The Linguist - language learning should be fun

Literacy and the ability to make sense with words.

Literacy means, to me, the ability to read and write. The most literate people are those who use the language well. Somewhere between 10 and 40% (depending on definition) struggle to read and write well.

Literacy skills are very closely related to professional success in a society. Some people cannot decode letters either because they did not learn to do so at school or because they have a learning disability. This is the minority. Most poor readers simply do not read enough.

We know from cognitive science research that the brain learns from experience and example. For most people with poor literacy skills, simply reading more is the best way to improve reading skills. Mostly this requires the motivation of the person involved.

We know from experience that it is easier to read content that is of interest and where the context is familiar. We also know that we can read words that are totally misspelled and jumbled if we have heard these words before, know them, and are familiar with the context. Research has shown that there is a close connection between listening and reading. From an evolutionary perspective, our brains have been listening a lot longer than they have been reading.

So, it seems to me, for the vast majority of people with literacy problems, making available a large library of reading material for the learner to choose from, and making audio files of that material available, will be an inexpensive way to improve literacy skills. Some efficient way to look up new words, and to keep track of them, would also help. Dare I mention LingQ?

Most language skills are acquired independently of teachers. However, many teachers would prefer to be in charge of language learning. Here is part of a discussion of literacy amongst teachers, and a link to a paper on literacy education called Postpositivist Scientific Philosophy:  Mediating Convergences, for those who are interested.

------------------------------

Perhaps Sally’s work on Kegan’s ideas, George’s work based on Popper’s
ideas, and David’s interest in technology will provide solid evidence-based
approaches to adult literacy education in the future. If there already are
such studies available I would be interested to learn about them. Perhaps
references could be posted on the discussion list from which we all could
learn.
 

Hi Tom,

In my paper on postpositivism, I linked Popper's concept of "verisimilitude," approximation to the truth (and he uses the lower case t word) to recent work on balanced reading theory.  Clearly in that paper I did not provide an evidence based research report in that the paper is intentionally theoretical in design.  However, toward the end of the paper I laid out a 19 point hypothesis, which could serve as a basis for a more grounded book-length research study, linked in turn to an examination of the underlying precepts of the recent research on balanced or integrated reading theory.  The 19 thesis statements are grounded in the following four categories

 

1.      Literacy facilitates knowledge acquisition in the grappling with and mastery of print-based texts.

2.      Literacy is enhanced to the extent to which individuals gain the capacity to read and write print-based texts.

Growth in literacy is experienced to the extent to which readers progressively comprehend and draw meaning from texts and appropriate them into their lives.

4.      Literacy has a technological component in the mastery of reading, writing and the comprehension of texts and a metaphorical dimension that resides in transactions between the reader and the text in which meaning making and significance lies beyond the text into that of appropriation, however variously that may be defined.

 

These are further detailed here.  For the purposes of further reflection on the earlier note on Popper on the centrality of theory as a basis for grounding instruction, these hypothesis emerged in my mind as a result of grappling with theory.  While they certainly exist independently of any theoretical postulations in my mind, they were stimulated  in the very process of grappling with theory based in part on the following paragraph:

 

Whether learning to read or learning to learn is, or should be the central focus of adult literacy education, is a matter of some dispute, which has not been resolved within the literature of the field.  There is substantial middle ground within these perspectives via the medium of balanced reading theory and a context-derived educational program that focuses on employment, family education, civic literacy, and lifelong learning (Stein, 2000).  Nonetheless, tensions between the operative assumptions of the New Literacy Studies and advocates of phonemic-driven approaches to reading are particularly sharp in their articulation of competing definitions of literacy.  In moving toward a dialectical resolution that incorporates balanced reading theory within a context-based adult literacy framework, my working hypothesis, much clarification is required.

etc . etc.

Learning to read better. Is there a difference between native and non-native speakers?

