Handbook of Research on Cultivating Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms 2019043866, 2019043867, 9781799827221, 9781799827238

Citation preview

Handbook of Research on Cultivating Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms Georgios Neokleous Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Anna Krulatz Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Raichle Farrelly University of Colorado Boulder, USA

A volume in the Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2020 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Neokleous, Georgios, 1985- editor. | Krulatz, Anna, 1979- editor. | Farrelly, Raichle, editor. Title: Handbook of research on cultivating literacy in diverse and multilingual classrooms / Georgios Neokleous, Anna Krulatz, Raichle Farrelly, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book explores the multifaceted nature of literacy development across the lifespan in a range of multilingual contexts”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019043866 (print) | LCCN 2019043867 (ebook) | ISBN 9781799827221 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781799827238 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Literacy--Social aspects. | Multicultural education. | English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers. | Second language acquisition. | Culturally relevant pedagogy Classification: LCC LC149 .H284 2020 (print) | LCC LC149 (ebook) | DDC 370.117--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019043866 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019043867 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Editorial Advisory Board

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah, USA Ion Drew, University of Stavanger, Norway Patsy Egan, Hamilne University, USA Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, USA Heather Lotherington, York University, Canada Fernanda Minuz, Independent Researcher, Italy Randi Solheim, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Martha Young-Scholten, Newcastle University, UK



Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

List of Contributors

Aerila, Juli-Anna / University of Turku, Finland.............................................................................. 368 Aguilera, Earl / California State University, Fresno, USA................................................................ 496 Anand, Poonam / University of Bahrain, Bahrain............................................................................ 309 Bredthauer, Stefanie / University of Cologne, Germany.................................................................. 516 Christison, MaryAnn / University of Utah, USA.......................................................................... 1, 348 Curtin, Alicia / University College Cork, Ireland............................................................................. 329 De Felice, Dustin / Michigan State University, USA.......................................................................... 146 Duggan, Jennifer / Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.............................. 288 Durgunoğlu, Aydın Yücesan / University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA............................................. 448 Eslami, Zohreh R. / Texas A&M University, USA............................................................................. 555 Espinas, Daniel R. / University of Maryland, College Park, USA....................................................... 82 Fakhrutdinova, Iuliia / University of Massachusetts Boston, USA................................................... 615 Farrelly, Raichle / University of Colorado Boulder, USA................................................................. 615 Giannikas, Christina Nicole / Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus......................................... 108 Goltsev, Evghenia / University of Cologne, Germany....................................................................... 516 Gonzalves, Lisa / University of California, Davis, USA...................................................................... 41 Greenstein, Ilana / California State University, Fresno, USA........................................................... 496 Hanssen, Jessica Allen / Nord University, Norway............................................................................ 261 Haznedar, Belma / Boğaziçi University, Turkey................................................................................ 422 Huynh, Ngoc Tai / University of Tasmania, Australia........................................................................ 393 Jensvoll, Maja Henriette / Nord University, Norway........................................................................ 261 Kauppinen, Merja / University of Jyväskylä, Finland...................................................................... 368 Kkese, Elena Theodosis / Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus.................................................. 62 Knospe, Yvonne / Umeå University, Sweden..................................................................................... 577 Krulatz, Anna / Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway................................... 596 Li, Yixun / University of Maryland, College Park, USA...................................................................... 82 López, Minda Morren / Texas State University, USA........................................................................ 535 Lypka, Andrea Enikő / Learning Empowered, USA......................................................................... 146 Macedo, Silvia Lopes da Silva / French Guiana University, French Guiana.................................... 472 Matthews, Sharon D. / Texas A&M University, USA......................................................................... 555 Michali, Maria / South-East European Research Center, Greece..................................................... 234 Minuz, Fernanda / Independent Researcher, Italy............................................................................ 422 Moody, Stephanie Michelle / Texas A&M University, USA.............................................................. 555 Moya, Mario R. / University of East London, UK.............................................................................. 210 Murray, Denise E. / Macquarie University, Australia........................................................................... 1  



Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Neokleous, Georgios / Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway......................... 596 Newman, Tara A. / Texas State University, USA................................................................................ 535 Nimer, Maissam / Sabancı University, Turkey.................................................................................. 448 Park, Koeun / University of Utah, USA............................................................................................. 596 Patsala, Paschalia / Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK..................................................... 234 Pereira, Íris Susana Pires / Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal.......................... 472 Peyton, Joy Kreeft / Center for Applied Linguistics, USA................................................................. 422 Reis da Costa, Mayara Priscila / Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Amapá, Brazil & University of Minho, Portugal........................................................................... 472 Ruhe, Stefanie / Ruhr University Bochum, Germany........................................................................ 125 Savić, Vera / University of Kragujevac, Serbia.................................................................................. 166 Shannon, Linda A. / California State University, Fresno, USA......................................................... 496 Skein, Etienne / Independent Researcher, South Africa.................................................................... 577 Sullivan, Kirk P. H. / Umeå University, Sweden................................................................................ 577 Thomas, Angela / University of Tasmania, Australia........................................................................ 393 To, Vinh Thi / University of Tasmania, Australia............................................................................... 393 Tørnby, Hilde / Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway.................................................................... 190 Wang, Min / University of Maryland, College Park, USA................................................................... 82 Yang, Ping / Western Sydney University, Australia............................................................................. 22 Young-Scholten, Martha / Newcastle University, UK...................................................................... 422 Zhao, Jing / Brighton High School, USA........................................................................................... 348

Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface................................................................................................................................................. xxv Acknowledgment.............................................................................................................................. xxxv Section 1 Foundations of Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms Chapter 1 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century........................................ 1 MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah, USA Denise E. Murray, Macquarie University, Australia Chapter 2 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century........................... 22 Ping Yang, Western Sydney University, Australia Chapter 3 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners: From Theory to Practice............................... 41 Lisa Gonzalves, University of California, Davis, USA

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 4 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2: Sensitivity to Phonological Awareness and Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in L2 English........................................................................... 62 Elena Theodosis Kkese, Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus Chapter 5 Orthographic Learning: A Multilingual Perspective............................................................................. 82 Daniel R. Espinas, University of Maryland, College Park, USA Min Wang, University of Maryland, College Park, USA Yixun Li, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

 



Section 2 Multimodal Approaches to Literacy Development Chapter 6 Efectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners... 108 Christina Nicole Giannikas, Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus Chapter 7 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom: Digital Stories of Undocumented Youth.......................................................................................................... 125 Stefanie Ruhe, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany Chapter 8 Telecollaborative Storytelling: Reframing English Language Learners’ and Pre-service Teachers’ Identity, Multimodal Literacy, and Intercultural Competency............................................................. 146 Andrea Enikő Lypka, Learning Empowered, USA Dustin De Felice, Michigan State University, USA Chapter 9 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners: Multimodal Texts in Content-Based Instruction...... 166 Vera Savić, University of Kragujevac, Serbia Chapter 10 Visual Literacy and Young Learners................................................................................................... 190 Hilde Tørnby, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway Section 3 Promoting Critical Literacy in Academic Contexts

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 11 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in EnglishDominated Speech Communities......................................................................................................... 210 Mario R. Moya, University of East London, UK Chapter 12 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction: Addressing the Issue of Language Sexism.................................................................................................................... 234 Paschalia Patsala, Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK Maria Michali, South-East European Research Center, Greece Chapter 13 Linking Criticality and Creativity: Engagement With Literary Theory in Middle Grades English Education............................................................................................................................................. 261 Jessica Allen Hanssen, Nord University, Norway Maja Henriette Jensvoll, Nord University, Norway



Chapter 14 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy: Supporting Inclusion, Subverting Bias................................. 288 Jennifer Duggan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Chapter 15 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms............................................ 309 Poonam Anand, University of Bahrain, Bahrain Section 4 Cultivating Literacy Through Literature Chapter 16 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy: Learning Literacy Through Identity in Meaningful Communities of Practice...................................................................................................................... 329 Alicia Curtin, University College Cork, Ireland Chapter 17 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills............................... 348 Jing Zhao, Brighton High School, USA MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah, USA Chapter 18 Stories Make Readers: Enhancing the Use of Fictional Literature With Multilingual Students......... 368 Juli-Anna Aerila, University of Turku, Finland Merja Kauppinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Chapter 19 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images in Children’s Picturebooks...................................................................................................... 393 Ngoc Tai Huynh, University of Tasmania, Australia Angela Thomas, University of Tasmania, Australia Vinh Thi To, University of Tasmania, Australia

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 5 Heritage Language Use and Family Literacy Chapter 20 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction: Challenges and Guidance for Teachers and Tutors................................................................................................. 422 Fernanda Minuz, Independent Researcher, Italy Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University, Turkey Joy Kreeft Peyton, Center for Applied Linguistics, USA Martha Young-Scholten, Newcastle University, UK



Chapter 21 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women: The Case of Syrians in Turkey............................................................................................................................. 448 Aydın Yücesan Durgunoğlu, University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA Maissam Nimer, Sabancı University, Turkey Chapter 22 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children: Designing Pedagogy for Urban Schools............... 472 Mayara Priscila Reis da Costa, Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Amapá, Brazil & University of Minho, Portugal Íris Susana Pires Pereira, Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal Silvia Lopes da Silva Macedo, French Guiana University, French Guiana Section 6 Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogies Chapter 23 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms............ 496 Earl Aguilera, California State University, Fresno, USA Ilana Greenstein, California State University, Fresno, USA Linda A. Shannon, California State University, Fresno, USA Chapter 24 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy............................................................................ 516 Evghenia Goltsev, University of Cologne, Germany Stefanie Bredthauer, University of Cologne, Germany Chapter 25 Walk With Me: Caminatas as a Way for Developing Culturally Sustaining Literacy Pedagogies With Preservice Teachers..................................................................................................................... 535 Minda Morren López, Texas State University, USA Tara A. Newman, Texas State University, USA

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 26 Bridging the Gap: The Use of Translanguaging in Shared Readings.................................................. 555 Stephanie Michelle Moody, Texas A&M University, USA Sharon D. Matthews, Texas A&M University, USA Zohreh R. Eslami, Texas A&M University, USA Chapter 27 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals: Translanguaging in Writing................ 577 Etienne Skein, Independent Researcher, South Africa Yvonne Knospe, Umeå University, Sweden Kirk P. H. Sullivan, Umeå University, Sweden



Chapter 28 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use: Cultivating Literacy Development through Translanguaging Pedagogy in EAL Classrooms................................................................................. 596 Georgios Neokleous, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Koeun Park, University of Utah, USA Anna Krulatz, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Chapter 29 Leveraging Learner Experience: Pedagogical Scafolding With Refugee-Background Adults.......... 615 Raichle Farrelly, University of Colorado Boulder, USA Iuliia Fakhrutdinova, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 643 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 754

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Index.................................................................................................................................................... 763

