ADULT LITERACY IN MINORITY LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES
Educators’ voices: reflect, explore, and connect
Bienvenidas/os
One of the premises to understand the meanings of literacy is to ask people what they understand about it within a specific situation. Equally important is to investigate the actual events associated with what literacy is intended to mean in specific events.
Therefore, the technology of literacy, needs to be understood within the boundaries of specific sociocultural and political ecologies and within the performative acts that show what literacy is used for, by who, under what circumstances, and what outcomes literacy goals produce.
In our graduate level class, future ESL/Language teachers, have reflected on how the meanings of literacy are co-constructed at different spaces, ranging from national statistics, and academic research to students’ voices (presented by some researchers) in ESL classrooms in the United States. In addition to these reflections, our colegas have been involved in a fieldwork project in an Adult Literacy Center in San Antonio.
The purpose of this project was not only to observe, participate, and reflect on the literacy events in ESL classes to adults, but also to create a specific curriculum project for these in classes in mind.
To what extent do the readings reflect their own personal literacy experiences in a second language, or those literacy events in their fieldwork? How do the readings can help to create a curriculum project for ESL classes? These reflective questions have been guiding blueprints for our work during the semester.
In this blog, all of our colegas, will post a reflection on a literacy issue that they found relevant to be researched after reflecting on the semester assigned readings as well as their fieldwork. For privacy purposes, names of institutions, and people referred as part of students’ fieldwork will not be revealed/posted.
We hope that these contributions make us reflect and act upon the dialectical process of adult literacy processes in San Antonio, Texas. Students will post their reflections using their NAME and KEY PHRASE to introduce their work.
Carlos Martin Velez Salas, Ph.D.
Instructor
Bicultural-Bilingual/Interdisciplinary Studies
College of Education and Human Development
University of Texas at San Antonio
U.S.A.
Email: cmartinvelez@gmail.com
11 comments:
My Research topic: What are the occupational aspirations of adult students who seek English instruction at community centers, and how can ESL classes help students in achieving these job-related goals? This topic merits research because literacy is viewed today as socially situated, and instruction in literacy should be concerned with how students want literacy to function in their lives. Many students at community centers list work-related goals as a primary reason for taking ESL classes. From limited observation, basic skills are being taught in a somewhat contextualized manner, but activities are not explicitly related to workplace skills.
Wiley, chapter 8 discusses the need to help students master the social functions of language in addition to grammar and vocabulary. In the 1970's Wilkins developed the Notation-Functional Syllabus, an early attempt to organize a curriculum around the social functions of language and the ideas conveyed by language. In Spener's anthology, several examples of participatory literacy projects are cited, which demonstrate that when students are engaged in using literacy to explore and extend their knowledge in areas that matter to them, greater learning takes place. Workplace literacy is of great interest to adult ESL students. If they engage in specific projects that are explicitly aimed at developing workplace skills, they are likely to be enthusiastic and will learn the language better.
In Integrating Employment Skills in Adult ESL Instruction (1997), A.G. Grognet says that in the 70's and 80's workplace ESL curriculum began to incorporate both the needs of workers and the communication patterns and linguistic tasks involved in a particular workplace. While little research exists today on discourse patterns and style in the workplace, she describes communicational competencies that cut across occupational domains and are important in enabling the individual to get a job, survive on the job, and thrive at a job. In 1992 the SCANS (Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills)Report was issued, which identified 5 workplace competencies and 3 foundational skill areas for all workers. Several writers have offered suggestions on how to integrate these into the ESL classroom, both as a process (i.e. organizing a class to teach students to work on teams, teach others, and negotiate) and as content (i.e. specific workplace skills like how to write a memo, read a flow-chart, decipher a manual; functional/notional considerations like how to disagree with the boss, handle complaints, respond to criticism; and cultural understanding such as knowing what an American employer expects and values in a worker.)
Research in this area would involve creating a questionnaire based on Grognet's list of competenies and the SCANS, and asking the students questions to discover what job-related tasks they currently use, or need to improve or acquire. Similar questions would be asked at placed of employment where students work or aspire to work. Once the competencies, skills, and discourse patterns are identified, further research in the literature would help in developing ideas for teaching these in the classroom.
submitted by J. Robison
Topic:
Learner-Focused Outcomes and the New Texas Adult Education Standards (Abridged Version)
Suppositions:
1) Programs want to meet student needs as well as program funding goals through standards, curriculum, and assessment, yet many are unclear on how to do this effectively. As result, student needs are often the last objectives to be met or are not met at all.
2) In most cases, adult education teachers have the freedom to teach what they think students need to know, but may be ineffective in doing so. This is due in part to communication breakdowns in language, students not knowing how to communicate their needs (or being afraid to communicate their needs), and teachers not knowing how to ask the right questions.
3) Many literacy programs are thinking too small and too basic. They are not looking to the future and to the big picture of how literacy works within the social context and how it meets specific needs of students.
Main Question:
Fully implemented in Fall 2007, the Texas Adult Education Standards (TAES), recently published by Texas LEARNS and TCALL, are to guide the curriculum of adult education programs to better meet student and assessment needs in Texas. Will they be successful?
Why this topic is important to me:
I have taught ESL for four years focused on the Texas Curriculum Standard Framework (TCSF) adapted from Florida standards in 2001. Many in the field were not happy with these standards and looked forward to new standards. Now that the new standards are in place, I’m interested to see how well they will meet the literacy needs of adult students.
Why this topic needs more research:
Newly implemented, now is the time to watch how the new standards will affect adult education. Meeting student literacy needs is an important goal of many adult English programs. I’m eager to see if these standards will support that goal.