To me the best way to learn to read better is to read more. Listening to what you are going to read can help. An efficient method for learning vocabulary can help. But mostly learners need to read more, whether native speakers or not. I really do not see much of a difference in terms of what needs to be done. Just read more!!! But this is not a majority view among teachers. Here is an exchange from the teachers forum where I sometimes comment just to annoy the others. My comments in italics.

............................

from a teacher:

I rarely teach ESL reading literacy (RL) because of my students needing (and wanting) to learn how to decode words. Most often, three learning goals pertain in developing L2 RL: actually learning to hear and produce phonemes that do not exist in their L1;  2) encoding many unfamiliar words in their L2 and sometimes L1, too; and 3) learning the Latin alphabet along with the highly complex English spelling system.  

These three goals, particularly the first two, are, in my limited experience in these settings, what mainly and very importantly, distinguish L1 from L2 adult RL development.

That said, I am currently working with two Cambodian students one-on-one, both with "solid elementary" non-academic Khmer RL. One decodes "quite well" but still struggles with reading comprehension; she understands  much better when I read to her due to her advanced aural comprehension skills. She is now attending Maui CC remedial classes not designed with ESL learners in mind while I help her fill the "gaps."   The other repeatedly attends "beginning" adult ed. ESL classes, follows the oral interactions well, but is helpless when it comes to working with the textbook being used in class and for homework. She and I are currently working with Joan Knights' "Starting Over" literacy program and children's books designed for K-1. I will also develop .ppt slides thanks to initially Hugo's input.

I believe that the affective realm within which we interact is a very positive one. Our relationships are close, we know quite a bit about our respective personal histories (both the good and not so good), and both students are well aware of their learning needs and accept them without any overt resultant signs of self-degradation. We all look forward to our sessions.

The two Cambodian students  would have quite possibly been labeled as LD or placed into special ed. had they been schooled in the U.S. as children.  The more advanced of the two has developed a far greater capacity to focus in a sustained manner,  and my sense is that her remarkably heightened intrinsic interest over time in the subject areas we are working on (language arts, U.S. and Cambodian current affairs,  and math) has gotten the better of what some "experts" might have labeled as ADD, perhaps even ADHD.  The other student is very even-keeled.

I would be very interested in your experiences, including your teaching approaches and materials you work with, specifically with adult ESL students who arrived here as young adults or later and whose RL is very limited at best and who present you with persistent, even seemingly obstinate, pedagogic challenges.

My response:

My experience is that the fastest track to success is to provide the learner with a large selection of material which consists of audio and text. This material should be not too difficult for the learner. The learner can listen before reading, while reading and even after reading and then listen and read again, and again. The learner must be able to choose content of interest to the learner. This cycle will take care of all three goals, unless the learner has a reading disability of some kind.

This is my experience and is in line with the view of Stephen Krashen Does Intensive Decoding Instruction Contribute to Reading Comprehension?. The only difference is that Krashen often overlooks the importance of listening as a part of learning to read.

Teacher's response:

My point was to highlight what I regard to be key differences between L1 & L2 RL development: in the case of L2, AURAL phonemic productive and receptive discrimination; the need to ENcode many everyday words that are not known, in contrast to L1 speakers;   to a lesser degree, learning the Latin alphabet for learners who know another writing system or none at all.

I often have my more  literate students (GLE 3+) listen to audio books prior to reading them. The need to tap into their sphere of interest is most important, as you indicate.

Another teacher:

I think you’re right about these key differences. Have you read the CAELA Network article “How Should Adult ESL Reading Instruction Differ from ABE Reading Instruction?”? It highlights some of these differences and cites some of the research done on this topic. http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/briefs/readingdif.html

Krashen revisited: Reading and Listening.

Here is the podcast: Download Krashen again

Stephen Krashen is controversial. I do not agree with all of what he says. But there is a lot of common sense there, backed up with research. This list of comments about reading is worth looking at. Here he talks about the connection between reading and spelling. Here are some studies that talk about the importance of listening. Here is a discussion about to "teach" listening skills.

