Lit Review APA 2

8/2/2019 Lit Review APA 2

1/25

Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education Programs 1

An Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Two-Way Immersion and Maintenance Bilingual

Education: The Future of Bilingual Education

William Winkler

Marshall University

November 28, 2011


2/25

Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education Programs

2

Abstract

This article describes the different teaching methodologies in Americas public school system for

Bilingual Education (BE) and examines their effectiveness for English language learning. The

purpose of this article is to determine what methods are the most effective at increasing English

language proficiency for non-native English speakers. Upon reviewing various studies on BE we

will implement a longitudinal experimental study measuring the academic achievement and

English proficiency of Hispanic students in Two-Way Immersion and Maintenance Bilingual

classrooms. The six-year longitudinal study will compare the two methodologies to determine what

is the most effective in producing bilingual fluency in both English and Spanish.


3/25


3

An Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Two-Way Immersion and Maintenance

Bilingual Education: The Future of Bilingual Education

Introduction

As stated, the purpose of this article is to identify the most effective programs associated

with English language learning for native foreign language speakers. There is much debate on

the different programs of bilingual education (BE) and their efficacy. Currently there are two

sides to this argument: On one side most schools, educators, researchers, and parents favor

bilingual education programs. The other side of the debate involves national and state legislators

that claim full English immersion programs are more effective in raising the academic

achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs). Proponents of BE claim that available

empirical evidence favors bilingual programs such as Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE),

Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE), and Two-Way Immersion (TWI) programs. Proponents

of English Immersion (EI) claim that Structured English Immersion (SEI) and English as a

Second Language (ESL) programs are the most beneficial to English language learning. This

article will take a close look at the evidence on both sides to determine what programs,

according to research, are the most effective in increasing academic achievement and English

proficiency. I would first like to answer what educational strategy is more effective, Bilingual


4/25


4

Education or English Immersion and, of those two approaches, which of their instructional

programs (TBE, MBE, TWI, SEI, ESL) are found to be the most effective. Secondly this study

seeks to answer if TWI is as effective as or more effective than other bilingual programs in

producing bilingual and biliterate students of both non-native and native English backgrounds.

According to a meta-analysis done by Rolstad, Mahoney and Glass (2005A) an estimated

4.6 million ELLs were enrolled in U.S. public schools in the 2000 to 2001 school year. Another

study claimed that 3.3 million students from 1998 to 1999 were assessed to be limited English

proficient. (Hakuta, 1999). According to Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, and Kwok, (2008) the

American public school system experienced a 152% increase in K-12 enrollment of English

Language Learners (ELLs) between 1990 and 2005. California officials expect that by 2030,

70% of students in the California public school system will be non-Anglo (Garcia, 1991). Data

also shows that Hispanic students, have a 40% non-graduation rate, a 35% grade retention rate, a

two to four grade level achievement gap, and a school segregation occurrence of 70% (Garcia,

1991). In this article we will look at the main Bilingual Education and English Immersion (EI)

programs that U.S. schools currently use to meet the needs of these ever increasing numbers of

foreign language learners, while fulfilling state and national academic standards. The research

studies to be examined in this article focus on native Spanish speakers learning English in

American public primary schools and native English speakers learning Spanish.


5/25


5

According to Piaget, children during the preoperational stage (ages 2-7) develop language

and concepts at an incredible rate. Children that are in the concrete operational stage (ages 7-11)

have objective or decentered thought that allows them to see that others have different

perceptions than they do, as cited in Slavin (2012). The characteristics of these two stages are in

line with learning a second language and are the reason this study will only focus on students in

primary grades between the ages of 4 years old to 12 years old.

Different Approaches to Language Learning

As mentioned there are three main types of BE programs (TBE, MBE, and TWI).

Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) as it is named is designed to transition ELLs from their

native language to English. According to Slavin, Madden, Calderon, Chamberlain, & Hennessy

(2011), TBE is defined as the instruction of curriculum in the native language for a period of

time until the students can be transitioned into English only classes. Early exit TBE method starts

in early grades (K-1) and transitions sometime between second and third grades in primary

schools. Late exit TBE maintains the native language instruction throughout elementary grades

(K-5) (Tong et al., 2008). The problem with both early and late exit TBE programs, researchers

argue, is that its format is subtractive, in that it aims to assimilate ELLs into mainstream English

classes which results in the loss of the students first language (Medina and Escamilla, 1992;

Medina and Escamilla, 1994).


