IES Blog

This year, Inside IES Research is publishing a series of blogs showcasing a diverse group of IES-funded education researchers and fellows that are making significant contributions to education research, policy, and practice. In recognition of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, in this interview blog we asked Ben Le, an IES Predoctoral Fellow at New York University and a team member of the IES-funded R&D Center on the Success of English Learners (CSEL), to discuss his career journey and research interests.

How have your background and experiences shaped your scholarship and career in studying diversity, equity, and inclusion in education?

My research interests center around how race/ethnicity and language intersect to create unique privileges and discrimination. I hope my research can explore different ways we can support racially and linguistically marginalized students in schools, allowing them to bring their complete selves into the classroom and to help them thrive without having to give up their familial and communal languages.

Growing up in the United States as a Vietnamese-Mexican man has motivated me to look for new ways that we can conceptualize barriers for linguistically and racially marginalized students. While English learners (ELs) are currently the primary focus of my research, I’d like to recognize that I have never been classified as an EL.

I have been fortunate enough to be part of the IES-funded NYU Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training (IES-PIRT) program, which has provided me the opportunity to  further explore and better understand racialized ELs’ access and opportunity in the classroom. My hope is that my IES-PIRT training will prepare me to work closely with local communities and organizations to enact change in our school systems. Ideally, we can build systems that truly support linguistically and racially marginalized students while offering them both access and opportunity that prepares them for life after school.

Can you tell us about your current IES-funded project?

As part of the CSEL R&D Center work, I am using a quantitative intersectional lens to highlight the importance of race/ethnicity for the diverse group of ELs in New York City public schools. I am particularly interested in how patterns of high school and college outcomes for current and former ELs vary based on race/ethnicity and gender. Focusing on 6-year graduation rates, I disaggregated my sample by race/ethnicity, gender, and ever-EL status (whether the student has ever been classified as an EL) to compare the probabilities across these subgroups and look for differential probabilities of being an ever-EL and a specific race/ethnicity. I focused on the two largest racial/ethnic groups of ELs in New York City, Asian Pacific Islander (PI) and Latine. For example, I compared the probability to graduate within 4 years between never-EL Asian/ (PI) young women to ever-EL Latino young men.

Interestingly, results, which were presented at the 2022 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, show that student probabilities for 6-year graduation are primarily organized by race/ethnicity, with Asian/PI students outperforming Latine students. Additionally, young women tend to outperform young men of their same racial/ethnic group, and in general, ever-EL status seems to matter even more for young men than young women. But these patterns do not explain away the racial/ethnic disparities seen in this New York City data. While ever-EL status matters, on aggregate, the ever-EL and never-EL differences primarily exist within racial/ethnic and gender subgroups. For example, never-EL Asian/PI young men outperform ever-EL Asian/PI young men, but ever-EL Asian/PI young men still outperform never-EL Latina young women.

Through my research, I hope to highlight the diversity and nuance within this ever-EL population, not to argue that ever-EL status does not matter. Instead, these findings have only motivated me to continue centering race/ethnicity and gender in future analyses for ELs.

What do you see as the greatest research needs to improve the relevance of education research for diverse communities of students and families?

From my perspective, we need to center the voices and concerns of these communities, families, and students in our data collection and analysis. I think it is essential to be involved with the families and meet them where they are to find effective solutions that benefit the communities we strive to serve. We need to make sure we are uplifting underserved families’ voices instead of talking over them. Relatedly, we need data and data collection to reflect the nuances and intricacies we are trying to discuss. Hopefully, future data collection can more accurately reflect the identities of the students we study. For example, I hope we can move away from collecting data as “male/female” and have a more expansive understanding of gender identities and not reify the gender binary.

What advice would you give to graduate students from underrepresented, minoritized groups that are pursuing a career in education research?

