Upload
patsy-vinogradov
View
303
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ADULTS
WITH LIMITED FORMAL EDUCATION
Aydin Yücesan Durgunoğlu
University of Minnesota Duluth
LESLLA 2011, Minneapolis
Since in 1996, program in Turkey for adults with
limited or no schooling.
Has reached 100,000+ learners, UNESCO
award
Based on research on cognitive and affective
dimensions of literacy development
includes literacy, numeracy and empowerment
components
Materials
Books (Level 1 and Level 2)
program continuously evaluated and books
revised
Outside materials, newspapers…
Online version, portal just opened
Back to USA
According to the 2000 census, more than 35 million are nonnative speakers of English
Majority are Spanish-speakers
Approximately 11 million adults (5% of the population) are nonliterate in English (but not necessarily in their L1)
In federally-funded adult education classes, 42% are in ESL classes
http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/pd_resources/Foreign-Born.html
Burt, Peyton & Adams, 2003
Practical implications
Level of literacy closely tied to employment, income,
occupation
Chiswick (1991, 1998) reading and writing, rather than
speaking, “language capital”
Mother’s education strong predictor of child language
and literacy development (Snow, Barnes, Chandlar,
Goodman & Hemphill, 1991)
Heterogeneity
Different home languages
Highly varied educational levels in L1 (from no
schooling to postgraduate work)
Varied education in L2
Some born and/or mostly educated in US (Generation
1.5)
Burt, Peyton & Adams, 2003; Condelli, Wrigley & Yoon, 2009; Purcell-Gates,
Degener, Jacobson, and Soler, 2002; Strucker & Davidson, 2003; Thonus 2003;
Wrigley, Chen, White and Soroui, 2009
Very limited research base
Condelli & Wrigley (2004): 111 studies 17 fit the
criteria 2 about ESL and only one had an
unconfounded design
Torgerson, Brooks, Porthouse, Burton, Robinson,Wright
& Watt (2004): almost 5000 reports 33 studies with
controlled trial designsonly 3 with ESL as a focus.
Krudenier (2004): only 9 studies of adult ESL.
Adams and Burt (2002): adult LL research between
1980 and 2001 only 44 studies about adult English
LLs not in academic post-secondary programs (but
some were in English preparatory classes before
college)
Informed by research on:
Native speakers in Adult Basic Education
Second/Foreign Language Acquisition in high schools
and colleges
Language and literacy development of young LLs
Cognition and neuroscience of bilingualism
BUT…..Question of generalizability because of differences
in: age; educational context; SES
Bigelow and Tarone, 2004; Burt, Kreeft, Peyton & Van Duzer, 2005; Davidson & Strucker, 2002; Nanda & Morris, in press; Strucker, Yamamoto & Kirsch, 2007
Child literacy development in L2
LL and native speaker similarities
With good instruction, LLs = native speakers on word recognition, spelling and phonological processing
Similar predictors of decoding and spelling proficiencies for beginning readers (e.g., phonological awareness and concepts of print.)
Similar precursors, profiles of reading difficulties (not related to exposure or quality of instruction) and intervention effects August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, Christian, 2006
Lovett, De Palma, Frijters, Steinbach, Temple, Benson, & Lacerenza, 2008
Child literacy development in L2 LL and native speaker similarities (pt. 2)
Rapid progress from preliterate to beginner
levels but face more challenges around Grades
3 and 4 as reading is used as a tool for
knowledge acquisition.
Benefit from direct instruction on phonological
awareness, decoding, vocabulary,
comprehension, writing
Academic English is different from
conversational English. Highlighting linguistic structures and formats in different content areas
Achugar & Schleppegrell, 2005; Collier, 1987; Goldenberg, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2007)
Child literacy development in L2
LL and native speaker differences
The gap between native speakers and LLs in
reading comprehension grows with grade
Having a strong literacy foundation in L1 helps
for English literacy development
Given the interconnectedness of oracy and
literacy, developing both skills simultaneously is
useful even in young language learners
Child literacy development in L2
LL and native speaker differences (pt. 2)
LLs are considerably behind native speakers on
reading comprehension tasks (underdeveloped
L2 oral proficiency and background knowledge).
