1

IMPROVING LITERACY OF L1-NON-LITERATE AND L1-LITERATE ADULT ENGLISH

AS A SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Julie Trupke-Bastidas
Andrea Poulos
ABSTRACT
This research focuses on effective practices for teaching reading to both adult English as a
Second Language (ESL) learners acuiring literac! for the first ti"e in English and learners
#ho are alread! literate in their first language$ This stud! e%a"ines if learners& phone"ic
a#areness and decoding are i"proved #hen using a #hole-part-#hole instructional "ethod
that co"bines a focus on higher and lo#er-level skills$ Participants include nine fe"ales
fro" East Africa' five non-literate (L(-non-literate) and four literate (L(-literate) in their first
language$ Participants #ere given pre and posttests of phone"ic a#areness and decoding
and then #hole-part-#hole reading instruction for () #eeks$ This intervention i"pacted L(-
non-literate participants the "ost$ Those learners #ho scored the lo#est on pretests sho#ed
the "ost gains on the posttest$
INTRODUCTION
*aced #ith the task of designing instruction for a class #ith learners not literate in an!
language and learners #ith literac! in another language+ practitioners "a! ask' ,o# can -
"eet the needs of both learners. This stud! e%a"ines if learners& phone"ic a#areness and
decoding skills/several of the co"ponent skills essential for reading+ and potentiall! skills
helpful to learners of var!ing literac! levels /are i"proved #hen using a #hole-part-#hole
instructional "ethod$ This "ethod co"bines higher-level and lo#er-level skills b! teaching
#hole #ords in a conte%t+ then e%a"ining particular #ords to practice a letter-sound or
phone"ic a#areness skill+ and then reading the #hole #ords again later in a sentence or
stor! conte%t$
LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand the basis for using a #hole-part-#hole instructional "ethod+ #e first e%a"ine
second language (L0) research on the co"ponents of reading
(
$ 1esearchers have long held
that reading is an interactive process involving different co"ponents (Ada"s+ (22))$ 3rabe
((22(+ p$ 454) states that 6reading involves both an arra! of lo#er-level rapid+ auto"atic
identification skills and an arra! of higher-level co"prehension7interpretation skills$8
1esearch has sho#n that readers have li"ited cognitive capacities available for use #hile
reading+ and having an efficient lo#er-level s!ste" allo#s readers to focus their li"ited
capacit! on co"prehending te%t (Perfetti 9 Lesgold+ (2::; Stanovich+ (22()$ Thus+
developing auto"atic #ord recognition skills is i"portant for L0 readers to be able to
co"prehend te%t (Bernhardt+ (22(; Eske! 9 3rabe+ (255; 3eva 9 1!an+ (224; <cLaughlin+
(22); <cLeod 9 <cLaughlin+ (25=; Segalo#it>+ Poulson+ 9 ?o"oda+ (22()$
@ord recognition consists of three co"ponent processes' orthographic+ phonologic+ and
se"antic$ Orthographic is being able to visuall! anal!>e the co"position of #ords including
letter processing and "e"or! (3reenberg+ Ehri+ 9 Perin+ (22:)$ Phonologic involves
recogni>ing the phone"es (individual sounds) in a #ord (3reenberg et al$+ (22:)$ Semantic
is recogni>ing the "eaning$ The interaction bet#een orthographic and phonologic processing
is often described as decoding+ #hich is one co"ponent e%a"ined in this stud!$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
2
L0 studies de"onstrate the i"portance of #ord recognition skills in reading (Baker+
Toregeson+ 9 @agner+ (220; <cLeod 9 <cLaughlin+ (25=)$ L0 studies also highlight that
learners& first language (L() "a! influence the speed and difficult! of acuisition of #ord
recognition skills in the L0 since there "a! be so"e transfer and interference fro" the L(
(Bro#n 9 ,a!nes+ (25A; Burt+ Pe!ton+ 9 Ada"s+ 0))4; ,a!nes 9 Barr+ (22); <orra!+ (250;
1!an 9 <eara+ (22()$ Also+ L0 studies point out that those #ith lo#er decoding have lo#er
reading levels (*avreau 9 Segalo#it>+ (250)$ Learners can build decoding skills through
practice but these skills "ight not transfer auto"aticall! fro" the L( to L0 (3a>iel+ Cbler+ 9
Albert+ (2:5; @alters 9 Datorre+ (2:5)$ Thus+ based on the L0 studies on lo#er-level skills+
one can conclude that orthograph! and phonolog! are ke! areas that "a! need
i"prove"ent for "ost beginning ESL readers literate in their native language (L(-literate)+
especiall! beginners+ #hile also needing a focus on higher-level skills$
The "aEorit! of L0 studies conducted thus far have been on highl! educated learners #ho
are highl! literate in the L( (Bigelo# 9 Tarone+ 0))F; Tarone 9 Bigelo#+ 0))A)$ 1esearch
has sho#n there is an advantage for overall acuisition of English for those learners #ho
have so"e level of literac! in their native language (Bigelo#+ Gel"as+ ,ansen+ 9 Tarone+
0))=)$ ,o#ever+ this stud! involves so"e participants #ho have not acuired literac! in an!