6/25


6

Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE) is defined as using long-term instruction in

both the target language and native language to maintain or increase the students native language

proficiency while at the same time increasing English language proficiency (Hakuta, 1999). The

thought is that English proficiency correlates positively to the students proficiency in their own

native language, as one increases so does the other. Two-Way Immersion (TWI) is a program that

is designed to produce fluent bilingual and biliterate students of non-native English backgrounds

and native English backgrounds (Hakuta, 1999). TWI program structure integrates an equal

number of majority language students and minority language students in one classroom where

there is equal usage of both languages during instruction (Quintanar-Sarellana, 2004). This

article will only focus on Spanish and English language groups. Proponents of Two-Way

Immersion programs state that TWI approaches work to counteract cultural bias, promote equity

and understanding of diversity as well as bridge cultural and linguistic gaps (Palmer, 2008).

Many researchers believe that education needs to take a bilingual approach in program

implementation, but some disagree and say that full English immersion is the best method to

increase the English proficiency of English language learners. Structured English Immersion

(SEI) and English as a Second Language (ESL) are the two main types of English immersion

programs. SEI is defined as full immersion in the English language where the students native

language plays little or no role in daily lessons (Slavin et al, 2011). SEI classes are structured to


7/25


7

provide a sheltered learning environment for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students.

Furthermore, teachers of SEI must be trained, have advanced understanding of their students

native language, have experience or training in foreign language instruction, and provide multiple

instructional aids for student support in order for Structured English Immersion to be effective

(Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005A). According to Rolstad et al (2005B), the major flaw of SEI

is that there are teachers that lack training and certification teaching SEI classes.

Another type of immersion strategy is English as a Second Language (ESL). ESL classes

are defined as being primarily focused on grammar, vocabulary, and communication during

specified periods of instruction (Hakuta, 1999). ESL differs from SEI in that it does not focus on

academic content; academic content is addressed in mainstream classrooms with little or no

special needs assistance (Hakuta, 1999). Understanding the political implications of

implementing Bilingual Education or English Immersion in state and national legislation is a

challenge that modern educators, researchers and lawmakers are now facing. States such as

Arizona, California and Massachusetts have passed legislation requiring the exclusive use of

English immersion programs, thus eliminating all BE programs. According to Rolstad, Mahoney

and Glass (2005B), research shows that these laws are at odds with the most up-to-date empirical

evidence that favors BE programs.

Political Influence on Bilingual Education Legislation


8/25


8

The challenge schools now face is preparing ELLs, using the most effective instructional

methods, to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. National policy has

also brought on many changes at state and local levels. According to Lpez (2010) the first

legislation on the rights of language minority students was the Bilingual Education Act of 1968,

followed by successive reauthorizations of the BE Act between 1978 to 1988 changing the

mandate of exclusive bilingual education to include SEI strategies. Recently this type of thinking

has reversed from mandating bilingual education to mandating English-only immersion

education. As mentioned, Arizona, California and Massachusetts have all passed propositions

that are structured to directly or indirectly eliminate all forms of BE (Gort, de Jong & Cobb,

2008, Lopz, 2010, & Rolstad et al., 2005B). Arizona passed proposition 203 that replaces

bilingual education programs with English immersion programs making it impossible for

students to choose BE as an instructional method (Lopz, 2010). California did the same with the

Proposition 227 (Rolstad et al., 2005B) and Massachusetts with Question 2 (Gort, de Jong &

Cobb, 2008).

Early program implementation on the state level favored bilingual education approaches

and strategies such as Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), Maintenance Bilingual Education

(MBE) and Two-Way Immersion (TWI). Modern legislation favors English-only immersion

practices and is aimed at completely eliminating bilingual education practices. As stated by


9/25


9

Rolstad et al. (2005B), legislation eliminating BE is at odds with the current empirical evidence

that is overwhelmingly in favor of BE. They go on to say that policy on Bilingual Education and

English Immersion should be controlled at the local level. The irony of this is that the available

evidence on the topic is in direct favor of programs such as TBE, MBE and TWI in contrary to

SEI and ESL; which states are making mandatory in English language learning. The question we

must ask is why state and national legislators are adopting English Immersion strategies when

research states otherwise.