My first piece of advice would be to remember your own lived experiences and try to remind yourself that you do deserve to be in your graduate program. It’s easy to feel imposter syndrome—I think a lot of us do. Historically, academia and these programs were not made for us, and sadly, there is still a lot of work to be done, so that we don’t need to change to fit into these spaces. Still, these institutions and research fields benefit from our voices and perspectives. Remembering that these programs need us and that our experiences matter may be easier said than done, but I find it helpful to surround myself with fellow critical scholars and peers both within and outside of academia.

Secondly, finding community and support from peers and mentors has been absolutely crucial for my research and mental health. Doctoral programs aren’t easy; you are constantly being challenged intellectually and then you have to put your ideas and work out to be judged and critiqued. Being able to lean on friends and mentors for emotional support and to challenge and refine your research ideas is key to having a good and productive experience. I am super fortunate at NYU, through my sociology of education program and the IES-PIRT program, to have found such a caring community and supportive mentors, while also being pushed and challenged to pursue better and more critical work.

Produced by Helyn Kim (Helyn.Kim@ed.gov), program officer for the English Learners portfolio, NCER.

This year, Inside IES Research is publishing a series of blogs showcasing a diverse group of IES-funded education researchers and fellows that are making significant contributions to education research, policy, and practice. In recognition of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, in this interview blog we asked Dr. Jin Kyoung Hwang, an associate project scientist at the University of California, Irvine to discuss her career journey. Dr. Hwang’s current IES-funded study explores the language and literacy development of kindergarten through third grade English Learners.

How did you become interested in a career in education research?

I have a BA in English literature and linguistics, and as an undergraduate, I took many linguistics and applied linguistics courses. Applied linguistics was eye-opening for me, as I started to see the practical uses of a seemingly theoretical subject. I was intrigued in searching for ways to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical fields. This eventually led me to pursue a career in education research focusing on language and literacy development. My research primarily focuses on understanding the language and literacy development of school-aged students, including dual language learners who come from non-native-English-speaking homes, and the ways in which research-based interventions could improve their academic outcomes.

My research interests stemmed naturally from my personal experience living as a language minority student in a foreign country. When I was in fifth grade, I moved with my family to Ecuador knowing only Korean. Living in a foreign country where I did not speak the language (Spanish) was socially and culturally challenging—even more so because the language spoken in the academic setting (English) was also different. The seemingly different characteristics of the three languages—Korean, English, and Spanish—often troubled me because direct translations could not always transfer meaning. Through this experience, I learned how to speak different languages and how to adjust myself in different languages and cultures. Although challenging, this learning experience had a positive influence on me and ultimately shaped my career in education research. As such, I believe I am better able to relate with the participants in my research.

What has been the biggest challenge you have encountered, and how did you overcome the challenge?

Although I am now working as an education researcher in California, I spent most of my K-12 schooling years outside of the United States. Thus, when I first moved here as a graduate student, I was not familiar with the K-12 education system and the policies around it. The questions I initially had as a graduate student were relatively basic; it took time and effort for me to really understand how education systems work. While I’m still learning, I was fortunate to have supportive friends, mentors, and colleagues who helped me find the answers to my questions.

In your area of research, what do you see as the greatest research needs or recommendations to address diversity, equity, and inclusion and to improve the relevance of education research for diverse communities of students and families?

I think it is important to understand the diversity within the dual language learner population in the United States. Although it is easy to think of dual language learners or English language learners as a single group, this population is very heterogenous. They may differ on their first language, proficiency in their first language, proficiency in their second language (which is often English), exposure to their first and second language, schooling history, and so forth. Just like monolingual English-speaking students, dual language learners come to the classroom with various constellations of skills in their first language and second language. We need to acknowledge and understand the differences in their learning potential and think of ways to better provide personalized instruction.

It is also important to rethink how we can assess language and literacy skills. Many of the standardized assessments used in education research are designed and developed for monolingual students. When these assessments are used on dual language learners, we often see that they perform below the norm. Having more valid assessments that are grounded in dual language development are needed to equitably measure and evaluate dual language learners’ language and literacy abilities.

What advice would you give to emerging scholars from underrepresented, minoritized groups that are pursuing a career in education research?