Why this topic is important to the field:
This topic could improve adult ESL programs in Texas. By looking at what works and what doesn’t work, changes can be made to better meet the literacy needs of adult students.
What the literature mentions about this topic:
>>According to Huerta-Macias and Imel (1999), “Proficiency in other languages is a plus but does not substitute for English-language abilities. Sought-after skills include competence in reading, writing, and computation; effective communication skills; and basic technology skills” (2003, p. 220).
Implication: Students need to be able to apply their language skills toward reading, writing, communication, and technology.
>>According to Fairclough (1989), “...we should not lose sight of the fact that all uses of language in academic settings are inherently social and that expectations regarding appropriate language use can reflect the same differential power relations that permeate the larger society in which they reside” (Wiley, 2006, p. 155).
Implication: Students need to learn more than just reading and writing to be successful in a new culture with new societal expectations. They need to learn how to negotiate power and cooperate with others.
>>According to McKay, “The following are the characteristics Read and MacKay consider as important to successful second language literacy programs…The program is flexible in that the learners have a say in the design of the program…” (1993, p. 103).
Implication: Students need a way to communicate their goals and objectives so they may be taken into consideration in program and curriculum design.
>>According to McKay, “…teachers may evaluate a program on how well it meets their views of education and literacy. Learners also have their own criteria, desiring programs that suit their literacy goals as well as their schedule and financial limitations” (1993, PPS. 123).
Implication: It’s interesting to look at the way a teacher and students view the same program. Are they both moving toward the same goal?
>>According to Huerta-Macias, “Adult students tend to be self-directed and engage in educational activities that are interesting and relevant to their goals” (2003, p. 222).
Implication: Students know what they want and need to learn, even if they aren’t able to communicate it. The role of the teacher is to ask the right questions in order to meet the students’ needs.
EFF Standards and TAES Benchmarks:
The new standards project (TAES) was coordinated in Texas between 2004-2007. These standards replace the Texas Curriculum Standard Framework (TCSF) adapted from Florida standards in 2001, (although teachers may continue to use them).The TAES were adapted from “Equipped for the Future,” a standards-based approach for system reform created in 1995 by the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) in response to the National Literacy Act of 1991. EFF standards are based on 16 core skills adults need to be effective in their roles at home, work, and in the community. TAES adopted 4 of the 16.
The Four Standards adopted are:
Speak So Others Can Understand
Listen Actively
Read With Understanding
Write to Convey Ideas
Research Questions:
1) Why did Texas only adopt 4 of the 16 core EFF skills? 2) How will the TAES be rolled out to teachers? 3) What kind of support will be available in the form of lesson plans and accountability? 4) How does Texas Learns and TCALL plan to track success from the implementation of the TAES? 5) What can we learn when we compare programs using the full 16 EFF standards compared to Texas programs only using 4 standards?
Research Process:
1) Chose at least 10 programs in various parts of Texas to observe as the new standards are rolled out. 2) Follow these programs for a two year period. 3) Interview adult students during the two year period; follow their progress in school, work, and in the community. 4) Determine if the program is meeting their needs. 5)Compare these students to students in EFF programs. 6) Determine the effects of EFF on the adult education community. 7) Determine which programs are using the full 16 EFF standards; follow these programs for a two year period and compare them to the Texas programs also being followed. 8) Compare students in both programs. Are EFF students more empowered than Texas students? How do we know? 9) Research Texas Learns and TCALL assessment plans for the TAES. How will they measure success? Compare their results with our own.
What We Can Learn:
My first hypothesis is that EFF programs are going to meet the needs of students better than Texas programs using only 4 of 16 EFF standards. This will be due to the level of empowerment encouraged by EFF which may be missing from the Texas programs.
My second hypothesis is that Texas programs will not fully integrate the standards into their programs. This will be due to lack of training and support for teachers at the grassroots level. Teachers will continue to be told “meet your students’ needs” without proven techniques to do so.
My third hypothesis is that the Texas standards will be revised within four years or less.
My fourth hypothesis is that really great programs and teachers, both in EFF and Texas, will be discovered during this research and that we will tell their stories and share their best practices with the adult education community.
References
>>Comings, J. P. (2007). Persistence: Helping Adult Education Students Reach Their Goals. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Volume 7, (March 9, 2007). National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
>>Equipped for the Future (2006). National Institute for Literacy. University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Center for Literacy Studies. http://eff.cls.utk.edu/resources/home.htm
>>Huerta-Macias, A. G. (2003). Meeting the challenge of adult education: a bilingual approach to literacy and career development. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47:3 (Nov. 2003).
>>McKay, S. L. (1993). Agendas for Second Language Literacy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
>>Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning (2007). Texas Adult Education Standards and Benchmarks for ABE, ASE, and ESL Learners. Implementation Guide Version 1.0, June 2007.
Http://www.tcall.tamu.edu/taesp/guide/toc.html.
>>Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive Consequences of Formal and Informal Education. Science, New Series, Vol. 182, No. 4112 (Nov. 9, 1973), 553-559.
>>Stein, S. (1999). Equipped for the future: The evolution of a standards-based approach to System Reform. Focus on Basics Connecting Research & Practices, Vol. 3, Issue C, (Sep. 1999). NCSALL.
>>Wiley, T. G. (2005). Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Co., Inc.