Rolstad, Mahoney and Glass (2005B) meta-analysis discussing the situation in the

Arizona school system explains that there is lack of consistency in program labels and definitions

of English immersion approaches, a heavy reliance on out-dated and inaccurate research favoring

immersion and a failure to include policy controlling factors such as: teacher experience and

training, required use of instructional aids, and predetermined length of instructional time

(Rolstad et al. 2005B). Rolstad et al. (2005B) also states that most all studies reviewed favored

BE programs and pointed out that none favored EI (Rolstad et al. 2005B). The current focus of

legislation is mainly concerned with the rapid transition of students into mainstream English

classes pressuring ELLs to assimilate into American culture. This is a typical characteristic of

immersion programs and may explain why legislation favors EI. The reasoning behind the

changes in educational policy is most likely tied to public opinion concerning illegal immigration


10/25


10

and issues of nationalism (Rolstad et al. 2005A). Some schools, like certain Massachusetts

schools, are finding that the definitions outlined by these new laws better fit the program

descriptions that the school already puts in to practice (Gort et al., 2008). These schools are re-

interpreting program labels to be in compliance with the law, so that they can continue to operate

in a bilingual format even though the law is requiring immersion only programs (Gort et al.,

2008).

Evidence of Effective Bilingual Programs

Now that the political issues of foreign language learning have been examined we can

begin to identify the most effective and least effective of the two different language-learning

approaches. First we will look at Bilingual Education (BE) versus English Immersion (EI). As

stated previously there are three main types of BE; Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE),

Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE) and Two-Way Immersion (TWI), and two types of EI;

Structured English Immersion (SEI) and English as a Second Language (ESL). Early studies,

mainly the narrative reviews of Baker and De Kanter (1981) and Rossel and Baker (1996),

claimed that their findings showed significant results favoring Structured Immersion (SI) over

TBE and ESL over SI and TBE. Later research showed that these studies were flawed due to

discrepancies in how program descriptions were defined and selected (Rolstad et al. 2005B). In

Rossell and Bakers (1996) study, imprecise definitions of TBE and SEI led to overlaps in


11/25


11

program descriptions making it difficult to make distinctions between the two programs as cited

in Rolstad et al. (2005B). Researchers concluded that the main flaw in Rossell and Baker and

Baker and De Kanters studies was the decision to include a Canadian study of a French

immersion program that supported SEI. The French immersion studys definition more

resembled bilingual program definitions of the United States, which in analysis should have

resulted as evidence in favor of bilingual education. Similarly a study done at the same time by

Okada, Besel, Glass, Montoya-Tannatt and Bachelor (1982) revealed that children who received

bilingual instruction support progressed at nearly twice the national norm in reading, math, and

English language arts, with strong effects found in the early grades, as cited in Rolstad et al.

(2005B). This study, however, was never released by Keith Bakers office (Rolstad et al. 2005B).

Current articles like Slavin and Cheung (2003) focused on studies that compared the

instructional methods of either teaching children to read in their native language first or teaching

the children to read first in English. Slavin and Cheung (2003) also found that evidence favors

bilingual approaches, especially those that teach reading in the native language and English at the

same time. Additionally, Rolstad, Mahoney and Glass (2008) concluded in their meta-analysis

that TBE approaches were more effective than SEI approaches and MBE was more effective than

TBE. A study done by Medina and Escamilla (1992) maintains that students in all-English

programs or in short-term bilingual programs often lose their native language; TBE and SEI fall


12/25


12

into this category. Contrarily, MBE (also called Developmental Bilingual Education or DBE)

programs promote the maintenance and development of the students native and target language,

resulting in little or no loss of the native first language (Medina & Escamilla, 1994). Garcia

(1991) notes that students who succeed in native language instruction ultimately perform

substantially better in English than those who do not.

