The evidence base on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 122 studies identified in a February 2020 literature search, two met WWC standards, so effects of dual language programs implemented in most settings are unknown. → review-1

Evidence¶

review-1¶

What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2023, December). Dual language programs. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/726

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

The WWC's systematic review using the version 4.1 English language arts protocol identified 122 studies; 43 did not meet standards, 71 were ineligible (typically lacking a comparison group), and 6 were out of scope. The report concludes effects in most settings are unknown and more rigorous research is needed.

"The WWC identified 122 studies that investigated the effectiveness of dual language programs from a literature search in the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and other databases in February 2020. Of these 122 studies, two meet WWC standards"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teaching students in a language they understand benefits both language learning and broader learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• The evidence base for Open Court Reading© is thin: of 185 identified studies, only two met WWC group design standards, and none met standards for alphabetics or reading fluency — related
• The evidence base for Accelerated Reader with adolescent learners is thin: only 2 of 318 reviewed studies met WWC standards — related
• Only three of twelve identified OLI studies met WWC group design standards — related
• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — related
• The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — related
• The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Corrective Reading in grades K–3 is small: one of 25 reviewed studies met WWC standards, and no studies addressed general reading achievement — related
• No rigorous evaluations of trauma-informed approaches in schools met inclusion criteria in a comprehensive systematic review search — related
• Existing arts-SEL research lacks the rigor to support strong empirical claims of direct causal contribution — related
• Of 130 studies of school-based OST programs reviewed, 22 studies of 18 different programs met WWC standards or met them with reservations — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Only one of 10 identified studies of InsideTrack© Coaching met WWC group design standards without reservations — related