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface................................................................................................................................................. xxv Acknowledgment.............................................................................................................................. xxxv Section 1 Foundations of Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms Section 1 lays a foundation for the volume by providing an overview of learner literacy needs in diverse and multilingual classrooms. The chapters in this section give a historical overview of defnitions of literacy and present suggestions for teaching literacy in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts. They discuss implications for teacher education programs and programs serving emergent literacy adults. They also provide an overview of basic literacy skills such as phonological awareness and orthographic learning.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century........................................ 1 MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah, USA Denise E. Murray, Macquarie University, Australia The most common defnition of literacy is the ability to read and write. However, for teachers working with multilingual learners, the development of literacy skills is much more complex than this simple defnition would suggest. Notions of literacy in the 21st century have evolved in response to a number of societal changes, such as globalization, large-scale human migration, and advances in digital technologies. This chapter considers how these societal changes have infuenced conceptions and practices of literacy. It provides a brief overview of some important theoretical considerations that inform understandings of literacy development for multilingual learners, including critical literacy, multiliteracies, multimodal literacy, and translanguaging, and explores current conceptions of literacy to help second and foreign language (SFL) teachers better understand how to meet the literacy needs of multilingual learners in the 21st century, ofering practical suggestions for teaching from a multiliteracies perspective. Chapter 2 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century........................... 22 Ping Yang, Western Sydney University, Australia In the 21st century, language teacher education faces new challenges to cultivate multiliteracy in culturally diverse classrooms. This chapter focuses on the intercultural literacy language teachers need 



to develop as part of their teacher education and proposes a new model of intercultural literacy which includes intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness. These skills will contribute to language teacher education of the 21st century and the teachers’ newfound intercultural literacy will help them meet the intercultural challenges and learning needs of culturally diverse students. This raises the question of why language teachers may need intercultural literacy. The four components of the model are described in detail, supported with current research, and illustrated with examples of literacy practices that can be implemented in the classroom. Chapter 3 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners: From Theory to Practice............................... 41 Lisa Gonzalves, University of California, Davis, USA Globally, many adults lack access to education due to gender, poverty, ethnic discrimination, political confict, and geographic proximity. Moreover, many of these same adults may migrate at some point in their lives, needing to adapt to new linguistic settings. Oftentimes, such adults need to learn both an entirely new language and frst-time literacy - not necessarily in their frst language, but in the new language (L2) which they may not yet speak. By providing a robust overview of scholarship on emergent literacy acquisition in children and adults, this chapter heightens understanding of the complexity of acquiring literacy for the frst time as an L2 adult migrant. The chapter provides practical guidelines on how teachers of L2 adults with emergent literacy can apply this knowledge in the classroom, focusing on three pedagogical areas - vocabulary acquisition, metalinguistic awareness, and academic socialization. Chapter 4 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2: Sensitivity to Phonological Awareness and Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in L2 English........................................................................... 62 Elena Theodosis Kkese, Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Phonological awareness is the conscious awareness that oral language can be subdivided into subcomponents, including words, syllables, rhymes, and sounds. Its importance has been identifed in the development of children’s literacy in L1, especially in terms of spelling, writing, and reading. Phonological awareness is of special importance for L2 acquisition as well, suggesting a strong correlation between this metalinguistic profciency and literacy. This chapter examines this relation in young adults who are already literate in the L1 by providing an overview of the understudied area of L2 phonological awareness and its connection to spoken and written literacy. It is argued that phonological awareness infuences spoken and written literacy skills given that L2 English users transfer L1 phonological awareness skills to the target language. In this context, the author suggests that instruction should be provided in the form of short, fun activities matching the interests of the young L2 adults. Chapter 5 Orthographic Learning: A Multilingual Perspective............................................................................. 82 Daniel R. Espinas, University of Maryland, College Park, USA Min Wang, University of Maryland, College Park, USA Yixun Li, University of Maryland, College Park, USA This chapter discusses orthographic learning, i.e., how children learn the relation between their spoken language and writing system. The process is discussed for children learning to read and write in one



language, as well as for multilingual children acquiring literacy in more than one language. In both cases, the developmental course is mapped from children’s frst insights into the form and function of their writing systems to the development of word-specifc mental representations that code for multiple linguistic forms (i.e., sound, spelling, and meaning). The chapter concludes with instructional recommendations for supporting children’s orthographic learning throughout development. Section 2 Multimodal Approaches to Literacy Development Section 2 discusses various ways in which diferent modalities (e.g., visual, audio, digital, virtual) can deepen students’ literacy skills in culturally and linguistically diverse classroom settings. The chapters in this section highlight the shifts and developments in today’s classrooms that call for the integration and recognition of varying combinations of tools to create a learning environment that adequately prepares learners to communicate efectively in an increasingly multimodal world. They discuss pedagogical applications that combine two or more modes to enhance students’ literacy skills. Chapter 6 Efectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners... 108 Christina Nicole Giannikas, Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus Digital technologies have become an important part of language learning and teaching across the globe at various levels of education. The advances in question have altered texts and tools available to teachers and students and have given practitioners and researchers a new understanding of L2 literacy development. More specifcally, the successful attempts of integrating the blogosphere in language education suggest the improvement of L2 writing. Through blogging, students are given the opportunity to use the new language they are learning and new technologies to strengthen social bonds and express their thoughts and refections on the online platform. This chapter elaborates on the use of the blog in teenage learners’ L2 literacy in the digital age, and examines the impact that blogs have on the authorship, personal expression, writing fuency, and confdence of the L2 teenage language learner. The chapter also ofers a theoretical, practical scope to establish the full perspective of integrating blogs into the language classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 7 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom: Digital Stories of Undocumented Youth.......................................................................................................... 125 Stefanie Ruhe, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany This chapter employs the mediazation of politics, or the changes that the use of media for political purposes has brought about, to understand the intertwinement of the rules and regulations by which media products abide. Through examples of digital stories of undocumented youth in the U.S., posted on YouTube, the chapter demonstrates that digital stories not only provide a solid base for multimodal analysis, but they may also foster (digital) media literacy skills of English as foreign language learners in German high school. Yet, students need to understand how to read the multimodal language of new media correctly to truly participate in current political debates of the 21st century.



Chapter 8 Telecollaborative Storytelling: Reframing English Language Learners’ and Pre-service Teachers’ Identity, Multimodal Literacy, and Intercultural Competency............................................................. 146 Andrea Enikő Lypka, Learning Empowered, USA Dustin De Felice, Michigan State University, USA Telecollaborative multimodal storytelling has evolved into an innovative pedagogic design that fuses information technologies, semiotic repertoires, and modalities with cooperative learning, personal accounts, and academic content. Informed by social constructionism and poststructuralism, this chapter presents a semester-long virtual exchange with language learners and pre-service teachers in two universities and the format of this initiative with a focus on pedagogical suggestions. Not only did this collaboration transcend the classroom, but it provided a supportive environment for multiliteracy, disciplinary knowledge, and cross-cultural competency development and identity negotiation within traditional and virtual learning spaces. Co-authored multimedia ensembles, refective writing, and teamwork can enable learners to generate meaningful narratives, forge reciprocal partnerships, engender social consciousness, and express themselves creatively across linguistic, cultural, and technology capital. Chapter 9 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners: Multimodal Texts in Content-Based Instruction...... 166 Vera Savić, University of Kragujevac, Serbia Acquiring literacy skills for the 21st century requires learners to move beyond the traditional print literacy skills and to develop strategies for efective communication in predominantly visual environments. The chapter explores how teachers of young language learners may scafold children’s development of visual literacy in Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and thus prepare them both for comprehending and producing visual images and multimodal texts. The chapter frst provides a framework for understanding visual literacy and then describes pedagogical strategies language teachers may apply to promote visual literacy in a young learner classroom. Finally, it highlights the role of visual images in CBI and gives examples of classroom activities that foster simultaneous development of visual literacy and foreign/ second language (L2) communication skills for young learners.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 10 Visual Literacy and Young Learners................................................................................................... 190 Hilde Tørnby, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway This chapter explores visual literacy from theoretical and practical perspectives. Ideas of what is meant by visual literacy and why this is important are presented through a selection of studies. The impact that visual literacy may have on students’ learning and development is further elaborated. A case study from a Norwegian frst-grade classroom is included to shed light on the ways in which visual work in the classroom can be implemented. In addition, exemplars of students’ written verbal and visual texts are thoroughly examined. A tendency in the material is that the illustrations are detailed and elaborate, and carry a distinct sense of the written text. Hence, the visual text may be understood as the more important text and may be vital in a child’s literacy development.



Section 3 Promoting Critical Literacy in Academic Contexts Section 3 provides a state-of-the-art review of the literature on the pivotal role of critical literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The chapters in this section discuss approaches to learning that encourage students to critically engage and interact with various texts to develop their critical literacy skills as well as ways in which educators can assess literacy skills in various contexts. The authors also highlight ways in which critical literacy can be employed to empower minority students within English-speaking settings. Chapter 11 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in EnglishDominated Speech Communities......................................................................................................... 210 Mario R. Moya, University of East London, UK This chapter explores the nuances of critical literacy reviewing the infuence of the sociocultural context and the critical element that arises from the individuals who negotiate their identities as they interact with others in a variety of settings. The perspective adopted here focuses on multilingual learners as they engage in literacy practices in English, the dominant language, within schooled environments resulting in hybrid productions within a Third Space, which is a metaphorical setting that promotes expansive learning. Such literacy productions consider the lived-in experiences of the individuals and their personal histories as tools for learning with the potential to liberate themselves from the dominant literacy practices. The chapter includes a discussion of the role and status of English to empower nondominant groups within English-speaking settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 12 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction: Addressing the Issue of Language Sexism.................................................................................................................... 234 Paschalia Patsala, Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK Maria Michali, South-East European Research Center, Greece In the past, corpora were primarily employed by linguists. Recently, there has been a growing interest from teachers and researchers in the pedagogical applications of corpora. However, literature of corpusbased instruction has little explored whether corpus-based instruction can reinforce English Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ critical literacy. This chapter builds on research and practices that explore how corpus-based teaching may enhance learners’ critical literacy skills, ofering recommendations to teachers of English as a foreign language. The main features of critical literacy teaching are presented, and consideration is given to tools and techniques through which educators can encourage EFL learners to critically look at authentic language data and question both the language and the reality they are exposed to, afecting or enabling social change. Chapter 13 Linking Criticality and Creativity: Engagement With Literary Theory in Middle Grades English Education............................................................................................................................................. 261 Jessica Allen Hanssen, Nord University, Norway Maja Henriette Jensvoll, Nord University, Norway



This chapter provides specifc examples of how current English teaching practices can further engage what can be seen as an interpretative and creative link between comprehension, opinion formation, and language production. Based on awareness of English Language Teaching (ELT) trends in Nordic textbooks and national curricula, with particular respect to curricular developments and trends in Norway and in other Nordic countries, the authors propose specifc changes to the subject contents of English education to better prepare future teachers for the exciting prospects of integrating multiliteracy in their lessons through a new emphasis on criticality. To this efect, this chapter provides a new practical model that can help streamline the sprawling interdisciplinarity of critical theory into a manageable and readily applicable context for working with literature during English lessons. Chapter 14 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy: Supporting Inclusion, Subverting Bias................................. 288 Jennifer Duggan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway This chapter helps teachers use genre for efective language learning in the increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse 21st-century language classroom. The chapter provides an overview of the history of the term genre across various academic disciplines and explains why critical knowledge of genres is a key literacy in the 21st century. It discusses current trends of use of genre in the language classroom and gives tips on how to use genre responsibly with multicultural, multiliterate, multilingual students, focusing in particular on the usefulness of critical literacy in linguistically and culturally diverse language classrooms. The chapter also highlights ways in which teachers can use genres to empower minority students—including those belonging to a linguistic minority—and to counteract bias in their classrooms. Chapter 15 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms............................................ 309 Poonam Anand, University of Bahrain, Bahrain

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Older views of the English for Academic Purposes Literacies (EAPL) assessment have been in line with the assessment of the four-skills second language (L2) competencies. However, the new understanding is that literacy is not just a cognitive competence of reading and writing but also a set of other purposeful social processes. This understanding makes EAPL assessment multifaceted by calling upon a set of supra-linguistic behaviors, i.e., cognitive and social skills in addition to L2 competencies. This chapter starts with a brief history and the current state of theoretical constructs (of what is actually assessed) of EAPL assessment. It then centers its discussion on diferent academic literacies models, and the critical issues in measuring EAPL. The author highlights diferent strategies for planning assessment in the practical applications of academic literacies constructs. The chapter ends with the presentation of useful steps in creating EAPL assessments.



