literature on academic 

English: Implications for K-12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: The George Washington 

University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. 

Arellano-Houchin, A., C. Flamenco, M. Merlos, and L. Segura. 2001. Has California’s passage of 

Proposition 227 made a difference in the way we teach? The Urban Review 33 (3): 221–235. 

August, D. 2003. Supporting the development of English literacy in English language learners. Report No. 61. 

Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, The Johns Hopkins 

University. 

August, D., I. L. Beck, M. Calderon, D. J. Francis, N. Lesaux, and T. Shanahan. 2008. Instruction and 

professional development. In Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners, edited by 

D. August and T. Shanahan, 131–250. New York: Routledge and the International Reading 

Association. 

August, D., L. Branum-Martin, E. Cardenas-Hagan, and D. J. Francis. 2009. The impact of an 

instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language 

learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effect, no. 2: 345–376. 

August, D., M. Carlo, C. Dressler, and C. Snow. 2005. The critical role of vocabulary development for 

English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 20 (1): 50–57. 

August, D., and K. Hakuta. 1998. Educating language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press. 

August, D., and L. Pease-Alvarez. 1996. Attributes of effective programs and classrooms serving English language 

learners. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second 

Language Learning. 

August, D., and T. Shanahan. 2006. Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy 

Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Executive summary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

August, D., and T. Shanahan, eds. 2008. Developing reading and writing in second-language learners. New York: 

Routledge, the Center for Applied Linguistics and the International Reading Association. 
124 

Bahamonde, C., and M. Friend. 1999. Teaching English language learners: A proposal for effective 

service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of Educational and Psychological 

Consultation 10 (1): 1–24.

Bailey, A., ed. 2007. The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press. 

Bailey, A., and F. Butler. 2007. A conceptual framework for academic English language for broad 

application to education. In The Language Demands of School: Putting Academic English to the Test, 

edited by A. Bailey, 68–102. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Bailey, A., F. Butler, and E. Sato. 2007. Standards-to-standards linkage under Title III: Exploring 

common language demands in ELD and science standards. Applied Measurement in Education

20 (1): 53–78. 

Bailey, A., F. Butler, R. Stevens, and C. Lord. 2007. Further specifying the language demands of school. 

In The Language Demands of School: Putting Academic English to the Test, edited by A. Bailey, 103–156. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Bearse, C., and E. de Jong. 2008. Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary two-way 

immersion program. Equity & Excellence in Education 41 (3): 325–340. 

Belcher, D. 2006. English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in 

worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1): 133–156. 

Berman, P., S. Aburto, B. Nelson, C. Minicucci, and G. Burkart. 2000. Going schoolwide: Comprehensive school 

reform inclusive of limited English proficient students. A resource guide. Washington, DC: George 

Washington University. 

Berman, P., B. McLeod, B. Nelson, B. McLaughlin, C. Minicucci, and K. Woodworth. 1995. School reform 

and student diversity, Volume 1: Findings and conclusions. Berkeley and Santa Cruz, CA: Institute for 

Policy Analysis and Research; National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second 

Language Learning. 

Boyson, B., and D. Short. 2003. Secondary school newcomer programs in the United States. Research Report 

No. 12. Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & 

Excellence and the Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Butler, F., and M. Castellon-Wellington. 2000. Students’ concurrent performance on tests of English language 

proficiency and academic achievement. Technical Report. Los Angeles: University of California, 

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. 

Buysse, V., D. C. Castro, and E. Peisner-Feinberg. 2010. Effects of a professional development program 

on classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual language learners. Early Childhood Research 

Quarterly, no. 25: 194–206. 

Callahan, R. 2005. Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American 

Educational Research Journal 42 (2): 305–328. 

Carrier, K., and A. Tatum. 2006. Creating sentence walls to help English-language learners develop 

content literacy. The Reading Teacher 60 (3): 319–338. 
125 

Case, R. 2002. The intersection of language, education, and content: Science instruction for ESL 

students. The Clearing House 76 (2): 71–74. 

Cazabon, M. T., E. Nicoladis, and W. E. Lambert. 1998. Becoming bilingual in the Amigos two-way immersion 

program. Research report. Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on 

Education, Diversity & Excellence and the Center for Applies Linguistics. 

Center on Education Policy. 2010. State profiles for state test score trends through 2008-09. http://www.cepdc.org/page.cfm?FloatingPageID=14. 

Chamot, A. U., and P. Beard El-Dinary. 1999. Children’s learning strategies in language immersion 

classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 83 (3): 319–338. 

Chamot, A. U., and J. M. O’Malley. 1986. A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An ESL 

content-based curriculum. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

———. 1994. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. 

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

———. 1996. The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model for linguistically diverse 

classrooms. The Elementary School Journal 96 (3): 259–273. 

Christian, D., C. L. Montone, K. J. Lindholm, and I. Carranza. 1997. Profiles in two-way immersion education. 

McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics; Delta Systems Co., Inc. 

Cline, Z., and J. Necochea. 2003. Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE): More than 

just good instruction. Multicultural Perspectives 5 (1): 18–24. 

Collier, V., and W. Thomas. 1997. School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National 

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

Coxhead, Averil. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34 (2): 213–238. 

Cummins, J. 1979a. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, and 

some other matters. Working Paper 19. Working Papers on Bilingualism. Toronto: Bilingual 

Education Project, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

———. 1979b. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review 

of Educational Research 49 (2): 221–251. 

———. 1980. The construct of proficiency in bilingual education. In Georgetown University Round Table on 

Languages and Linguistics: Current issues in bilingual education, 1980, edited by J. E. Alatis, 81–103. 

Washington, DC: Georgetown University. 

Curran, M. E. 2003. Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory into Practice 42 (4): 334–340. 

Dalton, S. S. 1998. Pedagogy matters: Standards for effective teaching practice. Santa Cruz: University of 

California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence and the Center for 

Applied Linguistics 
126 

D’Angiulli, A., L. Siegel, and S. Maggi. 2004. Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in 

English-language learners and children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. 

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 19 (4): 202–213. 