language and never previousl! received for"al education$ Therefore+ these learners are
acuiring literac! for the first ti"e in ESL classes$ The ne%t section defines literac! and
presents the additional skills learners #ho are beco"ing literate #ill need to acuire to
i"prove their reading in English$
Literac! has been defined as 6using printed and #ritten infor"ation to function in societ!+ to
achieve one&s goals+ and to develop one&s kno#ledge and potential8 (Perfetti 9 <arron+
(22A+ p$ ()$ *or non-literate learners in the L( (L(-non-literate)+ acuiring literac! in English
"eans learning the alphabetic principle (Perfetti 9 <arron+ (22A)+ that reading builds on
speech and that phone"es (sounds) are represented b! different letters$ Learners Eust
developing the alphabetic principle are starting to activate their orthographic and
phonological processing$ Thus+ learners need to develop phonological a#areness+ or 6the
abilit! to attend to the phonological or sound structure of language as distinct fro" its
"eaning8 (Benter for G!sle%ia+ 0))F+ p$ ()$ <an! L( studies have sho#n a strong
relationship bet#een phonological a#areness and learning to read (3rabe+ (22()$
Cne kind of phonological a#areness particularl! i"portant for e"erging readers is phone"ic
a#areness+ #hich refers to the 6abilit! to focus on and "anipulate phone"es in spoken
#ords8 (<cShane+ 0))A+ p$ 0)$ 6Phone"ic a#areness is usuall! learned through reading and
#riting an alphabetic language8 (Perfetti 9 <arron+ (22A+ p$ 44)$ Phone"ic a#areness is
i"portant for acuiring literac! and is i"proved through beco"ing "ore literate (Perfetti 9
<arron+ (22A)$ Studies on L(-non-literate adults have sho#n that the! have little or no
phone"ic a#areness skills and do not perfor" #ell on phone"ic a#areness tasks that
involve the "anipulation of phone"es in their native language (Bigelo# 9 Tarone+ 0))F;
?ruidenier+ 0))0)$
-n particular+ Houng-Scholten and Stro" (0))=) studied (: adult i""igrants and refugees&
English proficienc! and reading abilit!$ The! found levels of English instruction and native
language schooling #ere linked to English reading level$ Those less proficient in reading
English e%hibited less phone"ic a#areness in English than those "ore proficient in reading$
These less proficient adults sho#ed si"ilar results #ith children since the! had "ore s!llable
and onset7ri"e a#areness than phone"ic a#areness (Stro" 9 Houng-Scholten+ 0))F+ p()$
This stud! and others have sho#n that adults can learn to seg"ent speech in the L(; thus+
there is no critical period for acuiring this (<orais+ Bontent+ Bertelson+ Bar!+ 9 ?olinsk!+
(255)+ and instruction "a! i"prove adults& phone"ic a#areness (?ruidenier+ 0))0)$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
3
The 1eading 1esearch @orking 3roup (11@3) #as for"ed to revie# the research on
reading and provide suggestions for i"proving literac!$ The! reco""end an e%plicit focus
on phone"ic a#areness instruction for native speakers$ Specific suggestions include' (()
focus on one or t#o t!pes of phone"ic a#areness tasks at a ti"e; (0) focus on seg"enting
and blending+ #hich "a! be "ost useful to learners; and (4) use letters as #ell as sounds
for instruction (?ruidenier+ 0))0+ p$ A))$
-n addition to focusing on phone"ic a#areness+ L(-non-literate learners need to develop
decoding skills; that is+ kno#ledge of the letter-sound relationship (i$e$+ the relationship
bet#een orthograph! and phonolog!)$ To decode+ learners "ust be able to' () recogni>e
letters+ 0) identif! and produce the sounds represented b! the letters+ 4) blend the
individual sounds in seuence+ and finall! F) recogni>e the #ord$ As discussed earlier+ this
instruction "a! also be beneficial for beginning L(-literate ESL learners$ -nstruction to build
learners& kno#ledge of the letter-sound relationship is co""onl! referred to as phonics$
Based on their revie# of the literature+ the 11@3 reco""ends instruction in phonics for
native speakers$ The! state+ 6e%plicit+ s!ste"atic phonics instruction is "ost effective for
beginning readers8 (?ruidenier+ 0)))+ p$ F2)$ ,o#ever+ #hen appl!ing these
reco""endations to ESL learners acuiring literac! in English+ there are i"portant
differences to consider$ *irst+ Burt+ Pe!ton+ and Ian Gu>er (0))A+ p$ F) state that+
6Alphabetics Jphonics and phone"ic a#arenessK instruction #ith native English speakers
generall! assu"es high oral language skills and vocabular!$8 L( readers often kno# A+))) to
:+))) #ords before beginning for"al instruction in reading (3rabe+ (22(; Singer+ (25()$
Second+ beginning native English readers& oral skills are usuall! "uch higher than beginning
ESL readers so 6instructional strategies that rel! on oral co"prehension of vocabular! and
use of nonsense #ords to teach sound-s!"bol correspondence are not likel! to be
successful #ith English language learners8 (Burt et al$+ 0))A+ p$ ()$
@hile there are fe# studies on #hat specific phonics instruction #orks #ith L(-non-literate
ESL learners+ there is research on #hat general instruction #orks best #ith the" such as
having "aterials relevant to their dail! lives (Bondelli+ 0))0+ p$ ()$ ,ood ((22)+ p$ A2)
states+ 6*or beginning learners of English #ho are illiterate in L(+ the process needs to begin
#ith develop"ent of conte%t-e"bedded+ cognitivel! unde"anding language; that is+
language #hich is about ver! fa"iliar things and is closel! tied to actions and events$ Such
language can begin to be developed in both spoken and #ritten "odes$8 Thus+ nonsense
#ords or #ords about unfa"iliar things are unlikel! to be useful or effective #ords to focus
on #ith learners$
So"e researchers and practitioners reco""end teachers incorporate phonics b! co"bining
enabling skills (visual and auditor! discri"ination of letters+ sounds+ and #ords; blending
letters to sound out #ords; teaching sight vocabular!) #ith language e%perience and #hole
language approaches (Bell 9 Burnab! (25F; ,olt 9 3aer (224; Iinogradov+ 0))(; @rigle! 9
3uth+ (220)$ Perfetti and <arron ((22A+ p$ 00) state+ 6-nstruction in decoding not onl! can
be e"bedded in "eaningful tasks and "aterials+ it can also be done in a #hole language
classroo"$8 This is consistent #ith the research that identifies reading as a co"bination of
higher-level and lo#er-level skills$ Thus+ a co"bined approach "a! be useful for L(-literate
and L(-non-literate learners$ This "ethod of co"bining enabling skills (lo#er-level) #ith
#hole language activities (higher-level skills) is referred to in this stud! as whole-part-
whole reading instruction (adapted fro" <oustafa (n$d$) and Strickland ((225))$
There is a lack of data sho#ing if these "ethods do help beginning ESL learners i"prove
their lo#er-level skills$ This stud! seeks to contribute to research on using phone"ic
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
4
a#areness and phonics instruction #ith L(-literate and L(-non-literate learners$ Along #ith
several others not included in this article+ this stud! seeks to investigate the follo#ing
uestions'
1. How does the whole-part-whole reading instruction intervention over ten weeks
impact phonemic awareness, word list decoding, and story text decoding or learners
with and without !1 literacy"
#. $n which phonemic awareness skills %initial sound, same sound, rhyme, blending,
segmenting& and letter-sounds do the learners show the most gains ollowing ten
weeks o whole-part-whole instruction"
'. (hat )ualitative dierences exist between learners who improve most and least
overall ater using this instruction or ten weeks"
PARTICIPANTS
This research #as conducted in a beginning literac! ABE7ESL class in a "etro area learning
center$ The class "et for three hours+ four ti"es a #eek in the evening$ Participants in the
stud! included nine fe"ales (see Table () ranging fro" 04 to A0 !ears old$ All participants
#ere fro" East Africa$ The participants had a #ide range of previous educational e%perience
and literac! skills$
Table 1$ Participant Ge"ographic -nfor"ation and Educational Background
Participant
0
Bountr! Languages L(-Literac! Hrs$ Prev$ Ed$ Age
Sahra So"alia So"ali Lo ) 04
Iicki So"alia So"ali Lo ( (So"alia) A (MS) 0=
1ani Ethiopia
(Cro"o)
So"ali+ Cro"o+
A"haric
Lo ) 4(
Leli Ethiopia A"haric Lo ) F4
Ava So"alia So"ali Lo ) A(
3reta So"alia So"ali Hes 0 (So"alia) 0"o$
(MS)
F0
Susan So"alia So"ali Hes 5 (So"alia) A0
?elli So"alia So"ali Hes 5 (So"alia) FF
Ana So"alia So"ali Hes 2 (So"alia) 4:
METHODS
Data Collecto!
