# data[].attributes.body
Is it worthwhile to teach students a preferred native accent to increase their opportunity in society?

Yes.

In his article Defining the cognitive mechanisms underlying reactions to foreign accented speech: An experimental approach, Pantos (2012), found the existence of biases against foreign English accents in the U.S. Judges were exposed to a US-accented speaker of English and a Korean-accented speaker of English. After examining the explicit attitude of listeners to accents, Pantos (2012) looked into the implicit social cognition of his participants. Pantos (2012) aimed at measuring whether there is a divergence between implicit and explicit attitudes in the same listener towards that same speaker.

Participants favored, Pantos (2012) reports, the US-accented speaker over the Korean accented speaker in the study implicitly. However, due to different explanations, the judges did favor explicitly the Korean accented speaker (Pantos, 2012).

Pantos, A. (2012). Defining the cognitive mechanisms underlying reactions to foreign accented speech: An experimental approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2), 427-453. 10.1075/rcl.10.2.08pan

# data[].attributes.headline
Does age at immigration affect an ELL students' reading comprehension?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does age at immigration affect an ELL students' reading comprehension?

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers evaluated reading assessment scores from Florida 3rd and 10th graders. They compared ELL students to non-ELL students and considered scores for skills requiring vocabulary knowledge versus text analysis.

The research found that non-ELL speakers performed better on vocabulary knowledge in 3rd grade. For 10th grade students, students who had received ELL services performed better on questions that required evaluation skills. The data were not consistent for all groups within these basic demographics, however.

Researchers speculate that time in L1 formal education may work to older students' advantage.

Examining Differential Item Functioning Trends for English Language Learners in a Reading Test: A Meta-Analytical Approach

Koo, Jin ; Becker, Betsy Jane ; Kim, Young - Suk

Language Testing, 2014, Vol.31(1), p.89-109

# data[].attributes.headline
Can sheltered core content classes be used to help secondary students attain success in content literacy more efficiently to retain students in secondary education?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can sheltered core content classes be used to help secondary students attain success in content literacy more efficiently to retain students in secondary education?

# data[].attributes.body
According to the article “Knowing English is Not Enough! Cultivating Academic Literacies Among High School Newcomers”, by Maria E Franquiz and Cinthia Salinas, the answer is that sheltered core content classes are not the primary component. Studies have shown that programs with newcomers in secondary schools suggest that efforts focusing on building academic content background yield positive social outcomes and strong academic results (p 344) are not dependent on sheltered core classes.

Franquiz’s and Salinas’s subject of study was a Social Studies teacher, Ms Alcala,  who deviated from Texas state curriculum in order to teach students who were newcomers to the United States in the Spring of 2010.  The students attended classes in a high school specifically for the sheltered learning of a large ELL population in an unnamed Texas city.  The Spring 2010 study focused observations on Ms Alcala’s World Geography class, and again observed in American History Studies class in the Spring of 2012 to analyze if Ms Alcala’s scaffolded curriculum was effective in teaching the students the academic literacy needed to successfully pass the Texas state high school proficiency exam to graduate.  Franquiz and Salinas found that Ms Alcala’s curriculum was successful in meeting state academic requirements as well as being successful in student retention.

The article states “the single most important variable that places students at risk for access to higher education is their lack of preparation in academic literacies” (p 340). As a result of this lack of preparation, retention and graduation rates are disproportionately lower for those with  the added disadvantage of second language acquisition. Ms Alcala strongly felt that her students needed strong content driven coursework, because many of her students had limited education in their first language or they did not have content knowledge relevant to pass the state test.  Ms Alcala focused her curriculum on a framework of historical inquiry and thinking.  This framework provides students with multiple opportunities to link complex ideas to their own lives and the lives of others..through the use of digitized primary source resources that were non-text heavy, such as letters, telegrams, maps, photographs and other first hand accounts (pg 345).  She also allowed the students to express themselves in either their L1 or L2.  As a Spanish speaker with a background in bilingual education, she was able to communicate with her students in both Spanish and English.  Her goal was to help the students reach academic literacy, and therefore did not limit the students to responding only in English.  While some might think this bilingual and hybrid model limits the students’ academic literacy in English, Franquiz and Salinas actually found that the students had acquired the content vocabulary, including difficult idioms, in English that were necessary to produce brief statements for the purpose of demonstrating they had mastered the state standard for the historical thinking process (pg 355).