Darling-Hammond, L. 1997. Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. National Commission on 

Teaching and America’s Future. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Darling-Hammond, L., B. Berry, and A. Thoreson. 2001. Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating 

the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (1): 57–77. 

DeJesus, S. 2008. An astounding treasure: Dual language education in a public school setting. Centro 

Journal 20 (2): 193–217. 

Diaz-Rico, L. T., and K. Z. Weed. 2002. The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A 

complete K-12 reference guide. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Dryfoos, J. G. 1996. Full-service schools. Educational Leadership 53 (7): 18–23.

Dutro, S., and K. Kinsella. 2010. English language development: Issues and implementation at grades six 

through twelve. In Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, 151–207. 

Sacramento: California Department of Education. 

Echevarria, J., K. Powers, and D. Short. 2006. School reform and standards-based education: A model 

for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research 99 (4): 195–210. 

Echevarria, J., and D. Short. 2010. Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. In 

Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches. Sacramento: California 

Department of Education. 

Echevarria, J., M. Vogt, and D. Short. 2004. Making content comprehensible for English learners. 2nd ed. 

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Editorial Projects in Education. 2009. Portrait of a population: How English learners are putting schools 

to the test. Education Week Quality Counts 28 (17). 

Ernst-Slavit, G., M. Moore, and C. Maloney. 2002. Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to 

ESL students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 46 (2): 116–128. 

Faltis, C., and M. B. Arias. 1993. Speakers of languages other than English in the secondary school: 

Accomplishments and struggles. Peabody Journal of Education 69 (1): 6–29. 

Forte, E. and M. Faulkner-Bond. 2010. The administrator’s guide to federal program for English learners. 

Washington, DC: Thompson. 

Francis, D., D. August, M. Carlo, and S. Vaughn. 2010. Optimizing educational outcomes for English language 

learners: IES final performance report. University of Houston. Grantee report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. 

Freeman, D., and Y. Freeman. 2001. Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, 

NH: Heinemann. 
127 

Freeman, R. 2000. Contextual challenges to dual-language education: A case study of a developing 

middle school program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 31 (2): 202–229. 

Fung, I., I. Wilkinson, and D. Moore. 2003. L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ 

comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, no. 13: 1–31.

Gandara, P., and B. Merino. 1993. Measuring the outcomes of LEP programs: Test scores, exit rates, and 

other mythological data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15 (3): 320–338. 

Garcia, E. 1991. Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective instructional practices. Educational 

Practice Report No. 1. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. 

Genesee, F. 1999. Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Educational Practice Report No. 1. Santa 

Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. 

Genesee, F., K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, and D. Christian. 2005. English language learners in 

U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk

10 (4): 363–385. 

———. 2006. Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Genesee, F., and C. Riches. 2006. Literacy: Instructional issues. In Educating English language learners: A 

synthesis of research evidence, 109–176. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Gersten, R. 1996. Literacy instruction for language-minority students: The transition years. The Elementary 

School Journal 96 (3): 227–244. 

———. 1999. Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teachers of English-language learners. 

The Elementary School Journal 100 (1): 37–56. 

Gersten, R., S. K. Baker, T. Shanahan, S. Linan-Thompson, P. Collins, and R. Scarcella. 2007. Effective 

literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute 

of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Gersten, R., and J. Woodward. 1995. A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual 

education programs in one district. The Elementary School Journal 95 (3): 223–239. 

Giambo, D., and J. McKinney. 2004. The effects of a phonological awareness intervention on the oral 

English proficiency of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children. TESOL Quarterly 38 (1): 95–117. 

Goe, L., and L. M. Stickler. 2008. Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. 

Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 

Goldenberg, C. 2008. Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. 

American Educator (October): 8–23, 42–44. 

Gonzalez, J., and L. Darling-Hammond. 1997. New concepts for new challenges: Professional development for 

teachers of immigrant youth. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics; Delta Systems Co., Inc. 
128 

Graves, A., R. Gersten, and D. Haager. 2004. Literacy instruction in multiple-language first-grade 

classrooms: Linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice. Learning Disabilities 

Research & Practice 19 (4): 262–272. 

Greene, J. 1997. A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual 

Research Journal, no. 21: 103–122. 

Harklau, L. 1994. ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL 

Quarterly 28 (2): 241–272. 

Harper, C., and E. de Jong. 2004. Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of 

Adolescent & Adult Literacy 48 (2): 152–162. 

Henze, R., and T. Lucas. 1993. Shaping instruction to promote the success of language minority 

students: An analysis of four high school classes. Peabody Journal of Education 69 (1): 54–81. 

Heritage, M., N. Silva, and M. Pierce. 2007. Academic English: A view from the classroom. In The 

language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test, edited by A. Bailey, 171–210. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Howard, E., and D. Christian. 2002. Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a two-way immersion 

education program at the elementary level. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, 

Diversity & Excellence. 

Howard, E., D. Christian, and F. Genesee. 2004. The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: 

A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion education. Research report. 

Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence 

and the Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Howard, E. R., J. Sugarman, D. Christian, K. J. Lindholm-Leary, and D. Rogers. 2007. Guiding principles 

for dual language education. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Irby, B., Fuhui Tong, R. Lara-Alecio, P. Mathes, S. Acosta, and C. Guerrero. 2010. Quality of instruction, 

language of instruction, and Spanish-speaking English language learners’ performance on a state 

reading achievement test. TABE Journal 12 (1): 1–42.

Kaplan, S. 2009. The impact of English-only legislation on teacher professional development: Shifting 

perspectives in Arizona. Theory Into Practice, no. 48: 297–303. 

Knight, S. L., and D. L. Wiseman. 2006. Lessons learned from a research synthesis on the effects of 

teachers’ professional development on culturally diverse students. In Preparing Quality Educators for 

English Language Learners: Research, Policies and Practices, edited by K. Tellez and H. Waxman, 71–98. 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Permagon Press. 

Laija-Rodriguez, W., S. H. Ochoa, and R. Parker. 2006. The crosslinguistic role of cognitive academic 

language proficiency on reading growth in Spanish and English. Bilingual Research Journal

30 (1): 87–106. 
129 

Lee, O., J. Maerten-Rivera, R. Penfield, K. LeRoy, and W. Secada. 2008. Science achievement of ELLs in 

urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of 

Research in Science Teaching 45 (1): 31–52. 