The data collection #as conducted in three phases' pretesting+ ten #eeks of instruction+ and
posttesting$ The pretest intervie# included de"ographic infor"ation and uestions about
the participant&s attitude to#ard reading+ freuenc! of reading outside of class+ and
"aterials read outside of class$ The posttest intervie# included the sa"e uestions and also
inuired about participantNs opinion of the reading instruction over the ten #eeks$
Participants #ere given three tests both as pretests and later+ as posttests$ The first
instru"ent #as a phone"ic a#areness test that included five separate co"ponents adapted
fro" *he +dult ,eading *oolkit - .dition / (LGA+ 0))A)$ These co"ponents included
identif!ing initial sound+ sa"e sound+ and rh!"ing #ords as #ell as blending and
seg"enting$ The second instru"ent #as a decoding #ord list test fro" Sylvia 0reene1s
$normal +ssessment !evel 1 (0))=)+ #hich provided diagnostic infor"ation about a
learnerNs #ord anal!sis abilit! that indicated the letter co"binations "astered$ The third
instru"ent #as a 2+3., ,eading and !anguage $nventory (Bader+ 0))A) stor! passage at
the participant&s reading level$ The level of reading passage #as deter"ined b! having
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
5
participants read a graded #ord lists$ The list the participant #as able to read #ithout
reading "ore than four #ords incorrectl! deter"ined the level of the passage the! read for
the test$ All testing #as conducted individuall! #ith each participant$ Present at each
session #as an interpreter #ho spoke the participants& native languages and English$ The
intervie# uestions and phone"ic a#areness test #ere responded to orall!$ All responses
#ere tape-recorded and anal!>ed follo#ing the ad"inistration of the test$
Cther data collected throughout the ten #eeks included observations of classroo" activities+
copies of student #ork+ and infor"al student feedback$ The researcher also kept a Eournal
#ith notes about the lessons+ in particular+ #hat #ent #ell and #hat "ight need to be
i"proved$ Additionall!+ attendance of the participants #as recorded$
I!"t#$cto!
The researcher e%a"ined the participants& pretests including #hat phone"ic a#areness
skills and letter-sound co"binations the "aEorit! needed to #ork on$ Based on these
findings+ the researcher incorporated #hole-part-#hole reading instruction in the class for
ten #eeks$ This reading instruction integrated #hole language "ethods that focus on
building higher-level skills #ith phone"ic a#areness and phonics instruction that focus on
building lo#er-level skills$ The lo#er-level skills #ere practiced using #ords learners focused
on in the #eek&s lessons+ alread! kne# fro" previous lessons+ or had in their vocabularies$
Bo"ponents of #hole-part-#hole reading instruction include'
($ A focus on parts of #ords after learners have learned the #ords or at least can
recogni>e the"$
0$ After the focus on the parts of #ords+ the #hole #ords are practiced again or
e%a"ined in a sentence or stor! conte%t$
4$ @ords for stud! are those fro" the the"atic unit or fro" a stor! that has been read
to the" or that the! have read in unison or on their o#n (adapted fro" Strickland+
(225; <oustafa+ n$d$)$
Each #eek&s lessons revolved around a life skills the"e such as shopping+ health+ and
e"plo!"ent$ @ithin these the"es+ the researcher chose several #ords that contained the
sound or phone"ic a#areness skill to practice along #ith one ri"e for the 6part8 portion of
the #hole-part-#hole instruction$ The specific phonics and phone"ic a#areness or 6part8
practice included the follo#ing co"ponents'
!etter-Sound +ctivity' *or about 4) to FA "inutes each #eek+ the researcher focused
on a particular sound in a #ord and used that as a transition into sho#ing other
e%a"ples of #ords learners "a! kno# that also have the sa"e sound$ The letter-
sound focus included short vo#els+ long vo#els+ digraphs (ch+ sh+ th+ ph)+ or
consonant blends (pl, cl, etc$)$ Activities to practice included a #ord dictation
follo#ed b! sentence #riting$
Phonemic +wareness' So"e #eeks for about ()-0) "inutes the researcher used
#ords in the the"atic conte%t of the #eek&s activities or a reading to focus on
phone"ic a#areness activities such as identif!ing phone"es+ rh!"es+ and blending$
Onset4,imes %(ord amilies&' Cnsets are the consonants in a s!llable prior to the
first vo#el and ri"es are the first vo#el and ever!thing after it in a s!llable$ *or
e%a"ple+ in the #ord play+ pl is the onset and ay is the ri"e$ Each #eek+ the
researcher revie#ed and7or presented ne# ri"es that appeared #ithin a stor! that
had been read to+ #ith+ and b! learners$ *or e%a"ple #ith the ri"e ay+ the instructor
#ould also have learners practice pay+ say+ day+ may+ etc$ The onset7ri"es #ere
presented and practiced using various activities$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
6
The co"plete #hole-part-#hole instruction included t#o co"ponents' about ($A-0 hours per
#eek of direct reading instruction (#hole) using #hole language "ethods and about ($A-0
hours per #eek of phonics and phone"ic a#areness activities (part)$ Cver the ten #eeks+
this #hole-part-#hole reading instruction consisted of a total of 4)-F) hours$ ,o#ever+ not
all participants attended all class sessions so the a"ount of instruction each participant
ended up receiving varied$
The participants& scores on all three assess"ents for both the pre and posttests #ere
calculated$ The #ord list decoding and stor! te%t tasks consisted of #ord reading+ so the
nu"ber of #ords read correctl! #as counted$ Since the nu"ber of #ords in the stor! te%t
varied based on the level of te%t+ the percentage of #ords read correctl! #as calculated to
enable a co"parison of participantsN scores$ The researcher used Eudg"ent in accepting
correct responses that #ere slightl! varied due to an accent$ Gata #ere e%a"ined to identif!
