Breakthroughs & Heresies:

Emerging Scholarship in ESL/Bilingual Education

MDE ESL, Bilingual & Migrant ConferenceBreakout Session, May 4, 2012

John WolfeMPS Multilingual Department

john.wolfe@mpls.k12.mn.us

http://mplsesl.wikispaces.com/Breakthroughs+and+Heresies

Joan of Arc

Archimedes

Epigraphs for the Session

This life is not good but in danger and in joy. 

(John Crowe Ransome,

“Old Man Playing With Children”)

I am no man;I am dynamite. 

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

The

List …

Breakthroughs & Heresies: From Good News to Curious/Troubling News 1. The Next Big Thing

John Hattie's incredibly powerful meta-analyses of factors that affect learning, and more.

o Hattie on TV o Hattie on Parental Involvement o Hattie on Moving o Hattie’s list of things

John Hattie’s Visible Learning for Teachers: “Know thy impact.”

2. Developmental Progressions

WIDA Dutro Chesterton on strategies

3. Time studies (How Long) http://www.lao.ca.gov/2004/english_learners/02

1204_english_learners.htm Genessee on oral language plateau

4. Emerging Consensus on the Need for ELD:

Saunders/Goldberg Hakuta Dutro

5. Two Amazing Tech Tools: Speed-variable standard media players Language Exchange

6. The Next Big Controversy: Decontextualized Vocabulary Study Pro

2009 - Laufer University of Haifa, Israel (2009, The Language Teacher)

2008 – Mehrpour. A Comparison of the Effects of two Vocabulary Teaching Techniques

2005 Horst, 2005, “Expanding Academic Vocabulary)

2007 Webb, Learning word pairs and glossed sentences:

Con

2007 - A Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn

One provocative finding from the NRP report is that students acquire vocabulary best when it is used in meaningful, authentic contexts; indeed, they are less able to remember words that are presented in isolated formats, such as lists.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findin

gs.cfm Early Childhood Educ J (2011) 38:421–429 Supporting Young Children’s Vocabulary Growth:

The Challenges, the Benefits, and Evidence-Based Strategies (Mary Renck Jalongo • Michelle J. Sobolak)

report of the subgroup chapter 4 on vocabulary 7. Oral Interaction

Genessee 2005 Saunders/Goldberg Kinsella

8. Good Summary Effective Practices for Teaching English Language Learners: A Resource Document for North Carolina’s ELL Work Group (2009) | “supports for ELs in English Only Settings” 9. A Bilingual Reading Assessment 2005 Brisk (International Handbook) Renaissance Learning 10. Something everyone should read

Langner BTO (2001) 11. Huh.

Narrowing the. Language Gap:. The Case for Explicit. Vocabulary Instruction. By. Kevin Feldman. & Kate Kinsella

2011 Effects of Lexical & Syntactic complexity 12. An Interesting Moment in Socio-cultural Factors

August & Shanahan 2006 Hakuta & Hattie

13. Co-Teaching

including Kenji Hakuta's study of collaborative ESL teaching the California schools, (Hakuta / Zehr)

14. The Big Break in Bilingual Scholarship

Slavin and Calderon's massive longitudinal study of transitional bilingual education,

A Powerful Description of What We’re Doing Wrong (and how to do it right) WestEd, 2010, “What Are We Doing to Middle School” http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rstudy/63

John HattieVisible Learning (2008) “Teaching’s Holy Grail”

Visible Learning for Teachers (2011) – What’s better than a Grail?

Examples from Visible Learning

On TV (d = -0.18)

On Parental Involvement (d = 0.51)

On Mobility (d=-0.34)

Visible Learning for Teachers: “Know thy Impact.”

Key Sentence:My role, as teacher, is to evaluate the effect I have on my students. It is to 'know thy impact', it is to understand this impact, and it is to act on this knowing and understanding.

Fundamentally, the most powerful way of thinking about a teacher's role is for teachers to see themselves as evaluators of their effects on students.

2. Developmental Progressions AAll progress monitoring is based on a “developmental progression” – a theory or model of how the learning should develop over time. (Think of Terell & Krashen’s “Natural Order Hypothesis.” We now have three of these Developmental Progressions.

WIDA Criteria for Performance Definitions Linguistic Complexity: The amount and quality of speech or writing for a given situation Vocabulary Usage: The specificity of words or phrases for a given context Language Control: The comprehensibility of the communication based on the amount and type of

errors (Alternatively, how free vs. constrained the language presented to the student should to make comprehension more possible.)

1 – Entering 2 – Emerging 3 – Developing 4 – Expanding 5 – Bridging

Linguistic Complexity Single words Phrases, short

sentences Series of related

sentences Moderate discourse

Complex discourse

Vocabulary Usage

Most common

vocabulary High frequency

vocabulary General and some specific

vocabulary

Specialized and some technical

vocabulary

Specialized and

technical vocabulary

Language Control

Memorized language

Language w/errors inhibiting

communication

Meaning overrides

communication errors

Language w/minimal

errors

Language comparable to English

peers For each activity in an instructional sequence, you should ask the qestion: “Is this appropriate to my English Learners’ Language Proficiency Level? Do the Performance Definitions suggest they’ll be able to handle the language demands of the activity? If not, what modifications or supports to instruction must I make?

Battle of the Mnemonics

CI VI C SLAVI C Complexity Vocabulary Control

Speech Length Vocabulary Correctness/ Control

A key to delivering appropriate instruction to English Language learners is the Performance Definitions f or each WI DA Level. Essentially, WI DA defines “proficiency” as the ability to handle increasingly demanding linguistic tasks. Those demands are characterized by three aspects of the language:

length of the speech (f rom “single words” to “extended discourse.”)

vocabulary (f rom “most common” to “specialized & technical”)

correctness or control (f rom “errors inhibit meaning” to almost perf ect)

I like the mnemonic SLaViC because it’s easier to remember what each category actually ref ers to. Which do you

Ouida, 19th Century British novelist, who spent her career writing in bed, by candlelight, with the curtains drawn and surrounded by purple flowers

Development Progression B: Susana Dutro’s ELD Matrix of Grammatical Forms Beginning Early Intermediate Intermediate Early Advanced Advanced

DES

CRIB

ING

ACTI

ON

S &

STA

TES

OF

BEIN

G: V

ERBS

Understand and begin to produce the following verbs for observable actions and descriptions:

Present tense • be • have • like • need • want

Respond to routine can and do questions with an action or orally (yes/no, single word) Can I help you? Do you need a ___? Can a bird fly? Does a square have three sides?

Present progressive statements Ex: walking, Is reading, She is running.

Imperative (receptive) Ex: point to, pick up, stand up

Auxiliary Uses can in simple statements with concrete verbs: She can read. Birds can fly.

Learn to understand and produce for observable actions and descriptions: Present tense Including: be, do, have, need, see, know run, draw, make (I like my dog, She likes cats. He is a boy. I have two sisters.) Present progressive statements & questions Ex: play, read, work, eat, drink (She is laughing. Is she reading?) Past progressive statements & questions was, were (Ex: was walking, were walking) Routine statements & questions using who, what, where, when and how. (What is your name? What can a dog do? A dog can bark. How old are you? How are you? Where is ___? I like baseball. She is my sister.) Statements and questions with there is and there are Future tense statements and questions going to, will Imperatives such as: Please be quiet. Play soccer with me. Bring your book. Auxiliary do, and can in routine questions and statements. (Do you have/need a pencil? How do you spell your name? Can you see the board? Yes, I can. Can you help me? I can help you. May I go to the bathroom?

Learn to understand and produce regular & irregular past tense verbs in: ! Positive/negative statements Ex: lived,

walked, went, did not live, did not go (He talked on the phone. She saw her friend yesterday.) !

Positive/negative question Ex: were/weren’t, did/didn’t, could/couldn’t, was/wasn’t

Negative present and past progressive Ex: was/were not, were not walking

Contractions Ex: I'm, she’s, I’ll, we’ll, can't, wasn’t, weren’t, isn’t

Present perfect tense with routine statements and questions have/ has + past participle: (She has been in my group since November.)

Formulating Questions (past, present, future) with who, what, where, when, how many, how much, why (How much is it?) Formulating above questions with do and does (How much does it cost?)

Statements and questions with there was and there were

Imperatives such as: Stop doing that, please. Let’s play soccer now.

Auxiliary verbs may, might, must, should, could, would (You should study. I might be late. We could divide by 5. Would you…?)

Exclamations such as: What a great idea! That’s not fair.

Simple idioms such as: Give me a break. It's raining cats and dogs.

Learn to understand and produce verb tenses appropriate to the situation:

Present & past perfect have/has/had + past participle

Positive/negative statements: I have studied ballet since I was six. Kennedy hadn't been president long.

Questions How long have you___?

Phrasal verbs Turn on the light. Turn the light on. Clear your desks off. Clear off your desks.

Statements and questions with there will be/there has been

Conditional statements and questions using if and auxiliary verbs would, will, may, might, must, can could, should (If we see a brown bear, we will not feed him. We can make it to the show if we leave now. If we left now, we would be on time. If you don’t…)

Synonyms Ex: responded/cried; stroll/ hike/march

Exclamations such as: You have got to be kidding! That’s unbelievable!

Less obvious idioms such as: Hit the ceiling, scared silly, lend me a hand

Learn to understand and produce verb tenses appropriate to the situation:

Progressive, future and conditional perfect tenses She has been studying. She will have been studying, If she had studied, she would have done better.

Phrasal verbs with multiple meanings (often idiomatic) Ex: make up (your mind, a story, the class, your face, with a friend).

Passive voice It was written by..., This picture of a grizzly bear was taken by my grandfather.

Conditional statements using unless: Unless I turn in my essay, I won’t be able to go to recess.

Auxiliary: ought, will/shall (We ought to check in the book.) Prefer to/would rather

Exclamation such as: That’s beyond belief!

DevProg C: A Possible Supplement to ELD Instruction Second Language Communication Strategies

Second language Communication Strategies (Chesterfield and Chesterfield, 1985) performed in a hierarchical order:

1. repetition,

2. memorization,

3. formulaic expression,

4. verbal attention getter,

5. answer in unison,

6. talk to self,

7. elaboration,

8. anticipatory answer,

9. monitoring,

10. appeal for assistance,

11. request for clarification, and

12. role play

According to the Chesterfield’s, these communication and cognitive strategies emerge in a natural and hierarchical – so use of any of the later skills assumes mastery of the earlier skills. The question for language teachers is this: Would students benefit from the explicit teaching of these strategies? If these are increasingly complex and powerful language learning and communication strategies, why not make students aware of them and guide them in practice of these strategies? Would this be another focus of pull-out ELD classes – something that would be appropriate to an ELL class setting that wouldn’t be as appropriate in a mainstream classroom? How does this relate to other research or practitioner literature on strategy instruction – Pressley or Rebecca Oxford or Tim Murphey?

3. Time Studies:

How Long Does It Take?

From Genessee (2005)

Development of L2 Oral Proficiency Over Time

(From Genesee, Fred, “English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An Overview of Research Findings,” Fred Genesee, JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS PLACED AT RISK, 2005:10(4), 363–385)

English L2 oral proficiency develops over time (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Medina & Escamilla, 1992; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Weslander & Stephany, 1983). The rate at which ELLs achieve advanced levels of oral language proficiency in English is of considerable interest, at least in part because of the long-standing policy debate about how long ELLs should receive federally funded services. Current evidence suggests ELLs typically require 3 to 5 years to achieve advanced proficiency in oral English. Progress from beginning to middle levels of proficiency is relatively rapid, but progress from

middle to upper levels of proficiency is slower. For example, in one study, cross-sectional analysis of ELLs in an all-English program (Hakuta et al., 2000) found mean levels of oral proficiency increased from 1.75 to 4.35 to 4.80 in Grades 1, 3, and 5, respectively (scale = 1–5; total N = 1,875). Results from other studies (Howard et al., 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas& Collier, 2002) show a similar pattern across Grades 1 through 5. This same pattern was obtained regardless of whether students participated in bilingual or all-English programs. In fact, the overall pattern of development of oral proficiency is consistent for ELLs learning English and for native English speakers learning Spanish in two-way bilingual programs.

3. Time Studies: California Legislative Office (2004)

4. Emerging Consensus on the

Need for ELDSaunders & Goldberg, 2010from Improving Education for English Learners: Research Based Approaches

From Saunders, W. and Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction. In Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches (pp. 21-81). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

From Key Phrase Guideline Guidelines Based on Relatively Strong Supporting Evidence from English Learner Research

1. Teach ELD! 1. Providing ELD instruction is better than not providing it.

2. Planned Interactive Activities.

2. ELD instruction should include interactive activities among students, but they must be carefully planned and carried out.

3. Devote time! 3. A separate block of time should be devoted daily to ELD instruction.

4. Listening & speaking. 4. ELD instruction should emphasize listening and speaking although it can incorporate reading and writing.

5. Elements of English. 5. ELD instruction should explicitly teach elements of English (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, grammar, functions, and conventions.).

6. Meaning AND ELD 6. ELD instruction should integrate meaning and communication to support explicit teaching of language.

7. Corrective Feedback. 7. ELD instruction should provide students with corrective feedback on form.

Guidelines Based on Hypotheses Emerging from Recent English Learner Research

8. Maximize English. (Use L1 strategically)

8. Use of English should be maximized during ELD instruction, the primary language should be used strategically.

9. Teach Strategies for Language Learning & Communication.

9. Teachers should attend to communication and language learning strategies and incorporate them into ELD instruction

10. Academic Language. 10. ELD instruction should emphasize academic language as well as conversational language.

11. ELD UNTIL Level 4 or 5.

11. ELD instruction should continue at least until students reach level 4 (early advanced) and possibly through level 5 (advanced).

Guidelines Based on Hypotheses Emerging from Recent English Learner Research

12. Language Objectives. 12. ELD instruction should be planned and delivered with specific language objectives in mind.

13. ELD = Proficiency Groups | Other times = mixed

13. English learners should be carefully grouped by language proficiency for ELD instruction; for other portions of the school day they should be in mixed classrooms and not in classrooms segregated by language proficiency.

14. Prioritize ELD! 14. The likelihood of establishing and/or sustaining an effective ELD instructional program increases when schools and districts make it a priority.

Susana Dutro

EdSo

urce

, Sta

nfor

d Co

llege

of E

d, K

enji

Haku

ta (2

007)

, “Si

mila

r Eng

lish

Lear

ners

, Di

ffere

nt R

esul

ts”

A Large-Scale Regression Analysis Support for Pull-Out English Language Development

EdSource (with Stanford’s Kenji Hakuta as Principal Investigator) includes some interesting points about co-teaching in the WestEd 2007 Report of Findings on the “Similar English Learner Students, Different Results” study [http://www.ewa.org/docs/edsource_findings_ell.pdf ] The study is based on results of the 2006 California EL-API (English Learner – Academic Performance Index). The researchers focused on the results from 257 high-English Learner

schools that ranked in the lower to middle-lower income range (25th-35th percentile on a socioeconomic scale). The research team administered an extensive questionnaire about practices, beliefs and school cultures to the administration and staff of the schools. They got upwards of an 80% response rate on this 60-item, 500-question survey.) They then correlated the survey results about what the schools were doing with the hard data from the EL-API. (In other words, information about beliefs, practices and school cultures were informed by self-reported data, but student performance data was based on a statewide standardized test of academic performance.) The researchers then did a regression analysis to determine the various effect strength of the differences between the schools. In the discussion, the authors note one surprising result:

Also more positively correlated with higher EL-API was response by a school’s teachers that explicit English Language Development instruction was delivered to the teacher’s EL students through a pull out program (e.g. resource teacher). This same relationship was found for other outcome variables as well, including a higher weighted mean scale score by EL students and a higher percentage of EL students scoring proficient on the English language arts portion of the California Standards Test.

And again on page 19:

Negatively and significantly correlated with AMAO 1 and 2 [i.e., proportion of students approaching proficiency and proportion of students achieving proficiency] were strong school-level teacher responses that explicit ELD instruction was delivered to EL students by the classroom teacher herself, or by ELD level through teacher teaming.

And finally, on page 20, the report attempts to account for these findings:

It is reasonable to speculate that when ELD is delivered by a highly qualified specialist in a pull-out program, the classroom teacher is able to better focus his or her energy on teaching the core academic curriculum. In these schools, EL students might be benefiting from having that division of labor and expertise among teachers. That theory is further bolstered by the fact that schools using pull-out programs for ELD are among those with higher EL–API scores, which indicates that the EL students are benefiting from standards-based academic instruction. Over the years, researchers and advocates for EL students have expressed legitimate concern about the use of pull-out programs as these often resulted in EL students being removed from class when core curriculum was being taught. Our study may indicate that schools using pull out programs with a resource teacher for ELD are doing so without reducing EL students’ access to the core curriculum. That may help explain why their students are scoring higher on the ELA section of the CSTs and why they have higher school EL–API scores.

It’s just one analysis (though admittedly based on a large data sample), but given the relative scarcity of any research base on push-in and co-teaching in ESL – combined with many Districts’ rush to implement the approach – it’s surprising that it’s not better known.

5. The Next Big Controversy: Decontextualized Vocabulary Study Pro

2009 - Laufer University of Haifa, Israel (2009, The Language Teacher)

2008 – Mehrpour. A Comparison of the Effects of two Vocabulary Teaching Techniques

2005 Horst, 2005, “Expanding Academic Vocabulary)

2007 Webb, Learning word pairs and glossed sentences

Con 2007 - A Vocabulary

assessment: What we know and what we need to learn

One provocative finding from the NRP report is that students acquire vocabulary best when it is used in meaningful, authentic contexts; indeed, they are less able to remember words that are presented in isolated formats, such as lists.

Supporting Young Children’s Vocabulary Growth: The Challenges, the Benefits, and Evidence-Based Strategies (Mary Renck Jalongo • Michelle J. Sobolak)

Non-Committal: The 2000 National Reading Panel Subcommittee on Vocabulary Instruction 5. The Next Big Controversy: Decontextualized Vocabulary Study

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.cfm

report of the subgroup chapter 4 on vocabulary

Despite the anti-decontextualists’ claims otherwise. I think. It’s a fascinating moment.

My advice: Invest your pension in a flashcard factory … vocabulary self-study is coming back.

Feldman & Kinsella on What Doesn’t Work in Vocabulary Instruction (2005)

Deriving Meaning from Context Clues

[W]hile essential for long-term vocabulary growth, incidental learning from context is at best an inefficient and unpredictable process. Research indicates the odds of deriving the intended meaning of an unknown word from written context is, unfortunately,

extremely low, varying from 5% to 15% for both native speakers and English language learners (Beck et al. 2002; Nagy et al. 1985).

The Problem with Dictionaries

When developing a classroom dictionary, lexicographers strive to

conserve space in order to include as many entries as possible. Therefore, definitions are customarily crafted to be precise and concise, ironically omitting the very components that often are most critical to grasping the meaning of a new word: an accessible explanation using familiar language and an age-appropriate example that is relevant to children’s own experiences.

7. Oral InteractionFred Genessee et al., 2005, “English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An Overview of Research Findings” [The effects of classroom speaking activities] can vary as a function of ELLs’ level of language proficiency and with whom they interact in English. Less proficient students might benefit more than more proficient ELLs from increased interactions in English, specifically with their teacher s rather than from increased inter actions with their peers (Chester field et al., 1983). A similarly qualified assessment of language use effects comes from studies of paired and small group activities that integrate ELLs and English-proficient students. Most programs for ELLs incorporate some provision for the integration or mixing of ELLs and native or fluent English speakers (Genesee, 1999). The assumption is that such integration, aside from its potential social benefits, provides ELLs with worthwhile language learning opportunities. The evidence, however, suggests that creating such opportunities and producing positive oral language outcomes involves more than simply pairing ELLs with native or fluent English speaker s. Careful consideration must be given to the design of the tasks that students engage in, the training of non-ELLs who interact with ELLs, and the language proficiency of the ELLs themselves (August, 1987; Johnson, 1983; Peck, 1987). If careful attention is not paid to these factor s, “mixing” activities tend not to yield language learning opportunities at all (Cathcart-Strong, 1986; Jacob, Rottenberg, Patrick, & Wheeler, 1996).

Essentialness & Output in Effective Speaking Tasks

Essentialness has to do with the extent to which the targeted language form is essential to the task the group is trying to complete:

• Does successful completion of the task require or is it at least facilitated by correct oral comprehension or production of the meaning of certain target words (e.g., modes of transportation: cars, trucks, trains, etc.) or language constructions (e.g., if-then, before-after)?

• Keck et al. found that tasks whose successful completion either required or was facilitated by accurate use of the targeted language form produced stronger learning outcomes than tasks that didn't require or weren't facilitated by correct use of the language form. Interestingly, tasks that required and tasks that were facilitated by accurate use produced fairly similar effects on immediate posttest; however, tasks that required accurate use produced much stronger effects on delayed posttests than tasks that were facilitated by accurate use.

From Chapter 2, Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction. (William Saunders, UCLA and Pearson Achievement Solutions, and Claude Goldenberg, Stanford University), 11/19/08

From 2009, “Effective Practices for Teaching English Language Learners: A Resource Document for North Carolina’s ELL Work Group”

8. Supporting ELLs in English-Only Academic Settings One program model used to teach ELLs is instruction in an English-only classroom. Specific strategies

reported in the literature that support ELLs in that setting include the following:

Predictable and consistent classroom management routines, aided by diagrams, lists, and easy-to-read schedules on the board or on charts, to which the teacher refers frequently

Graphic organizers that make content and the relationships among concepts and different lesson elements visually explicit

Additional time and opportunities for practice, either during the school day, after school, or for homework

Redundant key information (e.g., visual cues, pictures, and physical gestures about lesson content and classroom procedures)

Identifying, highlighting, and clarifying difficult words and passages within texts to facilitate comprehension and emphasize vocabulary development

Helping students consolidate text knowledge by having the teacher, other students, and ELLs themselves summarize and paraphrase

Giving ELLs extra practice in reading words, sentences, and stories in order to build automaticity and fluency

Providing opportunities for extended interactions with teacher and peers

Adjusting instruction (teacher vocabulary, rate of speech, sentence complexity, and expectations for student language production) according to ELLs’ oral English proficiency

Targeting both content and English language objectives in every lesson (Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2008)

9. Two Great Tech Tools• Mylanguageexchnage.com• Variable speed function on all Media

Players 10. A Bilingual Reading Assessment• Brisk, 2005, • Star Reading Computer Test in Spanish 11. Something everyone should read• Langner BTO (2001)

2006, “Executive Summary, Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan)

There is surprisingly little evidence for the impact of sociocultural variables on literacy achievement or development. However, home language experiences can have a positive impact on literacy achievement.

The panel investigated the effects of six sociocultural factors on literacy achievement and development:

immigration status; discourse/interactional characteristics; other sociocultural factors;

parents and family influences; district, state, and federal policies; and language status or prestige.

With some exceptions, there is little evidence for gauging the impact of most of these factors. However, this does not mean that these factors have no impact. Rather, this finding reflects a shortcoming in the research, with studies tending to be descriptive rather than documenting empirical links between sociocultural factors and student outcomes, broadly defined.

The research does suggest that bridging home–school differences in interaction patterns or styles can enhance students’ engagement, motivation, and participation in classroom instruction. This finding is not trivial, but it is still important to determine if bridging home–school differences consequently improves literacy achievement or development.

The research also suggests that students perform better when they read or use material that is in the language they know better. Culturally meaningful or familiar reading material also appears to facilitate comprehension, but this is a relatively weak predictor of reading comprehension compared to the language of the material and students’ proficiency in that language.

Overall, student performance in literacy is more likely to be the result of home (and school) language and literacy learning opportunities. The research supports three findings about the role of home language for English-language learners’ literacy achievement in English:

• First, language-minority parents express willingness—and often have the ability—to help their children succeed academically. For various reasons, however, schools underestimate and underutilize parents’ interest, motivation, and potential contributions.

• Second, more home literacy experiences and opportunities are associated with superior literacy outcomes, although findings in this regard are inconsistent and precise conclusions are difficult to find. Measures of parent and family literacy often predict children’s literacy attainment, but two studies found that parents’ reading behavior is unrelated to children’s literacy outcomes. Features of family life, such as domestic workload and religious activities, appear to influence the value children place on reading and their concepts of themselves as readers. Parent education is associated with children’s literacy outcomes as well.

• Third, the relationship between home language use and literacy achievement in English is unclear. In general, home experiences with the first and second languages are positively (but modestly) correlated with literacy achievement in the first and second languages, but negatively (and also modestly) correlated with literacy achievement in the second language. Four studies countered this generalization, however. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to make policy and practice recommendations about home language use.

12. An Interesting Moment in Socio-cultural Factors

Also Hakuta (2007)Also Hattie (2009)

13. Co-Teaching Has No Empirical Support including Kenji Hakuta's study of collaborative ESL teaching the California schools, (Hakuta / Zehr) 14. The Big Break in Bilingual ScholarshipSlavin and Calderon's massive longitudinal study of transitional bilingual education, 15.A Powerful Description of What We’re Doing Wrong (and how to do it right)WestEd, 2010, “What Are We Doing to Middle School”http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rstudy/63