Rationale

The rationale for this study is based on the findings of studies listed in the literature

review. The evidence clearly shows that Bilingual Education (BE) is more effective than English

Only Immersion, it however fails to probe what of the BE approaches are the most effective and

beneficial to English Language Learners (ELLs). Some studies suggest that MBE is the most

effective method and is why I propose that further research evaluating Maintenance Bilingual

Education (MBE) programs and Two-Way Immersion (TWI) programs be conducted. An

experimental research design will be implemented to answer two questions. Question 1: Can

Two-Way Immersion (TWI) programs be as effective as Maintenance Bilingual Education

(MBE) in increasing English language proficiency for non-native English speakers? Can ELLs

acquire comparable proficiency levels in TWI programs as they can in MBE programs? Question

2: What is the language level of native English speakers learning Spanish upon exiting the TWI


13/25


13

six-year program? The second question will be mainly used for descriptive purposes and not be

used to make claims or generalizations.

Examination of Maintenance Bilingual Education and Two-Way Immersion Programs

MBE, as mentioned, is labeled as a bilingual education program that is long-term in

structure and implementation which uses the students native language, as well as English, across

grade levels (Medina & Escamilla, 1994). MBE programs also include the students cultural

heritage and language background in the instructional delivery of curriculum (Medina &

Escamilla, 1994). The study completed by Medina and Escamilla (1992) compared the long-term

effect of TBE and MBE programs on students over three years from kindergarten to second

grade. The study showed that MBE subjects maintained or increased their proficiency in the

native language while TBE subjects reported a loss in their native language (Medina &

Escamillia, 1992). Subtractive bilingualism, as its called, was present in the study resulting in

two of the three TBE groups experiencing a loss in their native language (Medina & Escamillia,

1992). Additive bilingualism programs like MBE promote linguistic interdependence in that the

instruction and acquisition of the native language correlates positively with proficiency in the

second language (Medina & Escamillia, 1992 & 1994). As the proficiency in one goes up, so

does the proficiency in the other. MBE programs also use the students culture and language

background in the instructional delivery of the curriculum (Medina &Escamilla, 1994). Medina


14/25


14

and Escamilla (1992) claim that MBE programs may be our best option for teaching English and

promoting additive bilingualism, yet they remain our least frequently implemented option

(Medina & Escamillia, 1992).

Two-Way Immersion (TWI) is also deemed to be a very effective form of Bilingual

Education (BE). The difference between MBE and TWI is that TWIs main goal is to produce

biliterate and bilingual students coming from different cultures and backgrounds. MBE is an

approach only available to non-native English speakers while TWI is available to both non-native

and native English speakers. Palmer (2008) states that TWIs design function is to promote

equity among diverse groups of learners. Empirical evidence shows that MBE is very effective in

producing bilingual students of Hispanic backgrounds. This article aims to take the research a

step further to determine if TWI can be as effective as MBE in creating bilingual Hispanic

students while at the same time producing bilingual native English speakers. I believe that this is

the future of Bilingual Education and there needs to be more research addressing these issues.

Methods

Participants

The long-term longitudinal experimental study will follow kindergarten students over six

years in primary schools across the United States. Students aged from 5 years old to 12 years old

will be randomly selected and randomly assigned using the research randomizer software


15/25


15

program located on http://www.randomizer.org to participate in the treatment. Once selected the

students parents will be contacted to sign an agreement giving their children permission to

participate in the treatment. In order for the students to participate their parents will be instructed

to fill out a cultural and heritage background survey. The cultural survey is a questionnaire

developed by the Center for Equal Opportunity to measure the parents cultural background,

language level and opinions on English language education (LaVelle, 1996). The questionnaire

contains twenty-two questions that can be administered via telephone in either Spanish or

English (LaVelle, 1996).Students will then be filtered by their socio-economic status (SES),

provided by the schools, cultural background and their language level score results obtained from

the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) pretest administered at the beginning

of kindergarten. Only students with similar backgrounds, SES and language level, will be

selected to participate in the longitudinal study. The treatment will only observe students of

Hispanic or American English cultural backgrounds.

Procedures

The treatment will take place in urban public primary schools across the United States.