#ho #as "ost and least i"proved$ Oualitative data fro" the intervie#s #ere anal!>ed for
an! the"es$
RESULTS
Re"ea#c% &$e"to! O!e
*irst #e e%a"ine the results for the first research uestion' How does the whole-part-whole
reading instruction intervention over ten weeks impact phonemic awareness, word list
decoding, and story text decoding or learners with and without !1 literacy"
Phonemic +wareness
Eight of the total of nine participants increased their phone"ic a#areness on the posttest+
and one participant (?elli) scored the sa"e nu"ber of correct ans#ers$ -n particular+ those
#ho sho#ed the "ost i"prove"ent included one of the L(-non-literate learners (Leli)+ and
t#o L(-literate learners (Susan and Ana)$ Those #ho sho#ed "ediu" gains in phone"ic
a#areness included the re"aining four L(-non-literate participants (Sahra+ Iicki+ 1ani+ Ava)$
Those #ho sho#ed the lo#est gains in phone"ic a#areness #ere t#o L(-literate learners
(3reta and ?elli)$
The total nu"ber of correct responses #as 0A and the average increase in the nu"ber of
correct responses for all participants on phone"ic a#areness #as =$00 responses$ Cn the
phone"ic a#areness test+ L(-non-literate learners (Sahra-Leli in *igure () sho#ed
consistent gains+ #hereas the L(-literate learners varied "ore in their gains (3reta-Ana in
*igure ()$ ,o#ever+ since there #ere s"all nu"bers of learners+ these results can onl!
suggest there is a difference bet#een the t#o t!pes of learners and are not definitive$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
7
F'$#e 1( Lu"ber of Borrect 1esponses on Pre and Post Phone"ic A#areness b! Participant
Word List Decoding
All participants de"onstrated i"prove"ent on the posttest on S!lvia 3reene&s $normal
+ssessment o (ord !ist 3ecoding. Those #ho sho#ed the "ost i"prove"ent #ere t#o L(-
non-literate learners (1ani and Sahra) and one L(-literate learner (Ana)$ The nu"ber of
correct responses possible #as 45$ The "ean increase in the nu"ber of #ords read
correctl! for all participants #as()$::; all participants increased b! : #ords or "ore$
F'$#e )$ Lu"ber of Borrect 1esponses on Pre and Post @ord List Gecoding b! Participant
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
8
Story Text
Cn the 2ader ,eading and !anguage $nventory stor! te%t+ eight out of the nine participants
i"proved their scores$ The four learners (1ani+ Sahra+ Leli+ and Iicki) #ho sho#ed the "ost
i"prove"ent #ere all L(-non-literate learners$ The three participants #ith the least
i"prove"ent (Susan+ 3reta+ ?elli) #ere L(-literate$ Thus+ in stor! te%t reading+ there #as a
larger i"prove"ent b! those L(-non-literate participants over the L(-literate participants
(see *igure 4)$ ,o#ever+ the percent accurac! of stor! decoding of learners #ithout literac!
ranged fro" :5P to 24P+ #hile the percent accurac! of literate in L( participants ranged
fro" 2(P to 25P$
F'$#e *( Bo"parison of Pre and Post Stor! Te%t 1eading b! Participant
Overall Gains
To deter"ine #hich participants i"proved the "ost on all three tests co"bined+ an overall
ranking #as calculated to co"pare the participants$ The overall ranking #as calculated b!
su""ing the rank of each participant on each test (deter"ined in co"parison #ith the
other participants) and then ranking each participant&s su" total in co"parison #ith the
other participants$ *or e%a"ple+ 1ani had the seventh highest i"prove"ent on the
phone"ic a#areness test (rank of :)+ the highest i"prove"ent on the #ord list decoding
test (rank of ()+ and the highest i"prove"ent on the stor! te%t decoding (rank of ()$
Therefore+ her total rank (i$e$+ the su" of her ranking on all three tests) is 2$ Line is the
lo#est ranking of all participants (Leli and Sahra are ne%t #ith ()) and therefore+ she is
assigned an overall rank of ( (i$e$+ "ost i"proved on all three tests in co"parison to other
participants)$ Those #ho had the lo#est co"bined ranking (i$e$+ "ost i"proved) #ere 1ani+
Leli+ and Sahra (all L(-non-literate participants)$ Those #ith the rankings sho#ing lo#est
gains on all three tests consisted of Ava (L(-non-literate) and ?elli and 3reta (L(-literate
participants)$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
9
Re"ea#c% &$e"to!" T+o a!, T%#ee
1esearch Ouestion Q0' $n which phonemic awareness skills %initial sound, same sound,
rhyme, blending, segmenting& and letter-sounds do the learners show the most gains
ollowing ten weeks o whole-part-whole instruction" The three learners #ith the "ost gains
in phone"ic a#areness (Leli+ Susan+ and Ana) sho#ed the "aEorit! of these gains in initial
letter sound+ sa"e sound+ and blending sounds$ -dentif!ing rh!"ing #ords see"ed to be
"astered b! t#o of those learners (Leli and Ana) prior to the pretest$ Cn #ord list
decoding+ the learners that i"proved the "ost (1ani+ Sahra+ and Ana)+ overall sho#ed these
gains in decoding clusters and short vo#els$ These learners scored at high levels of
proficienc! in consonants (5)P correct responses or higher)$ This is consistent #ith the
results of all participants$ Additionall!+ the lack of i"prove"ent b! 1ani and Ana in long
vo#els #as also consistent #ith the other participants$
1esearch Ouestion Q4' (hat )ualitative dierences exist between learners who improve
most and least overall ater using this instruction or ten weeks" Those learners #ho sho#ed
the "ost overall gains #ere the follo#ing' Sahra+ 1ani+ and Leli$ These three learners all
had strong oral skills+ a #illingness to co""unicate #ith others+ and L(-non-literac!$ Those
learners #ho sho#ed the least i"prove"ent overall #ere' Ava+ 3reta+ and ?elli$ All three of
these learners did not have as strong oral skills and see"ed "ore reluctant to speak in
class$ Additionall!+ 3reta and ?elli shared literac! in their L(+ and high pretest scores on all
three tests$ These t#o appeared to grasp the concept of sounds and benefit fro" this
instruction in their #riting$ ,o#ever+ Ava did not have literac! in the L(+ but in contrast to
the other L(-non-literate learners+ #as freuentl! absent or co"plained of illness and
headaches during the class$ She often left during ti"e spent on phonics to pra! or
co"plained of headaches and tiredness$ She also #orked another Eob outside of class and
#as one of the oldest students$ @hile she had so"e letter-sound kno#ledge of consonants+
she often struggled #ith vo#el sounds$ She responded better to the instruction #hen it
focused on reading stories$
DISCUSSION
S$--a#. o/ F!,!'"