Lesaux, N., and E. Geva. 2008. Development of literacy. In Developing Reading and Writing in SecondLanguage Learners. New York: Routledge, the Center for Applied Linguistics and the International 

Reading Association. 

Linan-Thompson, S., P. Cirino, and S. Vaughn. 2007. Determining English language learners’ response 

to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly 30 (3): 185–195. 

Linan-Thompson, S., S. Vaughn, P. Hickman-Davis, and K. Kouzekanani. 2003. Effectiveness of 

supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading 

difficulties. The Elementary School Journal 103 (3): 221–238. 

Lindholm-Leary, K. 2005. The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership, no. 62: 56–59.

Lindholm-Leary, K., and G. Borsato. 2001. Impact of two-way bilingual elementary programs on students’ attitudes 

toward school and college. Research report. Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research 

on Education, Diversity & Excellence and the Center for Applied Linguistics. 

———. 2006. Academic achievement. In Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence, 

176–222. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Linquanti, R. 2001. The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability for English 

learners. Policy Report 2001-1. Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research 

Institute. 

Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign language 

research in cross-cultural perspective, edited by K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, 39–52. 

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Long, M., and P. Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Focus on Form in 

Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams, 15–41. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.

Lucas, T. 1993. Applying elements of effective secondary schooling for language minority students: A tool for reflection and 

stimulus to change. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

Lucas, T., and A. Katz. 1994. Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in English-only 

programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly 28 (3): 537–561. 

Lyster, R. 2004a. Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms. French Language Studies

14: 321–341. 

———. 2004b. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. SSLA, no. 26:

399–432. 

Manyak, P. 2007. English learners: A framework for robust literacy instruction for English learners. The 

Reading Teacher 61 (2): 197–199. 
130 

Manyak, P., and E. Bouchereau Bauer. 2009. English learners: English vocabulary instruction for English 

learners. The Reading Teacher 63 (2): 174–176. 

Medina, M. 1991. Native and Spanish language proficiency in a bilingual education program. The Journal 

of Educational Research 85 (2): 100–106. 

Menken, K., and T. Kleyn. 2010. The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational 

experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and 

Bilingualism 13 (4): 399–417. 

Merickel, A., R. Linquanti, T. B. Parrish, M. Perez, M. Eaton, and P. Esra. 2003. Effects of the 

implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Year 3 report. Sacramento, 

CA: American Institutes for Research and WestEd. 

Michael, A., N. Andrade, and L. Bartlett. 2007. Figuring “success” in a bilingual high school. The Urban 

Review 39 (2): 167–189. 

Miller, P. C., and H. Endo. 2004. Understanding and meeting the needs of ESL students. The Phi Delta 

Kappan 85 (10): 786–791. 

Minaya-Rowe, L. 2004. Training teachers of English language learners using their students’ first language. 

Journal of Latinos and Education 3 (1): 3–24. 

Montone, C. L., and M. I. Loeb. 2000. Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary schools. Santa 

Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence and 

the Center for Applied Linguistics. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2009a. The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009. Washington, 

DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

———. 2009b. The nation’s report card: Reading 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. 

———. 2011. Documentation to the NCES Common Core Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School 

year 2009–2010. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Necochea, J., and Z. Cline. 2000. Effective educational practices for English language learners within 

mainstream settings. Race Ethnicity and Education 3 (3): 317–332. 

Nelson, J. R., P. F. Vadasy, and E. A. Sanders. 2011. Efficacy of a Tier 2 supplemental root word 

vocabulary and decoding intervention with kindergarten Spanish-speaking English learners. 

Journal of Literacy Research 43 (2): 184–211. 

Ochoa, A., and K. Cadiero-Kaplan. 2004. Towards promoting biliteracy and academic achievement: 

Educational programs for high school Latino English language learners. The High School Journal

87 (3): 27–43. 

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, no. 14: 97–119. 
131 

Padrón, Y. N., H. Waxman, A. P. Brown, and R. A. Powers. 2000. Improving classroom instruction and student 

learning for resilient and non-resilient English language learners. Research Brief No. 7. Santa Cruz: 

University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence and the 

Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Pappamihiel, N. E. 2002. English as a second language students and English language anxiety: Issues in 

the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching of English 36 (3): 327–355. 

Parrish, T. B., A. Merickel, M. Perez, R. Linquanti, M. Socias, and A. Spain. 2006. Effects of the 

implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12. Sacramento, CA: American 

Institutes for Research and WestEd. 

Potowski, K. 2004. Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for 

second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal

88 (1): 75–101. 

Proctor, C. P., B. Dalton, P. Uccelli, G. Biancarosa, E. Mo, C. Snow, and S. Neugebauer. 2009. 

Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary with bilingual and monolingual 

fifth graders. Reading and Writing, no. 24: 517–544. 

Ragan, A., and N. Lesaux. 2006. Federal, state, and district level English language learner program entry 

and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language minority learners. Education Policy 

Analysis Archives 14 (20). 

Ramirez, J. D., S. D. Yuen, and D. R. Ramey. 1991. Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English 

Immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority 

children (Executive summary). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. 

Ray, J. 2009. A template analysis of teacher agency at an academically successful dual language school. 

Journal of Advanced Academics 21 (1): 110–141. 

Reeves, J. 2004. “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. 

TESOL Quarterly 38 (1): 43–66. 

———. 2006. Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream 

classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research 99 (3): 131–142. 

Reyes, L. 2002. Professional development in a bilingual adult learning community. Bilingual Research 

Journal 26 (1): 181–192. 

Rivera, C., and E. Collum. 2004. An analysis of state assessment policies addressing the accommodation 

of English language learners. The George Washington University Center for Equity and 

Excellence in Education. http://ceee.gwu.edu. 

Rivera, M. O., D. J. Francis, M. Fernandez, A. C. Moughamiam, and J. Jergensen. 2010. Effective practices 

for English language learners. Principals from five states speak. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research 

Corporation, Center on Instruction. 

