Cited by 3EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningMultilingual Education and PolicySecond Language Learning and Teaching

Time to Proficiency in Young English Learners and Factors That Affect Progress

Open access
Zhang, Xiaowan, Winke, Paula·2025·TESOL Quarterly

Abstract

We investigated the time it takes 54,146 English learners (ELs) to attain English proficiency as they progressed from age 5 to 11 on average (Kindergarten through fifth grade in the United States). We also examine to what extent the time‐to‐proficiency estimate is affected by child‐internal and child‐external factors, including primary disability status, primary home language, home English use, instructional programming, and retention status. We used discrete‐time survival analysis to analyze the children's English growth. Survival analysis often concerns time from treatment until death: Here, “survival” is the time from EL‐program entry until “proficiency,” indicated via standardized testing. Half of the students attained proficiency in 5 years. Literacy skills (reading and writing) in general developed at slower rates than oral language skills (speaking and listening), with writing being ELs' biggest barrier to proficiency. While time to proficiency was significantly related to primary disability status, primary home language, and retention status, exposing ELs to their home language at home or at school does not have a substantial effect on their rates of English acquisition. The results are discussed for their research and practical implications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tesq.3340

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Conger D., 2008, Time to English proficiency for English language learners in New York City and Miami‐Dade County, IESP Policy Brief, 1, 1
  2. Cook G., 2012, National evaluation of title III implementation supplemental report—Exploring approaches to setting English language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress
  3. Hendrickson C.(2023 March 24).Michigan 3rd grade reading law no longer requires students to be held back.The Detroit Free Press.https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/24/third‐grade‐reading‐law‐michigan‐retention‐requirement‐held‐back/69991497007/
  4. Kieffer M. J., 2016, Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
  5. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures
  6. Zehler A. M., 2003, Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (Contract No. ED‐00‐CO‐0089) Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED‐LEP students

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Zhang, X., & Winke, P.
Affiliations
  • MetaMetrics (United States) (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Winke, Paula
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-06-24
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
695-729
ISSN
  • 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7249
OpenAlex
W4399971006
Cited by
3
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
English language learners, English proficiency, language acquisition, primary disability, home language, literacy development, writing skills, speaking skills, student retention, instructional programming, early childhood education, standardized testing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review