As outlined above+ the action research achieved so"e interesting outco"es'
The #hole-part-#hole reading intervention overall i"pacted L(-non-literate participants
"ore than L(-literate participants$ Those learners #ith the lo#est pretest scores on the
phone"ic a#areness and stor! te%t appeared to have the "ost i"prove"ent on the
posttest$
-n the area of phone"ic a#areness+ the learners #ho i"proved the "ost sho#ed the
"ost gains in identif!ing' a) initial sound of a #ord that #as spoken to the"+ b) sa"e
letter sound+ and c) a #ord b! blending individual sounds (e$g$+ that 7h7 R 7o#7 R 7s7 is
6house8)$
-n the area of decoding #ord lists+ the learners #ho i"proved the "ost sho#ed the "ost
gains in decoding' a) clusters and b) short vo#els$ These learners sho#ed the least
gains in decoding long vo#els$
The ualitative characteristics of "ost i"proved learners overall #ere strong oral skills+ a
#illingness to co""unicate #ith others+ and L(-non-literac!$ Those #ith the least overall
i"prove"ent had lo#er oral skills and see"ed "ore reluctant to speak in class$ (-n
addition+ t#o of these learners #ere alread! L(-literate and the tests used didn&t sho#
their gains #ell+ and the third #as often tired+ sick+ or absent$)
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
10
I!te#0#etato!
Based on the results of ho# the intervention affected the L(-non-literate and L(-literate
participants+ it see"s that #hole-part-#hole reading instruction is useful+ in particular+ for
the L(-non-literate learners$ This intervention appears to benefit L(-non-literate learners in
acuiring phone"ic a#areness+ decoding #ords+ and reading stories$ @ith a fe# e%ceptions+
this stud! also sho#s that the L(-non-literate participants "ostl! had lo#er perfor"ance on
the pretests than the L(-literate participants$ This is consistent #ith the literature that
de"onstrates a lo#er perfor"ance on decoding of adult learners #ho are not literate in an!
language$ The case can thus be "ade for the effectiveness of incorporating this t!pe of
content-based phonics7phone"ic a#areness activities into a beginning level ABE7ESL class$
The results also de"onstrate that L(-literate learners did not benefit as "uch fro" this
intervention in i"proving these skills$ This "a! i"pl! that for the L(-literate learners+ the
instruction #as not helpful in increasing phone"ic a#areness and decoding$ ,o#ever+ there
are a fe# other plausible e%planations for the lo#er gains$ *irst+ "an! of the L(-literate
learners scored high on the three pretests$ Therefore+ the! "a! not have been able to sho#
their progress because the! approached the li"it of scores on the pretest+ and the! did not
have as "uch roo" to i"prove on these assess"ents$ Cn the #ord list decoding pretest
#here 3reta and ?elli had lo#er scores (#ith 44P and A2P correct ans#ers respectivel!)+
the! sho#ed "ore i"prove"ent than on the other tests+ #ith gains of 0) and 0:P
respectivel!$ ,ence+ #hen these learners had "ore roo" to sho# i"prove"ent on the test+
the! did so$
Second+ L(-literate learners "a! not have benefited as "uch fro" this instruction for
i"prove"ent on these three tests as the L(-non-literate participants because in
co"parison+ their decoding #as strong in "ost areas$ @hile these learners still lacked so"e
skills in decoding vo#els+ digraphs+ and clusters/ke! differences fro" So"ali and English/
their skills #ere still stronger than "ost L(-non-literate learners$ This is consistent #ith
literature that sho#s learners "a! need so"e instruction in letter-sound kno#ledge+
especiall! #here there are differences in the L0 fro" the L(+ but L(-literate learners "a!
need less intervention or instruction than L(-non-literate learners$
@hile the results on these particular assess"ents sho# L(-literate learners "a! not have
benefited as "uch as L(-non-literates for reading+ interestingl! it is possible the! "a! have
benefited fro" this instruction in their #riting+ spelling+ and co"prehension skills$ These
areas #ere not assessed in this stud!; ho#ever+ the researcher e"phasi>ed activities to help
i"prove the spelling for these learners since the! didn&t have as "uch difficult! decoding
"an! of the #ords$ Also+ during the #hole language portion of the reading instruction+ an
e"phasis #as on co"prehension$ An i"prove"ent in spelling and #riting #as observed b!
the practitioner on #eekl! dictation activities$ Also+ these learners appeared to understand
te%ts read in class b! successfull! co"pleting co"prehension activities$ Thus+ perhaps the
SpartS instruction #as still helpful for the L(-literate learners in their #riting rather than in
their reading+ and the S#holeS instruction #as helpful in building reading and vocabular!
co"prehension$ All of these findings are good ne#s for the teacher #ith li"ited lesson
planning and class ti"e #ho #ants to be certain that ever! "inute in class counts as "uch
as possible for as "an! as possibleT
There are t#o "ore uestions to address fro" the results fro" this research$ @h! did three
of the L(-non-literate participants have the sa"e or stronger phone"ic a#areness skills
than t#o of the L(-literate participants. This is probabl! because these three L(-non-literate
students in particular had been attending this class for "an! "onths prior to the beginning
of the stud! and therefore+ received instruction in phone"ic a#areness previousl!+ #hile the
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
11
t#o L(-literate participants #ith the sa"e or lo#er scores had Eust begun attending this
class a fe# #eeks prior to the beginning of the stud!$
Secondl!+ #h! did one of the L(-literate learners+ Susan+ perfor" #ell on the decoding and
stor! te%t task on the pretest but de"onstrate no phone"ic a#areness on the pretest. This
result could be due to her consistent difficult! follo#ing instructions$ Even though an
interpreter #as available for the pretest+ Susan still could not understand the concept of
#hat she #as being asked to do for the phone"ic a#areness test$ She repeatedl! said and
spelled the entire #ord #hen asked for the individual sound$ This difficult! in follo#ing
directions "irrored her perfor"ance in class$ Even after receiving instructions one-on-one+
Susan still did not co"plete so"e of the tasks according to the directions; she often #rote
#ords that did not "ake sense or #ere in the #rong place for the activit!$ ,o#ever+ she
successfull! decoded #ords on the #ord list decoding test and the stor! te%t task+ and thus
it is likel! Susan had so"e phone"ic a#areness but did not de"onstrate this on the
phone"ic a#areness test$ As ever! teacher kno#s+ there #ill al#a!s be so"e learners #ith
uniue profiles and needs and this learner de"onstrated that she had a uniue profile$
As stated+ "ost of the learner gains in phone"ic a#areness recognition #ere in the areas
of' first letter sound+ sa"e letter sound+ and blending sounds$ This is gratif!ing since these
co"ponents #ere the "aEorit! of the e"phasis in the instruction$ -n addition+ there "a!
