Supporting English Learners through 

Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning 

Resources for English Learners

Volume I: Final Report

Supporting English Learners through 

Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning 

Resources for English Learners 

Volume I: Final Report

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Prepared by: 

Annette M. Zehler

Atsushi Miyaoka

Brad Chaney 

Valerie Orellana

Westat

Philip Vahey

Daniela Torre Gibney

Kaily Yee

SRI Education

Yesim Yilmazel-Sahin

OneWorld Linguistic Consulting, LLC

2019 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-PEP-11-O-0088/TO27 

with Westat. Erica Lee, Ivan Metzger, Julie Warner, and Lena Shi served as contracting officer’s 

representatives over the course of the project. 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. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains 

information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such 

information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department. 

U.S. Department of Education

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

James Blew

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Gregory Fortelny

Director

May 2019

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce 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, 

Supporting English learners through technology: What districts and teachers say about digital learning 

resources for English learners. Volume I: Final Report. National Study of English Learners and Digital

Learning Resources, Washington, D.C., 2019. 

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

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Content Contact: 

Erica Lee 

Phone: 202-260-1463 

Email: erica.lee@ed.gov 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

iii

Contents

Volume I

List of Exhibits...................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................................vii

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... ix 

Key Findings....................................................................................................................................ix

Study Purpose and Methods.......................................................................................................... x 

Methodology and Study Limitations.............................................................................................. x 

Findings ......................................................................................................................................... xii 

Conclusions................................................................................................................................... xvi 

Chapter I. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 

Study Purpose and Methods.......................................................................................................... 1 

Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 2 

Analysis and Reporting of Findings ................................................................................................ 5 

DLR Framework and Definitions..................................................................................................... 6 

Study Limitations............................................................................................................................ 7 

Chapter II. Identification of DLRs and DLRS Provided for Instructing EL Students.................................. 9 

Sources for Identifying DLRs......................................................................................................... 10

Criteria in Selecting DLRs.............................................................................................................. 15 

Types of DLRs Provided for Instruction........................................................................................ 22 

Chapter III. Teachers’ Use of DLRs in Instructing EL Students.............................................................27

Use of DLRs ................................................................................................................................... 27 

Availability and Use of Digital Academic Content, Productivity, and Communication Tools ...... 32 

Measures Used to Assess the Effectiveness of DLRs in Instructing EL Students.......................... 37

Chapter IV. Supports for, and Barriers to, DLR Use in Instructing EL Students.....................................41

Professional Development and Other Supports for Use of DLRs................................................. 41

Barriers to DLR Use....................................................................................................................... 55 

Chapter V. Districts’ and Teachers’ Recommendations to Improve the Usefulness of DLRs for 

Instructing EL Students ................................................................................................. 61

Recommendations Related to DLR Content................................................................................. 61

Recommendations Related to DLR Support Features.................................................................. 63 

Recommendations Related to Implementation........................................................................... 64 

Recommendations Related to Professional Development and Training ..................................... 65 

Additional Areas of Support That Teachers Request ................................................................... 67 

Chapter VI. Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 69 

References.......................................................................................................................................71
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

iv

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. U.S. public school districts that enrolled EL students: number of districts, percentage of 

districts, number of EL students, and total number of students enrolled, in three 

categories of EL student representation, 2013–14.................................................................. 2 

Exhibit 2. Categories and types of DLRs discussed in this report ............................................................ 7 

Exhibit 3. Percentage of districts reporting various approaches to using DLRs ...................................... 9 

Exhibit 4. Sources that districts reported using to identify most or some DLRs for instructing EL 

students specifically and general education students........................................................... 11

Exhibit 5. Sources that districts reported using to identify some or most DLRs for instructing 

EL students, in high-EL and low-EL districts........................................................................... 12

Exhibit 6. Sources that teachers reported using sometimes or often to identify DLRs for 

instructing EL students........................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 7. Criteria that districts reported were very important in selecting DLRs................................. 16

Exhibit 8. Support features that districts reported were very important in selecting DLRs for 

instructing EL students........................................................................................................... 17

Exhibit 9. Criteria that teachers reported were very important in selecting DLRs for instructing EL 

students.................................................................................................................................. 19

Exhibit 10. Support features that teachers reported were very important in selecting DLRs for 

instructing EL students........................................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 11. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided various categories of DLRs for EL 

students specifically and for general education students..................................................... 23

Exhibit 12. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided various types of DLRs, for EL 

students specifically and for general education students..................................................... 25

Exhibit 13. Teachers’ reported frequency of DLR use in instructing EL students.................................... 28

Exhibit 14. Percentage of teachers reporting at least some use of DLRs, by type of student for 

whom the DLR was designed ................................................................................................. 29

Exhibit 15. Percentage of teachers reporting that their EL students used DLRs weekly or daily, by 

type of teacher and by type of students for whom the DLRs were designed ....................... 31

Exhibit 16. Percentage of teachers reporting that various categories of DLRs were available to 

them....................................................................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 17. Percentage of teachers reporting that they used various DLRs in instructing EL students,

by frequency of use................................................................................................................ 34
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

v 

Exhibit 18. Percentage of teachers reporting various activity contexts in which their EL students 

used DLRs often ..................................................................................................................... 36

Exhibit 19. Percentage of districts reporting various indicators that they used to track the 

effectiveness of DLRs for EL students.................................................................................... 37

Exhibit 20. Percentage of teachers reporting various indicators that they used to judge the 

effectiveness of DLRs in supporting EL students ................................................................... 39

Exhibit 21. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided various types of professional 

development (PD) and other supports related to DLR use and the persons providing 

professional development, for instructing EL students specifically and for instructing 

general education students ................................................................................................... 43

Exhibit 22. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided professional development (PD) 

related to DLR use in instructing EL students specifically, and the persons providing the 

professional development, in high-EL and low-EL districts ................................................... 44

Exhibit 23. Percentage of teachers reporting the hours of formal professional development on 

DLRs that they received over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 2016–17...................... 45

Exhibit 24. Percentage of teachers reporting the number of hours of formal professional 

development on DLRs that they received over a three-year period from 2014–15 to

2016–17, by type of teacher.................................................................................................. 46

Exhibit 25. Percentage of teachers reporting that they received various types of formal 

professional development (PD) on DLR use in general and on DLR use specific to EL 

students over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 2016–17.............................................. 48

Exhibit 26. Percentage of teachers reporting that they viewed various types of formal professional 

development they received as extremely helpful or moderately helpful to their use of 

DLRs with EL students............................................................................................................ 50

Exhibit 27. Percentage of teachers reporting that they received various types of informal 

professional development over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 2016–17.................. 52

Exhibit 28. Percentage of teachers reporting that they viewed various types of informal 

professional development they received as extremely helpful or moderately helpful to 

their use of DLRS with EL students ........................................................................................ 54

Exhibit 29. Percentage of districts reporting various barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students, 

to a large extent or to some extent....................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 30. Percentage of teachers reporting various barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students, 

to a large extent or to some extent....................................................................................... 58

Exhibit 31. Percentage of teachers reporting areas in which they would appreciate more support 

related to DLR use with EL students...................................................................................... 67
This page intentionally left blank.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

vii

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the study and the report. We are grateful to 

the staff of the school districts and schools who responded to our surveys and welcomed us for our case 

study visits. Their responses and insights were very much appreciated. We would like to thank the 

U.S. Department of Education for their guidance and support, particularly Erica Lee, Stephanie Stullich, 

Victoria Hammer, Ivan Metzger, Lena Shi, and Julie Warner of the Policy and Program Studies Service. 

We thank the staff members at Westat and SRI Education who contributed to the study. At Westat, 

Patty Troppe and Rob Olsen provided guidance at key points. Debbie Alexander, Laura Collins, 

Mihiri Silva, Sylvia Segovia played important roles in data collection; Adrienne von Glatz, in finalizing the 

report; and several other staff members contributed to these tasks along the way. At SRI, Bowyee Gong 

was instrumental throughout the study, and Brenda Waller provided much needed support. We thank 

Savitha Moorthy for her insights on and conceptualization of the case studies. We thank Michael Jay and 

his team at Educational Systemics, Inc. for bringing the educational technology developers’ perspective 

into the study. We would also like to thank the members of our technical working group and expert 

panel for their thoughtful guidance. Our technical working group included Rebecca Black, Chris Hansen, 

Maria Santos, Rebecca Silverman, and Binbin Zheng. Our expert panel members were Robert Dillon, 

David Dockterman, Chris Liang-Vergara, Elizabeth Low, Maribeth Luftglass, Angela Rood, Polly Stansell, 

Jennifer Trujillo, and Binbin Zheng. 
This page intentionally left blank.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

ix

Executive Summary 

English learners (ELs) are one of the fastest growing student demographics in the United States and are 

a diverse group, representing over 400 different language backgrounds. In the 2015–16 school year, 

there were 4.8 million EL students in grades K–12 in U.S. public schools, accounting for 10 percent of all 

enrolled students (U.S. Department of Education 2018). Over school years 2009–10 to 2014–15, 32 

states saw increases in their EL student enrollments, and for five of those states, the increases were over 

40 percent (U.S. Department of Education 2017a). Also, over the past decades, teachers have gained 

increased access to digital technologies for instruction (U.S. Department of Education 2017b). For 

example, as of 2009, almost every public school (98 percent) had internet access and almost all teachers 

(97 percent) had one or more computers in their classrooms (Gray, Thomas, and Lewis 2010a, 2010b). 

Many teachers report using Digital Learning Resources (DLRs) to enhance and differentiate their 

students’ language and content area instruction.

To date, there have been no national data to inform the field on whether and how teachers are using 

digital technologies to instruct EL students. This report describes data collected in school year 2016–17

to learn about the use of DLRs in instructing EL students through a nationally representative survey of 

districts that enrolled EL students and a teacher survey that included mainstream teachers of EL 

students and EL specialists. The teacher sample was not nationally representative and those results 

should be interpreted with caution. The study included six case studies to provide illustrative vignettes 

and practitioner comments. In addition to this report, the study developed two toolkits, one to inform 

educators on the range of DLRs and considerations in using DLRs for EL students, and one to inform 

educational technology developers about recommendations for improving DLRs for instructing EL 

students. 

Key Findings

• Most teachers surveyed reported that they identified specific DLRs for instructing EL students 

based on the recommendations of fellow teachers and district or school administrators. 

• Teachers were more likely to report weekly or daily use of general education DLRs than of 

DLRs designed primarily for EL students (85 percent vs. 65 percent). 

• About two-thirds of teachers surveyed reported using digital references and resources, 

language tutorials or practice tools, and academic tutorials or practice tools weekly or daily in 

instructing their EL students.

• The majority of teachers reported that EL students often used DLRs when working 

independently (61 percent) or as part of a whole class activity (60 percent); few teachers 

reported assigning EL students to use DLRs outside of class.

• Districts with high-EL student representation were more likely than districts with low-EL 

student representation to report providing professional development workshops, coaching, 

and in-class assistance related to DLR use in instructing EL students.

• Across all districts, EL specialists reported fewer hours of professional development in DLR use 

than did mainstream teachers. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

x 

• Frequently reported barriers to using DLRs with EL students were students’ lack of DLR access 

at home, and teachers’ needs for EL and technology expertise and for time to learn and use 

DLRs. 

• Educators suggested that DLRs could improve by engaging students in academic content while 

building language and literacy skills; embedding visual, auditory, and other support features; 

providing multiple languages; and providing grade-level content and age-appropriate design 

for older beginner-level EL students.

Study Purpose and Methods

The study describes districts’ and teachers’ reported use of DLRs for instructing EL students in grades 

K–12 to inform the field on current practice and to provide findings that may guide future research, 

practice, or policy to improve EL students’ academic achievement and gains in language proficiency. 

The study addressed the following questions:

1. How do districts and teachers identify DLRs for instructing EL students?

2. What types of DLRs do teachers use and how do they use DLRs in instructing EL students? 

3. What are supports for and barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students? 

4. How can educators and technology developers improve the usefulness of DLRs in instruction 

of EL students?

Methodology and Study Limitations

The study data collection consisted of three main components: 

1. Survey of district administrators in a nationally representative sample of public school 

districts that enrolled EL students. Survey instructions were that the survey should be 

completed by the administrator(s) most knowledgeable about EL student instruction, typically 

the district coordinator for EL student instruction. Because the number of EL students in a 

district may influence levels of access to EL resources and the availability of EL-instructional 

expertise, we stratified the sample of 999 districts by three categories: 

• High-EL districts enrolled more than 1,000 EL students and EL students accounted for 

10 percent or more of all students. 

• Moderate-EL districts enrolled between 101 and 1,000 EL students, or enrolled more than 

1,000 EL students and EL students were less than 10 percent of all students. 

• Low-EL districts enrolled 100 or fewer EL students.

Readers should note that high-EL districts generally tend to be much larger in size than low-EL 

districts, which could also explain differences that are found between these two groups.

2. Survey of teachers of EL students, including mainstream teachers and EL specialists, in schools 

within the sampled districts. Roughly half of the responding teachers were randomly sampled. 

However, many schools did not provide rosters of teachers instructing EL students; at these 

schools, the principals were asked to select teachers of EL students to take the survey. 

Comparisons between the two teacher samples found that those selected by principals were 

moderately more likely to be EL specialists than in the random sample. Other differences in 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

xi

teacher characteristics and responses between the two teacher samples were minor. This 

report combines both teacher samples when reporting the survey findings; thus, the results of 

the teacher survey are not nationally representative and should be interpreted with caution. 

3. Case studies of six districts and 12 schools. The case studies provided more in-depth, 

qualitative data on how districts and schools use DLRs for instructing EL students. The findings 

from the six case studies provided illustrative vignettes and practitioner comments; however, 

these data are not nationally representative and cannot generalize to other education settings. 

The study defined DLRs as applications (apps), software, programs, or websites that are designed to 

engage students in learning activities and support students’ learning goals. This definition does not 

include technology hardware; it excludes the computers, laptops, interactive whiteboards, and other 

devices needed to use the DLRs. Several DLR types were identified within each of three main categories: 

1. Digital Academic Content Tools are designed to offer academic content resources or engage 

students in activities to learn academic content or skills including, but not limited to, language 

and literacy content or skills. Examples are a tutorial on a new math skill, a physics or math 

simulation, or visual resources such as a short video that describes a geographic formation.

2. Digital Productivity Tools are designed to offer resources to help students to plan, document, 

organize, and analyze content. These tools do not contain academic content; examples include 

a slide presentation tool, a timeline tool, or a concept-mapping tool. 

3. Digital Communication Tools are designed to offer resources students can use to 

communicate, collaborate, network, or share information. These tools do not contain 

academic content; examples include document-sharing tools to support joint work, or a 

journal or blog tool.

Study Limitations

As noted above, the teacher sample included both randomly selected teachers and teachers selected by 

principals. The response rate for teachers selected randomly from rosters was 56 percent. The principalselected teachers comprised 28 percent (weighted) of the total teacher respondents. While the 

principal-selected teachers responded similarly to the randomly selected teachers, findings reported for 

teachers are not nationally representative and the results should be interpreted with caution. There 

were six case study sites purposively selected to provide examples of districts with high, moderate, and 

low levels of EL students in the district; these are not nationally representative and the case study data 

cannot be generalized to the nation as a whole. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

xii

Findings

Identification of DLRs and DLRs Provided for Instructing EL Students

Most districts reported using teacher requests as a source for identifying DLRs for 

EL students. 

Classroom teachers (81 percent) and EL specialists (78 percent) were sources1 that most districts 

reported using to identify some or most DLRs for EL students specifically. Other sources that the 

majority of districts reported using to identify DLRs for EL students were school administrators (69 

percent), district administrators (68 percent), and a committee that meets to review and select DLRs 

(60 percent). Similarly, most districts (92 percent) reported that they used classroom teachers as a 

source for identifying DLRs for students in general education classes, and most also reported using 

school administrators (83 percent), and district administrators (78 percent) as sources. Other sources 

that the majority of districts reported using to identify DLRs for general education students were a 

committee that meets to review and select DLRs (73 percent) and EL specialists (63 percent). 