Franzquiz’s and Salinas’s study concluded that content area curriculum specialist working with ELL educators who can collaborate  to work in a hybrid structure of L1 and L2 model work towards student success for academic literacy in regards to newcomers to the United States.  Ms Alcala’s methods were very successful, but the article does not prove that this system is limited to a sheltered system, but can be replicated in a mainstream classroom

https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/stable/pdf/43281199.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A90d9c90f0b1927b8ce88a9699813ed24

# data[].attributes.headline
Is an English Only policy in the ESL classroom beneficial?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is an English Only policy in the ESL classroom beneficial?

# data[].attributes.body
No.

Evidence from research and practice is presented which suggests that the rationale used to justify English only in the classroom is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound. Evidence shows that bilingual options are not only effective, but necessary for adult ESL students with limited literacy or schooling and that use of students' linguistic resources can be beneficial at all levels of ESL. Accounts from a number of projects document a range of uses for the native language in both initial literacy and ESL instruction for adults. When ESL students are allowed to draw from their knowledge and experience of their native language, they can more easily learn English.

The author also criticizes the use of English only policy as harmful to ESL students as language is so closely linked with issues of power. In other words, practices which are unconsciously accepted as the natural and inevitable way of doing things may in fact be inherently political, serving to maintain the relative position of participants with respect to each other--they help to perpetuate existing power relations.

Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom.
ELSA ROBERTS AUERBACH TESOL QUARTERLY

Vol. 27, No. 1, Spring 1993

# data[].attributes.headline
Does "sounding out" (decoding) words help children become better readers?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does "sounding out" (decoding) words help children become better readers?

# data[].attributes.body
Not really. Learning to decode words helps children learn to decode better but  does not help with reading comprehension.

According to Does Intensive Decoding Instruction Contribute to Reading Comprehension? by Stephen Krashen and Knowledge Quest (in press),  children in first through fourth grades participating in "reading first classrooms," in which they decoded words---pronounced them out loud using phonics techniques---did better than comparisons in decoding words but did not do better when tested on reading comprehension.

Reading First, a report by The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) asserted that "intensive systematic phonics" helped children become better readers than less intensive methods. However, according to one of the researchers (Garan 2001) looking into this study, the benefits were only present with pronouncing listed words out of context; however, these same children didn't do significantly better on tests in which they had to understand what they read.

This article lists other studies that came to basically the same conclusion: intensive instruction in phonics does not substantially increase reading comprehension.

Krashen does not oppose the teaching of basic phonics and even says that it can be helpful in the beginning stages of reading in order to make texts comprehensible.  However, he adds that the The Reading First final report confirms that reading proficiency is gained through reading interesting and meaningful books and stories and not by "doing worksheets."

Does Intensive Decoding Instruction Contribute to Reading Comprehension?
Author:  Krashen, Stephen

Source: Knowledge Quest; March/April 2009, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p72-74, 3p

# data[].attributes.headline
Do elementary-age ELs benefit more from having ELL-only courses rather than mainstream courses?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do elementary-age ELs benefit more from having ELL-only courses rather than mainstream courses?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes.  According to Joan Ann Johnston in her article “Elementary ELL Interaction: Mainstream v. Sheltered Instructional Settings,” the frequency of verbal interactions for ELs is greatly increased in small pullout groups with other ELs and sheltered ELL classrooms as opposed to mainstream 3rd-6th grade classrooms.  She notes that studies have been done with high school and middle school-age ELs but there has not been much research with elementary-age learners.   Her study is based on the assumption that interaction is a necessary component of language learning according to prior research and Vygotsky’ theory of cognitive development (Vygotsky 1997).

Johnston investigated the English verbal interactions of seven 3rd-6th grade beginning level ELs across three different instructional settings: the mainstream grade level classroom, the sheltered English classroom, and the ELL pullout group.  She wanted to find out how often these ELs interacted using the target language (English) in mainstream classrooms as compared to ELL-only settings.  The results of the study showed that the beginning level elementary learners were highly disengaged in the mainstream classrooms.  These students exhibited an average of seven times more English verbal interactions in ELL pullout groups and nearly three times more in ELL sheltered classrooms than in regular mainstream classrooms.  Johnston compares these findings to similar results of a qualitative study of high school ELs in Australia (Miller 2000).