Schools will be selected in Los Angeles, CA; Tucson, AZ; Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; Miami, FL;

Charlotte, NC; and New York City, NY to get a diverse perspective of many different regions of

the U.S. An experimental research design will be used to compare diagnostic, formative and


16/25


16

summative assessment data compiled throughout the six-year longitudinal study. Classroom size

will be limited to a 25 student maximum to insure homogeneity across schools.

Two bilingual education strategies, Two-Way Immersion (TWI) and Maintenance

Bilingual Education (MBE) will be observed in the treatment. Each school will implement one

TWI program as well as one MBE program. The participants will be randomly assigned to either

TWI or MBE. The MBE classroom will contain only non-native English Language Learners

(ELLs) of Hispanic background. The TWI classroom will contain an equal number of non-native

ELLs of Hispanic background and Spanish language learners of native English background. All

teachers will be fluent in both English and Spanish and have at least five years experience in

foreign language education. To assure fluency teachers will be required to take the Oral

Proficiency Interview (OPI) developed by the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign

Languages, where they will be assigned an appropriate language level (ACTFL, 1999). Teachers

must meet the standards of the advanced low language level set by OPI. The teachers will also

undergo training on the correct use of cultural and language background information in the

instructional delivery of curriculum as well as training on the different types of aid and support

for language learning.

Measures


17/25


17

The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) will be used to assess the

students language growth at the end of each year. The SOLOM, created by the San Jose Area

Consortium, is a rating scale that teachers can use to assess their students command of oral

language on the basis of what they observe on a continual basis in a variety of situations - class

discussions, playground interactions, encounters between classes, etc.

(http://www.cal.org/twi/EvalToolkit/appendix/solom.pdf). Students will be graded by teachers on

a five-point scale assessing listening, comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, grammar and

pronunciation skills (SOLOM, 2011). To assure reliable data, teachers will undergo reliability

training to make sure that these scores are comparable across teachers.

The Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) system will be used to assess the students

growth over the duration of the year (De Ramrez & Shapiro, 2006). CBM is a formative test in

which educators have the students read text in the target language aloud for one minute while the

teacher counts how many words were read correctly (De Ramrez & Shapiro, 2006). CBM will

be used to measure the rate of progress within each distinct program. CBM was deemed reliable

and valid for Spanish speaking ELLs as well as English only students according to results

analyzed by De Ramrez and Shapiro (2006). At the end of each year students will be take the

SOLOM assessment test to monitor progress in their respective bilingual programs. As stated,

SOLOM teachers undergo reliability training. After the six year study concludes, oral and


18/25


18

written exit exams developed by the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages

(ACTFL) will be administered to determine the students individual language level rating

(ACTFL, 1999).

The diagnostic, formative and summative data collected will be used to compare

Hispanic students in the MBE program with Hispanic students in the TWI program to answer the

studys two research questions. The questions seek to answer if TWI is as effective as or more

effective than MBE in producing bilingual and biliterate Hispanic students. The study also aims

to provide descriptive information on language levels of native English students learning Spanish

as a second language that were placed in TWI programs.

Analysis

The SPSS software program will be used to code and analyze the data to find the mean,

mode and range of scores for language growth in the two distinct language programs. Input data

collected from the CBM and SOLOM will be used to run an analysis of variance or ANOVA to

measure the difference in means or standard deviation of scores of the two programs. Finally a t-

test will measure whether or not there is statistical significant data between the mean scores that

shows what program is more effective at producing bilingual students. Variables such as SES

will be controlled for during the sampling selection process to obtain the most representative

results. The findings of the study will be discussed and summarized to conclude the study.


