scholarly articles on esl education

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(9); 2021 Sep

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

Associated data.

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

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.

English language learners, Evidenced-based intervention, Meta-analysis, Reading.

1. Introduction

There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of quality education for learners who study in a language other than their native language ( Estrella et al., 2018 ; Ludwig et al., 2019 ). As cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversification takes place globally, the number of students studying a second language different from their native language is also increasing worldwide. In the United States, nearly 5 million learners who are not native speakers of English are currently attending public schools, and this figure has increased significantly over the past decade ( NCES, 2016 ). As the number of children whose native language is not English increased, the need for educational support also increased. Furthermore, the implementation of NCLB policy emphasizes the need for quality education for all students included in all schools. Accordingly, NCLB has emerged as a critical policy for learners to study in their second language. In other words, there is an urgent need to ensure that non-native English speakers receive appropriate education due to NCLB, which has not only increased the demand for education but also led to the practice of enhanced education for learners whose English is not their native language.

ELLs (English language learners) refer to the education provided for learners whose native language is not English in English-speaking countries ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2021 ). The education provided to these ELLs is called ESL (English as a second language), ESOL (English to speakers of other languages), EFL (English as a foreign language), and so on. Each term is adopted differently depending on the policy, purpose, and status of operation of the state and/or school district. While a variety of terms have been suggested, this paper uses the term ‘ELLs’ to refer to learners who are not native speakers of English and uses the terms ‘the English education program’ and the ‘ELL program’ to refer to the English education program provided to ELLs.

To ensure quality education, students identified as ELLs can participate in supportive programs to improve their English skills. These ELL programs can be broadly divided into two methods: “pull-out” and “push-in” ( Honigsfeld, 2009 ). In the pull-out program, students are taken to a specific space other than the classroom at regular class time and are separately taught English. In the push-in program, the ELL teacher joins the mainstream ELLs’ classroom and assists them during class time. Through these educational supports, ELLs are required to achieve not only English language improvements addressed in Title III of NCLB but also language art achievements appropriate to their grade level addressed in Title I of NCLB. ELLs are expected to achieve the same level of academic achievement as students of the same grade level, as well as comparable language skills.

A considerable amount of literature has been published on the achievement and learning status of ELLs ( Ludwig, 2017 ; Soland and Sandilos, 2020 ). These studies revealed that despite the intensive, high-quality education support for ELLs, they encounter difficulties learning and academic achievement. The National Reading Achievement Test (NAEP) results show that the achievement gap between non-ELLs and ELLs is steadily expanding in the areas of both mathematics and reading ( Polat et al., 2016 ). Ultimately, ELLs are reported to have the highest risk of dropping out of school ( Sheng et al., 2011 ). These difficulties are not limited to early school age. Fry (2007) reported that the results from a national standardized test of 8th-grade students found that ELLs performed lower than white students in both reading and math. Callahan and Shifrer (2016) analyzed data from a nationally representative educational longitudinal study in 2002 and found that, despite taking into account language, socio-demographic and academic factors, ELLs still have a large gap in high school academic achievement. Additionally, research has suggested that ELLs are less likely to participate in higher education institutions compared to non-ELL counterparts ( Cook, 2015 ; Kanno and Cromley, 2015 ).

Factors found to influence the difficulties of ELLs in learning have been explored in several studies ( Dussling, 2018 ; Thompson and von Gillern, 2020 ; Yousefi and Bria, 2018 ). There are two main reasons for these difficulties. First, ELLs face many challenges in learning a new language by following the academic content required in the school year ( American Youth Policy Forum, 2009 ). Moreover, language is an area that is influenced by sociocultural factors, and learning academic contents such as English language art and math are also influenced by sociocultural elements and different cultural backgrounds, which affects the achievement of ELLs in school ( Chen et al., 2012 ; Orosco, 2010 ). Second, it is reported that the heterogeneity of ELLs makes it challenging to formulate instructional strategies and provide adequate education for them. Due to the heterogeneous traits in the linguistic and cultural aspects of the ELL group, there are limitations in specifying and guiding traits. Therefore, properly reflecting their characteristics is difficult.

The difficulties for ELLs in academic achievement raise the necessity for searching practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve English language and academic achievement, including ELLs' English language art achievement. These needs and demands led to the conduct of various studies that analyze the difficulties of ELLs. Over the past decade, these studies have provided important information on education for ELLs. The main themes of the studies are difficulties in academic achievement and interventions for ELLs, including reading ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Roth, 2015 ; Shamir et al., 2018 ; Tam and Heng, 2016 ), writing ( Daugherty, 2015 ; Hong, 2018 ; Lin, 2015 ; nullP ) or both reading and math ( Dearing et al., 2016 ; Shamir et al., 2016 ). The influences of teachers on children's guidance ( Kim, 2017 ; Daniel and Pray, 2017 ; Téllez and Manthey, 2015 ; Wasseell, Hawrylak, Scantlebuty, 2017 ) and the influences of family members ( Johnson and Johnson, 2016 ; Walker, Research on 2017 ) are also examined.

Reading is known to function as an important predictor of success not only in English language art itself but also in overall school life ( Guo et al., 2015 ). This is because reading is conducted throughout the school years, as most of the activities students perform in school are related to reading. 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. These studies explore effective interventions and strategies ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Mendoza, 2016 ; Meredith, 2017 ; Reid and Heck, 2017 ) and suggest reading development models or predictors for reading success ( Boyer, 2017 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Rubin, 2016 ). For these individual studies to provide appropriate guidance to field practitioners and desirable suggestions for future research, aggregation of the overall related studies, not only of the individual study, and research reflections based on them are required. Specifically, meta-analysis can be an appropriate research method. Through meta-analysis, we can derive conclusions from previous studies and review them comprehensively. Furthermore, meta-analysis can ultimately contribute to policymakers and decision-makers making appropriate decisions for rational strategies and policymaking.

Although extensive research has been carried out on the difficulties of ELLs and how to support them, a sufficiently comprehensive meta-analysis of these studies has not been carried out. Some studies have focused on specific interventions, such as morphological interventions ( Goodwin and Ahn, 2013 ), peer-mediated learning ( Cole, 2014 ), and video game-based instruction ( Thompson and von Gillern ). Ludwig, Guo, and Georgiou (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. However, they divided reading-related variables into “reading accuracy”, “reading fluency”, and “reading comprehension” and examined the effectiveness of the reading-related attributes in each of the variables. Therefore, the study has limitations for exploring the various aspects of reading and their effectiveness for reading interventions.

Individual studies have their characteristics and significance. However, for individual studies to be more widely adopted in the field and to be a powerful source for future research, it is necessary to analyze these individual studies more comprehensively. Meta-analysis reviews past studies related to the topic by 'integrating' previous studies, analyzes and evaluates them through 'critical analysis', provides implications to the field, and gives rise to intellectual stimulation to future studies by ‘identifying issues’ ( Cooper et al., 2019 ). Through this, meta-analysis can be a useful tool for diagnosing the past where relevant research has been conducted, taking appropriate treatment for the present, and providing intellectual stimulation for future studies.

Therefore, the purposes of this study are to examine evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs presented in the literature to analyze their effects and to identify the actual and specific components for creating the most effective and efficient intervention for ELLs. The findings of this study make a major contribution to research on ELLs by demonstrating the implications for the field and future study.

2.1. Selection of studies

A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles on ELL reading interventions published between January 2008 and March 2018 was conducted. According to the general steps of a meta-analysis, data related to reading interventions for English language learners were collected as follows. First, educational and psychological publication databases, such as Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.co.kr ), ERIC ( https://eric.ed.gov/ ), ELSEVIER ( http://www.elsevier.com ), and Springer ( https://www.springer.com/gp ) were used to find the articles to be analyzed using the search terms “ELLs,” ESL,” “Reading,” “Second language education,” “Effectiveness,” and “Intervention” separately and in combination with each other. We reviewed the results of the web-based search for articles and included all relevant articles on the preliminary list. We selected the final list of the articles to be analyzed by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to the preliminary list of articles. Studies were included in the final list based on three primary criteria. First, each study should evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based reading intervention using an experimental or quasi-experimental group design. In this process, single case, qualitative, and/or descriptive studies for ELLs were excluded from the analysis. Second, we included all types of reading-related interventions (i.e., phonological awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension). Third, each study needed to report data in a statistical format to calculate an effect size. Fourth, we only included studies whose subjects were in grades K-12. The preliminary list had 75 articles, but since some of these studies did not meet the inclusion criteria, we excluded them from the final list for analysis. In total, this meta-analysis included 28 studies with 234 effect sizes (see Figure 1 ).

Prisma flow diagram.

2.2. Data analysis

2.2.1. coding procedure.

To identify the relevant components of the evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs, we developed an extensive coding document. Our interest was in synthesizing the effect sizes and finding the variables that affect the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. The code sheet was made based on a code sheet used in Vaughn et al. (2003) and Wanzek et al. (2010) . All studies were coded for the following: (a) study characteristics, including general information about the study, (b) student-related variables, (c) intervention-related variables, (d) implementation-related variables, (e) measurement-related variables, and (f) quantitative data for the calculation of effect sizes.

Within the study characteristics category, we coded the researchers’ names, publication year, and title from each study to identify the general information about each study. For the student-related variables, mean age, grade level(s), number of participants, number of males, number of females, sampling method, exceptionality type (reading ability level), identification criteria in case of learning disabilities, race/ethnicity, and SES were coded. We divided grade level(s) into lower elementary (K-2), upper elementary (3–5), and secondary (6–12). When students with learning disabilities participated in the study, we coded the identification criteria reported in the study. For race/ethnicity, we coded white, Hispanic, black, Asian, and others. Within intervention-related variables, we coded for the title of the intervention, the key instructional components of the intervention, the type of intervention, and the reading components of the intervention. The reading components coded were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and others. If an intervention contained multiple reading components, all reading components included in the intervention were coded. Fourth, within implementation-related variables, we coded group size, duration of the intervention (weeks), the total number of sessions, frequency of sessions per week, length of each session (minutes), personnel who provided the intervention (i.e., teacher, researchers, other), and the setting. Fifth, in measurement-related variables, we coded the title of the measurement, reliability coefficient, validity coefficient, type of measurement, type of reliability, and type of validity. We also coded quantitative data such as the pre- and posttest means, the pre- and posttest standard deviations, and the number of participants in the pre- and posttests for both the treatment and control groups. These coding variables are defined in Table 1 . The research background and sample information are in Appendix 1 .

Table 1

Coding variables.

2.2.2. Coding reliability

The included articles were coded according to the coding procedure described above. Two researchers coded each study separately and reached 91% agreement. Afterward, the researchers reviewed and discussed the differences to resolve the initial disagreements.

2.2.3. Data analysis

First, we calculated 234 effect sizes from the interventions included in the 28 studies. The average effect size was calculated using Cohen's d formula. In addition, we conducted a two-level meta-analysis through multilevel hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using the HLM 6.0 interactive mode statistical program to analyze the computed effect sizes and find the predictors that affect the effect sizes of reading interventions. HLM is appropriate to quantitatively obtain both overall summary statistics and quantification of the variability in the effectiveness of interventions across studies as a means for accessing the generalizability of findings. Moreover, HLM easily incorporates the overall mean effect size using the unconditional model, and HLM is useful to explain variability in the effectiveness of interventions between studies in the conditional model. The aim of the current study is to provide a broad overview of interventions for ELLs. To achieve this aim, we conducted an unconditional model for overall mean effect size and conducted a conditional model to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In regard to variables related to the effectiveness of interventions, we conducted a conditional model with student-related, measurement-related, intervention-related, and implementation-related variables. In the case of quantitative meta-analyses, it is assumed that observations are independent of one another ( How and de Leeuw, 2003 ). However, this assumption is usually not applied in social studies if observations are clustered within larger groups ( Bowman, 2003 ) because each effect size within a study might not be homogeneous ( Beretvas and Pastor, 2003 ). Thus, a two-level multilevel meta-analysis using a mixed-effect model was employed because multiple effect sizes are provided within a single education study. To calculate effect size (ES) estimates using Cohen's d, we use the following equation [1]:

The pooled standard deviation, SD pooled , is defined as

In HLM, the unconditional model can be implemented to identify the overall effect size across all estimates and to test for homogeneity. If an assumption of homogeneity is rejected by an insignificant chi-square coefficient in the unconditional model, this means that there are differences within and/or between studies. This assumption must go to the next step to find moderators that influence effect sizes. This step is called a level two model or a conditional model. A conditional model is conducted to investigate the extent of the influence of the included variables.

The level one model (unconditional model) was expressed as [3], and the level two model (the conditional model was expressed as [4].

In equation (3) , δ j represents the mean effect size value for study j, and e j is the within-study error term assumed to be theoretically normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance of V j . In the level two model equation [4], γ 0 represents the overall mean effect size for the population, and u j represents the sampling variability between studies presumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance τ .

Regarding publication bias, we looked at the funnel plot with the 'funnel()' command of the metafor R package ( Viechtbauer, 2010 ), and to verify this more statistically, we used the dmetar R package ( Harrer et al., 2019 ). Egger's regression test ( Egger et al., 1997 ) was conducted using the 'eggers.test()' command to review publication bias. Egger's regression analysis showed that there was a significant publication error (t = 3.977, 95% CI [0.89–2.54], p < .001). To correct this, a trim-and-fill technique ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ) was used. As a result, the total effect size corrected for publication bias was also calculated. The funnel plot is shown in [ Figure 2 ].

Funnel plot.

We analyzed 28 studies to identify influential variables that count for reading interventions for ELLs. Before performing the multilevel meta-analysis, the effect size of 28 studies was analyzed by traditional meta-analysis. The forest plots for the individual effect sizes of 28 studies are shown in Appendix 2. We present our findings with our research questions as an organizational framework. First, we showed an unconditional model for finding the overall mean effect size. Then, we described the variables that influenced the effect size of reading interventions for ELLs using a conditional model.

3.1. Unconditional model

An unconditional model of the meta-analysis was tested first. In the analysis, restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used. This analysis was conducted to confirm the overall mean effect size and to examine the variability among all samples. The results are shown in Table 2 .

Table 2

Results of the unconditional model analysis.

∗∗∗ p < 0.001, df: degree of freedom.

The intercept coefficient in the fixed model is the overall mean effect size from 234 effect sizes. This means that the effect of reading intervention for English language learners is medium based on Cohen's d. Cohen's d is generally interpreted as small d = 0.2, medium d = 0.5 and large d = 0.8. The variance component indicates the variability among samples. The estimate was 0.589 and remained significant (χ 2 = 1245.90, p < . 001). This statistical significance means that moderator analysis with dominant predictors in a model is required to explore the source of variability.

3.2. Conditional model

Moderator analysis using the conditional model was expected to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In this study, the moderator analysis was administered by nine critical variable categories: students’ grade, exceptionality, SES, reading area, standardized test, test reliability, intervention type, instructor, and group size. Variables in each category were coded by dummy coding. Dummy coding was used to identify the difference in dependent variables between the categories of independent variables. For example, we used four dummy variables to capture the five dimensions. The parameter estimates capture the differences in effect sizes between the groups that are coded 1 and a reference group that is coded 0. From a mathematical perspective, it does not matter which categorical variable is used as the referenced group ( Frey, 2018 ). We labeled one variable in each category as a reference group to make the interpretation of the results easier. We used an asterisk mark to denote the reference group for each category; if a word has an asterisk next to it, this indicates that it is the reference group for that category.

• 1) Student-related variables

The results of the conditional meta-analysis for students' grade variables are presented in Table 3 . In Table 3 , the significant coefficients mean that mean effect sizes are significantly larger for studies in reference conditions. For student grades, upper elementary students showed significantly larger mean effect sizes than secondary students (2.720, p = 0.000), but preschool students showed significantly lower mean effect sizes than secondary students (-0.103, p = 0.019). The Q statistic was significant for students’ grades ( Q = 27.20, p < 0.001) (see Table 4 ).

Table 3

Results of the moderator analysis for student grade.

df: degree of freedom.

Table 4

Results of the moderator analysis for exceptionality.

For the student-related variables, students with low achievement showed significantly larger mean effect sizes scores than general students (0.707, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. The Q statistic was significant for students’ exceptionality ( Q = 0.0278, p < 0.001).

Table 5 shows that low and low-middle SES was not significantly different from students with no information about SES (0.055, p = 0.666). Moreover, students with middle and upper SES did not have significantly smaller effect sizes than students with nonresponse (-0.379, p = 0.444). The Q statistic was significant for students’ SES ( Q = 68.50, p < 0.001).

Table 5

Results of the moderator analysis for SES.

• 2) Measurement-related variables

Table 6 shows the results of the moderator analysis for measurement types. The coefficient for the standardized measurement-related variable was not significant. The Q statistic was significant for the standardization of measurement tools ( Q = 5.28, p < 0.001).

Table 6

Results of the moderator analysis for standardization of measurement tools.

Table 7 shows the results of the moderator analysis for the reliability of the measurement tools. The coefficient for the measurement reliability-related variable was significant (0.409, p = 0.003), which means that the effect sizes of measurements that reported reliability (ES = 0.770) were significantly larger than the effect sizes of measurements that had information about reliability (ES = 0.361). The Q statistic was significant for the reliability of the measurement tools ( Q = 5.82, p < 0.001) (see Table 8 ).

Table 7

Results of the moderator analysis for reliability.

Table 8

Results of the moderator analysis for content of the intervention.

• 3) Intervention-related variables

The content of the intervention was divided into phonological awareness, reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and other areas. Studies measured other areas that functioned as a reference group. For the measurement area, all reading areas were significantly larger than other areas. Reading fluency (1.150, p = 0.001), reading comprehension (0.971, p = 0.000) and listening comprehension (0.834, p = 0.002) were significantly larger than those in the other areas. However, phonological awareness and vocabulary were significantly larger than other areas but lower than reading fluency, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension (0.528, p = 0.013; 0.442, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for the content of the intervention ( Q = 24.005, p < 0.001).

For intervention types, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, and computer-based learning were compared to other methods, which were fixed as a reference group. Table 9 shows that strategy instruction was significantly larger than other methods in mean effect sizes (0.523, p = 0.001). However, studies that applied peer tutoring and computer-based learning showed lower than other methods, but these differences were not statistically significant (-0.113, p = 0.736; -0114, p = 0.743). The Q statistic was significant for intervention types ( Q = 73.343, p < 0.001).

Table 9

Results of the moderator analysis for intervention types.

• 4) Implementation-related variables

For instructor-related variables, other instructor-delivered instructions were assigned as a reference group. Table 10 shows that the teacher and researcher groups showed significantly larger than the other instructors. Moreover, the teacher group showed larger than the researcher group (0.909, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for instructor-related variables ( Q = 14.024, p < 0.001).

Table 10

Results of the moderator analysis for instructor.

For group size, mixed groups were fixed as a reference group. Group size variables were divided into a small group (1 or more and 5 or less), a middle group (6 or more and 15 or less), and a large group or class size (16 or more). Table 11 shows that the middle group (6 or more and 15 or less) and the small group (1 or more and 5 or less) were significantly larger than the mixed group (0.881, p = 0.000; 0.451, p = 0.006). However, the difference between the large group and the mixed group was not significant (0.120, p = 0.434). The Q statistic was significant for group size variables ( Q = 17.756, p < 0.001).

Table 11

Results of the moderator analysis for group size.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the effects of reading interventions for ELLs and to identify research-based characteristics of effective reading interventions for enhancing their reading ability. To achieve this goal, this study tried to determine the answers to two research questions. What is the estimated mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs in K-12? To what extent do student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables have effects on improving the reading ability of ELLs in K-12? Therefore, our study was limited to recent K-12 intervention studies published between January 2008 and March 2018 that included phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension as intervention components and outcome measures. A total of 28 studies were identified and analyzed. To inquiry the two main research questions, a two-level meta-analysis was employed in this study. For the first research question, the unconditional model of HLM was conducted to investigate the mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs. The conditional model of HLM was conducted to determine which variables have significant effects on reading interventions for ELLs. Below, we briefly summarized the results of this study and described the significant factors that seem to influence intervention effectiveness. These findings could provide a better understanding of ELLs and support implications for the development of reading interventions for ELLs.

4.1. Effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs

The first primary finding from this meta-analysis is that ELLs can improve their reading ability when provided appropriate reading interventions. Our findings indicated that the overall mean effect size of reading interventions of ELLs yielded an effect size of 0.653, which indicates a medium level of effect. From this result, we can conclude that the appropriate reading interventions generally have impacts on reading outcomes for ELLs in K-12. This is consistent with prior syntheses reporting positive effects of reading interventions for ELLs ( Vaughn et al., 2006 ; Abraham, 2008 ).

Effect size information is important to understand the real effects of the intervention. Therefore, this finding indicated that supplementary reading interventions for ELLs will be developed and implemented. This finding also showed that states are required to develop a set of high-quality reading interventions for ELLs. Language interventions for ELLs have become one of the most important issues in the U.S. Increasing numbers of children in U.S. schools have come from homes in which English is not the primary language spoken. NCES (2016) showed that 4.9 million students, or 9.6% of public school students, were identified as ELLs, which was higher than the 3.8 million students, or 8.1%, identified in 2000 ( NCES, 2016 ). While many students of immigrant families succeed in their academic areas, too many do not. Some ELLs lag far behind native English speakers in the school because of the strong effect of language factors on the instruction or assessment. Although English is not their native language, ELLs should learn educational content in English. This leads to huge inequity in public schools. Thus, improving the English language and literacy skills of ELLs is a major concern for educational policymakers. This finding can support practitioners’ efforts and investments in developing appropriate language interventions for ELLs.

4.2. The effects of moderating variables

The second primary finding of this meta-analysis relates to four variable categories: student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables. Effective instruction cannot be designed by considering one factor. The quality of instruction is the product of many factors, including class size, the type of instructions, and other resources. This finding showed which factors affected the effectiveness of reading interventions. Specifically, we found that the variables that proved to have significant effects on reading outcomes of ELLs were as follows: upper elementary students, reliable measurement tools, reading and listening comprehension-related interventions, strategy instruction, and the middle group consisting of 6 or more and 15 or less. Teachers and practitioners in the field may choose to adopt these findings into their practices. ELL teachers may design their instruction as strategy-embedded instruction in middle-sized groups.

We found that grades accounted for significant variability in an intervention's effectiveness. Specifically, we found that reading interventions were substantially more effective when used with upper elementary students than secondary students. This means that the magnitude of an intervention's effectiveness changed depending on when ELLs received reading interventions. Specifically, the larger effect sizes on upper elementary students than secondary schools showed the importance of early interventions to improve ELLs' language abilities. Students who experience early reading difficulty often continue to experience failure in later grades. ELLs, or students whose primary language is other than English and are learning English as a second language, often experience particular challenges in developing reading skills in the early grades. According to Kieffer (2010) , substantial proportions of ELLs and native English speakers showed reading difficulties that emerged in the upper elementary and middle school grades even though they succeeded in learning to read in the primary grades.

Regarding students’ English proficiency and academic achievement, there was no statistically significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. Given the heterogeneity of the English language learner population, interventions that may be effective for one group of English language learners may not be effective with others ( August and Shanahan, 2006 ). This result is similar to the results achieved by Lovett et al. (2008) . Lovett et al. (2008) showed that there were no differences between ELLs and their peers who spoke English as a first language in reading intervention outcomes or growth intervention. This finding suggests that systematic and explicit reading interventions are effective for readers regardless of their primary language.

For students' socioeconomic status (SES), there was no significant difference between the low-middle group and the nonresponse group. However, we cannot find that students' SES is critical for implementing reading interventions. Low SES is known to increase the risk of reading difficulties because of the limited access to a variety of resources that support reading development and academic achievement ( Kieffer, 2010 ). Many ELLs attend schools with high percentages of students living in poverty ( Vaughn et al., 2009 ). These schools are less likely to have adequate funds and resources and to provide appropriate support for academic achievement ( Donovan and Cross, 2002 ). Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) highlighted multiple and complex factors that contribute to poor reading outcomes in school, including a lack of qualified teachers and students who come from poverty. Although this study cannot determine the relationship between the effectiveness of reading interventions and the SES of students, more studies are needed. In addition, these results related to students’ characteristics showed that practitioners and teachers can consider for whom to implement some interventions. Researchers should provide a greater specification of the student samples because this information will be particularly critical for English language learners.

Although many of the studies measured a variety of outcomes across all areas of reading, interventions that focused on improving reading comprehension and listening comprehension obtained better effects than other reading outcomes. This result is similar to those discussed in previous findings ( Wanzek and Roberts, 2012 ; Carrier, 2003 ).

With regard to effective intervention types, the findings indicated that strategy instruction was statistically significant for improving the reading skills of ELLs. However, computer-based interventions, which are frequently used for reading instruction for ELLs in recent years, showed lower effect sizes than mixed interventions. Strategy instructions are known as one of the effective reading interventions for ELLs ( Proctor et al., 2007 ; Begeny et al., 2012 ; Olson and Land, 2007 ; Vaughn et al., 2006 ). These strategies included activating background knowledge, clarifying vocabulary meaning, and expressing visuals and gestures for understanding after reading. Some studies have shown that computer-based interventions are effective for ELLs ( White and Gillard, 2011 ; Macaruso and Rodman, 2011 ), but this study does not. Therefore, there is little agreement in the research literature on how to effectively teach reading to ELLs ( Gersten and Baker, 2000 ). Continued research efforts must specify how best to provide intervention for ELLs.

