Helping ELLs Meet the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science: The Impact of an Instructional Intervention Focused on Academic Language
August, Diane; Branum-Martin, Lee; Cárdenas-Hagan, Elsa; Francis, David J.; Powell, Jennifer; Moore, Sarah; Haynes, Erin F. (2014). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v7 n1 p54-82. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030360
-
examining1,085Students, grade6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Quality English and Science Teaching 2 (QuEST 2))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science knowledge |
Quality English and Science Teaching 2 (QuEST 2) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
23.20 |
23.29 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Science knowledge |
Quality English and Science Teaching 2 (QuEST 2) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Language Learners;
|
16.59 |
16.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Quality English and Science Teaching 2 (QuEST 2) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated Sample;
|
13.28 |
13.86 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Quality English and Science Teaching 2 (QuEST 2) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Language Learners;
|
10.12 |
10.52 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
27% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 98% Not Hispanic or Latino 2% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 92% No FRPL 8%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 60 sixth-grade science sections taught by 15 teachers across seven middle schools in a large, high-poverty public school district in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Classes were mixed in terms of student language proficiency levels. The district provided science instruction only in English.
Study sample
This cluster-level RCT was conducted across seven middle schools in a large, high-poverty public school district in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Initially, 1,478 students were randomly assigned across 68 sections (34 treatment, 34 control) taught by 15 teachers. Following the departure of two teachers mid-intervention, the analytic sample consisted of 1,085 students across 60 sections (30 treatment, 30 control). Of these students, 49% were female, 98% were Hispanic, and 92% were from families that met poverty guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Twenty-seven percent were classified as English Language Learners (ELLs) based on district language proficiency testing. Classes were mixed in terms of student language proficiency levels.
Intervention Group
The Quality English and Science Teaching 2 (QuEST 2) intervention was implemented over 15 weeks in sixth-grade science classrooms. The curriculum consisted of 15 units (5 on Earth and Space Systems, 10 on Living Systems and Environment), each comprising five 40-minute lessons. The curriculum aligned with Texas and district standards and used the same textbook as control classrooms but included researcher-created teacher guides and inquiry-based lessons following the 5E approach (Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, and Evaluate). These materials specifically focused on helping ELL and English-proficient students meet their academic language needs through scaffolding techniques, including visuals (illustrations, graphic organizers, concept maps), demonstrations, modeling, and explicit instruction in domain-specific and general academic vocabulary. Students participated in ongoing discussions, partner work pairing ELLs with English-proficient peers, and instruction in word-learning strategies. Teachers received one pre-implementation training session, four during-implementation sessions (three full-day, one half-day), and biweekly mentoring. Over the 15 weeks, mentors observed and met with each teacher seven times to support implementation and promote academic language development.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition used the district's standard sixth-grade science curriculum, which aligned with state and district standards. It consisted of a Prentice Hall textbook, workbook, and district-developed labs aligned with textbook content. Teachers covered the same content as the treatment condition—Earth and Space Systems and Living Systems and Environment—over 15 weeks. Both treatment and control sections received five 40-minute sessions per week, totaling 75 sessions over the study period.
Support for implementation
Teachers received five professional development sessions: one pre-implementation session and four during-implementation sessions (three full-day, one half-day). Additionally, teachers received biweekly mentoring support throughout the 15-week intervention, totaling seven meetings. Mentors observed instruction and provided feedback to support implementation fidelity and promote academic language development.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).