This chapter summarizes research on teaching literacy skills to English language learners (ELLs). It reviews studies on instructional approaches (direct, interactive, process-based), language of instruction, home factors, and assessment. The research shows that a combination of direct and interactive instruction is most effective. Using students' first language does not impede second language development. Factors like socioeconomic status, home literacy resources, and parents' aspirations also influence literacy. Assessments of ELLs need to be in both languages and account for cultural and linguistic diversity.

1. Ch. 4 Literacy
by Genesee & Riches
Ellie Gordy & Joseph Pizano

2. INTRODUCTION
Literacy skills are the foundation of education and
without them children cannot function in school and beyond.
Chapter focuses on research studies teaching
ELLs reading and writing skills.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Research Reviews Four
Instructional Topics
Instructional Approaches
Language of Instruction
Family and Community
Assessment

3. 1.DIRECT INSTRUCTION –
THREE
INSTRUCTIONAL
APPROACHES
All three instructional
approaches interact with one
another on a continuum.
Most of the studies
examined teaching
methods, strategies,
techniques promoting
reading development of
Hispanic ELLs in
elementary schools.
10 Studies
Teaching specific skills in reading and
writing.
2. INTERACTIVE INSTRUCTION –
15 Studies
Interactions with teacher, students
parents using interactive strategies &
skill methods.
3. PROCESS-BASED INSTRUCTION –
10 Studies
Learning through induction & using
written language for communication
of self-expression using journals, free
writing/reading, literature logs.
Individual or group activity.

4. Summary of Some Direct
Instruction Studies
(Focused on reading not writing)
10 Studies – Hispanic ELLs – Mostly Elementary Schools
Some Instructional
Methods Used in Studies
Keyword method for new English
vocabulary enhances reading and
writing (Avila & Sadoski, 1996)
Brainstorming and clustering to enhance
reading comprehension(Bermudez & Prater , 1990)
Sheltered Instruction SIOP –
language production & writing(Echevaria
et al., 2003)
Modeling, Monitoring, Checklist –
reading comprehension (Hernandez , 1991)
Auditory discrimination with sounds
in English for decoding skills (Kramer, et
al., 1983)
Cloze Texts – comprehension of
unknown words (Kucer, 1992)
Some Outcome & Results
Cued recall of new vocabulary(Avila &
Sadoski, 1996)
Comprehension & retention of
stories English and Spanish (Bermudez &
Prater , 1990)
Writing: fluency, elaboration and
organization (Echevaria et al., 2003)
Evidence of transfer of skills
between languages (Hernandez, 1991)
Students used clozed-based
strategies but did not always
understand purposes of
instruction (Kucer, 1992)

5. Bermudez & Prater (1990) Study
Direct Instruction of Writing Performance
Grades 3 & 4 Hispanic ELLs, Low SES
Assessment of Fluency Elaboration & Organization of Skills
TREATMENT GROUP
Teacher assisted
*Basal readers used
*Brainstorming & clustering of
ideas about stories
*Paragraph written on stories
*Higher scores on elaboration
of ideas
*No difference – writing
fluency, organization &
comprehension
CONTROL GROUP
Teacher led
*Basal readers used
*Discussion based on
questions from reader
*Paragraph written on stories
*Lower score on elaboration
of ideas
*No difference – writing
fluency, organization &
comprehension

6. Summary of Some
Interactive Instruction Studies
15 Studies Cited - Most Elementary Schools
Hispanics, Chinese, Native American ELLs
Instructional Methods
Used in Some Studies
Reciprocal teaching with cross
age tutoring of reading
comprehension (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996)
Literature Circles (Martinez, et al, 2000)
Shared Reading (Native Am., Hispanics) (Fayden,
1997)
Reading audiotaped paired
reading (Chinese ELL ) (Li & Nes, 2001)
Home-repeated reading with
audio model (Blume, et al, 1995)
Keyword & listening preview
methods (Rosseau & Tam, 1993)
Measures & Results
Of Some Studies
Gains in pre/post tests in
vocabulary (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996)
Children engaged in literature
reading & discussion (Martinez, et al, 2000)
Examined text level reading
comprehension (Fayden, 1997)
Improvement on reading fluency
and accuracy (Li & Nes, 2001) (Blume, et al.,
1995)
Keyword method more effective
than preview method (Rosseau & Tam,
1993)