have been 6#ashback8 fro" the pretest and instruction in class #hich "a! have helped
learners understand better ho# to ans#er the uestions on the oral test$ This is also
gratif!ing+ since #e as teachers are so often tr!ing to help our learners prepare for a variet!
of tests both #ithin our progra"s and to help the" reach other life-goals$
The difficult! that learners had #ith the last co"ponent (counting the nu"ber of phone"es)
#as also not surprising given the difficult! of the task and the inherent confusion over #hat
to count/the s!llables+ nu"ber of letters+ or phone"es/even after receiving e%plicit
directions$ <an! learners #ere observed counting the letters or s!llables before ans#ering
the uestion$ Also+ since this task see"s to reuire a great deal of "etalinguistic
understanding to arrive at the correct ans#er+ it is understandable #h! this #ould be a
challenging co"ponent$ Based on these results+ it see"s uestionable #hether there should
be "uch e"phasis on this area of instruction because of its difficult!$ -t is onl! speculation+
but perhaps this is one area of phone"ic a#areness that is onl! trul! developed after one
has acuired high levels of literac! in a language$
Again+ in #ord list decoding+ the letter-sound co"ponents "ost focused on in instruction
#ere the areas #here learners sho# the "ost i"prove"ent' clusters and short vo#els$ Cn
the other hand+ the finding that long vo#els recognition did not i"prove and in fact
decreased+ "a! have actuall! resulted fro" the strong focus on short vo#els and onl! a
brief focus on long vo#els+ #hich "a! have caused confusion for learners+ and the! over-
generali>ed the short vo#el sounds to #ords #ith the long vo#el sound$ This is perhaps a
caution to be certain to teach each needed point #ith plent! of redundanc! built in+ as #as
done #ith the first three co"ponents$
Another finding #ith pedagogical i"plications is the fact that individual consonants+
regardless of being in initial or final position in a #ord+ #ere "astered b! "ost learners$ At
the start of the research+ "ost learners had so"e phone"ic a#areness and letter-sound
kno#ledge+ #hich #as likel! in the consonants of the #ords$ Learners& consistent strength in
identif!ing consonants on the pretest see"s to i"pl! that learners acuire these letter-
sound correspondences #ith relative ease and "a! not reuire e%plicit instruction in each
consonant sound$ Perhaps once learners have so"e phone"ic a#areness+ so"e of the
consonant sounds are Eust acuired #hile learning to read #ords b! sight$ @ith ti"e so
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
12
li"ited+ teachers "a! not #ant to spend "uch ti"e if an! on this area$ This finding also
highlights the i"portance for teachers of so"e t!pe of pre-assess"ent of the learners
before spending too "uch ti"e on a learning area in class$
The particular characteristics of those #ho i"proved the "ost #ere L(-non-literac!+ strong
oral skills+ and a #illingness to co""unicate$ The first factor of L(-non-literac! #as
e%pected because these learners "ostl! had lo#er perfor"ance on the pretests and
therefore+ had "ore opportunit! to sho# i"prove"ent$ The other t#o factors appear to be
related and #hile there #as no assess"ent in these areas for this stud!+ these
characteristics see" to also be #hat distinguished these learners over the other L(-non-
literate participants and so"e of the L(-literate participants$ Perhaps having stronger oral
skills affected their responsiveness to the #hole-part-#hole instruction because the! alread!
kne# the "eaning of "an! #ords and #ere then able to appl! the letter-sound instruction
to #ords the! alread! had in their oral vocabular!$
-"portantl!+ it see"s that focusing on the sounds and #ords in conte%t #as uite helpful
because learners #ere fa"iliar #ith "an! of the #ords+ and could use that oral kno#ledge
to then e%a"ine the letters and recogni>e the #ords in #ritten for" "ore readil!$ -n
addition+ since these #ere #ords that appeared "an! ti"es throughout the the"atic unit+
the learners #ould encounter the" "an! ti"es and this "a! have increased their
"otivation or desire to learn strategies to help the" identif! the" uickl!$ Also+ learners
see"ed to enEo! reading the stories each unit$ <an! stated the! #ould read the" at ho"e
or #ere observed reading the" before class or during the break$ ,aving high-interest
relevant readings that included the #ords that #ere focused on in the phonics practice
see"s to have helped build even "ore "otivation to read$
The L(-non-literate learner #ho #as one of the least i"proved learners #as Ana$ Mnlike the
"ost i"proved L(-non-literate learners Sahra+ Leli+ and 1ani+ she appeared confused "an!
ti"es #ith instruction and often co"plained of headaches and tiredness$ This "a! "ean
that ulti"atel! instruction in the co"ponent skills "a! not be helpful for so"e learners+
"a! not be helpful for so"e learners at certain stages of reading or second language
acuisition+ or so"e learners "a! Eust acuire skills at a slo#er pace and "a! need even
"ore repetition and revie#$ These results also highlight the i"portance of having a variet!