Section 4 Cultivating Literacy Through Literature Section 4 stresses the pivotal role that incorporating literature—Western and non-Western—can play in enhancing students’ literacy skills in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The chapters in this section provide a thorough overview of the use of literary texts as pedagogy for literacy learning. They also ofer practical classroom applications in which literature can promote literary and literacy development in children. Chapter 16 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy: Learning Literacy Through Identity in Meaningful Communities of Practice...................................................................................................................... 329 Alicia Curtin, University College Cork, Ireland This chapter explores the use of children’s literature as pedagogy for literacy learning in diverse and multilingual classrooms. The author employs a sociocultural and relational understanding of literacy and learning to establish a theoretical framework for an approach that focuses on meaning-making, doing, and learning through stories as both a personal journey and a sociocultural practice. The complex sociocultural relationships between learning, literacy, identity, experience, power, agency, knowledge, value, success, and failure at the heart of the learning process remain central throughout this chapter. The reader is encouraged to consider their own life stories, experiences, defnitions, and understandings of learning and literacy and the impact these may have on the life stories, experiences, defnitions, and understandings of learning and literacy of the students in their care. Chapter 17 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills............................... 348 Jing Zhao, Brighton High School, USA MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah, USA

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter introduces readers to the interactive methodology of literature circles instruction. The chapter shows how this methodology is efective for the development of literacy skills for linguistically and culturally diverse groups of language learners. Literature circles instruction is supported by two key theoretical perspectives in second language acquisition, namely, sociocultural theory (SCT) and the basic tenets of reader-response theory. Also in this chapter is a brief overview of the research on literature circles instruction in two areas: (1) the development of reading comprehension skills and (2) the attributes of efective literature circles instruction, including a discussion of the issues related to the use of literary texts and the importance of student-led discussion groups. The second part of the chapter provides information for classroom practitioners, showing how the principles for literature circles instruction can be enacted in classrooms with diverse language learners. Chapter 18 Stories Make Readers: Enhancing the Use of Fictional Literature With Multilingual Students......... 368 Juli-Anna Aerila, University of Turku, Finland Merja Kauppinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Using literature in multilingual and second language classes promotes literacy skills and helps children to adapt to second language instruction. This chapter presents the theoretical framework and practical



implementations for enhancing the use of literature in multilingual environments employing Stories Make Readers (StoRe)–project as an example. StoRe concept helps to promote the use of fctional literature and to increase the reading materials and reading time at school and at home. An important aim is to ofer, in multilingual groups, reading materials that correspond to the reading abilities and interest of the readers, and to connect diferent collaborative, child-centered, and multidisciplinary activities in reading. The multilingual line of the StoRe project, called Creating Innovative Approaches to Language Education (IKI), identifes and promotes innovative models for the use and development of language in education and creates research-based, pedagogical maps that help teachers develop and improve their pedagogical practices. Chapter 19 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images in Children’s Picturebooks...................................................................................................... 393 Ngoc Tai Huynh, University of Tasmania, Australia Angela Thomas, University of Tasmania, Australia Vinh Thi To, University of Tasmania, Australia In contemporary Western cultures, picturebooks are a mainstream means for young children to frst attend to print and start learning to read. The use of children’s picturebooks has been reported as supporting intercultural awareness in children. Multiliteracies researchers suggest that other theoretical frameworks should be applied in addition to the semiotic approach of interpreting picturebooks, especially picturebooks from non-Western cultures. This chapter theorizes how Eastern philosophical concepts infuence the meaning-making potential of illustrations in Eastern picturebooks. To do this, the authors frst discuss the cultural constraints when applying a contemporary semiotic framework in analyzing non-Western images. The authors introduce a framework developed based on philosophical concepts that have infuenced East-Asian art forms, particularly that of painting, to understand the Eastern artistic traditions. The chapter demonstrates how to apply this framework for interpretation of non-Western images to working with multicultural picturebooks. Section 5 Heritage Language Use and Family Literacy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 5 discusses the challenges with which language instructors are faced when working with emergent literacy students in a language other than the dominant one and examines ways in which profciency and literacy skills in heritage language can be strengthened. The chapters in this section use examples from specifc linguistic and cultural backgrounds to illustrate concrete pedagogical applications in which educators can cultivate their students’ literacy skills through heritage language use. Chapter 20 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction: Challenges and Guidance for Teachers and Tutors................................................................................................. 422 Fernanda Minuz, Independent Researcher, Italy Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University, Turkey Joy Kreeft Peyton, Center for Applied Linguistics, USA Martha Young-Scholten, Newcastle University, UK



There has been a shift in receiving countries and their education programs for adult immigrants around the world. A complete focus on immigrants’ cultural integration and learning of the language of the country has shifted to an understanding that supporting heritage language maintenance benefts adults with little or no formal schooling in that language, including a more nuanced sense of identity, stronger second language (L2) and literacy learning, and confdence in supporting the schooling of the younger members of their communities. Teachers and tutors need, but lack, professional development focused on implementing instructional approaches that incorporate this new focus and on using reading materials in learners’ languages. This chapter describes a new Online Heritage Language Resource Hub, which gives teachers, tutors, adult learners, and younger members of the community access to materials in hundreds of immigrants’ languages. It also provides teachers ways to use the reading materials in the Hub in their classes with adult learners. Chapter 21 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women: The Case of Syrians in Turkey............................................................................................................................. 448 Aydın Yücesan Durgunoğlu, University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA Maissam Nimer, Sabancı University, Turkey As the number of displaced people who need to learn the oral and written language(s) of their host communities increases, educators are faced with serious challenges. This chapter discusses some of these issues and ways to improve the language education of refugees, using as an example the case of Syrian women in Turkey with limited formal education. Good practices both at the program level and within particular instructional settings are outlined. At the program level, the authors suggest adopting a holistic approach; addressing challenges such as trauma, poverty, and unwelcoming social environment; ofering lifelong education in local centers; and training teachers. Within the educational settings, teachers should get to know the learners in all their diversity; build on existing strengths; ofer systematic, integrated instruction grounded in real-world needs and uses of language; consider both cognitive and afective dimensions of literacy; use technology; and facilitate language development through social interactions.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 22 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children: Designing Pedagogy for Urban Schools............... 472 Mayara Priscila Reis da Costa, Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Amapá, Brazil & University of Minho, Portugal Íris Susana Pires Pereira, Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal Silvia Lopes da Silva Macedo, French Guiana University, French Guiana This chapter presents a pedagogical design for the language and literacy learning of indigenous children within mainstream non-indigenous schools in the municipality of Oiapoque, located in the Federal State of Amapá, Brazil. It describes the linguistic and cultural diversity that characterizes the area followed by the outline of the key tenets underpinning the educational policy that frames language and initial literacy education in indigenous communities. The chapter then problematizes the case of migrant indigenous children in urban schools, where there is no specifc legal protection for their linguistic and literacy education. In response to this shortcoming, authors present a culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogy based on the Linguistically Appropriate Practice method, aimed at guiding teachers to educate these children to become bilingual and proud of their cultural heritage. The design is innovative in the context of its application in Brazil and of potential relevance for similar contexts worldwide.



Section 6 Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogies Section 6 emphasizes the importance of fostering culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies when working with students from diverse backgrounds. The chapters in this section discuss practical approaches that make use of students’ entire linguistic repertoires to illustrate how literacy skills can be fostered in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Chapter 23 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms............ 496 Earl Aguilera, California State University, Fresno, USA Ilana Greenstein, California State University, Fresno, USA Linda A. Shannon, California State University, Fresno, USA In this chapter, three educators outline a pedagogical framework for enacting Linguistically Responsive Literacy Pedagogies (LRLP), founded on the sociocultural dimensions of literacy, the multilingual realities of many contemporary educational settings, and the institutional expectations of the teaching profession. The chapter overviews how the LRLP framework has been enacted across three diferent developmental groups across multiple school sites. The authors bring experiences as classroom teachers, teacher-educators, and school leaders working to understand and support the diverse literacy and language practices of learners in the 21st century. The chapter illustrates how pedagogical approaches that share a commitment to sustaining sociolinguistic diversity and promoting educational equity can be enacted across primary and secondary classrooms to beneft all learners. Chapter 24 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy............................................................................ 516 Evghenia Goltsev, University of Cologne, Germany Stefanie Bredthauer, University of Cologne, Germany

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Having been overlooked for a long time, the importance of literacy competence for successful participation in education is currently gaining attention and practical implementation in many countries. However, despite the linguistic diversity of the classrooms and the so-called multilingual turn in research, the fostering of literacy skills often continues to focus on the monolingual perspective of the majority language, thus overlooking vast multilingual potential. This approach is rooted at diferent levels of the educational systems. For teachers, who play a key role in promoting literacy development, this is partially due to respective monolingual orientation in teacher education and a lack of (systematic) implementation of applicable methods and examples. This chapter addresses this issue by presenting a synopsis of possible approaches of preparing teachers to foster multilingual literacy. Although all this is done using Germany as an example, the elements can be transferred to other contexts and formats of teacher training courses. Chapter 25 Walk With Me: Caminatas as a Way for Developing Culturally Sustaining Literacy Pedagogies With Preservice Teachers..................................................................................................................... 535 Minda Morren López, Texas State University, USA Tara A. Newman, Texas State University, USA



Efectively preparing teachers to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students has been a persistent issue in literacy teacher education in the United States for the past several decades. To prepare preservice teachers to work efectively with all students, including emerging bilinguals, and to engage in culturally sustaining pedagogies, this chapter presents a form of community mapping authors call “caminatas,” which was implemented in a short-term study abroad program for preservice teachers. Examples are provided of ways in which the caminatas promote culturally sustaining pedagogies for preservice teachers as well as increased understandings of teaching multilingual students through the fve elements of revised indigenous framework. It is crucial to provide preservice teachers spaces for working with and alongside their students in local communities to build relationships and knowledge of how to develop culturally sustaining pedagogies with and for their students. Chapter 26 Bridging the Gap: The Use of Translanguaging in Shared Readings.................................................. 555 Stephanie Michelle Moody, Texas A&M University, USA Sharon D. Matthews, Texas A&M University, USA Zohreh R. Eslami, Texas A&M University, USA Shared readings have long been recognized as one of the most signifcant contributors to the development of literacy skills in young children. Shared readings are frequently found in both the home and at school, but discrepancies in how they are enacted can contribute to low student achievement. This may be particularly true for bilingual students, whose home literacy practices often involve heritage language use and/or translanguaging. This chapter provides recommendations for teachers interested in incorporating family literacy practices into their classroom shared readings. Recommendations include guidelines for building a multicultural library, tips on how to evaluate children’s books for quality, steps to enacting translanguaging in shared readings, and suggestions for increasing parental involvement in the classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 27 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals: Translanguaging in Writing................ 577 Etienne Skein, Independent Researcher, South Africa Yvonne Knospe, Umeå University, Sweden Kirk P. H. Sullivan, Umeå University, Sweden Translanguaging is a concept that is increasingly used in multilingualism studies with disparate defnitions and uses in the literature. In this chapter, students who are advanced multilingual speakers at home, school, and elsewhere are in focus. The chapter examines historical and contemporary defnitions of translanguaging and shows that not all defnitions view the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers as translanguaging. However, those that see these speakers as having a unitary linguistic system allow the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers to be viewed as translanguaging. Working from this perspective, the chapter argues for translanguaging writing spaces to be created in schools as a way to foster learning. The chapter also presents ways in which teachers can support the creation of these spaces in multilingual classrooms and considers how translanguaging writing spaces can be maintained when advanced multilingual speakers move to writing for monolingual readers. The challenge of this move is also discussed.