I believe one of the factors that makes the field of education research so powerful is the diversity among the scholars. Each scholar brings a unique perspective and insight based on their personal experiences and histories. It is important for emerging scholars from underrepresented, minoritized groups to have a voice and communicate their perspectives and ideas in the field. It also is important to meet and work with colleagues and mentors who can embrace such diversity and support your perspectives. I was fortunate enough to meet supportive figures in my academic career who helped me further develop a research agenda around my research interests and personal experiences, and who also mentored me to broaden and enlighten my perspectives. This collaboration and mentorship made me who I am today, and I hope I can also provide such guidance to other scholars in this field.

Dr. Jin Kyoung Hwang is an associate project scientist at the University of California, Irvine’s School of Education. Dr. Hwang’s current research centers around (1) understanding the language and literacy development of school-aged learners (including dual language learners) and how research-based interventions/educational tools can help improve their literacy outcomes and (2) developing and refining test items to accurately assess their academic skills.

Produced by NCER program officer Wai Chow (Wai-Ying.Chow@ed.gov) and Virtual Student Federal Service intern Audrey Im.

April is National Bilingual/Multilingual Learner Advocacy Month! As part of the IES 20^th Anniversary celebration, we are highlighting NCER’s investments in field-initiated research. In this guest blog, Drs. Nikki Edgecombe (Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University) and George Bunch (University of California, Santa Cruz) discuss their IES-funded study focused on identifying the policies and practices that support multilingual learners (MLs) in community colleges, the important role of adult education English as a Second Language (adult ed ESL), and some of the lessons learned. MLs in community colleges, a significantly understudied population, include students who were classified as English learners in K-12 but also more recent arrivals to the US with a wide variety of education backgrounds and adult immigrants and refugees who have lived in the US for a number of years.  

Vital Role of Adult Education ESL

The demands on and opportunities for adult education programs, specifically adult ed ESL, are growing. The programs are affordable and accessible to immigrant communities and people with lower levels of academic preparation—many of whom were hit hard by the pandemic and disproportionately experienced negative education, health, and economic consequences. Simultaneously, the pandemic highlighted the increasing, critical need for multilingual workers across fields, including education, healthcare, and government. Adult ed ESL programs can help bring those workers into the labor market.

According to the National Reporting System for Adult Education, in program year 2021-22, nationally, free or low-cost adult education programs enrolled about 900,000 students, with nearly 50 percent in English language acquisition or integrated English literacy and civics education programs. Sixteen states house adult education programs in community and technical colleges, often in addition to other community-based and educational settings (see this site for information about state grants). These programs provide a unique opportunity for students to improve “everyday” English skills and serve as a ready-made pathway to a postsecondary credential. Yet, the programs and their students face a number of challenges. 

Asking the Questions Practitioners Want Answers To

For the last 4 years, we examined policies and practices that affect the experiences and outcomes of MLs in a large midwestern community college district. The research has focused on adult ed ESL, in part at the recommendation of our district partners. The district serves thousands of ESL students annually, and institutional leaders have actively pursued improvements to program access, instruction, and progression. As we learned more about the improvement efforts underway, we were able to gain a clearer picture of the stringent federal and state policies adult education operates under, which have at times challenged district leaders' ability to make the kinds of changes necessary to enhance student outcomes. Our institutional partners are not deterred, however, and continue to seek ways to strengthen their adult education program, make it more student-centered, and make policy more effective. They consider research an important resource in this improvement process. As such, we both documented their efforts and examined how the policy context affected what they were doing.

What We Are Finding

We wanted to better understand who the MLs are, their life circumstances, their college experiences, and their goals. We reported the following trends to our community college partners.  