of instructional "ethods as part of an ABE7ESL class to "eet various learning st!les and
abilities$
Based on this research proEect+ there are so"e final reco""endations to "ake$ *irst+ a
balance of lo#er-level skills and higher-level reading practice see"s to be i"portant$
Throughout the stud!+ the researcher #as challenged in balancing the focus on phonics skills
and te%t reading$ Learners see"ed to lose their attention or get bored #hen a lot of ti"e
#as spent on specific letter-sound skills in one class or one #eek of instruction$ Additionall!+
incorporating the revie# of sounds (e$g$+ asking learners ho# to #rite a #ord and pro"pting
the" b! "aking the sound of the letter)+ #hen #orking on other activities+ especiall! #ith
#riting+ see"ed to be useful in helping learners appl! the skills the! learned$ Also+ as the
findings sho#+ so"e learners (particularl! L(-literate learners) in a lo#-level class "a! have
stronger decoding skills than others$ The focus for this portion of the instruction for these
learners could include spelling and #riting so that the! are also challenged and "ake
learning gains$ Also+ it "ight be useful to provide these learners #ith "ore advanced
decoding instruction (separate fro" the other learners) that is focused on the phonetic
co"ponents #here these learners in particular have gaps (i$e$+ long vo#els)$ Cne learner
e%plained this clearl! b! stating+ 6-f - can #rite it+ then - can read it$8
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
13
CONCLUSION
This stud! sho#s that for "ost participants using a #hole-part-#hole instructional "ethod
in #hich #hole #ords are presented in a conte%t then e%a"ined to practice phone"ic
a#areness or letter sound skills #as effective$ This instruction see"ed to i"prove their
phone"ic a#areness+ decoding of individual #ords+ and decoding #ords #ithin a stor! te%t$
-n particular+ those learners #ith the "ost i"prove"ent #ere L(-non-literate learners$ -t
appears that co"bining a focus on top do#n #hole language activities #ith botto" up skills
helped these learners i"prove their phone"ic a#areness and decoding in English$ 1esearch
has sho#n that having stronger botto"-up skills can help free learner&s attention to
co"prehending te%t/the "ain purpose for reading$ Thus+ these learners built skills that can
help the" #ith co"prehending te%t$ *urther studies are needed that take into account the
oral skills of learners along #ith the decoding and phone"ic a#areness$ 1esearch should
also be duplicated #ith different de"ographic groups and "ore L(-non-literate and L(-
literate learners+ as #ell as #ith several kinds of control groups$ <ore studies such as these
could help guide researchers and practitioners to finding #hat instructional techniues are
"ost useful for particular ESL learners acuiring literac! in English$ @hile "ore research
needs to be conducted to test this content-based instructional "ethod of teaching reading+
this stud! provides so"e e%citing insights as to ho# to assist L(-non-literate learners
acuiring literac! in English for the first ti"e #hile also providing beneficial instruction for
L(-literate learners$
A$t%o#"
Julie Trupke-Bastidas has taught ESL for over 4 !ears in various Adult Basic Education
settings$ She received her <$ A$ in TESCL fro" the Mniversit! of <innesota and co"pleted
course#ork for a license in Adult Basic Education$ This paper is based on her "asterNs
research$
Andrea Poulos is the Acade"ic7@orkforce Boordinator at Lincoln Adult Education Benter$
She has taught ESCL for over (A !ears+ including at the <innesota English Benter and in
Argentina$ She received her <$A$ in TESCL fro" the Mniversit! of <innesota$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
14
REFERENCES
Ada"s+ <$ ((22))$ 2eginning to read$ Ba"bridge+ <A' <-T Press$
Bader+ L$ A$ (0))A)$ 2ader reading and language inventory (A
th
ed$)$ Mpper Saddle 1iver+ LJ'
Prentice ,all$
Baker+ T$+ Toregesen+ J$+ 9 @agner+ 1$ ((220)$ The role of orthographic processing skills on
five different reading tasks$ ,eading ,esearch 5uarterly, #6+ 44A-4FA$
Bell+ J$+ 9 Burnab!+ B$ ((25F)$ + handbook or .S! literacy$ Toronto+ Banada' Cntario
-nstitute for Studies in Education7,odder and Stoughton$
Bernhardt+ E$ ((22()$ ,eading development in a second language7 *heoretical, empirical,
and classroom perspectives$ Lor#ood+ LJ' Able%$
Bigelo#+ <$+ 9 Tarone+ E$ (0))F)$ The role of literac! level in SLA' Goesn&t #ho #e stud!
deter"ine #hat #e kno#. *.SO! 5uarterly, #8+ =52-:()$
Bigelo#+ <$+ Gel"as+ 1$+ ,ansen+ ?$+ 9 Tarone+ E$ (0))=)$ Literac! and the processing of oral
recasts in SLA$ *.SO! 5uarterly, /9+ ==A-=52$
Bro#n+ T$+ 9 ,a!nes+ <$ ((25A)$ Literac! background and reading develop"ent in a second
language$ -n T$ Barr (Ed$)+ *he development o reading skills (pp$ (2-4F)$ San
*rancisco' Josse!-Bass$
Burt+ <$+ Pe!ton+ J$ ?$+ 9 Ada"s+ 1$ (0))4)$ ,eading and adult .nglish language learners7 +
review o the research$ @ashington+ GB' Benter for Applied Linguistics (BAL)$
Burt+ <$+ Pe!ton+ J$ ?$+ 9 Ian Gu>er+ B$ (0))A)$ How should adult .S! reading instruction
dier rom +2. reading instruction$ @ashington+ BG' Benter for Adult English
Language Acuisition$
Benter for G!sle%ia$ (0))F Gece"ber)$ G!sle%ia Ter"s' A 3lossar!$ 1etrieved <arch (0+
0))=+ fro" http'77d!sle%ia$"tsu$edu7about7ter"s$ht"l
Bondelli+ L$ (0))0)$ .ective instruction or adult .S! literacy students7 :indings rom the
(hat (orks study$ @ashington+ GB' A"erican -nstitutes for 1esearch$
Eske!+ L$ 9 3rabe+ @$ ((255)$ -nteractive "odels for second language reading' Perspectives
on instruction$ -n P$ Barrell+ J$ Gevine 9 G$ Eske! (Eds$)+ $nteractive approaches to
second language reading (pp$ 004-045)$ Le# Hork' Ba"bridge Mniversit! Press$
*avreau+ 9 Segalo#it>+ L$ ((250)$ Second language reading in fluent bilinguals$ +pplied
Psycholinguistics, '+ 402-4F($
3a>iel+ -$+ Cbler+ L$+ 9 Albert+ <$ ((2:5)$ A tachistoscopic stud! of ,ebre#-English bilinguals$
-n <$ Albert 9 L$ Cbler (Eds$)+ *he bilingual brain$ Le# Hork' Acade"ic Press$
3eva+ E$+ 9 1!an+ E$ B$ ((224)$ Linguistic and cognitive processing in learning to read
English and ,ebre#$ -n G$ 1$ Ta!lor 9 G$ 1$ Clsen (Eds$)+ Scripts and literacy7
,eading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters (pp$ 0::-02()$
Gordrecht' ?lu#er$
3rabe+ @$ ((22()$ Burrent Gevelop"ents in Second Language 1eading 1esearch$ *.SO!