With respect to the implementation of the intervention, teachers and researchers as instructors would produce stronger effects than other instructors. In this study, multiple studies showed that various instructors taught ELLs, including teachers, graduate students, and researchers. The professional development of instructors is more important than that of those who taught ELLs. This finding is consistent with Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) . They also did not find differences between researcher-delivered interventions and school personnel-delivered interventions. Continuing professional development should build on the preservice education of teachers, strengthen teaching skills, increase teacher knowledge of the reading process, and facilitate the integration of newer research on reading into the teaching practices of classroom teachers ( Snow et al., 1998 ). Overall, professional development is the key factor in strengthening the reading skills of ELLs.

This study showed that medium-sized groups of 6 or more and 15 or less had larger effect sizes than the mixed groups. In addition, the medium-sized group showed a larger effect size than the small group of 5 or less. This finding showed that a multi-tiered reading system should be needed in the general classroom. This finding is linked to the fact that the reaction to intervention (RTI) approach is more effective for ELLs. Linan-Thompson et al. (2007) pointed out that RTI offers a promising alternative for reducing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education by identifying students at risk early and providing preventive instruction to accelerate progress. Regarding interventions for ELLs who are struggling with or at risk for reading difficulties, Ross and Begeny (2011) compared the effectiveness between small group interventions and implementing the intervention in a 1/1 context for ELLs. They showed that nearly all students benefitted from the 1/1 intervention, and some students benefitted from the small group intervention. This finding is commensurate with a previous study investigating the comparative differences between group sizes and suggests research-based support for the introduction of the RTI approach.

However, most implementation-related variables, including duration of intervention, the total number of sessions, frequency per week, length of each session, settings, and instructor, did not have any significant effect on the reading ability of ELLs. 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) . They also synthesized the related interventions for ELLs and showed that the length of intervention did not seem to be directly associated with overall effect sizes for reading outcomes. This finding is also the same as recent research on intervention duration with native English speakers ( Wanzek et al., 2013 ). Wanzek and colleagues examined the relationship between student outcomes and hours of intervention in their meta-analysis. The findings showed no significant differences in student outcomes based on the number of intervention hours. Elbaum et al. (2000) stated that the intensity of the interventions is most important for effectiveness. Our results somewhat support these researchers’ opinions, but we cannot be certain that a brief intervention would have the same overall effect on reading outcomes as a year-long intervention. Thus, we should consider the intervention intensity, such as student attendance at the sessions, with the duration of the intervention.

4.3. Implications for practice and for research

The most effective and efficient education refers to education that is made up in the right ways, that includes proper content, and that is delivered on time so that the students can benefit the most. To implement this, research to identify a particular framework based on the synthesis of research results through meta-analysis, such as this study, must be conducted. Furthermore, the implications based on the results must be deeply considered. In this respect, important implications for the practice and research of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers on enhancing reading competence for ELLs of this study are as follows.

First, reading interventions for ELLs are expected to be the most efficient when conducted on a medium-sized group of 6–15 students. This indicates that implementing reading interventions for ELLs requires a specially designed group-scale configuration rather than simply a class-wide or one-to-one configuration. Second, the implementation of reading interventions for ELLs is most effective when conducted for older elementary school students. This is in contrast to Morgan and Sideridis (2006) , who demonstrated the characteristics of students with learning disabilities using multilevel meta-analysis and showed that age groups were irrelevant in the effect size of reading interventions for students with learning disabilities. Therefore, it can be seen that the ELLs group, unlike the learning disability group, the students of which have reading difficulty due to their disabilities, is in the normal development process but has reading difficulty due to linguistic differences. Accordingly, it can be seen that the senior year of elementary school, in which a student has been exposed to the academic environment for a sufficiently long time and language is sufficiently developed, is the appropriate time for learning English for ELLs. Third, effective reading interventions for ELLs should be performed with a strategy-embedded instruction program. This is based on the fact that strategic instructions are effective for vocabulary or concepts in unfamiliar languages ( Carlo et al., 2005 ; Chaaya and Ghosn, 2010 ).

The above implications require the implementation of Tier 2 interventions for reading interventions for ELLs in practice. In Tier 2 interventions, students can participate in more intensive learning through specially designed interventions based on their personal needs ( Ortiz et al., 2011 ). In other words, in policymaking and administrative decision-making, intensive education programs for ELLs who have been exposed to the academic environment for a certain period but still have reading difficulties, including having achievements that fall short of the expected level, are needed.

Considering further applications, these findings could guide practitioners and policymakers to develop effective evidence-based reading programs or policies. The significant variables in this study can be considered to develop new programs for ELLs.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02103411).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

• Abraham L.B. Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: a meta-analysis. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2008; 21 (3):199–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D., Shanahan T. In: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. August D., Shanahan T., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 2006. Synthesis: instruction and professional development; pp. 351–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny J.C., Ross S.G., Greene D.J., Mitchell R.C., Whitehouse M.H. Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: a preliminary evaluation. J. Behav. Educ. 2012; 21 (2):134–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beretvas S.N., Pastor D.A. Using mixed-effects models in reliability generalization studies. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003; 63 (1):75–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman N.A. Effect sizes and statistical methods for meta-analysis in higher education. Res. High. Educ. 2003; 53 :375–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer K. The Relationship Between Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in Third Grade Students Who Are English Language Learners and Reading Below Grade Level. 2017. (Masters Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlo M.S., August D., Snow C.E. Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for English-language learners. Teach. Learn. Vocabul.: Bring. Res. Pract. 2005:137–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrier K.A. Improving high school English language learners' second language listening through strategy instruction. Biling. Res. J. 2003; 27 (3):383–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaaya D., Ghosn I.K. Supporting young second language learners reading through guided reading and strategy instruction in a second grade classroom in Lebanon. Educ. Res. Rev. 2010; 5 (6):329–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Ramirez G., Luo Y.C., Geva E., Ku Y.M. Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish-and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Read. Writ. 2012; 25 (8):1991–2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M.W. Speaking to read: meta-analysis of peer-mediated learning for English language learners. J. Lit. Res. 2014; 46 (3):358–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V., Valentine J.C., editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel S.M., Pray L. Learning to teach English language learners: a study of elementary school teachers’ sense-making in an ELL endorsement program. Tesol Q. 2017; 51 (4):787–819. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daugherty J.L. 2015. Assessment of ELL Written Language Progress in Designated ESL Noncredit Courses at the Community College Level. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dearing E., Walsh M.E., Sibley E., Lee-St. John T., Foley C., Raczek A.E. Can community and school-based supports improve the achievement of first-generation immigrant children attending high-poverty schools? Child Dev. 2016; 87 (3):883–897. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan M.S., Cross C.T. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2002. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Lockbox 285, 20055. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dussling T.M. Examining the effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention on the early literacy skills of English language learners. Liter. Res. Instr. 2018; 57 (3):276–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duval S., Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56 (2):455–463. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egger M., Smith G.D., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997; 315 (7109):629–634. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbaum B., Vaughn S., Tejero Hughes M., Watson Moody S. How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 92 (4):605–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Estrella G., Au J., Jaeggi S.M., Collins P. Is inquiry science instruction effective for English language learners? A meta-analytic review. AERA Open. 2018; 4 (2) 2332858418767402. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey B.B. Sage Publications; 2018. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R., Baker S. What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Except. Child. 2000; 66 (4):454–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Y., Sun S., Breit-Smith A., Morrison F.J., Connor C.M. Behavioral engagement and reading achievement in elementary-school-age children: a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015; 107 (2):332–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin A.P., Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Sci. Stud. Read. 2013; 17 (4):257–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrer M., Cuijpers P., Furukawa T.A., Ebert D.D. Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-On guide. from. 2019. https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong H. Exploring the role of intertextuality in promoting young ELL children’s poetry writing and learning: a discourse analytic approach. Classr. Discourse. 2018; 9 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Honigsfeld A. ELL programs: not ‘one size fits all’ Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2009; 45 (4):166–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• How J.J., de Leeuw E.D. In: Multilevel Modeling: Methodological Advances, Issues, and Applications. Reise S.P., Duan N., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. Multilevle model for meta-analysis; pp. 90–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson E.J., Johnson A.B. Enhancing academic investment through home-school connections and building on ELL students' scholastic funds of knowledge. J. Lang. Literacy Educ. 2016; 12 (1):104–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer M.J. Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educ. Res. 2010; 39 (6):484–486. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. Global Conference on Education and Research (GLOCER 2017) 2017. May). Influence of ELL instructor’s culturally responsive attitude on newly arrived adolescent ELL students’ academic achievement; pp. 239–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirnan J., Ventresco N.E., Gardner T. The impact of a therapy dog program on children’s reading: follow-up and extension to ELL students. Early Child. Educ. J. 2018; 46 (1):103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesnick J., Goerge R., Smithgall C., Gwynne J. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago; Chicago, IL: 2010. Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade: How Is it Related to High School Performance and College Enrollment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S.M. A study of ELL students' writing difficulties: a call for culturally, linguistically, and psychologically responsive teaching. Coll. Student J. 2015; 49 (2):237–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P.T., Vaughn S. Determining English language learners' response to intervention: questions and some answers. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2007; 30 (3):185–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu S., Wang J. Reading cooperatively or independently? Study on ELL student reading development. Read. Matrix: Int. Online J. 2015; 15 (1):102–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett M.W., De Palma M., Frijters J., Steinbach K., Temple M., Benson N., Lacerenza L. Interventions for reading difficulties: a comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. J. Learn. Disabil. 2008; 41 (4):333–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C. University of Alberta; Canada: 2017. The Effects of Reading Interventions on the Word-Reading Performance of English Language Learners: A Meta-Analysis (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C., Guo K., Georgiou G.K. Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. J. Learn. Disabil. 2019; 52 (3):220–231. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macaruso P., Rodman A. Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English language learners. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):301–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendoza S. Reading strategies to support home-to-school connections used by teachers of English language learners. J. English Lang. Teach. 2016; 6 (4):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meredith D.C. Trevecca Nazarene University; 2017. Relationships Among Utilization of an Online Differentiated Reading Program, ELL Student Literacy Outcomes, and Teacher Attitudes. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan P.L., Sideridis G.D. Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: a multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2006; 21 (4):191–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2021. English Language Learners in Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson C.B., Land R. A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Res. Teach. Engl. 2007:269–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosco M.J. A sociocultural examination of response to intervention with Latino English language learners. Theory Into Pract. 2010; 49 (4):265–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz A.A., Robertson P.M., Wilkinson C.Y., Liu Y.J., McGhee B.D., Kushner M.I. The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: implications for response to intervention. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):316–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pang Y. Empowering ELL students to improve writing skills through inquiry-based learning. N. Engl. Read. Assoc. J. 2016; 51 (2):75–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polat N., Zarecky-Hodge A., Schreiber J.B. Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth-and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. J. Educ. Res. 2016; 109 (5):541–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Grisham D.L. Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. J. Literacy Res. 2007; 39 (1):71–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawian R.M., Mokhtar A.A. ESL reading accuracy: the inside story. Soc. Sci. 2017; 12 (7):1242–1249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid T., Heck R.H. Exploring reading achievement differences between elementary school students receiving and not receiving English language services. AERA Online Paper Repositor. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards-Tutor C., Baker D.L., Gersten R., Baker S.K., Smith J.M. The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: a research synthesis. Except. Child. 2016; 82 (2):144–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross S.G., Begeny J.C. Improving Latino, English language learners' reading fluency: the effects of small-group and one-on-one intervention. Psychol. Sch. 2011; 48 (6):604–618. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth A. Northwest Missouri State University; United States: 2015. Does Buddy Reading Improve Students' Oral Reading Fluency? Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin D.I. Growth in oral reading fluency of Spanish ELL students with learning disabilities. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2016; 52 (1):34–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E. EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2016. June). Using technology to improve reading and math scores for the digital native; pp. 1425–1434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E., Pocklington D. MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING (MAC-EMM 2018); 2018. Can CAI Improve Reading Achievement in Young ELL Students? ECONOMICS; p. 229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheng Z., Sheng Y., Anderson C.J. Dropping out of school among ELL students: implications to schools and teacher education. Clear. House. 2011; 84 (3):98–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow C.E., Burns S.M., Griffin P. Predictors of success and failure in reading. Prevent. Read. Difficul. Young Child. 1998:100–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder E., Witmer S.E., Schmitt H. English language learners and reading instruction: a review of the literature. Prev. Sch. Fail.: Alter. Educ. Child. Youth. 2017; 61 (2):136–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soland J., Sandilos L.E. English language learners, self-efficacy, and the achievement gap: understanding the relationship between academic and social-emotional growth. J. Educ. Stud. Placed A. T. Risk. 2020:1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam K.Y., Heng M.A. Using explicit fluency training to improve the reading comprehension of second grade Chinese immigrant students. Mod. J. Lang. Teach Methods. 2016; 6 (5):17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Téllez K., Manthey G. Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners. Learn. Environ. Res. 2015; 18 (1):111–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson C.G., von Gillern S. Video-game based instruction for vocabulary acquisition with English language learners: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020; 30 :100332. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Kim A., Sloan C.V.M., Hughes M.T., Elbaum B., Sridhar D. Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: a synthesis of group design studies. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2003; 24 :2–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Martinez L.R., Linan-Thompson S., Reutebuch C.K., Carlson C.D., Francis D.J. Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: findings from two experimental studies. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 2009; 2 (4):297–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Mathes P., Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P., Carlson C., Pollard-Durodola S., Francis D. Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elem. Sch. J. 2006; 107 (2):153–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010; 36 (3):1–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker S.A. Chicago State University; 2017. Exploration of ELL Parent Involvement Measured by Epstein's Overlapping Spheres of Influence. Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Roberts G. Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2012; 35 (2):90–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Wexler J., Vaughn S., Ciullo S. Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research. Read. Writ. 2010; 23 (8):889–912. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Vaughn S., Scammacca N.K., Metz K., Murray C.S., Roberts G., Danielson L. Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013; 83 (2):163–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wassell B.A., Hawrylak M.F., Scantlebury K. Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: teachers’ expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM classrooms. Urban Educ. 2017; 52 (10):1233–1254. [ Google Scholar ]
• White E.L., Gillard S. Technology-based literacy instruction for English language learners. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2011; 8 (6):1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousefi M.H., Biria R. The effectiveness of L2 vocabulary instruction: a meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific J. Second Fore. Lang. Educ. 2018; 3 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]

References for studies included in the meta-analysis

• Amendum S.J., Bratsch-Hines M., Vernon-Feagans L. Investigating the efficacy of a web-based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Read. Res. Q. 2018; 53 (2):155–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Youth Policy Forum. (2009). Issue brief Moving English language learners to college and career readiness. Retrieved November 22,2009, from: www.aypf.org/documents/ELLIssueBrief
• Callahan R.M., Shifrer D. Equitable access for secondary English learner students: course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educ. Admin. Q. 2016; 52 (3):463–496. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho H., Brutt-Griffler J. Integrated reading and writing: a case of Korean English language learners. Read. Foreign Lang. 2015; 27 (2):242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chow B.W.Y., McBride-Chang C., Cheung H. Parent–child reading in English as a second language: effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners. J. Res. Read. 2010; 33 (3):284–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruz de Quiros A.M., Lara-Alecio R., Tong F., Irby B.J. The effect of a structured story reading intervention, story retelling and higher order thinking for English language and literacy acquisition. J. Res. Read. 2012; 35 (1):87–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook A.L. Exploring the role of school counselors. J. Sch. Couns. 2015; 13 (9):1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dabarera C., Renandya W.A., Zhang L.J. The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System. 2014; 42 :462–473. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dockrell J.E., Stuart M., King D. Supporting early oral language skills for English language learners in inner city preschool provision. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 80 (4):497–515. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filippini A.L., Gerber M.M., Leafstedt J.M. A vocabulary-added reading intervention for English learners at-risk of reading difficulties. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2012; 27 (3):14–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fry R. How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew Hispanic Center; Washington, DC: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamaludin K.A., Alias N., Mohd Khir R.J., DeWitt D., Kenayathula H.B. The effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the development of early reading skills among struggling young ESL readers. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 2016; 27 (3):455–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanno Y., Cromley J. English language learners’ pathways to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record. 2015; 117 (12):1–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J. Word meanings matter: cultivating English vocabulary knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Tesol Q. 2010; 44 (4):669–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMaster K.L., Kung S.H., Han I., Cao M. Peer-assisted learning strategies: a “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners' response to intervention. Except. Child. 2008; 74 (2):194–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olivier A.M., Anthonissen C., Southwood F. Literacy development of English language learners: the outcomes of an intervention programme in grade R. S. Afr. J. Commun. Disord. 2010; 57 (1):58–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollard-Durodola S.D., Gonzalez J.E., Saenz L., Resendez N., Kwok O., Zhu L., Davis H. The effects of content-enriched shared book reading versus vocabulary-only discussions on the vocabulary outcomes of preschool dual language learners. Early Educ. Dev. 2018; 29 (2):245–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Uccelli P., Biancarosa G., Mo E., Snow C., Neugebauer S. Improving comprehension online: effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Read. Writ. 2011; 24 (5):517–544. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez C.D., Filler J., Higgins K. Using primary language support via computer to improve reading comprehension skills of first-grade English language learners. Comput. Sch. 2012; 29 (3):253–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman R., Hines S. The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009; 101 (2):305–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R.E., Madden N., Calderón M., Chamberlain A., Hennessy M. Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educ. Eval. Pol. Anal. 2011; 33 (1):47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solari E.J., Gerber M.M. Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2008; 23 (4):155–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spycher P. Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classes. Elem. Sch. J. 2009; 109 (4):359–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Koch J. Integrating literacy and science for English language learners: from learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. J. Educ. Res. 2014; 107 (5):410–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Mathes P.G. English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: a 3-year longitudinal randomized study. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 2008; 30 (4):500–529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Yoon M., Mathes P.G. Hispanic English learners' responses to longitudinal English instructional intervention and the effect of gender: a multilevel analysis. Elem. Sch. J. 2010; 110 (4):542–566. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Lara-Alecio R., Irby B.J., Mathes P.G. The effects of an instructional intervention on dual language development among first-grade Hispanic English-learning boys and girls: a two-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Res. 2011; 104 (2):87–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend D., Collins P. Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: an intervention study. Read. Writ. 2009; 22 (9):993–1019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 102 (4):786–803. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: how language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Sci. Stud. Read. 2011; 15 (6):471–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Staden A. Reading in a second language: considering the 'simple view of reading' as a foundation to support ESL readers in Lesotho, Southern Africa. Per Linguam: J. Lang. Learn. 2016; 32 (1):21–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeung S.S., Siegel L.S., Chan C.K. Effects of a phonological awareness program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Read. Writ. 2013; 26 (5):681–704. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Enhancing efl/esl instruction through gamification: a comprehensive review of empirical evidence.

• 1 Faculty of Arts, Centre for Applied English Studies, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China
• 2 College of Professional and Continuing Education, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
• 3 Department of Educational Research, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

Introduction: In the landscape of English language education, the integration of gamification has marked a transformative trend. This systematic review, utilizing a rapid evidence assessment methodology, critically examines thirty empirical studies from the Web of Science, spanning the years 2010 to 2022. It aims to synthesize the current body of research on the incorporation of gamification into EFL/ESL pedagogy.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed when conducting this study to provide a comparative study on the methodology and results of systematic reviews on the use of various digital gaming platforms in China, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Korea, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Spain, Turkey, and Ecuador. The synthesis of studies under review identifies a spectrum of gamification components incorporated within the educational frameworks.

Results: Our analysis reveals an ascending trajectory in the prevalence of gamification within this academic sphere and corroborates its efficacy as a catalyst for language acquisition. The synthesis of studies under review identifies a spectrum of gamification components incorporated within the educational frameworks.

Discussion: The collected evidence underscores gamification’s role in enhancing English proficiency, influencing learners’ attitudes and emotional engagement positively, and fostering an immersive language learning milieu. Furthermore, this review delineates strategic insights and identifies key gamification components instrumental in orchestrating gamified educational experiences. The implications of the findings extend to pedagogical practices, providing a guide for educators in the design and implementation of gamified language learning environments.

1 Introduction

In a variety of nations where English is not the primary language, it has risen to become the leading foreign language and serves as a common means of communication. Not only is the competency of mastery of English a necessity for students, it is also deemed as an essential objective and reason for students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). Therefore, it is of paramount importance for educators to focus on improving students’ skills in the fundamental areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English. These competencies form the cornerstone of language acquisition and have emerged as significant focal points for scholarly research ( Liu and Chu, 2010 ; Zohud, 2019 ; Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021 ). The twin forces of globalization and the rapid expansion of digital technologies have significantly have concurrently engendered challenges for numerous students, provided with the unavoidable and prevailing trend of the global usage of the language and different digital contexts and various channels. These individuals have encountered the stark realization that their conventional English education is insufficient for comprehension and communication in the Digital Age ( Wu et al., 2014 ). Our conventional perception towards language learning is that limited to traditional classroom settings, in which students have been used to be taught to read, listen, write and present in face-to-face communications with handwritten forms at times. With the advancement and widespread of digital technologies in relation to classroom learning, learners’ competence in mastering digital literacy has been also been expected as part of their learning process, together with their traditional mode of acquiring the second language well. The ability of master English language well goes along with their equipment of digital knowledge as both of them are closely related in everyday life in the global world in the new era. In response to this educational shortfall, there has been a concerted effort to integrate innovations in multimedia technologies within EFL pedagogy. Such advancements aim to ameliorate the quality of English foreign language instruction in the early twenty-first century, addressing the emergent needs of contemporary learners. The reasons that explain why technologies have been introduced in education settings is due to the growing expectation on motivational forces from learners which could be facilitated by original use of digital tools and assistance in both face-to-face and online classrooms. The commonality of the shift of mode of learning is another reason that justifies the student autonomy in learning independently outside the classroom contexts, which could in return minimize the workload of teachers and develop an automatic system and mechanism to assist students to learn better with the emergence of various digital softwares and applications.

Gamification constitutes a cutting-edge trend in the landscape of contemporary English in many educational settings including English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). This pedagogical strategy can be delineated as the application of game design elements and gaming principles within educational contexts. The idea of gamification in education is not a complete novelty. For the first time, the gamification of education was mentioned in the 1980s (Bowman, 1982,; Malone, 1980, 1982, as cited in Seaborn and Deborah, 2015 ). Later, Chapman and Rich (2018) characterized gamified education as a collection of activities taken in reality (but supported by the ICT system) to discover and validate activities, view progress, and communicate and collaborate with other players. Generally, gamification can be understood as an integration of game elements and game thinking in activities that are not games ( Palová and Vejačka, 2022 ). Games have typical characteristics which are vital in gamification and which are used to motivate and facilitate educational process, namely: Narrative and users—constituted by all course participants; Player control—participants control the pace of the study consecution; Immediate feedback—users get an evaluation of performed task instantly; Challenges—tasks performed consecutively towards defined objectives or goals; Progress mechanism—a process of accomplishing tasks and acquiring amounts of points for them. After reaching a predefined level of points users are rewarded with various rewards such as badges of accomplishment for completing certain actions. This can be repeated multiple times to promote the reaching the goal of the study and supported by the publishing of users’ ranking according to their levels of achievement; Social contact—allows competitive or cooperative problem-solving within the process of education ( Palová and Vejačka, 2022 ). According to Aguiar-Castillo et al. (2021) , gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts and there are rules to follow within the framework of elements of game design but cannot be considered as full-fledged games. There are several levels of game elements where a gamified system can borrow its design—Game interface design patterns, Game design patterns and mechanics, Game design principles and heuristics, Game models and Game design methods. In other words a gamified system is designed to look and/or feel like a game but not go all the way ( Aguiar-Castillo et al., 2021 ). Gamification concept generally performs as external events that influence intrinsic as suggested in Self Determination Theory (CET). Game design elements or mechanics such as points, badges and leaderboard may be considered as an external reward as these game mechanics can provide feedback on performance and driver to motivate user’s behavior ( Peter et al., 2019 ). Additionally, Lo and Mok (2019) have highlighted the utility of gamification in second language (L2) acquisition, noting that elements such as word association, goal execution, and dialogue construction can leverage the familiarity of digital natives with gaming experiences. This familiarity has a direct and transferable relevance in digital L2 learning experiences, enhancing both engagement and language skills ( Lo and Mok, 2019 ). The primary objective of gamification is to render the learning process more engaging and accessible to students, thereby fostering an inclusive educational environment.