High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report considering

certain support features, such as visual and auditory supports, as very important 

when selecting DLRs for use with EL students. 

Examples of embedded support features include visual images that may help a student to understand 

new vocabulary and auditory features such as text-to-speech supports that let a student hear the text 

they are reading. For both high-EL and low-EL districts, visual supports were the most commonly 

indicated type of support feature; however, almost all (93 percent) high-EL districts versus about threequarters (74 percent) of low-EL districts reported that they considered visual supports as very important 

in selecting DLRs for EL students. Other reported support features that showed differences between 

high-EL and low-EL districts included providing various levels of text difficulty for the same content, 

including a range of features specifically designed to support EL students, providing auditory supports; 

and including materials in the languages of the districts’ EL students. 

In case study districts, administrators commonly noted that they were more likely to agree to a DLR 

purchase when a number of teachers were already using the DLR, when teachers thought that the DLR 

was effective in improving students’ learning outcomes, or when teachers reported that the DLR was 

successful in engaging students. 

Most teachers surveyed reported that they identified specific DLRs for instructing 

EL students based on the recommendations of fellow teachers and district or 

school administrators. 

A majority of teachers reported using the following sources: recommendations of fellow teachers 

(91 percent); district or school administrators (86 percent); professional development sessions on DLRs 

 

1 Districts responded to an item that listed the five sources. They responded to indicate whether they used each source to 

identify none, some or most DLRs. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

xiii

provided by the district (74 percent); online searches (73 percent); technology coaches or specialists 

(69 percent); and the school’s EL specialist (65 percent). 

Teachers’ Use of DLRs in Instructing EL Students

Eighty-five percent of teachers surveyed reported using DLRs in instructing their 

EL students. 

Of the teachers using DLRs, 62 percent reported using at least one type of DLR daily and an additional 

27 percent reported using at least one type of DLR weekly. There were no significant differences in DLR 

use between mainstream teachers and EL specialists, between teachers in high-EL versus low-EL 

districts, or based on teachers’ years of experience. 

Teachers were more likely to report weekly or daily use of general education DLRs 

than of DLRs designed primarily for EL students (85 percent vs. 65 percent). 

This difference also was statistically significant for mainstream teachers (88 percent vs. 69 percent) but 

not for EL specialists. 

In case study interviews, some mainstream teachers explained they often used general education DLRs 

rather than specialized DLRs designed specifically for EL students so as not to single out EL students by 

using a different DLR for them. These teachers also believed that the general education DLRs had 

features that were sufficient to meet the needs of the EL students. For example, they noted that in some 

DLRs students could click on a word to get the definition in simpler English or to obtain a translation of 

the word in their home language.

Mainstream teachers were more likely than EL specialists to report that their EL students used general 

education DLRs on a weekly or daily basis (88 percent vs. 67 percent). Similarly, considering DLRs 

designed primarily for EL students, mainstream teachers were more likely than EL specialists to report 

weekly or daily use (69 percent vs. 53 percent). 

About two-thirds of teachers surveyed reported using digital references and 

resources, language tutorials or practice tools, presentation tools, and academic 

tutorials or practice tools weekly or daily in instructing their EL students. 

Depending on the tool, teachers’ reported use ranged from 13 percent for video conferencing to 

82 percent for use of reference and resources DLRs. Teachers most often reported that they used 

references and resources (82 percent), language tutorials or practice tools (81 percent), presentation

tools (77 percent), and academic tutorials or practice tools (75 percent). Teachers’ use of DLRs 

depended not only on teachers’ choices but also on DLR availability; for example, the least used tool 

reported (video conferencing) was also the least available (43 percent of districts reported that they did 

not provide DLRs for video conferencing).

The majority of case study teachers of EL students reported that they frequently used digital references 

and resources tools such as visual images (photo and video) together with presentation tools, such as 

slide-show programs, to support all students, and that they felt this support was especially beneficial for 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

xiv

their EL students. In the survey findings, close to half of teachers in both groups reported use of 

presentation tools. 

The majority of teachers reported that EL students often used DLRs when working 

independently (61 percent) or as part of a whole class activity (60 percent); few 

teachers reported assigning EL students to use DLRs outside of class. 

In case study interviews, several mainstream teachers stated that both their EL and English-proficient 

students frequently worked independently at their own pace on the same DLR. However, teachers in 

two districts commented that EL students sometimes worked on different DLRs while English-proficient 

students in the class worked on another activity. Mainstream teachers most frequently reported using 

DLRs in whole class activities to introduce content. For example, they projected slide presentations,

images, websites, or videos for the whole class. They also used productivity DLRs with the class to assess 

learning, such as through apps that can create and administer interactive quizzes to students. 

Mainstream teachers were more likely than EL specialists to report that students often worked with 

DLRs as part of whole-class activities (63 percent vs. 31 percent), in pairs or groups of EL students and 

English speakers (50 percent vs. 23 percent), and in work with DLRs in pairs or groups of EL students 

(45 percent vs. 19 percent). 

Sixteen percent of teachers surveyed reported that EL students often were assigned to use a DLR to 

continue learning outside of class, and 10 percent of teachers reported that EL students often were 

assigned to work with parents or other family members at home using a DLR. Several teachers in the 

case study districts noted that they generally did not assign DLR use for students outside of the 

classroom given their concern that some students might not have access to computers, DLRs, or internet

capacity at home.

Supports for and Barriers to DLR Use

Districts were less likely to report providing professional development and other 

supports for DLR use for instructing EL students specifically as compared with

professional development and supports for instructing general education students

For example, 38 percent of districts reported providing workshops on the integration of DLRs in 

instruction of EL students specifically versus 75 percent of districts providing such workshops for 

instruction of students in general education classes. Also, 32 percent of districts reported providing 

direct coaching support to teachers to assist them in integrating DLR use in instructing EL students 

specifically compared with 58 percent of districts reporting such coaching provided for instructing 

general education students. There were similar differences in other types of support for DLR use. While 

45 percent reported providing access to online sources of professional development focused on DLR use 

with EL students specifically, 72 percent reported providing such access for teachers instructing general 

education students.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

xv

High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report providing 

professional development workshops, coaching, and in-class assistance related to

DLR use in instructing EL students. 

There were large differences between the two district groups for four types of professional 

development. High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report providing workshops on 

features of a specific DLR (72 percent vs. 36 percent), workshops on integration of DLRs in instruction 

(60 percent vs. 30 percent), direct coaching support to integrate DLR use (54 percent vs. 24 percent), 

and one-on-one in-classroom assistance on how to use a specific DLR (50 percent vs. 29 percent). 

Across all districts, EL specialists reported fewer hours of professional 

development in DLR use than did mainstream teachers. 

EL specialists (72 percent) were more likely than mainstream teachers (47 percent) to report receiving 

one to 10 hours of professional development related to DLRs over school years 2014–15 to 2016–17. 

The two subgroups were almost equally likely to report receiving no hours of professional development 

related to DLRs (13 percent and 12 percent, respectively). Combining these findings, EL specialists 

(84 percent) compared with mainstream teachers (60 percent) were more likely to report either 10 or 

fewer hours of professional development on DLRs over the three-year period. In contrast, at the upper 

range of hours reported, mainstream teachers (31 percent) were more likely than EL specialists 

(7 percent) to report receiving more than 25 hours of professional development.

Some case study teachers of EL students described the professional development they typically received 

as focused on how to use specific features or functions of a DLR rather than how to incorporate DLRs 

into their instruction of EL students. For example, the teachers noted that the professional development

focused on specifics such as how to set up student accounts, how students should log in, or how 

students could access audio features to listen to an unfamiliar word. 

Seventy-eight percent of teachers reported that students’ lack of internet access 

at home to DLRs was a barrier to their use of DLRs for instructing EL students. 

About half of these teachers (41 percent of all teachers) reported that students’ lack of internet access 

at home to DLRs was a barrier to a large extent. A similar percentage of teachers also reported that 

students lacked home access in ways other than a lack of internet capacity (79 percent) (e.g., lack of 

computers in the home), with 37 percent indicating this was a barrier to a large extent. Several case 

study teachers reported that lack of DLR access at home prompted them to not assign homework that 

would require students to use DLRs at home.

Most teachers surveyed reported that time required to learn to use DLRs (78 percent) and to set up or 

trouble-shoot DLRs (80 percent) were barriers to their use of DLRs for instructing EL students to some 

extent or to a large extent. In addition, about two-thirds of teachers reported that the following were 

barriers to some extent or to a large extent: time to find DLRs (68 percent); lack of knowledge of 

available DLRs and how to choose among them (67 percent); costs of DLRs (67 percent); lack of 

professional development on how to use specific DLRs (63 percent); and difficulty in finding DLRs 

appropriate to their students’ needs (63 percent). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

xvi

Recommendations to Improve the Usefulness of DLRs for Instructing EL 

Students

Districts and teachers provided suggestions on how DLRs and their use could be improved to better 

support EL students in learning language and content. These included engaging EL students in working 

with academic content while building language and literacy skills; providing embedded visual, auditory, 

and other support features to help EL students to understand and work with the content in all DLRs;

providing supports in multiple languages to address a broader range of EL students’ home languages; 

and providing grade-level content and age-appropriate design for older beginning level EL students, such 

as newcomers. 

Additional recommendations were related to implementation and included: ensuring that DLRs are easy 

to use for students and for teachers; providing teachers with professional development on integrating 

DLR use in instruction, especially hands-on training and coaching; and assisting districts and teachers to 

understand the range of DLRs available, how to select among them, and how to determine which DLRs 

are appropriate for their EL students. 

Conclusions 

This study sought to understand how districts and teachers identified DLRs they used with EL students, 

the range of DLRs used and how they are used, and the supports for and barriers to using DLRs in 

instructing EL students. Most districts reported that they placed a high priority on using DLRs and most 

teachers reported that they used DLRs in instructing their EL students. Some findings suggest there are 

differing needs and instructional challenges for mainstream teachers of EL students and EL specialists, 

and differing resources available among districts with different levels of EL students. These may be 

useful to consider when conducting research or developing guidance to support DLR use with EL 

students. The results also describe educators’ suggestions for educational technology developers and 

district leaders on steps to improve DLRs and their use in instructing EL students. Further research is 

needed to understand the efficacy of these recommendations and of practices in using DLRs when 

instructing EL students— including EL students with disabilities and their requirements for accessibility.

Such research could inform guidance for educators in selecting and using DLRs to better support 

learning for all EL students, as well as for students overall in grades K–12. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

1 

Chapter I. Introduction

English learners (ELs) are one of the fastest growing student demographics in the United States, and are 

a diverse group, representing over 400 different language backgrounds. In the 2015–16 school year, 

there were 4.8 million EL students in grades K–12 in U.S. public schools, accounting for 10 percent of all 

enrolled students (U.S. Department of Education 2018). Over school years 2009–10 to 2014–15, 32 

states saw increases in their EL student enrollments, and for five of those states, the increases were over 

40 percent (U.S. Department of Education 2017a). Also, over the past decades, teachers have gained 

increased access to digital technologies for instruction (U.S. Department of Education 2017b). For 

example, as of 2009, almost every public school (98 percent) had internet access and almost all teachers 

(97 percent) had one or more computers in their classrooms (Gray, Thomas, and Lewis 2010a, 2010b). 

Many teachers report using Digital Learning Resources (DLRs) to enhance and differentiate their 

students’ language and content area instruction.

To date, there have been no national data to inform the field on whether and how teachers are using 

digital technologies to instruct EL students. This report describes data collected in school year 2016–17 

to learn about the use of DLRs in instructing EL students through a nationally representative survey of 

districts that enrolled EL students, a teacher survey that included mainstream teachers and EL 

specialists, and six case studies. In addition to this final report, the products of the study included two 

toolkits, one to inform educators on the range of DLRs and considerations in using DLRs for EL students 

and one to inform educational technology developers about recommendations for improving DLRs for 

EL students. 

Study Purpose and Methods 

The study describes districts’ and teachers’ reported use of DLRs in instructing EL students in grades 

K–12 to inform the field on current practice and to provide findings that may guide future research, 

practice, or policy to improve EL students’ academic achievement and gains in language proficiency. 

The study addressed four questions:

1. How do districts and teachers identify DLRs for instructing EL students? 

2. What types of DLRs do teachers use and how do they use DLRs in instructing EL students? 

3. What are supports for and barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students? 

4. How can educators and technology developers improve the usefulness of DLRs in instruction 

of EL students? 

Some EL students are also students with disabilities. For these students, accessible technology used in 

the classroom can remove barriers to important educational content.2 However, this study did not 

 

2 All public school students with disabilities have rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (42 U.S.C. 12134; 29 U.S.C. 794; 28 C.F.R. Part 35; 34 C.F.R. Part 

104). For more information on the rights of students with disabilities, see 

www.ed.gov/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/disability.html.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

2 

examine technology use in instructing EL students with disabilities as a separate group; this could be a 

topic for a separate study. 

Methodology

The study conducted a district survey and a teacher survey in the 2016–17 school year. In addition, case 

studies in six districts provided further insights through on-the-ground descriptions and examples of DLR 

use in instructing EL students related to the study questions.

3

District Survey Sample 

The sample design for the district survey was a nationally representative stratified random sample of 

999 public school districts that enrolled at least one EL student, as identified in the 2013–14 National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe File. 

Because the number of EL students in a district may influence levels of access to EL resources and the 

availability of EL-instructional expertise, we stratified the sampling frame of districts that enrolled EL 

students into three categories of EL student representation (Exhibit 1). 

Exhibit 1. U.S. public school districts that enrolled EL students: number of districts, percentage of 

districts, number of EL students, and total number of students enrolled, in three 

categories of EL student representation, 2013–14 

Category Definition

Number 

of districts

Percentage 

of districts

Number of

EL students

Total number

of students

High-EL districts Enrolled more than 1,000 EL students 

and EL students accounted for 10 

percent or more of the total student 

population

624 6% 3,045,683 14,233,565

Moderate-EL 

districts

Enrolled between 101 and 1,000 EL 

students, or enrolled more than 1,000 

EL students and EL students were less 

than 10 percent of all students

2,645 24% 1,251,274 20,624,534

Low-EL districts Enrolled 100 or fewer EL students 7,700 70% 178,929 15,500,218

Total 10,969 100% 4,475,886 50,358,317

Exhibit reads: High-EL districts were districts that enrolled more than 1,000 EL students and EL students accounted 

for 10 percent or more of the total student population. There were 624 high-EL districts, representing 6 percent of 

U.S. public school districts that enrolled EL students in 2013–14, with 3,045,683 EL students and 14,233,565 total 

students enrolled. 

Source: 2013–14 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe file.

3 See Appendix A in Volume II: Technical Appendices for a more detailed discussion of the methodology and Appendix D for the 

data collection instruments. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

3 

Readers should note that high-EL districts generally tend to be much larger in size than low-EL districts, 

which could also explain differences that are found between these two groups. The sample included 333 

districts in each of the three strata. The use of strata with equal sample sizes is the most efficient design 

for making comparisons among the strata, helps to ensure that key subgroups are adequately 

represented in the sample, and improves the sampling precision for selected subgroup estimates. As a 

result, both high-EL districts and moderate-EL districts were oversampled relative to their frequency 

among all public school districts. For example, if all districts were sampled with equal probability, then 

only 57 high-EL districts would be selected, which would be too few to provide reliable estimates and 

support comparisons with low-EL districts.