Rivera, C., and C. W. Stansfield. 2001. The effects of linguistic simplification of science test items on 

performance of limited English proficient and monolingual English-speaking students. Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. 
132 

Rolstad, K., K. Mahoney, and G. Glass. 2005. The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness 

research on English language learners. Educational Policy, no. 19: 572–594. 

Rossell, C., and K. Baker. 1996. The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the 

Teaching of English 30 (1): 7–74. 

Royer, J., and M. Carlo. 1991a. Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal 

of Reading 34 (6): 450–455. 

———. 1991b. Assessing the language acquisition progress of limited English proficient students: 

Problems and a new alternative. Applied Measurement in Education 4 (2): 85–113. 

Rubinstein-Avila, E. 2003. Facing reality: English language learners in middle school classes. English 

Education 35 (2): 122–136. 

Sanders, W. L., and J. C. Rivers. 1996. Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic 

achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Research and Assessment Center. 

Saunders, W. M. 1999. Improving literacy achievement for English learners in transitional bilingual 

programs. Educational Research & Evaluation 5 (4): 345–381. 

Saunders, W. M., and C. Goldenberg. 1999. Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on 

limited- and fluent-English-proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic 

understanding. The Elementary School Journal 99 (4): 277–301. 

———. 2010. Research to guide English language development instruction. In Improving Education for 

English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, 20–81. Sacramento: California Department of 

Education. 

Saunders, W. M., and G. O’Brien. 2006. Oral Language. In Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis 

of Research Evidence, edited by F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, and D. Christian, 

14–63. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Saunders, W. M., G. O’Brien, D. Lennon, and J. McLean. 1999. Successful transition into mainstream English: 

Effective strategies for studying literature. Santa Cruz: University of California, Center for Research on 

Education, Diversity & Excellence and the Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Scarcella, R. 2003a. Academic English: A conceptual framework. Technical Report 2003-1. Irvine: University 

of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. 

———. 2003b. Accelerating Academic English: A Focus on the English Learner. Oakland, CA: Regents of the 

University of California. 

Schleppegrell, M., M. Achugar, and T. Oteíza. 2004. The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based 

instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38 (1): 67–93. 

Shih, M. 1992. Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading class. TESOL Quarterly

26 (2): 289–318. 
133 

Short, D., and J. Echevarria. 1999. The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A tool for teacher researcher 

collaboration and professional development. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, 

Diversity & Excellence. 

Slavin, R. E., and A. Cheung. 2005. A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for 

English language learners. Review of Educational Research 75 (2): 247–284. 

Slavin, R. E., N. Madden, M. Calderon, A. Chamberlain, and M. Hennessy. 2011. Reading and language 

outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33 (1): 47–58. doi:10.3102/0162373711398127. 

Smith, J., C. Coggins, and J. Cardoso. 2008. Best practices for ELLs in Massachusetts: Five years after 

the Question 2 mandate. Equity & Excellence in Education 41 (3): 293–310. 

Snow, C. 2008. Cross-cutting themes and future research directions. In Developing Reading and Writing in 

Second-Language Learners: Lessons From the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority 

Children and Youth, edited by D. August and T. Shanahan, 275–300. New York: Routledge, the 

Center for Applied Linguistics and the International Reading Association. 

Snow, C., J. F. Lawrence, and C. White. 2009. Generating knowledge of academic language among urban 

middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effect, no. 2: 325–344. 

Sobul, DeAnne. 1995. Specially designed academic instruction in English. ERIC No. 391357. 

Spaulding, S., S. Carolino, and K. Amen. 2004. Immigrant students and secondary school reform: Compendium of 

best practices. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. 

Stevens, R., F. Butler, and M. Castellon-Wellington. 2000. Academic language and content assessment: Measuring 

the progress of ELLs. CSE Technical Report No. 552. Los Angeles: University of California, 

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. 

Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step 

towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16 (3): 371–391. 

Teale, W. 2009. Students learning English and their literacy instruction in urban schools. The Reading 

Teacher 62 (8): 699–703. 

Thomas, W., and V. Collier. 2002. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term 

academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. 

Valdes, G. 1997. Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of 

language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review 67 (3): 391–429. 

Valdez-Pierce, L., and J. M. O’Malley. 1992. Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority students. 

Program Information Guide Series. Washington, DC: Office of Bilingual Education and 

Minority Language Affairs. 

Vaughn, S., J. M. Fletcher, D. J. Francis, C. A. Denton, J. Wanzek, J. Wexler, P. T. Cirino, A. E. Barth, 

and M. A. Romain. 2008. Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. 

Learning and Individual Differences, no. 18: 338–345. 
134 

Vaughn, S., S. Linan-Thompson, P. G. Mathes, P. Cirino, C. D. Carlson, S. Pollard-Durodola, E. 

Cardenas-Hagan, and D. J. Francis. 2006. Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade 

English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 (1): 56–

73. 

Vaughn, S., L. R. Martinez, S. Linan-Thompson, C. K. Reutebuch, C. Carlson, and D. J. Francis. 2009. 

Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language 

learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness

4 (2): 297–324. 

Walqui, A. 2002. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The 

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9 (2): 159–180. 

Weisberg, D., S. Sexton, J. Mulhern, and D. Keeling. 2009. The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge 

and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: The New Teacher Project. 

Williams, T., K. Hakuta, and E. Haertel. 2007. Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some 

schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving lowincome and EL students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. 

Willner, L. S., C. Rivera, and B. D. Acosta. 2008. Descriptive study of state assessment policies for 

accommodating English language learners. The George Washington University Center for 

Equity and Excellence in Education. http://ceee.gwu.edu. 

———. 2009. Ensuring accommodations used in content assessments are responsive to Englishlanguage learners. The Reading Teacher 62 (8): 696–698. 

Wright, S. P., S. P. Horn, and W. L. Sanders. 1997. Teacher and classroom context effects on student 

achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11 (1): 

57–67. 

York-Barr, J., G. Ghere, and J. Sommerness. 2007. Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student 

learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk

12 (3): 301–335. 