LLs need support with oral language
development, especially vocabulary, syntax and
background-cultural knowledge.
Farver et al., 2009; Roberts & Neal, 2004; Slavin & Cheung, 2005
Adult Language Learners
Data from Durgunoglu et al. (unpublished)
Participants
Beginning level adult literacy/ESL students
Hmong (n=38) three sites in Minnesota
Spanish (n=77) two sites in Minnesota and Illinois
Procedure
Determining the existing characteristics of participants as they start their
classes
Interview (demographics, background, goals conducted in L1)
Language test (L2--English vocabulary)
Literacy tests (L1 and L2)
Hmong language
South East Asian language, spoken by people in Laos,
Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, China
Tonal like Chinese, but from a different language family
Subject-Verb-Object word order
No tense or case inflections, but noun classifiers
Alphabetized in 1850s by missionaries
Tones represented by the last letter of the word
tib high tone “to pile”
tij high but falling tone “older brother”
Literacy tests (in L1)
Word recognition
Hmong (researcher-created) 20 items
Spanish (Woodcock-Muñoz) 58 items
Spelling
Hmong (researcher-created) 12 items
Spanish (researcher-created) 12 items
Language and Literacy tests (in L2, English)
TOWRE sight words
TOWRE nonwords
WRAT spelling
Woodcock Language survey, productive vocabulary
Gates-MacGinitie reading comprehension
Level 1 Hmong (n=38) and Spanish1 (n=40) groups
Level 2 Spanish2 (n=37) group
Demographics
Hmong Spanish1 Spanish2
age 33.84(8.1) 31.53 (7.9) 32.76 (8.9)
Years in the US 6.12 (7.6) 9.73 (7.6) 8.74 (6.9)
No. of children 5.00 (2.9) 1.93 (1.4) 1.57 (1.5)
% female 42 55 57
Last grade
completed
4.14 (3.9) 10.08 (3.0) 8.56 (3.1)
L1 reading measures (in percentages)
Hmong Spanish1 Spanish2
word recognition 0.81 (.31) 0.97 (.04) 0.94 (0.6)
spelling 0.73 (0.3) 0.80 (.11) 0.83 (0.1)
Means (sds) of English measures
Hmong Spanish1 Spanish2
reading comp 17.18* (12.1) 27.18* (7.0) 12.51** (9.8)
vocabulary 16.39 (7.2) 17.83 (3.2) 15.20 (4.9)
WRAT spell 18.72 (6.9) 20.48 (4.1) 20.53 (3.8)
TOWRE Sight 21.34 (11.6) 48.45 (14.9) 41.89 (16.2)
TOWRE nw 8.09 (8.1) 30.60 (12.8) 28.53 (17.6)
Predictors of English reading comprehension—
Hmong group
Reading comprehension Test (level 1)
English predictors R2 beta
Steps
1. Vocabulary 28% -.007
2. TOWRE nonwords +15 -.001
3. WRAT spelling +17 .454*
4. TOWRE Sight words +7 .427*
Total 67%
Predictors of English reading comprehension—
Spanish1 group
Reading comprehension Test (level 1)
English predictors R2 beta
Steps
1. Vocabulary 16% .340*
2. TOWRE nonwords +7 .111
3. WRAT spelling +1 .024
4. TOWRE Sight words +3 .239
Total 27%
Predictors of English reading comprehension—
Spanish2 group
Reading comprehension Test (level 2)
English predictors R2 beta
Steps
1. Vocabulary 10% -.213
2. TOWRE nonwords +8 -.117
3. WRAT spelling +19 .606*
4. TOWRE Sight words +4 .428
Total 41%
Predictors of English word recognition (combined
TOWREs)—Hmong and combined Spanish
groups
Step Spanish Hmong
R2 beta R2 beta
1. L1 word recognition 13.5 .335* 35 .452*
2. English vocabulary +3.5 .193 5 .269
Total 17% 40%
Predictors of English spelling—Hmong and
combined Spanish groups
Step Spanish Hmong
R2 beta R2 beta
1. L1 word recognition 0 .008 35 .364*
2. English vocabulary 28 .532* +14 .441*
Total 28% 49%
Conclusions
Very low levels of reading comprehension and word recognition (approximately Grade 1 level) of the participants who are just starting the ESL/literacy courses
L1 word recognition for both Hmong and Spanish groups is related to English word recognition
L1’s similarity to English makes a difference, helps word recognition, but hinders spelling for Spanish speakers
Spelling is closely related to vocabulary performance, indicating that vocabulary development related to written language experience
Predictors of reading comprehension similar to what is found with children
L1 educational experiences, L1 literacy,
L1 typology
One of the strongest predictors of outcomes Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; Condelli, Wrigley & Yoon, 2009; Fitzgerald & Young, 1997; Ross, 2000; Strucker & Davidson, 2003
Changes in cognitive processing with education Dellatolas, Braga, Souza, Filho, Queiroz & DeLoache, 2003; Stanovich, West and Harrison, 1995; Reis, Guerreiro & Petersson, 2003
Culture, education and cognition Ceci, 1991; Choi, Koo, & Choi, 2007; Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999; Nisbett, Peng,Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001; Norenzayan & Nisbett, 2000
L1 structure, writing system Akamatsu, 2003; Burt et al., 2003; Hamada & Koda, 2008; Hornberger, 1989;
Tokowicz & Macwhinney, 2005; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005
Existing English proficiency
Decoding
develops rapidly, tied to L1 literacy
Vocabulary (depth, breadth, quality)
Higher L2 vocabulary, more progress in children
Importance of exposure, incidental learning
~3000 words minimum, ~9000 for college level
Cultural context, prior knowledge, academic
language Alamperese, 2009 Brantmeier, 2005; Droop & Verhoeven, 1998; Kieffer, 2008; Lesaux, Koda, Siegel & Shanahan, 2006; Perfetti & Hart, 2002; Wrigley, Chen, White and Soroui, 2009; Zareva, Schwanenflugel & Nikolova, 2006
Learner motivation and sociocultural context
Motivation, persistence, attendance are related, but the
effects on the outcomes are not very well known
1. sense of belonging and community
2. clarity of purpose (goals and progress)
3. agency (relying one oneself)
4. competence (self efficacy through mastery)
5. relevance (perceived relevance and connection)
6. stability, safe and structured environment
Additional issues of cultural integration, level of immersion in the new culture, ties to home culture
Alamperese, 200; Comings 2007; Condelli, Wrigley & Yoon, 2009; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Nash & Kallenbach, 2009
Instructional implications--Cognitive
For literacy development, similar cognitive
underpinnings and similar characteristics of
good instruction for native speakers and LLs.
L1 support is helpful if available and feasible
Instructional implications--affective
use real world applications and documents
make it relevant and useful e.g., adolescents perform certain literacy tasks very well outside of school
make it a safe, supportive and comfortable environment
encourage collaborative work, peer support
know the learners’ goals, needs, strengths and challenges Burt et al., 2003; Condelli & Wrigley, 2004; Gregg, Hull & Moje 2009; Hardman, 1999; Purcell-Gates et al 2002; Taylor, Abasi, Pinsent-Johnson & Evans, 2007; Torgerson, 2003; Watanabe &Swain, 2007
Instructional implications—language
development
language AND content instruction
Integrated instruction
oral and written language
decoding and comprehension
(From monolingual research) higher order
comprehension skills necessary for reading can
also be developed through listening and visual
exercises Condelli Wrigley 2004; Cumming & Riazi, 2000; Kendeou, Bohn-Gettler, White, & van den Broek, 2008; Strucker & Davidson, 2002; Wrigley, 2007
Instructional implications—language
development (pt.2)
Perspectives from Second/Foreign Language
Teaching
Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Long & Crookes, 1992; Long, 2009
Task-based, active, learning-by-doing, through
interaction
Sensitive to learners’ needs, goals and developmental
levels
Genuine materials, rich input (not simplified but clarified
through elaboration, chronological restructuring etc.)
