Teaching Young Multilingual Learners: Impacts of a Professional Learning Programme on Teachers' Practices and Students' Language and Literacy Skills
Leslie Babinski; Steven Amendum; Madeline Carrig; Steven Knotek; Marta Sanchez (2025). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED676418
-
examining101Students, gradesK-1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2 |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Literature and informational text subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Literature and informational text subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2 |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Vocabulary use and functions subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Language and writing subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Language and writing subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Foundational skills subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Foundational skills subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Reading K-2, Vocabulary use and functions subscale |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Frequency of collaboration between classroom teacher and ESL teacher |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.44 |
4.05 |
No |
-- |
|
Process of collaboration between classroom teacher and ESL teacher |
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.95 |
2.03 |
Yes |
|
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Urban
-
- 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
South
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 13 elementary schools across two urban school districts in the Southeastern United States. The two districts were similar in size, enrolling approximately 33,000 and 36,500 students, respectively. Schools varied in size and served student populations with a wide range of economic backgrounds.
Study sample
Thirty-nine classroom teachers (18 kindergarten teachers and 21 first-grade teachers) from 13 elementary schools were randomly assigned. At analysis, there were 18 teachers in the intervention group and 20 teachers in the comparison group. Most teachers were female (95%). Fifty-nine percent of teachers reported having more than five years of teaching experience, while 41% reported five or fewer years. The majority of teachers identified as White (72%), followed by Black (23%), with small proportions identifying as multiple races (3%) or preferring not to respond (3%). No teachers identified as Hispanic or Latino; 97% identified as non-Hispanic/Latino, and 3% preferred not to respond. Most teachers reported speaking only English (82%), while 18% reported speaking some Spanish. The student sample consisted of 103 students (52 intervention group and 51 comparison group) enrolled in the classrooms of the participating teachers. Approximately 47% of students were enrolled in kindergarten and 53% in first grade. All participating students spoke Spanish as their home language. Across the 13 schools in the study, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch ranged from 27 to 71 percent.
Intervention Group
Bridging English Language Learning and Academics (BELLA) is a professional development program to support teachers to improve outcomes for multilingual learners. Teachers learned instructional practices to implement in their classrooms intended to improve students' decoding and language comprehension skills and background and vocabulary knowledge, including providing time to practice oral language skills. Teachers also were encouraged to use a strengths-based approach by emphasizing strengths that students demonstrate in their homes and communities. The program also emphasized collaboration between the general classroom teachers and English as a second language teachers, using a collaboration framework focused on aligning content and instructional strategies across all teachers. The yearlong program included four full-day (approximately 7-hour) sessions delivered in the fall and winter, weekly 30-minute school-based collaboration meetings between classroom and English as a second language teachers, and monthly 40-minute coaching sessions that included reflection, instructional alignment, and in-class modeling. In total, teachers participated in about 35 hours of activities.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition continued with business-as-usual instruction and did not receive the professional learning workshops, structured collaboration meetings, or implementation coaching provided to teachers in the intervention condition.
Support for implementation
Implementation support included weekly 30-minute school-based collaboration meetings using a semi-structured framework and monthly 40-minute coaching sessions. Coaching focused on reflection, instructional alignment across classroom and ESL settings, and included in-class modeling of instructional strategies.
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).