Chapter 28 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use: Cultivating Literacy Development through Translanguaging Pedagogy in EAL Classrooms................................................................................. 596 Georgios Neokleous, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Koeun Park, University of Utah, USA Anna Krulatz, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway With English as an Additional Language (EAL) classrooms increasingly becoming culturally and linguistically diverse, the use of the students’ home language(s) (HLs) can equip emergent bilinguals/ multilinguals with the essential accoutrements that optimize their learning experience. To meet the realities and demands of contemporary classrooms, current research encourages teachers to make use of the students’ entire linguistic repertoires and create space for a fuid and dynamic oscillation between the HL(s) and the target language (TL), which has been labelled as translanguaging pedagogy. Despite the constraints imposed by today’s education policies, translanguaging is believed to have the potential to enhance the teaching of these students. Through the description of activities, this chapter discusses how taking up translanguaging theory can contribute towards fostering meaningful and afrming ways of teaching and learning EAL literacy. Chapter 29 Leveraging Learner Experience: Pedagogical Scafolding With Refugee-Background Adults.......... 615 Raichle Farrelly, University of Colorado Boulder, USA Iuliia Fakhrutdinova, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA This chapter builds on the pedagogical knowledge base of educators who work with refugee-background adult language learners. The chapter introduces refugee-background adults who have experienced interruptions in their formal education. The authors present a framework for pedagogical scafolding that emerges from a sociocultural perspective on learning. An overview of research underscores the benefts of recognizing and building upon learners’ strengths, lived experiences, and oral traditions. Classroombased approaches that integrate pedagogical scafolding into meaningful learning opportunities to enhance the language and literacy practices of adult learners are highlighted. The chapter sustains innovation and conversation among educators working with refugee-background adults, ideally in collaboration with the learners themselves, to cultivate pedagogical practices that foster learner success in the classroom and beyond. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 643

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 754 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 763

xxiii

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Foreword

The world in which we live, teach, and nurture the next generation is increasingly multilingual, multicultural, and multimodal. Our understanding of how to best support children and adolescents, and adults worldwide, and the communities, professionals and families that work with them must embrace this shift in literacy development. The Handbook of Research on Cultivating Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms offers an important resource for accomplishing this goal. This comprehensive text examines methods for supporting our global literacy learners worldwide from multiple perspectives. The volume draws on established theories in literacy as a lens for understanding how to work with children, adolescent, and adult literacy learners. The volume opens with a section “Foundations of Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms,” which establishes the landscape of literacy development in 21st century classrooms worldwide as well as the unique challenges of teacher education in the preparation of teachers to engage increasingly intercultural classrooms. The editors then frame the remaining sections with theories of literacy learning, development, and teacher education and the evolution of these and new ways of thinking in our current educational landscape. Section two “Multimodal Approaches to Literacy Development” offers current research, theory, and pedagogy for supporting literacy development in an increasingly digital world. There is a natural relationship to this area of study in Section three “Promoting Critical Literacy in Academic contexts,” which unpacks the necessity for “liberating literacy” by offering strategies that position 21st century literacy learners to dig deep as readers and writers to identify their own understandings and positions independent of text intention or intentional persuasion. This supports the development of confident and competent readers who are able to discredit texts in its many forms that may be intentionally misleading. Section four appropriately titled “Promoting Literacy through Literature” offers practical strategies that have a strong research base that has held up over time. The chapters offer strategies to support children and adolescents’ capacity to engage with the comprehension and construction of text in ways that supports their own understanding of who they are as individuals as well as their relationship to their local communities and world they share. The assumption guiding the work in this section is that informed and engaged literacy learners are better equipped to be a citizen of the world because they are developing the capacity to understand their own identity as well as the flexibility to accept and respect others who may have different linguistic, economic, political, cultural, and global experiences. Section five, “Heritage Language Use & Family Literacy,” expands traditional assumptions of family literacy. In the chapters that populate this section, readers are invited to consider the importance of honoring native language and refugee and immigrant experiences in shared reading and instruction. It 

Foreword

is important that this section takes up “Adult Literacy” from the lens of how to support adult literacy learners from the emergent stage and beyond in ways that honor their adult identity but also ensures that the adult who is becoming literate in one or more languages for the first time has access to the strategies necessary to decode, comprehend and construct text meaningfully. This is tied to many of the issues explored in other sections of the volume as adults often return to literacy development at different stages due to varying experiences that may be informed by periodic or sustained lack of access to education along with poverty and other circumstances outside of their control. The volume concludes with section six, “Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogies.” In this section, research informed strategies for working with literacy learners of all ages as well as preservice teachers are explored. Specifically, the authors address how to create lesson frameworks that are linguistically responsive in diverse classrooms and how we can help the next generation of teachers value these pedagogical approaches. Overall, this handbook offers a comprehensive study of theory, research, and pedagogy for supporting global literacy learners. It explores multiple themes throughout its different sections and offers specific strategies readers can implement that demonstrate the utility for children, adults, and educators in diverse and multilingual settings. This is a helpful resource for teachers and teacher educators alike. It offers an important lens into our current classrooms and communities, providing frameworks that support the students we meet today. This is also a resource to plan for tomorrow as we imagine the children, adolescent, and adult literacy learners who we will work with in the future. The constant to all of this is that as we move forward, these literacy learners will continue to bring increasingly diverse linguistic, cultural, and community experiences in this ever-evolving global landscape. Heather Casey Rider University, USA

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lesley Mandel Morrow Rutgers University, USA

xxiv

xxv

Preface

NOTIONS OF LITERACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY Literacy has traditionally been associated with the linguistic and functional ability to read and write. The autonomous model of literacy (Street, 1984), which until recently has dominated most educational settings, perceives literacy skills as monolithic and composed of a discrete set of skills. Current views of literacy, however, originating in the new literacy studies movement (New London Group, 1996; Pahl & Rowsell, 2006), have moved away from this perception towards a more complex and multivalent definition encompassing new literacies that prepare students to reach their full potential in the 21st century (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). In response to these changes in thinking about literacy, UNESCO (2004) adopted the following definition:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society. (p. 13) The ever-broadening definition of literacy is already mirrored in national curricula across the globe including, for instance, Australia and Norway (ACARA, 2016; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2016) where the term 21st century literacies is adopted to illustrate emphasis on skills required in today’s contemporary society. Similarly, in foreign and second (i.e., additional) language education, there has been a marked shift away from the monolingual orthodoxy that has prevailed for years towards approaches that acknowledge the unique literacy needs of bi- and multilingual learners (Flores & Aneja, 2017; García & Wei, 2015). Recent scholarship on foreign and second language teaching promulgates a flexible languaging approach that encourages teachers to integrate their students’ full linguistic repertoires into their classrooms (al-Bataineh & Gallagher, 2018; García, 2009; Lin & Wu, 2015). This code-meshing of languages is believed to optimize the learning experience as it essentially fosters their literacy skills (Canagarajah, 2013). Another important trend within current educational studies is the inclusion of often underrepresented populations in the research agenda, such as refugee-background and Indigenous populations (e.g., Shapiro, Farrelly, & Curry, 2018; Watson, 2019). Bigelow and Tarone (2004) urged researchers in the fields of education and linguistics to revisit theories of second language acquisition that emerged from the findings of studies largely conducted with literate and formally educated populations. In response, there has been a steadily growing body of international research aimed at increasing our understanding of literacy 

Preface

development by refugee-background adolescents and adults with interrupted formal education experience and emerging or non-existent first language literacy (e.g., Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011; Condelli, Wrigley, & Yoon, 2009; Tarone & Bigelow, 2005; Trupke-Bastidas, J., & Poulos, 2007; Vinogradov & Bigelow, 2010; see also the annual symposia proceedings for the organization Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults (LESLLA) available at www.leslla.org). Additionally, innovative research methods, such as participatory action research and narrative inquiry, have increasingly recognized the importance of hearing these learners’ voices (e.g., Shapiro, Farrelly, & Curry, 2018). Insights from these types of studies have illuminated important assets and funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) that immigrant and refugee-background populations bring to the task of learning. Consequently, various forms of social, cultural, and linguistic capital (Yosso, 2005) are more readily identified by educators and leveraged in language and literacy classrooms (e.g., Liscio & Farrelly, 2019). Researchers and educators urge not only recognizing, but legitimizing learners’ various forms of capital (Papa, 2018) as well as their ways of knowing within formal education settings (Crandall, 2018; Watson, 2019). As the knowledge base grows, educators are supported and empowered to think expansively and inclusively when developing culturally and linguistically responsive lessons and materials (Ladson-Billings, 1995). This edited volume focuses on literacy in diverse and multilingual educational settings. Although literacy, as a fundamental issue in education, has received abundant attention in the last few decades, the majority of publications to date have focused on monolingual classrooms (Edwards, 2015). Taking the expanded definition of literacy as an ability of humans to achieve their goals and develop their potential (UNESCO, 2004) as a point of departure, as well as considering the recent shift from the monolingual to multilingual focus in literacy practices (Edwards, 2015; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011), this book examines approaches to multiliteracy instruction for a range of learner populations in linguistically and culturally diverse settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LITERACY IN DIVERSE AND MULTILINGUAL CONTEXTS Optimizing literacy has become a priority and a national strategy in most countries around the world (Quinn, 2011). In North America, educating refugee- and immigrant-background learners introduces the challenge of literacy instruction across all grades in K-12 settings and throughout the lifespan in community-based programs. National revisions of national curricula in countries such as Ireland, Poland, and Indonesia suggest that literacy attainment has not kept pace with the recent changes and demands resulting from globalization and rapidly expanding technologies. In fact, test results revealed that learners score just above average, thus leading educational institutions to prioritize improving literacy (OECD, 2015a; OECD, 2015b). According to a report by the International Literacy Association (2020), urgent instructional concerns shared by teachers, program administrators, literacy consultants, and higher education professionals include increasing equity and opportunity for all learners; addressing disconnects between the school curriculum and students’ actual needs in terms of literacy support and instruction; increasing professional learning and development opportunities for practicing educators; providing access to high-quality, diverse books and content; teaching critical literacy and how to analyze source material and authorial intent; emphasizing culturally responsive curriculum and instruction; designing specific differentiated literacy instruction; and leveraging literacy as a pathway to social justice.