• Adult ed ESL students are older and less likely to be working than their peers in credit programs. As a group, they are more likely to either have not earned a high school diploma or GED or have previously earned a baccalaureate degree or higher. Adult ed ESL students in our survey sample report enrolling in adult ed ESL to improve their everyday English literacy skills, to strengthen their employment prospects and prepare themselves for the language and literacy demands of further postsecondary education.
• The multiple ESL levels required by policy may generate obstacles to progression, particularly for students who initially place in the lower levels of the sequence. MLs in our partner district place into 1 of 6 adult ed ESL courses. As research has previously established, community college students rarely persist through long sequences of courses, and our preliminary administrative data analysis shows students in our sample generally persist for less than 2 semesters. In response, our district partner developed a full-time position to help students in the transitions into, through, and out of adult education; has offered short (4- and 8-week) courses; built out dedicated academic and nonacademic supports; and created an intentional on-ramp to credit programs. Nonetheless, the length of the sequence appears to undermine retention and progression.
• The prescribed assessment and placement procedures make it difficult for community college-based adult ed ESL programs to meet the varied English language learning needs of enrollees. Language learning is a complex phenomenon that requires students to develop a range of productive (speaking and writing) and receptive (listening and reading) literacy skills for a wide range of academic, professional, and community participation goals. That learning can look quite different for different students in different education environments and proficiency measurement is equally complex. Our district partner used one of the federally mandated assessments to both place students and measure their proficiency gains. The test is relatively inexpensive and easy to administer, but it only measures reading, just one aspect of language proficiency, leaving no consistent record of proficiency levels in speaking, listening, and writing.

New Directions in Adult Ed ESL Policy Research

Early findings from the study have the potential to inform changes in policy and practice at our district partner. Our findings also raise issues that federal and state policymakers and practitioners working on the ground may need to work together to answer, including how policy systems can balance the perceived need for standards and accountability with community colleges’ need to structure and administer the programs in ways that best meet the needs of MLs.

To pursue this line of inquiry, we will explore the origin and rationale for adult ed ESL policy and how that policy translates from federal to state to institutional providers. We will also learn more about the goals and experiences of adult ed ESL students coming out of the pandemic, explore the perceptions and experiences of adult educators and program staff, and provide formative feedback on the reform efforts underway at our district partner with a particular focus on whether and how policy is helping or hindering their ability to meet their goals.

This blog was produced by Dr. Meredith Larson (Meredith.Larson@ed.gov), research analyst and program officer at NCER.

April is National Bilingual/Multilingual Learner Advocacy Month! In this guest blog, Dr. Ryan Williams, principal researcher at the American Institutes for Research, describes his IES-funded project focused on identifying factors that help explain variation in the effects programs have on English learner student outcomes using a broad systematic review and meta-analysis.  

Over the past two decades, empirical research on programs that support English language and multilingual learners has surged. Many of the programs that researchers have studied are designed to support English literacy development and are tailored to the unique needs of English learners. Other programs are more general, but researchers often study program impacts on English learners in addition to impacts on a broader population of students. Relatively few attempts have been made to identify common findings across this literature. Even fewer attempts have been made to identify meaningful sources of variation that drive program impacts for English learner students—that is, understanding what works, for whom, and under what conditions. To help provide educators and policymakers answers to those important questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programs and strategies that may support English language learner students.

Our Systematic Review Process

We conducted a broad search that combed through electronic databases, unpublished ‘grey’ literature (for example, working papers, conference presentations, or research briefs), and sources that required hand-searching such as organizational websites. After documenting our primary decision-making factors within a review protocol, we applied a set of rigorous criteria to select studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We ultimately identified 83 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Each of these were randomized field studies that included English learner students in grades PK-12 and student academic learning outcomes such as English literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies. Each of the included studies was systematically coded to capture characteristics about the research methods, students and schools, settings, programs, outcome measures, and importantly, the program impacts that the studies reported. We then conducted a meta-analysis to understand the relationships between the characteristics we coded and the program impacts.

Preliminary Findings

We are still working on finalizing our analyses; however, our initial analyses revealed several interesting findings.