Taking into consideration both explicit and implicit
knowledge of language (e.g., conscious knowledge of
rules vs. noticing statistical patterns)
Not mere exposure to meaning, but focus on
both form and meaning
Explicit feedback (recasting works but may not
be enough)
Explicit teaching and guidance of attention,
especially when linguistic cues are not very
salient or do not exist in learner’s L1.
Less is known about effectiveness of TBLT in
different learner contexts, for different linguistic
structures and for different types of assessments
Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Long & Crookes, 1992; Long, 2009; Nassaji, 2009; Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Robinson & Ellis, 2008
Writing
Writing proficiency develops as a function of
language proficiency, so it can be a window to
language development
Hard to model its development because many
factors in adult L2 writing:
variability in L1 background, educational level, L2
proficiency, length of time in the new country,
acculturation and familiarity with the L2 writing contexts,
the purposes and needs for writing, learners’ past
experiences and personal preferences Cumming & Riazi, 2000; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996
L1 and L2 writing processes are fundamentally
similar
L1 resources are used in L2 writing
Those less skilled in L2 tend to devote more
attention to form (e.g., finding the right L2 word
or syntactic structure, translating from L1), and
less attention to idea generation, planning,
revising, editing Sasaki, 2000
Some promising techniques for
teaching L2 writing
Explicitly instruction about macro processes of
writing
providing scaffolding and support (e.g., pre-
discussions, peer response, teacher-student
dialogue journals)
modeling writing, setting own goals
Berg, 1999; Peyton & Seyoum, 1989; Sasaki, 2000
Language exposure and learning
outside of the classroom
Some LLs live in isolated communities with
limited exposure to English
Providing opportunities to hear and use
language outside of the classroom
Long, personal communication; Reder, 2009
National Academy of Sciences Taskforce on
Adolescent and Adult Literacy
Two year effort to review the available
information and make recommendations
Report now available for free
downloading:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13242
Improving Adult Literacy
Instruction:
Options for Practice and Research
Committee on Learning Sciences: Foundations and Implications for Adolescent and Adult Literacy
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Foundations of Reading and Writing
Chapter 3 Literacy Instruction for Adults
Chapter 4 Principles of Learning for Instructional Design
Chapter 5 Motivation, Engagement, and Persistence
Chapter 6 Technology to Promote Adult Literacy
Chapter 7 Learning, Reading, and Writing Disabilities
Chapter 8 Literacy Development of English Language
Learners
Chapter 9 Conclusions and Recommendations
Adult Learners and Learning
Environments
Conclusion 1. The population of adult learners is heterogeneous.
Optimal reading and writing instruction will therefore vary according
to goals for literacy development and learning, knowledge and skill,
interests, neurocognitive profiles, and cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
The contexts in which adults receive literacy instruction also are
highly variable with respect to (1) place and purpose of instruction,
(2) literacy development aims and practices, and (3) instructor
preparation.
Principles of Effective Literacy
Instruction
Conclusion 2. Effective literacy instruction:
targets (as needed) the component processes of literacy: word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, background knowledge, strategies for deeper analysis and understanding of texts, and the component skills of writing;
Involves explicit teaching and extensive practice that is motivating and that uses varied texts, tools, and tasks matched to the learner’s skills, educational and cultural backgrounds, literacy needs and goals;
explicitly targets the automation and integration of component skills and the transfer of skills to tasks valued by society and the learner; and
includes formative assessments to monitor progress, provide feedback, and adjust instruction.