I believe that we waste a fortune in training teachers in various skills related to teaching reading, listening, spelling etc,. We should be looking at how to enable learners to spend more time reading and listening to things that they find interesting. As Manfred Spitzer said in his book, the brain is a remarkable learning machine, much better at forming its own rules and recognizing patterns, than absorbing theoretical explanations. Reading and listening should be fun. If we like it we will do it.

Language learning, literacy, advocacy, job protection and what works.

I believe that language learning and literacy learning are closely related. I am sure that I will get criticism over the following but I welcome it. I want to learn.

Here is the podcast

" In the USA at least 30 million, and arguably 93 million, adults would benefit from
additional literacy instruction, and that the system today can only serve
approximately 3 million adults through combined federal, state, and
philanthropic funding.”  according to ProLiteracy, a major US organization devoted to improving literacy.

Their website sets the tone. "We need more funding" " Poor literacy costs the economy money" "Literacy education goes hand in hand with social change" and other slogans and exhortations. It appears there are many organizations committed to literacy learning, and they attract a lot of funding. "Advocacy" would appear to be one of their main activities. (See also the website of the National Coalition for Literacy.)

93 million people out of 300 some odd million or so Americans would benefit from literacy instruction. Wow! You cannot accommodate these people in class rooms. That has to be close to half of all adults in the US!

I suspect that most "literacy programs" do not have much of an impact. Based on my experience with language learning I suspect that literacy teaching is no more effective than language teaching.

I am convinced that LingQ would help, at very little cost. I have not been successful in interesting anyone in the literacy establishment because they are more motivated by advocacy than in finding solutions that can be more effective and less costly. I have asked them to look at LingQ to see if it could be adapted to the needs of the literacy campaign. I have told them that it could be used free of charge. I have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not interested because I am "for profit" and/or because I do not have the requisite academic credentials.

Critical thinking and social change and literacy a video

Literacy, critical thinking and social change: I came back from a walk on this sunny Sunday and decided to talk about the subject of my last few posts.

More on language, literacy and social change

I am amazed by the wordiness and deliberate obtuseness of what these language instructors have to say, and their effort to make literacy instruction yet another example power in society being used to oppress whatever they want to define as a victim group. The last poster referred to the "irrefutable" arguments of some academic arguing that literacy is somehow subjective and only to be viewed as part of  a power relationship, or something. These people do not seem view their actions as an abuse of power as they try to  impose an ideology on people who really just want to learn a language, or how to read. This is where our tax-money or contributions to fighting literacy end up.

Here is what I said and some comments from this discussion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If critical thinking means anything it means not accepting arguments or dogma as irrefutable. To me literacy, the ability to read, is not a primarily a technology nor an ideological tool. It is a skill that all of us are capable of developing. Reading means to access another language, one that is written in code, as opposed to being only available via sound.

Literacy can be used to promote ideologies, but then so can the spoken word.  Obviously many, if not most of the participants here, would like to use literacy to bring about a certain kind of social change. Obviously missionaries use literacy education in the same way, as a means of promoting their religion.

This all works, because most people see the ability to read, for themselves and their children, as inherently important, something that expands their horizon, and yes, increases their power, regardless of the kind of society they live in. This desire is so universal that it cannot just be heaped on to the pile of all the bad things that many would like to ascribe to modern "western" society.

Barack Obama is powerful. If he could not read well, very well, he would not be where he is. He would not be powerful. Not everyone can be Barack Obama, but everyone can aspire to.

The choice of what to do with literacy should be left to the learner, not the teacher. The discourse I hear at this discussion suggests that literacy is not a neutral skill to be taught, but a trojan horse for a more far reaching social agenda. I, for one, am totally opposed to this idea and as a tax-payer would not support literacy initiatives that are imbued with this ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here was a response.

I guess you left out the real big part of learning to read. The skill is not complete without understanding what you have read and internalizing the text. Here is where critical thinking comes on to the stage!!!
As beginners, I guess surface-meanings of text can only open (or allow you gain access) at a very limited level and what happens to the deeper meanings wherein lies the epiphany?

