A systematic review of language and literacy interventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language (EAL)

Abstract

Objective: A synthesis of evidence discussing the effectiveness of language and literacy interventions in children with English as an additional language. Our key research questions were: 1) What intervention studies have been published since 2014 addressing the language and literacy development of children with English as an additional language? 2) What is the impact of those interventions? We sought to update a 2015 systematic review evaluating language and literacy outcomes for EAL children (Murphy & Unthiah, 2015) with current intervention studies and to see which of those interventions could be adapted for classrooms in the UK. Methods: Four databases were searched; PsychInfo, British Education Index, Education Resources Information Center and Web of Science. Only peer reviewed journal articles published between 2014 and 2017 and written in English were included. The population tested were children of school age with English as an Additional Language who were classed as typically developing. All interventions had language or literacy as an outcome. Data was extracted using a standardised form and quality was assessed through a risk of bias analysis. From this screening process, 26 studies were eligible for inclusion in the current review. Key Findings:  Explicit vocabulary instruction and targeted oral language practise yield language gains for EAL learners, with a tendency for larger intervention gains in learners with the lowest initial pre-test scores.  Shared reading interventions show positive effects when combined with the preteaching of vocabulary, embedded definitions into the text, or post-reading reinforcement activities.  Voice recognition software appears promising, as demonstrated in three interventions with small to medium effects on reading fluency and comprehension.  There is a lack of interventions taking place in the UK.  There is a lack of interventions for adolescents, especially those in upper secondary school (ages 14-18).  More interventions targeting continued professional development for teachers are recommended. Conclusions: Children with English as an additional language can benefit from targeted interventions. Suggestions are made as to how the most beneficial interventions could be replicated in the UK. Limitations: Limitations include a variability in terms of the rigour of intervention methodologies, leading to a high risk of bias and inconsistent effect sizes for several studies in this report. A proportion of successful interventions used the child's first language to aid learning. Such interventions might not be replicable in the UK, where classrooms typically feature children from a very large number of different home languages.

Examining cognitive, motivational and environmental factors that relate to reading performance for children with English as a first or additional language.

“…The regression analysis further confirmed the importance of phonological awareness and expressive vocabulary for word reading, supporting a body of existing research (e.g. Muter and Diethelm 2001;Oxley and de Cat 2019) but did not support the additional input of maternal education and the number of books available at home (van Bergen et al 2017). A possible explanation for this may be because the vast majority of children in the present sample were average or above readers; stronger relationships between the home environment and reading performance may be observed for poorer readers.…”

Effects of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension in children with English as an additional language

“…Vocabulary knowledge, or lack thereof, is a prominent issue in educational spheres 3 at present, which is welcomed. As previously mentioned, there is some evidence that vocabulary-based interventions can lead to improvements on literacy measures (Murphy & Unthiah, 2015;Oxley & De Cat, 2018). However, these studies will not have included multi-word units in their measures and interventions and we argue here that they should also be included as our research is clearly indicative of their importance.…”

“…This body of research in general indicates that many children with EAL require greater support in English vocabulary which would likely improve their reading comprehension. Indeed, a review of intervention studies aimed at improving EAL children's language and literacy has shown that vocabulary interventions can indeed improve children's reading comprehension skills (see Murphy & Unthiah, 2015;Oxley & De Cat, 2018). These interventions demonstrate then, that it is possible to support the development of vocabulary knowledge in children with EAL through appropriate pedagogy, which, in turn, can have a positive impact on reading comprehension.…”

“…Multi-word expressions can be interpreted literally while the figurative, intended meanings are less/not activated (Cieślicka, 2006), leading to further weaknesses in this particular area. The interventions reviewed in Murphy and Unthiah (2015) and Oxley and De Cat (2018) did not include multi-word units. Indeed, little research has been carried out examining the multi-word vocabulary knowledge of children with EAL apart from a few notable exceptions.…”

Evaluation of an explicit vocabulary teaching intervention for children learning English as an additional language in primary school

“…Recent reviews indicate a lack of oral language interventions for EAL learners in the UK (Murphy and Unthiah, 2015; Oxley and de Cat, 2019). Despite this, a small number of studies do offer promise for oral language and vocabulary intervention with very young EAL learners in England.…”