Principles of Effective Literacy
Instruction
Conclusion 3. Although findings from research on effective literacy instruction for adults is lacking, research with younger populations can guide the development of instructional approaches for adults if the instruction is modified to account for two major differences between adults and younger populations:
(1) adults may experience age-related neurocognitive declines that affect reading and writing processes and speed of learning
(2) adults have varied and more substantial life experiences and knowledge, and they have different motivations for learning that need attention in instructional design.
Research with adult literacy learners is required to validate, identify the boundaries of, and extend current knowledge to identify how best to meet the particular literacy development needs of well-defined subgroups of adults.
Principles of Effective Literacy
Instruction
Conclusion 4. Literacy development is a complex skill that requires thousands of hours of practice to reach the levels needed for full opportunity in modern life, yet many adults do not persist long enough in adult education programs or developmental education courses.
Many factors—instructional, cognitive, economic, social—affect persistence. At
present, research does not indicate which methods are most effective in supporting adults’ persistence and engagement with instruction.
Expertise requires 3,000-10,000 hours of practice. Reading is a form of expertise. 75 min/day from K through 12 equals about 3000 hours. Durations in adult literacy classes are in the range of about 100 hours. Major increases in effective intervention generally are needed.
Enough is known, from research on motivation, literacy, and learning with other populations to suggest how to design motivating instructional environments, create more time for practice, and ensure that the time is efficiently used. The efficacy of these approaches will need to be tested rigorously.
English Language Learners
Conclusion 5. The component skills of reading and writing in
English and the principles of effective literacy instruction derived
from research with native English speakers are likely to apply to
English language learners.
Consistent with principles of learning, effective instruction must
(1) meet the particular skill development needs of English
learners, which differ in several respects from the needs of
native speakers, and
(2) utilize existing knowledge of content, language, and
literacy whether in the native or the English language.
Assessment
Conclusion 6. Improved adult literacy instruction requires the development of measures and comprehensive systems of assessment that
• are valid: include measures of language and literacy skills related to a range of literacy forms and tasks, domain knowledge, cognitive abilities, and valued functional as well as psychological outcomes
• are instructionally useful: include measures for differentiated placement and instruction, diagnosis, formative assessment, and accountability that are all aligned to work toward common learning goals
• are useful for policy and accountability: produce information at learner, classroom, and program levels that is useful to learners, instructors, program administrators, and policy makers.
Technology
Conclusion 7. Technologies for learning can help adult
learners overcome time and space constraints and may help
institutions afford more substantial adult literacy instruction.
Technology can assist with multiple aspects of learning and
assessment that include diagnosis, feedback, scaffolding,
embedded practice with skills in meaningful tasks, tracking of
learner progress, and accommodations to create more
effective and efficient instruction.
Given the costs of human labor, technology also may offer a
more cost-effective means of achieving the extended levels
of practice needed to gain reading and writing facility.
Technology
Conclusion 8. Society increasingly requires broader, more
intensive and more complex forms of literacy given new
communication technologies. Adults need to be able to use
contemporary tools of literacy and become facile with forms
of reading and writing that are valued and expected for
education, work, health maintenance, social and civic
participation, and other life tasks.
Adult Literacy Instruction: State of the
Evidence
Conclusion 9. There is a lack of research and data of the kind required to better define, prevent, and remediate problems that adolescents and adults enrolled in instruction outside compulsory schooling are experiencing with developing their literacy skills in the United States.
Sustained and systematic research is needed to:
• identify instructional approaches that show promise of maximizing adults’ literacy skill gains
• develop scalable instructional programs and rigorously test their effectiveness
• conduct further testing to determine for whom and under what conditions those approaches work.