Topic: Influences of Different Cultural Background on Classroom Interaction
Hudson (1980) pointed out “most of language is contained within culture” (p. 83) because culture includes not only tangibles such as food, holidays, dress, and artistic expression but also tangible manifestations such as communication style, attitudes, values, and family relationship (Nieto, 2004). Culture could give instructors a way in which to understand differences among learners; however, the most people may not even think of themselves as cultural beings. In addition, Nieto (2004) mentioned that miscommunication happens between instructors and learners of different backgrounds. For example, it can be found in my experience of observing Spanish-speaking adult ESL learners. Therefore, reducing misunderstanding and miscommunication is necessary; therefore, knowing learner’s sociocultural backgrounds can help instructors and learners interact in the classroom. There are two purposes for this research: 1) exploring how to decrease learner’s difficulty in learning, and 2) knowing how to adjust teaching methods to accommodate students from different sociocultural backgrounds.
My research questions are 1) what are the influences of different cultural background affecting classroom interaction between the instructor and learners? 2) How do the influences of different cultural background affect classroom interaction between the instructor and learners?
Two kinds of participants will be interviewed for this study: 1) Intensive English Program’s instructors who have students from many different countries from three of the universities such as UTSA, St. Mary’s University, San Antonio College (SAC), UIW, and Northwest Vista College…etc. 2) Two learners from each of the interviewed instructors of the Intensive English Programs of the three universities. They will be interviewed individually with several questions such as challenges in teaching for instructors, and difficulties in learning for learners. The response of the instructor and students in the same classroom will be combined and analyzed. Moreover, to compare which instructor’s teaching methods are more effective for learners in learning language will be analyzed too.
In this study, I expect to know how and why are the influences of different cultural background affecting classroom interaction between instructor and learners. I assume that instructor may have more choke points for teaching from the outset with ESL learners such as that some students may not understand what the teacher talks about if they have different linguistics background. Moreover, I suppose that learners may not enhance their language proficiency a lot or give up learning the language because of different teaching methods in different country if instructors do not care about influences of different cultural background. However, instructors may have educational accommodations if their learners do not improve their language proficiency.
There are three pedagogic implications form this study. First, making learners’ profiles is necessary. Besides, teaching personal relevance should be involved in the classroom because it emphasizes the affective dimensions of the reading and writing process (Wrigley, 1993). Last, educational accommodations and additional supplementary could be adjusted by instructors such as giving more wait times for Asian learners and giving more appropriate information and explanations that learners are familiar with. In conclusion, knowing learner’s diversity of learning from their different sociocultural background with appropriate pedagogic implications could reduce their greater difficulty in learning.
By Chang-Yu Tseng (Sammy)
My research topic: Standard English teaching V.S. Bilingual teaching
The relationship between parents and children is important for adults when they are acquiring English. Bilingual development teaching may be better than Standard English only for adult English acquisition because of the age. The different English varieties teaching may use in students’ social setting; therefore, trying to figure out the different English varieties is important to help the adults in learning English for different situations.
There are four major factors affecting the U.S. landscape of adult education that need for change critical (Ana G. & Huerta-Macias, 2003): The changing “demographics” have resulted in an increasingly population, especially in the Latino populations. The Hispanic has the highest “dropping rate” because they are the same ones seeking to upgrade their skills through adult education; however, they did not get what they want. “Waiting lists for free ESL programs” indicate that millions of people are waiting to be enrolled in English language classes. “Worker population”-Great numbers of Latinos are stagnating in low-wage jobs because their educational and skill levels do not allow access to better-paying jobs. There are several reasons which are talked about the relationships for adults when they are acquiring. However, people need to consider the different English language varieties which are taught in adult English class may be an important factor for them in acquiring English.
It is important for teachers to concern about the different English teaching varieties may cause different affection for learners in acquiring a second language.Therefore, my research question is " Does standard English teaching affect the adult English acquisition more?"Standard English, Bilingual, monolingual, dialect, African America English, and so on may use in students’ social setting; therefore, it is important to teach these different English language varieties in adult English class. Wiley (2005) has mentioned Standard English that acknowledge the role of the home language can become meaningless declarations unless the schools that subscribe to them have strong multicultural and bilingual programs. There are several reasons to show that bilingual development teaching may be better for adult English acquisition. Spener (1994) has argued that it would mean to circumscribe adult biliteracy as a legitimate field of academic inquiry. People need to think about that bilingual teaching may be useful for adult in acquiring a second language.
For answering my research question, I would like to investigate two classrooms with different language varieties teachings which are Standard English teaching and Bilingual teaching. Five learners from each classroom would be the participants in my research. They would be interviewed individually with different questions, such as what process they are participated in the classroom, and what difficulties and assistance they have learned through the teaching. After all, compare to two classrooms and see which classroom is more effective for learners.
People could not say that Standard English is more available for students. Bilingual development teaching may affect adult literacy learning in several ways. Trying to see the different English language varieties which are taught in class and finding out which is more available for the students are important for us to take these seriously.
Foster (1997) has mentioned that students who experience a learning environment that considers subject matter, linguistic, and personal needs are successful because they are meeting their goals, seeing an immediate application of their learning, and experiencing a validation of their personal abilities. Therefore, I hypothesize that Standard English teaching does not affect the adult English acquisition more. The bilingual teaching would help learners to acquire English more effective. Figuring out the English language varieties and finding the available teaching ways for language learners can be found in these researches. People could see bilingual development teaching may be more useful for English adult learners in acquiring a second language through these researches. Bilingual instruction brings us a step closer to achieving educational equity for adult populations.
By Sun-Yun Yang(Shirley)
My research topic: Standard English teaching V.S Bilingual teaching
The relationship between parents and children is important for adults when they are acquiring English. Bilingual development teaching may be better than Standard English only for adult English acquisition because of the age. The different English varieties teaching may use in students’ social setting; therefore, trying to figure out the different English varieties is important to help the adults in learning English for different situations.
There are four major factors affecting the U.S. landscape of adult education that need for change critical (Ana G. & Huerta-Macias, 2003): The changing “demographics” have resulted in an increasingly population, especially in the Latino populations. The Hispanic has the highest “dropping rate” because they are the same ones seeking to upgrade their skills through adult education; however, they did not get what they want. “Waiting lists for free ESL programs” indicate that millions of people are waiting to be enrolled in English language classes. “Worker population”-Great numbers of Latinos are stagnating in low-wage jobs because their educational and skill levels do not allow access to better-paying jobs. There are several reasons which are talked about the relationships for adults when they are acquiring. However, people need to consider the different English language varieties which are taught in adult English class may be an important factor for them in acquiring English.
It is important for teachers to concern about the different English teaching varieties may cause different affection for learners in acquiring a second language. Therefore, my research question is Does standard English teaching affect the adult English acquisition more? Standard English, Bilingual, monolingual, dialect, African America English, and so on may use in students’ social setting; therefore, it is important to teach these different English language varieties in adult English class. Wiley (2005) has mentioned Standard English that acknowledge the role of the home language can become meaningless declarations unless the schools that subscribe to them have strong multicultural and bilingual programs. There are several reasons to show that bilingual development teaching may be better for adult English acquisition. Spener (1994) has argued that it would mean to circumscribe adult biliteracy as a legitimate field of academic inquiry. People need to think about that bilingual teaching may be useful for adult in acquiring a second language.
For answering my research question, I would like to investigate two classrooms with different language varieties teachings which are Standard English teaching and Bilingual teaching. Five learners from each classroom would be the participants in my research. They would be interviewed individually with different questions, such as what process they are participated in the classroom, and what difficulties and assistance they have learned through the teaching. After all, compare which classroom is more effective for learners.
People could not say that Standard English is more available for students. Bilingual development teaching may affect adult literacy learning in several ways. Trying to see the different English language varieties which are taught in class and finding out which is more available for the students are important for us to take these seriously.
Foster (1997) has mentioned that students who experience a learning environment that considers subject matter, linguistic, and personal needs are successful because they are meeting their goals, seeing an immediate application of their learning, and experiencing a validation of their personal abilities. Therefore, I hypothesize that Standard English teaching does not affect the adult English acquisition more. The bilingual teaching would help learners to acquire English more effective. Figuring out the English language varieties and finding the available teaching ways for language learners can be found in these researches. People could see bilingual development teaching may be more useful for English adult learners in acquiring a second language through these researches. Bilingual instruction brings us a step closer to achieving educational equity for adult populations.
By Sun-Yun Yang(Shirley)
Topic: Effective Pedagogical Approaches in Teaching US Citizenship Classes
My research question is: Which pedagogical approaches are more effective in helping students become successful in attaining U.S. citizenship?
The identification of effective pedagogical approaches is important because these people are often left alone to fight a system that is unknown to them. For many of them, not obtaining citizenship means being forced to be away from loved ones or incurring in even more monetary expenses. Utilizing the most useful resources in the way of curriculum, staff, and programs in the community will assist in making them successful at their goals. Planning a good education system will also raise retention rates at this type of programs.
Gaps in Research:
There are no studies that identify which type of curriculum is used successfully in community centers that provide citizenship education to immigrants. In addition the following questions can be explored: How do the people deal with the demands of the naturalization process. Does the selected staff make a difference in the outcome of the education? What pedagogical approaches seem to work better in adult education? Is it important to hire teachers within the community? What role does community centers play in overcoming the demands of the naturalization process?
Answering the Research Question
Besides the hands on experience through my field work, I would like to seek information about other programs in the US that aid with the naturalization process. I want to seek information on how they form their curriculum and compare with the program at the Margarita Huantes Center. I also wish to compare their passing rates if available.s of participants will be interviewed for this study.
Pedagogical Implications
Wrigley found very few literacy programs that involved learners in overall
program design” (McKay, page 108). From my field work experience I can attest that a learner-centered curriculum is empowering and yields good results. At Margarita Huantes, the citizenship class is totally learner-centered. The students participate in what it is that they wish to accomplish. Once they pass their exams, they always return to the classroom to share experiences and add anything that might be helpful to the next group. I only seen one student fail the interview for naturalization in four weeks, but I seen over 20 achieve their goal. This is a 5% rate of failure at least during my time present at the center. Although I am sure that other factors play a role on this success, it is also obvious that the students feel like they are important and must help each other become successful.
Klaudia M. Rivera and Ana Huertas Macías provide a description and examples of the shared programmatic characteristics of successful community-based programs promoting biliteracy. Out of this programs, the ones with “Participatory education show great success rates. This type of program values the participants’ daily experience and creates egalitarian relationships in the classroom” (Rivera and Huertas Macías, page 83). The majority of the students at the center have been oppressed under a system that they don’t always understand. Allowing the students to participate in their education is showing them that they really do count.
Klaudia M. Rivera and Ana Huertas Macías also noted that hiring teachers from within the community “reflects a commitment to learn from the community, incorporate community issues in the curriculum, and contribute to the development of bilingual teachers who are rooted in community knowledge (page 85). “These teachers share a language, cultural affiliation, and ethnic background with the students. They also face similar social and educational issues within them, including experiences with immigration, social services, schooling, unstable employment, and a need to learn English” (page 85). “Teachers from the community also become role models and mentors for other students, enabling the program to have a multiplier effect in the community” (page 87).
Community centers and their commitment to literacy and their students are definitely needed. If the students can go to a place where their needs are understood, they participate in the curriculum that is taught, and someone shows a genuine interest in them, then it seems like an excellent equation for success to me.
In conclusion, In respect to curriculum I agree with a participatory model. I believe that when the students are able to participate in their education decisions instead of just being told what to do, they become empowered and encouraged. This can only translate to better results for all. In selecting the correct staff, I try not to live in dreamland. I know that there are many teachers out there that really care about education. But I do believe in the power of hiring and training from within. The only way that an outsider will work for a specific community is if they are willing to become familiar and involved in the community that they work with. The fact that community centers can be an intermediary is extremely helpful for the people that need ESL education and citizenship education. If they were to be heard individually may be their voice wouldn’t be as loud. However, the centers are able to advocate for them and educate them not only in language matters but also in matters of the law which are so crucial.
Oh, and Moriquena is Lindy just in case.
Topic: Literacy programs or approaches with curriculum focused on the needs of the learners.
It is important to build community inside the classroom by developing a community of teachers and learners who share decision making. According to Wiley (2005), when programs work with learners to develop a curriculum, the curriculum will better reflect the learners’ needs, goals, and interests, and learners can exercise language choices (p. 176). In the participatory approach, as discussed by Auerbach (1990), the classroom curriculum develops from the needs and interests of the learners. Needs assessment is an ongoing process, integrated into the classroom interaction. The teacher’s role is to act as a problem poser who tries to determine what curriculum content will meet the needs of learners. The learning process is a collective endeavor. The teacher’s role is to draw out the participation of the students in order to define issues and activities to be dealt with in the class. (pp. 54-55)
Current Knowledge:
According to Wiley (2005), if literacy practices are not to appear alien to language minority learners, education policy formation and curriculum design must be made meaningful and functional for them and their communities (p. 54). Wiley (2005) also states that schools need to become more aware of literacy practices within their communities so that these practices can be incorporated into the school curriculum (p. 54). He also states that it is also important to consider the reasons why adult learners enter and stay in literacy programs. Program design and curricula need to be matched with learners’ aims and needs (Wiley, 2005, p. 175). McKay (1993) states that it is essential that literacy programs be participatory in their design, implementation, and assessment. Being participatory in design means that funders, administrators, teachers, and most importantly, language minorities all need to have input into program design (p. 132).
According to Auerbach (1992), adult education is most effective when it is experience-centered, related to learners’ real needs, and directed by learners themselves. Content must be contextualized in terms of student-determined interests and goals. It must be related in a meaningful way to the students’ everyday reality and useful in enabling students to achieve their own purposes (p. 14). She also states that cooperative learning through peer interaction provides students with greater opportunities to use language than teacher-centered participant structures (p. 14).
Auerbach (1992) also adds that what is learned (content) and how it is learned (processes) shape students’ perceptions of their own possibilities and prepares them for particular ways of acting in the outside world (p. 21). “For literacy to be relevant what goes on inside the classroom must relate to students’ lives outside the classroom; thus, the starting point is the concrete experience of the learner. Students develop literacy by reading, writing, and talking about social factors in their family and community contexts and, most importantly, about ways that they can shape these conditions” (Auerbach, 1992, 22). A goal for the learners in a participatory curriculum is action outside the classroom to address their concerns; content is meaningful to the extent that it enables learner to make changes in their lives. “Literacy is not the end in itself, but rather a means for participants to shape reality, accomplishing their own goals. Skills are taught in service of action for change rather than as independent, isolated objectives”. (Auerbach, 1992, 22)
Students should be allowed to express their ideas about how classes should be run and changes they may like to see in the classroom. Bringing classroom issues back to students for discussion, reflection, and decision-making reinforces their sense of control and takes the teacher out of the position of authority. (Auerbach, 1992, p. 89) It is important that have activities that are meaningful to students and focus on their needs. One example of such an activity is having students describe pictures they selected, recount important events in their lives, or share aspects of their personal history. (Wrigley, 1993, p. 457) Language experience stories can also be popular among beginning ESL classes.
Problems for further research:
The Willie Velasquez Center, where I recently observed a beginning literacy adult ESL course, currently seems to be using an ends-means approach to curriculum implementation, where a group of experts identify a body of knowledge to be covered.
Curriculum designers often consult those in the mainstream society who will be interacting with the learners to see what expectations they have for the learners (McKay, 1993, p. 113).While observing at the Willie Velasquez Center, I noticed the teacher in the classroom I was assigned to did not use many meaningful activities with the students that reflected their needs and/or interests. He mainly used handouts from the class text, as well as having the students write while he dictated and participate in oral recitations.
“Teachers often have strong opinions concerning what it takes to become fluent in a second language, and these views help determine how they teach” (Wrigley, 1993, p. 461). Particularly true for teachers who also learned English as a second language and who have experienced success with traditional approaches. Often find a mismatch between the overall orientation evident in a program and the approach used by a particular teacher. (Wrigley, 1993, p. 461)
Learners who are new to English but have fairly strong educational backgrounds might be frustrated by a participatory approach that asks them to explore their feelings and thoughts when they would prefer to discuss more academic topics (Wrigley, 1993, p. 462).
Research Questions:
1. What beliefs do the administrators at the Willie Velasquez Center (WVC) have towards literacy program implementation with regards to the literacy needs and interests of the learners?
2. Does the WVC use a set curriculum for each class? If so, are students’ opinions and ideas taken into account when designing the curriculum?
3. Are there other literacy centers in San Antonio that use a participatory approach to curriculum implementation?
4. Is teacher preference an issue at the WVC and other literacy centers in San Antonio?
5. Is learner frustration with a participatory approach an issue at the WVC and other literacy centers in San Antonio?
Answering the research questions:
I would answer questions 1 and 2 by interviewing the administrative staff at the WVC, as well as interviewing the teacher of the specific class I observed and the other adult literacy teachers on staff at the WVC.
I would answer question 3 by visiting and observing the different literacy centers in San Antonio and asking them what type of curriculum they use as well as their approach towards literacy program implementation.
I would answer question 4 by finding out if the teachers are second language learners (does not have to be English that they learned or are learning as a second language), as well as their opinions concerning what it takes to become fluent in a second language.
I would answer question 5 by first trying to talk to students involved in a participatory approach (if there are any) and by also asking the students at the WVC and the other local literacy centers their opinions regarding the use of their literacy needs and interests in classroom activities. I would also like to know what ideas they have on how to better the curriculum and the types of activities they would like to see used in the class.
Potential findings:
I do not expect to find a participatory curriculum in place at the WVC, nor do I expect to find a set curriculum that is used in each class. I do not expect to see much communication between instructors of the same or different levels of literacy classes.
I do not expect to find students’ opinions and ideas taken into account with regards to curriculum at the WVC. I do not see this as being a main priority right now for the classroom. I do think there is potential for future use.
I think it might be possible that there is a literacy center in San Antonio that use a participatory approach, however, I would expect it to be a center with larger amounts of funding and access to necessary resources. If such a center does exist, it would be interesting to see how they utilize the participatory approach and curriculum.
I think it is possible to find situations where teacher preference could be an issue in the classroom at the WVC and other local literacy centers. There may be teachers who believe they know the best way to educate the students and are not open to using a participatory curriculum.
I do not expect to find many learner frustrations towards a participatory approach, but rather that students would be more interested in having a say in the classroom and participating in activities that are geared towards interest in the classes would their needs and interests. I would expect to find that students’ motivation for learning and interest in the class increase with the use of meaningful activities and more participation on their end.
References:
>>Auerbach, E.R. (1990). Making meaning, making change. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts English Family Literacy project.
>>Auerbach, E.R. (1992). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum development for adult ESL literacy. Washington, DC, and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
>>McKay, S.E. (1993). Agendas for second language literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
>>Wiley, T. (2005). Literacy and language diversity in the United States, 2nd edition. Washington, DC, and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
>>Wrigley, H.S. (1993). One size does not fit all: Educational perspectives and program practices in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly 27 (3), 449-465.
Final Reflection
ESL 6043 / Fall 2007 / By Aleksandr Karpets
It seems that students tend to relate better to instructors of similar cultural and linguistic background, which might result in better L2 acquisition. How true is this and what should and can be done to bridge this cultural and linguistic gap between a student and his language instructor? Is this phenomenon in any way evident in Willie Velasquez Center?
Instead of looking for gaps I decided to do a contrasting analysis of various attitudes students might have to different instructors of ESL in a specific setting – a learning center in San Antonio, TX, and try to pinpoint differences and similarities, among other things, as well as look for ways to improve the process of second language acquisition.
The topic of language literacy in adults and social identity has been researched quite well, my interest lies in picking a specific setting, like Willie Velasquez learning center, and analyze how three different instructors deal with social identity in dealing with their students. Almost all language learners’ at Willie Velasquez language center first language is Spanish. One instructor is a native speaker of English with a very good command of Spanish, two other instructors are not native speakers, with different native languages, with varying degrees of English language proficiency and very rudimental knowledge of Spanish. By comparing three different instructors’ approaches to dealing with adult literacy issues and social identity issues I will try to find how these factors influence adult learners’ second language acquisition.
Unfortunately the ideas of oral/literate and cognitive great divide still exist in today’s world and it is very evident in the case of Willie Velasquez center.
Without access to the dominant linguistic group’s culture that is achieved through language knowledge, new language learners cannot also achieve their economic well-being, instead being relegated to a lower socioeconomic status that is ascribed to them as discussed in Wiley’s chapter 6 (p. 121). Adult language learners must master communication system that gives them access to dominant culture’s economic goods (p. 49). Literacy practices are influenced by the dominant group that often denies newcomers’ access through gatekeeping (p. 35). As a result, students as well as teachers are trapped in a school culture that is very inflexible, with both teachers’ and students’ social roles constrained to the point where the so-called “illiterate” learners are often just left behind (p. 51). School practices correspond to middle-class literacy expectations and do not tend to other groups’ requests (p. 152). Wiley proposes that in order to incorporate other groups’ demands into the learning process, teachers “need knowledge of the language, communication styles, and literacy practices of their students” (p. 153). Heath proposes turning “teachers into learners and students into ethnographers” (p. 153). McKay in her chapter 6 talks about agendas for second language literacy. This topic is also important to my research because agendas often determine the type of education second language learners are going to achieve. There are many groups that are interested in setting their own agendas when it comes to literacy. Literacy programs, literacy curricula, and literacy assessment are all important parts of literacy agenda and are taken into consideration by the groups that wish to implement these agendas into what they think is the best for them.
In relation to my topic, political, economic, and educational leaders that are interested in implementing their own agendas in literacy development need to take into account not only their interests but also the interests of the groups that are considered “illiterate”, even though they might be perfectly literate in their first language. In the case of students at Willie Velasquez Center, instructors should address these students’ needs much closer so as to improve their L2 skills. Spener’s chapter 7 analyzes a Puerto Rican GED program. Spener talks about a Puerto Rican GED program in his chapter on literacy as a cultural practice and cognitive skill. Abriendo Caminos program has been designed to help Hispanic high school dropouts in Philadelphia with their GED. According to observations that took place during the learning process, the program explicitly taught cultural awareness to students, allowing students to explore their values and goals (p. 164). All the program’s administrators, teachers, and counselors were Puerto Rican.
Puerto Rican identity reinforcement was equally important for both Spanish-medium and English-medium classes. The materials are prepared in both languages. One of the instructors, Jose, said that “he takes care to do a good job, whenever he prepares written material in Spanish, because he feels it conveys an important message to the students” (p. 165). Then Spener adds that apparently Puerto Rican identity achievement of which is pursued by the program is more important than the language of the sessions that are conducted with students (p. 165). There was some tension regarding language use. Some Puerto Rican students seemed unhappy with the ways some of the students in the English GED behaved toward them. English literacy is embedded in Spanish oral language use (p. 166). In the English GED classroom the use of Spanish was restricted. The handouts were in English, reinforcement session was in English, and everything that was written was in English, with very few code-switching into Spanish instances. There were some tension between the two groups that were learning English – the Spanish dominant one felt that it was unjustly dominated by the English dominant one. The program acknowledged this tension and tried to address it accordingly.
In relation to my topic, students at Willie Velasquez Center are already in touch with their identity because most of the explanations they receive are in their native language and most of their instructors are native Spanish speakers.
What I would like to find out is how would their attitudes toward their instructors’ cultural backgrounds might change and whether or not this would improve their language learning, since they would not be able to rely on their first language background, or instead it would hamper their second language acquisition. Students should probably start developing their second identity that is closely connected with their second language, as soon as possible, so that it would improve their chances of a smoother transformation into bilingualism and biliteracy, which will in turn result in a better acculturation with the dominant linguistic group, if this is what they are trying to achieve – economic and social acceptance from a dominant group. Caiping Zhang et al. surveyed 87 Chinese immigrant parents in Canada to find out more about their “practices, attitudes, beliefs, and values in relation to both the literacy development and the schooling of their children” (p. 189). The research supported and extended findings from the literacy research which has focused mainly on children from dominant cultures. It turns out that Chinese immigrant parents believe their children learn a lot about reading, writing, and print in general before receiving formal schooling. These parents' attitudes toward Canadian schooling were described by the researchers as "mixed“. The parents were overall satisfied with the Canadian education system, many of the parents, however, remained concerned that their kids might not be adequately prepared for the future. In the light of this research I can conclude that literacy development is regarded very important in immigrant families. In relation to my topic, parents should also be involved in the literacy development process, in our case, the educators at Willie Velasquez Center might be wise to talk to parents of the younger learners at the center and discuss the progress of the students and address any issues that might not arise in the classroom environment otherwise. A research by Jabari Mahiri and Amanda Godley looked at the idea of rewriting a person’s identity, a social meanings of literacy and “re-visions“ of self. A person they studied, Viviana, was diagnosed with a carpal tunnel syndrome and could not write anymore. She strongly identified writing with her identity.
Even though she was born in the USA, she received her education in Mexico and maintained a lot of her Mexican identity. She said that she has “assimilated to some extent” to her American life because everybody around her was Mexican and spoke mostly Spanish (p. 427). After being diagnosed with CTS Viviana had to “re-vision” herself and rewrite her identity because she identified herself so strongly through literacy. The findings suggested that “the consequences of literacy for an individual are more essentially connected to particular ways that acts of writing and other literacy practices have been socially constructed and thereby given social meanings” (p. 432). Viviana’s ability to write was the foundation on which her social meanings of literacy rested. Viviana’s identity was influenced by the values our society places on writing and literacy, and it “facilitated understanding of some of the ways, through families, schools, and other institutions - that society writes stipulations and consequences for literacy into its social contract with individuals” (p. 432). This study of a life story shows a glimpse of how important literacy is in people’s life and how closely it could be connected to a person’s identity.
In the case of Willie Velasquez Center, the attitudes of the students will be changing the more their American identity will be emerging toward their non-Spanish instructors. The more understanding there will be, the less stressful the learning process become for both the instructors and for their students. Since writing, among other learning activities tend to promote the emergence of new identity, it should be promoted and supported by the learning center instructors as an important tool in literacy development. Based on observations in Willie Velasquez Center and interviews that I had with some instructors and fellow student observers, students at the beginner level tend to prefer instructors of their cultural and especially linguistic background simply because these instructors can explain difficult moments in their native language, thus improving comprehension and learning process. The more students will progress in their studies and the more confident they feel in their L2 production, the less dependent they will be on the instructor’s linguistic background. Of course there are personal preferences, cultural barriers and psychological preferences that students might have when relating to their instructor but this depends on the instructor’s level of preparedness and ability to work with students.
My research question is this – what are the students’ attitudes toward their instructors’ cultural backgrounds? Through interviews and participant observation this question might be answered. I will observe different classrooms with these three instructors, paying attention to differences in teaching techniques and attitudes that students might have to these different instructors. After the observation period I would interview all three instructors, as well as some of the students to find out more about the attitudes and expectations that the instructors and the students might have had but never had them accomplished. Some of the possible findings I might expect would be that, indeed, depending on the level of students’ second language proficiency, the students will have different expectations and attitudes toward these three different instructors.
Students with lower proficiency would associate more with the instructor whose second language, being the student’s first one, is at a much higher level, so that the students would be able to successfully explain themselves in their native language and in turn receive a comprehensible feedback from the instructor, creating a meaningful communication in the classroom. One should not forget that the instructor’s proficiency in students’ first language is but one of many factors that should be considered when analyzing students’ attitudes toward the instructor.