The district surveys were directed toward the administrator(s) most knowledgeable about instructional 

services for EL students, such as the district coordinator for EL student instruction, and respondents 

were encouraged to include input from other administrators as needed. The study reports findings from 

a total of 767 districts (269 high-EL, 265 moderate-EL, and 233 low-EL districts), a response rate of 79 

percent overall. The response rates by strata were: high-EL districts, 81 percent; moderate-EL districts, 

80 percent; and low-EL districts, 76 percent. Appendix B summarizes characteristics of the districts.

Teacher Survey Sample 

The teacher sample was designed to be a stratified probability sample of 1,200 teachers from 600 

schools to be randomly selected from 600 subsampled districts. To be eligible for the teacher sample, a 

teacher must have taught at least one EL student in the 2016–17 school year. The teacher sample was 

divided into two equal groups: 

• Mainstream teachers included teachers whose primary responsibility was instruction of 

students in a school’s main grade-level classroom or content area class that was not structured 

as specialized instruction for EL students and who instructed one or more EL students.

• EL specialists included those who taught English as a Second Language or English Language 

Development classes, bilingual or dual language immersion classes or programs, sheltered 

instructional classrooms, newcomer classes, and/or other specialized instructional services 

designed for EL students. 

To select the teacher sample, we oversampled 743 districts from the district sample (to help ensure 600 

participating schools), then randomly selected schools, using district lists of schools that indicated EL 

student enrollment. To identify sampled teachers, we asked schools to provide a list of teachers that 

indicated which teachers taught EL students. However, this approach to selecting a nationally 

representative sample of teachers of EL students ultimately was not successful given low levels of 

district participation. Challenges included school and district policies against releasing teacher names, 

reluctance to release teacher names, and difficulty identifying teachers of EL students. Consequently, we 

adjusted the teacher sampling strategy in two ways. First, we increased the target number of teachers 

per school from two teachers to six teachers. The revised sampling process resulted in selection of 593 

teachers from 163 schools that provided teacher lists for sampling (22 percent of 736 sampled schools). 

Second, we revised the teacher sampling process. In schools that had not provided a list of teachers and 

had not refused to participate in the study (67 percent of sampled schools), we asked principals to select 

up to six teachers to be surveyed, with the instructions that the teachers must instruct EL students in 

the current year and that both mainstream teachers and EL specialists be included, where both served 

EL students in the school. For these schools, it was not possible to know the number of eligible teachers 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

4 

(e.g., there may have been fewer than six) or the number of teachers that principals selected, since the 

schools did not provide a list of teachers or information on which teachers received surveys. 

There were a total of 717 teacher surveys received (60 percent of the planned total of 1,200). Of these, 

11 indicated that the teacher did not teach EL students in the current year, resulting in 706 teacher 

survey respondents (59 percent of the planned total). Overall, there were 332 school list-selected 

respondents (47 percent of all respondents, unweighted; 72 percent, weighted) from 136 schools and 

374 principal-selected respondents (53 percent of all respondents, unweighted; 28 percent, weighted) 

from 127 schools). The response rate for list-selected teachers was 56 percent (based on 593 sampled 

teachers). It is not possible to calculate a response rate for the principal-selected teachers since there 

was no way to know the number of teachers who taught EL students at each school. Overall, the findings 

are based on responses from 457 mainstream teachers of EL students, 232 EL specialists, and 17 

teachers of unknown teacher type. Appendix B summarizes the surveyed teachers’ background 

characteristics.

By asking principals to select the teachers, there was a potential that principals could, intentionally or 

unintentionally, select teachers who differed in systematic ways from the overall teacher population. To 

examine this possibility, the study team compared the list-selected teachers and those chosen by the 

principals. There appeared to be a slight tendency for principals to have selected those teachers who 

were most easily identified as teaching EL students, such as EL specialists, and correspondingly, a slight 

tendency for overall teacher data to be more like the responses of EL specialists than otherwise would 

be expected. 

However, the school-list selected group and the principal-selected group were highly similar in both 

their teacher characteristics and in their survey responses. Overall, the impact of including the principalselected teachers appears to have been relatively minor, both because the differences in teacher 

characteristics and in survey responses were small and because EL specialists constitute a relatively 

small proportion of the population. Still, additional unknown biases from the principals’ involvement in 

the sample selection may exist. Thus results from the teacher survey should be considered as estimates

and are not nationally representative. 

Case Study Sample 

Six districts were purposively selected for case studies: two districts each with high-EL, moderate-EL, and 

low-EL student concentration. In addition, the final six districts varied in characteristics of the EL student 

population (home language and number of students), EL program types, urbanicity (based on the 

U.S. Department of Census geographic locale codes), geographic region, and districts with and without a 

stated technology plan. Researchers visited each district for two days and conducted interviews with 

district-level respondents and school leaders and teachers at two schools in each district (12 schools 

across the six districts). Across the six districts, there were a total of 65 interviews, including 17 district 

administrators and 48 school administrators and teachers. Thirty-two of the interviewed teachers 

provided a demonstration of a DLR they commonly used, and the project team conducted classroom 

observations of 13 mainstream teachers and five EL specialists. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

5 

Analysis and Reporting of Findings

Surveys 

Data in this report are often presented in two formats: as overall findings and disaggregated by key 

subgroups. More specifically, district findings include comparisons of high-EL districts versus low-EL 

districts when these include statistically significant differences. Similarly, the report presents findings 

when these include statistically significant differences for teacher responses by type of teacher 

(mainstream teachers versus EL specialists); for teachers in high-EL districts versus those in low-EL 

districts; for elementary versus secondary teachers; and for first-year versus more experienced teachers. 

The survey data were weighted to adjust for the probability of selection and nonresponse. Unless 

specified otherwise, all findings in this report are based on weighted data and are for the 2016–17 

school year, and statements of comparison (e.g., that mainstream teachers were more likely to give a 

certain response than EL specialists) are reported only if the difference was statistically significant at 

p<.05. The statistical tests used were either independent t-tests or, when the comparisons were not 

across independent groups, chi-square tests. Some exhibits present a large number of comparisons (up 

to 15), increasing the chance that a comparison might appear significant by chance; to adjust for the risk 

of multiple comparisons, Bonferroni corrections were applied.

To assist the reader, the exhibits use color schemes to distinguish different types of analysis, as follows:

Red Findings for all districts

Blue Comparisons between high-EL and low-EL districts

Orange Findings for all teachers

Purple Comparisons between mainstream teachers and EL specialists

Green Comparisons between teachers in high-EL and in low-EL districts

Case Studies

All recorded interviews were transcribed and the transcriptions coded using qualitative analysis 

software (Dedoose). Researchers applied initial codes relevant to each research question and expanded 

and refined the codes through an iterative process in which emerging themes were identified. The 

research team discussed the key themes emerging within individual sites and examined dimensions of 

similarity and variation across districts and across types of respondents. The report integrates case study 

findings to offer illustrative vignettes and practitioner comments related to DLR use in instructing EL 

students.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

6 

DLR Framework and Definitions 

As defined in this study, DLRs are applications (apps), software, programs, or websites that are designed 

to engage students in learning activities and support students’ learning goals.4 This definition specifically 

does not include technology hardware; it excludes the computers, laptops, interactive whiteboards and 

other hardware or infrastructure needed to use the DLRs. The study’s framework examined DLRs in 

three broad categories, based upon the key content and purposes of the tools: 

1. Digital Academic Content Tools are designed to offer academic content resources or engage 

students in activities to learn academic content or skills including, but not limited to, language 

and literacy content or skills. Examples are a tutorial on a new math skill, a physics or math 

simulation, or visual resources such as a short video that describes a geographic formation.

2. Digital Productivity Tools are designed to offer resources to help students to plan, document, 

organize, and analyze content. These tools do not contain academic content; examples include a 

slide presentation tool, a timeline tool, or a concept-mapping tool. 

3. Digital Communication Tools are designed to offer resources students can use to communicate, 

collaborate, network, or share information. These tools do not contain academic content; 

examples include document-sharing tools to support joint work, or a journal or blog tool.

Developers often combine multiple related DLRs from one or more DLR categories into a single unified 

academic product, termed here an Integrated DLR Set, providing teachers and students with multiple 

tools available in what is intended to be a seamless context. A district might purchase a district-wide 

license for its use or purchase licenses for use in selected subject areas or by selected teachers, either as 

a core curriculum or as a supplemental resource for instruction.

The full set of types of DLRs used in the data collection is found in the sample questionnaires in 

Appendix D. For brevity, and to focus on major themes in the data, this report discusses a collapsed set 

of DLR types, as shown in Exhibit 2. 

 

4 The study DLR Framework was based upon and further refined an initial framework defined in Zehler et al. 2012. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

7 

Exhibit 2. Categories and types of DLRs discussed in this report 

DLR category DLR types Description

Academic

Content Tools

Language 

tutorials/practice*

Tutorials, lessons, and practice and assessment tools focused on basic 

English vocabulary, language skills, and/or literacy.

Academic 

tutorials/practice*

Tutorials, lessons, and practice and assessment tools focused on math, 

science, and/or other academic content areas.

References and 

resources

References and resources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, and topicfocused blogs, websites, e-books, and videos, designed as K–12 resources.

Simulations/virtual 

worlds

Simulations, dynamic modeling tools, or virtual worlds that immerse 

students in interactive environments to build academic skills or knowledge.

Websites Commercial and other websites or resources not designed as content for 

K–12 learning activities, such as an online product site (teacher survey only).

Translation Tools that assist students by providing a translation to another language.

Articulation Tools that inform and assist students to pronounce and speak a language 

accurately, such as through images and record-and-compare activities. 

Productivity

Tools

Presentation Tools that enable students to present information such as in a slide 

presentation or in a digital story they publish; these may include music, 

images and/or video.

Information 

organization

Tools that assist students in representing content, such as concept-maps 

that show relationships among sets of information, and story-templates 

that assist students to communicate a narrative using text and/or images.

Spreadsheets Spreadsheet and data analysis tools that enable students to organize, track, 

analyze and summarize information. 

Communication 

Tools

Collaboration Document-sharing tools or other tools that provide an online platform 

where students can work on products together.

Blogs, chats, 

journals

Discussion boards, blog, chat, journal and/or other tools to share 

perspectives with others or to use for reflection on experiences. 

Video-conferencing Conferencing and meeting tools to remotely see and speak with others. 

*Report findings for this type of DLR includes data from up to three related survey items. See Appendix A for details on these items.

Study Limitations

The teacher findings are estimates based on a combined sample of randomly selected teachers and 

teachers selected by principals. The response rate for teachers selected randomly from rosters was 

56 percent. The principal-selected teachers comprised 28 percent (weighted) of the total teacher 

respondents. While the principal-selected teachers responded similarly to the randomly selected 

teachers, findings reported for teachers are not nationally representative and the results should be 

interpreted with caution. There were six purposively selected case studies conducted to provide 

illustrative vignettes and practitioner comments on DLR use in instructing EL students. The case study 

findings are not nationally representative and may not generalize to the nation as a whole. 
This page intentionally left blank.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

9 

Chapter II. Identification of DLRs and DLRs Provided for 

Instructing EL Students

This chapter examines districts’ approaches to identifying DLRs, the sources district administrators and 

teachers of EL students5 used to identify DLRs, and the criteria and embedded support features 

important to them in selecting DLRs. 

Three-fourths or more of districts reported that they gave a high priority to using 

DLRs, provided a wide range of DLRs to support instruction, and took EL students’ 

needs into account when obtaining DLRs. 

Most districts responded that using DLRs was a high priority goal, with 41 percent reporting they

strongly agreed and 44 percent somewhat agreed (Exhibit 3). Districts indicated that they provided a 

wide range of DLRs to support instruction (33 percent strongly agreed; 46 percent somewhat agreed), 

and roughly three-fourths of districts said that the needs of EL students were taken into account when 

obtaining DLRs for use in the district (31 percent strongly agreed; 46 percent somewhat agreed).

Exhibit 3. Percentage of districts reporting various approaches to using DLRs

Exhibit reads: Forty-one percent of districts strongly agreed that using DLRs is a high priority goal within their 

district and 44 percent somewhat agreed, for a total of 85 percent. 

Source: District survey, item 8 (n = 755 districts).

 

5 Readers should note that the teacher survey sample was not nationally representative and these results should be interpreted 

with caution. See Chapter 1 and Appendix A for additional information about the teacher sample selection.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

10

Sources for Identifying DLRs

Most districts reported using teacher requests as a source for identifying DLRs for 

EL students. 

Classroom teachers (81 percent) and EL specialists (78 percent) were sources6 that most districts 

reported using to identify some or most DLRs for EL students specifically. Other sources that the 

majority of districts reported using to identify DLRs for EL students were school administrators (69 

percent), district administrators (68 percent), and a committee that meets to review and select DLRs 

(60 percent) (Exhibit 4). Similarly, most districts (92 percent) reported that they used classroom teachers 

as a source for identifying DLRs for students in general education classes, and most also reported using 

school administrators (83 percent) and district administrators (78 percent) as sources. Other sources 

that the majority of districts reported using to identify DLRs for general education students were a 

committee that meets to review and select DLRs (73 percent) and EL specialists (63 percent).

Across the case study districts, many administrators stated that they were more likely to agree to a DLR 

purchase when a number of teachers were already using the DLR, when teachers thought that the DLR 

was effective in improving students’ learning outcomes, or when teachers reported that the DLR was 

successful in engaging their students. 

Case study teachers noted that in addition to making requests for DLRs to district administrators, they 

obtained DLRs through other means as well. For example, the teachers mentioned submitting proposals 

for funding to other sources, making low-cost purchases on their own, and obtaining free DLRs. The 

teachers commented that they typically requested support for a DLR purchase from their school or 

district when the DLRs they identified were too costly to purchase on their own. As one mainstream 

teacher of EL students from the case study explained:

“Well, anything that would be free, I would be able to choose. Anything that would need 

a subscription, I would have to go to the district.” 

In two of the case study districts, respondents described a process in which a district committee worked 

to identify and select DLRs for EL students and general education students. One of these districts

reported holding a vendor fair each summer as part of their process. As described by the district 

respondent, the district committee, consisting of administrators, teachers, technology facilitators, and 

curricular instructional leaders, would first research DLRs that met the district’s goals and showed 

evidence of effectiveness based on external evaluation. Next, the committee invited the vendors to 

present during the annual vendor fair. The vendors presented information on their DLRs to 

administrators, teachers, technology facilitators, and curricular instructional leaders, who then rated 

each DLR using a district-created rubric. Finally, the committee members discussed each DLR and 

completed a survey indicating their preferences. The respondent stated that the district administrators 

used the data from this survey to identify the new DLRs for the district to purchase or obtain. 

 

6 Districts responded to an item that listed the five sources. They responded to indicate whether they used each source to 

identify none, some or most DLRs. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

11

Exhibit 4. Sources that districts reported using to identify most or some DLRs for instructing EL 

students specifically and general education students 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-four percent of districts reported using classroom teachers’ requests to identify most DLRs

for EL students specifically, and 56 percent reported using classroom teachers’ requests to identify some DLRs, for 

a total of 81 percent. This total is statistically different from the total of 92 percent of districts that reported using 

classroom teacher requests to identify DLRs for students in general education. 

*The total percentage of districts using the source to identify most or some DLRs for EL students specifically is statistically different from the 

total percentage using the source to identify most or some DLRs for general education students (p < .05). 

Notes: The total of the percentage reporting “most” and the percentage reporting “some” may differ from the details shown, due to rounding. 

Source: District survey, item 11 (n = 718 districts).
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

12

High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report using teachers, 

administrators and committees as sources to identify DLRs for their EL students. 

For all five of the listed sources, there were statistically significant differences between high-EL and lowEL districts (Exhibit 5). For example, 81 percent of high-EL districts reported using a committee to select 

DLRs for EL students versus 51 percent of low-EL districts, and 87 percent reported using a district 

administrator versus 61 percent. 