Research has shown many advantages of gamification in educational contexts. For example, recent studies have validated the potential of gamification to improve student motivation, engagement, and interaction in education, while allowing them to immerse themselves in experiential learning. This is particularly important in the context of psychology, where motivation is seen as the driving force behind the behavior with a dynamic relationship between internal and intrinsic forces and affective processes leading to personal, social, and psychological well-being ( Li et al., 2023 ). It is posited that gamification not only facilitates but also incentivizes student participation in the learning process, potentially leading to enhanced educational outcomes ( Deterding et al., 2011 ; Lee and Hammer, 2011 ; Kapp, 2012 ; Bicen and Kocakoyun, 2018 ). Badges, rewards, cumulative point systems, and competitive scoring mechanisms serve as tangible incentives for students, promoting desirable behaviors within educational settings ( Shortt et al., 2021 ). Kapp (2012) contends that gamification transcends the mere integration of game mechanics and elements to augment the interest level in learning activities. Instead, gamification endeavors to transform the very essence of the learning experience while simultaneously amplifying learner autonomy. This educational approach offers a secure environment that fosters student engagement and enjoyment. Gamers create community pedagogical resources, and act as language advisers, teachers, and translators for those with similar interests ( Lo, 2020 ). Within this gamified context, learners are recipients of instantaneous feedback, which is crucial for the learning process. As they engage with and surmount challenges, they not only succeed in their immediate goals but also garner a profound sense of achievement. This comprehensive approach not only stimulates learner interest but also redefines the educational journey as a whole. Gamification applications can be used for measurement and evaluation purposes, help teachers quickly and practically determine the learning levels of students. They offer students the opportunity to receive instant feedback on their learning. With the use of these applications, especially for formative assessment purposes, is becoming more common day by day ( Bolat and Taş, 2023 ).

Nonetheless, empirical research on the application of gamification within the domain of EFL/ESL education has yielded mixed outcomes. While certain studies underscore the potential educational benefits of gamification, the findings are not universally conclusive. Despite this, it is evident that scholarly interest in the pedagogical utility of gamification in the context of EFL education has surged in the recent decade ( Hung, 2018 ; Fithriani, 2021 ); other scholars maintain that gamified learning remains an under-explored area within the realm of English language teaching. The incorporation of gamification in EFL classrooms has been relatively obscure, attributed in part to the scarcity of research within this area in particular the gap between the theories and real life application of in classrooms. In addition, there are limitations for individual educators to experiment different forms of gamified teaching tools in face-to-face classrooms due to the constraints of time and resources to be supported by the institutions. Furthermore, data in the prior research was mainly collected during pandemic and post-pandemic time after 2019 in virtual classroom settings. In other words, gamified classrooms are usually more common in online teaching and learning. The currently more popular academic discourse has been shifted to focus on the emergence of GenAI instead. In other words, studies have indicated that the application of gamification encounters various obstacles, among which are a restrictive curriculum that may not accommodate the flexibility required for game-based learning activities, limited access to high-tech facilities for both teachers and students, a general unfamiliarity with gamification principles among educational stakeholders, and disparate attitudes towards the adoption of gaming methodologies in educational settings ( Hung and Young, 2015 ; Phuong, 2020 ).

On the other hand, it could be argued that research on the impact of gamification on EFL instruction and learning has produced a spectrum of findings. There is a substantial body of literature that has documented the affirmative effects of gamification on EFL learning. These reported benefits include the alleviation of students’ anxiety related to English language learning ( Hwang et al., 2017 ; Hung, 2018 ; Barcomb and Cardoso, 2020 ), the enhancement of students’ interest, motivation, and engagement in the learning process ( Hwang et al., 2017 ; Bicen and Kocakoyun, 2018 ; Zohud, 2019 ; Reynolds and Taylor, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ; Almusharraf, 2023 ), the improvement of students’ learning performance ( Wu et al., 2014 ; Hwang et al., 2017 ; Ling et al., 2019 ; Zohud, 2019 ; Barcomb and Cardoso, 2020 ), and the promotion of learner autonomy ( Zohud, 2019 ; Setiawan and Wiedarti, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ). To be specific, a subset of studies has presented a more nuanced view, indicating that while gamification may lead to better performance among students compared to a control group in the short term, such enhancements do not necessarily translate into sustained improvements in final learning outcomes ( Dominguez et al., 2013 ; Calvo-Ferrer, 2017 ). Learning outcomes in this study are mainly defined as significant positive effects on cognitive, motivational, and behavioral learning outcomes, with game fiction and social interaction as key moderators. The outcomes could also be regarded improved performance in assessments and exams, mediated by increased self-testing behavior. The learning outcomes could be measured during the learning progress, in the form of engagement, motivation, and learning achievement, particularly in cognitive outcomes.

Research has indeed shown that students who engage with traditional pedagogical interventions are sometimes more successful than those who use gamified methods ( Hanus and Fox, 2015 ). This phenomenon may be attributed to various factors, including the greater familiarity that students typically have with conventional teaching techniques as opposed to the novel gamified approaches which may seem alien and thus less effective. Additionally, the competitive aspect of many gamified environments can be off-putting for some learners who may not thrive under competitive pressure or simply do not enjoy competitive scenarios ( Kirsch and Spreckelsen, 2023 ). Technical issues also pose significant challenges to the successful implementation of gamified learning ( Tabassum, 2024 ). For instance, unreliable Internet connections can disrupt the continuity of gamified applications, which often require a stable online environment. The pace of the game itself can be another hindrance, as some students may find it too fast and struggle to keep up, while the lack of detailed explanations post-game can leave learners confused and without a clear understanding of the material ( Ebadi et al., 2021 ). When it comes to mobile learning, the effectiveness of gamification can be compromised by the multifunctionality of mobile devices. Students might be inclined to use their devices for personal or social interaction rather than for educational purposes ( Stockwell, 2010 ), and the potential for distraction is high, with various notifications and functions pulling the students’ attention away from learning tasks ( Dahlstrom et al., 2015 ).

Furthermore, the contradictory results ( Hanus and Fox, 2015 ) concerning the influence of gamification on students’ motivation, satisfaction, empowerment, and achievement scores can also be a result of the suitability of gamification applications themselves, which may not be universally appropriate or effective for all educational contexts or learner profiles. Individual factors such as age, gender, and personality, along with other issues, also play a crucial role in how gamification is received by students. Gamification tools, such as points, badges, and leaderboards, have been widely used in higher education to enhance student engagement and motivation ( Santana et al., 2016 ; Limantara et al., 2019 ). These elements can be integrated into learning activities to promote learning success, particularly in e-learning environments ( Strmečki et al., 2015 ). The use of these tools has been found to have a positive impact on student engagement and achievement ( Rahman et al., 2018 ). However, it is important to consider the specific needs of different types of learners when designing gamified learning activities ( Strmečki et al., 2015 ). In Smiderle et al.’s (2020) study, it was found that introverted participants in both control and experimental groups had a higher number of points, badges, and logins. A statistical significant difference was found in the number of points and ranking views between the introvert and extrovert students who used the gamified version, thus indicating that there is a difference between how different users with different personality traits receive the effect of gamification. In addition, a statistically significant difference was found in the accuracy gain of the introverted participants who used the gamified version. This result detected a negative effect of the ranking on extroverted participants and positive and not significant in introverted participants; extroverts preferred badges. However, unlike Jia et al. (2016) who found that extroverts tend to be more motivated by points, levels, and ranking. Given these diverse and complex considerations, it is clear that further research is warranted to better understand the conditions and contexts in which gamification can be most beneficial for language learning. The influence of gamification on students’ motivation, satisfaction, empowerment, and achievement scores is complex and context-dependent. While some studies have found positive effects ( Hamari et al., 2014 ; Dicheva et al., 2015 ; Mohammed and Ozdamli, 2021 ), others have reported contradictory results, suggesting that the suitability of gamification applications themselves may play a role ( Hanus and Fox, 2015 ). The use of specific gamification mechanics, such as badges, levels, feedback, points, and leaderboards, has been identified as particularly motivating ( Mohammed and Ozdamli, 2021 ). However, the design and implementation of gamification in educational settings require careful consideration to ensure positive outcomes.

Given the identified gaps in the current literature regarding the benefits of gamifying classrooms, its application and wide use of gamification in EFL/ESL education and its limitations and perceptions towards the importance and necessity of gamifying learning process, the study aims to conduct a comprehensive review of empirical research in this field. The focus will be on examining three critical questions that are central to understanding the role and efficacy of gamification in language instruction. The objective of this research paper is to furnish the audience with an overview of the contemporary application of gamification within the context of empirical studies on EFL and ESL instruction. It aims to elucidate the potential educational outcomes attributable to the integration of gamification in EFL/ESL pedagogy, as well as to identify specific gamification elements that have been implemented in the design and execution of gamified learning engagements.

The literature on the use of gamification in English language learning consistently highlights its positive impact on student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes ( Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021 ; Kaya and Cilsalar Sagnak, 2022 ; Laura-De La Cruz et al., 2023 ; Putu Wulantari et al., 2023 ). However, there is a lack of consensus on the specific gamification elements that contribute to these outcomes, with some studies calling for further research in this area ( Al-Dosakee and Ozdamli, 2021 ; Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021 ). This study also emphasizes the need for more research on the use of gamification in different educational contexts, in particular the higher education contexts.

2 Research questions

The research study aims to provide a response to the following main research questions:

1. How is gamification a strategy or an approach used within various teaching methodologies in EFL/ESL classes?

2. What are the factors affecting the relationship between gamification and EFL outcomes?

3. What gamification elements should be used in designing gamified learning activities in EFL/ESL classes?

3 Methodology

3.1 research design.

The choice to deploy an effective evidence evaluation review in this study is informed by its increasing popularity as a literature review methodology in recent years, especially when timely results are needed. The principal advantages of a rapid evidence review lie in its ability to maintain a rigorous approach to identifying, appraising, and synthesizing evidence from existing studies while significantly reducing the time required to produce results compared to a full systematic review ( Varker et al., 2015 ).

Rapid assessments such as rapid on-line methods, diagnostic tests and speed reading can be a useful approach to assess language proficiency of learners and work to monitor the immediate traces of students’ knowledge structures in working memory ( Kalyuga, 2006 ). Despite of the fact that the aforementioned traditional tests, especially the in-class writings and test scores, may not provide reliable evidence for diagnostic purposes and are not suitable for dynamic learning environments, there is potential for these assessments to be embedded into adaptive e-learning packages. A systematic review consists of three phases: development, processing, and reporting. For this study, the researchers selected high-quality SSCI-indexed journal articles through these three phases, analyzed their main viewpoints of the use of gamification in EFL/ESL instruction and learning, and carried out an analysis and discussion of the results.

3.2 Database and search strategy

In the development phase, literature was searched from the bibliographic database of Web of Science, providing that Web of Science has been noted to be a prestigious database, with a greater impact in terms of most cited authors and publications, and is selective in what journals it indexes, focuses on high-quality, peer-reviewed sources. It provides detailed citation metrics and analysis tools. To identify relevant publications, the search terms used in this study were “Gamification in EFL,” “Gamification in ESL,” “Gamification in EFL teaching,” “Gamification and English as a Foreign Language,” “Gamification and English as a Second Language,” “Gamified English language teaching,” “Gamified English learning,” “Gamification and English Language Instruction,” and “Gamification and English Language Learning.” As gamification was not widely used until the second half of 2010 ( Giannetto et al., 2013 ), the search period of this review article was limited to between 2010 and 2022 to collect the most relevant and up to date literature and select the high-quality journal articles in the field. The search results were limited to SSCI database, because these SSCI-indexed journal articles could represent the highest-level relevant research studies in English ( Ziegeler, 2023 ). In the phase of refining search results and selecting high-quality publications for the rapid evidence evaluation review, the researchers delineated specific inclusion criteria to ensure that the studies under consideration were both relevant and methodologically sound. Initially, the temporal scope was set from 2010 to 2022, aligning with the emergence and rise of gamification in education and ensuring a modern perspective on the subject matter ( Caponetto et al., 2014 ). The reason for limiting the search to articles published up to 2022 is due to the publication lag inherent in the Web of Science database. Web of Science, while considered a gold standard database, can sometimes have a delay of 6–12 months or more in fully indexing and making newly published articles searchable. To ensure the most up-to-date research available is captured at the time of conducting the review, the study opts to search up to the end of 2022 in order to minimize the risk of missing any key studies that may have been published in early 2023 but not yet indexed in Web of Science. Studies were required to specifically address the use of gamification in the context of EFL/ESL teaching and learning, thereby excluding research focused on educational games, video games, and serious games, which, although related, are distinct from gamification as defined by Kapp (2012) . Kapps’ gamification application was then mainly focused on the effectiveness of Kahoot, which was widely studied and found to have a positive impact on EFL/ESL classrooms ( Kapp, 2012 ). Kapp’s study (2012) implies serious games and gamification are both trying to solve a problem, motivate people, and promote learning using game-based thinking and techniques. He makes it clear that gamification is not badges, points, and rewards, but reduces the complexity and uses broad generalizations to represent reality. In other words, Kapps’ gamification focuses more intrinsically motivating and deeper elements of games such as: challenge, mystery, story, constructive feedback, socialization and other elements that make games inherently engaging in classrooms ( Kapp, 2012 ).

In addition, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed when conducting this study, which is the golden framework and standard for reporting the methodology and results of systematic reviews so as to ensure transparency, completeness, and quality. The PRISMA checklist was utilized throughout the review process, from the initial literature search to data extraction, synthesis, and reporting. Furthermore, only studies published in peer-reviewed journals were considered, effectively ruling out grey literature such as conference papers, book chapters, theses, and non-empirical literature reviews or analyses of secondary data. This criterion underscores the commitment to academic rigor and the value placed on the peer review process as a marker of research quality. Additionally, the researchers focused exclusively on empirical research, thus emphasizing studies based on actual observation or experimentation over theoretical or speculative ones. Lastly, the methodologies of the studies were taken into account, with the inclusion criteria favoring qualitative, quantitative, quasi-experimental, or mixed-methods research. This approach aimed to capture a wide array of empirical insights while maintaining a high standard of research design and analysis. Through these meticulously crafted inclusion criteria, the study was positioned to aggregate a body of evidence that would shed light on the utility, effectiveness, and challenges of gamification in facilitating English language acquisition. Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA flow diagram regarding the research and review process.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow diagram.

Five exclusion criteria were used: (1) studies conducted before January 2010; (2) studies that did not investigate the use of gamification to support EFL/ESL teaching and learning; (3) the study was relevant to the present research topic but in the form of book chapters, conference papers, unpublished thesis, literature reviews and secondary data analysis; and (4) the study was not empirical research. Table 1 outlines and summaries the database used, with the exclusion and exclusion criteria of those database and population or demographic variables:

Table 1 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria for database used.

During the selection phase, the investigative team conducted an appraisal of the titles, abstracts, and keywords, making determinations on the suitability of papers for inclusion in the data synthesis based on established eligibility criteria. In instances of ambiguity regarding inclusion, the investigators consulted the full-text articles for a more informed resolution.

The preliminary retrieval using the specified search terms resulted in a corpus of 533 scholarly articles. Subsequent to the exclusion of redundant articles and conference proceedings, a total of 81 articles remained. A thorough examination of the abstracts, keywords, and methodologies of these articles ensued to further refine the selection by excluding those that fell outside the ambit of this research’s thematic focus. In the end, this rigorous systematic review incorporated 30 scholarly articles. Drawing inspiration from the methodology outlined by Dehghanzadeh et al. (2021) , such rapid demand for LES requires a shift from traditional to advanced learning methods. This shift is especially important since learners often complain that LES is difficult, challenging, and stressful, especially when it comes to application of its various skills (e.g., speaking, writing, reading, listening) in real life situations. Figure 2 delineates the publication selection schema employed in the current investigation.

Figure 2 . Flowchart process selection.

4.1 Overview of research on gamification in EFL/ESL education

Table 2 summarizing empirical data below presents a synthesized overview of the studies incorporated that examine the application of gamification in the context of EFL/ESL education.

Table 2 . Quantitative description of the reviewed empirical data extraction table.

The span of publication dates ranges from 2010 to 2022, with a significant concentration of these studies emerging in the past five years, signaling that the exploration of gamification in EFL/ESL pedagogy is an emergent research domain. The array of digital learning platforms utilized in the reviewed research is diverse, extending beyond the ubiquitously employed Kahoot ( Hung, 2017 ; Zou, 2020 ; Alawadhi and Abu-Ayyash, 2021 ; Ebadi et al., 2021 ; Chen, 2022 ; Almusharraf, 2023 ) to include platforms such as TipOn ( Hong et al., 2022 ), ClassDojo ( Homer et al., 2018 ), Edmodo ( Lam et al., 2018 ), as well as gamified English learning applications prevalent in China like Baicizhan ( Dindar et al., 2021 ) and Shanbay ( Fan and Wang, 2020 ), in addition to bespoke gamified software or web pages ( Hwang et al., 2017 ; Hung, 2018 ). This variety underscores the crucial part that digital gamification resources serve in the realm of EFL/ESL education. Padlet has also been regarded as a versatile and engaging educational tool with gamification elements, facilitating student collaboration, peer feedback, and active learning in both virtual and physical classrooms ( El Shaban and Abobaker, 2021 ). It serves as an interactive platform for various educational activities, including assignments, assessments, and brainstorming sessions ( Wood, 2016 ). Using Padlet, students display their answers publicly and upload the photos using their cellphones in an interactive learning setting for peer review and instructor feedback, which could also be supplemented with the collaborative deployment of other gamified tools like Kahoot. The research has been predominantly disseminated through prestigious SSCI-indexed journals, reflecting an academic predilection for the fusion of contemporary technology with linguistic education.

The breakdown of educational levels targeted by these studies shows a distribution of 60% in higher education, 27% in secondary education, and 13% in primary education. The majority of the research adopts an experimental design. To investigate the role of gamification in EFL/ESL, researchers have employed a myriad of methodologies, including quantitative, qualitative, quasi-experimental, and mixed methods. A broad spectrum of data gathering techniques has been utilized, such as surveys, classroom observations, interviews, research diaries, student self-reflections, checklists, and pre-and post-assessments.

The focus of language learning within these studies encompasses a variety of instructional and learning components, with English vocabulary instruction constituting 23%, speaking 17%, writing 13%, college-level English 13%, grammar 10%, listening 10%, reading 6%, morphological awareness 3%, literature 3%, and business English 3%. These components are integral in thoroughly investigating the research questions posed. Notably, some studies have amalgamated multiple learning dimensions; for instance, Fan and Wang (2020) explored university students’ EFL learning across vocabulary, reading, and speaking in China. The geographical scope of these empirical studies spans across a range of EFL/ESL learning contexts, including, but not limited to, China, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Korea, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Spain, Turkey, and Ecuador. Hwang et al. (2017) found that a game-based learning environment for English listening comprehension reduced anxiety and improved student behavior. This is consistent with the positive impact of Kahoot on engagement and classroom dynamics in EFL courses, as reported by Almusharraf (2023) . Furthermore, the use of digital game mechanics, as studied by Lam et al. (2018) , has been shown to enhance argumentative writing quality among secondary students. These findings collectively suggest that game-based learning can have a positive impact on student behavior, anxiety, and engagement in EFL classrooms and gamification is a strategy or used within various teaching methodologies in EFL/ESL classes at different both tertiary and secondary levels. Table 3 summaries the distinctive research findings regarding various methodologies of gaming tools deployed in different academic settings in different cities.

Table 3 . Summary of researches conducted regarding various gaming platforms.

4.2 Educational implications of gamification in EFL/ESL

As depicted in Table 2 , the preponderance of the empirical investigations under review have conveyed that both learners and educators maintain favorable views on the integration of gamification within EFL/ESL instruction. The consensus is that gamified educational frameworks have unambiguously augmented student engagement and motivation in the English learning process ( Liu and Chu, 2010 ; Hwang et al., 2017 ; Ge, 2018 ; Homer et al., 2018 ; Hung, 2018 ; Sun and Hsieh, 2018 ; Ho, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ; Alawadhi and Abu-Ayyash, 2021 ; Kaban and Karadeniz, 2021 ; Chen, 2022 ; Qiao et al., 2022 ; Almusharraf, 2023 ) and stimulated students’ interest and engagement in English learning ( Hung, 2018 ; Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen, 2018 ; Sun and Hsieh, 2018 ; Ho, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ; Alawadhi and Abu-Ayyash, 2021 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Previous studies have highlighted gamification’s role in cultivating an authentic context for language acquisition ( Wu et al., 2014 ; Mei and Yang, 2019 ) and in diminishing the anxiety associated with the English language learning process ( Hwang et al., 2017 ; Hung, 2018 ). Furthermore, gamified approaches have been shown to contribute to enhancements in English language skill proficiency and overall linguistic capability ( Sandberg et al., 2014 ; Hung, 2017 ; Hwang et al., 2017 ; Sevilla-Pavón and Haba-Osca, 2017 ; Lam et al., 2018 ; Zou, 2020 ; Hong et al., 2022 ). Investigations have also evidenced the effectiveness of gamification in promoting self-directed learning habits and supporting the development of learner autonomy ( Sandberg et al., 2014 ; Rueckert et al., 2020 ), as well as in enhancing students’ retention of knowledge ( Ge, 2018 ; Chen et al., 2019 ).

Hwang et al. (2017) conducted a study to investigate the nuanced impact that game-based learning environments have on learners’ behaviors and levels of anxiety related to the English language. The research entailed the creation of a problem-based game specifically tailored for English listening comprehension, which was then utilized by 77 ninth-grade students. The study employed a quasi-experimental design to assess changes in the participants’ levels of English anxiety, their motivation to learn, and their actual learning achievements. The students were divided into two groups: the experimental group, which consisted of 39 students, engaged with the problem-based English listening game, while the control group, comprising 38 students, received traditional instruction methods. Through the analysis of pre-test and post-test scores, as well as questionnaire responses regarding learning motivation and English language anxiety, the study discovered that the English listening game had a positive effect on student learning. Specifically, it was observed that the game-based learning approach significantly elevated the students’ motivation and achievement in learning English when contrasted with the outcomes of the conventional instructional approach. It was also found that “students with higher levels of English anxiety improved their learning achievement more than did the students with lower levels of anxiety” ( Hwang et al., 2017 , p. 39).

The research conducted by Almusharraf (2023) examined the impressions of undergraduate students regarding the effectiveness of Kahoot in bolstering engagement and invigorating classroom dynamics during reviews of writing structures, terms, and concepts within online English literature courses for EFL students in Saudi Arabia. The study spanned 16 literature class sessions over the course of a semester, with half of these sessions following a traditional format, and the other half integrating Kahoot to revisit and assess previously covered material. The findings from Almusharraf’s study indicated that student engagement levels were notably higher during the sessions that incorporated game-based learning facilitated by Kahoot. Additionally, the results highlighted students expressed positive attitudes toward learning within a game-based environment. The utilization of Kahoot in the classroom was associated with enhancing student motivation and enriching the overall classroom dynamics. As shown from Almusharraf’s experiment, an important aspect of the study’s outcome was that the benefits of the game-based approach were universally experienced across the student body. The research found no significant differences in the perceptions of Kahoot’s impact among students of varying ages, genders, and social backgrounds, suggesting that game-based learning tools like Kahoot have a wide-reaching potential to positively influence EFL learning experiences regardless of demographic factors.

While gamification in EFL/ESL education has received positive feedback from both students and some educators, there are nuances and contradictions in teacher perspectives as evident in the literature ( Krishnan et al., 2021 ; Luo et al., 2021 ). Krishnan et al. (2021) argue in favor of gamification, stating that it can be an asset for EFL teachers, enhancing their professional competency. They note that teachers recognize the advantages of increased student engagement through gamified learning and are thus motivated to become proficient in digital and gaming tools as part of course preparation. Teachers understand that gamification elements like leaderboards, progress bars, badges, and points can stimulate active student participation and motivation. Consequently, they adapt their teaching roles to facilitate the tracking of student progress and foster a competitive yet collaborative learning environment. On the other hand, Luo et al. (2021) present a more skeptical view from teachers regarding the adoption of gamification, particularly in the context of secondary schools in China. These EFL teachers expressed concerns about potential loss of control in the classroom and were wary of the implications of gamification on students’ exam scores. The high-stakes nature of the College Entrance Examination in China places a premium on traditional teaching methods that are perceived to directly contribute to exam performance. As a result, these teachers question the ability of gamification to provide substantive learning opportunities and fear it may dilute pedagogical goals and teaching efficiency. Technical limitations and the desire for aesthetically pleasing, easy-to-use tools also contribute to their reluctance. The contrast in views between Krishnan et al. (2021) and Luo et al. (2021) can be attributed to differences in educational contexts and priorities. In Krishnan et al.’s study, the participants seemingly did not face the pressure of high-stakes testing, whereas Luo et al.’s participants were preparing for the highly competitive College Entrance Examination, where the stakes for English proficiency are considerably higher. This disparity highlights the complex balance educators must strike between innovative teaching methods and the demands of traditional assessment models.

4.3 Gamification components employed in the reviewed studies

The synthesis of studies under review identifies a spectrum of gamification components incorporated within the educational frameworks. Predominant among these are elements such as point systems, digital credentials, evaluative commentary, structured interrogatives, and visual indicators of progression. Subsequent in frequency of application are hierarchical rankings, temporal constraints, narrative constructs, and multimedia enhancements inclusive of auditory and visual stimuli. Less commonly integrated, yet noteworthy components comprise virtual personas, cooperative interactions, competitive engagements, and scenario-based challenges, among others. In these gamified environments for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, the paradigm typically revolves around an accumulative points-based or stratified levels system, which encompasses leaderboards, progress indicators, virtual representations, credentials, and responsive feedback mechanisms. Such environments are designed to incorporate elements of challenge or competition, with the provision of rewards predicated upon the successful demonstration of knowledge by participants.

