Non-ELLs outscore ELLs in math, reading, and self-efficacy at every timepoint, with a 2015 self-efficacy gap exceeding .35 standard deviations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mean differences across constructs at a given timepoint all favor non-ELLs and are significant at the .01 level; the 2015 self-efficacy gap exceeds .35 standard deviations, which the article describes as a large gap; no standardized magnitude is printed for the math and reading t-tests. → Soland 2019

Evidence¶

Soland 2019¶

Soland, J. (2019). English Language Learners, Self-efficacy, and the Achievement Gap: Understanding the Relationship between Academic and Social-emotional Growth (The Collaborative for Student Growth at NWEA Working Paper). https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/english-language-learners-self-efficacy-and-the-achievement-gap-understanding-the-relationship-between-academic-and-social-emotional-growth/

q2 · i? · associational · r3

Descriptive comparison of ELL versus non-ELL mean scores by year (Question 1, Figure 2). The article reports t-tests significant at the .01 level and, as an effect size, that "in 2015, scores for ELLs versus non-ELLs differed by more than .35 standard deviations" in self-efficacy; the article calls this a large gap. It is coded i? not because the gap is negligible but because only a lower bound is printed for self-efficacy (more than .35 SD, in 2015) and no standardized magnitude is printed here for the math and reading gaps or for other years.

"In general, there are gaps in math, reading, and self-efficacy favoring non-ELLs. T-tests suggest that all mean differences across constructs at a given timepoint are significant at the .01 level. To help understand the magnitude of the gaps in self-efficacy, scores were also standardized for this sample by year. As an effect size, the gaps in self-efficacy are quite large: in 2015, scores for ELLs versus non-ELLs differed by more than .35 standard deviations."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• English-Learner Status — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• ELs lag behind peers in achievement and attainment partly due to limited exposure to academic content — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• ELLs start middle school roughly .6 SD lower in math and .65 SD lower in reading, with faster reading growth (.13 SD) but no significantly faster math or self-efficacy growth — related
• Fifth-grade self-efficacy is associated with later math and reading growth (.15 and .19 standardized units per SD), mediating ELL status's indirect negative association with growth — related
• Self-efficacy is related to the achievement gap for English Language Learners — related
• Teacher emotional support buffers the negative association between low math self-efficacy and low engagement — related
• A companion working paper examines the relationship between academic and social-emotional growth for English Language Learners — a broader claim this one bears on