xxvi

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preface

Recognizing the importance of adopting a broader view of literacy that “embraces cultural and linguistic diversity and also takes into account the multi-modal meaning-making opportunities (e.g., still images, gestures, speech, music, writing, or new configurations of these elements) created by the new technologies” (Edwards, 2015, p. 77), this volume aims to explore the multifaceted nature of literacy development across the lifespan in a range of multilingual contexts. It provides a critical and complex overview of varied facets of literacy and literacy instruction unfolding around the world examining topics such as dimensions of literacy in multilingual contexts, literacy development across the lifespan in multilingual settings, curricular innovations for literacy development, and multimodality. All contributions are grounded in current research, examining theory-practice connections as demonstrated through innovations in pedagogy, curriculum and materials design, and teacher education. In addition, the volume offers unique perspectives through a critical reflection on issues related to power, ownership, identity, and the social construction of literacy in multilingual societies. Because literacy instruction in contemporary language classrooms serves diverse student populations, it has to go beyond developing reading and writing abilities. The chapters in this volume set out to explore a wide range of literacy dimensions. The complexity of literacy instruction lies in the need to prepare learners to listen to, read, view, speak, write and create oral, print, visual, and digital texts and to use and modify language for different purposes as well as “to access, understand, analyse and evaluate information, make meaning, express thoughts and emotions, [and] present ideas and opinions” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority, 2016, p. 1). Recent literature highlights the difficulties learners face as literacy demands in the 21st century grow, and further underscores that language teachers are not adequately prepared to respond to the emerging and ever-broadening changes in literacy (Breivik, 2005; Hobbs, 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). As a resource for use in language teacher preparation programs globally, the contributors provide a range of theoretical and practical perspectives while creating space for pre- and in-service teachers to grapple with the ideas in light of their respective contexts. Language teacher educators have a responsibility to prepare teachers to be culturally responsive and flexible so they can adapt to the range of settings and variety of learners they will encounter in their careers, while also bravely questioning the assumptions they are encountering about multilingual and diverse literacy development and instruction. Given the dynamic and expanding nature of literacy today, coupled with the ever-growing migration of populations around the world, which contributes to an increasingly multicultural and multilingual global village, we hope that the present volume will become a welcome addition for use by teachers, teacher educators, literacy consultants, and researchers worldwide. The handbook is designed to serve as a primary or supplementary course text in Europe, North America, Australia, and other multilingual contexts. It is intended for use in pre- and in-service foreign and second language teacher education programs preparing students to work with linguistically and culturally diverse student populations. While the target audience includes pre- and in-service teachers, and teacher educators (lecturers, professors, practicum supervisors), the handbook may also be of interest to language curriculum and materials developers as well as graduate and post-graduate students investigating additional language acquisition and multilingualism from linguistic and pedagogical perspectives.

xxvii

Preface

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK This book contains 29 chapters, which are organized thematically into six sections: 1. Foundations of Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms; 2. Multilingual Approaches to Literacy Development; 3, Promoting Critical Literacy in Academic Contexts; 4. Cultivating Literacy through Literature; 5. Heritage Language Use and Family Literacy; and 6. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogies. Each chapter contains the following sections:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. Theoretical Background: In this section, contributors present up-to-date research on the aspect of literacy that is the key focus of their chapter. 2. Classroom Applications: This section discusses how the theoretical concepts presented in the first part of the chapter can be applied in the classroom. Each chapter includes an extended classroom vignette that showcases how teachers can work with a particular learner population to develop the type of literacy presented in the chapter. 3. Discussion Questions: To make the text easy to use in the classroom, each chapter includes 2-3 reflective questions related to the issues presented in the chapter, which can be used as prompts for discussions or writing assignments. 4. Suggested Further Readings: An annotated bibliography of 3-5 suggested further readings is included at the end of each chapter to help readers select the sources most relevant to them. Below, we provide an overview of the sections and a brief summary of each section and chapter. Section 1 lays a foundation for the volume by providing an overview of learner literacy needs in diverse and multilingual classrooms. The chapters in this section (Chapters 1-5) give a historical overview of definitions of literacy and suggestions for teaching literacy in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts. They discuss implications for teacher education programs and programs serving emergent literacy adults. They also provide an overview of basic literacy skills such as phonological awareness and orthographic learning. Section 2 discusses various ways in which different modalities (e.g., visual, audio, digital, virtual) can deepen students’ literacy skills in culturally and linguistically diverse classroom settings. The chapters in this section (Chapters 6-10) highlight the shifts and developments in today’s classrooms that call for the integration and recognition of varying combinations of tools to create a learning environment that adequately prepares learners to communicate effectively in an increasingly multimodal world. They discuss pedagogical applications that combine two or more modes to enhance students’ literacy skills. Section 3 provides a state-of-the-art review of the literature on the pivotal role of critical literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The chapters in this section (Chapters 11-15) discuss approaches to learning that encourage students to critically engage and interact with various texts to develop their critical literacy skills as well as ways in which educators can assess literacy skills in various contexts. The authors also highlight ways in which critical literacy can be employed to empower minority students within English-speaking settings. Section 4 stresses the pivotal role that incorporating literature—Western and non-Western—can play in enhancing students’ literacy skills in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The chapters in this section (Chapters 16-19) provide a thorough overview of the use of literary texts as pedagogy for literacy learning. They also offer practical classroom applications in which literature can promote literary and literacy development in children. xxviii

Preface

Section 5 discusses the challenges with which language instructors are faced when working with emergent literacy students in a language other than the dominant one and examines ways in which proficiency and literacy skills in heritage language can be strengthened. The chapters in this section (Chapters 20-22) use examples from specific linguistic and cultural backgrounds to illustrate concrete pedagogical applications in which educators can cultivate their students’ literacy skills through heritage language use. Section 6 emphasizes the importance of fostering culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies when working with students from diverse backgrounds. The chapters in this section (Chapters 23-29) discuss practical approaches that make use of students’ entire linguistic repertoires to illustrate how literacy skills can be fostered in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 1 Chapter 1 provides an overview of the existing notions of literacy considering how these have been influenced by societal changes such as globalization, migration, multilingualism, and advances in digital technologies. It gives an overview of how some important theoretical considerations such as critical literacy, multiliteracy, multimodality, and translanguaging have informed understandings of literacy development for multilingual learners and offers practical suggestions for teaching multilingual learners from a multiliteracies perspective. Chapter 2 argues that in order to address the meet the literacy demands of the 21st century, teacher education programs need to prepare teachers to foster intercultural literacy. The chapter offers a new model of intercultural literacy that consists of the following components: intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness, and it offers examples of intercultural literacy practices that can be implemented in the classroom. Chapter 3 offers a robust overview of scholarship on emergent literacy acquisition in children and adults to shed light on the complexity of acquiring literacy for the first time in a second language as an adult migrant. It also presents practical suggestions for how teachers working with these adults can foster the development of emerging literacy skills focusing on three areas, namely vocabulary acquisition, metalinguistic awareness, and academic socialization. Chapter 4 emphasizes the link between L2 acquisition and phonological awareness. It explores the understudied area of L2 phonological awareness and its connection to the development of spoken and written literacy. The author encourages the integration of short, fun activities matching the interests of young L2 adults and provides examples of how to teach phonological awareness to develop spoken and written literacy skills in the L2 in multilingual classrooms. Chapter 5 takes a closer look at orthographic learning for multilingual learners acquiring literacy in more than one language. The authors postulate that literacy instruction for multilingual children should place emphasis on phonological, semantic, and orthographic forms. The chapter concludes by discussing pedagogical applications designed to support pre-kindergarten through school-aged learners in deepening the orthographic knowledge needed for fluent reading.

Section 2 Chapter 6 heightens the renewed interest that the advent of new technologies has sparked in the language classroom and elaborates on the use of blogs in teenage learners’ L2 literacy practices in the digital age. xxix

Preface

It delves deeper into the impact the use of blogs can have on the authorship, personal expression, writing fluency, and confidence of teenage language learners by attempting to put these concepts into practice. Chapter 7 examines the use of media to communicate political messages through examples of stories of undocumented youth in the United States. It then moves to discuss the role of media literacy in the English as Foreign Language (EFL) classroom and argues that media and intercultural knowledge should be taught jointly. To this end, the chapter outlines a step-by-step approach to integrating media products such as digital stories in a high school EFL program. Chapter 8 offers a robust review of the literature on digital storytelling. The authors draw on a semesterlong intercultural virtual digital storytelling project that brought language learners and teachers together as members of one learning community. The authors illustrate how telecollaborative digital storytelling can foster respect for individuals with different backgrounds, cultural values, and experiences, while promoting equal voice and collaborative learning to enhance instructors’ expertise with multifaceted cross-cultural issues, educational technology, and multiliteracies. Chapter 9 provides a framework for understanding visual literacy and reviews literature on the roles of visual images in second language teaching. It then describes pedagogical strategies language teachers may apply to enhance visual literacy and communication skills in a young learner Content-Based Instruction classroom, providing specific guidelines for using L2 as a tool to interpret, describe, study, analyze, and discuss visual images when learning about non-linguistic content. Chapter 10 addresses visual literacy from a theoretical and a practical perspective. It offers an extensive overview of the role of visual expressions in today’s discourses and understandings and applications of visual literacy. Using examples of learner texts that combine verbal and visual means of expression, the chapter argues that visual texts constitute a central component of child literacy development.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 3 Chapter 11 offers an extensive overview of scholarship on socio-critical literacy, including the autonomous and the ideological models as traditionally discussed in the literature, and explores its nuances in relation to aspects of culture and criticality for teaching and learning English as a foreign or second language in multilingual contexts. Emphasis is also placed on the role and status of English to empower non-dominant groups within English-speaking settings. Chapter 12 builds on research and practice to explore how corpus-based teaching can support the development of critical literacy skills in EFL settings. It advocates for corpus-based and data-driven learning as an objective way to integrate extensive examples of authentic discourse as a way of provoking learners to reflect on what is, and what is not, written. Chapter 13 establishes the connections among comprehension, opinion-formation, and language production in EFL settings. Using examples from Nordic EFL curricula, the chapter argues that a heightened awareness of basic critical theory can foster the development of interculturality and multiliteracy, and it suggests a new model for teaching critical theory in the middle-grades EFL classroom. Chapter 14 focuses on critical literacy and genre pedagogy. It first gives a historical overview of the term genre across a range of academic disciplines and examines the role of critical literacy of genres as a key 21st century literacy. In addition to examining current trends in the use of genre in the language classroom, the chapter also pinpoints the ways in which critical literacy and genre can effectively be employed together to empower minority students and to subvert bias in multilingual/multicultural learners.

xxx

Preface

Chapter 15 challenges older views of the English for Academic Purposes Literacies (EAPL) and identifies varied purposes and constructs of summative as well as formative assessment of EAPL. The author provides a thorough review of the literature on language assessment and concludes by presenting useful steps in creating EAPL assessments.