For high-EL districts, the five sources showed roughly equal levels of use, with each reported as used by 

between 81 and 88 percent of the districts. By contrast, the percent of low-EL districts that reported 

using the five sources ranged from 51 percent for use of a committee to 77 percent for use of classroom 

teachers. EL specialists (72 percent) and classroom teachers (77 percent) were sources low-EL districts 

often indicated using. 

Exhibit 5. Sources that districts reported using to identify some or most DLRs for instructing 

EL students, in high-EL and low-EL districts 

Source

Percentage of

high-EL districts

Percentage of

low-EL districts

Percentage point

difference

A committee selects DLRs* 81 51 30

District administrators identify DLRs* 87 61 26

School administrators identify DLRs* 84 65 19

EL specialists request DLRs* 88 72 16

Classroom teachers request DLRs* 86 77 9 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-one percent of high-EL districts reported using a committee to identify some or most DLRs for 

instructing EL students compared with 51 percent of low-EL districts, a difference of 30 percentage points. This

difference is statistically significant.

*Percentage for high-EL districts is statistically different from percentage for low-EL districts (p < .05).

Source: District survey, item 11 (n = 249 high-EL districts and 222 low-EL districts). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

13

Most teachers surveyed reported that they identified specific DLRs for instructing 

EL students based on the recommendations of fellow teachers and district or 

school administrators. 

Ninety-one percent of teachers reported using recommendations from their fellow teachers and 86 

percent reported using recommendations from district or school administrators. In addition, the 

majority of teachers reported using professional development sessions on DLRs provided by the district 

(74 percent) and online searches (73 percent) as sources for identifying DLRs (Exhibit 6)7

. Fewer than 

half (39 percent to 44 percent) reported using recommendations of students or students’ families, 

searches of online DLR collections, online teacher blog sites, and guidance from regional centers. There

were no statistically significant differences in reported sources used for mainstream teachers and EL 

specialists. However, first-year teachers were more likely than experienced teachers to report using 

recommendations of their fellow teacher as sources (99 percent vs. 91 percent) (Exhibit C-18

). 

Teachers in the case study districts provided examples of the sources they used. An EL specialist in one 

district described turning to a teacher whom she viewed as a technology leader in her school. She noted 

that the “technology leader” was completing her master's degree in teaching EL students and taking 

courses related to using technology with EL students. The EL specialist commented that this teacher

leader offered recommendations to other teachers in the school, and provided guidance both in 

identifying DLRs and in implementing them with EL students. Other teachers described using online 

searches to identify DLRs, describing use of websites that allowed them to pin, post, and share ideas and 

images through social networking. For example, they reported searching for online resources (free and 

paid) created by other teachers or educators through searches of teacher blogs, and through online 

microblogging platforms. 

7 Readers should note that the teacher survey sample was not nationally representative and these results should be interpreted 

with caution. See Chapter 1 and Appendix A for additional information about the teacher sample selection. 8 Exhibits C-1 and following refer to exhibits in Appendix C in Volume II: Technical Appendices. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

14

Exhibit 6. Sources that teachers reported using sometimes or often to identify DLRs for instructing 

EL students 

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 91 percent reported that they used 

the recommendation of their fellow teachers sometimes or often to identify DLRs for instructing EL students. 

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 25 (n = 557 teachers).
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

15

Criteria in Selecting DLRs

When selecting DLRs, over 80 percent of districts reported that they considered it 

very important that the DLR fit within the district’s infrastructure and budget, 

engage students, align with state standards, have research showing effectiveness, 

and provide English-language or literacy skills instruction for EL students. 

In fact, for 14 of the 16 criteria listed on the district questionnaire, one-half or more of all districts 

reported considering the criterion as very important to them in selecting DLRs (Exhibit 7). Included 

among these criteria were two related to selecting DLRs for EL students specifically. Slightly more than 

half of districts reported that they considered it very important that the DLR was designed for EL 

students (56 percent) and that the DLR provided mathematics, science, or social studies instruction for 

EL students (54 percent). The two least commonly used criteria in selecting DLRs were that the DLR can 

be used by pairs or groups of students to collaborate (44 percent) and that the DLR operates within the 

student’s home internet capacity (41 percent).

Case study respondents cited several of these same criteria as important to their decision making when 

asked about how their district made decisions on which DLRs to adopt. For example, one district 

technology coordinator interviewed said that the decision to adopt a DLR was very much driven by the 

curriculum and that she worked closely with the curriculum staff to decide which tools to bring into the 

district. This coordinator also said that her district tends to lean towards DLRs that work within their 

current environment, so that, for example, students and parents do not have to memorize multiple 

usernames and passwords. District administrators interviewed also consistently cited cost as a key factor 

they considered when selecting a DLR. Finally, one district administrator stressed the importance of 

research evidence of effectiveness: 

“We almost always look for an outside study that was done. Not done by the company 

themselves to say, ‘Look how great our tool is’ ...we look for that research study that was 

done by an outside organization. If it has that, it makes the first cut.”
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

16

Exhibit 7. Criteria that districts reported were very important in selecting DLRs 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-eight percent of districts reported that whether the DLR can operate within the current 

district infrastructure is a very important criterion in selecting DLRs.

Source: District survey, item 12 (n = 744 districts). 

As a rule, high-EL districts and low-EL districts gave similar importance to the various criteria 

(Exhibit C-2). However, high-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to consider it very 

important for the DLRs to have embedded professional development on its use (70 percent vs. 

46 percent); be designed specifically for EL students (70 percent vs. 50 percent); be easy for teachers to 

use (77 percent vs. 63 percent); and to be aligned with state standards (92 percent vs. 81 percent). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

17

Seventy-nine percent of districts reported that they considered visual support 

features (such as images that can be used to explain content) as very important 

when selecting DLRs for use with EL students. 

Examples of visual support features include visual images that may help a student to understand new 

vocabulary. Further, roughly two-thirds of districts reported considering three other types of embedded 

support features as very important in selecting DLRs for EL students: various levels of text difficulty for 

the same content (66 percent); having a range of features specifically to support EL students 

(65 percent); and auditory supports (such as text-to-speech “read alouds” that enable a student to hear 

the text) (64 percent) (Exhibit 8). Somewhat smaller percentages of districts indicated definitions in 

simple English, interactive dictionaries, and translation (50 percent to 58 percent), and fewer than half 

of districts considered providing materials in EL students’ languages and a record-and-replay function as 

very important (43 and 40 percent, respectively).

Exhibit 8. Support features that districts reported were very important in selecting DLRs for 

instructing EL students

Exhibit reads: Seventy-nine percent of districts reported that whether the DLR can provide visual support to 

explain or clarify the content and vocabulary is a very important feature in selecting DLRs for use with EL students.

Source: District survey, item 13 (n = 720 districts). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

18

High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report considering 

certain support features, such as visual and auditory supports, as very important 

when selecting DLRs for use with EL students. 

For both high-EL and low-EL districts, visual supports were the most commonly indicated type of support 

feature; however, almost all (93 percent) high-EL districts versus about three-quarters (74 percent) of 

low-EL districts reported that they considered visual supports as very important in selecting DLRs for EL 

students (Exhibit C-3). Other reported support features that showed differences between high-EL and 

low-EL districts were: providing various levels of text difficulty for the same content (84 percent of highEL districts vs. 63 percent of low-EL districts); including a range of features specifically designed to 

support EL students (83 percent vs. 57 percent); providing auditory supports (78 percent vs. 60 percent); 

and including materials in the languages of the districts’ EL students (59 percent vs. 39 percent) 

(Exhibit C-3). The two groups of districts were similar in their views regarding other support features. For 

example, about half of both high-EL and low-EL districts considered an embedded translation function as 

very important in selecting DLRs for EL students. 

Ninety percent or more of teachers reported that in selecting DLRs for instructing 

EL students it was very important for them that the DLR is easy for students to 

use, the content is adaptive, and there are various levels of text difficulty for the 

same content. 

In addition, most teachers (82 percent to 86 percent) reported considering alignment with state 

standards, ease of use for themselves, and alignment with the curriculum as very important. Slightly 

more than half of teachers indicated as very important to them that the DLR was available through the 

district or school (60 percent); that it allows students to direct their own learning (58 percent); that 

other teachers have used the DLR successfully with students (54 percent); and that the DLR engages 

students in learning activities that are structured as a game (52 percent) (Exhibit 9). 

First-year teachers as compared with more experienced teachers were more likely to report that in 

selecting DLRs for EL students they considered it very important that the DLR is adaptive (99 percent vs. 

92 percent); is aligned with state standards (99 percent vs. 85 percent); can be used by students with 

their parents or families (92 percent vs. 62 percent); and allows students to direct their learning 

(85 percent vs. 56 percent) (Exhibit C-4).

When asked about the criteria their school uses when considering which DLRs to adopt, case study 

respondents cited several criteria. The majority of school-level case study respondents mentioned that it 

should be easy to use for the students and teachers. For example, a teacher said that he really liked a 

particular DLR that he frequently used in the classroom because he was able to create “class-worthy” 

activities for his students in just 10–15 minutes. Many case study teachers noted that they especially 

valued DLRs that were able to keep students engaged while using the program. A mainstream teacher 

commented, 

“I want something that’s going to keep them interested, that’s going to engage them, 

that’s going to give them the knowledge that I want them to have, the content I want 

them to have, or even just reinforce what I’m teaching.” 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

19

Exhibit 9. Criteria that teachers reported were very important in selecting DLRs for instructing EL 

students

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 74 percent of teachers reported that 

whether the DLR allows students to track their own progress is a very important feature in selecting DLRs for 

instructing EL students.

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 26 (n = 557 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

20

A case study principal commented on the importance of DLRs aligning with the school’s goals in order to 

ensure that the DLR effectively meets the needs of all students and helps the school achieve its goals:

“...we want it [the DLR] to align with the goals of our school improvement team, our 

school improvement plan, and make sure that what we’re working with and what we’re 

working on is going to not only meet the needs of our learner but meet the needs of the 

goals of the school because then it always provides us a – a place to go back to.” 

Several mainstream teachers and EL specialists, at both upper elementary and secondary grade levels, 

stated that it was challenging to find DLRs that were age-appropriate for their beginning ELs in higher 

grade levels. For example, EL specialists noted that DLRs specifically designed to develop students’ early 

literacy skills (e.g., learning the alphabet, decoding, beginning reading, and vocabulary) often used 

animations or visuals intended for elementary school students. They further noted that DLRs with such 

juvenile designs were not appropriate for older students and that it was hard to keep their older 

students engaged using such DLRs. As one secondary EL specialist reported: “You can find reading 

passages but then they’re so baby-looking that some kids don’t want to use them once they get to high 

school.” 

Most teachers (89 percent) reported that visual support features were very 

important to them in selecting DLRs for EL students. 

In addition to visual supports, three other DLR features were very important to a majority of teachers in 

selecting DLRs for EL students: definition functions to explain a word or concept using simple English 

(68 percent), interactive dictionaries and glossaries (61 percent), and text-to-speech functions that let a 

student hear a word or phrase (60 percent). Fewer than half of teachers indicated that materials in EL 

students’ languages and a record and replay function were very important (Exhibit 10). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

21

Exhibit 10. Support features that teachers reported were very important in selecting DLRs for 

instructing EL students

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 89 percent of teachers reported that 

they considered visual supports for understanding such as images, illustrations, graphics, virtual manipulatives, or

video as a very important feature in selecting DLRs for instructing EL students.

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 27 (n = 571 teachers). 

Mainstream teachers and EL specialists differed on the importance they gave to two DLR functions. 

Mainstream teachers were more likely than EL specialists to consider a translation function to be very 

important (63 percent vs. 39 percent), while EL specialists were more likely than mainstream teachers to 

consider a record and replay function (so students could record and review their own voices) as very 

important (45 percent vs. 23 percent) (Exhibit C-5).

Many case study teachers commented on the importance of having visual and auditory support 

components in a DLR to support EL students. For example, they described using images and short videos 

to help introduce new vocabulary to their EL students rather than relying on text or spoken description 

alone.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

22

Teachers in high-EL districts were more likely than those in low-EL districts to 

indicate that they considered support features such as interactive dictionaries and 

glossaries to be very important in selecting DLRs for their EL students.

Teachers in high-EL districts were more than twice as likely to report that such language support 

features were very important (73 percent vs. 35 percent) (Exhibit C-6).

There were also differences for teachers of different grade levels and for first-year versus experienced 

teachers in the features they considered very important in selecting DLRs for instructing EL students. 

Elementary teachers were more likely than secondary teachers to report that it was very important for 

DLRs to include a text-to-speech function that lets a student hear a word or phrase (78 percent vs. 

35 percent) (Exhibit C-7). First-year teachers were more likely than more experienced teachers to report 

that it is very important for DLRs to include visual supports for understanding such as images or 

illustrations (98 percent vs. 89 percent) and to have a translation function (89 percent vs. 57 percent) 

(Exhibit C-8).

Types of DLRs Provided for Instruction 

As described in Chapter I, this study examined DLRs in three broad categories: digital academic content 

tools, digital productivity tools, and digital communication tools, and within each category, reported on 

several types of DLRs. Looking very broadly, and considering DLRs for general education students, 

99 percent of districts provided at least one DLR, and 85 percent provided DLRs that collectively 

included academic content tools, productivity tools, and communication tools (Exhibit 11). Districts also 

almost universally provided at least one DLR specifically for instructing EL students (96 percent), and 

68 percent provided DLRs that collectively included the three categories of academic content tools, 

productivity tools, and communication tools. Again with regard to DLRs specifically for EL students, 

almost all districts (94 percent) reported providing DLRs with academic content for EL students, 

83 percent provided productivity tools and 70 percent provided communication tools. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

23

Exhibit 11. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided various categories of DLRs for EL 

students specifically and for general education students

Exhibit reads: Ninety-four percent of districts reported providing an academic content DLR for EL students 

specifically and 99 percent reported providing an academic content tool for general education students. This 

difference is statistically significant.

* Percentage for EL students specifically is statistically different from percentage for general education students (p < .05).

Notes: “All three categories” refers to the three categories of DLRs: Academic content tools, productivity tools, and communication tools. “Two 

of the three categories” and “only one category” indicate that a district reported using tools within two, or only one, of these three categories. 

Source: District survey, items 9 and 10 (n = 745 districts, for EL students and 749 districts, for general education students).
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

24

Ninety-one percent of districts reported providing language tutorials or practice 

DLRs for EL students specifically. 

In addition to language tutorials or practice DLRs, DLRs that districts most often provided for EL students 

were reference and resources (84 percent), translation (80 percent), academic tutorials or practice 

(79 percent), and presentation (79 percent) (Exhibit 12). These were consistent with the types of DLRs 

most districts reported providing for general education instruction: language tutorials or practice, 

academic tutorials or practice, presentation, and references and resources DLRs (92 percent to 

97 percent). The DLRs that districts least commonly reported providing were video-conferencing and 

simulations or virtual worlds, for general education (57 percent and 67 percent, respectively) and for EL 

students specifically (42 percent and 49 percent). 

Districts were more likely to report providing DLRs for general education students

than for EL students specifically. 

In some cases, there were substantial differences between the DLRs provided for general education 

students and those provided specifically for EL students. For example, 96 percent of districts reported 

providing academic tutorials or practice DLRs for general education students versus 79 percent for EL 

students specifically. The differences between DLRs provided for general education instruction and for 

EL students specifically were statistically significant for all DLRs listed, with the exception of translation 

and articulation DLRs. 

Case study teachers in one district reported that their district discouraged or did not permit use of these 

tools due to their state’s English-only policy. Other teachers in the case studies stated they used 

translation tools to support their EL students’ comprehension, for example, in translating directions for 

newcomer students, who are just beginning to learn English. 

High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report certain types of 

DLRs, including language tutorials or practice DLRs and productivity and 

communication DLRs. 