Young, M. 1996. English (as a second) language arts teachers: The key to mainstreamed ESL student 

success. The English Journal 85 (8): 17–24. 

Zehler, A. M., H. L. Fleischman, P.J. Hopstock, T. G. Stephenson, M. L. Pendzick, and S. Sapru. 2003. 

Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: 

Development Associates, Inc. 

Zetlin, A., E. MacLeod, and D. Michener. 1998. Professional development of teachers of language 

minority students through university-school partnership. Teacher Education and Special Education

21 (2): 109–120.
135 

Appendix A. Literature Review Search Terms and Research Questions

After compiling a list of articles, expert panelists, Department personnel and project contractors 

submitted additional pieces for the initial review list. These individuals’ additions tended to fall into one 

or more of three categories, including (1) seminal articles or research studies that are critically important 

to the field (often, these fell outside of the 20-year cut-off); (2) additional texts for review categories (see 

above) that had not yielded a large pool of hits during the initial search; and (3) very recent works that 

may not be widely known yet, but are considered important or promising by experts in the field. For all 

of these recommendations, reviewers waived the 20-year publication cut-off for initial inclusion. Exhibit 

18 shows the search terms according to the research question to which they were theorized to pertain, 

and Exhibit 19 shows search hits by keywords. 

As discussed above, articles published in the past 15 to 20 years that fell into one of the five format 

categories were chosen for initial inclusion: 

•

•

•

•

•

Literature reviews and syntheses; 

Expert opinion based on research; 

Descriptive studies; 

Quasi-experimental studies; and 

Experimental studies. 

In addition, reviewers searched the report databases for major independent or federally funded research 

centers in pertinent areas, including the following: 

•

•

•

•

•

•

The National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, & Student Testing (CRESST); 

The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR); 

The Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE); 

The Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language 

Learners (CREATE); 

The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE); and 

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES). 
Exhibit 18. Location of references in literature review

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N

Abedi 2001 Assessment and accommodations for 

English language learners: Issues and 

recommendations 



Abedi 2004 The No Child Left Behind Act and English 

language learners: Assessment and 

accountability issues 



Aguirre-Munoz, 

Park, Amabisca, and 

Boscardin 

2001 Developing teacher capacity for serving 

English language learners’ writing 

instructional needs: A case for systemic 

functional linguistics 

 

Anstrom, DiCerbo, 

Katz, Millet, and 

Rivera 

2010 A review of the literature on academic 

English: Implications for K-12 English 

language learners 



Arellano-Houchin, 

Flamenco, Merlos, 

and Segura 

2001 Has California’s passage of Proposition 

227 made a difference in the way we 

teach? 



August 2003 Supporting the development of English 

literacy in English language learners 

August, Beck, 

Calderon, Francis, 

Lesaux, and 

Shanahan 

2008 Instruction and Professional 

Development. In Developing Reading and 

Writing in Second-Language Learners      

August, BranumMartin, CardenasHagan, and Francis 2009 The impact of an instructional 

intervention on the science and language 

learning of middle grade English 

language learners 



136

Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

August, Carlo, 

Dressler, and Snow 

2005 The critical role of vocabulary 

development for English language 

learners 



August and Hakuta 1998 Educating language-minority children   

August and PeaseAlvarez 1996 Attributes of effective programs and 

classrooms serving English language 

learners 

   

August and 

Shanahan 

2006 Developing literacy in second-language 

learners: Report of the national literacy 

panel on language-minority children and 

youth (Executive summary) 

 

August and 

Shanahan 

2008 Developing reading and writing in 

second-language learners   

Bahamonde and 

Friend 

1999 Teaching English language learners: A 

proposal for effective service delivery 

through collaboration and co-teaching 



Bailey 2007 The language demands of school: 

Putting academic English to the test 

Bailey and Butler 2007 A conceptual framework for academic 

English language for broad application 

to education. In The Language Demands of 

School: Putting Academic English to the Test

 

Bailey, Butler, and 

Sato 

2007 Standards-to-standards linkage under 

title III: Exploring common language 

demands in ELD and science standards. 

In The Language Demands of School: Putting 

Academic English to the Test



137
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Bailey, Butler, 

Stevens, and Lord 

2007 Further specifying the language demands 

of school. In The Language Demands of 

School: Putting Academic English to the Test



Bearse and de Jong 2008 Cultural and linguistic investment: 

Adolescents in a secondary two-way 

immersion program 



Belcher 2006 English for specific purposes: Teaching 

to perceived needs and imagined futures 

in worlds of work, study, and everyday 

life 

 

Berman, McLeod, 

Nelson, McLaughlin, 

Minicucci, and 

Woodworth 

1995 School reform and student diversity, 

volume I: Findings and conclusions. 

Studies of education reform 

Berman, Aburto, 

Nelson, Minicucci, 

and Burkart 

2000 Going schoolwide: Comprehensive 

school reform inclusive of limited 

English proficient students: A resource 

guide 

 

Boyson and Short 2003 Secondary school newcomer programs 

in the United States 

Buysse, Castro, and 

Peisner-Feinberg 

2010 Effects of a professional development 

program on classroom practices and 

outcomes for Latino dual language 

learners 



Butler and 

CastellonWellington 

2000 Students’ concurrent performance on 

tests of English language proficiency and 

academic achievement 



138
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Callahan 2005 Tracking and high school English 

learners: Limiting opportunity to learn 

Carrier and Tatum 2006 Creating sentence walls to help Englishlanguage learners develop content 

literacy 



Case 2002 The intersection of language, education, 

and content: Science instruction for ESL 

students 

 

Cazabon, Nicoladis, 

and Lambert 

1998 Becoming bilingual in the Amigos twoway immersion program 

Chamot and Beard 

El-Dinary 

1999 Children’s learning strategies in language 

immersion classrooms  

Chamot and 

O’Malley 

1986 A Cognitive Academic Language 

Learning Approach: An ESL contentbased curriculum 

  

Chamot and 

O’Malley 

1994 The CALLA handbook: Implementing 

the Cognitive Academic Language 

Learning Approach 

 

Chamot and 

O’Malley 

1996 The Cognitive Academic Language 

Learning Approach: A Model for 

Linguistically Diverse Classrooms 

   