Section 4 Chapter 16 takes a closer look at the use of children’s literature as pedagogy for literacy learning in diverse and multilingual educational contexts. It examines the complex sociocultural relationships between learning, literacy, identity, experience, power, agency, knowledge, value, success, and failure that lie at the core of learning. The chapter offers exemplars of practical classroom applications that help teachers create meaningful moments of connection with learners through stories. Chapter 17 outlines the ways in which the interactive methodology of literature circles instruction can enhance the development of literacy skills for linguistically and culturally diverse groups of language learners. In the first part, the authors present the theoretical underpinnings of literature circles while the second part of the chapter discusses the ways in which literature circles can be implemented in the language classroom. Chapter 18 presents a theoretical framework and practical implementations for enhancing the use of literature in multilingual settings as a way to promote second language literacy skills. The chapter offers several classroom practices that consider the reading abilities and interests of learners and that connect various collaborative, child-centered, and multidisciplinary activities through reading. It advocates for language-oriented communities at school where multi-literacy is placed at the core of learning. Chapter 19 cautions about the constraints of applying a contemporary semiotic framework in analyzing non-Western images. To mitigate this, the authors introduce a framework designed to adequately prepare teachers who work with multicultural literature and non-Western images. They provide pedagogical applications of this framework for interpretation of non-Western images to classroom-based lessons that incorporate multicultural picturebooks.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 5 Chapter 20 argues for the importance of valuing, maintaining, and developing proficiency and literacy skills in heritage languages by both adults and younger community members. It describes heritage language materials available to teachers via the Online Heritage Language Resource Hub and illustrates, with examples, how practitioners can use these materials to design activities that enable heritage languages to gain status and be valued across generations. Chapter 21 discusses some challenges faced by language educators working with emergent literacy refugee-background adults. Using the example of Syrian women in Turkey, the authors suggest an approach to literacy development that is holistic; addresses issues such as trauma, poverty, and unwelcoming social environment; offers systematic, lifelong education in local centers; and provides teachers with the training they need to better address the needs of the refugee population. Chapter 22 examines key issues in current understanding of literacy education of indigenous children. Using the example of a municipality in Brazil, the authors outline a pedagogical design based on the Linguistically Appropriate Practice (LAP) approach for the literacy and language development of indigenous children within mainstream non-indigenous schools. xxxi

Preface

Section 6 Chapter 23 outlines a pedagogical framework for fostering Linguistically Responsive Literacy Pedagogies (LRLP) grounded in the sociocultural dimensions of literacy, the multilingual realities of contemporary educational settings, and the institutional expectations of the teaching profession. The authors draw on their own classroom experiences at different schools and on current trends on the field of literacy education to illustrate how principles of LRLP can be enacted in everyday classroom practice. Chapter 24 cautions about the prevalence of the monolingual perspective of the majority language in increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Using courses at a university in Germany as an example, the authors present an overview of possible approaches that can be implemented in teachertraining courses whose aim would be to prepare teachers to foster multilingual literacy. Chapter 25 introduces a form of community mapping referred to as caminatas. The objective of this practice is to foster culturally sustaining pedagogies for preservice teachers working with culturally and linguistically diverse students. In addition, the authors discuss the ways in which caminatas can enhance the teachers’ own understanding of the ideologies that could affect their views on teaching and learning. Chapter 26 discusses the importance of shared readings in developing literacy skills in young children. After providing a thorough review of the literature on school and home literacy, translanguaging, and bilingual books, the authors offer recommendations for how monolingual and bilingual teachers can integrate translanguaging, bilingual books, and family literacy practices into shared readings in their classrooms. Chapter 27 explores theoretical underpinnings and contemporary definitions of translanguaging and discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with translanguaging writing practices of advanced multilingual speakers in English as an Additional Language (EAL) contexts. The chapter provides a selection of activities that support home language literacy and use it as an instrument in the development of fluid linguistic practices in EAL. Chapter 28 encourages the use of students’ entire linguistic repertoires in EAL classrooms as a means of enhancing multilingual students’ literacy practices. To help culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms to implement translanguaging as a pedagogical practice, the authors discuss practical approaches that apply translanguaging and can be implemented to deepen students’ literacy skills. Chapter 29 promotes the enactment of pedagogical scaffolding techniques in the teaching of refugeebackground adults with interrupted formal education. The authors highlight classroom practices that build on learners’ strengths, lived experiences, and oral traditions to effectively incorporate language and literacy practices into learners’ lives in meaningful ways.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES ACARA. (2016). Australian curriculum, assessment, and reporting authority. Retrieved from http:// www. australiancurriculum.edu.au/ Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 689–700. doi:10.2307/3588285 Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000109 xxxii

Preface

Breivik, P. S. (2005). 21st century learning and information literacy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(2), 21–27. doi:10.3200/CHNG.37.2.21-27 Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice. Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London, UK: Routledge. Condelli, L., Wrigley, H. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). “What works” for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder, & J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132–159). New York, NY: Routledge. Crandall, B. (2018). ‘History should come first’: Perspectives of Somali-born refugee-background male youth on writing in and out of school. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 33–48). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-007 Edwards, V. (2015). Literacy in bilingual and multilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 75–91). New Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Flores, N., & Aneja, G. (2017). “Why needs hiding?” Translingual (re) orientations in TESOL teacher education. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 441–463. García, O., & Wei, L. (2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 223–240). New Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hobbs, R. (2008). Debates and challenges facing new literacies in the 21st century. In K. Drother, & S. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of children, media and culture (pp. 431–447). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781848608436.n26 International Literacy Association. (2020). What’s hot in literacy: 2020 report. Retrieved from https:// literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/resource-documents/whatshotreport_2020_final.pdf Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675 Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Liscio, J., & Farrelly, R. (2019). Exploring notions of success through the social and cultural capital of adult refugee-background students. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 131–152. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies designing social features. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

xxxiii

Preface

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2016). National curriculum. Retrieved from https:// sokeresultat.udir.no/finn-lareplan.html#/&english?r3=%C7%82%C7%82456e67656c736b&r3val=Eng elsk Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015a). Education policy outlook: Poland. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/POL-country-profile.pdf Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015b). Education in Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/156821/education-indonesia-risingchallenge.pdf Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2006). Travel notes from the new literacy studies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853598630 Papa, E. (2018). Using photovoice with Cambodian and Guatemalan youth to uncover community cultural wealth and influence policy change. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugeebackground students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 159–176). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-015 Quinn, R. (2011). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Education and Skills. Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Curry, M. J. (Eds.). (2018). Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 77–97. doi:10.1017/ S0267190505000048 Trupke-Bastidas, J., & Poulos, A. (2007). Improving literacy of L1-non-literate and L1-literate adult English as a second language learners. MinneTESOL Journal, 24. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TESOL-2007.pdf UNESCO. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136246.locale=en

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vinogradov, P., & Bigelow, M. (2010). Using oral language skills to build on the emerging literacy of adult English learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Watson, J. (2019). Understanding Indigenous education practices as a way of engaging deeply with refugee-background students (and everyone else) in the classroom. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 203–224. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006

xxxiv

xxxv

Acknowledgment

The editors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all the people involved in this project. We would like to thank each one of the authors for their contributions. Their novel ideas and expertise are the core of this book. We are deeply indebted to Heather Casey and Lesley Morrow, who generously agreed to write a Foreword to the volume. We also wish to thank the reviewers for their detailed and constructive feedback, which helped us improve the quality, coherence, and content presentation of the chapters. Most of the authors also served as referees; we highly appreciate their double task. Our special thanks go to the EAB members without whose ongoing support this book would have never become a reality. Finally, we would like to thank our family members and friends whose love and support gave us strength and motivation to finalize this project. Georgios Neokleous Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Anna Krulatz Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Raichle Farrelly University of Colorado, USA



Section 1

Foundations of Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 1 lays a foundation for the volume by providing an overview of learner literacy needs in diverse and multilingual classrooms. The chapters in this section give a historical overview of definitions of literacy and present suggestions for teaching literacy in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts. They discuss implications for teacher education programs and programs serving emergent literacy adults. They also provide an overview of basic literacy skills such as phonological awareness and orthographic learning.

1

Chapter 1

An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century MaryAnn Christison https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3760-0619 University of Utah, USA Denise E. Murray https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3386-0421 Macquarie University, Australia

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The most common defnition of literacy is the ability to read and write. However, for teachers working with multilingual learners, the development of literacy skills is much more complex than this simple defnition would suggest. Notions of literacy in the 21st century have evolved in response to a number of societal changes, such as globalization, large-scale human migration, and advances in digital technologies. This chapter considers how these societal changes have infuenced conceptions and practices of literacy. It provides a brief overview of some important theoretical considerations that inform understandings of literacy development for multilingual learners, including critical literacy, multiliteracies, multimodal literacy, and translanguaging, and explores current conceptions of literacy to help second and foreign language (SFL) teachers better understand how to meet the literacy needs of multilingual learners in the 21st century, ofering practical suggestions for teaching from a multiliteracies perspective.

INTRODUCTION Notions of literacy and what it means to be literate have been evolving for decades. Historically, literacy has been conceptualized and defined in a number of different ways. For example, it is common knowledge that in the early 19th century in the western United States, a literate person was minimally defined as a DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch001

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

person who could write his or her own name as opposed to writing an “X” on a signature line for deeds and legal documents (Lockridge, 1974). Obviously, notions of literacy in the 21st century have expanded well beyond name writing, yet the most common and widely-used definition of literacy is still the ability to read and write. Educators have also defined literacy on a sliding scale relative to the number of years of schooling one has had, without consideration for the quality of the schooling, the knowledge and skills of the individual learners, or even the number of uninterrupted years of schooling. For example, in the United States, students in the fifth grade who are aged 9-10 are assumed to be literate by virtue of their grade level. In order to explore the concept of literacy as it relates to the needs of multilingual second or foreign language (SFL) learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, we must look beyond common definitions and understandings to explore what being literate means in today’s world and how societal changes have influenced our understanding of literacy. However, finding a consistent definition of literacy that is appropriate for all contexts and learners is challenging. There are a number of reasons why literacy is difficult to define. First, the concept of literacy can be delineated in several different ways and on a variety of dimensions because different societal groups, including educators, linguists, psychologists, and sociologists, have contributed to the knowledge base from which common definitions of literacy have been derived. In a joint project on literacy, which was conducted over two decades ago in Australia by the Department of Secondary Education (DSE) and the Catholic Education Office of Victoria (CEOV), the difficulties associated with conceptualizing and defining literacy were plainly delineated.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Definitions of literacy are notoriously difficult to compose. Literacy is a social construct, a complex idea that means different things to different cultural groups at different times. Therefore, literacy is a relative term and dynamic. While literacy is popularly understood to denote the ability to read and write prose and other print texts, it is an integrated complex of language and thinking processes and skills, incorporating a range of habits, attitudes, interests and knowledge, serving a range of purposes in different contexts. (DSE/CEOV, 1994, p.329). As a social-cultural construct, literacy is influenced by the habits, attitudes, and knowledge of a given cultural group. As such, it continues to evolve over time and in response to changes in society. Globalization—the way in which people from different countries around the world interact, communicate, and integrate; demographic changes as a result of large-scale human migration; and advances in digital technologies, affect how literacy is defined in terms of educational systems, labor markets, and society in general. This observation is particularly poignant as it relates to considering events in the latter part of the 20th century and the first two decades in the 21st century. As a result of societal conflicts, human migration is at an all-time high, and this migration has created communities of people worldwide who are culturally and linguistically diverse. For example, in BANA (Britain, Australasia, and North America) countries (i.e., countries that accept large number of immigrants), there are now sizable numbers of adult early emergent literacy learners who have educational needs that are quite different from the population of adult learners who are literate (Shapiro, Farrelly, & Curry, 2018). In other words, some adults may have no literacy skills in their first language or even basic understandings of literacy, such as the notion that symbols carry meaning or that the print environment is an important mechanism for exchanging information in modern societies. Another result of large-scale migration is the increasing number of English learners in K12 schools in BANA countries. In the United States, for