• Programs that included support for students to develop their first language skills tended to have larger improvements in student learning. This is consistent with prior research that suggests that supporting first language development can lead to improved learning in core content areas. However, the initial findings from this meta-analysis build on the prior research by providing empirical evidence across a large number of rigorous studies.
• There are some particularly promising practices for educators serving English learner students. These promising practices include the use of content differentiation, the use of translation in a student’s first language, and a focus on writing. Content differentiation aligns with best practices for teaching English learners, which emphasize the importance of providing instruction that is tailored to language proficiency levels and academic needs. The use of first language translation can be helpful for English learner students, as it can support their ability to access and comprehend academic content while they are still building their English proficiency. Focusing on writing can also be particularly important for English learners, as writing is often the last domain of language proficiency for students to develop. Our preliminary findings that English learner writing skills are responsive when targeted by instructional programs may hold implications for how to focus support for students who are nearing but not yet reaching English proficiency.
• The type of test used to measure program impact was related to the size of the program impact on student learning that studies found. Specifically, we found that it is reasonable to expect smaller program impacts when examining state standardized tests and larger impacts for other types of tests. This is consistent with findings from prior meta-analyses based on more general student populations, and it demonstrates the same applies when studying program impacts for English learner students. Statewide standardized tests are typically designed to cover a broad range of state content standards and thus may not reflect improvements in more specific areas of student learning targeted by a given program. On the other hand, researcher-developed tests may align too closely with a program and may not reflect broader, policy-relevant, changes in learning. Our initial evidence suggests that to understand program impacts for English learner students—or any group of students—we may want to use established, validated assessments but not only consider statewide standardized tests.

Next Steps

In terms of next steps, we will complete the meta-analysis work this summer and focus on disseminating the findings through multiple avenues, including a journal publication, review summaries on the AIR website, and future conference proceedings. In addition, we are working to deepen our understanding of the relationships identified in this study and explore promising avenues for practice and future research.

If you’d like to continue learning and see the results of this study, please continue to check back at AIR’s Methods of Synthesis and Integration Center project page, located here.

This blog was produced by Helyn Kim (Helyn.Kim@ed.gov), program officer for the English Learners portfolio, NCER.

April is National Bilingual/Multilingual Learner Advocacy Month! As part of the IES 20th Anniversary celebration, we are highlighting NCER’s investments in field-initiated research. In this guest blog, Drs. Doré LaForett and Ximena Franco-Jenkins (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill) and Adam Winsler (George Mason University) discuss their IES-funded exploration study, some challenges they encountered due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and how their study contributes to supporting multilingual students.

The BEE Project

Our IES-funded study, called the Bilingualism, Education, and Excellence (BEE) project, was born out of a research partnership initiated by a principal of a Spanish-English dual-language (DLE) elementary school. She noticed that student engagement in DLE classrooms seemed to differ depending on the student’s home language and the language of instruction. This got us thinking about how we as a field know very little about what goes on in two-way immersion (TWI) classrooms in terms of teacher language use, student-teacher relationships, student engagement, and learning outcomes for students who speak Spanish or English at home. Therefore, we were excited for the opportunity to dig deeper into links between language of instruction and academic outcomes for students in a relatively new immigrant community like North Carolina. Specifically, we were interested in whether and how the amount of instruction in English and Spanish is related to improvements in student academic outcomes in English and Spanish.

We conducted extensive individual direct student assessments at the beginning and end of the school year, as well as intensive classroom observations to assess both language of instruction and student on-task engagement during both English and Spanish instruction. Although we are still analyzing the data, preliminary findings suggest that language model (90% Spanish/10% English vs. 50% Spanish/50% English), type of 50/50 model used (switching language of instruction mid-day vs alternating days), and initial student language proficiency all matter for student engagement and academic outcomes assessed in English and Spanish. For some outcomes, students with low language proficiency had lower average spring scores when in the 50/50 model compared with students in the 90/10 model. In contrast, students with high language proficiency had higher average spring scores when in the 50/50 model compared with the 90/10 model. In addition, students who speak mostly English at home have a hard time staying engaged on the Spanish day in 50/50 alternate programs.