The differences between high-EL districts and low-EL districts were in providing language tutorials or 

practice DLRs (97 percent of high-EL districts vs. 89 percent of low-EL districts); presentation (87 percent

vs. 76 percent); information organization (80 percent vs. 69 percent); spreadsheets (79 percent vs. 

64 percent); and in blogs, chats, and journals (70 percent vs. 54 percent) (Exhibit C-9). There were no 

DLR types that low-EL districts were more likely to provide.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

25

Exhibit 12. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided various types of DLRs, for EL students 

specifically and for general education students 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-one percent of districts reported providing language tutorials or practice DLRs for EL students

specifically and 97 percent reported providing language tutorials or practice for general education students. This 

difference is statistically significant.

* Percentage for EL students specifically is statistically different from percentage for general education students (p < .05). 

Source: District survey, items 9 and 10 (n = 745 districts, for EL students and 749 districts, for general education students).
This page intentionally left blank.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

27

III. Teachers’ Use of DLRs in Instructing EL Students

This chapter describes what teachers of EL students reported about their use of DLRs in instructing their 

EL students in the 2016–2017 school year and the indicators that districts and teachers reported using to 

judge the effectiveness of general education DLRs.9 Although almost all districts provided DLRs to 

support instruction of EL students and general education students, teachers’ use of those DLRs may vary 

within or across districts and that variation may be related to teacher or district characteristics. Where 

there are significant differences between the responses of mainstream teachers and EL specialists or 

between teachers in districts with high and low concentrations of EL students, we present the results 

separately for each subgroup. The teacher findings in this chapter are based on the percent of teachers 

who reported using DLRs when instructing their EL students.

Use of DLRs

Eighty-five percent of teachers surveyed reported using DLRs in instructing EL 

students. 

Of the teachers using DLRs, 62 percent reporting using at least one type of DLR daily in instructing their 

EL students and an additional 27 percent reported using at least one DLR type weekly (Exhibit 13).10

There were no significant differences in reported DLR use between mainstream teachers and EL 

specialists, between teachers in high-EL versus low-EL districts, or based on teachers’ years of 

experience. 

9 Readers should note that the teacher survey sample was not nationally representative and these results should be interpreted 

with caution. See Chapter 1 and Appendix A for additional information about the teacher sample selection.

10Teachers reported their use for different types of DLRs. These percentages are based only on the most frequently used type, 

as reported by each teacher. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

28

Exhibit 13. Teachers’ reported frequency of DLR use in instructing EL students 

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 62 percent of teachers reported 

daily use of a DLR in instructing EL students. 

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. Frequency 

was calculated as the highest level of frequency of use for a DLR that a teacher indicated. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 23 (n = 575 teachers). 

Districts, schools, and teachers have a wide range of DLRs to choose from, including DLRs designed for 

all students and DLRs designed for particular subgroups of students, such as EL students and struggling 

students. 

Among teachers who reported using DLRs for instructing EL students, 79 percent 

used a combination that included use of DLRs designed for EL students, DLRs 

designed for struggling students, and DLRs designed for general education 

students. 

Considering each separately, almost all teachers reported at least some use of DLRs designed for general 

education students (95 percent) and for struggling students (91 percent), and most (84 percent) 

reported use of DLRs designed for EL students (Exhibit 14). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

29

Exhibit 14. Percentage of teachers reporting at least some use of DLRs, by type of student for whom 

the DLR was designed 

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 84 percent of teachers reported at 

least some use of DLRs designed primarily for EL students. 

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. “All three 

groups” indicates that an individual teacher reported using a range of DLRs that collectively addressed three groups of students; that is, the 

teacher reported use of DLRs designed for EL students, DLRs for struggling students, and DLRs for general education students. “Two of the three 

groups” and “only one group” indicate that the DLRs a teacher reported using were DLRs that collectively addressed two of the three groups or 

the DLRs were those that addressed one of the groups.

Source: Teacher survey, item 24 (n = 574 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

30

Teachers were more likely to report weekly or daily use of general education DLRs 

than of DLRs designed primarily for EL students (85 vs. 65 percent). 

This difference also was statistically significant for mainstream teachers (88 percent vs. 69 percent) but 

not for EL specialists (Exhibit 15).11 

In case study interviews, some mainstream teachers explained that they often included their EL students 

in using general education DLRs with the rest of the class, so as not to single out the EL students by using 

a different DLR for them. These teachers also noted that some general education DLRs had features that 

helped EL students to understand and work with the DLR content. For example, they noted that in some 

DLRs students could click on a word to get the definition in simpler English or obtain a translation of the 

word in their home language.

There were differences for some subgroups in reported use of DLRs designed for general education 

students, for EL students, and for struggling students. Considering the use of general education DLRs 

separately, mainstream teachers compared with EL specialists were more likely to report using the DLRs 

in instructing EL students on a weekly or daily basis (88 percent vs. 67 percent) (Exhibit 15). Similarly, 

considering DLRs designed primarily for EL students, mainstream teachers were more likely than EL 

specialists to report weekly or daily use (69 percent vs. 53 percent). 

Most teachers in high-EL districts reported using DLRs designed specifically for EL students and DLRs for 

struggling students weekly or daily in instructing their EL students, while about half of teachers in low-EL 

districts reported daily or weekly use of these DLRs. The difference between the teachers in high-EL 

districts and teachers in low-EL districts was statistically significant for reported use of DLRs designed for 

struggling students (85 percent vs. 44 percent) (Exhibit C-10).

First-year teachers more often than experienced teachers reported weekly or daily use of DLRs designed 

primarily for EL students and DLRs primarily designed for struggling students. Eighty-five percent of firstyear teachers versus 65 percent of more experienced teachers reported weekly or daily use of DLRs 

designed for EL students; and 89 percent versus 68 percent reported weekly or daily use of DLRs 

designed for struggling students (Exhibit C-11).

 

11 Throughout this chapter, note that fewer EL specialists responded to the survey than mainstream teachers (204 EL specialists 

vs. 356 to 359 mainstream teachers for this analysis, depending on the survey item), resulting in generally larger standard 

errors for EL specialists.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

31

Exhibit 15. Percentage of teachers reporting that their EL students used DLRs weekly or daily, 

by type of teacher and by type of students for whom the DLRs were designed

Exhibit reads: Of EL specialists who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 53 percent reported weekly or 

daily use of DLRs designed primarily for EL students, compared with 67 percent who reported use of DLRs designed 

primarily for general education students. This difference is not statistically significant.

* Percentage for DLRs designed primarily for EL students is statistically different from percentage for DLRs designed primarily for general 

education students (p < .05).

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 24 (n = 359 mainstream teachers and 204 EL specialists)
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

32

Availability and Use of Digital Academic Content, Productivity, and 

Communication Tools

Most teachers of EL students reported having access to multiple DLR types within 

three broad categories of DLRs. 

Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 97 percent reported academic content 

tools were available, 90 percent reported productivity tools were available, and 84 percent reported 

communication tools were available12 (Exhibit 16). There was no statistically significant difference 

between mainstream teachers and EL specialists in DLR availability. 

Exhibit 16. Percentage of teachers reporting that various categories of DLRs were available to them

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 97 percent of teachers reported that 

at least one academic content tool was available to them.

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, items 21 and 22 (n = 562 teachers). 

 

12The availability of the three broad categories of DLRs (academic content, productivity, and communication) was roughly 

similar to the district findings. See Exhibit 11 in Chapter II for district statistics.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

33

About two-thirds of teachers surveyed reported using digital references and 

resources tools, language tutorials or practice tools, presentation tools, and 

academic tutorials or practice tools weekly or daily in instructing their EL 

students. 

Teachers most often reported that they used digital references and resources (82 percent), language

tutorials and practice tools (81 percent), presentation tools (77 percent), and academic tutorials or

practice tools (75 percent). Forty-six percent or less reported use of simulations or virtual worlds tools, 

spreadsheets or data analysis tools, articulation tools, blogs, chats, or journals tools, and videoconferencing DLR tools (Exhibit 17). Teachers’ use of DLRs may depend not only on teachers’ choices but 

also on DLR availability; for example, the least used tool (video conferencing, used by 13 percent of 

responding teachers) was also the least available, as reported by districts.

13

Looking at teachers who reported using these tools weekly or daily, the pattern is similar to the findings 

for at least some use. For example, roughly half or more of teachers used the same four types of digital 

tools weekly or daily in instructing EL students: language tutorials or practice (65 percent), academic 

tutorials or practice (60 percent), reference and resources (60 percent), and presentation tools 

(48 percent). There were no statistically significant differences in usage between mainstream teachers 

and EL specialists. 

Teachers in high-EL districts were more likely than those in low-EL districts to report weekly or daily use 

of articulation tools in instructing their EL students (47 percent vs. 14 percent) (Exhibit C-12). In the case 

study districts, many teachers described using slide presentation DLRs to help students understand new 

content. The slide presentations included various images, videos, and other materials that they pulled 

from reference and resource DLRs. Teachers also commented that they frequently used reference and 

resource tools such as visual images (photo and video) to support all students, and that this support was 

especially beneficial for their EL students. For example, an elementary school EL specialist in one case 

study site reported often using a video-sharing platform or online images to help introduce new words. 

A mainstream secondary school math teacher reported often using online videos to give visual 

representations of math concepts to help all of her students understand, including her EL students. 

In the case studies, across all grade levels, teachers’ descriptions of the DLRs they used showed an 

emphasis on language and literacy content. Mainstream teachers most often said they used tutorials or 

practice DLRs to help students develop their academic vocabulary, strengthen basic skills, and improve 

reading fluency and comprehension. Several mainstream teachers also mentioned using digital math 

tutorials to help students practice basic math skills, particularly at the elementary level. Also, in three of 

the six case study districts, elementary school teachers reported using DLRs to give students practice 

typing before the state standardized test, commenting that their students did not always come into 

school with experience in using computers or knowing how to type using a keyboard. 

 

13As shown in Chapter II in Exhibit 12, video-conferencing was the type of DLR that districts were least likely to report that they 

provided for instructing EL students; 42 percent of districts reported providing video-conferencing tools, compared with much 

higher percentages that reported providing, for example, language tutorials or practice tools (91 percent) and references and 

resources tools (84 percent) for instructing EL students.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

34

Exhibit 17. Percentage of teachers reporting that they used various DLRs in instructing EL students, 

by frequency of use 

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 82 percent of teachers reported at 

least some use of references and resources DLRs and 60 percent reported weekly or daily use. 

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 23 (n = 575 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

35

Contexts for EL Students’ Use of DLRs

Teachers reported on the extent to which their EL students used DLRs within several different activity 

contexts.14, 15 These included independent or individual work facilitated by an instructor; whole-class 

activity; pair or group work (either with all EL students or in a mixed pair or group of EL students and 

English speakers); and student use in their free time. Teachers also reported on how often they assigned 

DLR use outside of class and for DLR use at home with family members (Exhibit 18). 

The majority of teachers reported that EL students often used DLRs when working 

independently (61 percent) or as part of a whole class activity (60 percent); few 

teachers reported assigning EL students to use DLRs outside of class (16 percent). 

In case study interviews, several teachers stated that both their EL students and English-proficient 

students frequently worked independently at their own pace on the same DLR. This ability to 

differentiate activities was, in fact, one of the most valuable features of DLRs, according to respondents. 

As one mainstream teacher noted, DLRs allowed students to move at their own pace and to redo lessons 

as needed, which the EL students in her class really appreciated. However, teachers in two districts 

commented that EL students sometimes worked on different DLRs or one-on-one with the teacher while 

English-proficient students in the class worked on another activity. 

A majority of mainstream teachers interviewed in the case study districts described using DLRs in whole 

class activities to introduce content. For example, they projected slide presentations, images, websites, 

or videos for the whole class. They used productivity DLRs to assess learning, such as, through apps that 

can create and administer interactive quizzes to students. 

Considering other contexts for DLR use, fewer than one in five surveyed teachers reported that EL 

students were assigned work with DLRs for outside of class. Sixteen percent of teachers surveyed 

reported that EL students often were assigned to use a DLR to continue learning outside of class, and 

10 percent of teachers reported that EL students often were assigned to work with parents or other 

family members at home using a DLR (Exhibit 18). 

Most teachers in the case study interviews noted that they generally did not assign DLR use for students 

outside of the classroom given their concern that some students might not have access to computers, 

DLRs, or internet capacity at home. However, a small number of other case study teachers did assign 

DLR work for outside of class and offered examples. One teacher, who used an online flashcard app in 

her class, stated that a useful feature of the DLR was that students could use it on their cell phones so 

the EL students could quiz themselves on vocabulary, for example, while in the car. Examining survey 

 

14Teachers responded to the survey question to indicate frequency of DLR use for each context. The options were: not at all, 

rarely, sometimes, often, and all of their work on DLRs. Based on the survey responses, some of the respondents apparently

understood the last option to refer to all work in the individual context rather than all DLR work, using “all of their work on 

DLRs” for more than one context. This response option was seldom used; no more than 2 percent of teachers indicated it for 

any context. The analysis combines responses “all of their work on DLRs” and “often” responses for each context, and reports 

these as “often.” 

15The study did not obtain data on the proportion of time teachers used the different contexts in a typical instructional day or 

week.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

36

data, about one third of surveyed teachers reported that they did not assign any DLR work outside of 

the class (32 percent) or specifically for work at home with family (38 percent).

Exhibit 18. Percentage of teachers reporting various activity contexts in which their EL students used 

DLRs often 

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 61 percent of teachers reported 

that, when EL students worked independently, they often used DLRs.

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 30 (n = 573 teachers).

Mainstream teachers were more likely than EL specialists to report that students often worked with 

DLRs as part of whole-class activities (63 percent vs. 31 percent), in activities where they worked in pairs 

or groups of EL students and English speakers (50 percent vs. 23 percent), and in work with DLRs in pairs 

or groups of EL students (45 percent vs. 19 percent) (Exhibit C-13). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

37

Measures Used to Assess the Effectiveness of DLRs in Instructing 

EL Students

The majority of districts reported that they used EL students’ performance on English language 

proficiency tests (65 percent), scores on state assessments (64 percent), and EL students’ progress 

progression on reading book levels (60 percent) to track the effectiveness of DLRs for instructing EL 

students (Exhibit 19). Additionally, half or more districts reported that they tracked EL student 

performance on district assessments (57 percent), grades on report cards (52 percent), and scores on inclass assessments (50 percent). Least commonly reported indicators were credits earned toward 

graduation (46 percent) and student attendance (45 percent). High-EL districts were more likely than 

low-EL districts (66 percent vs. 53 percent) to report using scores on district assessments as tracking 

tools (Exhibit C-14). 

Exhibit 19. Percentage of districts reporting various indicators that they used to track the 

effectiveness of DLRs for EL students

Exhibit reads: Sixty-five percent of districts reported using performance on English proficiency tests as an indicator 

for tracking the effectiveness of DLRs for EL students.

Source: District survey, item 20 (n = 694 districts).
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

38

Administrators in the case study districts reported using several informal tools, 

such as teacher input, to track the effectiveness of DLRs for EL students. 

Most case study district and school administrators stated that they assessed the effectiveness of DLRs by 

collecting informal data on teacher satisfaction, student engagement, and frequency of DLR use. In one 

district, for example, the EL services coordinator asked teachers about their experiences in using the 

DLRs and collected anecdotes from teachers about how the DLRs were benefitting students. In another 

district, DLR subscriptions were renewed based on the frequency of the DLR use. 

In a third district, the school technology coordinator reported hosting informal discussions for teachers. 

The coordinator used these opportunities to ask how teachers were using the DLRs in class and to obtain 

their perspectives on whether the DLRs were worth the district’s investment. The coordinator reported 

that she also examined how those teachers’ students performed on standardized tests in conjunction 

with the frequency of their DLR use. 