Table 4 offers an enumeration of the gamification constituents as cited in the scrutinized literature. The table presents a hierarchy of these elements based on the frequency of their reported usage. The predominant gamification elements, as indicated by their higher frequencies, are point systems (N = 11) and digital badges (N = 8). These are closely followed by evaluative feedback and structured interrogatives, each with a frequency of 7 occurrences. Visual progression indicators are cited in 5 of the reviewed publications. Additional elements such as hierarchical rankings and temporal constraints, along with narrative and storytelling techniques, are documented with a frequency of 4. Virtual personas and cooperative engagement strategies are noted in 3 instances, in parity with multimedia components incorporating auditory and visual effects. Competitive elements are also reported with a frequency of 4. Less frequently observed in the studies are scenario-based challenges and role-playing exercises, each with 2 instances of application within the gamified EFL/ESL instructional contexts. This data illustrates a diverse yet consistent application of gamification techniques, with a clear preference for point accumulation and badge systems to engage learners in the reviewed educational settings. All these demonstrate the most common gamification element to be employed is “points” (N = 11), followed by digital badges (N = 8), feedback and quiz (N = 7). Otherwise, the least popular gamification elements include “challenges,” “competition” and “roleplaying” (N = 2). The findings could have implied that with the support, easy access and availability from different gamified platforms in the digital market, it is easier for the users to deploy those user-friendly elements in the education settings. On the other hand, “challenges,” “competition” and “roleplaying” could require more skill-set of the users with more time constraints and complicated methodology designs.

Table 4 . The gamification elements employed in the publications reviewed.

Lam et al. (2018) conducted a study to examine the impact of digital game mechanics on the quality of argumentative writing among secondary students in Hong Kong over a seven-week period. The study divided participants into three distinct groups: the first experimental group engaged in a blend of gamified and traditional learning methods; the second experimental group participated in blended learning without gamification; and the control group adhered to a conventional direct-instruction approach led by teachers. The gamification strategy implemented by the first experimental group incorporated a points system, rewarding students with points for contributing relevant and correct ideas pertaining to the discussion topics. Additionally, this group employed a leaderboard, which functioned as a dynamic high-score chart displaying student rankings based on their accumulated points and was updated biweekly. Upon analyzing the students’ written essays—both before and after the experiment—and their contributions to the online platform Edmodo, the findings suggested that the inclusion of gamification elements could enhance the frequency of on-topic contributions in an online environment. However, when comparing the argumentative writing skills of the two experimental groups, the results indicated no significant disparity in their improvement, implying that while gamification may boost engagement, it does not necessarily translate to better argument writing skills.

The findings concerning the application of gamification in the teaching of EFL and ESL elucidate a trio of pertinent insights. Initially, the investigation has determined that gamified learning environments substantially aid EFL/ESL students in the enhancement of their English language competencies, encompassing listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. In this digital epoch, where traditional instructional methods might not suffice to captivate learners if the content lacks relevance, it becomes imperative for educational institutions to adapt by providing dynamic learning resources. The study underscores that gamification not only augments students’ English language capabilities but also cultivates a propensity for self-directed learning. This is achieved as gamification intrinsically and extrinsically motivates students to engage in learning both within the confines of the classroom and in external settings, by infusing the academic milieu with an amalgam of collaborative and competitive elements that render the experience both entertaining and interactive. Intrinsic motivation occurs when students are driven to learn independently by themselves due to internal drive and desire to be knowledge in the specific area of their interests and passion. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation takes place when there are external motivating forces such as gamified learning settings in the classrooms. In fact, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can take place at the same time in academic and non-academic settings. Moreover, the research validates the notion that gamification is a powerful instrument in the educational toolkit, corroborating previous scholarly works that advocate for its utility. As identified by Kaban and Karadeniz (2021) , gamification transcends its role as a mere conduit for teaching and study; it also emerges as an effective tool for content review and learner assessment—a sentiment echoed by Almusharraf (2023) and Chen (2022) . Such a multifaceted approach to education through gamification is indicative of its transformative impact on pedagogical strategies and its potential to enrich the educational landscape, particularly within the context of EFL/ESL instruction.

Furthermore, the implementation of gamification has been shown to exert a favorable influence on learners’ attitudes and emotional states, including heightened interest, motivation, reduced anxiety, and an enhanced sense of accomplishment ( Stoyanova et al., 2018 ). For instance, it is found that gamification in mathematics classes stimulated interest and promoted active learning, particularly among students with low intrinsic motivation. The amplification of student motivation represents one of the most consistently reported positive educational outcomes in the reviewed literature. An illustrative example of this is Chen’s (2022) research, which examined EFL learners’ perceptions regarding lessons that incorporated the evaluative features of Kahoot and the collaborative potential of Padlet. Similarly, Aziz (2022) also found that implementing Kahoot and Padlet in international student classrooms improved learning processes, encouraged critical thinking, and fostered an inclusive environment. DeWitt et al. (2015) utilized Padlet for interactive online debates, demonstrating its effectiveness in constructing new knowledge and facilitating collaborative learning. The outcomes of this investigation revealed that students acknowledged the merits of the gamified learning process, deeming it a novel, engaging, and game-like approach that contributed to their English language studies. For instance, by collaborating Padlet with Kahoot, student engagement could be greatly enhanced with an interactive classroom setting, given the learners are driven to be actively involved in the class activities and tasks by visualizing displaying their answers and choices in the questions set by the instructors in the prompts. A collaborative yet competitive learning environment could be created through peer conferencing. As a result, these visually powerful and interesting digital tools serve as measurement of students’ learning progress, effectives and quantified outcomes. This gamification methodology was found to stimulate their interest and engagement in learning English, bolstering their participation and fervor. Such strategies are instrumental in promoting learner motivation, which is a critical factor in driving engagement and is essential for the success of EFL education. The link between gamified learning environments and enhanced motivational levels among learners is therefore an integral aspect of the broader discussion on effective EFL instructional strategies.

Lastly, gamification has been recognized as an effective means of creating a more authentic language learning environment and fostering comprehensive literacy among students ( Al-Dosakee and Ozdamli, 2021 ). Addressing the concern that Taiwanese EFL learners often display limited real-world communication skills, Wu et al. (2014) explored the impact of digital board games specifically tailored for EFL learning in Taiwan. The study aimed to determine whether such games could enhance students’ communicative abilities and intrinsic motivation by providing contextually relevant content and appropriate linguistic practice. The digital board games employed in Wu et al.’s study included various components such as a game board, illustrated cards, and game pieces, all designed to simulate real-life scenarios and demonstrate authentic language use, either through textual representation or game mechanics. The use of graphics, rules, thematic narratives, and tangible game pieces contributed to an engaging and immersive gaming experience. The research was conducted with 96 high school students in Taiwan, divided into three groups: one received standard instruction, another engaged with digital board game-based language learning, and the third group used traditional board games for language learning. By evaluating the learning outcomes through a speaking test, it was revealed that the students who participated in the digital board game learning group displayed superior performance and enhanced communicative skills compared to the other groups. The study highlighted the digital gaming environment’s role in encouraging students to use English more actively and confidently. Consequently, the researchers advocated for the integration of game-based learning into school curricula, emphasizing its value in providing a genuine language learning context and advancing actual communication abilities. In concert with these findings, Chen (2022 , p. 21) also affirmed the efficacy of gamification in creating a more pleasurable and engaging learning atmosphere. The research by Chen underscored the ability of gamified learning to “create a good atmosphere, engagement, and collaborative opportunities to develop communicative abilities,” highlighting the multifaceted benefits of gamification, which include not only academic achievement but also the enhancement of language learners’ communicative competence.

5 Discussion

The recent research on the application of gamification in EFL/ESL education contributes to the growing body of literature by emphasizing its expansive use across various aspects of language learning. This contrasts with some earlier studies, such as those by Govender and Arnedo-Moreno (2021) and Phuong (2020) , which posited that online gamification was predominantly utilized for vocabulary acquisition and was infrequently applied to teaching broader content knowledge and grammatical structures. The current findings broaden this perspective, illustrating that gamification is not limited to vocabulary enhancement but extends to a comprehensive array of language domains including grammar, listening, speaking, reading, writing, pronunciation, college-level English, and even literature studies. This diversification of gamification’s applicability demonstrates its versatility and underscores its potential for wide-ranging implementation in actual EFL/ESL classroom settings. Moreover, the review uncovers that while gamification has been adopted across various educational levels from primary education to tertiary education, it appears to have found particular resonance at the higher education level. This trend signifies not only the adaptability of gamification strategies to suit different learning stages but also its escalating popularity within the ESL/EFL sector. The broad embrace of gamification reflects a recognition of its effectiveness in enhancing language learning experiences and outcomes, suggesting that it is becoming a mainstay in language education pedagogy.

The versatility of gamification is further evidenced by its successful integration with various pedagogical models, such as the flipped classroom and ubiquitous learning environments. In the flipped classroom model, as described by researchers like Hung (2018) and Zou (2020) , students are encouraged to engage in pre-class self-learning to grasp foundational concepts. This preparatory work allows in-class time to be devoted to more interactive and gamified activities that foster higher-order thinking skills, such as application, analysis, and evaluation of the learned material. The fusion of gamification with ubiquitous learning environments, as explored by Liu and Chu (2010) , takes advantage of digital technologies to enable learning experiences that transcend the traditional classroom’s temporal and spatial limitations. For example, students can practice English listening and speaking skills using their cellphones during their personal time due to the popularity of mobile applications and online learning channels like Youtubes. Browsing the internet and different websites has almost become part of the daily routine among learners in the new technological era. Playing games using cellphones could be a gamified channel for students to equip English language better, providing online games stimulate virtual communicating settings with other players at all times, forming a self-initiated learning community. In some of these gamified learning channels, learners can participate in outdoor treasure hunt games or story relay races that incorporate authentic language use during scheduled class sessions. These activities not only reinforce language skills but also engage learners in a dynamic and context-rich environment. The confluence of gamified learning with these innovative educational frameworks offers a multifaceted approach to language education. By combining the intrinsic motivational pull of games with the flipped classroom’s emphasis on active learning, or the anytime-anywhere approach of ubiquitous learning, educators can create an effective learning process that is both enjoyable and efficacious. This holistic approach not only aligns with contemporary educational needs but also promises to enhance students’ language proficiency and overall learning outcomes, making it an appealing option for educators and learners alike.

The study by Chan and Lo (2022) provides strong empirical support for the positive reception of gamification in higher education settings. With an overwhelming majority (87%) of university and college students in Chan and Lo’s study, which was conducted among undergraduate students in various universities and colleges in Hong Kong in 2022, expressing favorable views on the effectiveness of gamified learning experiences. The respondents were from different disciplines in different majors, but they were all ESL learners across different institutions. The data underscores a clear enthusiasm for this educational approach. The high percentage of students (94.2%) who consider game-based learning a significant motivator for classroom participation is particularly telling of gamification’s potential to enhance student engagement. Kahoot, as noted in the study, stands out as a highly effective digital tool that fosters creativity and innovation within the classroom. It does so by enabling students to actively participate in the learning process, not only through engagement with the content but also by creating their own quizzes. This kind of interactive platform allows students to both learn from the instructor and their peers, and to contribute to the learning process by designing their own test items, thus stimulating their imagination and creative thinking. Moreover, recognition and positive perception towards among university language teachers in Hong Kong regarding the motivational and participatory benefits of tasks that involve appealing visuals and audio further substantiates the claim that gamification can greatly enhance the learning environment. The use of such sensory stimuli, integrated into game-based tasks, appears to be an effective strategy in capturing students’ attention and fostering a more dynamic and interactive classroom atmosphere. Chan and Lo’s (2022) findings align with broader educational research that suggests gamification, when thoughtfully applied, can lead to increased student motivation, improved engagement, and potentially better learning outcomes. The study’s insights are particularly valuable for educators looking to implement gamified elements into their curricula to harness the motivational benefits and cater to the learning preferences of the current generation of students.

However, there is a need to explore the intersection of gamification with variables such as gender and social class. These factors can profoundly influence educational access, engagement, and outcomes, and their interaction with gamified learning experiences remains underexplored. Chan and Lo (2022) indicate that factors beyond educational background and proficiency in English language acquisition, such as gender, significantly influence learners’ competencies and attitudes toward using games in classroom settings. The research also reveals that variables including demographics and gender-related differences have a considerable impact on the mastery of digital technology, the practicality of implementing gamification, and consequently, the effectiveness and success of gamified learning experiences. These factors also affect the dynamics of the interactive learning environment and the student-teacher rapport in both virtual and traditional classroom contexts. For instance, the study observed that preferences for competitive learning strategies are affected by gender differences, social background, and age. It was noted that boys generally show more enthusiasm for participating in game-based learning environments compared to girls, and they are more incentivized by the drive to achieve high scores and succeed in competitive aspects of games ( Chan and Lo, 2022 ). Younger learners would need more extrinsic motivation like visuals, colours, animations and sounds for attention getting, which illustrates age group could be another variable to determine the level of technicality and importance of deployment of gamification in classrooms. Addressing these considerations can contribute to a more equitable and inclusive approach to game-based learning in the EFL context, ensuring that the benefits of gamification are accessible to a diverse range of learners.

The hesitancy among some EFL/ESL teachers to embrace gamification as a teaching tool reflects the multifaceted challenges of integrating innovative methods into existing educational frameworks. In the high-pressure environment of secondary education in China, for instance, the focus on achieving top scores in the publication examination, namely Gaokao , can lead to a preference for conventional, test-focused teaching strategies. Consequently, the perception persists that gamification may not directly enhance test performance, which makes educators cautious about deviating from tried-and-true pedagogies. The research by Chan and Lo (2022) presents similar concerns in the context of university education in Hong Kong where teachers there expressed that tight teaching schedules make it difficult to introduce games into the classroom. A significant number of language teachers also reported an absence of adequate training and resources to support the use of gamified learning. Moreover, some educators felt that there was a mismatch between the games available and the actual content that needed to be delivered in their courses ( Chan and Lo, 2022 ). Beyond these concerns, the general adoption of gamification and digital tools in education is not without its hurdles. Resistance to change from established teaching methods, technical challenges associated with the need for appropriate infrastructure and support, difficulties in ensuring that gamified content aligns with educational objectives, and the complexities of assessing the impact of such methods on standardized tests all present significant obstacles. Furthermore, the success of gamification often hinges on the broader support of educational institutions, which must be willing to invest in the necessary changes to policy, allocate funding, and offer professional development for educators. While gamification offers exciting possibilities for increasing student engagement and motivation, realizing its full potential in language learning requires a concerted effort to address these barriers. It also calls for a commitment to ongoing research to better understand how gamification can be effectively implemented across various educational settings.

The body of empirical research collectively validates the advantages of integrating gamification into EFL/ESL teaching and learning processes. Instead of isolating a single advantage, these studies often highlight a range of positive outcomes. For instance, experiments have shown that gamification can enhance student engagement and motivation, as well as alleviate anxiety in learning English listening and speaking skills, as noted by Hung (2018) . Additionally, it can foster motivation and improve linguistic, digital, and intercultural competencies, according to Sevilla-Pavón and Haba-Osca (2017) . The perspective that learning ought to be enjoyable, stimulating, and driven by the learners themselves aligns with the principles of gamification, as discussed by Ongoro and Mwangoka (2019) . This supports the ongoing trend of gamified EFL classrooms, where educators are encouraged to clarify the objectives and methods of gamification to students and to optimize the benefits of a gamified educational environment. However, it is crucial to apply gamification thoughtfully in EFL settings to broaden the chances for students to enhance their English proficiency within the time constraints of the curriculum.

In an effort to enhance educational outcomes, gamification in English learning activities has incorporated elements such as fair rules, transparent objectives, and social interaction opportunities. This research identified points, badges, feedback, quizzes, and progress bars as the most commonly employed gamification components in EFL/ESL teaching. Points and badges assign value to tasks, provide positive reinforcement, aid in self-assessment, and bolster student participation. As such, the consistent and systematic allocation of points for student involvement is recommended as an effective reward mechanism in gamified learning contexts. The use of immediate feedback and quizzes is instrumental in helping learners recognize their performance levels and advancement. The advantage of online gamified platforms is that they allow for swift responses from teachers or peers to student submissions, enabling timely self-evaluation and potential improvement. Progress bars are particularly useful in setting clear goals and guiding learners, as demonstrated in the study by Ding et al. (2018) . The progress bars in their gamified activities show individual scores, class average scores, and potential rewards. This feature enables students to track their personal achievements, compare them with the class average, and identify the effort required to obtain rewards, thereby encouraging them to strive for excellence and keep pace with high-achieving peers.

The research underscores competition as a key factor when designing gamification elements for EFL and ESL instructional environments. Leaderboards and time restrictions are pivotal in cultivating a competitive atmosphere within the gamified learning space. Leaderboards, which display participants’ rankings based on their performance, not only recognize the achievements of top students but also instill a sense of competence ( Ding et al., 2018 ). However, the introduction of competition has its pros and cons. While it may motivate students to engage with gamified tasks, meet deadlines, and aim for high leaderboard positions, it can also evoke fear and stress, depending on individual temperaments. Dindar et al. (2021) conducted a study to assess the influence of gamified competition and cooperation on Chinese students’ English vocabulary acquisition. The participants were divided into two groups: one experienced gamified competition, which “was realized through ranking learners with a leaderboard and announcing a single winner at the end,” and another experienced gamified cooperation, which “was achieved by giving a shared goal to the group members and rewarding the whole group with badges rather than rewarding specific individuals” ( Ding et al., 2018 , p. 153). The study found that gamified cooperation and competition had comparable effects on task effort, learning outcomes, and motivation, but gamified cooperation led to greater social relatedness. In light of these findings, it is suggested that future gamified learning activities should further explore how to boost students’ motivation and performance through gamified cooperation. Teachers are encouraged to help students create shared goals, fostering a collaborative environment where students can benefit from peer discussions and collective task completion.

The architecture of a gamified learning environment is founded on the integration of three distinct concepts: dynamics, mechanics, and components, as identified by Bicen and Kocakoyun (2018) . Game dynamics include, inter alia , a spectrum of motivational elements such as status, rewards, opportunities for personal expression, the exhilaration of competition regulated by explicit and effectuated rules, and the quest for achievement. Game mechanics are the structural elements that drive the gameplay, including a leveling system, a narrative context that provides a backdrop for activities, challenges to overcome, achievements to unlock, leaderboards for tracking performance, and similar features ( Bicen and Kocakoyun, 2018 ). Furthermore, game components, also known as elements, are the tangible items within the game that players interact with. These can range from self-representation tools such as avatars, to forms of feedback, points, trophies, badges, a progress bar, virtual gifts, and more ( Deterding et al., 2011 ). The purpose of these rules and features is to captivate the participants’ interest, trigger intrinsic motivation, foster a competitive spirit, and stimulate curiosity. Through these means, gamification aims to enhance the learning experience and boost academic achievement.

6 Conclusions, recommendations, and limitations

To this end, a total of 30 journal articles, which are indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index and were retrieved from the Web of Science database utilizing pertinent search terms, were thoroughly selected, reviewed, and dissected by the researchers from various analytical standpoints. This investigation offers a synthesis of the prevailing utilization of gamification in the realm of EFL/ESL pedagogy and learning. By examining 30 empirical studies, this study has discerned a widespread adoption of gamification in language classrooms. The impetus for integrating gamification into EFL/ESL instruction encompasses a spectrum of objectives: the enhancement of learners’ English linguistic proficiencies, the positive influence on students’ attitudes and emotional engagement, the establishment of authentic language learning milieus, and the nurturing of learners’ holistic competencies. With gamification progressively infusing into educational frameworks, it becomes imperative to explore its potential as a facilitative tool in EFL instruction, both within traditional classroom boundaries and in digitally enhanced learning spaces. As educational methodologies shift towards more immersive paradigms, the developmental benefits of innovative educational strategies are celebrated for their potential to foster engagement and learning through hands-on practice ( Lo, 2024a ). This aligns with the broader trend of integrating creative and innovative approaches into pedagogy, which emphasizes creativity, innovation, and the iterative process of learning ( Lo, 2024b ).

The conclusions drawn from this review emphasize that the structural development of a gamified educational setting ought to be guided by three core principles: dynamics, which drive the motivational aspects; mechanics, which define the underlying framework and rules of engagement; and components, which represent the tangible elements and tools used by participants within the system. Those responsible for designing gamification-based learning experiences are tasked with crafting a harmonious integration of gaming elements and educational content, taking into account the learners’ educational level, cognitive abilities, and capacities. This tailored approach ensures that the gamified learning not only captivates and motivates but also aligns with the educational objectives and learner prerequisites.

To address the first research question, the study has proved predominately that gamification is an effective strategy within various teaching methodologies in EFL/ESL classes, which could be in the form of different digital channels and methodology designs. Considering the second research question, the factors affecting the relationship between gamification and EFL outcomes include motivational forces, educational and social backgrounds, gender, digital literacy, language competency, expected learning outcomes, perceptions and psychological behaviors, cognitive awareness and institutional support and resources. In addition, various investigated and proposed gaming elements have been examined in different academic settings in different EFL/ESL classes in order to delve into the third research questions. All these review acknowledge the increasingly documented advantages of gamification for EFL pedagogy and endorses further exploration and application of game-based educational methods to improve EFL/ESL students’ mastery of the English language. The study adds to the growing body of literature on the efficacy and effects of gamification in EFL/ESL education and aims to be a valuable reference for both scholars and practitioners spearheading the development and early adoption of gamified educational interventions. Moreover, to enhance the effectiveness of gamification and other digital methodologies, schools should provide technical tools, high-speed internet, modern high-performance laptops, and access to online services, alongside arranging workshops on ICT education and reducing administrative burdens on teachers ( Lo and To, 2023a ). Additionally, integrating ICT-related solutions into CPD to address systemic gaps and skill-based deficiencies is crucial, including considerations for student support, socio-emotional challenges, and innovative teaching strategies ( Lo and To, 2023b ).

The insights offered in this review are designed to inform the creation of cutting-edge gamified learning resources, to elevate the EFL educational process, and to augment the language proficiency of EFL students. It highlights the critical role of deliberate gamified instructional design and promotes its careful incorporation as a means to enhance educational outcomes in language acquisition. Tsang and Davis (2024) found that entertainment-oriented activities such as playing games and listening to songs were the most commonly enjoyed events in the EFL classroom while activities that are simple, easy, free, relaxed, and different from the usual were also deemed enjoyable by young learners. These findings underscore the importance of maximizing learners’ positive emotions, which can significantly contribute to their well-being and the effectiveness of mastering a foreign language. Educators, curriculum designers, and researchers may consider these preferences when developing gamified instructional materials to create more engaging and emotionally supportive learning environments.

The landscape of gamification within EFL instruction, as delineated by this review, presents several avenues for future scholarly inquiry. The majority of the extant literature scrutinizes gamification predominantly through the lens of student engagement and outcomes. There exists a substantial gap in understanding the perspectives of educators and institutions regarding the deployment of game-based learning methodologies. Future research endeavors should aim to provide a more holistic view by examining how teachers and educational establishments perceive, adopt, and adapt to the integration of gamification within their curricula and teaching practices. Similar to how Lo (2023) found that ESL teachers in Hong Kong identified both benefits and challenges in digital learning and online education, it is crucial to explore how educators view the integration of gamification, considering factors like technology proficiency, workload, and the potential for professional development.

Moreover, cultural differences play a significant role in how gamification is perceived and implemented in educational settings. Lo et al. (2024) highlighted cross-cultural differences in student motivation and independent learning skills between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, suggesting that cultural contexts can influence educational practices and outcomes. Factors such as cultural values relating to education, educational practices, and societal expectations for educational outcomes might also shape student attitudes towards independent learning and the strategies they pursue, as some strategies may be viewed as more valuable or effective than others according to socio-historical tradition ( Lo, 2024c ). This could similarly affect how gamification is adopted and adapted in EFL instruction. As Wu (2024) pointed out, the complexity of language learner psychology across different cultural landscapes indicates that motivational strategies need to be culturally sensitive to be most effective. Understanding these cultural nuances is essential for developing effective gamification strategies that are responsive to the diverse needs of learners in different educational contexts.

Furthermore, the current distribution of research, with a heavier focus on higher education settings (60%), followed by secondary schools (27%), and to a lesser extent, elementary schools (13%), indicates an imbalance that warrants attention. Subsequent studies are encouraged to delve into the effects and methodologies of gamifying the learning experience at the foundational levels of education, specifically in elementary schools and kindergartens. Exploring these earlier educational stages could yield insights into the foundational impacts of gamification on language acquisition and cognitive development.