The study states that several factors in sheltered settings contribute to greater student interactions, including: a focus on language development included within the content instruction, appropriate instruction geared to each student’s background and level of acquisition, teachers trained in instructing ELs, and higher rates of student interaction with other ELs, even if they did not have the same language background or level of acquisition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elementary ELL Interaction: Mainstream v. Sheltered Instructional Settings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This mixed methods study investigated the English verbal interactions of seven 3rd-6th grade beginning level English language learners across three different instructional settings: the mainstream grade level classroom, the sheltered English classroom, and the ELL pullout group. The quantitative component of the study documented significant differences in the frequency of English verbal interactions between the three instructional settings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does explicit phonetic instruction in pronunciation increase L2 learners’ comprehensibility more than nonexplicit instruction?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does explicit phonetic instruction in pronunciation increase L2 learners’ comprehensibility more than nonexplicit instruction?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. According to the article: “Pronunciation Teaching and Learning: Effects of Explicit Phonetic Instruction in the L2 Classroom” by Joshua Gordon, Isabelle Darcy, and Doreen Ewert, explicit phonetic instruction in pronunciation greatly benefits L2 learners, even if this instruction is only implemented during a short period of time (Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2013). In the past, many studies have shown positive effects of explicit instruction of pronunciation in the classroom. However, this study is unique in that it focuses specifically on explicit instruction of segmental and suprasegmental features.

Gordan, Darcy, and Ewert conducted this study with three groups of emergent bilinguals who were taught pronunciation during three weeks for twenty-five minutes a day, three days a week. The first experimental group was explicitly taught segmental features, whereas the second group received explicit instruction on suprasegmental features. Lastly, the third group was taught both segmental and suprasegmental features, but nonexplicitly. The researchers found that explicit phonetic instruction allowed students to be aware of certain features of the L2 that differ from their L1. In all three groups, instruction was meaning-based, however, unlike the teacher in the nonexplicit group, the teachers in the two explicit groups focused more on assisting students who were having specific issues, checking for understanding, and giving direct feedback. Overall, this helped students improve on their comprehensibility.

In addition, the posttest results showed that the students in the explicit suprasegmental instruction group improved at a faster rate than those in the explicit segmental group. The authors further state that while explicit instruction on segmental features is important, explicit instruction on suprasegmental instruction can help language learners improve their pronunciation more quickly (Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2013).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Levis/publication/283176773_Pronunciation_and_assessment_Proceedings_of_the_4th_Pronunciation_in_Second_Language_Learning_and_Teaching_Conference_2012/links/562d9a0408aef25a24431b16.pdf#page=211

# data[].attributes.headline
Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for first language and/or second language learners?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for first language and/or second language learners?

# data[].attributes.body
No. According to the study done by Elizabeth M. Kissling, explicit phonetic instruction was not entirely beneficial for first language or second language learners. Although, it was highly hypothesized it would be.

The study was conducted of 95 college students in the southeastern United States that were learning Spanish. They were either in their first, second, or third year of learning the language. They did not have prior Spanish learning before the age of 10 and they had no previous knowledge of Spanish phonetics. As a measuring point, they brought in native Spanish speakers that were native from Spain, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. They did not have previous phonetics instruction and were very advanced in English. They were given a test on the computer that tested voiced stops, approximants, articulatory phonetics, and more.

After the tests were returned and graded, there was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of phonetics instruction nor was there a difference based on Spanish courses taken prior to college, sex, current age, or other characteristic. The one noted difference was the amount of time spent in Spanish speaking places abroad. Although, based on the hypothesis and previous research done before the study, there was nothing to suggest there are benefits for language learners to be given explicit phonetic instruction in this study.

https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.hamline.edu/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12029.x

# data[].attributes.headline
Will an effort to teach phonics to English Learners who are beginning readers help build literacy skills?

# data[].attributes.subject
Will an effort to teach phonics to English Learners who are beginning readers help build literacy skills?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. In her article, “Examining the effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention on the early literacy skills of English language learners,” Tess Dussling determined that an intervention that focuses on improving phonemic awareness in first grade English Learners is effective. While studies regarding the effectiveness of phonics instruction have been conducted and determined useful for English-speaking students and for students whose native language is Spanish, not much analysis has been done on the effects of early reading intervention with non-Spanish speaking English Learners (ELs). Prior research suggests that, similar to native English speakers, English Learners struggle with phonemic awareness, fluency, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension (August and Shanahan, 2006), and intervention is critical to success in reading.

Dussling’s study was conducted with five first graders in an English as a Second Language classroom. They were not reading yet, and their native languages included: Chinese, Arabic, French, Burmese, and Somali. Small group lessons included activities that centered around phonetic awareness, and were conducted in the same manner 4-5 days per week, 15-20 minutes per session. Dussling also administered standard EL screenings before and after the study, and conducted additional assessments throughout the 8 weeks to track growth in phoneme segmentation and reading skills. Both the pre and post tests, and the additional assessments conducted throughout the sessions, showed improvement for each student--the greatest gains were attributed to students with the lowest pretest scores.