Surveyed teachers reported using multiple approaches to judge the effectiveness of DLRs for EL 

students. Some of the commonly used tools were EL student scores on in-class assessments 

(89 percent), EL student scores on district assessments (76 percent), and EL student progress on reading 

book levels (72 percent) (Exhibit 20). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

39

Exhibit 20. Percentage of teachers reporting various indicators that they used to judge the 

effectiveness of DLRs in supporting EL students

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 89 percent of teachers reported 

using EL student scores on in-class assessments to judge the effectiveness of DLRs in supporting EL students.

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 33 (n = 563 teachers).

In the case study interviews, the majority of teachers commented that they considered the DLRs to be

effective if they increased student engagement, were popular with students, or if they observed that 

their students’ DLR use was correlated with academic growth. For example, two mainstream teachers 

noted that when they asked their students to compose essays on the computer using a DLR, the

students were much more engaged and less reluctant to write. Other teachers stated that they viewed a 

DLR as successful if it supported students in learning the content. Similarly, an EL specialist reported that 

she looked for improvement in scores on the English proficiency assessment and on other state 

standardized tests. These findings suggest that teachers relied on their observations of students in 

evaluating DLRs; none mentioned that they looked for rigorous evaluation studies of the DLR. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

40

Benefits of DLR Use Reported by Case Study Teachers

Across the case studies, teachers described how they felt their use of DLRs benefitted both themselves 

and their students. Many teachers across most of the case study districts reported that DLRs allowed 

them to more capably differentiate instruction for students. For example, one mainstream teacher 

noted that DLRs allowed students to move at their own pace and redo lessons as needed, which the EL 

students in her class really appreciated. A mainstream teacher in another district commented that she 

was able to assign different lessons in the DLR based on students’ prior performance which allowed 

some students in her math class to be working on more basic skills such as counting while others could 

move on to addition and subtraction skills. 

Many case study teachers commented that DLRs also offered them expanded ways to communicate 

with their students and to assist students in understanding new content. Mainstream teachers and EL 

specialists in several districts, for example, said that they often used online videos or images to help 

them introduce new words to students. They commented that these multi-media ways of 

communicating appeared to be very helpful for their students, especially for those EL students for whom 

the word or concept was new. 

Finally, several mainstream teachers and EL specialists across most districts said that they felt that a 

benefit of using DLRs was the increased student engagement they observed. For example, one EL 

specialist noted that the EL students she worked with were often too shy to speak up in front of class, 

and so these students seemed to prefer activities that they could complete on their own or with a 

partner. Two other teachers commented on the benefits of gaming components in DLRs. One teacher 

noted that the gaming elements appeared to make the DLRs more enjoyable for students, and a 

mainstream teacher stated that EL students seemed to be more willing to participate in group 

discussions when they were using a game-based DLR in which all students had to work together to 

advance in the game. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

41

Chapter IV. Supports for, and Barriers to, DLR Use in 

Instructing EL Students

This chapter describes the professional development and other supports related to DLR use that districts 

reported providing and that teachers16 reported that they received. It also outlines the perceived

barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students that districts and teachers of EL students identified in the 

survey responses and in case study interviews. 

Professional Development and Other Supports for Use of DLRs 

District-provided Professional Development and Other Supports 

Almost all districts reported providing at least some type of professional 

development or other support for DLR use in instructing general education 

students, and most reported providing some such support for DLR use in 

instructing EL students specifically. 

Ninety-eight percent of districts reported that they provided at least some form of formal professional 

development or some form of other support for DLR use in instructing general education students over 

the three-year period, school years 2014–15 to 2016–17. Formal professional development included 

workshops, coaching, or in-class assistance to teachers in use of DLRs; other supports included access to 

online professional development, funding to attend conferences, and time for planning or collaboration. 

Seventy-seven percent of districts reported at least some form of professional development or other 

support for DLR use with EL students specifically. 

Considering the types of professional development or other supports provided for DLR use in general 

education instruction, about three-fourths of districts reported providing workshops on a specific DLR 

(79 percent), workshops on integration of DLRs in instruction (75 percent), and access to online or webbased professional development (72 percent) (Exhibit 21). Districts most commonly reported that 

providers of formal professional development on DLR use in general education were internal 

educational technology experts (74 percent) and general education teachers (66 percent) (Exhibit 21). 

With regard to supporting DLR use specifically with EL students, fewer than one-half of districts reported 

providing workshops on features of a specific DLR (46 percent), access to online professional 

development (45 percent), and funding to attend conferences (44 percent). Internal educational 

technology experts (39 percent) and EL specialists (35 percent) were the most commonly reported 

providers of formal professional development for DLR use related to EL students specifically. About 

30 percent of districts reported that district professional development administrators, DLR vendor 

representatives, general education teachers, and district instructional technology coaches provided 

professional development support (Exhibit 21). 

 

16Readers should note that the teacher survey sample was not nationally representative and the results based on the teacher 

survey data should be interpreted with caution. See Chapter 1 and Appendix A for additional information about the teacher 

sample selection.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

42

Districts were least likely to report that an external educational technology expert provided professional 

development in their district. This was true related both to support for DLR use in instructing general 

education students (29 percent) and support for DLR use with EL students specifically (16 percent). 

Districts were less likely to report providing professional development and other 

supports for DLR use in instructing EL students specifically as compared with

professional development for instructing general education students. 

Districts were less likely to report offering each of the eight listed types of supports for using DLRs in 

instructing EL students specifically as compared with offering the supports for DLR use in instructing 

students in general education classes. The differences in the supports that districts reported ranged 

from 14 percentage points to 37 percentage points (Exhibit 21). For example, 38 percent of districts 

reported providing workshops on the integration of DLRs in instructing EL students specifically versus 

75 percent of districts reporting such workshops for DLR use with students in general education classes. 

Also, 32 percent of districts reported providing direct coaching support to teachers to assist them in 

integrating DLR use for EL students specifically compared with 58 percent of districts reporting such 

coaching related to DLR use for general education students. There were similar differences in other 

types of supports for DLR use. As an example, 45 percent reported providing access to online sources of 

professional development focused on DLR use with EL students specifically, while 72 percent reported 

providing such support for teachers instructing general education students. 

In describing the persons who provided professional development, districts were more likely to report 

that EL specialists provided professional development related to DLR use with EL students than for DLR 

use in general education. For all other types of providers listed, districts were more likely to indicate that 

these provided professional development related to DLR use in general education than for instructing EL 

students specifically.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

43

Exhibit 21. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided various types of professional 

development (PD) and other supports related to DLR use and the persons providing 

professional development, for instructing EL students specifically and for instructing 

general education students 

Exhibit reads: Forty-six percent of districts reported providing workshops on features of a specific DLR for 

instructing EL students specifically, and 79 percent of districts reported providing these for instructing general 

education students. This difference is statistically significant.

*Percentage for EL students is statistically different from percentage for general education students (p< .05).

Source: District survey, item 14 (n = 711 districts). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

44

High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report providing 

professional development workshops, coaching, and in-class assistance related to 

DLR use in instructing EL students.

There were large and statistically significant differences for the four types of professional development

listed. For example, high-EL districts were twice as likely as low-EL districts to report providing

workshops related to DLR use with EL students addressing features of a specific DLR (72 percent vs. 

36 percent) (Exhibit 22). There were no statistically significant differences for high-EL versus low-EL 

districts in other supports districts reported providing for DLR use (e.g., access to online or web-based 

professional development). High-EL districts were more likely to report using vendor representatives, 

district staff, and specialists as providers of professional development (Exhibit 22). However, external 

technology experts were the least commonly reported provider for both high-EL and low-EL districts 

(18 percent and 14 percent, respectively) (C-15). 

Exhibit 22. Percentage of districts reporting that they provided professional development (PD) 

related to DLR use in instructing EL students specifically, and the persons providing the 

professional development, in high-EL and low-EL districts

Type of PD and person providing PD

Percentage of 

high-EL districts

Percentage of

low-EL districts

Percentage-point 

difference

Type of PD

Workshops on features of a specific DLR* 72 36 36

Workshops on integration of DLRs in instruction* 60 30 30

Direct coaching support to integrate DLR use* 54 24 30

One-on-one, in-classroom assistance on specific DLRs* 50 29 21

Persons Providing PD

DLR vendor representative* 59 19 40

EL specialist* 57 25 32

District PD administrator and/or coordinator* 48 23 25

District instructional technology coach* 39 20 19

Internal education technology expert* 49 34 15

General education teacher* 40 26 14

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of high-EL districts reported providing workshops on features of a specific DLR 

for instructing EL students, compared with 36 percent of low-EL districts, a 36 percentage-point difference. This 

difference is statistically significant.

* Percentage for high-EL districts is statistically different from percentage for low-EL districts (p < .05).

Source: District survey, item 14 (n = 253 high-EL and 210 low-EL districts). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

45

Teacher-reported Receipt of Professional Development and Other Supports for 

DLR Use

Overall, about two-thirds of teachers surveyed reported that they received 10 or 

fewer hours of formal professional development related to DLRs over a three-year 

period. 

About half of teachers (49 percent) reported receiving one to 10 hours of professional development, 

and 15 percent reported no hours, over three school years, 2014–15 to 2016–17. About one-quarter of 

teachers reported more than 25 hours of professional development over the three-year period 

(Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 23. Percentage of teachers reporting the hours of formal professional development on DLRs 

that they received over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Twenty-seven percent of teachers reported more than 25 hours of formal professional development 

related to the use of DLRs from their school or district over a period of three years, 2014–15 to 2016–17. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 34 (n = 682 teachers).

Across all districts, EL specialists reported fewer hours of professional 

development in DLR use than did mainstream teachers.

EL specialists (72 percent) were more likely than mainstream teachers (47 percent) to report one to 10 

hours of professional development related to DLRs over school years 2014–15 to 2016–17. The two 

subgroups were almost equally likely to report receiving no hours of professional development related 

to DLRs (13 percent and 12 percent). Combining these findings, EL specialists (84 percent) as compared 

with mainstream teachers (60 percent) were more likely to report 10 or fewer hours of professional 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

46

development on DLRs over the three-year period. At the upper range of hours reported, mainstream 

teachers (31 percent) were more likely than EL specialists (7 percent) to report receiving more than 25 

hours of professional development17 (Exhibit 24). 

Exhibit 24. Percentage of teachers reporting the number of hours of formal professional 

development on DLRs that they received over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 

2016–17, by type of teacher

Hours

Percentage of

mainstream teachers

Percentage of

EL specialists

Percentage point 

difference

More than 25 hours* 31 7 24

11 to 25 hours 9 9 0 

1 to 10 hours* 47 72 -25

None 13 12 1

Exhibit reads: Thirty-one percent of mainstream teachers of EL students reported that they received more than 25 

hours of formal professional development related to the use of DLRs over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 

2016–17 compared with 7 percent of EL specialists, a difference of 24 percentage points. This difference is 

statistically significant.

* Percentage for mainstream teachers is statistically different from percentage for EL specialists (p < .05).

Source: Teacher survey, item 34 (n = 438 mainstream teachers and 227 EL specialists).

In the case study districts, only a few EL specialists and mainstream teachers of EL students reported 

participating in professional development on the use of DLRs specifically for instructing EL students. In 

fact, across all districts in the case studies, most mainstream teachers interviewed said that they would 

like to learn about using DLRs in instructing their EL students.

Teachers most commonly reported receiving professional development in the form of workshops on 

integrating DLRs in instruction (71 percent), workshops on how to use the features of a specific DLR

(70 percent) and coaching on integrating DLRs in instruction (69 percent). Teachers also reported 

receiving other district-provided supports that enabled them to learn about and work with DLRs on their 

own. About half of teachers indicated use of release time for planning DLR use, online modules provided 

by the district, and time allocated for collaboration with other teachers (from 47 to 55 percent)

(Exhibit 25). 

About half of teachers surveyed reported receiving professional development 

specific to using DLRs with EL students.

Between 44 and 51 percent of surveyed teachers reported receiving workshops, coaching, and 

scheduled consultations with an ESL or other EL specialist teacher on use of DLRs for instructing EL 

students specifically (Exhibit 25). There were no statistically significant differences between mainstream 

teachers and EL specialists for any of the types of professional development listed. 

17There was substantial variation in the amount of professional development that mainstream teachers received, with 

60 percent receiving 10 hours or fewer of professional development, while 31 percent received more than 25 hours. In part, 

the number of hours of professional development was related to teachers’ level of experience, with the less experienced 

teachers receiving more professional development: Mainstream teachers who received 26 or more hours of professional 

development had a mean of 6.6 years of teaching at the K–12 level, while mainstream teachers who received 25 or fewer 

hours of professional development had a mean of 12.2 years. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

47

In the case study districts, some teachers of EL students described the professional development they 

received as in their view more typically focused on how to use specific features or functions of individual 

DLRs rather than on how to incorporate the use of the DLRs into their instruction. For example, the 

teachers commented that the professional development focused on specifics such as how to set up 

student accounts, how students should log in, or how students could access audio features to listen to 

an unfamiliar word. As one mainstream teacher stated:

“... [I learned]...just the workings of the system. There was not a specific training about 

how are you going to use this for your instruction.” 

The type of training or professional development that teachers indicated they felt would be most helpful 

was guidance grounded in actual instructional practice. For example, one teacher described her 

experience with a professional development training that she viewed as very useful for her as follows:

“It was presented from an educator standpoint, not from a digital resource standpoint. 

...the two days’ training was actually put on by teachers who actually teach in the 

classroom... so it was put on by the educators themselves. And so it was very good to 

see... [that] it wasn’t them just teaching you how to use the software. It was teaching 

you how to integrate it into what you’re already doing as an educator.”
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

48

Exhibit 25. Percentage of teachers reporting that they received various types of formal professional 

development (PD) on DLR use in general and on DLR use specific to EL students over a 

three-year period from 2014–15 to 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Seventy-one percent of teachers reported receiving formal professional development related to DLR 

use in general through workshops on integrating DLRs into instruction over a three-year period, from 2014–15 to 

2016–17. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 35 (n = 682 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

49

Teachers in high-EL districts were more likely than teachers in low-EL districts to

report receiving professional development workshops related to use of DLRs in 

general. 

Teachers in high-EL districts were more likely than teachers in low-EL districts to report receiving 

workshops on DLR use on integrating DLRs into the classroom (79 percent vs. 43 percent) and 

workshops on using features of specific DLRs (78 percent vs. 42 percent) (Exhibit C-16). 

Teachers also reported on the helpfulness of the formal professional development and other supports 

they received in the past three school years. In order to make teachers’ responses comparable across 

the various supports, only teachers who received a support are included in the calculations for that 

support.18 

One-third or more of teachers reported that they felt that individual release time 

for planning related to the use of DLRs, workshops on integrating DLRs into 

instruction in general, and joint time allocated for teachers to discuss the use of 

DLRs were extremely helpful to their use of DLRs in instructing EL students. 

Between 27 and 31 percent of teachers considered other forms of professional development as 

extremely helpful. For example, these included in-class assistance and coaching on integrating DLRs in 

general and for EL students specifically. Slightly less than one quarter (24 percent) of teachers indicated 

that they felt that online modules and workshops on working with specific DLRs were extremely helpful, 

and 16 percent considered consultations with EL specialists as extremely helpful to their use of DLRs 

with their EL students. 

However, examining combined responses (extremely helpful and moderately helpful), the findings 

provide a different perspective on how teachers viewed support through their consultations with EL 

specialists. Among professional development and supports that teachers considered either extremely 

helpful or moderately helpful, two highly appreciated types were workshops on selecting DLRs for the 

general classroom (79 percent of teachers) and consultations with EL specialists (77 percent). Also, 

nearly three-fourths of teachers considered other types of professional development extremely or 

moderately helpful: workshops on working with a specific DLR (72 percent); workshops on integrating 

DLRs into instruction in general (71 percent); coaching on integrating DLRs for ELs (71 percent); and 

coaching on selecting DLRs for EL students (71 percent) (Exhibit 26). 