The issue of social change and its definition is because we now use it in its shorter form. Socialized change carries the weight of the intended meaning. Change that is collectively agreed and executed by majority of those in any community is what I think most of us have in mind.
The change leads to transformation and a desire for more changes. Socialized changes are implicitly cultural and political. Once a people can move from 'how life is' to 'how life ought to be'...then change is inevitable considering that all things are equal. There are times when changes (or what a social change agent) may term progress is not beneficial to the community. If you do not mind let me detain you with a very practical example narrated to me by Dr. David Atte. He told us of an Agricultural community that accepted a new hybrid crop which was high yielding. The got more money but the crop did not have the characteristics that met their taste. They said they had full pockets but empty stomachs. Who can guess what the farmers did to the new crop?
What lessons can we draw from changes that look like what the people wanted? Is there a need for social impact analysis? Is literacy always desirable? What do a people lose in terms of memory once they learn to read, write, and forget?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

and my response

I feel that it is the right and privilege of readers to misinterpret, partly understand or interpret in their own way, what they read. I see any effort of the teacher to impose a certain "correct" internalization of the text, analysis or other elements of "critical thinking" as a possible disturbance of the pleasures of discovery through reading. The definition of what is a superficial or deeper meaning is subjective.

Nor is it necessarily the case that a literate person will better understand the advantages of crop choices than an illiterate person, to use this example, nor is it even likely that the literacy instructor would be a more authoritative resource in this regard than the farmer.

Language, literacy and social change

Teachers and professors involved in language and literacy teaching often find the task of helping students to learn language skills is less worthy of their talents than challenging certain mainstream social values. I once joined an association called the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association and was all set to attend a conference to meet people interested in language instruction. When I saw the agenda, I realized that they were much more interested in talking about gender, race and power issues that they had "uncovered" in well-known or obscure works of literature. I did not go to the conference.

When I visit universities I find that language instruction is relegated to a minor position, and most of the faculty in the "modern language" department are churning out learned papers on "gender, race and power" in early Macedonian folk literature or the like.

It is no  different in the field of literacy it would appear. If you have the patience you can read through some examples of a  discussion on literacy an social change. My comments are the ones in italics. The others come from various literacy instructors.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I believe that social change will continue to be hindered until society as
a whole begins to recognize, value, and celebrate marginalized literacies &
practices.  I see part of my job as an instructor to make cracks in that
which we "know" to be "Literacy".  To keep an open mind and to encourage
students to see the significance of their primary discourses.  Just my 2
cents.

I do not understand.

Here's how I see it.  Any notion of "L" (capital L) Literacy is a social
construct, invariably tied to structures of power and inherently political.
I choose to believe that there are many literacies tied to social/cultural
transactional practices. Yet only certain ones are deemed valuable enough to
be taught/reproduced in formal educational sites--typically those that
mirror the language-use norms of historically elite populations.  As Freire
noted, "reading the word is not preceded merely by reading the world, but by
a certain form of writing it or rewriting it, that is, of transforming it by
means of conscious, practical work."  I am suggesting that social change
might be realized when we allow traditional notions of literacy to be
reconceived on the terms of those who are (sometimes mistakenly) deemed to
be without it.

Are you saying that people who have trouble reading books, and who want to learn how to read books, should be told not to bother because reading books is tied to power structures in society?

Are you saying that since literacy means power in our society, the solution for a person with low literacy skills in the traditional sense is not to learn to read, but rather to wait until some other skill that he or she possesses will be recognized as being just as powerful as the ability to read.

I still do not understand what you are proposing.