2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

example, they represent the fastest growing population of learners in K12 schools (NCES, 2018). In addition to changing demographics, the world has become increasingly connected through the Internet and advances in digital technologies. Access to these new technologies has become commonplace for many of our learners, changing the way they think and interact with text. No one could have predicted the effects of social media and its influence on communication, especially across traditional boundaries of language and cultures. Lo Bianco and Freebody (2001) noted that the usefulness of a definition of literacy depends on how learners’ capabilities are conceptualized, for example, whether literacy is conceived of as a set of varied capabilities or a single capability. In one context, we may find learners who can read well but may not be able to write. In another context, we might find learners who can neither read nor write in any language, or they may have varied levels of literacy skills across languages or have literacy in a home language but not in the majority language of the society in which they are living. In terms of capabilities, “[t]here is no precise dividing line between a person who is fully literate and one who is not” (OECD, 2003, p. 17). Learners’ capabilities diverge and fluctuate, and these variations in capabilities must be included in conceptualizations of literacy for the 21st century. Because second language teacher education programs (SLTE) are most often situated in institutions of higher education, they tend to focus on the development of teaching skills for literate populations (see also Yang in this volume). Many English language teachers begin their teaching careers by working with adult academic learners who already know how to read and write in at least one language (see Anand in this volume); consequently, thinking of literacy in basic terms, in other words, the ability to read and write in another language, is common for teachers with this background. However, when teachers begin working with adult learners who have non-academic goals for learning an SFL, such as adult refugee immigrants who plan to live in a new country permanently, ideas about literacy and what it means to be literate begin to change. Few non-academic adult refugee learners have plans to attend a university, so they differ greatly from academic learners in terms of their needs and goals. Adult refugee learners also differ as individual learners; some are literate although their levels of literacy vary; some barely know the alphabet, while others are well-educated. What they all have in common is a desire to find employment in the country to which they have immigrated and create a new life. When English language teachers begin working with non-academic adult learners, it causes their definition of literacy to change and carry a more functional meaning. In other words, the literacy skills on which SFL teachers should focus are directly related to the literacy skills that non-academic adult learners need in order to participate successfully in the workplace and function in adult life in their new society. This notion of literacy has been referred to as functional literacy (Lawton & Gordon, 1996). Rather than defining literacy based on pre-existing benchmarks, such as in academic writing courses with predetermined foci for expository writing, the benchmarks in functional literacy are based on the goals that learners establish for themselves, their individual contexts for language use, and the particular jobs they are seeking. Thinking of literacy in these terms can be a huge perceptual change for many teachers. A functional approach to literacy includes the following: 1. determining the function for which students need to develop literacy skills, for example, to complete a job application, to apply for benefits, to find specific information about food on packaging or labels, or to communicate with school personnel; 2. creating instructional tasks that mirror real-life tasks; and 3. providing opportunities for learners to participate in these real-life tasks. Successful completion of these tasks is used as the benchmark for determining literacy.

3

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

In the excerpt below, one of the authors of this chapter (Christison) recalls an early experience and its impact on her understanding of literacy. I have just returned from what has to be the most humbling experience of my life. It might sound a little dramatic, but I feel totally defeated as an English language teacher. For this reason, it seems important for me to record my thoughts at this moment, if for no other reason than to gain some clarity for myself because I know that tonight’s experience as an English language teacher was a pivotal one for me. There were 12 adult learners in my class this evening, four men and eight women. They smiled at me when I entered the class and seemed so eager to learn and happy to be there. It’s that initial image that sticks in my mind as I think about the class. Their experience of learning English tonight must have been such a disappointment for them. None of them comes from a background of literacy. So, the concept of literacy was absolutely foreign to them. I now realize that I didn’t understand my own assumptions about literacy, and now I am questioning everything I ever knew about the concept. As an educator and an English language teacher, I realize that I am journeying into new waters with these learners. Until I walked into the classroom tonight, I didn’t know that my adult learners were not literate, and no one mentioned this fact to me. The administrators of the program and the individuals who hired me seemed competent and concerned about hiring a qualified teacher (if my MA TESL means anything in this context), so why wasn’t literacy on the radar? When I finally figured out that my learners could not read or write, I still thought that I would be able to manage and that my past teaching experiences would somehow rescue me. They did not. I shudder to think about how blindly I have entered into this job and how ill prepared I am for it. Why did I think that my previous teaching experiences, which have been with literate academic adults, and my MA TESL degree, which focused primarily on literate and academic language learners, would in any way have prepared me or qualified me for tonight’s class?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

To find out that most of the adults in my class could not hold a pencil nor did they know what to do with books or that a book in English opens from right to left was such an eye opener. I keep thinking about my learners as adults who had another life with friends, families, children, and jobs before they became refugees. I know nothing about their world. Learning to make scratches on a piece of paper and write the English alphabet seems so unimportant when I think of how much change has come their way and how much they need to know just to navigate in a literate society such as ours. I’m beginning to see literacy as something more than learning the letters of the alphabet or even reading and writing. When I stop to think about it, literacy is just a collection of signs and symbols that have come to mean certain things to us. Maybe there are other ways of looking at literacy that are more connected to my students’ lives at this time than learning the English alphabet, which for some strange reason became the focus of my lesson this evening. I don’t even have a book to guide me, but I think that not having a book may be a good thing. At least, I am free to approach my teaching based on the needs of the learners. I won’t quit, but I have never felt more incompetent as an English language teacher. (Christison, research notes)

4

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

This reflection highlights the fact that literacy is a dynamic and evolving construct and that teaching experiences can trigger advances in our thinking about literacy. Because educators and researchers have been responsive to change, a broader definition of literacy now exists, which includes the use of a variety of signs and symbols to convey and comprehend meaning (Anstey & Ball, 2011). At the time the vignette was written, the field had not yet recognized that there may be different literacies; however, classroom experiences with diverse groups of learners with different orientations toward literacy have been propelling teachers to think about literacy in different ways. The author of the vignette above was already thinking about the signs and symbols that she could use in the environment to help her learners negotiate the literate context in which they found themselves. Given the latter observation, it also seems logical to conclude that there are likely multiple literacies that need to be considered in order to navigate our modern world successfully. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of some of the theoretical considerations that underpin current definitions and understandings of literacy in the 21st century. This information presented is appropriate for SFL teachers who work in diverse contexts with multilingual learners (i.e., children or adults who routinely use more than one language in school or in real-world contexts) who come from a wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. These theoretical considerations include the following: 1. the importance of decoding and encoding for literacy development, 2. conceptualizing new and emerging literacies, 3. types of literacy, 4. multiliteracies, 5. multimodal literacy, and 6. translanguaging. In terms of combining theory and practice, the final sections of this chapter offer classroom applications for teaching literacy to multilingual learners. These practical applications include creating multimodal classroom activities, diversifying text media, providing access to digital media, providing multimedia resources for students, using social media, and encouraging the use of multiliteracies. Also included in this section is a teaching tip that expands on the idea of developing visual literacy.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Traditionally, the development of literacy skills in any language and in any society has been equated with its school-based knowledge of written text, and various attributes have been associated with the presence of literacy, thereby, presumably, affording societal members who are literate with certain benefits and advantages. For example, some researchers have claimed that literacy changes cognition, which enables humans who are literate to have more opportunities to develop higher levels of logical thought (Havelock, 1982; McLuhan, 1962). This point of view seems attractive because the process of developing literacy certainly requires logical thinking and affords learners numerous opportunities for problem solving. While it is likely that literacy changes cognition and, thus, provides certain benefits, it is also important to remember that logical thinking is not the purview of literate individuals. Research on literacy and cognition has shown that the benefits that were initially attributed to the development of literacy were, in fact, likely the result of schooling in general (Heath, 1983; Scribner & Cole, 1981) and of the impact that time spent in the context of schools affords learners. In schools, there is a focus on literacy instruction, on exposure to a print environment, and on opportunities for interaction with literate individuals, such as teachers and staff. It is the totality of our experiences with literacy that have the potential to change cognition and our thinking about the world. As a result of these insights, research

5

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

on literacy has viewed the development of literacy skills as a sociocultural practice that is ideological in nature (e.g., Gee, 1996).

Decoding and Encoding Decoding and encoding are important processes in literacy development. Decoding is the process of converting written text into its spoken counterpart. Encoding denotes being able to write the correct symbols to represent spoken language. These processes are fundamental to traditional conceptions of literacy. In order to decode and encode successfully in English, learners must have phonemic awareness, the knowledge that the speech stream is comprised of individual sounds, and they must be phonemically aware enough to be able to segment and blend sounds (see Kkese in this volume). In alphabetic languages, such as English in which 43 or 44 sounds are represented by only 26 symbols or letters of the alphabet, learners must know the basic ways in which sounds are represented by symbols. In other words, they must know the relationship between the graphemes (i.e., printed letters) and how they map to sounds (i.e., the alphabetic principle). While decoding and encoding are important skills for literacy development, literacy is more than decoding and encoding text. Freebody and Luke (1990) observed that literacy requires mastering a number of different roles, including:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Code breaker – the ability to decode and encode. Text participant – the ability to determine what a text means. Text user – the ability to decide how to use the information in the text. Text analyst – the ability to figure out how the text might affect you or other users.

Much of literacy education has focused on the role of the code breaker. Although this ability is essential for mastering the written word, it is particularly complex for multilingual learners who come from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and use multiple languages on a daily basis in school and/or with their friends and family outside of school. For example, if learners already write in a language with an orthographic system that is different from English (i.e., non-alphabetic), they have to learn that there are many different ways for sounds to be represented by symbols. Chinese uses a logographic system, in which a written symbol (i.e., a character) represents meaning. Korean and Japanese use syllabic systems in addition to logographic ones. While Arabic uses a syllabic system, it is different from the syllabic systems used by Korean and Japanese. In Arabic, each symbol represents a consonant, and long vowels are represented by diacritics. However, short vowels are not represented by diacritics, so readers must determine short vowels from context. Even English learners who are literate in languages that use an alphabetic system, such as Spanish or French, may have difficulty decoding in English because English does not have a one-to-one sound to symbol correspondence.

