Slavin and Cheung, Synthesis of Research on Language of Reading Instruction for English language Learners

Key Points: This paper used the ‘best evidence synthesis’ method to look at many different studies on the benefits of bilingual reading instruction over English immersion instruction. Its purpose was to help policy makers decide the best way for children in America who speak a language other than English in their house to reach a level playing field with native English speaking students. According to this paper, students learning to speak English may be prone to failure if they are asked to simultaneously learn to read in English and that bilingual instruction will help preserve their native language.

            This paper was highly critical of Christine Rossell and Keith Baker’s study analysis that found in favor of immersion. According to Slavin and Cheung, Rossell and Baker’s study included research studies that were flawed and that taking a second look at studies that were adequate actually showed support for bilingual instruction. Slavin and Cheung listed many problems that make previous research difficult to interpret including biased pretests, bias based on the reasons children are put into one program over another, and difference in instructional contexts that make one study difficult to compare to another.

            Slavin and Cheung state in their conclusion that research has shown that bilingual reading instruction is beneficial, however more research is required to learn what model of bilingual instruction is best, transitional, which uses their native language in the beginning and then transitions to English only instruction, or paired instruction in which students receive a native language lesson along side an English reading lesson.

My interaction with the paper:

1.     The research in this field is not convincing, as stated in the paper, a proper study would take four years of more and would be very expensive, so why not write to convince policy makers that policy decisions can not be made on a national level. This paper demonstrated to me that varying percentages of ELL’s per school, student achievement levels and varying qualities of instruction are the most important factors when deciding the appropriate method of instruction.

2.     This study only looked at the test results to determine the effectiveness of instructions methods, however there are many other factors that need consideration. First, how do students feel when they are separated from classmates? What is the financial burden on the schools to provide bilingual classes? And, when should the bilingual lessons take place? Are they replacing other lessons thereby putting the ELL’s at a further disadvantage?

3.     It is strange that the parents of the students in the Sante Fe, New Mexico study on page 268 preferred that their children be put in bilingual classes when two other studies cited in this paper mentioned that the parents preferred the immersion programs.

4.     Spanish is overwhelmingly the native language of most ELL’s in America. This proves that bilingual education is beneficial, but that means that the bilingual classes will be conducted in Spanish. Isn’t this unfair non-Spanish speaking ELL’s?

5.     Is the Morgan study on page 270 saying that studying French actually benefitted the students’ English reading? Maybe this is because high achieving students were attracted to the program.

6.     Some opponents to bilingual education may say that funding special instruction for ELL’s is unfair to native speakers. However, why not offer bilingual instruction to native English speakers? Slavin and Cheung state that bilingualism, “comes with economic and social value in the world today.”