Christian, Montone, 

Lindhom, and 

Cananza 

1997 Profiles in two-way immersion education 



Cline and Necochea 2003 Specially designed academic instruction 

in English (SDAIE): More than just 

good instruction 

 

139
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Collier and Thomas 1997 School effectiveness for language 

minority students      

Coxhead 2000 A new academic word list 

Cummins 1979a Cognitive or academic language 

proficiency, linguistic interdependence, 

the optimum age question, and some 

other matters 

 

Cummins 1979b Linguistic interdependence and the 

educational development of bilingual 

children 

 

Cummins 1980 The construct of proficiency in bilingual 

education 

Curran 2003 Linguistic diversity and classroom 

management 



Dalton 1998 Pedagogy matters: Standards for 

effective teaching practice 

D’Angiulli, Siegel, 

and Maggi 

2004 Literacy instruction, SES, and wordreading achievement in English-language 

learners and children with English as a 

first language: A longitudinal study 

  

Darling-Hammond 1997 Doing what matters most: Investing in 

quality teaching 

Darling-Hammond, 

Berry, and Thoreson 

2001 Does teacher certification matter?: 

Evaluating the evidence 

DeJesus 2008 An astounding treasure: Dual language 

education in a public school setting 

140
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Diaz-Rico and Weed 2002 The crosscultural, language, and 

academic development handbook: A 

complete K-12 reference guide. 



Dryfoos 1996 Full-service schools 

Dutro and Kinsella 2010 English language development: Issues 

and implementation at grades six 

through twelve. In Improving Education for 

English Learners: Research-Based Approaches



Echevarria and 

Short 

2010 Programs and practices for effective 

sheltered content instruction. In 

Improving Education for English Learners: 

Research-Based Approaches

 

Echevarria, Powers, 

and Short 

2006 School reform and standards-based 

education: A model for English language 

learners 

  

Echevarria, Vogt, 

and Short 

2004 Making content comprehensible for 

English learners   

Ernst-Slavit, Moore, 

and Maloney 

2002 Changing lives: Teaching English and 

literature to ESL students 

Faltis and Arias 1993 Speakers of languages other than 

English in the secondary school: 

Accomplishments and struggles 



Francis, August, 

Carlo, and Vaughn 

2011 Optimizing educational outcomes for 

English language learners 

Freeman 2000 Contextual challenges to dual-language 

education: A case study of a developing 

middle school program 



141
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Freeman and 

Freeman 

2001 Between worlds: Access to second 

language acquisition 

Fung, Wilkinson, 

and Moore 

2003 L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to 

improve ESL students’ comprehension 

of English expository text 



Gandara and Merino 1993 Measuring the outcomes of LEP 

programs: Test scores, exit rates, and 

other mythological data 



Garcia 1991 Education of linguistically and culturally 

diverse students: Effective instructional 

practices 



Genesee 1999 Program alternatives for linguistically 

diverse students    

Genesee, LindholmLeary, Saunders, and 

Christian 

2005 English language learners in U.S. 

schools: An overview of research 

findings 

 

Genesee, LindholmLeary, Saunders, and 

Christian 

2006 Educating English language learners: a 

synthesis of research evidence      

Gersten 1996 Literacy instruction for languageminority students: The transition years 

Gersten 1999 Lost opportunities: challenges 

confronting four teachers of Englishlanguage learners 



142
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Gersten, Baker, 

Shanahan, LinanThompson, Collins, 

and Scarcella 

2007 Effective literacy and English language 

instruction for English learners in the 

elementary grades: A practice guide  

Gersten and 

Woodward 

1995 A longitudinal study of transitional and 

immersion bilingual education programs 

in one district 

 

Giambo and 

McKinney 

2004 The effects of a phonological awareness 

intervention on the oral English 

proficiency of Spanish-speaking 

kindergarten children 



Goe and Stickler 2008 Teacher quality and student 

achievement: Making the most of recent 

research 



Goldenberg 2008 Teaching English language learners: 

What the research does—and does 

not—say 

  

Gonzalez and 

Darling-Hammond 

1997 New concepts for new challenges: 

Professional development for teachers 

of immigrant youth 



Graves, Gersten, 

and Haager 

2004 Literacy instruction in multiple-language 

first-grade classrooms: Linking student 

outcomes to observed instructional 

practice 



Harklau 1994 ESL versus mainstream classes: 

Contrasting L2 learning environments 

Harper and de Jong 2004 Misconceptions about teaching Englishlanguage learners     

143
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Henze and Lucas 1993 Shaping instruction to promote the 

success of language minority students: 

An analysis of four high school classes 



Heritage, Silva, and 

Pierce 

2007 Academic English: A view from the 

classroom. In The Language Demands of 

School: Putting Academic English to the Test



Howard and 

Christian 

2002 Two way immersion 101: Designing and 

implementing a two-way immersion 

education program at the elementary 

level 



Howard, Christian, 

and Genesee 

2004 The development of bilingualism and 

biliteracy from grade 3 to 5: A summary 

of findings from the CAL/CREDE 

study of two-way immersion education 



Irby, Fuhui Tong, 

Lara-Alecio, Mathes, 

Acosta, and 

Guerrero 

2010 Quality of instruction, language of 

instruction, and Spanish-speaking 

English language learners’ performance 

on a state reading achievement test 

  

Kaplan 2009 The impact of English-only legislation 

on teacher professional development: 

Shifting perspectives in Arizona 



Knight and 

Wiseman 

2006 Lessons learned from a research 

synthesis on the effects of teachers’ 

professional development on culturally 

diverse students 



Krashen 1982 Principles and practices in second 

language acquisition 

144
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Laija-Rodriguez, 

Ochoa, and Parker 

2006 The crosslinguistic role of cognitive 

academic language proficiency on 

reading growth in Spanish and English 

  

Lara-Alecio, Irby, 

and Mathes

2011 Project ELLA (English language or 

literacy acquisition)  

Lee, Maerten-Rivera, 

Penfield, LeRoy, and 

Secada 

2008 Science achievement of ELLs in urban 

elementary schools: Results of a firstyear professional development 

intervention 

  

