AN ENQUIRY INTO THE TIME TAKEN FOR L2 LITERACY
DEVELOPMENT
“I desperately want to be able to talk to people”
Jenny Field
Waikato Institute of Technology
[Link]@[Link]
Obock, Djibouti
BACKGROUND
“Almost all the learners studied in SLA
research have been literate.”
“There has been very little research to date on the cognitive process of
illiterate or low-literate adult L2 learners…. They have been left out of the SLA
database.” Tarone, Bigelow and Hansen (2009)
Minnesota project with Somali
adolescents and adults (2004-5)
Conclusion: “older language learners who lack alphabetic print literacy are
using the linguistic input they receive orally in different ways from those who are
alphabetically literate.”
Tarone et al. (2009).
Democratic Republic of
Congo
• 774 million adults lack minimum literacy skills
• One in five adults is not literate
• Two-thirds of these are women
Tarone et al. (2009) p. 21
[Link]
Literacy Education and Second Language Learning Acquisition
publications suggest that:
… The process of developing literacy to the level of native
speakers may take much longer than if the individual were
literate upon arrival.
A TEC report on ESOL gaps and priorities
(TEC, 2008, p. 6) acknowledged that Mekong River in Cambodia
‘learning progress for pre-literate learners is extremely slow.
Traditional assumptions about stair-casing to higher level programmes need
to be challenged in the case of pre-literate learners.’
Benseman (2012)
Kabul, Afghanistan
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What does the TEC online assessment tool reveal about
learners’ progress over two years?
2. Were there other social or political affordances
and / or constraints that contributed to learners’ development of literacy in their first language?
3. Are there other social or political affordances and / or constraints that are contributing to
learners’ development of literacy in their second or additional language?
4. What strategies do learners consider help them to learn well and gain confidence?
Pakistan
Methods
Instruments
• Literacy Numeracy Assessment Tool
• Portfolio assessment
• Classroom observations
• Pre and post interviews
Analysis Grounded theory. Data analysed into categories. Themes emerge from the data.
PARTICIPANTS 0-2 YEARS OF EDUCATION
First Dari Pashto Khmer Kiribati Spanish Afar Urdu Total
language
Ages 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 10
18 - 39
10 5 1 0 2 1 1 20
40 - 65
Totals 16 6 2 1 1 2 2 30
PARTICIPANTS 8+ YEARS OF EDUCATION
First Mandarin Spanish Dari Urdu Lingala Khmer Arabic Total
language
Ages 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 5
18- 39
40 - 65 13 5 4 1 1 2 0 25
15 5 5 2 1 2 1 30
China
RESULTS INTERVIEWS: CONSTRAINTS ON
SCHOOLING
0 – 2 years prior schooling
8+ years of schooling
No prior schooling
Participants from Afghanistan,
Cambodia, Congo, Colombia, Djibouti
Minimal schooling
and Pakistan
Participants from Cambodia Colombia,
Congo, Djibouti and Pakistan Participants from China
I didn't go to school. Problem. I can't read …it was too far to get to high school. I
and write in Dari. worked with my parents at the farm.
Tokelau
KEY LEARNING GOALS OF PARTICIPANTS
0-2 years 8+ years
• All participants reported that their • Participants wanted to improve their
main goal was independence communication skills and literacy skills
• They had goals for further training and
• Parents’ goals were focused on their employment
children's education and training
• Some younger participants aimed to
find work after they become
functional in L2
I want to be independent. I don't want to To take my children to school, to know
depend on others. Just I want to go to the what’s going on at school. I want to
doctor without an interpreter. know how they're going, shopping,
doctor. I want to do things by myself.