This study, while comprehensive in its approach to investigating the use of gamification in EFL/ESL instruction through SSCI-indexed journal articles from the Web of Science, acknowledges several limitations that could impact the breadth and depth of its findings. Firstly, by focusing solely on SSCI-indexed journal publications, the study potentially overlooks a wealth of relevant information that could be found in other scholarly or industry publications not indexed by this database. Consequently, this selection criterion may lead to an incomplete representation of the current state of gamification in EFL/ESL education. Secondly, the decision to deliberately omit conference papers, book chapters, unpublished theses, literature reviews, and secondary data analyses from the scope of this literature review was a strategic measure implemented to ensure that the review remained focused and manageable. However, this exclusion inherently limits the study’s comprehensiveness, as it may omit significant contributions to the field that reside within these types of publications. High-quality and pertinent empirical studies that fall outside the inclusion criteria might have provided additional insights and thus, their absence is recognized as a limitation. Lastly, the study’s reliance on previously published materials means that it is subjected to the methodological rigors or shortcomings of those sources. If the original research contained biases or methodological flaws, these would inadvertently carry over and potentially affect the conclusions drawn in this review. Future research may aim to mitigate these limitations by expanding the range of sources considered and by critically evaluating the methodologies of the included studies to provide a more robust and comprehensive analysis.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

SC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Aguiar-Castillo, L., Clavijo-Rodriguez, A., Hernández-López, L., De Saa-Pérez, P., and Pérez-Jiménez, R. (2021). Gamification and deep learning approaches in higher education. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 29:100290. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100290

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alawadhi, A., and Abu-Ayyash, E. A. S. (2021). Students’ perceptions of Kahoot!: an exploratory mixed-method study in EFL undergraduate classrooms in the UAE. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 3629–3658. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10425-8

Al-Dosakee, K., and Ozdamli, F. (2021). Gamification in teaching and learning languages: a systematic literature review. Rev. Romaneasca Pentr. Educatie Multidimensionala 13, 559–577. doi: 10.18662/rrem/13.2/436

Almusharraf, N. (2023). Incorporation of a game-based approach into the EFL online classrooms: students’ perceptions. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 4440–4453. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1969953

Aziz, S. A. (2022). Enhancing learning participation of international students in the classroom using social media: the case of international students in the UK University. Int. J. Educ. 15, 101–108. doi: 10.17509/ije.v15i2.28907

Barcomb, M., and Cardoso, W. (2020). Rock or lock? Gamifying an online course management system for pronunciation instruction: focus on English/r/and/l/. CALICO J. 37, 127–147. doi: 10.1558/cj.36996

Bicen, H., and Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 13, 72–93. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467

Bolat, Y. I., and Taş, N. (2023). A meta-analysis on the effect of gamified-assessment tools’ on academic achievement in formal educational settings. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 5011–5039. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11411-y

Calvo-Ferrer, J. R. (2017). Educational games as stand-alone learning tools and their motivational effect on L 2 vocabulary acquisition and perceived learning gains. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48, 264–278. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12387

Caponetto, I., Earp, J., and Ott, M. (2014). Gamification and Education: a Literature Review. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Games-Based Learning - ECGBL 2014 . 1, 50–57.

Google Scholar

Chan, S., and Lo, N. (2022). Teachers’ and students’ perception of gamification in online tertiary Education classrooms during the pandemic. SN Comput. Sci. 3:215. doi: 10.1007/s42979-022-01117-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chapman, J. R., and Rich, P. J. (2018). Does Educational Gamification Improve Students’ Motivation? If So, Which Games Elements Work Best? J. Educ. Bus. 93, 314–321.doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1490687

Chen, Y.-M. (2022). Understanding foreign language learners’ perceptions of teachers’ practice with educational technology with specific reference to Kahoot! And Padlet: a case from China. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27, 1439–1465. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10649-2

Chen, C. M., Liu, H., and Huang, H. B. (2019). Effects of a mobile game-based English vocabulary learning app on learners’ perceptions and learning performance: a case study of Taiwanese EFL learners. ReCALL 31, 170–188. doi: 10.1017/S0958344018000228

Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., Grajek, S., and Reeves, J. (2015) ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2015 (research report). EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/2015-student-and-faculty-technology-research-studies

Dehghanzadeh, H., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Talaee, E., and Noroozi, O. (2021). Using gamification to support learning English as a second language: a systematic review. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 34, 934–957. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1648298

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th international academic mind trek conference: Envisioning future media environments, 9–15. doi: 10.1145/2181037.2181040

DeWitt, D., Alias, N., and Siraj, S. (2015). Collaborative learning: interactive debates using Padlet in a higher education institution. In International educational technology conference (IETC 2015), 27–29 May 2015, Istanbul, Turkey. Available at: https://eprints.um.edu.my/13630/1/971662_Journal-Submission_WN.pdf

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., and Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: a systematic mapping study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 75–88.

Dindar, M., Ren, L., and Järvenoja, H. (2021). An experimental study on the effects of gamified cooperation and competition on English vocabulary learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 52, 142–159. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12977

Ding, L., Er, E., and Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Comput. Educ. 120, 213–226. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007

Dominguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C., and Martinez-Herraiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes. Comput. Educ. 63, 380–392. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Ebadi, S., Rasouli, R., and Mohamadi, M. (2021). Exploring EFL learners’ perspectives on using Kahoot as a game-based student response system. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 2338–2350. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1881798

El Shaban, A., and Abobaker, R. (2021). “Versatile Padlet: a useful tool for communicative teaching” in Policies, practices, and protocols for the implementation of technology into language learning (IGI Global), 54–76.

Fan, J., and Wang, Z. (2020). The impact of gamified interaction on mobile learning APP users’ learning performance: the moderating effect of users’ learning style. Behav. Inform. Technol. , 1–14. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1787516

Fithriani, R. (2021). The utilization of mobile-assisted gamification for vocabulary learning: its efficacy and perceived benefits. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. Elect. J. 22, 146–163. Available at: https://old.callej.org/journal/22-3/Fithriani2021.pdf

Ge, Z. G. (2018). The impact of a forfeit-or-prize gamified teaching on e-learners’ learning performance. Comput. Educ. 126, 143–152. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.009

Giannetto, D., Chao, J. T., and Fontana, A. (2013). Gamification in a social learning environment. Issues Informing Sci. Inf. Technol. 10, 195–207. doi: 10.28945/1806

Govender, T., and Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2021). An analysis of game design elements used in digital game-based language learning. Sustain. For. 13:6679. doi: 10.3390/su13126679

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., and Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 3025–3034. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Hanus, M. D., and Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80, 152–161. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

Ho, J. (2020). Gamifying the flipped classroom: how to motivate Chinese ESL learners? Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 14, 421–435. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2019.1614185

Homer, R., Hew, K. F., and Tan, C. Y. (2018). Comparing digital badges-and-points with classroom token systems: effects on elementary school ESL students’ classroom behavior and English learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 21, 137–151.

Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Liu, Y. H., and Tai, K. H. (2022). Effects of gamifying questions on English grammar learning mediated by epistemic curiosity and language anxiety. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 35, 1458–1482. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1803361

Hung, H. T. (2017). Clickers in the flipped classroom: bring your own device (BYOD) to promote student learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25, 983–995. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1240090

Hung, H. T. (2018). Gamifying the flipped classroom using game-based learning materials. ELT J. 72, 296–308. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccx055

Hung, H. C., and Young, S. S. C. (2015). An investigation of game-embedded handheld devices to enhance English learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 52, 548–567. doi: 10.1177/0735633115571922

Hwang, G. J., Hsu, T. C., Lai, C. L., and Hsueh, C. J. (2017). Interaction of problem-based gaming and learning anxiety in language students’ English listening performance and progressive behavioral patterns. Comput. Educ. 106, 26–42. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.010

Jia, Y., Xu, B., Karanam, Y., and Voida, S. (2016). Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2001–2013). Association for Computing Machinery, doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858515

Kaban, A., and Karadeniz, S. (2021). Children’s reading comprehension and motivation on screen versus on paper. SAGE Open 11:215824402098884. doi: 10.1177/2158244020988849

Kalyuga, S. (2006). Rapid assessment of learners’ proficiency: a cognitive load approach. Educ. Psychol. 26, 735–749. doi: 10.1080/01443410500342674

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education . Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Kaya, G., and Cilsalar Sagnak, H. (2022). Gamification in English as second language learning in secondary education aged between 11-18: a systematic review between 2013-2020. Int. J. Game Based Learn. 12, 1–14. doi: 10.4018/IJGBL.294010

Kingsley, T. L., and Grabner-Hagen, M. M. (2018). Vocabulary by gamification. Read. Teach. 71, 545–555. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1645

Kirsch, J., and Spreckelsen, C. (2023). Caution with competitive gamification in medical education: unexpected results of a randomised cross-over study. BMC Med. Educ. 23:259. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04258-5

Krishnan, S. D., Norman, H., and Yunus, M. M. (2021). Online gamified learning to enhance teachers’ competencies using classcraft. Sustain. For. 13:10817. doi: 10.3390/su131910817

Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., and Chiu, K. F. (2018). Improving argumentative writing: effects of a blended learning approach and gamification. Lang. Learn. Technol. 22, 97–118.

Laura-De La Cruz, K. M., Noa-Copaja, S. J., Turpo-Gebera, O. W., Montesinos-Valencia, C. C., Bazán-Velásquez, S. M., and Pérez-Postigo, G. (2023). Use of gamification in English learning in higher education: a systematic review. J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 13, 480–497. doi: 10.3926/jotse.1740

Lee, J. J., and Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Acad. Exch. Q. 15, 1–5.

Lee, S. M., and Park, M. (2020). Reconceptualization of the context in language learning with a location-based AR app. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 33, 936–959.

Li, M., Ma, S., and Shi, Y. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of gamification as a tool promoting teaching and learning in educational settings: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 14:1253549. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1253549

Limantara, N., Meyliana Hidayanto, A. N., and Prabowo, H. (2019). The elements of gamification learning in higher education: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 10, 982–991. Available at: https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJMET?Volume=10&Issue=2

Ling, Q., Wang, H., and Wang, Z. H. (2019). A study on the effectiveness of mobile game-based learning for vocabulary acquisition among college learners. Technol. Enhanced Foreign Lang. Educ. 6, 9–15. Available at: https://ir.nwnu.edu.cn/bitstream/39RV6HYL/1802

Liu, T. Y., and Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Comput. Educ. 55, 630–643. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023

Lo, N. P. K. (2020). “Revolutionising language teaching and learning via digital media innovations” in Learning environment and design (Singapore: Springer), 245–261.

Lo, N. P. K. (2023). Digital learning and the ESL online classroom in higher education: teachers’ perspectives. Asia-Pac. J. Second Foreign Lang. Educ. 8, 24–22. doi: 10.1186/s40862-023-00198-1

Lo, N. P. K. (2024a). The confluence of digital literacy and eco-consciousness: harmonizing digital skills with sustainable practices in education. Platforms 2, 15–32. doi: 10.3390/platforms2010002

Lo, N. P. K. (2024b). From theory to practice: unveiling the synergistic potential of design and maker education in advancing learning. SN Comput. Sci. 5:360. doi: 10.1007/s42979-024-02726-3

Lo, N. P. K. (2024c). Cross-cultural comparative analysis of student motivation and autonomy in learning: perspectives from Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Front. Educ. 9:1393968. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1393968

Lo, N. P. K., Bremner, P. A. M., and Forbes-McKay, K. E. (2024). Influences on student motivation and independent learning skills: cross-cultural differences between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Front. Educ. 8:1334357. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1334357

Lo, N. P. K., and Mok, B. C. Y. (2019). “Gaming literacy and its pedagogical implications” in Digital humanities and new ways of teaching (Singapore: Springer), 133–154.

Lo, N. P. K., and To, B. K. H. (2023a). To Learn or Not to Learn: Perceptions Towards Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Self-identity Among English Language Teachers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. SN Computer Science , 4, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s42979-023-01779-0

Lo, N. P. K., and To, B. K. H. (2023b). The transformation of identity of secondary school teachers: professional development and English language education strategies in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cogent Educ. 10. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2163790

Luo, Z., Brown, C., and O’Steen, B. (2021). Factors contributing to teachers’ acceptance intention of gamified learning tools in secondary schools: an exploratory study. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 6337–6363. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10622-z

Mei, B., and Yang, S. (2019). Nurturing environmental education at the tertiary education level in China: can mobile augmented reality and gamification help? Sustain. For. 11:4292. doi: 10.3390/su11164292

Mohammed, Y. B., and Ozdamli, F. (2021). Motivational effects of gamification apps in Education: a systematic literature review. Brain 12, 122–138. doi: 10.18662/brain/12.2/196

Ongoro, C. A., and Mwangoka, J. W. (2019). Effects of digital games on enhancing language learning in Tanzanian preschools. Knowl. Manag. E-Learn. 11, 325–344. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2019.11.017

Palová, D., and Vejačka, M. (2022). Implementation of gamification principles into higher Education. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 11, 763–779. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.11.2.763

Peter, A., Salimun, C., and Seman, E. A. A. (2019). A concept paper on the impacts of individual gamification elements on user’s intrinsic motivation and performance. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1358:012058. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1358/1/012058

Phuong, T. T. H. (2020). Gamified learning: are Vietnamese EFL learners ready yet? Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15, 242–251. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i24.16667

Putu Wulantari, N., Rachman, A., Nurmalia Sari, M., Jola Uktolseja, L., and Rofi’i, A. (2023). The Role Of Gamification In English Language Teaching: A Literature Review. J. Educ . 6, 2847–2856. doi: 10.31004/joe.v6i1.3328

Qiao, S., Yeung, S. S., Shen, X., and Chu, S. K. W. (2022). The effects of a gamified morphological awareness intervention on students’ cognitive, motivational and affective outcomes. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 53, 952–976. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13178

Rahman, M. H. A., Ismail, I. Y. P., Noor, N. A. Z. M., and Salleh, N. S. M. (2018). Gamification elements and their impacts on teaching and learning: a review. Int. J. Multimedia Appl. 10. Available at: https://aircconline.com/abstract/ijma/v10n6/10618ijma04.html

Reynolds, E. D., and Taylor, B. (2020). Kahoot! EFL instructors’ implementation experiences and impacts on students’ vocabulary knowledge. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. Elect. J. 21, 70–92. Available at: https://old.callej.org/journal/21-2/Reynolds-Taylor2020.pdf

Rueckert, D., Pico, K., Kim, D., and Calero Sánchez, X. (2020). Gamifying the foreign language classroom for brain-friendly learning. Foreign Lang. Ann. 53, 686–703. doi: 10.1111/flan.12490

Sandberg, J., Maris, M., and Hoogendoorn, P. (2014). The added value of a gaming context and intelligent adaptation for a mobile learning application for vocabulary learning. Comput. Educ. 76, 119–130. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.006

Santana, S. J., Souza, H. A., Florentin, V. A. F., Paiva, R., Bittencourt, I. I., and Isotani, S. (2016). A quantitative analysis of the most relevant gamification elements in an online learning environment. Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web, pp. 911–916, doi: 10.1145/2872518.2891074

Seaborn, K., and Deborah, F. (2015). Gamification in Theory and Action: A Survey. Int. J. Hum. Comput. 74, 14–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006

Setiawan, M. R., and Wiedarti, P. (2020). The effectiveness of Quizlet application towards students’ motivation in learning vocabulary. Stud. English Lang. Educ. 7, 83–95. doi: 10.24815/siele.v7i1.15359

Sevilla-Pavón, A., and Haba-Osca, J. (2017). “Learning from real life and not books”: a gamified approach to business English task design in transatlantic telecollaboration. Ibérica (Castellón de La Plana, Spain) 33, 235–260.

Shortt, M., Tilak, S., Kuznetcova, I., Martens, B., and Akinkuolie, B. (2021). Gamification in mobile-assisted language learning: a systematic review of Duolingo literature from public release of 2012 to early 2020. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 36, 517–554. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1933540

Smiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., de Miranda, P., Coelho, J. A., and Jaques, P. A. (2020). The impact of gamification on students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learn. Environ. 7, 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x

Stockwell, G. (2010). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: examining the effect of platform. Lang. Learn. Technol. 14, 95–110.

Stoyanova, M., Tuparova, D., and Samardzhiev, K. (2018). Impact of motivation, gamification and learning style on students’ interest in Maths classes – a study in 11 high school grade. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 716, 133–142. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73204-6_17

Strmečki, D., Bernik, A., and Radošević, D. (2015). Gamification in e-learning: introducing gamified design elements into e-learning systems. J. Comput. Sci. 11, 1108–1117. doi: 10.3844/jcssp.2015.1108.1117

Sun, J. C. Y., and Hsieh, P. H. (2018). Application of a gamified interactive response system to enhance the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, student engagement, and attention of English learners. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 21, 104–116.

Tabassum, A. (2024). Challenges of implementing gamification in medical education: a scoping review. J. Bahria Univ. Med. Dental College 14, 155–160. doi: 10.51985/JBUMDC2023260

Tsang, A., and Davis, C. (2024). Young learners’ well-being and emotions: examining enjoyment and boredom in the foreign language classroom. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. doi: 10.1007/s40299-024-00828-3

Varker, T., Forbes, D., Dell, L., Weston, A., Merlin, T., Hodson, S., et al. (2015). Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 21, 1199–1204. doi: 10.1111/jep.12405

Wang, D., Khambari, M. N. M., Wong, S. L., and Razali, A. B. (2021). Exploring interest formation in English learning through Xplore RAFE+: a gamified AR mobile app. Sustain. For. 13:12792. doi: 10.3390/su132212792

Wood, M. (2016). Padlet: a graffiti wall for today’s agriculture teacher. Agric. Educ. Mag. 88:20.

Wu, H. (2024). The more, the better? A multivariate longitudinal study on L2 motivation and anxiety in EFL oral presentations. Front. Educ. 9:1394922. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1394922

Wu, C. J., Chen, G. D., and Huang, C. W. (2014). Using digital board games for genuine communication in EFL classrooms. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 62, 209–226. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9329-y

Ziegeler, D. (2023). According to NP: a diachronic perspective on a skeptical evidential. J. English Linguist. 51, 162–190. doi: 10.1177/00754242231163844

Zohud, N. W. I. (2019). Exploring Palestinian and Spanish teachers’ perspectives on using online computer games in learning English vocabulary. Publicaciones de La Facultad de Educación y Humanidades Del Campus de Melilla , 49, 93–115.

Zou, D. (2020). Gamified flipped EFL classroom for primary education: student and teacher perceptions. J. Comput. Educ. 7, 213–228. doi: 10.1007/s40692-020-00153-w

Keywords: gamification, EFL/ESL pedagogy, empirical review, learning outcomes, gamification strategies

Citation: Chan S and Lo N (2024) Enhancing EFL/ESL instruction through gamification: a comprehensive review of empirical evidence. Front. Educ . 9:1395155. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1395155

Received: 03 March 2024; Accepted: 17 July 2024; Published: 14 August 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Chan and Lo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Noble Lo, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Advertisement

Long-term English Learners: Untangling Language Acquisition and Learning Disabilities

• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 173–185, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Laura V. Rhinehart 1 ,
• Alison L. Bailey 1 &
• Diane Haager 2  

8799 Accesses

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Students who have remained classified as English Learners (ELs) for more than six years are often labeled “Long-term English Learners” (LTELs). The present study examined the English Language Development (ELD) test scores and demographic information in a group of 560 students identified as LTELs. Despite assumptions that these students are still learning English, results showed many students who are labeled LTELs exhibited advanced English skills, especially on measures of expressive and receptive oral language (i.e., speaking and listening subtests). At the same time, ELD assessments showed many of these students struggled with literacy skills, especially reading. Perhaps due to these overlapping circumstances, we found many LTELs were also identified with learning disabilities. Based on these findings, we explored the impact of restricting domains needed for reclassification as English proficient on reclassification rates. Compared with existing decision rules in the students’ state, proposed models allow many more LTELs to reclassify as English proficient, and most LTELs not reclassifying are students in special education. Discussion focuses on interpreting ELD scores for students who have remained classified as ELs for more than a few years.

Similar content being viewed by others

Long-Term English Learners

The reading profiles of late elementary English learners with and without risk for dyslexia

Examining the heterogeneous early literacy profiles of first-grade students who are English learners

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many children enter schools in the United States speaking a language other than English. In 21% of American households, a language other than English is spoken (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 ). Some children from these households have fluent bilingual skills in English and the home language reported, but those students not already proficient in English at school entry are designated as English Learners (ELs) following formal language testing. About 4.8 million, approximately 10% of all American public school students, are identified ELs (McFarland et al., 2018 ). Some states have much higher rates of ELs. In California, for instance, the percentage of students who are ELs is around 18%, over one million students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2021 ). ELs usually need between four and eight years of instruction to become academically proficient in English (Collier, 1987 ; Hakuta et al., 2000 ). Compared to students who have never been ELs, ELs who are reclassified as English proficient often have the same, or even better, academic outcomes (Hill et al., 2014 ). These higher academic outcomes are at least partially due to the fact that ELs must perform at a high level of academic achievement as part of the reclassification criteria. These advantages may also be due to the substantial benefits associated with bilingualism (e.g., Adesope et al., 2010 ).

The EL status is meant to be a temporary designation, used until the student becomes English proficient, which generally happens in elementary school (Slama, 2014 ). However, some students enter kindergarten as ELs and remain ELs into middle and high school. Students who remain classified as ELs for more than six years are often referred to as Long-term English Learners (LTELs; Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ; Olsen, 2010 ). In some large, urban areas, more than half of ELs in secondary schools are designated LTELs (Callahan, 2005 ; Menken et al., 2012 ; Olsen, 2010 ; Yang et al., 2001 ), which suggests many thousands of American students have this label. (Exact numbers of students who are designated LTELs are not collected by state education agencies.)

Studies on LTELs' academic achievement show a general pattern of low achievement—low grades, low scores on standardized tests, and low graduation and college attendance rates (Callahan, 2005 ; Kanno & Cromley, 2013 ; Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ; Olsen, 2010 ). More nuanced examinations into students who are LTELs’ academic achievement, however, show these students’ academic stories are much more complex. Qualitative studies show some students designated as LTELs comprehend and analyze high school level texts in meaningful ways (Brooks, 2015 , 2016 ). Additionally, Hernandez’s ( 2017 ) case studies of LTELs included a description of a student who did not understand why she had an LTEL label. Her confusion stemmed from the fact that her English was similar to her White, monolingual peers’ English, her Spanish was much better than their Spanish, and she was born in the U.S. (Hernandez, 2017 ). These studies also highlight a common but often ignored strength, these students’ translanguaging skills. Studies have described how LTELs skillfully and frequently use translanguaging skills as they switch back and forth between two or more languages while at school (Kibler et al., 2018 ; Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ). To summarize, students designated as LTELs are a complex, yet understudied, group of students.

Relationships between EL/LTEL Status and Demographic Characteristics

The vast majority of LTELs are Spanish-speaking Latinx students. Nationally, across all grades, 80% of ELs are Latinx and 77% speak Spanish (McFarland et al., 2018 ), and these students disproportionally attend schools where many, if not most, students are ELs and racial and ethnic minorities from low-income families (Cosentino de Cohen et al., 2005 ). Taken together, many Latinx students face a “triple segregation” where they are segregated in schools by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language (Gandara, 2010 ). Because of this segregation, many Spanish-speaking Latinx students have limited exposure to standard, academic, American English, which may be an important factor in opportunity to learn and eventual reclassification as proficient in English.

Another factor related to language proficiency is gender. Girls identified as ELs, for example, have been shown to perform better than EL boys on measures of oral language and literacy in both English and their home language (Linklater et al., 2009 ; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013 ). Given this relationship, it is not surprising that EL identification rates differ by gender, and there are more boys than girls identified as ELs. Taken together, Latinx students, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and boys are likely to be overrepresented in groups of students identified as ELs or LTELs.

LTELs in Special Education

Across all grades, nationally, 14% of students who are ELs are eligible for special education services due to a disability, and the most common identified disability for all students, and students who are ELs, is a learning disability (LD; U.S. Department of Education, 2017 ). There is minimal research on LTELs in special education. One exception is Thompson’s ( 2015 ) mixed method study which reported around 35% of LTELs in one district were also in special education, with most identified with an LD. Thompson’s study also reported that in seven other California school districts between 25 and 33% of LTELs were in special education. These rates are much higher than the national average of public school students in special education, which is around 13% (McFarland et al., 2018 ). Additionally, Shin ( 2020 ) found that students in special education in kindergarten were at increased risk of being classified as LTELs several years later.

Kim and García’s ( 2014 ) study of LTELs found, out of the 13 LTELs studied, three were referred to special education in 4 th or 5 th grade. Despite the fact these students went on to fail both mathematics and reading state assessments in high school, none of the three were found eligible for special education services (Kim & García, 2014 ). Another well-documented case study of a student identified as an LTEL with an LD showed her teachers were concerned she might have an LD as early as 2nd grade (Thompson, 2015 ). However, because of her EL status, there were delays in her formal assessments, and she was not identified as a student with an LD until 8 th grade. In this student’s case, the LD label, and not the LTEL label, was linked to academic support services in middle and high school.

These studies highlight the challenge of teasing apart the cause of school struggle in ELs in older grade levels. For these students, it is often unclear if their academic challenges are due to their needing more time to acquire English, or an underlying language or learning disability is to blame (Klingner et al., 2006 ; Shore & Sabatini, 2009 ). Adding to the confusion, most schools do not have clear policies for identifying ELs with LDs, so teachers are hesitant to refer ELs for special education testing (Zehler et al., 2003 ). Consequently, compared to their monolingual peers with an LD, ELs with an LD can be delayed getting into special education for several years (Samson & Lesaux, 2009 ). This is troubling because, compared to similar students who enter special education later, students who enter into special education earlier benefit from additional services and end up with higher academic achievement (e.g., Ehrhardt et al., 2013 ).