Dussling’s results imply that phonics-based instruction is effective for non-Spanish speaking English Learners. Her research supports findings from the National Literacy Panel (2006), which advocates that, similar to native English speakers, English Learners benefit from additional phonics instruction. Additionally, Dussling’s study backs growing research that English Learners can benefit from phonics-based interventions regardless of their English speaking ability (August and Shanahan, 2010).

# data[].attributes.body
 The study was done with a trial group of 24 students, aged 17-18, and a control group of 14 students, also aged 17-18. All students in the study were from the same Italian high school. The students were preparing for the Cambridge First Certificate exam. The trial group participated in a 10 week , 20 hour trial course in which t

# data[].attributes.headline
Are language learning strategies, as taught by teachers, mutually exclusive?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are language learning strategies, as taught by teachers, mutually exclusive?

# data[].attributes.body
No. Linguists make careful distinctions between language acquisition and language learning for purposes of teaching ESL. For decades linguists have attempted to demonstrate that one or the other is more effective.  Research has shown, for example, that language learners who had a strong desire to communicate were willing to guess when unsure, and were not afraid of being wrong or appearing foolish (Carol Griffiths, 2004).Taken alone, this study could be used to defend the acquisition (communicative) method over the language learning method. In opposition to the Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis, theory has it that students are able to consciously influence their own learning. Therefore, according to this theory, the learning of language becomes a cognitive process, similar in many ways to any other kind of learning (McLaughlin, 1978). Instead of assuming that one method is better than another, a more practical solution is to test which methods work best on students and use those methods in combination, when applicable. In other words, many learning strategies have their effectiveness; however, rigidly adhering to one over another does a disservice to learners. More than one strategy can be used as a tool in helping teach a second language if teachers want to provide their students with the best possible arsenal with which to learn.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268413776_Language_Learning_Strategies_Theory_and_Research

# data[].attributes.body
Yes.

For decades, it has been widely believed that L1 should be banned in language learning classrooms (or used as little as needed). However, it has been found that the use of L1 in ESL classes is beneficial for students in a number of ways. It is important that students are able to recognize differences between their L1 and English—these differences can be made apparent and discussed using L1 in the classroom. Similarly, the connection between L1 and L2 cannot be abolished. Language learners will always reflect on differences and similarities as they continue to learn and speak. Avoidance of L1 is also likely to result in input modification (slower speaking, repetition, simplifying syntax), making the speaker sound less natural. Teachers can work to incorporate L1 by acknowledging it, using it appropriately, differentiating between student levels, agreeing on guidelines, and using encouragement and persuasion to speak in L2.

Mart, C. T. (2013). The Facilitating Role of L1 in ESL Classes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3 (1)

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the explicit study of phonics improve emergent bilinguals' knowledge of the English language? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the explicit study of phonics improve emergent bilinguals' knowledge of the English language? 

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, the study statistically showed, for long vowels and digraphs in terms of orthography and pronunciation. The study was done with a trial group of 24 students, aged 17-18, and a control group of 14 students, also aged 17-18. All students in the study were from the same Italian high school. The students were preparing for the Cambridge First Certificate exam. The trial group participated in a 10 week , 20 hour trial course in which they were given phoneme/grapheme decoding material, and explicit instruction on phonics rules. The control group also participated in a 10 week, 20 hour course. However, this group was given exam practice materials, with no explicit instruction in phonics. The study found that students in the trial group improved in both orthography and pronunciation in long vowels and digraphs. The trial group also significantly improved in the interview category of the Cambridge First Certificate exam in the areas of lexis, discourse, and pronunciation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - The Efficacy of Phonics-Based Instruction of English as a Second Language in an Italian High School: A Randomised Controlled Trial, GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent neurological breakthroughs in our understanding of the Critical Period Hypothesis and prosody may suggest strategies on how phonics instruction could improve L2 language learning and in particular phoneme/grapheme decoding. We therefore conducted a randomised controlled-trial on the application of prosody and phonics techniques, to improve phoneme-grapheme decoding, to test these findings on a typical late high school cohort of Italians.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does explicit instruction of phonetics help students whose L1 has significantly fewer phonemes than their L2?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does explicit instruction of phonetics help students whose L1 has significantly fewer phonemes than their L2?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, even a small amount of time (1 hour of explicit instruction via a computer program) can significantly change their pronunciation and retention a week later. The study was done with six Japanese students with advanced English skills: four students received the hour of explicit instruction on one specific phoneme (/æ/) and two did not receive any instruction and served as the control. Three of the four students who received instruction improved significantly, one was already at the target and did not improve. The two control students did not improve at all. This study suggests that simply listening to and practicing English does not necessarily give students the awareness of phonemes that are not in their phonetic library; they need explicit instruction with new phonemes in order to master them.