19/25


19

Discussion

The reason I am so interested in this topic is that upon my return from teaching English in

Spain I realized the United States public school system is and has been experiencing large gaps in

student academic achievement across all grade levels. Most commonly these gaps are found

between non-native and native English speakers. It is my understanding that Hispanics are

falling behind and according to Garcia (1991) Hispanic students are experiencing a two to four

grade level achievement gap. I believe that there needs to be more research done evaluating the

best methods at narrowing this gap in achievement. The two methods to be studied, MBE and

TWI, according to empirical evidence are the most effective in second language learning, the

problem is that these programs for the most part are compared to other bilingual approaches and

not each other. The need to understand these approaches better in relation to each other is why I

proposed this study. It is my hope that the evidence compiled from the study will show that TWI

is as effective if not more effective in producing bilingual English language learners. The reason

I am in favor of TWI is because it not only serves to produce bilingual non-native English

speakers, but also bilingual native English speakers. I believe that in the Two-Way Immersion

classroom both groups of students benefit because they not only learn the language from the

teacher and content, but also from each other. I predict that the evidence gathered will support


20/25


20

TWI as an effective method of language learning, and if so, schools nationwide should adopt the

TWI approach to foreign language instruction.

Preparing, researching, reading, writing, editing, and analyzing for this literature review

has been more beneficial and challenging than I first imagined. I knew that this would be my

most difficult class and I believe that is the reason I decided to enroll into EDF 621. I knew

starting out that I needed to work on my researching and writing skills especially if I wanted to

excel in graduate school. What I saw was a major improvement in my understanding of the

researching and writing process from the beginning of the year to now at the end of the year.

Compared to my undergrad years it is night and day. I wonder now how I could have possibly

received good grades for half the papers I wrote during undergrad. I feel that now I am a better

critique of research and know exactly what to look for in the articles to determine the reliability

and validity of the study(s) they review. The more I read for this paper the more I began to

understand the structure and vernacular of research writing, which helped me outline and write

my literature review. Although I dont believe I have reached Stati-nese fluency I do believe I

have grasped main concepts and I am able to understand what the statistics aim to describe. For

example, my understanding of p-values, correlation coefficients, null hypotheses, standard

deviations and effect sizes and what they describe or how they are used has drastically improved.

I didnt even have to use the life preserver on the SPSS book either. The more I used SPSS the


21/25


21

more familiar I became with the functions and statistical data, which in turn bettered my

understanding of Stati-nese.

In conclusion, the class was very fulfilling and challenging. I believe that my skills in

researching improved ten-fold and I feel more confident in my skills as a writer and critique of

research. I also think that what I have learned this semester will no doubt help me in my future

studies as a graduate student and in any other future endeavors. Muchisimas gracias seor he

aprendido mucho de ti este semestre. Tengas buenas vacaciones este invierno!


22/25


22

References

ACTFL Oral and Written Proficiency Assessments. (1999). Retrieved November 25, 2011, from

http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3642

De Ramrez, R., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of

reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual

education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 356-369.

Garcia, E., & National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language

Learning, S. A. (1991).Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students:

Effective instructional practices. Educational Practice Report: 1.

Gort, M., de Jong, E. J., & Cobb, C. D. (2008). Seeing through a bilingual lens: Structural and

ideological contexts of structured English immersion in three Massachusetts

districts.Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 8(2), 41-67. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

Hakuta, K. (1999). The debate on bilingual education.Journal of Developmental and Behavioral

Pediatrics, 20(1), 36-37. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

LaVelle, M. (1996). The importance of learning English: A national survey of Hispanic parents.

[PDF document] Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED405726.pdf


23/25


24/25


24

Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2008). The big picture in bilingual education: A meta-

analysis corrected for Gersten's coding error.Journal of Educational Research &

Policy Studies, 8(2), 1-15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005B). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program

effectiveness research on English language learners.Educational Policy , 19(4),

572-594

Slavin, Robert E. (2012)Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Slavin, Robert E., Cheung, Alan. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language

learners: A best-evidence synthesis. Center for Research on the Education of

Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR), 1-69. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011). Reading and

language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual

education.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47-58. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

SOLOM Student Oral Language Observation Matrix. [PDF document].Retrieved November 12,

2011, from http://www.cal.org/twi/EvalToolkit/appendix/solom.pdf


25/25


25

Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P., & Kwok, O. (2008). Accelerating early academic

oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English

immersion programs.American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1011-1044.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Urbaniak, G.C & Plous, S. (1997) Research Randomizer. Social Psychology Network. Retrieved

November 26, 2011, from http://www.randomizer.org/
http://www.randomizer.org/http://www.randomizer.org/

Lit Review APA 2

Documents