English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature

Snyder, Elizabeth; Witmer, Sara E.; Schmitt, Heather

doi:10.1080/1045988x.2016.1219301

Cited by 17 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, ELLs are able to achieve their reading improvement regardless of the duration of intervention, where they received the reading intervention, and who taught them. This finding is similar to those discussed by Snyder et al. (2017) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Furthermore, reading is considered one of the major fundamental skills in modern society because it has a strong relationship with academic and vocational success beyond school-based learning ( Lesnick et al., 2010 ). In particular, for ELLs, language is one of the innate barriers; thereafter, reading is one of the most common and prominent difficulties in that it is not done in their native language ( Rawian and Mokhtar, 2017 ; Snyder et al., 2017 ). In this respect, several studies have investigated reading for ELLs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence-based reading interventions for English language learners: A multilevel meta-analysis

Cho

Kim

Jeong

2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of English Language Learners (ELLs) has been growing worldwide. ELLs are at risk for reading disabilities due to dual difficulties with linguistic and cultural factors. This raises the need for finding practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve their literacy development and English reading skills. The purpose of this study is to examine the evidence-based reading interventions for English Language Learners to identify the components that create the most effective and efficient interventions. This article reviewed literature published between January 2008 and March 2018 that examined the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. We analyzed the effect sizes of reading intervention programs for ELLs and explored the variables that affect reading interventions using a multilevel meta-analysis. We examined moderator variables such as student-related variables (grades, exceptionality, SES), measurement-related variables (standardization, reliability), intervention-related variables (contents of interventions, intervention types), and implementation-related variables (instructor, group size). The results showed medium effect sizes for interventions targeting basic reading skills for ELLs. Medium-size group interventions and strategy-embedded interventions were more important for ELLs who were at risk for reading disabilities. These findings suggested that we should consider the reading problems of ELLs and apply the Tier 2 approach for ELLs with reading problems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based reading interventions for English language learners: A multilevel meta-analysis

Cho

Kim

Jeong

2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important finding of this meta-analysis with practical implications is that the size of the effects did not vary according to the type of intervention (see Wanzek et al, 2016, for a similar finding with English-speaking children). Earlier reviews (e.g., August, McCardle, & Shanahan, 2014; Páez, Bock, & Pizzo, 2014; Snyder et al, 2017; see also August & Shanahan, 2006) have suggested that a wide range of interventions can have a positive effect on ELLs’ reading skills. Although the absence of a significant effect of type of intervention may be due to the small number of studies in each category (see Tables 1–3), it also suggests that multicomponential interventions (i.e., those targeting several literacy components) are not necessarily superior to those focusing on only phonological awareness, phonics, or vocabulary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two systematic reviews of studies with ELLs have also alluded to a rather positive effect of interventions (Shanahan & Beck, 2006; Snyder, Witmer, & Schmitt, 2017). Shanahan and Beck (2006) reviewed a small number of intervention studies ( n = 17) published prior to 2004.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of the relatively small effect of these intervention studies, August, Shanahan, and Escamilla (2009) further suggested that intervention modifications are needed in order to make the instructional components of these interventions (e.g., phonics, phonological awareness, fluency, and vocabulary) beneficial and relevant for ELLs. More recently, Snyder et al (2017) reviewed intervention studies ( n = 10) with large effect sizes that included phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension within their intervention components and outcome measures. Unfortunately, because Snyder et al excluded studies with small effect sizes, we do not know what the actual effect size of these interventions is (the effect size of the included studies was not reported, either).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Reading Interventions for English Language Learners Effective? A Meta-Analysis

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite concerted efforts to improve the reading skills of English language learners (ELLs), it remains unclear if the interventions they have been receiving produce any positive results. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine how effective reading interventions are in improving ELLs’ reading skills and what factors may influence their effectiveness. Twenty-six studies with reported outcomes for pretest and posttest were selected, and four moderators (group size, intensity of intervention, students’ risk status, and type of intervention) were coded. The results of random-effects analyses showed that the reading interventions had a large effect on ELLs’ reading accuracy ( d = 1.221) and reading fluency ( d = 0.802) and a moderate effect on reading comprehension ( d = 0.499). In addition, for real-word reading accuracy, intervention groups composed of more than five students were less effective than groups composed of two to five students, and longer intervention sessions were less effective than shorter ones. Overall, our findings suggest that reading interventions have positive effects on ELLs’ reading skills, and they should not be delayed until these students have reached a certain level of oral English proficiency.

show abstract