Services and Supports for LTELs

The EL or LTEL label is intended to be tied to helpful services. However, this is not always the case for LTEL students. Few middle and high schools have programs especially designed for LTELs, and up to three-quarters of LTELs spend several years with no English language support services (Kim & García, 2014 ; Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ; Thompson, 2015 ). When LTELs do receive EL services in upper grades, they are likely to be placed in classes created for newcomer English Learners (Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ; Olsen, 2010 ; Thompson, 2015 ; Yang et al., 2001 ). Although these classes can be helpful for recent immigrants, they are inappropriate for LTELs (Callahan et al., 2010 ; Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ). Slightly more advanced “sheltered classes” are also meant to support LTELs’ linguistic challenges, but qualitative studies show that high school sheltered classes for LTELs are often stigmatized, and students believe these classes are for students who are less intelligent (Dabach, 2014 ). Not surprisingly, high school programs for LTELs are not associated with improved English skills (Callahan et al., 2010 ; Yang et al., 2001 ). Additionally, these required classes can prevent LTELs from taking college preparatory courses and other more rigorous classes, which are necessary for college admission (Callahan et al., 2010 ; Kanno & Kangas, 2014 ; Kim & García, 2014 ). Callahan ( 2005 ), for example, found less than 2% of the LTELs in her study had taken the necessary classes required for admission to a 4-year college, and only 15% had taken one or more college preparation courses. To avoid the pitfalls associated with the LTEL label, ELs must reclassify as proficient in English.

Reclassification as English Proficient

Screening assessments and criteria to determine proficiency levels and eventual reclassification as English proficient vary from state to state (Linquanti & Cook, 2013), but generally, LTELs must pass a test of basic skills in English and a grade level, standards-based English content assessment to leave their label behind. Other requirements for reclassification as English proficient are less clearly related to English proficiency. Many school districts use Math proficiency, as measured on a state-wide assessment, as a required component of English proficiency, and Math scores have been shown to prevent some LTELs from being reclassified as proficient in English (Hill et al., 2014 ; Thompson, 2015 ). Additionally, 16% of school districts in a sample of California school districts report using “discipline” as part of their reclassification criteria (Hill et al., 2014 ). These requirements, not directly related to English acquisition, highlight the fact that many school districts have stricter reclassification criteria than what is recommended by state departments of education. Although well-intentioned, these stricter reclassification criteria for LTELs are negatively associated with students graduating from high school with a diploma (Hill et al., 2014 ). There are also concerns that some of these policies might keep students classified as ELs longer than necessary (Carroll & Bailey, 2016 ).

In addition, it is important to point out that prior studies have shown, in some schools, a significant proportion of monolingual English-speaking students would not meet the criteria ELs must meet to be reclassified (CDE, 2011 ; Carroll & Bailey, 2016 ; Yang et al., 2001 ). Further, even when LTELs meet the criteria for reclassification, bureaucratic issues related to tracking student performance on multiple assessments coupled with frequently changing criteria for reclassification can leave students designated as ELs long after they have met current criteria for reclassification (Carroll & Bailey, 2016 ; Hill et al., 2014 ; Thompson, 2015 ).

Reclassifying is especially difficult for those students dual identified as LTELs in special education. Compared to students who are ELs without disabilities, ELs with disabilities have been shown to have lower scores on literacy assessments (Solari et al., 2014 ). Thus, the requirement for LTELs to pass the reading and writing sections of the assessment is likely to disproportionately impact LTELs with disabilities.

Research Questions

In sum, quantitative studies on LTELs tend to narrowly focus on the gaps between LTELs and their non-LTEL peers. Qualitative case studies, on the other hand, have provided a rich portrait of students who are LTELs’ academic experiences and perceptions (e.g., Brooks, 2015 ; Flores et al., 2015 ; Hernandez, 2017 ; Thompson, 2015 ). Some of these qualitative studies include assessment data (e.g., Kibler et al., 2018 ; Kim and García, 2014 ), but the sample sizes are generally small. Hill and colleagues ( 2014 ) completed a secondary data analysis on a large number of students identified as LTELs’ English language assessment data, but they excluded students in special education. A nontrivial number of LTELs are in special education with language and learning challenges (Thompson, 2015 ), so these students should be included in an analysis of students who are labeled LTELs. Thompson’s ( 2015 ) study on LTELs included the test scores of students in special education but did not include an analysis of special education students’ test scores or an overall analysis of English skills by domain (i.e., reading, speaking). To address these gaps in the literature, the present study analyzes domain-specific (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and speaking) English Language Development skills of more than 500 students identified as LTELs, and we include students who are identified as LTELs in special education. In doing so, we aim to provide a more complete view of students with the LTEL designation.

The current study examines important correlates of LTEL status in order to better understand the needs of this population of students. Specifically, we ask:

What are the demographic characteristics of students identified as LTELs? Are these demographic characteristics associated with English Language Development (ELD) test performance?

What are the profiles of LTELs in terms of domain subtest performances (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, writing) on a measure of their ELD? How are these profiles different for LTELs in special education or with LDs?

What is the impact of changing cut points, or removing domains, on the percent of LTELs who are eligible for reclassification? After changing the criteria for reclassification, what percent of the remaining LTELs are students in special education?

Participants

This study conducted an analysis of an existing dataset collected by a large charter school organization in California and made available for this study. Most students attending these schools, about 70%, are Latinx and 17% are Black. Eight percent of students attending schools in this organization are students with disabilities, 28% are English Learners, and 78% of students attending these schools are from low-income families. The organization reports that they provide all legally required supports and programming for students identified as ELs or LTELs. More specific information about programming for ELs/LTELs at each school was not available.

Participants ( N  = 560) in this study were in grades 6 th –12 th . All students in the study were initially identified as ELs by their schools. In California, an EL is a student who meets the following criteria: his/her parent indicated a language other than English on a home language survey, and he/she does not meet proficiency on an English language proficiency test (CA Education Code Sect. 60810(d)). Additionally, the students in this study met the criteria to be identified as LTELs. In California, an LTEL has been enrolled in an American school for more than six years, has remained at the same English proficiency level on an English language development test for two or more years, and has scored below basic on a state-adopted English language arts standards-based test (California Assembly Bill No. 2193).

The dataset included school-reported LTEL status, grade level, gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch (FRL; an indicator of socioeconomic status, see Harwell & LeBeau, 2010). Data also included each student’s eligibility for special education and primary disability, if the student was in special education. Performance on the state-adopted ELD assessment at the time of data collection was also made available. Because this study conducted a secondary analysis of anonymized data collected by schools, it was considered exempt by the researchers’ Institutional Review Board.

Federal policy requires all students who are identified as ELs, including LTELs, take an annual test of English language development. In California, at the time of this study, this test was the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). The CELDT has four sections (i.e., Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing), and students receive a score on each section, along with an overall score for the entire test. The CELDT is designed to measure the construct of English language proficiency, and it is aligned to the California ELD standards (CDE, 2013 ). The CELDT has five different versions for students in various grades: kindergarten/first grade, second grade, third through fifth grade, sixth through eighth grade, and ninth through twelfth grade. The entire test is untimed (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2009 ). Students take the Listening, Reading, and Writing domains in a group administration, but the Speaking section of the test is administered one-on-one and scored by the examiner (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2009 ).

For each student in the study, performance levels on each CELDT domain subtest were reported. CELDT performance levels range from 1 to 5 and are interpreted as follows: 1: Beginning, 2: Early Intermediate, 3: Intermediate, 4: Early Advanced, and 5: Advanced. Scale scores were not available. A Beginning level means the student has very limited receptive and/or productive English skills, ability to respond to communication, or use of oral and written language. Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced levels indicate increasingly more accurate and complex receptive and/or productive language skills with reduced errors, with Advanced being the equivalent of a native English speaker.

Relationships Between Performance and Student Characteristics

More than half (61%) of the LTELs in this study were male, and most students in the sample were eligible for FRL (84%). Almost all the LTELs in this study, 97%, were Latinx. Table 1 shows, in grades 6 th –12 th , the grade with the most LTELs was sixth grade ( n  = 172). With the exception of a slight rise in the number of LTELs in 10 th grade, the number of LTELs dropped each year. Across all grades, 29% of LTELs ( n  = 160) were in special education, and most LTELs in special education, about 71%, were in special education identified with an LD (n = 113). The second most common category of disability for LTELs was Speech and Language Impairment (15%, n  = 24). Table 1 also shows the percentage of LTELs with an LD increased most years. In 6 th grade, only 15% of LTELs were students with an LD. However, by 12 th grade, 47% of LTELs were also identified with an LD.

To examine the relationship between performance level on the ELD assessment and student gender, FRL status, and LD status, chi-square tests of homogeneity of groups were used. Specifically, we used a Pearson’s chi-square test with Yates’ continuity correction. Due to small cells with less than five students in some performance levels, two groups (i.e., 1: performance level 4 or 5, and 2: performance level 1, 2, or 3) of scores for each subtest were created.

A chi-square test of homogeneity of groups showed the relationships between gender and performance on the Reading ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 9.59, p  < .01) and Writing ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 10.38, p  < .01) subtests were significant. Gender was not significant for the Listening ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 1.05, p  = .31) or Speaking ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 0.17, p  = .68) subtests. Similarly, chi-square tests of homogeneity of groups showed significant relationships between eligibility for FRL and Reading ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 4.66, p  < .05) and Writing ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 9.14, p  < .01) subtests. The relationship between FRL and subtest performance levels was not significant for the Listening ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 2.64, p  = .10) or Speaking ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 1.86, p  = .17) subtests. To summarize, LTEL gender and eligibility for FRL are associated with performance on the Reading and Writing subtests but not associated with performance on the Listening or Speaking subtests.

To examine the relationship between performance level on this ELD assessment and LD status, we again used chi-square tests of homogeneity of groups. The analysis showed there were significant differences between LTELs with and without LDs on the ELD assessment subtests. On the Reading subtest, the relationship between LTEL LD status and Reading performance was significant ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 27.79, p  < .001). Students’ results on the Writing subtest showed there was also a significant relationship between LD status and performance level ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 17.34, p  < .001). Additionally, results of the Listening subtest showed there was a relationship between LD status and ELD performance level ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 4.82, p  < .05), and there was also a significant relationship on the Speaking subtest ( χ 2 (1, N  = 560) = 8.96, p  < .01). Overall, these results indicate performance levels on this ELD assessment and LD status are not independent, and the performance levels on all four subtests are statistically associated with LD status.

LTEL ELD Performance by Domain

As shown in Fig.  1 , for all students in the sample ( N  = 560), students performed best on the Listening and Speaking subtests, and many students were at a performance level 4 (Early Advanced) on these two subtests. On the other subtests, the most frequent performance level for all LTELs was 3, indicating many of these students were at an intermediate level on these skills. LTELs in special education ( n  = 160) differed from all LTELs on the most frequent performance level only on the Reading and Speaking subtests, and the most frequent score on these subtests was one performance level lower than the whole group of LTELs. As a group, LTELs with LDs scored poorly on the Reading subtest. On the Reading subtest, the most frequent performance level for LTELs with LDs was 1 (Beginning), indicating many of these students (37%) had Reading scores in the lowest performance level.

Percent of Students Scoring at Each Performance Level by ELD Test Domain. Note: LTELs in SE are LTELs in special education

Impact of Restricting Domains on Reclassification Rates

For students to reclassify as English proficient, according to California Education code, students must have had an overall, or average, performance level of 4 or 5 on the State ELD assessment. Students may have a performance level 3 on one subtest, but the overall performance level must sum to higher. An analysis of the ELD scores in this study showed the school district used a compensatory model, rather than a conjunctive model, which allows some subtest scores to be below the standard (see Carroll & Bailey, 2016 for review). With this model, some LTELs who meet criteria for reclassification had a performance level 3 on one subtest, but all LTELs who meet reclassification criteria had an overall performance level of 4 or 5. In this sample, 35% of LTELs met the testing requirement to reclassify. Out of students who did not reclassify, 40% of these students were in special education.

As shown in Table 2 , we explored the impact if there were to be a change in the requirements for reclassification. Given the overlap between reading and writing skills, and eligibility for special education with an LD, we explored the possibility of omitting the Reading and Writing subtests from the assessment. We found, for example, if students only needed to be at performance level of 3 or higher on both the Listening and Speaking subtests, most would reclassify. Of those who do not reclassify in this scenario, the majority of these students are in special education. In another scenario, if the test were again limited to Listening or Speaking, and students needed a performance level of 3 or above on either of these subtests, 97% would pass. In this scenario, out of the 18 students who do not meet these criteria, again, a majority of these students are in special education.

This study examined a large data set from a single educational organization in one state to determine the second language development profiles of students who are LTELs. This study adds to the limited research on older students who remain classified as ELs (i.e., LTELs) during their middle and high school careers. Several important findings emerged from this study, and we summarize the results in the context of the three research questions below.

The percentage of LTELs in special education is worth discussing, especially since these rates are often unexamined or unreported in studies on students who are LTELs. The overall percentage of special education students in this sample of LTELs, 29%, is more than double the national percentage of 13%. This rate is similar to the rates found in the Thompson ( 2015 ) study, and this rate is especially high in these schools because only 8% of students in the charter school organization as a whole are in special education. A unique finding from this study is that the percentage of LTELs with an LD, as a proportion of all LTELs in a given grade, increased from sixth grade to twelfth grade. As a result, nearly 50% of LTELs who were still in the school system in twelfth grade were identified with an LD. The significant association between LD status and performance on all four ELD subtests suggests that characteristics common with LD status, dyslexia, for example, might explain why LTELs with LDs have a more difficult time meeting the criteria for reclassification.

Average ELD Scores on Subdomains

We found that LTELs are likely to perform better on assessments related to their listening and speaking abilities in English than on assessments related to their reading and writing abilities in English. These findings are consistent with other studies indicating that most LTELs have strong oral skills and relatively weaker reading and writing skills (e.g., Menken & Kleyn, 2010 ; Olsen, 2010 ). High average scores on the Listening and Speaking subtests suggest many LTELs have the necessary academic skills in oral language to reclassify, but their reading and writing skills are preventing them from being reclassified based on this assessment. Research has shown malleable factors such as instruction and reading strategies determine second language learners’ long-term literacy outcomes, but less so their oral language skills (Huang & Bailey, 2016 ). As a result, the lower literacy scores, but not the lower oral language scores, in this study are likely related to inadequate or inappropriate literacy instruction. Further, we know that many students who are not LTELs have a wide range of performances on English Language Arts (ELA) assessments, and so high levels of proficiency in English literacy may be indistinguishable from the constructs captured by ELA instruction and assessment. Thus, LTELs might perform similarly to students who are not LTELs on an ELD assessment, which undermines the utility and any unique contribution of the literacy subsection of ELD assessments with LTELs.

Impact of Changing Reclassification Criteria

ELD test scores at one time point indicate that about one-third of LTELs who take the ELD test meet criteria for reclassification each year. Narrowing the skills required for English proficiency to intermediate or higher levels of receptive and expressive oral language (i.e., limiting the assessment to the CELDT Listening and Speaking domains) has the effect of reclassifying most LTELs. Further supporting the idea of removing literacy from the assessment, the listening and speaking domains have been shown to differentiate ELs from English-only students much better than the reading and writing domains (CDE, 2011 ). The finding that most of the students who do not meet the criteria when the test only measures their listening and speaking skills in English are in special education suggests an underlying disability, and not exposure to English, is likely preventing more than a few LTELs from meeting the requirements for reclassification.

Implications

From a theoretical perspective, the number of students with an LTEL label suggests widely accepted theories of second language acquisition, which suggest ELs need between four and eight years of instruction to become academically proficient in English (Collier, 1987 ; Hakuta et al., 2000 ), may grossly underestimate the length of time it takes to acquire advanced proficiency in English. Possibly either theories of the academic English acquisition timeline are inaccurate or current methods for identifying LTELs are inadequate. Either way, the results from our study have important implications for instruction, assessment, and social justice.

Instructional Implications

The large number of LTELs in this study, and the growing number of LTELs in U.S. schools, indicate that ELD programs are not sufficient to help many ELs reach their academic potential. One reason for this might be that schools ignore students’ abilities in their home language, but this should not be the case. Instruction in the child’s home language is likely to reduce the achievement gap between ELs and their monolingual peers. However, most American schools only provide language instruction in English.

Cummins’ (1979) theory implies that, if American students have the opportunity to develop their first language, often Spanish, they are likely to transfer these skills to their second language, English. In fact, a long-standing review of research on language and reading instruction for ELs found that bilingual instruction leads to the best outcomes for ELs (Slavin & Cheung, 2005 ). Because students who are ELs can transfer their reading and language skills in their first language to English, first language development for native speakers, beginning in elementary school is beneficial (Klingner, et al., 2006 ; Olsen, 2010 ). Additionally, there is strong evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual interventions for elementary school students who are ELs (e.g., Calderón et al., 1998 ; Ginns et al., 2019 ).

Further, dedicated times for ELD are important. A study by Tong Lara-Alecio et al. ( 2008 ) showed that teaching ELD during a separate dedicated time improved ELD more than structured English immersion or teaching ELD integrated with content instruction throughout the day. Consequently, it might be necessary for schools to offer supplemental ELD classes outside of the school day (i.e., afterschool or over the summer) so ELs can narrow the gap between EL student achievement and non-EL student achievement (Hakuta et al., 2000 ).

For ELs who become LTELs, different interventions and instructional strategies are needed for these older students. Programs for LTELs need to be noticeably different from EL programs for new immigrants or ELs in elementary school (Olsen, 2010 ). These programs should include developmentally appropriate curriculum, and they should focus on both basic reading and writing, and more advanced skills like English grammar and syntax.

LTELs are likely to benefit from grade level, academic courses with their peers where their bilingualism is valued. Rather than ignoring their multilingual and translanguaging skills, which courses for LTELs tend to do, these skills should be leveraged in all classrooms to promote students’ academic language and literacy (e.g., Martínez, 2010 ) and take account of their linguistic, social, and cognitive development more broadly (Bailey & Orellana, 2015 ). These classes could also include discussions about the arbitrariness of Standard English, while also teaching the history and bias inherent in “curricularized” English (Delpit, 2006 ; Flores & Rosa, 2015 ; Kibler & Valdés, 2016 ).

Implications for School Psychologists

Another reason why LTELs might appear that they are still learning English is that they have an underlying disability, such as an LD. The results of this study suggest that LTELs are often students who struggle with reading and may have an LD, like dyslexia. It is possible that some students who come from a home where a language other than English is spoken end up labeled ELs and then become LTELs when they are unable to reclassify due to an undiagnosed LD.

Children are typically identified as ELs in kindergarten, but they are often not identified as students with LDs by a team that includes a school psychologist until several years later (Zehler et al., 2003 ). Despite later identification of an LD, there is evidence that children who go on to develop LDs show signs of this disability, especially on measures of phonological awareness and/or rapid naming, when they enter school (e.g., Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2017 ). Thus, ELs should be screened on these early predictors, and at-risk students should be provided early interventions starting in kindergarten or first grade (Lovett et al., 2017 ), before students are referred to special education.

For some ELs who are later identified with an LD, their challenges are primarily in reading—in any language, so an LD classification is likely more meaningful for receiving commensurate services than an EL classification alone. Although differentiating ELD issues from LDs can be difficult in early grades, it can be done. Researchers have expressed valid concerns about the assessments used to identify students who are ELs with LDs (Abedi, 2006 ; Artiles & Klingner, 2006 ; Ortiz, 2019 ). Addressing these concerns by deliberately choosing and interpreting assessments carefully (e.g., assessing students in both their home language and in English), and including an overview of students’ cultural assets (i.e., information from The Cultural Assets Identifier; Aganza et al., 2015 ) would allow students who are ELs to be holistically assessed for special education in early grades. Further, addressing the shortage of school psychologists who are specifically trained as bilingual school psychologists should be a priority (see Harris et al., 2020 ).

Implications for Testing English Learners

When children first enroll in school, they are typically identified as potential ELs by a home language survey (Bailey & Kelly, 2013 ). These surveys prompt parents to indicate which language their child most often hears at home, but it is important to note that these surveys are not designed to collect information on language proficiency. Instead, they serve to narrow down the pool of candidate students who are subsequently assessed for English proficiency at school intake (Bailey & Carroll, 2015 ). Because home language surveys and subsequent language proficiency assessments focus primarily on English, they provide incomplete information on children’s language skills, namely their proficiency in their first language. Proficiency in the first language is important because it is a predictor of proficiency in the student’s second language, in these cases, English (e.g., Anthony et al, 2009 ). Thus, for potential ELs, assessing their language skills in their home language would be helpful to identify students who are most at risk of becoming LTELs, because this may reveal, years sooner through their home language performance, whether a student could potentially have a diagnosis of an LD.

Although assessing students in their first language sounds like an insurmountable task for large school districts where students speak many different languages, assessing students in one or two additional languages might be sufficient. For example, in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the student population speaks 93 different languages other than English. However, more than 93% of ELs in LAUSD speak Spanish (LAUSD, 2018 ). Thus, for most students in Los Angeles, assessing in both English and Spanish is not only more meaningful than testing in English only, it is also likely to be feasible.

Further, annual ELD testing for LTELs should be reevaluated. In this study, we found most LTELs have intermediate, or better, listening and speaking skills, so these skills might not need to be tested annually. LTEL reading and writing skills should be monitored, but it may not be necessary to do this using the annual summative ELD assessment. Rather than testing reading and writing skills on an ELD test, these skills could be measured and tracked using the same reading and writing classroom, formative assessments all the other students take, or more appropriately, with a specialized diagnostic tool if a disability is suspected, as mentioned previously. These skills can also be measured by portfolios filled with standards-based assessments (Siordia & Kim, 2021 ).

Implications for Social Justice

The vast majority of LTELs are marginalized, Spanish-speaking Latinx students. Even so, some LTELs’ first and most frequently used language is English (Flores et al., 2015 ; Hernandez, 2017 ; Kim and García, 2014 ). Nearly all, 97% in this study, of students with the LTEL label are Latinx students. To our knowledge, there is no other school-mandated test or label tied so closely to race/ethnicity. A stigmatizing label tied to testing that is so tightly linked to ethnicity and immigration status could add unnecessary stress for Latinx students. This kind of stress has been shown to negatively impact academic achievement (e.g., Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2018 ).

Although there are challenges when it comes to reclassifying LTELs, schools must rise to this challenge. Not only is the quality education of ELs ethically important, it is legally required. At the federal level, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), requires schools to ensure that ELs “can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs” (OCR, 2015 ). Additionally, the OCR requires that schools “ensure they achieve English language proficiency and acquire content knowledge within a reasonable period of time” (OCR, 2015 ). Even though ELs, and LTELs, are provided these protections by OCR, there is no guarantee that they will reach a level of English language proficiency suited to academic settings. This study provides some evidence that a significant number of ELs, who may already be part of a marginalized group, do not reach this level of proficiency in a timely manner. This is a social justice issue.

Limitations

Results of this correlational study must remain suggestive, and there are limitations to the data presented here. The students in this study all attended public charter schools, and students who attend charter schools might be different from students who attend traditional public schools. However, the number of students attending charter schools is growing rapidly. The percentage of students enrolled in public charter schools has more than tripled since 2000 (McFarland et al., 2018 ), which highlights the importance of examining the performance of students who attend these schools. Another limitation of this study is the language measure. The CELDT is specific to California, and ELD tests vary from state to state. Thus, these results might not hold for other states. Additionally, ELD assessments are often in a state of flux with next-generation assessments being developed by states and assessment consortia. In California, for example, the CELDT has been replaced with a different standardized test of English Language development. Although new test formats and questions are different, these tests continue to measure the same skills (i.e., expressive and receptive language skills in English), which are aligned with state ELD standards and federal requirements. Further, many states (i.e., the 39 states using the ACCESS for ELs 2.0 ELD assessment) put even more emphasis on reading and writing skills than the California assessment examined here. In these states, ELs and LTELs reading and writing skills make up 70% of the students’ overall assessment score, while listening and speaking are only weighted 30% of the overall score (Bauman et al., 2007 ). This highlights the importance of the current findings for reexamining the role of literacy on the impact of reclassifying ELs elsewhere as well. Despite some limitations, this study is unique in that the sample size is fairly large, which is uncommon for a study of students who are LTELs, and the sample includes students in special education. Special education students are often excluded from studies of ELs and LTELs, and the findings here add to the limited research on students who are identified as both LTELs and students in special education.

Like much of the research on students who are acquiring English in school that has focused on achievement gaps, rather than on the linguistic and academic assets of these students (Jensen et al., 2018 ), the research on LTELs tends to focus primarily on their academic failures and ignores their strengths (Callahan, 2005 ; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007 ). This study aims to shift the focus to these students’ strengths. In doing so, we acknowledge the limitations of the LTEL label. We agree with Callahan and Shifrer ( 2016 ) that, “[i]t would be a stretch to suggest that long-term EL status indicates limited familiarity with the English language or the U.S. educational system….[instead] this phenomenon may be the result of a particularly onerous equity trap” (p. 488). We also agree with Kibler and Valdés ( 2016 ), who push back against the use of this label—a term that, among other things, “does not reflect the complexity of current language acquisition theories [and] places the focus on ‘English’ to the exclusion of other factors influencing the learner in a minoritized context” (p. 110).

The fact that most LTELs are proficient in understanding and speaking English, as shown by scores on ELD tests here, suggests that these students could be considered largely fluent in oral English, and the lower reading and writing scores are probably better explained by subtractive schooling and inadequate interventions that can impact most students in high poverty schools, not just students who come from a home where a language other than English is spoken. For a significant number of students labeled LTELs, their learning disabilities are the likely reason they continue to struggle on the reading and writing ELD subtests grade after grade, which prevents them from being reclassified. In either of these situations, classes and supports where students’ culture and home language are valued would be helpful. With this kind of effective support, many more students who are ELs are likely to avoid the LTEL label and better reap the cognitive and social benefits associated with bilingualism (Adesope et al., 2010 ).

Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric Issues in the ELL Assessment and Special Education Eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108 (11), 2282–2303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00782.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80 (2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803

Aganza, J. S., Godinez, A., Smith, D., Gonzalez, L. G., & Robinson-Zañartu, C. (2015). Using cultural assets to enhance assessment of Latino students. Contemporary School Psychology, 19 (1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0041-7

Anthony, J. L., Solari, E. J., Williams, J. M., Schoger, K. D., Zhang, Z., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (6), 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903034770

Artiles, A. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Forging a Knowledge Base on English Language Learners with Special Needs: Theoretical, Population, and Technical Issues. Teachers College Record, 108 (11), 2187–2194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00778.x

Bailey, A. L., & Carroll, P. E. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39 (1), 253–294. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14556074

Bailey, A. L., & Kelly, K. R. (2013). Home language survey practices in the initial identification of English learners in the United States. Educational Policy, 27 (5), 770–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811432137

Bailey, A., & Orellana, M. F. (2015). Adolescent development and everyday language practices: Implications for the academic literacy of multilingual learners. In D. Molle, E. Sato, T. Boals, & C. A. Hedgspeth (Eds.), Multilingual learners and academic literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents (pp. 53–74). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Bauman, J., Boals, T., Cranley, E., Gottlieb, M., & Kenyon, D. (2007). Assessing comprehension and communication in English state to state for English language learners (ACCESS for ELLs®).  English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice , 81–91. Retrieved from https://www.nsbsd.org/cms/lib/AK01001879/Centricity/Domain/781/ACCESS%20Interpretive%20Guide%202012.pdf

Brooks, M. D. (2015). “It’s Like a Script”: Long-Term English Learners’ Experiences with and Ideas about Academic Reading. Research in the Teaching of English, 49 (4), 383–406.

Brooks, M. D. (2016). “Tell me what you are thinking”: An investigation of five Latina LTELs constructing meaning with academic texts. Linguistics & Education, 35 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.03.001

Calderón, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English reading.  The Elementary School Journal ,  99 (2), 153–165. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1002107

California Department of Education (2011) A Comparison Study of Kindergarten and Grade 1 English-Fluent Students and English Learners on the 2010–11 Edition of the CELDT . Morgan Hill, California: Educational Data Systems. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/imadaddec11item02a1.pdf

California Department of Education (2013). California English Language Development Test Item Alignment to the 2012 English Language Development Standards Report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/

California Department of Education. (2021) English Learner Population in California Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sg/englishlearner.asp

Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and High School English Learners: Limiting Opportunity to Learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002305

Callahan, R., & Shifrer, D. (2016). Equitable Access for Secondary English Learner Students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52 (3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16648190

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic Achievement and Course Taking Among Language Minority Youth in U.S. Schools: Effects of ESL Placement. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis , 32 (1), 84–117. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709359805

Carroll, P., & Bailey, A. L. (2016). Do decision rules matter? A descriptive study of English language proficiency assessment classifications for English-language learners and native English speakers in fifth grade. Language Testing, 33 (1), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215576380

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018).  Quick Facts: Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2013–2017 . Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US#

Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21 , 617–641. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586986

Cosentino, d. C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B. C. (2005).  Who’s left behind? immigrant children in high and low LEP schools .The Urban Institute, 2100 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20037. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490928.pdf

CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2009). Technical report for the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) 2008–09 Edition. Report submitted to the California Department of Education on October 30, 2009. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/techreport.asp

Dabach, D. B. (2014). “I Am Not a Shelter!”: Stigma and Social Boundaries in Teachers’ Accounts of Students’ Experience in Separate “Sheltered” English Learner Classrooms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19 (2), 98–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.954044

Delpit, L. (2006).  Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom . The New Press.

Ehrhardt, J., Huntington, N., Molino, J., & Barbaresi, W. (2013). Special education and later academic achievement. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34 (2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827df53f

Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality: Identities of students labeled long-term english language learners. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 14 (2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (2), 149–171.

Gandara, P. (2010). Overcoming Triple Segregation. Educational Leadership, 68 (3), 60–64.

Ginns, D. S., Joseph, L. M., Tanaka, M. L., & Xia, Q. (2019). Supplemental phonological awareness and phonics instruction for Spanish-speaking English Learners: Implications for school psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology, 23 (1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-00216-x

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How Long Does It Take English Learners To Attain Proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute . Policy Report 2000–1. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443275.pdf

Harris, B., Vega, D., Peterson, L. S., & Newell, K. W. (2020). Critical Issues in the Training of Bilingual School Psychologists.  Contemporary School Psychology , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00340-7

Hernandez, S. J. (2017). Are They All Language Learners?: Educational Labeling and Raciolinguistic Identifying in a California Middle School Dual Language Program. CATESOL Journal, 29 (1), 133–154.

Hill, L. E., Weston, M., & Hayes, J. M. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in California.  Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from https://www.ppic.org/publication/reclassification-of-english-learner-students-in-california/

Huang, B. H., & Bailey, A. L. (2016). The Long-Term English Language and Literacy Outcomes of First-Generation Former Child Immigrants in the United States.  Teachers College Record ,  118 (11).

Jensen, B., Grajeda, S., & Haertel, E. (2018). Measuring cultural dimensions of classroom interactions. Educational Assessment, 23 (4), 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1515010

Kanno, Y., & Cromley, J. G. (2013). English language learners’ access to and attainment in postsecondary education. Tesol Quarterly, 47 (1), 89–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.49

Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (5), 848–878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214544716

Kibler, A. K., & Valdés, G. (2016). Conceptualizing language learners: Socioinstitutional mechanisms and their consequences. Modern Language Journal, 100 , 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12310

Kibler, A. K., Karam, F. J., Ehrlich, V. A. F., Bergey, R., Wang, C., & Elreda, L. M. (2018). Who Are “Long-term English Learners”? Using Classroom Interactions to Deconstruct a Manufactured Learner Label. Applied Linguistics, 39 (5), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw039

Kim, W. G., & García, S. B. (2014). Long-term English language learners’ perceptions of their language and academic learning experiences. Remedial and Special Education, 35 (5), 300–312.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English Language Learners Who Struggle With Reading Language Acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (2), 108–128.

Linklater, D. L., O’Connor, R. E., & Palardy, G. J. (2009). Kindergarten literacy assessment of english only and english language learner students: An examination of the predictive validity of three phonemic awareness measures. Journal of School Psychology, 47 (6), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.001

Los Angeles Unified School District (2018) 2018 Master Plan for English Learners and Standard English Learners . Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles Unified School District Division of Instruction, Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department. Retrieved from https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/22/el%20sel%20master%20plan/2018%20Master%20Plan%20for%20EL%20and%20SEL.pdf

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Martínez, R. A. (2010). “Spanglish” as Literacy Tool: Toward an Understanding of the Potential Role of Spanish-English Code-Switching in the Development of Academic Literacy.  Research in the Teaching of English , 124–149.

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Forrest Cataldi, E., and Bullock Mann, F. (2018). The Condition of Education 2018 (NCES 2018–144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018144.pdf

Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 13 (4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050903370143

Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”: Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International Multilingual Research Journal, 6 (2), 121–142.

Office for Civil Rights. (2015).  Ensuring English Learner Students Can Participate Meaningfully and Equally in Educational Programs [Fact sheet]. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-el-students-201501.pdf

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together. Retrieved from http://www.ctdev.changeagentsproductions.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ReparableHarm2ndedition.pdf

Ortiz, S. O. (2019). On the measurement of cognitive abilities in English learners. Contemporary School Psychology, 23 (1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0208-8

Ozernov-Palchik, O., Norton, E. S., Sideridis, G., Beach, S. D., Wolf, M., Gabrieli, J. D., & Gaab, N. (2017). Longitudinal stability of pre-reading skill profiles of kindergarten children: Implications for early screening and theories of reading. Developmental Science, 20 (5), e12471. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12471

Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2013). The Language Growth of Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners. Child Development, 84 (2), 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01871.x

Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326221

Shin, N. (2020). Stuck in the middle: Examination of long-term English learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14 (3), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1681614

Shore, J. R., & Sabatini, J. (2009). English language learners with reading disabilities: A review of the literature and the foundation for a research agenda.  ETS Research Report Series ,  2009 (1), i-48.Retreived from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-09-20.pdf

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007).  Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York . Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/publications/double-the-work-challenges-and-solutions-to-acquiring-language-and-academic-literacy-for-adolescent-english-language-learners/

Siordia, C., & Kim, K. M. (2021). How language proficiency standardized assessments inequitably impact Latinx long‐term English learners.  TESOL Journal , e639. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.639

Slama, R. B. (2014). Investigating whether and when English learners are reclassified into mainstream classrooms in the United States: A discrete-time survival analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (2), 220–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214528277

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75 (2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002247

Solari, E. J., Petscher, Y., & Folsom, J. S. (2014). Differentiating literacy growth of ELL students with LD from other high-risk subgroups and general education peers: Evidence from grades 3–10. Journal of Learning Disabilities (austin), 47 (4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412463435

Thompson, K. D. (2015). Questioning the Long-Term English Learner Label: How Categorization Can Blind Us to Students’ Abilities. Teachers College Record, 117 (12), n12.

Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. M. (2008). Accelerating early academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (4), 1011–1044. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208320790

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. (2017) “Our Nation’s English Learners.” Retrieved January 15, 2022. https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/el-characteristics/index.html#datanotes

Vasquez-Salgado, Y., Ramirez, G., & Greenfield, P. M. (2018). The impact of home-school cultural value conflicts and president trump on Latina/o first-generation college students’ attentional control. International Journal of Psychology : Journal International De Psychologie, 53 (Suppl 2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12502

Yang, H., Urrabazo, T., & Murray, W. (2001). How Did Multiple Years (7+) in a BE/ESL Program Affect the English Acquisition and Academic Achievement of Secondary LEP Students? Results from a Large Urban School District . Dallas, TX: Dallas Independent School District. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452709.pdf

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE021199/special_ed4.pdf

Download references

Partial financial support was received from the University of California, Los Angeles in the form of a Graduate Summer Research Mentorship Program stipend.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, Moore Hall, 457 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

Laura V. Rhinehart & Alison L. Bailey

Charter College of Education, California State University, 5151 State University Dr, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA

Diane Haager

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura V. Rhinehart .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rhinehart, L.V., Bailey, A.L. & Haager, D. Long-term English Learners: Untangling Language Acquisition and Learning Disabilities. Contemp School Psychol 28 , 173–185 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00420-w

Download citation

Accepted : 25 May 2022

Published : 20 July 2022

Issue Date : June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00420-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Long-term English Learners
• Special education
• Second language acquisition
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• University of Wisconsin–Madison
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Research Guides
• ESL/ELL Education

ESL/ELL Education : Articles

• Lesson Plans
• Interactive Websites for Learning
• Stats & Facts
• Organizations & People
• Certification & Jobs

Ask a Librarian at MERIT

If chat is offline, click here to Ask a Librarian via UW-Madison Libraries general library help chat .

Request Articles and Books

Can't find an article online?  Follow this link to to request the article be sent to your e-mail.

You can also use this link to request a book chapter.

• Request Materials
• Articles Search

Finding a Specific Journal

• Ffinding a Specific Journal You can search for known journal titles by using the “Journal” search option via the UW-Madison Libraries homepage.

Finding a Specific Article

• Finding a Specific Article This tutorial explains how to find specific journal articles by searching within the journal itself.

Need to cite articles, books, or Web pages?

Citing Sources  - resources and examples of citation styles   

UW-Madison Writing Center's Writer's Handbook has tips on citation styles (APA, Chicago, CBE, MLA, etc.).

Information on how to avoid plagiarism from UW-Madison's Writing Center.

Use citation managers to organize your references and create bibliographies.

Search Terms and Key Words

Below are search terms that may lead you to articles and resources on ESL/ELL education:

• English As A Second Language
• English As A Foreign Language
• English Language Learners
• Bilingual Education
• Bilingual Education Programs
• Bilingual Teacher Aides
• Bilingualism
• English (Second Language)
• Second Language Learning

Journal Article Databases

• Academic Search Premier
• Education Research Complete
• LLBA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (CSA)
• MLA International Bibliography
• PsycINFO (Psychological Abstracts) (EBSCO)
• Australian Journal of Language and Literacy
• English Education
• English Journal
• ESL Magazine
• Essential Teacher
• The Internet TESL Journal
• Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
• Research in the Teaching of English
• TESOL Quarterly

Merit Group

• Next: Books >>
• Last Updated: Mar 4, 2024 12:43 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/ESL

Note: This chapter was originally published by the Asia Society as a chapter in the handbook entitled  Chinese Language Learning in the Early Grades . The full publication can be found at:  http://asiasociety.org/education/chinese-language-initiatives/chinese-language-learning-early-grades Download PDF of this article

What the Research Says About Immersion

by Tara Williams Fortune

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition University of Minnesota

Over nearly half a century, research on language immersion education has heralded benefits such as academic achievement, language and literacy development in two or more languages, and cognitive skills. This research also exposes some of the challenges that accompany the immersion model, with its multilayered agenda of language, literacy and intercultural skills development during subject matter learning. This chapter outlines key findings for both advantages and challenges.

Benefits of Language Immersion

Academic and Educational

Without question, the issue investigated most often in research on language immersion education is students' ability to perform academically on standardized tests administered in English. This question emerges again and again in direct response to stakeholder concerns that development of a language other than English not jeopardize basic schooling goals, high levels of oral and written communication skills in English, and grade-appropriate academic achievement. The research response to this question is longstanding and consistent. English proficient immersion students are capable of achieving as well as, and in some cases better than, non-immersion peers on standardized measures of reading and math. [i]

This finding applies to students from a range of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, [ii] as well as diverse cognitive and linguistic abilities. [iii] Moreover, academic achievement on tests administered in English occurs regardless of the second language being learned. In other words, whether learning through alphabetic languages (Spanish, Hawaiian, French, etc.) or character-based languages (Mandarin, Japanese, Cantonese), English-proficient students will keep pace academically with peers in English-medium programs. [iv]

It is important to acknowledge that early studies carried out in one-way total immersion programs, where English may not be introduced until grades 2–5, show evidence of a temporary lag in specific English language skills such as spelling, capitalization, punctuation, word knowledge, and word discrimination. [v] That said, these studies also find that within a year or two after instruction in English language arts begins, the lag disappears. There were no long-term negative repercussions to English language or literacy development.

Does this same finding apply to students in two-way immersion (TWI) settings whose first language is other than English? In the past fifteen to twenty years, US researchers found that English learners' academic achievement also attained the programs' goals. By the upper elementary, or in some cases early secondary grades, English learners from different ethnicities, language backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and developmental profiles perform at least as well as same background peers being schooled in English only. [vi] Most English learners in TWI come from Latino families whose home language is Spanish. As an ethnic minority in the United States, Latinos are both the fastest-growing student population and the group with the highest rate of school failure. [vii] Research in Spanish/English TWI contexts points to higher grade point averages and increased enrollment in post-secondary education for this student group, compared to Latino peers participating in other types of educational programs such as transitional bilingual education and various forms of English-medium education.

Although the vast majority of TWI research has been carried out in Spanish/English settings, Dr. Kathryn Lindholm-Leary [viii] recently reported results from a study of two Chinese/English TWI programs. Students in grades 4–8 whose home language was Chinese tested at or above their grade level and the same as or well above peers with similar demographic profiles participating in non-TWI programs. Leary's findings align with those of other TWI programs.

Language and Literacy

The immersion approach first gained traction in North America because educators believed in its potential to move students further towards bilingualism and biliteracy. Immersion language programs took root in areas such as St. Lambert, Canada, and Miami, Florida, where educators felt that more than one language was necessary for children's future economic and social prosperity. Program designers wagered that making the second language the sole medium for teaching core subject content, instead of teaching the second language separately, would result in more students reaching higher levels of proficiency. These early immersion programs started by committing one-half or more of the school day for teachers and students to work only in the second language. Students were socialized to adopt the new language for all classroom communication and subject learning.

This approach to second-language and literacy development proved itself to be the most successful school-based language program model available. English-proficient immersion students typically achieve higher levels of minority (non-English) language proficiency when compared with students in other types of language programs. [ix] Immersion students who begin the program as English speakers consistently develop native-like levels of comprehension, such as listening and reading skills, in their second language. They also display fluency and confidence when using it. [x] Further, the more time spent learning through the non-English language, the higher the level of proficiency attained. To date, early total (one-way) and nearly total (90:10) two-way immersion programs demonstrate higher levels of minority language proficiency than partial or fifty-fifty programs. [xi]

Initial concerns about the possible detriment to English language and literacy development were eventually laid to rest. English-proficient immersion students who achieved relatively high levels of second-language proficiency also acquired higher levels of English language skills and metalinguistic awareness—that is, the ability to think about how various parts of a language function. Researchers posit that metalinguistic skills positively impact learning to read in alphabetic languages, because it facilitates the development of critical literacy sub-skills such as phonological awareness and knowledge of letter-sound correspondences for word decoding. [xii] The important relationship between phonological awareness and successful reading abilities is clearly established. However, we now also have evidence that instructional time invested in developing important decoding sub-skills in an immersion student's second language can transfer and benefit decoding sub-skills in their first language. [xiii]

Research about the relationship between character-based and English literacy sub-skills continues to grow. To date, evidence points to the transfer of phonological processing skills for children whose first language is Chinese and are learning to read in English as a second language. [xiv] Studies also indicate a relationship between visual-orthographic skills in Chinese, the ability to visually distinguish basic orthographic patterns such as correct positioning of semantic radicals in compound characters, and English reading and spelling. [xv] Much remains to be learned in these areas, however, when it comes to English-proficient children in Mandarin immersion programs who are acquiring literacy in Chinese and English.

In TWI programs, research illuminates what Lindholm-Leary and Dr. E. R. Howard referred to as a "native-speaker effect." [xvi] In a nutshell, the "native-speaker effect" describes the tendency of native speakers of a language to outperform second language learners of the same language on standardized measures administered in the native speakers' language. For example, if Spanish proficients and Spanish learners are evaluated using standardized Spanish-medium tools, Spanish proficients outperform Spanish learners. Similar outcomes occurred when tests were given in English and Mandarin. [xvii]

In general, research finds that immersion students whose first language is not English become more balanced bilinguals and develop higher levels of bilingualism and biliteracy when compared with English proficient students or home language peers participating in other educational programming. For example, Dr. Kim Potowski [xviii] found that the oral and written language skills of English learners in TWI were only slightly behind those of recent Spanish-speaking arrivals and significantly better than their English-proficient peers. English learners' higher bilingual proficiency levels are also linked to higher levels of reading achievement in English, increased academic language proficiency, and successful schooling experiences in general. [xix]

Cognitive Skill Development

There's a well-established positive relationship between basic thinking skills and being a fully proficient bilingual who maintains regular use of both languages. Fully proficient bilinguals outperform monolinguals in the areas of divergent thinking, pattern recognition, and problem solving. [xx]

Bilingual children develop the ability to solve problems that contain conflicting or misleading cues at an earlier age, and they can decipher them more quickly than monolinguals. When so doing, they demonstrate an advantage with selective attention and greater executive or inhibitory control. [xxi] Fully proficient bilingual children have also been found to exhibit enhanced sensitivity to verbal and non-verbal cues and to show greater attention to their listeners' needs relative to monolingual children. [xxii] Further, bilingual students display greater facility in learning additional languages when compared with monolinguals. [xxiii]

While much evidence supports the benefits associated with full and active bilingualism, the relationship between language immersion education and long-term cognitive benefits is as yet less well-understood. Some research does indicate greater cognitive flexibility [xxiv] and better nonverbal problem-solving abilities among English-proficient language immersion students. [xxv]

Decades ago, Dr. Jim Cummins cautioned about the need for a certain threshold level of second language proficiency before cognitive skills might be positively impacted. [xxvi] Accordingly, children who develop "partial bilingualism" in a second language may or may not experience cognitive benefits. While some studies report positive cognitive effects for partial or emerging bilinguals, Dr. Ellen Bialystok concurs that it is bilingual children with a more balanced and competent mastery of both languages who will predictably exhibit the positive cognitive consequences of bilingualism. [xxvii]

Economic and Sociocultural

Increasingly, proficiency in a second language and intercultural competency skills open up employment possibilities. Many sectors require increasing involvement in the global economy, from international businesses and tourism to communications and the diplomatic corps. High-level, high-paying employment will demand competence in more than one language. [xxviii] In the United States, world language abilities are increasingly important to national security, economic competitiveness, delivery of health care, and law enforcement. [xxix]

Beyond economics are the countless advantages that b i- and multilingual individuals enjoy by being able to communicate with a much wider range of people from many different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Knowledge of other languages enriches travel experiences and allows people to experience other societies and cultures more meaningfully. Besides access to foreign media, literature, and the arts, bi- and multilingual people can simply connect and converse more freely. Becoming bilingual leads to new ways of conceptualizing yourself and others. It expands your worldview, so that you not only know more, you know differently.

Challenges Faced by Language Immersion

Designing, implementing, and providing ongoing support for language immersion education is no easy task. Pressing challenges include staffing, curriculum development and program articulation. Program administrators struggle to find high-quality, licensed teachers who can demonstrate advanced levels of oral and written proficiency in the chosen language. Once teachers are hired, the search begins for developmentally appropriate curriculum, materials, and resources that meet local district and state standards. Elementary-level challenges are met with additional secondary-level issues such as scheduling and balancing students' educational priorities as the program moves up and through the middle and high school years.

Inadequate teacher preparation for immersion programs remains a challenge in this field. Teachers need specialized professional development support to meet the complex task of concurrently addressing content, language, and literacy development in an integrated, subject-matter-driven language program. [xxx] However, teacher educators and immersion specialists who can provide useful and relevant professional learning experiences for the immersion staff are in short supply. In addition to professional development related to curriculum design and pedagogical techniques, both native and non-native teachers report the need for ongoing support for their own proficiency in the immersion language. [xxxi]

Chinese teachers whose educational experiences took place in more traditional, teacher-centered classrooms are aware of significant cultural differences and participant expectations. For example, US schools place a strong emphasis on social skills and language for communicative purposes. Children expect learner-centered activities with real-life tasks. Chinese teachers often hold a different set of expectations for students and thus, they frequently need support for classroom management strategies and techniques. [xxxii]

Immersion teachers face significant hurdles in the sheer range of learner differences. The impact of students' variations in language proficiency, literacy development, learning support available to the student in the home, achievement abilities, learning styles, and special needs grows exponentially when teaching and learning occurs in two languages. [xxxiii] Educators and parents struggle to identify and implement research-based policies and practices for learners who have language, literacy, and learning difficulties. Many immersion programs lack the necessary resources and bilingual specialists to provide appropriate instructional support, assessment, and interventions. [xxxiv]    

Promoting student understanding of more abstract and complex concepts becomes increasingly difficult in the upper elementary grades and beyond. Some upper-elementary immersion teachers, in particular those who teach in partial or 50:50 programs, report difficulties in teaching advanced-level subject matter because students' cognitive development is at a higher level than their proficiency in the second language. [xxxv] This challenge becomes more pronounced in programs where the immersion language is character-based, since literacy development is more time-consuming and demanding. [xxxvi]

One of the greatest challenges for immersion teachers is to keep their students using the second language, especially when working and talking amongst themselves. This challenge is particularly pronounced once the children have moved beyond the primary grades. For instance, studies in both one-way and two-way immersion classes point to fifth-grade students using English more frequently than their non-English language. [xxxvii] Facilitating student use of the immersion language in ways that promote ongoing language development is an uphill battle for teachers. [xxxviii]

Finally, outcome-oriented research reveals that immersion students, especially those who begin the program as native English speakers, don't quite achieve native-like levels of speaking and writing skills. Studies consistently find that English-speaking immersion students' oral language lacks grammatical accuracy, lexical specificity, native pronunciation, and is less complex and sociolinguistically appropriate when compared with the language native speakers of the second language produce. [xxxix] Further, students' use of the immersion language appears to become increasingly anglicized over time, [xl] and can be marked by a more formal academic discourse style. [xli] Even in high-performing immersion programs, advancing students' second language proficiency beyond the intermediate levels remains a much sought after end goal.