Impact of COVID-19 on Our Research and Pivots Made

Although we are excited about these findings, like many other studies, we encountered challenges with conducting our study when the pandemic hit. While some studies may have been able to pivot and resume data collection using a remote platform, we had to pause data collection activities during spring 2020 and the 2020-21 school year given our study design and the context in which our research was being conducted. For instance, we used gold-standard, English/Spanish, parallel direct assessments of children which required it to be in person since on-line versions were not available. Also, classroom- and student-level observations were not possible when instruction was remote because, for example, cameras were turned off or there was a lack of access to remote or hybrid learning platforms, due to issues such as contactless video recording technologies that prioritize the talk of only one individual in the classroom rather than the entire class or do not allow for focused observations of individual student behavior.

Therefore, our top priority was maintaining our partnerships with the school districts during the ‘sleeper year.’ We kept in touch and followed our partners’ lead as to when and how we could resume. Meanwhile, we tried to understand what school districts were doing for DLE instruction (in-person, hybrid, remote) during the pandemic. The research team found it necessary to shift tasks during the pandemic, and our efforts were centered on data management and dissemination activities. Once schools started to reopen in 2021-22, our team continued to be patient and flexible to address the health and visitor regulations of the various school districts. In the end, we had one year of data pre-pandemic, one pandemic year without spring data, and one year of data post-pandemic.

Despite these challenges, we used this opportunity to gather information about the learning experiences of students enrolled in the final year of our study, who had been exposed to remote or hybrid learning during the 2020-21 school year. So, when schools reopened in fall 2021, we asked our schools about what instruction was like during the pandemic, and we also asked teachers and parents what they thought about dual language progress during the 2020-21 school year. Teachers were more likely to report that students made good gains in their language skills over that year compared to parents. Further, parents who reported greater English-speaking learning opportunities during remote instruction tended to speak primarily English at home and have more education. Parents who reported that their child had difficulties participating in remote instruction due to technology tended to speak more Spanish at home and have less education.

These findings show how inequities in the home environment, such as those experienced during the pandemic, may have reduced learning opportunities for some students in DLE programs. This is particularly noteworthy because the social experience of language learning is critical in DLE programs, so reduced opportunities to speak in English and Spanish—particularly for students who are not yet fully bilingual or do not live in bilingual homes, can really undermine the goals of DLE programs. These reduced learning opportunities also give us pause as we consider how best to test for cohort effects, choose appropriate procedures for dealing with the missing data, and proceed cautiously with generalizing findings.

A Focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Our research is grounded in the cultural mismatch theory, where DLE programs are hypothesized to produce greater alignment or match with English learners’ (ELs’) home environments compared to non-DLE programs. By design, DLE programs that support heritage languages seek to promote bilingualism, bi-literacy, and biculturalism which bolster ELs’ social capital, increase academic performance and reduce the achievement gap for ELs. Thus, effective DLE programs are examples of anti-racist policies and practices. However, some have suggested that DLE programs may be conferring more benefits for White, native English speakers (that is, the Matthew effect, where the rich get richer) compared to the students whose heritage language and culture is being elevated in DLE programs. This is especially concerning given our data showing a potential exacerbation of the Matthew effect during the pandemic due to a variety of factors (lack of access to technology, less-educated families struggling to support their children during remote instruction) suggesting not only learning loss but also language loss. Our research is attempting to open the black box of DLE programs in such classrooms and examine whether experiences, engagement, and outcomes are similar across language backgrounds. We hope that information from our study about the intersection of language proficiency and language of instruction will facilitate decisions regarding how students are assigned to different language models and ultimately support equitable learning opportunities for students attending DLE programs.

Ximena Franco-Jenkins is an Advanced Research Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Adam Winsler is an Associate Chair Professor at George Mason University.

Doré R. LaForett is an Advanced Research Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This blog was produced by Helyn Kim (Helyn.Kim@ed.gov), Program Officer for the English Learners Portfolio, NCER.