 

18Only teachers who received a support were included in the statistics for that support. The exclusion of teachers who did not 

receive the supports reduces the number of teachers substantially, often by about half, making comparisons across 

subgroups of teachers inappropriate.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

50

Exhibit 26. Percentage of teachers reporting that they viewed various types of formal professional 

development they received as extremely helpful or moderately helpful to their use of 

DLRs with EL students

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven percent of teachers who received individual release time for planning related to using 

DLRs reported that in their view it was extremely helpful to their use of DLRs with EL students, and 32 percent 

reported that they felt it was moderately helpful, for a total of 69 percent of teachers. 

Notes: Teachers who did not receive a particular type of support are excluded from the calculations. Only teachers who received a support 

were included in the statistics for that support. The exclusion of teachers who did not receive the supports reduces the number of teachers 

substantially, often by about half, making comparisons across subgroups of teachers inappropriate. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 35 (n = 682 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

51

Receipt of Informal Professional Development Related to Use of DLRs

Three-fourths or more of teachers reported receiving informal professional 

development through collaboration with other teachers or through using 

collaborative online sites. 

Teachers reported that they collaborated through group discussions with other teachers (82 percent), 

informal collaboration or mentoring with another teacher (80 percent), and reported learning about DLR 

use independently through online professional communities, discussion boards, and other collaborative 

sites (76 percent) (Exhibit 27). A majority of teachers (61 percent) also reported learning about DLRs 

through online searchable DLR collection sites. In searchable DLR online sites, users can apply key terms 

to identify DLRs and can obtain reviews or user comments on specific DLRs. About half of teachers 

(53 percent) reported consulting with an EL specialist. Teachers’ responses were similar for both 

mainstream teachers and EL specialists. 

Most mainstream teachers and EL specialists in case study districts reported that they valued 

opportunities to collaborate with peers around DLR use, such as through hallway conversations, gradelevel team meetings, or email. Several teachers from across all districts also reported using online 

resources to learn about DLRs, but the teachers did not refer to using searchable DLR collections.

Most EL specialists in the case study districts described supporting mainstream teachers. For example, 

one EL specialist commented that the teachers knew to come to her for resources on DLRs and for ideas 

on instruction. She described her role as guiding mainstream teachers on how to use a new DLR geared 

toward EL students and suggesting activities within a DLR to help the students learn specific skills. 

Another EL specialist mentioned that she would suggest specific DLRs for mainstream teachers to use 

with their EL students.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

52

Exhibit 27. Percentage of teachers reporting that they received various types of informal

professional development over a three-year period from 2014–15 to 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Eighty-two percent of teachers reported that they received informal professional development 

related to the use of DLRs in instruction in the form of group discussions with other teachers over a three-year 

period from 2014–15 to 2016–17. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 36 (n = 684 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

53

In some case study districts, teachers reported that they received support for DLR 

use from other teachers whom they viewed as technology leaders, that is, 

teachers who were early adopters of DLRs, strong users of technology, and who 

were willing to share their knowledge. 

Some case study teachers noted that when they received guidance from technology leaders they not 

only learned how to use the specific DLR, they also received useful information on how to incorporate 

its use into their instruction. For example, one mainstream teacher reported that she learned a strategy 

for using the audio feature in her presentation software as a way to scaffold vocabulary development 

for her students.

The case study interviews highlighted that much of the guidance offered by teachers viewed as 

technology leaders was often quite informal. One mainstream teacher noted that she felt fortunate that 

she had somebody to ask for help who was right down her hallway, commenting: 

“I mean I’m lucky in that her classroom is located across the hall from mine, so I 

communicate with her. Whenever I have a question, she’s always there to talk to us 

about different resources and different things to do. It’s all completely informal, though. 

It’s like in the hallway, in the passing time. We do not have time set aside. We just do it 

on a daily basis informally.” 

Most surveyed teachers reported that they felt collaboration with another 

teacher (84 percent), group discussion with other teachers (78 percent), and 

informal consulting with an EL specialist (72 percent) were helpful to their use of 

DLRs with EL students. 

Also, more than half of teachers reported that in their view other informal supports were helpful (either 

extremely helpful or moderately helpful). These were support to attend a conference (69 percent); 

learning online through collaborative sites (64 percent); and learning online through searchable DLR 

collections (54 percent) (Exhibit 28).19 

19Only teachers who received a support were included in the statistics for that support. The exclusion of teachers who did not 

receive the supports reduces the number of teachers substantially often by about half, making comparisons across subgroups 

of teachers inappropriate.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

54

Exhibit 28. Percentage of teachers reporting that they viewed various types of informal professional 

development they received as extremely helpful or moderately helpful to their use of 

DLRS with EL students 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-nine percent of teachers of EL students reported that in their view informal collaboration with 

another teacher was extremely helpful for their use of DLRs with EL students, and 45 percent reported that they 

felt it was moderately helpful, for a total of 84 percent. 

Notes: Teachers who did not receive a particular type of support are excluded from the calculations. The total of the percentage reporting 

“extremely helpful” and percentage reporting “moderately helpful” may differ from the details shown, due to rounding.

Source: Teacher survey, item 36 (n = 684 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

55

Barriers to DLR Use

Barriers Reported by Districts

Districts most commonly reported that barriers to DLR use were students’ lack of 

home access to DLRs, teachers’ need for expertise in instructing EL students, 

teachers’ level of technology skills, and a lack of knowledge of DLRs appropriate 

to EL students. 

Eighty percent or more of districts considered students’ lack of home access, teachers’ need for 

instructional expertise related to EL-students, teachers, technology skills, and lack of knowledge about

DLRs for EL students as barriers to some extent or to a large extent. In addition, about three-quarters of 

districts indicated that they viewed insufficient funds to purchase DLRs (75 percent), lack of knowledge 

of the range of DLRs (73 percent), and lack of funds for providing teachers with professional 

development on integration of DLRs (70 percent) as barriers to some extent or to a large extent. Factors 

less commonly noted as barriers were insufficient technical support to troubleshoot hardware and 

software issues (43 percent) and insufficient network speed and reliability (39 percent) (Exhibit 29).

Respondents in all case study districts noted barriers related to access, including lack of a sufficient 

number of computers for individual students (i.e., lack of one-to-one computers) and barriers due to the 

cost of DLRs and related hardware. Beyond hardware issues, case study teachers commented that 

barriers included lack of knowledge of and familiarity with using DLRs to support EL students and 

students in general. Also, school and district administrators in all six districts mentioned lack of training 

and professional development for teachers as a barrier. While administrators recognized that teachers 

needed more assistance in learning how to incorporate DLRs in instruction and training to help them 

become comfortable with using technology, several administrators acknowledged that their school or 

district was limited in what it could provide. For example, administrators reported that budget 

constraints affected their ability to provide professional development and technology. Competing 

priorities for limited professional training days also posed a challenge for administrators to provide 

training on DLRs.

In general, high-EL districts and low-EL districts indicated similar barriers to DLR use for EL students. 

However, there were two exceptions. High-EL districts were more likely than low-EL districts to report 

that students’ lack of home access to DLRs was a barrier to some extent or a large extent (92 percent vs. 

82 percent) and more likely to report that teachers’ level of technology skills was a barrier (91 percent 

vs. 79 percent) (Exhibit C-17).
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

56

Exhibit 29. Percentage of districts reporting various barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students, to 

a large extent or to some extent 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-one percent of districts reported that insufficient funds for purchasing DLRs was a barrier to a 

large extent for use of DLRs with EL students, and 44 percent reported it was a barrier to some extent, for a total of 

75 percent of districts.

Source: District survey, item 15 (n = 725 districts). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

57

Barriers Reported by Teachers

Most teachers (68 percent to 80 percent) considered the time required to work with DLRs — to find, 

learn, and set up for DLRs — as a barrier to their DLR use to some extent or to a large extent. In addition, 

a majority of teachers reported barriers related to lack of professional development on how to use 

specific DLRs (63 percent) and lack of in-class support on using DLRs for instruction (58 percent). 

However, most teachers felt supported in DLR use by their principals, with 19 percent of teachers 

indicating that lack of their principal’s support for use of DLRs was a barrier to their DLR use in 

instructing EL students (Exhibit 30). 

Most teachers considered students’ lack of internet access at home as a barrier to 

some extent or to a large extent to DLR use in instructing EL students. 

About four out of five teachers indicated that students’ lack of internet capacity at home and lack of

home access in ways other than related to internet capacity (e.g., lack of computers in the home) were 

barriers to some extent or to a large extent (78 percent and 79 percent). Students’ lack of DLR access at 

home was commonly mentioned as a barrier by educators in the case study districts. Some teachers 

explained that they did not assign homework that would require students to use DLRs at home because 

they believed that several students were in homes without DLR access.

About two-thirds of teachers indicated other factors as barriers to some extent or to a large extent, 

including costs of DLRs, lack of knowledge of available DLRs and how to choose among them, lack of 

professional development on how to use specific DLRs, and difficulty in finding DLRs appropriate to their 

students’ needs.

Fewer teachers indicated that the internet capacity available for instruction presented a barrier to their 

DLR use. About a third of teachers considered insufficient reliability of access to the internet 

(35 percent) and insufficient internet capacity (33 percent) as barriers. One in four teachers (25 percent) 

reported that the policy in their school or district related to DLR use was a barrier. 

There were few differences by teacher subgroups in their reported barriers to DLR use in instructing EL 

students. First-year teachers were more likely than more experienced teachers (90 percent vs. 

62 percent) to report that a lack of professional development on using specific DLRs was a barrier to 

their use of DLRs for instructing EL students (Exhibit C-18). Teachers in low-EL districts were more likely 

than those in high-EL districts to report that the time needed to find DLRs was a barrier to some extent 

or a large extent (88 percent vs. 50 percent) (Exhibit C-19). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

58

Exhibit 30. Percentage of teachers reporting various barriers to DLR use in instructing EL students, to 

a large extent or to some extent

Exhibit reads: Of teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing EL students, 26 percent of teachers reported that 

time to set up or trouble-shoot DLRs for use was a barrier to a large extent to DLR use in instructing EL students, 

and 54 percent reported that it was a barrier to some extent, for a total of 80 percent. 

Notes: Only those teachers who indicated in an earlier item that they used DLRs in instructing EL students responded to this item. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 31 (n = 222 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

59

Most case study teachers cited a number of barriers to their DLR use. They pointed to the lack of 

sufficient technology equipment such as computers or other hardware at school, and the lack of funding 

for equipment, as barriers. In addition to limited opportunities to use equipment, teachers reported that 

it was difficult for students to become familiar with the equipment when it must be shared by several 

teachers.

At least some teachers in all six case study districts described the challenges in gaining access to 

hardware, for example, sharing laptops or tablet carts in a system that requires advance sign-up. As an 

extreme example, one teacher reported that as many as 13 teachers shared the same equipment. Other 

barriers mentioned by case study teachers were technical difficulties such as difficulty in accessing the 

internet and inconsistent connectivity. 

Case study teachers also commented that they felt certain content and design characteristics of DLRs 

posed barriers for their EL students. Many teachers cited the level of language and content in DLRs 

designed for general education use as too complex for their EL students. Teachers in all but one case 

study district explained that the vocabulary used in the DLR could be too complex for EL students, and 

especially for newcomers. One teacher noted the example of a DLR with a ‘beginner’ word list that 

included the word “astronaut,” which she found inappropriate as a beginning vocabulary word for her 

EL students. 

In addition, some case study teachers pointed out that EL students sometimes faced barriers in moving 

within and between pages and items in a DLR, and that the steps and buttons required to access support 

features could introduce additional complexity for them. For example, one teacher described a DLR that 

included an embedded audio support for students to hear the text read aloud. The DLR required 

students to click on a specific button to hear the word. The teacher commented that students had to 

navigate down to a word, then back up to the button, and then back to the word again, repeating these 

steps many times. The teacher observed that the navigation seemed to become a task in itself for the 

students. It caused her to wonder whether the students were able to concentrate on the words as they 

did this. 

Another teacher similarly expressed frustration that the navigation in some DLRs was so hard for 

students that it distracted them from their work and posed additional challenges for students who 

might already struggle to complete tasks. As an example, she observed that when her students have to 

move back and forth within a DLR for an activity, they have often found themselves accidentally 

navigating out of the page they need. Finally, other teachers also mentioned that the different logins 

and passwords required for DLRs became confusing for students.
This page intentionally left blank.
61

Chapter V. Districts’ and Teachers’ Recommendations to 

Improve the Usefulness of DLRs for Instructing EL Students

Districts and teachers20 provided suggestions on how the use of DLRs could be improved to better 

support EL students in learning language and content. Approximately 43 percent of districts and 52 

percent of teachers provided one or more comments to express their views in response to an openended survey item, and case study teachers also offered suggestions for improvements. The

recommendations offered in these comments addressed four themes: DLR content, features of DLRs to 

support EL students, features related to implementation, and professional development. 

Recommendations Related to DLR Content 

Provide more DLRs that engage EL students in working with core academic 

content while supporting students in learning language and literacy. 

Many study participants requested that educational technology developers provide DLRs that 

incorporate support for learning language and literacy — and especially support for learning academic 

language — within the context of core academic content. Districts in particular focused on the need for 

EL students to work with DLRs that engaged them in the content they needed to learn. Comments 

included: 

“There is a need for more programs which integrate content (concepts from social 

studies, science, etc.) and language. I'd like to see content presented with simple 

language and visuals until language skills develop. Most are focused on just literacy skills 

alone - I'd like to see more resources to practice academic language.” 

“For effective language development instruction, students truly need authentic practice 

in using the new language in academic situations. It would be great if DLRs provided 

students with opportunities to engage with complex text while being provided the 

language learning support. Programs currently available do one or the other, yet are 

limited in being able to provide both. Remediation of reading selections and isolated 

language skill building seem to be the trends. For ELs, the focus on academic language 

and language development must go hand-in-hand."

Provide DLRs with grade-level academic content appropriate to the needs of older 

EL students and especially of newcomer students in the middle and high school 

grade levels. 

Several districts and teachers also requested that developers design DLRs that meet the needs of older 

newcomer EL students in learning academic content. They noted that although newcomer students 

 

20Readers should note that the teacher survey sample was not nationally representative and the results based on the teacher 

survey data should be interpreted with caution. See Chapter 1 and Appendix A for additional information about the teacher 

sample selection.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

62

often are beginners in learning English, they still need to meet academic content standards for middle or 

high school grade levels. In their view, the existing DLRs often do not fit the needs of such newcomers: 

“Too many programs have content for young kids rather than middle school to high 

school. This ‘elementary’ type resource is embarrassing as a newcomer student.”

Design DLR resources to include multiple languages of EL students, broadening 

the range of languages usually available.

Study participants noted that they would like to see a wider range of languages included in the DLR 

resources (e.g., e-books or texts in students’ home languages) than are currently available. Several 

noted that DLRs need to be responsive to the wide range of EL-student language groups that many 

districts serve. For example, one respondent noted that she has a difficult time finding resources in 

languages such as Urdu, Hindi, and Punjabi. 

Provide a focus on language and literacy development for EL students that

includes all four domains of language: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. 

Respondents noted that DLRs should address all four language domains. In making this 

recommendation, some separately highlighted a need for DLRs to focus on writing. Others urged greater 

emphasis on promoting oral language development. 

Structure the DLR so that the content is adaptive or individualized for the EL 

students. 

District personnel were especially interested in adaptive or individualized content. However, many

districts and teachers requested design of DLRs to help in tailoring instruction to the individual needs of 

EL students. These included requests for:

• DLRs that are adaptive in presenting content to students, i.e., adjusting the content to meet

the individual student’s level and progressing to new content according to the student’s

performance; and

• DLRs that provide resources for individualizing content, such as offering different levels of text

complexity for the same content.