[i] Genesee, 2008 ; Lindholm-Leary, 2001 , 2011 ; Turnbull, Lapkin, & Hart, 2001

[ii] Bruck, Tucker, & Jakimik, 1975 ; Caldas & Boudreaux, 1999 ; Holobow, Genesee, & Lambert, 1991 ; Krueger, 2001 ; Lindholm-Leary, 2001 ; Slaughter, 1997

[iii] Bruck, 1982 ; Genesee, 2007 ; Myers, 2009

[iv] Lindholm-Leary, 2011 ; Patterson, Hakam, & Bacon, 2011

[v] Swain & Barik, 1976

[vi] Christian, 2011 ; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010 ; Lindholm-Leary & Hernandez, 2011 ; Myers, 2009 ; Thomas & Collier, 1997 , 2002

[vii] Fry, 2010 ; Passel & Cohn, 2008

[viii] 2011

[ix] Campbell, Gray, Rhodes, & Snow, 1985 ; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2010 ; Forrest, 2007 , 2011 ; Lindholm Leary & Howard, 2008

[x] Genesee, 1987 , 2004

[xi] Genesee, 1987 ; Lindholm Leary, 2001 ; Turnbull, Lapkin, & Hart, 2001

[xii] Bournot-Trites & Denizot, 2005 ; Harley, Hart & Lapkin, 1986

[xiii] Erdos, Genesee, Savage & Haigh, 2010 ; Genesee & Jared, 2008

[xiv] Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001 ; Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005

[xv] Leong, Tan, Cheng, & Hau, 2005

[xvii] Lindholm-Leary, 2011 ; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008

[xviii] 2004

[xix] Howard, Sugarman, & Christian, 2003 ; Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008 ; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010 ; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008 ; Ramirez, Perez, Valdez, & Hall, 2009 ; Rolstad, 1997

[xx] Bialystok, 2001 ; Cenoz & Genesee, 1998 ; Hakuta, 1986 ; Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2009 ; Peal & Lambert, 1962

[xxi] Bialystok, 2009

[xxii] Lazaruk, 2007

[xxiii] Cenoz & Valencia, 1994 ; Sanz, 2000

[xxiv] Bruck, et al., 1975

[xxv] Bamford & Mizokawa, 1991

[xxvi] 1981

[xxvii] 2001, page 228

[xxviii] Fixman, 1990 ; García & Otheguy, 1994 ; Halliwell, 1999 ; Mann, Brassell, & Bevan, 2011

[xxix] Jackson & Malone, 2009

[xxx] Fortune, Tedick & Walker, 2008 ; Howard & Loeb, 1998 ; Kong, 2009 ; Met & Lorenz, 1997 ; Snow, 1990 ; Walker & Tedick, 2000

[xxxi] Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2003 ; Fortune, Tedick & Walker, 2008

[xxxii] Hall Haley & Ferro, 2011

[xxxiii] Walker & Tedick, 2000

[xxxiv] Genesee, 2007 ; Fortune, with Menke, 2010

[xxxv] Met & Lorenz, 1997

[xxxvi] Met, 2002

[xxxvii] Carrigo, 2000 ; Fortune, 2001 ; Potowski, 2004

[xxxviii] Lavan, 2001

[xxxix] Harley, 1986 ; Menke, 2010 ; Mougeon, Nadaski & Rehner, 2010 ; Pawley, 1985 ; Salamone, 1992 ; Spilka, 1976

[xl] Lyster, 1987

[xli] Fortune, 2001 ; Potowski, 2004 ; Tarone and Swain, 1995

Selected References:

Bamford, K., & Mizokawa, D. (1991). Additive-bilingual (immersion) education: Cognitive and language development. Language Learning, 41 (3), 413-429.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Language and Cognition, 12 (1), 3-11.

Bournot-Trites, M., & Denizot, I. (2005, January). Conscience phonologique en immersion française au Canada. Paper presented at the 1er Colloque International de Dediactique Cognitive, Toulouse, France.

Bruck, M. (1982). Language impaired children's performance in an additive bilingual education program. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3 , 45-60.

Bruck, M., Tucker, G. R., & Jakimik, J. (1975). Are French immersion programs suitable for working class children? Word, 27 , 311-341.

Caldas, S., & Boudreaux, N. (1999). Poverty, race, and foreign language immersion: Predictors of math and English language arts performance. Learning Languages, 5 (1), 4-15.

Calderón, M., & Minaya-Rowe, L.  (2003). Designing and implementing two-way bilingual programs . Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin Press, Inc.

Campbell, R. N., Gray, T. C., Rhodes, N. C., & Snow, M. A. (1985). Foreign language learning in the elementary schools: A comparison of three language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 69, 44–54.

Carrigo, D. (2000). Just how much English are they using?  Teacher and student language distribution patterns, between Spanish and English, in upper-grade, two-way immersion Spanish classes .   Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Massachusetts.

Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism:  Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 16-32).  Clevedon, UK:  Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. F. (1994) Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics 15, 195-207.

Christian, D. (2011). Dual language education. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning , Volume II, pp. 3-20. New York: Routledge.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In  Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework  (pp. 3-49) .  Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C.A. (2010). Languages and children: Making the match, 4 th Editio n. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. (2009). Study on the contribution of multilingualism to creativity. Brussels: Author. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/news/news3653_en.htm

Erdos, C., Genesee, F., Savage, R. and Haigh, C. (2010). Individual differences in second language reading outcomes.  International Journal of Bilingualism ,  15 (1), 3-25. doi:10.1177/1367006910371022.

Fantino, A. (2003). Becoming bilingual . Paper presented at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) conference in Philadelphia, PA.

Fixman, C. S. (1990). The foreign language needs of U.S.–based corporations.  In R. D. Lambert & S. J. Moore (Eds.), Foreign language in the workplace:  Special issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (pp. 25-46). Newbury Park, CA:  Sage Publications.

Forrest, L. B.  (2007, November). K-12 foreign language program models: Comparing learning outcomes. Paper presented at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) conference in San Antonio, TX.

Forrest, L. B. (2011, November). Comparing program models and student proficiency outcomes. Paper presented at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) conference in Denver, CO.

Fortune, T. (2001). Understanding students' oral language use as a mediator of social interaction.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Fortune, T. with M. R. Menke. (2010). Struggling learners & language immersion education: Research-based, practitioner-informed responses to educators' top questions (CARLA Publication Series). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

Fortune, T., Tedick, D., & Walker, C. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights from the language immersion classroom. In T. Fortune, D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education ( pp. 71-96) .  Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Fry, R. (2010).  Hispanics, high school dropouts and the GED . Retrieved from the Pew Hispanic Center website:  http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/122.pdf

García, O., & Otheguy, R. (1994). The value of speaking a LOTE [Language Other Than English] in U.S. Business. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 532 , 99-122.

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T.K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism (pp. 547-576). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (5), 655-688.

Genesee, F. (2008). Dual language in the global village.  In T.W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education ( pp. 22-45) .  Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology, 49, 140-147.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.  (2004). Schooling in a second language. In F. Genesee, J. Paradis, & M. Crago (Eds.), Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (pp. 155-189).  Baltimore, MD:  Brookes Publishing Co.

Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001).  Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language:  More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 , 530-542.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism . New York: Basic Books.

Hall Haley, M., & Ferro, M. S. (2011). Understanding the perceptions of Arabic and Chinese teachers toward transitioning into U.S. schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44 (2), 289-307.

Halliwell, J. (1999). Language and trade. In A. Breton (Ed.), Exploring the economics of language .  Ottawa, Ontario:  Department of Cultural Heritage.

Harley, B., Hart, D., & Lapkin, S. (1986). The effects of early bilingual schooling on first language skills.  Applied Psycholinguistics, 7 , 295-322.

Holobow, N. E., Genesee, F., & Lambert, W. E.  (1991). The effectiveness of a foreign language immersion program for children from different ethnic and social class backgrounds:  Report 2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12 , 179-198.

Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (1998, December). In their own words: Two-way immersion teachers talk about their professional experiences. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from the Center for Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/intheirownwords.html

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D.  (2003).  Trends in two-way immersion education:  A review of the research .  Washington, DC:  Center for Applied Linguistics.

Jackson, F., & Malone, M. (2009).   Building the foreign language capacity we need: Toward a comprehensive strategy for a national language framework.  Retrieved from the Center for Applied Linguistics website:  http://www.cal.org/resources/languageframework.pdf

Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content-trained teachers' and language-trained teachers' pedagogies?  The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66 (2), 233–267.

Kovelman, I., Baker, S., & Petitto, L. A. (2008). Age of bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11 (2), 203-223.

Krueger, D. R. (2001). Foreign language immersion in an urban setting: Effects of immersion on students of yesterday and today. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee.

LaVan, C. (2001, February). Help! They're using too much English! ACIE Newsletter 4 (2), Bridge Insert, pp. 1-4.

Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (5), 605-628.

Leong, C. K., Hau, K. T., Cheng, P. W., & Tan, L. H. (2005). Exploring two-wave reciprocal structural relations among orthographic knowledge, phonological sensitivity, and reading and spelling English words by Chinese students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 591–600.

Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education .  Clevedon, England:  Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Lindholm-Leary, K. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs: Language proficiency, academic achievement, and student attitudes. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 81-103). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Howard, E. (2008). Language development and academic achievement in two-way immersion programs. In T.W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 177-200) . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Lindholm-Leary, K. & Genesee, F. (2010). Alternative educational programs for English language learners. In California Department of Education (Eds.), Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches (pp. 323–382). Sacramento: CDE Press.

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Hernandez, A.  (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous ELLs, and current ELLs, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , DOI:10.1080/01434632.2011.611596

Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 43 (4), 701–717.

Mann, A., Brassell, M., & Bevan, D. (2011).  The economic case for language learning and the role of employer engagement.  Retrieved from the Education and Employers Taskforce website:  http://www.educationandemployers.org/media/14563/ll_report_1__for_website.pdf

Menke, M. R. (2010). The Spanish vowel productions of native English-speaking students in Spanish immersion programs . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Met, M. (2002). Elementary school immersion in less commonly taught languages. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 139-160). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Met, M., & Lorenz, E. (1997). Lessons from U.S. immersion programs:  Two decades of experience.  In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.),  Immersion education:  International perspectives (pp. 243-264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, M. (2009). Achievement of children identified with special needs in two-way Spanish immersion programs . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The George Washington University: Washington, D.C.

Mougeon, R., Nadaski, T., & Rehner, K.  (2010). The sociolinguistic competence of immersion students . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Passel, J., & Cohn, D’V. (2008). U .S. Population projections: 2005-2050 . Retrieved from the Pew Hispanic Center website:  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

Patterson, M., Hakam, K., & Bacon, M. (2011, April 16). Continuous innovation: Making K-12 Mandarin immersion work. Presentation at the National Chinese language Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Pawley, C. (1985). How bilingual are French immersion students? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 865–876.

Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence.  Psychological Monographs:  General and Applied, 76 (27), 22-23.

Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (1), 75-101.

Ramirez, M., Perez, M., Valdez, G., & Hall, B. (2009). Assessing the long-term effects of an experimental bilingual-multicultural programme: Implications for drop-out prevention, multicultural development and immigration policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12 (1), 47-59.

Rolstad, K. (1997). Effects of two-way immersion on the ethnic identification of third language students: An exploratory study. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (1), 43-63.

Salamone, A. (1992). Student-teacher interactions in selected French immersion classrooms.  In E. Bernhardt (Ed.), Life in language immersion classrooms (pp. 97-109). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21 , 23-44.

Slaughter, H. (1997). Indigenous language immersion in Hawai'i: A case study of Kula Kaiapuni Hawai'i, and effort to save the indigenous language Hawai'i. In R. K. Johnson, & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 105-129). Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

Snow, M. A. (1990). Instructional methodology in immersion foreign language education. In Padilla, A., Fairchild, H., & Valadez, V. (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Spilka, I.  (1976). Assessment of second language performance in immersion programs.  The Canadian Modern Language Review, 32 (5), 543-561.

Swain, M., & Barik, H. C. (1976). A large scale program in French immersion: The Ottawa study through grade three. ITL: A Review of Applied Linguistics, 33 , 1-25.

Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N., & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 3 (1), 65–81.

Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 166–178.

Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (2011). Immersion education: Practices, policies and possibilities . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Thomas, W., & Collier, V.  (1997).   School effectiveness for minority language students . Retrieved from the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education website: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE020890/School_effectiveness_for_langu.pdf

Thomas, W., & Collier, V.  (2002).   A national study of school effectiveness for minority language students' long term academic achievement . Retrieved from the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence website: http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html

Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., & Hart, D. (2001). Grade 3 immersion students' performance in literacy and mathematics:  Province-wide results from Ontario (1998-99).  The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58 (1), 9-26.

Walker, C.L., & Tedick, D. J. (2000). The complexity of immersion education:  Teachers address the issues.  The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 5-27.

Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97 , 67-88.

• Twin Cities Campus:
• Parking & Transportation
• Maps & Directions
•       Directories
• Contact U of M
•       Privacy

Five Scholarly Articles about English Learners (ELs)

#1 : The 2009 journal article “ The Latino Education Crisis—Rescuing the American Dream ” points out that the gaps in achievement between Latinos, the largest and fastest growing minority, and most other students are enormous. To combat this issue, the researcher strongly recommends:

• Subsidized preschool programs
• Support for dual-language programs
• Better preparation for teachers
• Dropout prevention and college access programs

#2 : With little research on common practices with the more than five million ELs in our nation’s schools, many of whom come from families in poverty and attend lower-resourced schools, the 2013 research article “ Unlocking the Research on English Learners ” says that:

• ELs absolutely require additional instructional supports.
• The home language can be used to promote academic development.

#3 : The 2014 journal article “ Teaching Content to English Learners in the Era of the Common Core Standards ” discusses how mainstream teachers (i.e., content teachers) have had few, if any, opportunities for professional development that would allow them to teach ELs. Therefore, the system needs to better support teachers in this task.

#4 : The 2017 research article “ Differentiating Language Difference and Language Disorder: Information for Teachers Working with English Language Learners in the Schools ” says that teachers and other school personnel face challenges related to adequately identifying and meeting the language needs of children who are English learners. As such, it says professional development for classroom teachers is needed and should encompass language acquisition and multiple aspects of bilingualism.

#5 : The 2016 research article “ Students’ Perceptions of Bilingualism in Spanish and Mandarin Dual Language Programs ” provides information about how students who speak either Spanish or Mandarin rate their language proficiency skills and bilingualism and their perceptions of bilingualism on cognition and social relationships. The concluding part of the article says that the level of bilingualism has an does impact on students’ affective, cognitive, and social perspectives.

Nearly all of the research in these articles and others out there strongly indicates that teachers and staff need more professional development in aiding English language learners. One organization that’s been on the front lines in offering teacher and personnel training while also helping Latino learners through its age-specific literacy and college awareness programs, is The Latino Family Literacy Project .

After teachers and staff complete a half-day training or online webinar, they then hold a series of workshops on the school site to assist parents in establishing a regular reading routine using bilingual books. Research shows that family reading time helps to improve literacy and strengthen vocabulary in both languages, not just for the kids but parents too! For more information, please contact The Latino Family Literacy Project.

Government agencies communicate via .gov.sg website (e.g. go.gov.sg/open). Trusted websites

• SchoolFinder
• CourseFinder
• Academic calendar
• Quick links
• My shortlisted (0)

School Terms and Holidays for 2025

Published Date: 12 August 2024 02:00 PM

News Press Releases

1. The school year for 2025 for all MOE primary schools (including MOE Kindergartens) and secondary schools will start on Thursday, 2 January 2025 and end on Friday, 21 November 2025.

School Calendar 2025

1 Primary 1 and Kindergarten 1 will start school on Thursday, 2 January 2025. Primary 2 to 6 and Kindergarten 2 will start school on Friday, 3 January 2025.

2 The last day of the final school term for schools which will be used as venues for the GCE O-Level written examinations, will be Friday, 24 October 2025.

School Vacation 2025

2. The four vacation periods for schools, junior colleges and Millennia Institute for 2025 will be as follows:

3. The scheduled school holidays and public holidays for 2025 will be as follows:

Scheduled School Holidays 2025

Public Holidays 2025

3 Subject to further confirmation.

4 Subject to further confirmation - Mon, 9 Jun will be a designated day off-in-lieu (DOIL). Schools will be closed, including the General Office, Student Care Centres and KCare Centres.

5 Mon, 11 Aug will be a school holiday and a designated day off-in-lieu (DOIL). Schools will be closed, including the General Office, Student Care Centres and KCare Centres.

4. The school terms and holidays for 2025 are also listed on the MOE's website at https://www.moe.gov.sg/calendar .

$88   million in Co-op earnings

The university of cincinnati boasts one of the largest co-op employer programs in the nation.

Each semester, University of Cincinnati students are put to work — in and out of the classroom.

Students who participate in UC’s cooperative education program get meaningful hands-on opportunities as they spend one semester studying on campus and the next semester working in their professional field, earning cash while they’re learning.

In the 2023-24 academic year, more than 8,300 students  earned an estimated $88.8 million collectively through paid co-op experiences, according to self-reported data. That averages to nearly $10,700 per student per semester.

It’s an  18% increase in wages from the last reported co-op data.  

Those collective earnings are even higher than the last reported earnings before the COVID-19 pandemic (approximately $75 million), officials say, due to rising hourly wages and increased co-op placements with UC’s growing enrollment.

“Co-ops are transformative for our students who apply what they have learned in the classroom to real-world experiences,” says UC President Neville Pinto. “As an added bonus, earning while learning goes a long way toward easing the financial burden on students and families.

“The university’s leaders understood this when they envisioned and invented the cooperative education model in 1906. We continue to embrace these advantages by expanding co-op opportunities to more and more UC students.”

By increasing the upward mobility of the individual, co-op can uplift families and communities as well, and that can have a lasting, compounding economic impact.

Annie Straka Associate Dean, UC’s College of Cooperative Education and Professional Studies

The value of co-op

The data highlights the added value of co-op offsetting tuition costs. Earning money through paid co-ops helps students graduate with less debt, which has a lasting impact on their ability to thrive after college, says Annie Straka, associate dean in UC’s College of Cooperative Education and Professional Studies.

“The cost of higher education is significant,” Straka says, “and the UC co-op model centers around connecting students with meaningful experiences that allow them to earn while they are in school and offset the cost of their education.”

For students and families, co-op equates to job security and an increased value of a degree. Andrew Matthews is a student in UC’s College of Engineering and Applied Science who works on co-op at Turner Construction.

“My parents love the idea of co-op because it puts you closer to having a full-time job,” Matthews says. “They also love that I am making money and doing it as I learn about construction management.”  Read more about Matthews’ experience at Turner.

That financial benefit, Straka says, can have a ripple effect.

“The economic impact of co-op extends beyond the individual and makes a positive impact on communities. Students leave the university and continue to earn at a higher rate because of their ability to compete in the job market. By increasing the upward mobility of the individual, co-op can uplift families and communities as well and that can have a lasting, compounding economic impact.”

Co-op makes a statewide impact, too.

“Retaining top STEM talent in Ohio is a crucial component of continued economic growth in the state,” said JobsOhio President and CEO J.P. Nauseef. “The partnerships that UC and world-class organizations have formed through the co-op program provide domestic and international students first-hand experience in dynamic local workplaces, which will help to keep these talented individuals in Ohio.”

Global founders of cooperative education

Cooperative education was invented at UC. In 1906, engineering dean Herman Schneider began requiring students to alternate between taking classes and working in the field. He would later become president of the university, with his co-op concept serving as a global model.

Over the past century, UC has continued to innovate on co-op. Today, the program is ranked Top 5 in the country, according to U.S. News & World Report. 

Last year, UC introduced the  College of Cooperative Education and Professional Studies  (CCPS) to better serve all students, including adult learners and industry partners. As a dedicated college, CCPS continues to collaborate with industry and collegiate partners to offer co-op and experiential learning opportunities for students, while expanding its mission to serve adult learners pursuing career advancement. The college also serves co-op employer partners who are interested in  advancing their existing workforce.

“Our college is expanding into the adult education space to provide pathways for upward mobility for all learners through upskilling/reskilling and professional development,” says Straka. “That focus translates to our undergraduate programs as we want to provide support for students to build their skills and develop an appreciation for lifelong learning so they can continue to evolve throughout their careers after they leave UC.”

Employer endorsements

For employers, co-op is a valuable recruitment tool. It’s why UC boasts corporate co-op partners like GE Aerospace, Siemens and American Honda Motor Co.

Honda has had a long and successful relationship with UC, sourcing engineering and business students for co-ops, internship and full-time positions.

“We see our co-ops as a critical talent pipeline for positions,” says Daniela Evans, unit lead for college relations at American Honda. “Additionally, co-ops can get real-world, hands-on experience by working on projects that are directly tied to their area of study and give them a sense of what they may be able to do as a full-time associate.”

Many co-op students go on to work full time at their co-op employers after graduation, often with offers waiting for them before they don the cap and gown. And a few co-op students have gone full circle to work with UC as employers.

As a UC engineering student in the ’90s, Jeremy Jarrett worked for a local technology consulting company through co-op.

Kinetic Vision was at the forefront of predicting structural performance for everything from aircraft wings to machines that make diapers. Jarrett ran modeling simulations for national clients that are household names. He was one of seven employees.

Jarrett still works at Kinetic Vision today, which now employs 200 people — only now he is president and CEO.

“I guess you could say my first co-op job got me to where I am as president,” he says. Read more about Jarrett’s story.

Data source: Student pay is self-reported through UC Professional Assessment and Learning (PAL) or Handshake by UC students on paid co-op experiences fall 2023, spring 2024 and summer 2024.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by University of Cincinnati (@uofcincy)

Become a Bearcat

Whether you’re a first-generation student or from a family of Bearcats, UC is proud to support you at every step along your journey. We want to make sure you succeed — and feel right at home.

Ready to hire?

For over a century, the University of Cincinnati has brought tomorrow's leaders out of the classroom and into the workforce to drive growth across every industry.

Learn more about  hiring from our nationally-ranked cooperative education program .

Additional credits

Photos: Andrew Higley Digital design: Kerry Overstake UC Marketing + Communications

• Experience-based Learning
• President's Office
• Student Experience
• Next Lives Here
• College of Cooperative Education and Professional Studies
• College of Engineering and Applied Science
• Alumni Association

Related Stories

Greetings, grace and gratitude.

July 25, 2023

A team of UC students, faculty, staff and supporters traveled to East Africa for a service-learning trip across three villages in Tanzania. They returned to campus with a transformational cultural experience and lessons that last a lifetime.

A legacy of service

August 10, 2023

Dr. Chris Lewis first visited Tanzania nearly 20 years ago as a UC medical resident intent on making a difference in the country. Now he’s instilling a passion for global health in a new generation of students through Village Life Outreach Project.

Inaugural class of Marian Spencer Scholars announced

February 8, 2022

The University of Cincinnati has awarded 10 high school students from Cincinnati Public Schools the new Marian Spencer Scholarship.

Good neighbors, better partners

June 10, 2020

UC, Cincinnati Public Schools work together to create something special at a new school.

A milestone centennial

March 8, 2021

In 1920, UC became the first university in the nation to open cooperative education — founded at UC in 1906 — to women.

Yahoo: Future University of Cincinnati Bearcats get surprised at...

January 28, 2022

News media highlight UC's Decision Day records as students get surprised with admission and scholarships.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

August 13, 2024 | Matt Engelhardt

Porcine Hydrogels Hold Potential Key for Regenerative Engineering

Dr. Cato T. Laurencin leads team researching a gap in regenerative engineering that could be solved with material collected from pig skeletal muscle

Dr. Cato T. Laurencin

Dr. Cato T. Laurencin and a team of researchers have made a potential breakthrough in understanding how porcine hydrogels can be applied for muscle and tissue regeneration.

Laurencin, the Albert and Wilda Van Dusen Distinguished Endowed Professor for Orthopaedic Surgery, is a pioneer in the field of regenerative engineering. He led the team that published its findings on hydrogels in the April issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

Regenerative engineering is the convergence of advanced materials sciences, stem cell science, physics, developmental biology, and clinical translation for complex regeneration of tissue and organs. The team’s article and corresponding research address a gap in regenerative medicine that is potentially bridged by hydrogels of DNA derived from animals.

“This new potential in hydrogels could be the link to bring us closer to our goal of regenerating a limb,” says Laurencin.

The research team included members of UConn Health’s Cato T. Laurencin Institute for Regenerative Engineering Takayoshi Otsuka, Debolina Ghosh, and Eva Ho-Man Kan. Dr. Mohammed A. Barajaa of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University in Saudi Arabia led the experiments and co-authored the article.

Dr. Mohammed Barajaa is a highly accomplished biomedical engineer and the first Saudi regenerative engineer. He holds a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering and has made significant contributions to stem cell research and the development of living tissues and organs. An assistant professor at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, he is also working on ECM-derived hydrogels from bovine, camels, and humans, coupled with 3D bioprinting technology for various regenerative engineering applications. He continues to push the boundaries of regenerative engineering, aiming to revolutionize the field and improve lives.

Barajaa earned his master’s degree under the mentorship of Laurencin. His Ph.D. research, also under Laurencin, involved advanced techniques like 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and electrospinning, leading to innovations in tissue and organ development. His expertise includes designing and conducting in vitro and in vivo regenerative engineering research, planning and executing preclinical studies, and providing comprehensive surgical care. Barajaa has published numerous research papers and presented his work at national and international conferences.

To derive hydrogels, the team used skeletal muscle from pigs for decellularized extracellular matrices (ECMS). Scientists including Barajaa and Otsuka used mechanical disruption and applied detergents to the ECM. According to the article, the remaining tissue was treated with enzymes to mitigate immunogenicity, or cell rejection.

The researchers discovered that their methods efficiently remove cell and xenoantigens from the hydrogels, preserving biochemicals that promote compatibility and reduce immunogenicity.

Ghosh says the hydrogels are versatile and applicable in regeneration of muscle, such as from patients recovering from injury that resulted in the loss of significant muscle mass. The experiment was part of series of generating to understand the potential of hydrogels and how their production can be scaled up for wider distribution.

“It is always a triumph when you get to the point when something can be scaled to a human level, with the ability to positively impact a community,” Ghosh says.

The article’s publication continues a successful year for Laurencin. On May 5, he was inducted into the Plastics Hall of Fame in recognition of his work in regenerative engineering and use of polymeric materials in applications that have helped a large number of people.

Recent Articles

August 14, 2024

UConn Health Minute: Women’s Center for Motion and Performance

Read the article

UConn Simplifying Process for Students to Seek Readmission After Academic Dismissal

B-cell, Begone! This Protein May Protect Against Immune Malfunction