Watzinger-Tharp, Johanna; Swenson, Kristin; Mayne, Zachary (2018). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, v21 n8 p913-928 2018. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1199637
Reviewed: March 2023
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Dual language programs.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Utah Math Criterion Reference Test (CRT) |
Dual language programs vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Full sample, Grade 4 (2 years before end of intervention in Grade 6);
|
171.33 |
170.71 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Utah Math Criterion Reference Test (CRT) |
Dual language programs vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Non-English learners, Grade 4 (2 years before end of intervention in Grade 6);
|
172.23 |
171.45 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 27% | |
| White | 73% |
| Hispanic | 21% | |
| Other or unknown | 79% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 35% | |
| Other or unknown | 65% |
The study took place in elementary schools in Utah.
The manuscript contains analyses involving students in grades 3 and 4, and each analysis is considered a distinct study. This review focuses on comparisons among grade 4 students. A total of 2,287 students in grade 4 were included in the study. The 2,287 students were in 26 schools that offered a Dual Language Immersion (DLI) program and 26 schools that did not offer a DLI program. All students had grade 3 and grade 4 scores on Utah’s standardized achievement tests in English language arts and math. Approximately 35% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 7% were English learners. When race and ethnicity are reported in a single grouping that sums to 100%, 73% of students in the study were White. Twenty-one percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Students in the DLI schools received instruction in two languages using either a one-way or a two-way model. The one-way model used in 17 schools served English speakers and provided instruction in English and in one of three target languages: Chinese (six schools), French (five schools), or Spanish (six schools). The two-way models used in nine schools served native Spanish and native English speakers and provided instruction in English and Spanish. DLI was implemented in whole schools (or as a strand within a school) from grades 1 through 6. In grade 4, DLI students received half of their total daily instruction across all content areas in English and half in the target language. Of the total daily instructional time, grade 4 students spent one hour (16.5%) receiving math instruction in English and 30 minutes (8.5%) engaged in math reinforcement in the target language. DLI schools used one of two math curricula (EnVision Math or another option for the Spanish programs).
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual grade four instruction. Comparison group schools used a wide range of math curricula, materials, and practices. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Teachers in DLI schools received training and lessons plans in the target language. A statewide advisory council met regularly and provided support and reinforcement of the DLI program model with principals and other administrators at the school and district levels.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube