How do uneducated adults become readers? Looking at the small steps.

Martha Young-Scholten Rola Naeb

There are many LESLLA learners who are NESLLA learners: non-educated. In the USA, 40% of working age immigrants arrive with

primary schooling or less, including no schooling (US Census.

In the UK 14% of 500+ students on one project reported no ability to read or write in their native language (Baynham et al. 2007).

But “hardly anything is known [about the] emergent literacy or metalinguistic awareness of adults [=immigrants] in Western countries who never went to school.” (Kurvers et al. 2006:69)

Can native-language-non-literate adults learn to read in an L2? Two ways to approach this question

Find successful adult L2 readers Ask what might underlie their success Conclude that adults who fail lack these

qualities/opportunities

Or look at cognitive and linguistic pre-requisites assumed to underpin children’s reading Study adult first-time L2 readers in the same way that

first-time native language readers have been studied

Children acquire most syntactic, morphological and phonological competence by 4-5, before learning to read.

Children develop considerable linguistic awareness prior to learning to read, for example, they develop phonological awareness in terms of syllable, onset and rhyme (Bryant & Bradley 1983).

Without awareness of phonemes (of the grapheme-phoneme correspondence/the alphabetic principle), new words cannot be sounded out. Research points to children’s development of

phonemic/segmental awareness during reading. (Goswami & Bryant 1990)

Burt et al.’s (1999) UK children regardless of social class followed common patterns of phonological awareness development:

ages 3;10 – 4;3 4;4 - 4;10

syllable 55.6% 64.9%

rhyme 39.3% 41.3%

onset 25.6% 45%

phoneme 8% 24.9%

To keep in mind when considering English

1-10% of all children (depending on language and script) fail to master reading (Muter); due to lack of orthographic transparency. Reading in English takes the longest (Ziegler &

Goswami 2005).

In an alphabetic script, failure seems to be connected to non-mastery of phonological awareness (Goswami & Bryant; Muter et al. 1998, and many others).

Late L1 literacy

Only those literate adults exposed to an alphabetic script such as that used for English demonstrate phonemic awareness. (Read et al. 1986)

Development of syllable, rhyme and onset awareness is Not dependent on age Not dependent on training/schooling

Phonemic awareness is Not dependent on age Dependent on instruction in learning to read in an alphabetic

script (Morais et al.’s 1979, 1987, 1988 studies of Portuguese adults).

Replication of studies on children with low-literate L2 English adults

17 Somali and Vietnamese adults (Young-Scholten & Strom 2006) in Seattle

• Age range at testing: 26 to 70 years old • ¾ year to 20 years’ US residence • Two weeks to four years in ESL classes• Eight learners immigrated with 0 schooling,

nine with 1-5 years schooling• Both Somali and Vietnamese use the Roman

alphabet

Linguistic competence If a language threshold needs to be attained to provide a

basis for reading skills (Bernhardt & Kamil 1995 and Alderson 2000:24 on transferability of L1 reading skills)

we should measure linguistic competence to see if learners have the level of 4- or 5-year-old children

and with respect to vocabulary, beginning readers need a vocabulary of roughly 5,000 words; any reader should know 95% of the words in a text (Alderson 2000:35) to gain adequate comprehension to be able to guess unknown words from context

Young-Scholten & Strom’s (2006) linguistic competence measurement

Morpho-syntax: Students had to orally describe past events in a photograph (from the US Best test). Syllable (onset and rhyme) production: Students had to orally name objects in picturesSegment perception: Students had to point to a picture out of an array Segment production: Students had to orally name objects depicted Vocabulary: Students had to identify English and non-English words in a list read to them (Meara 1992)

Literacy skills tests + awareness tests from Burt et al. and Karmiloff-Smith et al. (1996)

Reading and writing skills

Native language literacy: read a paragraph; write personal details

Native Language and English Language phonological awareness tests

English literacyWrite personal detailsRead: -unordered varied font letters-common signs-word fitting in single sentence cloze test (multiple choice)-correct word in minimal pairs-paragraph -single words from spoken lexicon

Repeat the last word in a story read out loud

Count syllables in words read out loud

Find the odd one out in list of 4 words read out loud: rhyme

Find odd one out in list words read out loud: alliteration

Remove a segment from words read out loud

Results: Interaction between linguistic competence and awareness found

Learners correlation

Vietnamese 0.538 ns

Somalis 0.703 p<.05

overall 0.537 p<.05

Learners correlationVietnamese 0.714 nsSomalis 0.915 p <.01overall 0.942 ** but critical value

unknown

An interaction between linguistic competence and reading was also found.

Interactions found between phonemic awareness (1st table) + onset/rhyme (2nd table) w/ single word decoding. This suggests adults similar to children when learning to read.

Learners correlationVietnamese 0.915 p <.01Somalis 0.881 p <.01overall 0.886 p <.01

Learners correlationVietnamese 0.711 p<.05Somalis 0.746 p<.05overall 0.720 p <.01

Summary of the Seattle study results

Variable results obtained for adults with 1-5 years schooling (including attainment of the highest level in the study for reading and for linguistic competence)

Results for the 0-schooled adults uniformly low, as shown on the next slide. Most 0-schooled adults have low oral competence in

morpho-syntax; there is variation in phonological competence.

Adults’ onset and rhyme awareness considerably exceeds their phonemic awareness, which approaches zero for some.

Seattle study 0-schooled adults

Target-like phonology

oral proficiency

(1= rudimentary; 5=native-like)

awareness tasks% correct

readinglevel

onset and rhyme

phoneme/segment

Phung 29% 2 51% 0% 1Nien 3% 1 34% 17% 1Keif 69% 2 61% 8% 1Abba 56% 2 56% 17% 1Aliya 63% 2 37% 0% 1Shamey 54% 1 20% 16% 1Asia 81% 2 36% 0% 2Sharif 71% 5 68% 42% 4

Variable success in the group: Taking a look at two learners

Phung 20 years’ residence in the USA Children had all attended school; some even at uni She’d had one year of ESL at testing

Sharif Two years’ residence in the USA Family members were only literate in Arabic and

Somali, not in English He’d had two weeks of ESL at testing

Why do some succeed but not others?

“We have to conclude that truly successful L2 learners who started as full illiterates are really very rare.“ (Kurvers & van de Craats 2008) But consider Sharif

Need for further study The Seattle study

Did not produce any results for vocabulary (the X-Lex test was not a valid measure)

Could not test segmental perception: students’ vocabulary was too small

Did not look at actual development

The UK study: Young-Scholten & Naeb

Focus on adults with no schooling or minimal schooling in a language which does not use the Roman alphabet

Collect information on students’ background, including exposure to English outside the classroom

Administer the same phonological awareness tasks as in the Seattle study, adding words students are learning (henceforth ‘ESL words’)

Measure vocabulary (British Picture Vocabulary Scale, similar to the Peabody)

Test students twice (June 2008 and March 2009)

Participants’ education, ESL, English contact

Student sex NL(s) NL school UK arrival

Age in 2008

ESL extra-classroomEnglish

Abdullah M Nouba; Arabic 0 2006 32 1 yr friends

Farida F Urdu 2 yrs 2005 48 1 yr tv; family

Fazilatt F Punjabi 0 2001 38 1 yr children

Hakima F Dari 0 2001 66 3 yrs children

Nages M Tamil 9 yrs (?) 1998 43 2 yrs tv; children

Nighisty F Arabic; Tigrinian 1 yr 2003 44 4 yrs tv; family

Nasim M Urdu 0 2003 48 5 yrs children

Sargul F Kurdish, Farsi; Arabic

3 yrs 2004 37 1 yr tv; children

Shafida F Urdu; Mirpuri 1 yr 1999 35 1 yr children

Shagufa F Dari; Pushto 0 2005 28 1 yr tv;Family

Yasmeen F Punjabi 0 2006 35 1 yr tv; family

stable improvement

drop

linguistic competence

vocabulary phonology

phonological awareness

syllable counting (site 1)

rhyme awareness (site 2)

medial phoneme awareness

(site 2)

rhyme, onset awareness

word-initial phoneme

awareness

medial phoneme awareness

(site 1);final phoneme

awareness

reading skills -signs -alphabet-single words -ESL words

Results: Students (at two sites) improved between time 1 and time 2

Correlations

We looked at relationships between sets of scores (typically correct/attempts made) and found statistically significant correlations between the sub-components of phonological awareness, reading skills and vocabulary

The numerous correlations found suggest positive developments in these adults’ cognitive processing, their linguistic competence and their reading skills

By examining – essentially under a microscope - these students’ knowledge and skills, we can document the small steps they take as they learn to read in English

Testing of vocabulary size, alphabet knowledge, rhyme awareness Vocabulary: British Picture Vocabulary Scale Alphabet: identification of letters in different fonts

B X L l p Rhyme awareness: students heard sets of 3 words (4 words

used in Burt et al., Seattle studies) picked the “odd one out’ can, SHOP, man SIT, thin, skin hot, SHIRT, not sun, fun, LEG chip, CAR, lip

Positive correlations between vocabulary and other measures

Raw vocabulary T1

Alphabet T1

Rhyme awareness T1

Raw vocabulary T2 0.002 0.031 0.016

Alphabet T1Rhyme awareness T1

Raw vocabulary T1 0.021 0.024

Testing of onset awareness

Onset awareness: which word is the odd one out? sleep, sport, CASH red, WITH, ring KICK, this, that big, MILK, bus fast, fish, PARK

Testing of phoneme awareness: after examples, researcher read words in left column; students needed to say those in right column

Initial (phon awareness 1 on tables below) broom room leg egg meat eat clock lock train rain

Medial (phon awareness 2 on tables below) frog fog swing sing spoon soon glass gas sport sort

Final (phon awareness 3 on tables below) lamp lamb weak we fork for soup Sue port poor

Testing phonological competence: consonant clusters and vowels• Consonant production • Students were prompted to say words with word-

initial and word-final consonant clusters using pictures of objects (e.g. clock, train, bread, desk, milk, six; 14 objects in all). Attempts counted only if the word students produced contained a cluster.

• Oral segment distinction (vowels)• Using pictures, students prompted to say 14 words

containing monopthongs (especially lax vowels) and diphthongs, e.g. metro, chicken, cat, smile.

Correlations between consonant production and other measures

Phoneme awareness 2 T2

Consonant production T1 0.028

Consonant production T1

Consonant production T2 0.011

Site 1

Site 2

Rhyme awareness T2

Rhyme awareness T1

Onset awareness T2

Consonant production T1 .000 .000 .000

All measures correlate positively; those in red correlate negatively.

Testing syllable awareness

Syllable counting Familiar words

pencil, Manchester, Victoria, supermarket, paracetemol

Unfamiliar words agility, nomenclature, derelict, abyss,

periodical

Testing reading skills

Single word attack: reading familiar words in isolation mobile phone, supermarket, teacher, station,

community, medicine, floor, table, wedding, breakfast

ESL words (phonic in tables below): reading orally familiar mono- and disyllabic words from the ESL programs’ literacy-level syllabus 59 monosyllabic words: verbs (crash, sit), nouns (man,

leg), adjectives (red, sick), function words (not, this, can) Four disyllabic words: garden, flower, market, today

Correlations between syllable awareness and other measures

Phonic reading T1Single word attack T2

Rhyme awareness T1

Syllable counting T2 0.02 0.015 0.044

Site 1

Site 2

Phoneme awareness 2 T2

Single word attack T1 Phonic reading T1

Syllable counting T1 0.033 .000 0.015

Phoneme awareness2 T1 Alphabet T1Syllable counting T2 .000 .000

All measures are positively correlated except when red

Correlations between rhyme awareness and other measures

Phonic reading T2

Rhyme awareness T2 0.002

Site 1

Site 2

Single word attack T2

Rhyme awareness T1 0.016

Onset awareness T2

Rhyme awareness T1 .000

Rhyme awareness T1

Onset awareness T2

Rhyme awareness T2 .000 .000

All measures are positively correlated except when red

Correlations between onset awareness and other measures

Alphabet T1Single word attack T1

Onset awareness T1 0.049 0.000

Site 1

Site 2

Sign recognition T1Onset awareness T1 .000

Correlations between phoneme awareness and other measures

Phoneme awareness 3 T1

Sign recognition T1 Alphabet T1

Phoneme awareness 1 T1 0.015 0.01 0.023

Phoneme awareness 2 T2Phoneme awareness 1 T2 0.033

Sign recognition T1Phoneme awareness 3 T1 0.015

Correlations between single word attack and other measures

Phonic reading T1

Single word attack T2 0.004

Alphabet T1Single word attack T1 0.049

Phonic reading T1Single word attack T1 0.015

Site 1

Site 2

Correlations found only in site 2

Segment distinction T1

Syllable counting T2

Phoneme awareness2 T1

Alphabet T1

Segment distinction T2 .000 .000 .000 .000

Syllable counting T2

Phoneme awareness2 T1 Alphabet T1

Segment distinction T1 .000 .000 .000

Phonic reading T2Sign recognition T2 0.033

All measures are positively correlated except when red

Summary

We found correlations similar to those found in the studies of children and other studies of LESLLA between what students are being taught (ESL words; the alphabet) actual word attack skills phonological awareness environmental print (sign recognition) aspects of linguistic competence

complex onsets/consonant clusters segments (vowels) vocabulary

Future directions

Why are truly successful L2 readers who started fully non-iterate so rare? (Kurvers & van de Craats 2008); consider Seattle Sharif’s exposure to English. He must’ve learned English outside the classroom, in the two

years he’d been in the US before starting ESL. We know high levels of oral proficiency are possible for

naturalistic adults (e.g. Jose in Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1996)

Had Sharif got the 9,000 hours’ exposure children get by age five? (see e.g. Piske & Young-Scholten 2009)

Did he start reading for pleasure soon after he was able to decode? (see e.g. Rodrigo et al. 2007)

Future directions We are finishing the analysis of the current, longitudinal data. We are testing (cross-sectionally only) more 0-shooled adults, adding

NL phonological awareness tasks (labour-intensive, for up to 8 NLs). Remember that 1-10% of all children (depending on language and

script) fail to master reading; we wonder whether There are common reasons why these children and first-time L2

readers experience insurmountable difficulties with reading. LESLLA researchers can pursue this by working with

psycholinguists studying such bilingual children. To address the exposure issue, we are working with creative writers

on fiction for Newcastle LESLLA adults’ pleasure reading.

References Alderson, C. (2000) Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernhardt, E. B. and M. L. Kamil. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading:

consolidating the linguistic threshold level and the interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics. 16:15-34.

Bryant, P. E. & L. Bradley (1983). Psychological strategies and the development of reading and writing. In M. Martlew (ed.) The Psychology of Written Language. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 163-178.

Burt, L., A. Holm & B. Dodd (1999). Phonological awareness skills of 4-year-old British children: an assessment and developmental data. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders.

Dunn, L. M., L. M. Dunn, C. Whetton & J. Burley. (2007) British Picture Vocabulary Scale II. London: National

Foundation for Educational Research. Goswami, U. & P. E. Bryant (1990). Phonological Skills and Learning to Read. Hove: Psychology Press. Karmiloff-Smith, A., J. Grant, K. Sims, M-C. Jones and P. Cuckle. (1996). Rethinking metalinguistic awareness

and accessing knowledge about what counts as a word. Cognition 58:197-219. Meara, P. (1992). EFL Vocabulary Tests. University of Swansea, Centre for Applied Language Studies. Morais, J., L. Cary, J. Alegria & P. Bertelson. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise

spontaneously? Cognition 7:323-331.

Morais, J., J. Alegria and A. Content. (1987). The relationship between segmental analysis and alphabetic literacy. An interactive view. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 7:415-438.

Morais, J. , A. Content, P. Bertelson, L. Cary and R. Kolinsky. (1988). Is there a critical period for the acquisition of segmental analysis? Cognitive Neuropsychology. 5:347-352.

Muter, V. , C. Hulme, M. Snowling and S. Taylor. (1998). Segmentation, not rhyming predicts early progress in learning to read. Journal of Experhymental Child Psychology 71:3-27.

Piske, T. and M. Young-Scholten. (2009). Input Matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Read, C., Y. Zhang, H. Nie and B. Ding. (1986). The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on

knowing alphabetic spelling. Cognition 24:31-44. Rodrigo, V., D. Greenberg, V. Burke, R. Hall, A. Berry, T. Brinck, H. Joseph and M. Oby. (2007).

Implementing an extensive reading program and library for adult literacy learners. Reading in a Foreign Language 19:106-119.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1996 The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research. 12: 140-176.

*We are grateful to the British Academy for supporting this study (SG34193).