5uarterly, #;(4)+ 4:A-F)=$
3reenberg+ G$+ Ehri+ L$+ 9 Perin+ G$ ((22:)$ Are @ord-1eading Processes the Sa"e or
Gifferent in Adult Literac! Students and Third-*ifth 3raders <atched for 1eading
Level. <ournal o .ducational Psychology, =8(0)+ 0=0-0:A$
,a!nes+ <$+ 9 Barr+ T$ ((22))$ @riting s!ste" background and second language reading' A
co"ponent skills anal!sis of English reading b! native-speaking readers of Bhinese$
-n T$ Barr 9 B$ Lev! (Eds$)+ ,eading and its development7 >omponent skills
approaches (pp$ 4:A-F0()$ San Giego' Acade"ic Press$
,olt+ 3$+ 9 3aer+ S$ ((224)$ .nglish or success7 2ridge to literacy (Teacher&s edition+ Book
()$ San Giego+ BA' Go"inie Press$
,ood+ S$ ((22))$ Second language literac!' @orking #ith non-literate learners$ Prospect
;(4)+ A0-=($
?ruidenier+ J$ (0))0)$ ,esearch-based principles or adult basic education reading
instruction$ @ashington+ GB' Lational -nstitute for Literac! 9 the Partnership for
1eading$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
15
Learning Gisabilities Association of <innesota (LGA)$ (0))A)$ *he adult reading toolkit7 +
research-based resource or adult literacy (F
th
ed$)$ <inneapolis+ <L' LGA of
<innesota$
<cLaughlin+ B$ ((22))$ 1estructuring$ +pplied !inguistics, #+ ((4-(05$
<cLeod+ B$+ 9 <cLaughlin+ B$ ((25=)$ 1estructuring or auto"ati>ation. 1eading in a second
language$ !anguage !earning, '?+ ()2-(0:$
<cShane+ S$ (0))A)$ +pplying research in reading instruction or adults7 :irst steps or
teachers$ @ashington+ GB' Lational -nstitute for Literac! and Lational Benter for
*a"il! Literac!$
<orais+ J$+ Bontent+ A$+ Bertelson+ P$+ Bar!+ L$+ 9 ?olinsk!+ 1$ ((255)$ -s there a critical period
for acuisition in seg"ental anal!sis. >ognitive @europsychology, ;+ 4+ 4F:-4A0$
<orra!+ <$ ((250)$ Phonological contrasts and #ord-decoding skills of the readers of English
as a second language$ ,eading Psychology, '+ 0(:-00:$
<oustafa+ <$ n$d$ (hole-to-parts phonics instruction$ 1etrieved <arch (0+ 0))=+ fro"
http'77instructional($calstatela$edu7""ousta7@hole-to-
PartsUPhonicsU-nstruction$ht"
Perfetti+ B$ 9 Lesgold+ A$ ((2::)$ Giscourse co"prehension and sources of individual
differences$ -n <$ A$ Just 9 P$ A$ Barpenter (Eds$)+ >ognitive processes in
comprehension$ ,illsdale+ LJ' Erlbau"$
Perfetti+ B$ 9 <arron+ <$ ((22A)$ !earning to ,ead7 !iteracy +c)uisition by >hildren and
+dults (Lo$ T12A-):)$ Pittsburg' LBAL Technical 1eport T12A-):$
1!an+ A$+ 9 <eara+ P$ ((22()$ The case of invisible vo#els' Arabic speakers reading English
#ords$ ,eading in a :oreign !anguage, 6+ A4(-AF)$
Segolo#it>+ L$+ Poulson+ B$+ 9 ?o"oda+ <$ ((22()$ Lo#er-level co"ponents of reading skill
in higher level bilinguals' -"plications for reading instruction$ +$!+ ,eview, =+ (A-4)$
Singer+ ,$ ((25()$ -nstruction in reading acuisition$ -n C$ T>eng 9 ,$ Singer (Eds$)+
Perception of print (pp$ 02(-4(()$ ,illsdale+ LJ' La#rence Erlbau"$
Stanovich+ ?$ ((22()$ Bhanging "odels of reading and reading acuisition$ -n L$ 1ieben 9 B$
Perfetti (Eds$)+ !earning to read7 2asic research and its implications (pp$ (2-4()$
,illsdale+ LJ' Erlbau"$
Strickland+ G$ ((225)$ @hat&s basic about beginning reading. *inding co""on ground$
Educational Leadership+ <arch+ =-()$
Stro"+ L$+ 9 Houng-Scholten+ <$ (0))F)$ :actors determining adult non-literatesA reading
progress$ Long Beach' TESCL$
Sylvia 0reeneAs inormal word analysis inventory (n$d$)$ 1etrieved Januar! A+ 0))=+ fro"
http'77###$nifl$gov7readingprofiles7*TU1esources$ht"
Tarone+ E$+ 9 Bigelo#+ <$ (0))A)$ -"pact of literac! on oral language processing'
-"plications for second language acuisition research$ +nnual ,eview o +pplied
!inguistics, #;+ ::-2:$
Iinogradov+ P$ (0))()$ Successful instruction for literac!-level adults$ >+,!+ (orking Paper
Series B16$ <inneapolis+ <L' The Benter for Advanced 1esearch in Language
Acuisition$
@alters+ J$+ 9 Datorre+ 1$ ((2:5)$ Lateralit! differences for #ord identification in bilinguals$
2rain and !anguage, ?(0)+ (A5-(=:$
@rigle!+ ,$ S$+ 9 3uth+ 3$ J$ ((220)$ 2ringing literacy to lie7 $ssues and options in adult .S!
literacy$ San <ateo+ BA' Aguirre -nternational$
Houng-Scholten+ <$ 9 Stro"+ L$ (0))=) *irst-ti"e L0 readers' -s there a critical period.
!ow-.ducated Second !anguage and !iteracy +c)uisition7 Proceedings o the
$naugural Symposium- *ilburg+ Tilburg+ The Letherlands$
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 24, 2007
1
*or a "ore e%tensive revie# of the literature on this topic+ please see Trupke+ J$ (0)):)$
-"proving literac! of L(-non-literate and L(-literate adult English as a second language learners'
Msing #hole-part-#hole reading instruction$ Mnpublished "asterNs plan B+ Mniversit! of <innesota+
T#in Bities+ <inneapolis+ <L$
2
Participants& na"es have been changed to respect their privac!$