RESULTS ONLINE LEARNING TOOL
0 – 2 YEARS
8+ YEARS
Jul. 17 Nov, 17 Jul.18 Mean gain
Jul. 17 Nov. 17 Jul. 18 Mean gain
av. 93
684 685 713 28
710 772 800 90
746 728 725 -21
634 661 696 62 490 707 661 171
320 393 344 24 579 589 649 70
680 709 745 65
659 671 673 24
710 669 745 35
684 661 672 11 623 770 673 50
629 630 673 44
681 698 696 15
360 344 393 33
710 772 748 38 522 712 863 341
635 700 605 -30 502 505 654
152
771 770 772 1
661 628 745
769 747 1000 231 84
711 746 769 58 695 802 698
3
675 671 710 35 683 713 748
699 723 697 -2 65
658 663 712
708 727 746 38 54
730 743 764 34
Mean gain
Mean gain av. 93
av. 38
Learning Rates of the two groups
400
350
300
250
0-2 years education
200
8+ years education
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
-50
RESULTS OBSERVATIONS WITH 0-2 YEARS PRIOR LEARNING
• Students support each other in class
• Construct meaning at first through L1
• Repetition and imitation
• Memory
• Realise they need the alphabet for the code
• Learn new words as whole words from meaningful encounters with text
( oral or written).
CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS OF 8+ YEARS PRIOR LEARNING
• Have learned the code on letter sound correspondence
• May still have difficulty with vowel sounds
• High frequency words becoming automatic
• Enjoy reading together shared class work
• Repeated new words, wrote them down, sometimes saved onto phones
• Starting to write words and short sentences
• Enjoy Flash cards, phonics games, bingo, and word games.
DISCUSSION
ILN Results
There is a difference in rates of learning between these groups.
The 0-2 group are doing the work in preparation for becoming literate in L2, understanding the letter –
sound relationship and how to decode. These are pre-reading stages and take time.
Baddeley (2007) working memory model
• Incoming information stored temporarily
• Subject to rapid deterioration
• Strong association can increase this capacity as can rehearsal
• Information in the short term memory can interact with the long term memory
• Information is stored in a ‘ phonological - loop’ long enough to decode it
JOHAN AMOS COMENIUS
1592-1691
• Use imitation instead of rules
• Have your students repeat after you
• Use a limited vocabulary initially
• Teach language through pictures to make it meaningful
1631 -- 1658 This approach based on exposure to the target language rather than rules
RECOMMENDATIONS 0-2 YEARS
• Make meaning using multiple strategies
• Build simple conversations and responses
• Delay formal phonics teaching
• L1 support whenever possible
• Visuals and pictures
• Use language experience, read own stories together, noticing building
blocks of language
• Build sight words through reading their own stories
• Daily reading of graded readers.
Allow time for the pre-reading skills to develop
RECOMMENDATIONS 8+ YEARS
• Simple everyday conversations, encourage simple communication
• A combined top down and bottom up approach
• Engage in noticing (phonics, structures, spelling)
• Use repetition and recycling
• Allow spelling develop by noticing
• Personal dictionaries
• Make reading a daily enjoyable activity
• Authentic concrete experiences
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baddeley (1995) ‘Working Memory’, in M.S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, [Link] Press.
Benseman, J. (2012) Adult refugee learners with limited literacy: needs and effective responses. Critical Insight. Ako Aotearoa
Blaker, J., & Hardman, S. (2001). Jumping the barriers: language learning with refugee groups in New Zealand. Paper presented at the I.A.C.D.
conference, 2-6th April, Rotorua.
Burt.M., Peyton, J.K., & Schaetzel, K., l (2008). Working With Adult English Language Learners With Limited Literacy: Research, Practice, and
Professional Development. CAELA Network Brief: October 2008.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., (2014) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Heinle CENGAGE Learning.
Marrapodi, J. (2013) What doesn’t work for the lowest level literacy learners and why? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies. Vol.7,1,7-23.
Ong, W. (1982) Orality and Literacy: The technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.
Reis, A., and Castro-Caldas, A. (1997) ‘Illiteracy: A cause for biased cognitive development’. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
3:444-50.
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. Literacy and Second Language Oracy (2009) Oxford: Oxford University Press
Tertiary Education Commission (2008). English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) Report on national gaps and priorities. Wellington: Tertiary
Education Commission.
THANK YOU