Lesaux and Geva 2008 Development of literacy. In Developing 

Reading and Writing in Second Language 

Learners 

 

Linan-Thompson, 

Cirino, and Vaughn 

2007 Determining English language learners’ 

response to intervention: Questions and 

some answers 

  

Linan-Thompson, 

Vaughn, HickmanDavis, and 

Kouzekanani 

2003 Effectiveness of supplemental reading 

instruction for second-grade English 

language learners with reading 

difficulties 

  

Lindholm-Leary 2005 The rich promise of two-way immersion  

Lindholm-Leary and 

Borsato 

2001 Impact of two-way bilingual elementary 

programs on students’ attitudes toward 

school and college 

 

Lindholm-Leary and 

Borsato 

2006 Academic achievement. In Educating 

English Language Learners: A Synthesis of 

Research Evidence

   

145
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Linquanti 2001 The redesignation dilemma: Challenges 

and choices in fostering meaningful 

accountability for English learners 



Lucas 1993 Applying elements of effective 

secondary schooling for language 

minority students: A tool for reflection 

and stimulus to change 

 

Lucas and Katz 1994 Reframing the debate: The roles of 

native languages in English-only 

programs for language minority students 



Lyster 2004a Research on form-focused instruction in 

immersion classrooms   

Lyster 2004b Differential effects of prompts and 

recasts in form-focused instruction   

Manyak 2007 English learners: A framework for 

robust literacy instruction for English 

learners 



Manyak and 

Bouchereau Bauer 

2009 English learners: English vocabulary 

instruction for English learners 

Medina 1991 Native and Spanish language proficiency 

in a bilingual education program 

Menken and Kleyn 2010 The long-term impact of subtractive 

schooling in the educational experiences 

of secondary English language learners 

 

Merickel, Linquanti, 

Parrish, Perez, 

Eaton, and Esra 

2003 Effects of the implementation of 

Proposition 227 on the education of 

English learners, K-12: Year 3 report 

 

146
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Michael, Andrade, 

and Bartlett 

2007 Figuring “success” in a bilingual high 

school 

Miller and Endo 2004 Understanding and meeting the needs of 

ESL students 

Minaya-Rowe 2004 Training teachers of English language 

learners using their students’ first 

language 



Montone and Loeb 2000 Implementing two-way immersion 

programs in secondary schools 

Necochea and Cline 2000 Effective educational practices for 

English language learners within 

mainstream settings 

 

Nelson, Vadasy, and 

Sanders 

2011 Efficacy of a Tier 2 supplemental root 

word vocabulary and decoding 

intervention with kindergarten Spanishspeaking English learners 



Ochoa and CadieroKaplan 2004 Towards promoting biliteracy and 

academic achievement: Educational 

programs for high school Latino English 

language learners 

 

O’Day 2009 Good instruction is good for 

everyone—or is it? English language 

learners in a balanced literacy approach 



Padrón, Waxman, 

Brown, and Powers 

2000 Improving classroom instruction and 

student learning for resilient and nonresilient English language learners 



147
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Pappamihiel 2002 English as a second language students 

and English language anxiety: Issues in 

the mainstream classroom 

 

Parrish, Merickel, 

Perez, Linquanti, 

Socias, and Spain 

2006 Effects of the implementation of 

Proposition 227 on the education of 

English learners, K-12 

  

Pica 1983 Adult acquisition of English as a second 

language under different conditions of 

exposure 



Potowski 2004 Student Spanish use and investment in a 

dual immersion classroom: implications 

for second language acquisition and 

heritage language maintenance 



Proctor, Dalton, 

Uccelli, Biancarosa, 

Mo, Snow, and 

Neugebauer 

2009 Improving comprehension online: 

Effects of deep vocabulary with bilingual 

and monolingual fifth graders 

Ragan and Lesaux 2006 Federal, state, and district level English 

language learner program entry and exit 

requirements: Effects on the education 

of language minority learners 



Ramirez, Yuen, and 

Ramey 

1991 Final report: Longitudinal study of 

structured English Immersion strategy, 

early-exit and late-exit transitional 

bilingual education programs for 

language-minority children 

  

148
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Ray 2009 A template analysis of teacher agency at 

an academically successful dual language 

school 



Reeves 2004 “Like everybody else”: Equalizing 

educational opportunity for English 

language learners 

  

Reeves 2006 Secondary teacher attitudes toward 

including English-language learners in 

mainstream classrooms 

  

Reyes 2002 Professional development in a bilingual 

adult learning community 

Rivera and Collum 2004 An analysis of state assessment policies 

addressing the accommodation of 

English language learners 



Rivera and 

Stansfield 

2001 The effects of linguistic simplification of 

science test items on performance of 

limited English proficient and 

monolingual English-speaking students 



Rivera, Francis, 

Fernandez, 

Moughamiam, and 

Jergensen 

2010 Effective practices for English language 

learners: Principals from five states 

speak    

Rossell and Baker 1996 The educational effectiveness of 

bilingual education 

Royer and Carlo 1991a Assessing the language acquisition 

progress of limited English proficient 

students: Problems and a new alternative 



149
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Royer and Carlo 1991b Transfer of comprehension skills from 

native to second language 

Rubinstein-Avila 2003 Facing reality: English language learners 

in middle school classes 

Sanders and Rivers 1996 Cumulative and residual effects of 

teachers on future student academic 

achievement 



Saunders 1999 Improving literacy achievement for 

English learners in transitional bilingual 

programs 

 

Saunders and 

Goldenberg 

1999 Effects of instructional conversations 

and literature logs on limited- and 

fluent-English-proficient students’ story 

comprehension and thematic 

understanding 



Saunders and 

Goldenberg 

2010 Research to guide English language 

development instruction. In Improving 

Education for English Learners: ResearchBased Approaches

  

Saunders and 

O’Brien 

2006 Oral language. In Educating English 

Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research 

Evidence



Saunders, O’Brien, 

Lennon, and 

McLean 

1999 Successful transition into mainstream 

English: Effective strategies for studying 

literature 



Scarcella 2003a Academic English: A conceptual 

framework  

150
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Scarcella 2003b Accelerating academic English: A focus 

on the English learner 

Schleppegrell, 

Achugar, and Oteíza

2004 The grammar of history: Enhancing 

content-based instruction through a 

functional focus on language 

 

Shih 1992 Beyond comprehension exercises in the 

ESL academic reading class 

Short and 

Echevarria 

1999 The Sheltered Instruction Observation 

Protocol: A tool for teacher researcher 

collaboration and professional 

development 

 

Slavin and Cheung 2005 A synthesis of research on language of 

reading instruction for English language 

learners 

 

Slavin, Madden, 

Calderon, 

Chamberlain, and 

Hennessy 

2011 Reading and language outcomes of a 

multiyear randomized evaluation of 

transitional bilingual education    

Smith, Coggins, and 

Cardoso 

2008 Best practices for ELLs in 

Massachusetts: Five years after the 

question 2 mandate 

  

Snow 2008 Cross-cutting themes and future 

research directions. In Developing Reading 

and Writing in Second-Language Learners: 

Lessons From the Report of the National 

Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children 

and Youth

  

151
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Snow, Lawrence, 

and White 

2009 Generating knowledge of academic 

language among urban middle school 

students 



Sobul 1995 Specially designed academic instruction 

in English 

Spaulding, Carolino, 

and Amen 

2004 Immigrant students and secondary 

school reform: Compendium of best 

practices 

   

Stevens, Butler, and 

CastellonWellington 

2000 Academic language and content 

assessment: Measuring the progress of 

ELLs 

 

Swain and Lapkin 1995 Problems in output and the cognitive 

processes they generate: A step towards 

second language learning 

 

Teale 2009 Students learning English and their 

literacy instruction in urban schools 

Thomas and Collier 2002 A national study of school effectiveness 

for language minority students’ longterm academic achievement 

    

Valdes 1997 Dual-language immersion programs: A 

cautionary note concerning the 

education of language-minority students 



Valdez-Pierce and 

O’Malley 

1992 Performance and portfolio assessment 

for language minority students 

152
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Vaughn, Fletcher, 

Francis, Denton, 

Wanzek, Wexler, 

Cirino, Barth, and 

Romain 

2008 Response to intervention with older 

students with reading difficulties 



Vaughn, LinanThompson, Mathes, 

Cirino, Carlson, 

Pollard-Durodola, 

Cardenas-Hagan, 

and Francis 

2006 Effectiveness of Spanish intervention 

for first-grade English language learners 

at risk for reading difficulties 

Vaughn, Martinez, 

Linan-Thompson, 

Reutebuch, Carlson, 

and Francis 

2009 Enhancing social studies vocabulary and 

comprehension for seventh-grade 

English language learners: Findings from 

two experimental studies 



Walqui 2002 Scaffolding instruction for English 

language learners: A conceptual 

framework 



Weisberg, Sexton, 

Mulhern, and 

Keeling 

2009 The widget effect: Our national failure 

to acknowledge and act on differences in 

teacher effectiveness 



Williams, Hakuta, 

and Haertel 

2007 Similar English learner students, 

different results: Why do some schools 

do better? A follow-up analysis based on 

a large-scale survey of California 

elementary schools serving low-income 

and EL students 

   

153
Note: 1 = Theories of second language acquisition; 2 = The construct of academic language; 3 = Models and considerations for LIEP design; 4 = 

Instructional practices and PD; 5 = District, school and community culture; 6 = Indicators and evaluation of success. ESL = English as a second 

language model, B = bilingual model, N = newcomer model

Author(s) Year Title 

Research Question 

1 2 3 4 5 6 ESL B N 

Willner, Rivera, and 

Acosta 

2008 Descriptive study of state assessment 

policies for accommodating English 

language learners 



Willner, Rivera, and 

Acosta 

2009 Ensuring accommodations used in 

content assessments are responsive to 

English language learners 



Wright, Horn, and 

Sanders 

1997 Teacher and classroom context effects 

on student achievement: Implications 

for teacher evaluation 



York-Barr, Ghere, 

and Sommerness 

2007 Collaborative teaching to increase ELL 

student learning: A three-year urban 

elementary case study 



Young 1996 English (as a second) language arts 

teachers: The key to mainstreamed ESL 

student success 



Zehler, Fleischman, 

Hopstock, 

Stephenson, 

Pendzick, and Sapru 

2003 Descriptive study of services to LEP 

students and LEP students with 

disabilities 

Zetlin, MacLeod, 

and Michener 

1998 Professional development of teachers of 

language minority students through 

university-school partnership 



154 
Exhibit 19. Search hits by research question and database

Database Hits (#)

Search Terms PsycINFO ProQuest EBSCO JSTOR

Research question topics

Language Instruction Educational Programs 276 32 0 36 

Newcomer and English Learner 4 1 3 31 

Immersion and English and English Learner 13 2 4 740 

Bilingual and Program and English Learner 29 3 6 816 

Sheltered Instruction and English Learner 1 0 6 113 

CALLA and English Learner 0 0 0 23 

Related terms

Professional Development and English Learner 12 0 18 2,596 

Professional Development and English Language Acquisition 0 0 0 963 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Certification 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Language Specialists 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Classroom Teacher 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Curriculum 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Instruction 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Alignment with Content Standards and Expectations 0 0 0 0 

English Language Development 29 0 12 0 

English Language Acquisition and Instruction 2 0 3 0 

English Language Acquisition and Classroom Management 0 0 0 0 

155
Database Hits (#) 

Search Terms PsycINFO ProQuest EBSCO JSTOR 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Isolation 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Pull-out 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Push-in 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Schedule 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Population 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Student Demographics or Characteristics 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Resources or Resource Allocation 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Community 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Migrant or Immigrant 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Identification or Placement 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Initiation 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Scaling 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Monitoring or Evaluation 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Indicators of Effectiveness 0 0 0 0 

156
Database Hits (#) 

Search Terms PsycINFO ProQuest EBSCO JSTOR 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

SIFE 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs and 

Native Language Proficiency 0 0 0 0 

English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs 0 0 0 0 

157