Provide DLRs that promote active student collaboration in activities focused on 

academic content.

Study respondents recommended that DLRs promote EL student collaboration and cooperation with 

other students. Some noted the value of DLR features that enable students to share and view each 

other’s work. Others commented on the need for interactive activities to promote EL students’ use of 

language about academic content with other students. These could include activities with a game 

element to engage students, sometimes drawing in students who might not participate in other 

contexts. A district administrator recommended: 

The technology would have to be very interactive in order for the students to actively 

engage and participate with other students... They [EL students] need more interaction 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

63

with other students and high level or reading/vocabulary resources to reduce the 

achievement gap.

Recommendations Related to DLR Support Features 

Many of the recommendations for the design of DLRs were to include specific features that the 

educators felt could support EL students in accessing and understanding DLR content. 

Provide visual and auditory support features to assist EL students in 

understanding and communicating new content and vocabulary.

Teachers and administrators indicated that in their view visual and auditory supports could assist EL 

students in understanding and communicating academic content. Visual supports can be images, 

photographs, or as one district administrator suggested, can be video definitions for words that may be 

difficult to define through a single visual image. The educators noted that such visual supports might

assist EL students in understanding new terms and concepts. 

Auditory supports mentioned included a text-to-speech feature. Such a feature can enable EL students 

to hear a single word, a text selection, or to have instructions read aloud. Several district administrators 

and teachers also suggested a record-and-replay feature that enables a student to record and then 

listen back to his or her voice. Some suggested that this feature is useful in that it allows EL students to 

listen to and improve their own speech in English. Some also noted that a record-and-replay feature 

could offer an alternative means for EL students to share or demonstrate their knowledge when they 

are not yet proficient in writing. Educators also noted that DLRs can offer multiple, multi-modal supports 

for their users. For example, a teacher suggested, “develop[ing] items with online dictionaries that work 

in multiple modalities (read the definition, hear how the word is pronounced, see a picture or video of 

it).”

Provide an embedded translation function. 

One teacher mentioned that, although her students could use a separate translation tool, a better 

option is to have a translation capability embedded as part of a content area DLR so that the translation 

given to the EL student provides the meaning most appropriate to the specific content the students are 

learning. 

Provide embedded support features in a wider range of EL students’ languages.

For example, several teachers recommended providing translation features within DLRs that support a 

broader range of languages beyond those most commonly provided to better meet EL students’ needs. 

The study team summarized the support features addressed in the recommendations and created a 

preliminary framework of support features. The Digital Support Features Matrix (Appendix E) identifies

support features in four categories:

1. Visual-related supports: Visual images or other visual support designed to assist a student in 

understanding or communicating a concept or idea. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

64

2. Auditory-related supports: Speech or other use of sound designed to assist a student in

understanding or communicating a concept or idea.

3. Translation supports: Embedded functions designed to translate from one language to the

other, in either speech or print and for either a word or limited text.

4. Collaboration supports: Embedded functions designed to assist students to communicate,

collaborate, work, or share information about academic content.

Recommendations Related to Implementation 

Design DLRs that are easy to use, both for EL students and teachers.

Many teachers and districts focused on the importance of ease of use for EL students in navigating 

within and using the features of a DLR. Several teachers suggested that the log-in process should be 

faster and directions should be simple to support student use. Teachers pointed out that navigating 

within DLRs may be challenging for young students, for students with little experience with computers, 

and for beginner-level EL students whose English proficiency limits their ability to understand DLR 

directions. In general, teachers suggested making it easy for EL students to get into the core of the DLR 

content or task, rather than requiring multiple logins and other navigational steps before they can begin 

their actual work. 

Several teachers and districts recommended that DLRs should be easy for teachers to use as well. For 

example, one recommendation was to make it faster and easier for a teacher to quickly “roster” a class 

of students into a DLR (i.e., as part of setting up a DLR for use, entering in the students who will be using 

the DLR). Another comment was that teachers could more easily work with a DLR if they had access to 

embedded general user support to guide them as users and offer instruction-related guidance, such as 

how to facilitate students’ work within the DLR. 

These examples offer insights into the earlier Chapter II findings on criteria in selecting DLRs. In those 

findings,21 the majority of districts reported considering ease of use for teachers, almost all teachers 

considered how easily students could use the DLR, and most teachers reported considering how easily 

they themselves could use the DLR. 

Develop DLRs with age-appropriate interfaces, especially for older newcomer EL

students and for very young students.

As noted earlier in this chapter, many respondents recommended appropriate grade-level content for 

older beginning level EL students. Several teachers had similar recommendations about the design of 

DLRs — their appearance and structure. A case study teacher noted that the type of illustration selected 

to visualize the meaning of a concept or new vocabulary word for a first or second grader can often be 

too juvenile for a middle school or high school student. Another teacher commented on the nature of 

the tasks given students: 

21 See Chapter II, Exhibit 7, showing that 66 percent of districts reported that when selecting DLRs they considered it very 

important that a DLR is easy for teachers to use; and see Exhibit 9, which presents the finding that 86 percent of teachers 

reported that whether a DLR is “easy for me to use” was very important for them in selecting DLRs. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

65

“Activities for high school students should be available without appearing ‘pre-schoolish’ 

even when simple letters, numbers, words need to be taught.”

Some teachers noted that DLRs do not always take into account the learners’ developmental level. For 

example, one teacher noted that DLRs for very young students should require use of only a mouse or 

other means more appropriate to the manual skills of young children, rather than requiring them to use 

a keyboard. A case study teacher commented that the DLR fonts sometimes were too small for young 

children. 

Provide DLRs that are free or less costly and that take into consideration 

limitations in funding.

DLR costs were a factor in many districts’ and teachers’ recommendations, and teachers often referred 

to limitations in district or school funding for DLRs. This recommendation is consistent with survey 

findings reported in Chapter IV that costs of purchasing DLRs and limited funds for DLRs were barriers.

22 

Enable teachers to monitor and students to track their progress.

Both districts and teachers referred to features that enable teachers and students to monitor and track 

students’ progress within a DLR. For example, a teacher commented:

“All students lose interest quickly if they do not see the progress they are making.” 

Recommendations Related to Professional Development and Training

Provide professional development and training for teachers on how to work with 

DLRs in their classroom instruction of EL students.

Several of the districts referred to their teachers’ needs for professional development and training 

related to using DLRs. A common theme among their recommendations was the need for training on 

how to use DLRs effectively in the classroom. Some specifically pointed out that their recommendations 

were directed toward educators and education policy-makers. Comments included: 

“[I have no recommendations] for the developer. Internal professional development

leaders within our district need to be able to coach teachers in a classroom setting to 

ensure the materials are being used as they were intended, especially assessment pieces 

for ELs.” 

“[Our district] requires professional development in this area, as [teachers] are not 

implementing DLRs comprehensively across the district. An overview of effective DLRs 

and how to best implement them in daily practice would be beneficial.” 

 

22See Chapter IV, Exhibit 29, which presents the finding that 75 percent of districts reported that insufficient funds for 

purchasing DLRs was a barrier to some extent or to a large extent to their use of DLRs; and see Exhibit 30, which shows that 

67 percent of teachers considered the costs of DLRs as a barrier to some extent or to a large extent to their use of DLRs in 

instructing EL students. 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

66

Some of the comments also referred to embedded professional development within DLRs as helpful: 

“[The DLR] resource should also offer on-demand professional development.” 

Incorporate hands-on training and coaching. 

Many of the teacher comments on how best to improve the usefulness of DLRs in instructing EL students 

referred to their needs for professional development and support. Teachers emphasized their need for 

hands-on training so that they can more fully understand how to incorporate DLR use in instructing their 

EL students. Comments included: 

“Many times when we have trainings, someone is talking the entire training. Most of us 

need hands-on training.” 

“There needs to be adequate time given not just to learn, but to implement any DLR, or 

anything else. Having a 30-minute or even a couple of hours of a lecture and someone 

demonstrating how to do something isn't very effective. We need training on how to use 

it and get to practice and discuss while the information is fresh.”

Structure professional development to focus on how to use DLRs to support EL 

students within general education classes.

The survey findings showed that most teachers reported engaging EL students in instruction using at 

least some general education DLRs. In the case study, several mainstream teachers described EL 

students working with the same general education DLRs as other students in the class. 

Recommendations pointed to teachers’ needs for guidance on using DLRs to support EL students’ in 

general education classroom instruction. The recommendation applies both to educators and 

educational technology developers. For example, an EL specialist stated: 

“Our administrators and technology support personnel are very good at finding and 

integrating the newest technology with our general education students but there is little 

to no support for our English learners. Teachers need to know not only what is out there 

but how to use it for our ELs and how to use it within the classroom while also 

addressing the 20+ other students in the room. Reaching our ELs without having to pull 

them from the general education classroom is very important.” 

Assist administrators and teachers to build awareness of the range of DLRs and 

how to select DLRs appropriate to their EL students.

Among the requests for professional development, several teachers described a need to know more 

about the range of DLRs available, how to select among them, and how to determine which are most 

appropriate for their EL students. For example, some teachers requested guidance in becoming aware of 

and selecting DLRs:

“I would like to attend more professional development about the different types of DLRs 

available to use with EL students instead of having to do a lot of online researching on 

my own.”
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

67

To assist administrators and teachers in considering the range of DLRs available, the study team 

developed and refined the Digital Learning Resources Matrix (Appendix E). The matrix defines the same 

three categories of DLRs introduced earlier: digital academic content tools, digital productivity tools, and 

digital communication tools. It outlines and offers some examples of the types of DLRs within each of 

the categories. The matrix may be a useful resource for educators to consider the range of DLRs 

available and to consider the differences and purposes among them. 

Additional Areas of Support That Teachers Request

Teachers also responded to a survey item that asked about areas in which they would appreciate 

additional support related to using DLRs with EL students. Half or more of the teachers indicated that 

they wanted additional professional development and support in several aspects of preparing to use 

DLRs in instructing EL students, including planning, understanding the range of DLRs available, planning 

for effective mixed use of DLRs with non-digital resources, and understanding criteria to use in selecting 

DLRs for EL students (Exhibit 31). EL specialists were more likely to express a desire for planning for 

effective mixed use of DLRs with non-digital resources (75 percent vs. 49 percent) (Exhibit C-20).

Exhibit 31. Percentage of teachers reporting areas in which they would appreciate more support

related to DLR use with EL students 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-eight percent of teachers of EL students reported that they would appreciate more support in 

planning instruction that uses DLRs effectively with EL students. 

Source: Teacher survey, item 38 (n = 679 teachers). 
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

68

First-year teachers were more likely than experienced teachers to indicate that they would appreciate 

more support in planning instruction that uses DLRs effectively (96 percent vs. 66 percent). However, 

first-year teachers were less likely than experienced teachers to respond that they would like more 

support in the area of planning for effective mixed use of DLRs and non-digital resources (30 percent vs. 

55 percent) (Exhibit C-21). There were no statistical differences between teachers by grade level.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

69

Chapter VI. Conclusion 

This study sought to understand the use of DLRs in instructing EL students. The study asked districts and 

teachers to report how they identify the DLRs they use with EL students, the types of DLRs used and 

what they perceive as supports for and barriers to using DLRs with EL students. The study also elicited 

perspectives on how educational technology developers and educators might improve the usefulness of 

DLRs for instructing EL students. 

District and teacher survey responses indicated widespread use of DLRs in school year 2016–17. Most 

districts reported placing a high priority on using DLRs and most teachers reported that they used DLRs 

in instructing their EL students. Both districts and teachers reported using a number of sources for 

identifying DLRs. Almost all districts reported that they used teacher requests or recommendations as 

sources for identifying DLRs for EL students and almost all teachers reported that they obtained 

recommendations from their fellow teachers, sometimes seeking out those they viewed as technology 

leaders in their school or district. However, many teachers — EL specialists in particular — reported 

receiving 10 or fewer hours of professional development related to DLR use over the three-year period 

of 2014–15 to 2016–17. Teachers requested additional professional development, including hands-on 

guidance and support in using DLRs and in using DLRs for instructing EL students specifically.

Districts and teachers reported using multiple types of DLRs, and the majority of teachers reported daily 

DLR use. Almost all teachers who reported using DLRs in instructing their EL students reported that at 

least some of those DLRs were designed for general education students. In case study interviews, some 

teachers commented that the general education DLRs they used sometimes included embedded 

supports, such as visual supports and translation features, that they felt could help their EL students to 

understand the DLR content and tasks. Districts and teachers recommended that DLRs be designed to 

include more supports for EL students to help them to engage in academic content and work with their 

peers while building language and literacy skills. 

Districts and teachers reported a range of barriers to DLR use for EL students, with student lack of access 

to DLRs at home being the most commonly reported barrier. Districts also pointed to lack of funding for 

DLRs, teachers’ need for expertise in instructing EL students, teachers’ level of technology skills, and lack 

of knowledge of DLRs for EL students. Key barriers reported by teachers included time needed to set up 

and to learn DLRs, DLR costs, and the lack of knowledge of available DLRs and how to choose among 

them. The need for greater access to technology equipment was also a theme that emerged in openended comments in the survey and in case study interviews. 

Study respondents offered suggestions on steps to improve DLRs and their use for instructing EL 

students. Their recommendations for educational technology developers addressed the content of DLRs, 

the types of embedded supports, and DLR design to improve implementation, such as ease of use, and 

designs appropriate to the ages and experience of the EL students. Recommendations for district 

leaders were to provide more access to DLRs and more opportunities to learn about DLRs and their 

instructional use with EL students — especially for use with EL students in general education settings.

Further research is needed to understand the efficacy of these recommendations and of practices in 

using DLRs when instructing EL students—including EL students with disabilities and their requirements 

for accessibility. The findings of such research could inform guidance for educators in selecting and using 

DLRs to better support learning for all EL students, as well as for students overall in grades K–12.
This page intentionally left blank.
Supporting English Learners through Technology: What Districts and 

Teachers Say about Digital Learning Resources for English Learners

71

References 

Batalova, Jeanne and Margie McHugh. 2010. Number and growth of students in US Schools in need of 

English instruction. ELL Information Center Fact Sheet Series. Migration Policy Institute (MPI): 

National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy: Washington, DC. Retrieved from 

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/number-and-growth-students-us-schools-needenglish-instruction-2009

Capps, Randolph, Michael Fix, Julie Murray, Jason Ost, Jeffrey Passel, and Shinta Herwantoro Hernandez. 

2005. The new demography of America's schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Gray, Lucinda, Nina Thomas, and Laurie Lewis. 2010a. Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 

2008 (NCES 2010–034). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Gray, Lucinda, Nina Thomas, and Laurie Lewis. 2010b. Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in 

U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2018. The Condition of Education 2018. Retrieved from 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA). 2017a. Profiles of English 

learners (ELs). Fast Facts, Author: Washington, DC. Retrieved from 

https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/05-19-2017/ProfilesOfELs_FastFacts.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, OELA. 2011. The growing numbers of English learner students: 2009–10. 

Author: Washington, DC. Retrieved from 

https://ncela.ed.gov/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. 2017b. Reimagining the Role of 

Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Washington, D.C., 

2017.

Zehler, Annette M., Yesim Yilmazel-Sahin, Lindsey Massoud, Sarah C. Moore, Chengbin Yin, and 

Kathryn Kramer. 2012, June. The implementation of technology for instruction of English learner 

students. Poster report presented at the meeting of the International Society for Technology in 

Education (ISTE), June 25, San Diego, CA.

Zehler, Annette M., Carolyn Adger, Cate Coburn, Igone Arteagoitia, Krystal Williams, and Louis Jacobson. 

2008. Preparing to serve English language learner students: School districts with emerging 

English language learner communities (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2008-No. 049). 

Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education.


The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov