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.
AugustD.McCardleP.ShanahanT. (2014). Developing literacy in English language learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review, 43, 490–498.
2.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
AugustD.ShanahanT.EscamillaK. (2009). English language learners: Developing literacy in second language learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 432–452.
4.
*BarberT. A.BuehlM. M.KiddJ. K.SturtevantE. G.NulandL. R.BeckJ. (2015). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of social studies literacy intervention on reading comprehension, reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different language backgrounds. Reading Psychology, 36, 31–85.
5.
*BegenyJ. C.RossS. G.GreeneD. J.MitchellR. C.WhitehouseM. H. (2012). Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 134–149.
6.
*BoothD. W. (2014). Scaffolding content-area vocabulary instruction for English learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro.
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
8.
ChiappeP.SiegelL. S.Wade-WoolleyL. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
*DusslingT. M. (2016). The impact of a supplemental reading intervention on the literacy skills of English language learners and native English-speaking first grade children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
11.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
12.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.StahlS. A.WillowsD. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.
13.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.WillowsD. M.SchusterB. V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
14.
FisherZ.TiptonE. (2015). Robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression. R package Version 1.6.
15.
FittonL.McIlraithA. L.WoodC. L. (2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88, 712–751.
16.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic.
17.
*KempS. C. (2006). Teaching to “Read Naturally”: Examination of a fluency training program for third grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Irvine, and University of California, Los Angeles.
18.
KiefferM. J. (2011). Converging trajectories: Reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to Grade 8. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1187–1225.
19.
*La von BridgesC. (2006). Effects of readers’ theatre on English language learners: A strategy for oral language and reading development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene.
20.
*LeafsteadtJ. M.RichardsC. R.GerberM. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 252–261.
21.
LesauxN. K.RuppA. A.SiegelL. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821–834.
22.
*Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.Hickman-DavisP.KouzekananiK. (2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. Elementary School Journal, 103, 221–238.
23.
*LovettM. W.De PalmaM.FrijtersJ.SteinbachK.TempleM.BensonN.LacerenzaL. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333–352.
24.
*McElvainC. M. (2010). Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of English learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 178–205.
25.
*McMasterK. L.KungS. H.HanI.CaoM. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies: A “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74, 194–214.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
28.
*NelsonJ. R.VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2011). Efficacy of a Tier 2 supplemental root word vocabulary and decoding intervention with kindergarten Spanish-speaking English learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 184–211.
29.
PáezM. M.BockK. P.PizzoL. (2014). Supporting the language and early literacy skills of English language learners: Effective practices and future directions. In NeumanS.DickinsonD. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 136–152). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
Richards-TutorC.BakerD. L.GerstenR.BakerS. K.SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 144–149.
31.
*RodríguezC. D.FillerJ.HigginsK. (2012). Using primary language support via computer to improve reading comprehension skills of first-grade English language learners. Computers in the Schools, 29, 253–267.
32.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390.
33.
ShanahanT.BeckI. L. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English language learners. In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners (pp. 415–488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
SnyderE.WitmerS. E.SchmittH. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 61, 136–145.
35.
*SolariE. J.GerberM. M. (2008). Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: Teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 155–168.
36.
StuartM. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587–605.
37.
SuggateS. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96.
38.
SwansonE.StevensE. A.ScammaccaN. A.CapinP.StewartA. A.AustinC. R. (2017). The impact of Tier 1 reading instruction on reading outcomes for students in Grades 4–12: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30, 1639–1665.
39.
*SwartzendruberK. L. (2007). The picture word inductive model and vocabulary acquisition (Unpublished master’s thesis). Wichita State University, Wichita, KS.
40.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 786–803.
41.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2011). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: How language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 471–497.
42.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2015). Attention to orthographic and phonological word forms in vocabulary instruction for kindergarten English learners. Reading Psychology, 37, 833–866.
43.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.NelsonJ. R. (2015). Effectiveness of supplemental kindergarten vocabulary instruction for English learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 490–529.
44.
*VanderwoodM. L.NamJ. E.SunJ. W. (2014). Validity of DIBELS early literacy measures with Korean English learners. Contemporary School Psychology, 18, 205–213.
45.
*VaughnS.CirinoP. T.Linan-ThompsonS.MathesP. G.CarlsonC. D.HaganE. C.. . . FrancisD. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449–487.
46.
*VaughnS.MartinezL. R.WanzekJ.RobertsG.SwansonE.FallA. M. (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 22–34.
47.
*VaughnS.MathesP.Linan-ThompsonS.CirinoP.CarlsonC.Pollard-DurodolaS.. . . FrancisD. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–180.
48.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
49.
*VillanuevaC. S. (2015). The effects of two reading interventions with small-groups of second grade English language learners on fluency and comprehension (Unpublished dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
50.
*WalterN. (2010). The effects of intervention in phonemic awareness on the reading achievement of English language learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ.
51.
*WanzekJ.RobertsG. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 90–101.
52.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
53.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM. A.CapinB. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in Grades K–3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551–576.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