I am by no means implying that we should discourage students from learning
to read books or that we should adopt an attitude of "sit around and wait
for the revolution." I understand fully the reality that that would be
doing our students a huge disservice considering the dominant beliefs about
what counts as Literacy, its subsequent commoditization, and the
economic/social consequences for those lacking traditional reading and
writing skills. I believe in my original post I talked about "making
cracks" in the master myths concerning what types of language practices are
valuable. I also noted the importance of honoring students' primary
discourses, recognizing as Gee (1996) does that the "acquisition of
mainstream Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active
complicity with values that conflict with one's home- and community-based
Discourses, especially for many women and minorities." So I guess I am
proposing that social change may, on some level, be related to our ability
to recognize, cultivate, and celebrate the language skills that students
bring with them to the educational arena even as they are apprenticed into
new social practices. I assert that we should continuously questions our
values as they pertain to the types of literacy acts that are worthy of
mastery. Social change is dependent, in my mind, on new actors forging new
paths. When there is no longer the notion of "our" skills and "their"
skills or, perhaps more accurately, "our" skills and "their" lack of skills,
but we can recognize that all adults coming to the table possess useful
literacy practices and that its largely historical circumstance that some
are esteemed above others, then have we realized some headway.

This is a good definition of literacy, defined metaphorically by Freire as reading ther word in order to read the world--even as the interaction between the two goes in both directions simultaneously.

 

A critical issue has to do with reading the political cultures, including the politicization, of students that give shape to the formation of adult literacy programs and agencies, and the ranges of potentiality in working through the dynamics of critical adaptation (accepting the broad paradigms as broadly normative, but with the potentiality of substantial change within them (e.g. Obama) and radical change as implicit in the rhetoric (I'm using this term descriptively in the classical Greek sense rather than pejoratively) of your post which reflects the language of radical pedagogy.

 

These are important issues; that of trying to get at the range of viable change within the context in and around the periphery of normative adult literacy programs within the United States, though regardless as to how this gets cut we are speaking here of the relationship between pedagogy and politics all the way down as your post underscores.

 

Part of the issue, too, is the balancing of a broad stream of pragmatic (I'm using the term philosophically, referring to W. James, J. Dewey and others) strategies and approaches to social change and the role of idealism and utopian hope (reflective too in some ways in Obama, who is an interesting mixture of the pragmatic and the ideal) within the context of our programs and the cultural imagination which sparks them.

 

As your post implies, this is no "mere" academic point, which to label it as such, is a form of marginalization in its own right.

The argument is a little more sophisticated than that. Brian Street has argued quite eloquently and almost irrefutably that literacy is not a neutral technology that transfers between context, but rather an ideological tool tied to various aspects of social structures. As such, literacy can be used to oppressed and to liberate. In the 60s, the UNESCO started to promote literacy in undeveloped countries of the southern hemisphere with the idea that modernization could not be introduced without literacy. Freire argued that such argument implied that to sell TVs and refrigerators to the natives they had to first teach them to read and understand advertisements. He felt that literacy had to be used not to introduce capitalism but to understand the economic implications of capitalism. We all know now that the introduction of literacy in pre-literate societies have devastated them economically, socially and culturally and literacy was never introduced w/o ideology. In most of the world it was introduced at the service of religion to “civilized the savages and get them to accept progress.” That has always been tied to the creation of artificial borders where there were non, the division of land into private property of corporations for the extraction of something such as coffee, chocolate, steel, copper, diamonds or whatever else by the natives in inhuman conditions. It also resulted in the introduction of disease, drugs, alcohol and weapons of mass destruction and tribal conflicts where there were non.

 

While I do not advocate illiteracy I advocate for a type literacy that helps people to question, to think critically, historically, contextually and a literacy that promotes care and respect for other human beings as brothers and sisters. Any attempt to teach literacy as a neutral instrument is essentially advocating the status quo. If you agree with it, then you are promoting that ideology. In preliterate societies where people are living without the introduction of industrialism, religion or other Eurocentric values, we should leave them be.

Audio books can improve literacy

Il Narratore is a wonderful source of Italian audio books. It is headquartered in Zovencedo, a quaint village on the hillside, overlooking Vicenza. Maurizio Fulghera is the voice of Il Narratore and is passionate about Italian literature and the many ways in which audio can be used for enjoyment and for learning. I spent Saturday with the Il Narratore family, Maurizio, Cristiana, Emma and Sol.

Maurizio, Cristiana and I share many views on the power of audio books, and their use in the cause of raising literacy levels.

Here is our discussion about audio books.