7. Interactive Instruction Approach
Promotes reading & writing proficiency
Hispanic ELLs in Elementary school
Cummins ,(1984), Slavin,
(1995), Tharp, (1997)
Study Summary:
Learners engaged in literacy
activities with teachers, peers,
parents
Individualized guided instruction
corresponds to zone of proximal
development
Relevant to ELL’s because of
diverse sociocultural & home
backgrounds of students
Collaborative participation and
observation of adult models
Blum et al. (1995)
Study Summary:
Home based repeated reading
with audio model
Oral reading fluency with selfmonitoring
All students showed improved
reading fluency and accuracy
over time

8. Summary of Some
Process Instructional Studies
Cited 10 Studies
Hispanic ELLs low SES, Bilinguals, Mostly Elementary
Instructional Methods
Used in Studies
Transitional whole language
bilingual class (Kucer & Silva, 1999)
Literature circles (Martinez, et al, 2000)
Whole language (Kuball & Peck, 1997)
Dialogue journals & literature
logs to promote writing (de la Luz
Reyes, 1991)
Some Outcomes & Results
Significant gains in reading, no
gains in writing (Kucer & Silva, 1999)
Students engaged in rich
discussion of literature (Martinez,
et al, 2000)
Writings improved over 1 year
in composition & graphophonemic skills (Kuball & Peck,
1997)
Some ELLs attempted to write
in English before they had
complete control of English,
and development of complex
ideas & construction suffered
(de la Luz Reyes, 1991)

9. Researches call for a balanced
combined approach,
incorporate direct and
interactive instruction to
promote reading/writing skills.
Researchers who examined
process approach literacy
classes agree that exposing
ELLs to literacy rich
environments alone is not
sufficient to promote
acquisition of specific skills.
Advantages for ELL’s:
*Contributes to student mastery of literacy-related
skills
*Motives responsive reading & creative writing
*Encourages voluntary reading & writing
*Expands the learner’s reading & writing interest
*Helps ELL’s discover their own connections to
literature
*Evidence of transfer of skills from L1 to L2
*Significant gains in comprehension, reading, spelling
and vocabulary

10. Summary of Some
Studies on Language of Instruction
14 Studies Cited – Cherokee & Hispanic ELLs
Comparative Studies of ELLs receiving instruction in primary
grades in only English to that of ELLs in their L1 and English.
Studies compare ELLs in bilingual programs to that of
native English speakers to see if ELLs achieve parity with
native English speakers.
Majority of studies used standardized tests.
Research assessed the impact of instruction through the L1
vs. instruction through English alone.

11. Language of Instruction Studies
14 Studies Cited
Cherokee, Hispanic ELLs, Low SES, Elementary
Similar Results in Studies
Some ELLs have challenges of
acquiring societal language for
academic skills & knowledge and
adapting to new environments.
ELLs receiving bilingual
instruction demonstrated
superior reading performance
after many years in program.
L2 reading acquisition is
facilitated if instruction is
provided in the L1 to transfer
skills in reading and writing.
Howard et al (2004)
Longitudinal Study
*Hispanic ELLs and English L1
students in two-way immersion
from grades 3 to 5
*ELLs received initial reading in
Spanish
*Results – found that both ELLs
and English L1 students improved
significantly in English reading
and writing from grades 3 to 5.

12. Home Factors
Home Factors Include:
SES
Home Language
Books At Home
Home Literacy Practice
Parent's Values and Aspirations
Home-Base Factors (schoolinitiated intervention)

13. Overview
Relevance
"...ELLs are at-risk for reading
failure or difficulty because of
their lack of exposure to or
engagement in literacy outside
school." (page 131)
Provide resources for literacy
development by involving the
community and parents.
Variables
SES:
Free-Lunch Eligibility
Home Literacy Practices and
Resources:
Literacy Skills of Parent
Availability and Use of Books

14. SES and Literacy Development
Kennedy and Parker (1994)
Buriel and Cardoza (1988)
Study: Grade 8 Asian and
Mexican American ELLs
Reese et al. (2000)
Study: Grade 7 Latino students
Findings:"...significant
correlation between SES and the
standardized reading test scores
for middle-school ELLs" (page
132)
Study: Grade 9 1st and 2nd
generation Mexican American
ELLs
Findings: SES does not impact
English reading and vocabulary
test scores. Rather personal
aspirations better indicated test
results for 1st and 2nd
generation ELLs.

15. Home Related Factors and Literacy
Development
Pucci and Ulanoff (1998)
Students: Grade 4 Hispanic
Findings: proficient ELL readers
had (1) more books at home,
(2) enjoyed reading more, and
(3) felt more proficient in L2
than their less proficient
counterparts.
Blum et al. (1995)
Home-Based Literacy Practices
Blum et al. (1995)
Study: Sent home audio
recordings with Grade 1 students
to support reading at home.
Findings: Based on observation,
but intervention was beneficial.

16. L1 Use at Home and Literacy
Development
Hansen (1989)
Study: Grade 2 and Grade 5
students some Spanishdominant homes
Findings: ELLs who used more
English at home and at school
performed better on English
reading assessments than
those who used English less
often.
Kennedy and Parker (1994)
Findings: L1 and L2 significance depends on
the student's cultural background and type
of outcome measured. Home language use
has a much stronger relationship to
standardized tests than to course grades.
Mexican American ELLs: English at home
was not a significant predictor for English
course grades or standardized test.
Asian American ELLs: English at home was
not significant for English course grades, but
was for standardized test.

17. Other Factors
•Immigration history (Buriel
and Cardoza, 1988)
•Number of years parents
lived in the U.S. (Reese et al.,
2000; Duran and Weffer,
1992; Ima and Rumbaut,
1989)
•Literacy practices in L1
(Reese et al., 2000)

18. Assessments
"...a standardized test of mathematics or science
administered in English to ELLs is just as much about
the student's language proficiency as it is about
his/her knowledge of mathematics or science." (Page
137)
Only ten empirical studies referenced assessment
issues.

19. Assessments
Miramontes, 1987
Study: observed miscues of low
and high Native-Spanish
speaking students and
compared them to native English
Speakers.
Findings: Testing ELLs reading in
both languages is a better
assessment.(supported by
Umbel et al, 1992)
Garcia, 1991; Ima and
Rumbaut, 1989
Stress diversity in assessments.
Accounting for student's
cultural backgrounds.

20. Assessment Observations
1. Asses in both languages
2. Use multiple sources of
information when
assessing
3. Dynamic assessments
tailored to the student
4. Comprehensive
profiling of reading and
language development

21. Conclusion
Combination of direct and interactive instruction is
most effective.
Results for the process approach are mixed since it
does not include direct-skill instruction.
Need for comprehensive curriculum (5 Standards of
Effective Pedagogy and SIOP)
Early use of L1 does not impede L2 literacy
development. (both at home and in school)

22. Conclusion Continued
ELLs who begin school with high levels of English
proficiency achieve higher in English literacy.
Enriched literacy (either L1 or L2), in the home, during preschool years results in higher literacy achievement in L2
literacy.
English proficiency when entering school impacts literacy
development for families with longer U.S. residency.
Personal aspirations and other factors play an important
role amongst 1st and 2nd generation immigrants.

23. Conclusion Continued
English oral proficiency is more important in ELLs who
speak an Asian language than Spanish-speaking ELLs.
Parents and schools need to play a greater role in
promoting literacy in the home (especially during preschool years).
More research is needed for home-based
interventions.