References
Caiping Zhang; Lloyd O. Ollila; C. Brian Harvey (1998). Canadian Chinese Parents‘ Perceptions
of Their Children's Literacy and Schooling in Canada. Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 23/2, 182-190
Jabari Mahiri; Amanda J.Godley (1998). Rewriting Identity: Social Meanings of Literacy and
"Re-Visions“ of Self. Reading Research Quarterly, 33/4, 416-433
My Topic: The Importance of Family Literacy toward SLA of Adult Learners who are Minority Groups in the US with its instruction of ESL teaching
Importance of the Topic
“When family members interact around the printed word, they can set literacy agendas for one another” (McKay,1993,p.75)
Family literacy programs are “to strengthen the ties between the home and the school by transmitting the culture of school literacy through the vehicle of the family” (Auerbach, 1989)
“Family literacy program is to increase the social significance of literacy in family life by incorporating community cultural forms and social issues into the content of literacy activities.” (Auerbach, 1989)
Current Knowledge
Literacy crisis: “the lack of support for literacy in families leads to illiteracy among children, which then continue a vicious cycle” (McKay, 1993, p.85)
The goals of language minority family literacy programs for adults:
To provide parents with childrearing information and resources is n new culture
To enhance parents’ self-confidence and self-esteem which will contribute to their children’s literacy development
To empower parents to connect literacy activities to their own social and cultural situations
To provide literacy skills that may lead to other education and workplace skills
(Rangel,1990)
Current Knowledge (cont.)
Goals on how to promote their children’s success in school:
Teaching parents American educational systems and philosophy of schooling
Providing parents with methods/materials to use at home
Assisting parents to promote “good reading habits”
Training parents for home tutoring in basic skills
Giving parents guidelines and techniques for helping with homework
Training parents in how to read to children or listen to children read
Training in “effective parenting”
Teaching parents to make and play games to reinforce skills
Teaching parents how to communicate with school authorities
(Auerbach, 1989)
Gaps which my research hopes to fill
To increase parents’ valuation toward literacy
A lot of immigrants come from literacy-impoverished homes in which education is not valued or supported. (McKay,1993)
To have “bidirectional benefits” through family literacy for successful biliteracy (Packard, 2001)
Children usually play the role as interpreters/translators in the family from one language to another. Instead of receiving the knowledge from their children solely, parents can solidify their children’s home languages/L1.
To promote their children's cultural identity development through family literacy practice (Packard, 2001)
Research Questions
What kind of literacy needs to be developed for adult ELLs ?
How much can immigrant parents learn through this program and how can they help their children?
What are some approaches/strategies to teaching adult ELLs concerning family literacy issue?
What are some major benefits from family literacy
How do I plan to answer my research questions
Go to family literacy programs/adult learning centers and observe classes
Have weekly/monthly interview with both their instructors and students for case study
Have both instructors and students do questionnaire/survey
Collect data such as instructors’ educational background, curriculum, syllabus, program’s goals for students, and any related information
Literature review
What we can learn from the research: Possible findings
According to Packard’s personal story (2001), she discussed a family literacy practice that involved the intergenerational exchange of culturally relevant books. Through engaging the process of reading text and discussing text features with her mother-a Chinese ESL learner, she outlined two major findings concerning such a family literacy practice :
It can FOSTER their parents’ literacy development.
Parents can also PROMOTE their children’s cultural identity development.
What we can learn from the research: Possible findings
“Low-income and culturally diverse students are more likely to be successful when a partnership develops between home and school” (cited in Colombo, 2004).
Colombo stated that the parent partnership for achieving literacy has empowered many culturally diverse families to improve their English and actively participate in their children's education. (Colombo, 2004)
Submitted by Victoria C.
Observations
Its assumed that student have a working capability of English, since they have applied fro citizenship. Each class is focused on learning strategies to pass the test by learning U.S. history, how to learn to answer interview questions, and dictate sentences
If students are having difficulty the teacher focuses on the student.
There are different levels in the ESL Citizenship because of student’s daily lives and their jobs. Teacher creates materials to teach class. The teacher attends INS meetings called roundtable discussions and listens to INS agents give their suggestions
Each student returns to class after they have passes exam to share their experiences while the teacher takes ethnographic notes.
Answer to Research Question Interview students and ask questions about: social economic Status, motivation Amount of time in the country, personality Profile, etc., rationale for wanting citizenship. This research study would be a longitudinal. It would follow students as they go through the application process.
Issues, challenges and controversies with adult literacy
The ESL citizenship teaching methods involve a participatory model.
According to Auerbach (1989) the goal of a participatory model “is to increase the social significance of literacy in family life by incorporating community cultural forms and social issues into the content of literacy activities. (p.177) The challenge with the participatory model in the ESL citizenship class is that other factors are affecting students with literacy activities done in the classroom. These factors are the student’s motivation, personality factors, and their social economic status. Also the teaching methods focus only on helping the students pass the citizenship test. The topics covered in an ESL citizenship class should go beyond the citizenship class. Such topic that the class could possible cover are; local history from U.S perspective and American citizen duties.
Differences between formal & informal learning.
The ESL citizenship class is different from a leveled ESL class. In a ESL citizenship class students with different levels are put in one class and taught strategies to a pass the test. Many of the students in the ESL citizenship class have informal learning and few formal learning. So for some of the student this is there first time at a formal education.
The Margarita Huantes center attempts to implement a community-oriented literacy program. According to McKay, community-oriented programs … are more likely to be advocates of social changes (p100). The attitude of social change is evident in the ESL citizenship class. The teachers encourages student to speak up and not appear to be nervous so that the INS agent won’t make assumptions about the student. According to Fingeret (1984) in community-oriented program, “reading is secondary to developing an understanding of social forces and a belief in cooperative effort and the possibility of change” (p.21). The students in the ESL citizenship class demonstrate they have this belief about reading by supporting each other in class through different literacy activities.
References
Auerbach, E. (1989) Towards a social contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(2), 165-181.
Fingeret, A. (1984). Adult literacy education: current and future directions. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing House.
McKay, Sandra. (1993) Agendas for second language literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Post a Comment