To improve literacy skills, first improve listening skills

"Listening has been identified as a critical work-related skill but it has

been almost totally ignored in national assessments of adult literacy. 2008
is the 100th anniversary of E. B. Huey's 1908 classic book, "The Psychology
and Pedagogy of Reading" in which he stated that, "The child comes to his
first reader with his habits of spoken language fairly well formed, and
these habits grow more deeply set with every year. His meanings inhere in
this spoken language and belong but secondarily to the printed symbols...."

It seems incredible that such an obvious truth, and one that was described 100 years ago, has been neglected in the fight to improve literacy. The less well I read a language, the more I vocalize when reading. Listening, or hearing, or auding as you put it, is the foundation for learning to read, whether for our first language, or for subsequent languages. The power of the MP3 player makes auding easier to do than ever.

Here in Canada there is much public posturing about fighting literacy. There are spelling bees, and  book reading promotions. Much money is raised by well intentioned people. The results are disappointing.

I believe that far more could be achieved if there were one website with a vast collection of sound files and transcripts, of all kinds. These should consists of ordinary conversations between people of different ages and interests,radio programs, songs, articles on different subjects, including civics, and even university courses. The download of the sound files and text files should be free and their distribution unrestricted. The site should be the subject of a massive promotion campaign. Friendships and mentoring relationships could be built up via such a site.

I often hear that the adult ESL learner or person with low literacy cannot afford a computer or MP3 player. I do not believe this is a real obstacle. There are libraries, schools, and other places to access computers. An MP3 player is not expensive. It is simply a matter of getting people to realize that they need to listen in order to read, and after listening they need to read.

Critical thinking and ESL - my perspective

Here is some of what I had to say in this exchange.

................................................................

Unfortunately, the recent trend in educational circles seems to favour "dialoguing", whereby we pretend to agree with whatever is said, and look for points that we have in common, and should avoid trying to persuade anyone of one's point of view. This leads to a sterile discussion. It only works if everyone actually does agree, or if contrary views can be suppressed..”To continue on dialogue, I do not like utopias. I do not like attempts to make people better than they are. I have seen the results in the previous century, whether under Hitler, Stalin or Mao. I prefer to let people just behave they way are inclined to do. We are inclined to have biases. We are inclined to defend these biases. We are not easily persuaded by logic that our biases are not justified. And what is more we enjoy finding arguments that support our biases. We are annoyed by well argued counter arguments to our biases.

I do not like being in discussions where I am told how to express my views.

I do not think it is helpful to ESL learners to suggest that there are some superior ways of thinking and arguing their points. My approach to language learners is: Let them learn by enjoying the language however they can. Let them learn words. Let them discover the language. Let them speak when they want, however they want. Do not guide them to some superior way of expressing themselves. They will figure it our for themselves.

If they are academic learners, by all means make them aware of some established ways of organizing their thoughts. Let them know that in theory, arguments need to be backed up with observations or references, that both sides of the arguments should be evaluated, even though these rules are regularly ignored by many activist academics. But let them keep their passions and biases. They will anyway. And so will most people, and an atmosphere which allows that is important to our freedom of expression.

Everyone has a bias. It is not possible to not have a bias. When Bonnie says

"they could study their own lives, the media and consumerism that surrounds them, and not believe that just because something is in print (or on the Internet) makes it so. If they see their peers becoming victimized by such manipulation, like the advertisements of a certain phonics system on Hispanic tv, they will take action."

she is expressing her biases:that the students cannot judge things by themselves, that consumerism (however defined) is bad (compared to what alternative), that the phonics system advertized on Hispanic TV is bad or their ads misleading.

I prefer the wisdom of Nancie Atwell in The Reading Zone, or the wisdom of Brazilian educator Rubem Alves, who said that nothing destroys the pleasure of reading as much as questions from the teacher about interpretations, strategies or analysis.

The definitions of critical thinking offered here and repeated below confirm to me that this all about teachers imposing their agenda and their values on students who really only want to improve their language skills. To me it is out of place.