Conceptualizing New and Emerging Literacies Freebody and Luke (1990) suggest a critical approach to literacy by going beyond decoding and encoding and focusing on other roles related to literacy (i.e., the text participant, the text user, and the text analyst) and on the meanings embedded in texts. Recent research on literacy views the development of literacy skills as a sociocultural practice. In the context of schools, learners have opportunities to develop literacy

6

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

with other learners, as well as opportunities for interaction with other individuals who are literate. It is “through schooling [that] … literacy practices provide the textual means by which dominant values and identities (e.g., avid consumers, obedient workers, patriotic citizens) are normalized and, at times, resisted” (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, pp. 151–152). Therefore, it is important for SFL teachers to understand all the roles that implementing a critical literacy approach requires not only of teachers but also of learners. In a critical approach to literacy, learners are taught to question texts as part of literacy development. Furthermore, this view of literacy as a sociocultural practice demonstrates that literacy is not just one practice, but multiple practices. Accordingly, we need to talk about literacies—that is, the different practices one engages in when negotiating different texts, in different contexts, and for different purposes. With the advent of new media in the second half of the twentieth and the beginning of the twentyfirst centuries, scholars, educators, and journalists recognized the changing landscape of knowledge and skills that are needed to prepare students for life in the digital age (for example. The New Media Consortium, 2008). Different fields developed terminologies to characterize these clusters of knowledge and skills (literacies), the earliest being media literacy. It is apparent that literacy became an almost empty term that was used as a label for knowledge and a variety of (unrelated or overly precise) skills. Furthermore, the types of literacy often overlap because there is no underlying organizing principle, theory, or research supporting the concept, except for the most familiar, visual literacy, probably because it maps onto Gardner’s (1985) visual intelligence. Visual literacy is the ability to make meaning from information presented in the form of an image, thereby extending the meaning of literacy beyond the written or printed text (see the chapters by Tørnby and Savić in this volume). Because of the confusion over terms associated with defining literacy, The New Media Consortium (2008) defaulted to titling their report from the Summit, 21st century literacy.

Types of Literacies

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Educators have witnessed a shift in understandings of literacy and what is means to be literate in the 21st century. This shift is based on decades of literacy research, such as Heath (1984) and Gee (1992, 1996). The list of literacies that follows is not meant to be exhaustive, but it is presented as a means to explore the complexities of the concept and to paint a picture of what a literate learner looks like in terms of skills and behaviors. Below are some of the most common literacies presented in the literature: 1. Media literacy – Media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and produce communication in a variety of forms. Media literacy originated when the Association for Media Literacy was established in Canada in 1978, after which teaching media literacy became a requirement in Canadian schools. The foundation for this movement was based on the extensive work of Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan (1962, 1964). Its original usage was for media such as television, radio, and film, but it is now used more broadly. A person who is media literate is able to think critically about what they see, hear, or read in the media, which includes books, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, movies, music, advertising, and video games. 2. Computer literacy – In the most basic sense, computer literacy is the ability to understand how a computer and its software work to help us accomplish tasks. Computer literacy allows learners to use computers that are not their own, or help a friend solve a problem using a different computer.

7

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

3.

4.

5.

6.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

7.

8.

8

Some tasks have their origins in the real world, such as checking the weather or locating an address. Others may have their origins in classroom tasks, such as writing a paper or creating a PowerPoint presentation. Digital literacy – Digital literacy is the ability to analyze, evaluate, locate, organize, and understand information using digital technology. Digital devices have flooded our modern lives, meaning that we use these devices every day, and they are in common use everywhere. As a result, educational experiences for learners must now include instruction on how to use these tools. Digital literacy, however, is not limited to skills associated with the ability to operate digital devices. This type of literacy also includes the development of the cognitive skills that are needed to execute tasks in a digital environment, such as using an Internet browser, working in databases, and navigating websites. Some have also included digital citizenship, that is, the ability to use digital media responsibly and safely as part of the definition (e.g., Common Sense Education, n.d.) Game or gaming literacy – Digital games are no longer thought to exist purely for entertainment. In fact, games are seen by some scholars as a separate semiotic system and by others as a new literacy (Gee, 2007, 2013). While traditional forms of literacy have centered on reading and writing, gaming literacy is an approach to literacy that is based on game design (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Some scholars do not believe that gaming is sufficiently separate enough from other forms of literacy, for example alphabetic literacy, to qualify as a post-literate modality. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement that games are important tools to generate and communicate new ideas, solve problems, and provoke change (McGonigal, 2011). Information literacy – At the core of information literacy is the ability to recognize when information is needed. However, information literacy also includes one’s ability to locate and identify information efficiently and effectively and the ability to evaluate whether the information is useful or not. Technology literacy – Technology literacy centers around the ability to use the appropriate technology responsibly for the purposes of communication and solving problems. In educational contexts, this type of literacy is present when teachers know how and when to integrate digital technologies into their teaching to improve learning so that learners can acquire skills for lifelong learning. Textual literacy – Written language uses cohesive devices to develop relationships across sentences. There are a variety of different genres in writing, which each contain specific characteristics. Written texts are expected to conform to the requirements of the genre, which may be linguistically and/or culturally-specific. Consequently, multilingual learners who are also minority language students will bring conventions from their first language and culture that may be inappropriate when used in an additional language they are learning. For learners to have textual literacy, they must understand the structures of different genres, so they do not violate the conventions. Some of the most common genres in English are recounts, reports, descriptions, and arguments (Halliday, 1985; Swales, 1990; Wallace, 1992). Visual literacy – Visual literacy refers to an individual’s ability to understand and evaluate information presented visually, such as pictures, photographs, and video. It also involves design principles, such as the structure and layout of text (Kleckova & Svejda, 2019). As a skill, visual literacy goes beyond simply viewing an image; it encompasses being able to evaluate the message that the image is trying to convey. It can even include an understanding of the power of images and the ability to recognize and use that power (The New Media Consortium, 2005). To develop

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

strong visual literacy, learners must be taught how to observe and analyze images; this process is particularly critical when working with learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Visual literacy can also include learners’ abilities to express themselves through digital media, such as through texting and the use of both emojis (i.e., digital images used to express ideas) and memojis (i.e., personal emojis with characteristics of the users). Focusing on this aspect of visual literacy is different from a focus on learners becoming artists. The intent is to engage learners in creating visual presentations that effectively (and accurately) communicate information (see also chapters by Tørnby and Savić in this volume).

Multiliteracies With a focus on educating young people in an increasingly technological and multicultural world and the need to embrace different types of literacy, the New London Group (NLG) has helped literacy educators re-conceptualize the plethora of literacies into one concept. Multiliteracies is a term developed by the NLG (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996). The NLG was a group of ten visionary educators and researchers who were concerned about how new technologies and globalization were influencing society and whether educational institutions and schools were preparing learners to engage with these new forms of literacy (New London Group, 2014). Multiliteracies is a pedagogical approach that seeks to make classroom teaching more inclusive, particularly in relation to cultural, linguistic, communicative, and technological diversity. It embraces multiple perspectives of learning and encourages educators to use a wide range of tools to prepare learners to engage with new literacies in a rapidly changing global world. For example, email, Twitter, and Facebook have all provided us with new literacies. To prepare multilingual learners for the future, educators must adapt to the growing availability of new technologies and channels of communication. Those channels of communication have been identified by scholars and educators working with multimodality, which is an assumption that communication practices draw on and use several modes, for example linguistic, spatial, and visual. Using a multiliteracies approach to instruction means SLF learners will likely engage in using multimodal texts and in producing them.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Multimodal Literacy The development of multimodal literacy has become almost as important in thinking about literacy as the development of language skills themselves. The importance of multimodal literacy is true for both print and online environments. Multimodal literacy has its beginnings in social semiotics. Semiotics is the study of the process of making meaning from signs, and semiosis is any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs. A sign is anything that communicates meaning to the interpreter of the sign and is not the sign itself. Multi-modal literacy refers to using language that combines two or more modes of meaning, where modes are semiotic systems. One perspective on multimodal literacy that is useful for teachers of multilingual learners is that of Anstey and Bull (2011), for whom text may be defined as multimodal when it combines two or more semiotic systems. There are five semiotic systems in total, which Anstey and Bull conceptualize as follows: 1. Linguistic: comprising aspects such as vocabulary, generic structure, and the grammar of oral and written language.

9

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

2. Visual: comprising aspects such as colour, vectors, and viewpoint in still and moving images. 3. Audio: comprising aspects such as volume, pitch, and rhythm of music and sound effects. 4. Gestural: comprising aspects such as movement, speed, and stillness in facial expression and body language. 5. Spatial: comprising aspects such as proximity, direction, position of layout and organisation of objects in space (n.p.). Multimodal literacy is vital for multilingual and multicultural learners to be able to negotiate their way in the 21st century. Both multiliteracy and multimodal literacy approaches to teaching language and literacy are examples of a critical literacy approach because they scaffold instruction in a way that allows language learners to critically engage with texts (see Rajendram, 2015, for a literature review). Being able to fully utilize the potential of digital technology requires proficiency with multimodal literacy (Murray & Christison, 2019). Anstey and Bull (2011) noted that webpages often combine multiple modes, such as sound effects, oral and written language, music, and images to provide information and multilingual learners need to develop skills for navigating the web and interpreting multimodal texts they encounter. Although more attention has been paid to multimodal literacy since the advent of digital media, multimodal literacy is not new. Picture books, for example, are multimodal, with the first widely printed picture book for children, Orbis Pictus, dating from 1658, as they combine visual images and linguistic text (Lee, 2015). SFL teachers need to be able to explicitly teach multimodal skills to ensure that their multilingual learners make full use of the language learning opportunities that are provided through digital technology.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Translanguaging In the language teaching profession, researchers and practitioners have taken different stances on the use of learners’ first language(s) in SFL classrooms (Auerbach, 1993; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). During the height of audiolingual methodology, foreign language teachers used the students’ first language to introduce new material and explain complicated grammatical structures (e.g., teaching Spanish as a foreign language to English speakers in institutions of higher education). The target language was used primarily for drills and pattern practice. The approach seemed logical, especially in contexts where all learners share the same first language. English language teachers who work in contexts where learners do not share the same first language have taken a position in which only English is used in the classroom to the exclusion of other languages. More recently, the use of translanguaging has been encouraged (Williams, 1994; Garcia & Lin, 2016; Garcia & Wei, 2014). Translanguaging is the process whereby multilingual speakers use their languages as an integrated system of communication. It is the “flexible use of linguistic resources available to multilinguals; the main assumption is that multilinguals have one linguistic repertoire that includes features of various languages and they select the features appropriate for a given situation to best meet communicative needs” (Krulatz, Dahl, & Flognfeldt, 2018, p. 137). Translanguaging is an extension of the concept of languaging (Swain, 2006), which is “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language” (p. 98). In translanguaging, learners are encouraged to make meaning and shape knowledge using their repertoire of languages. Teachers can encourage translanguaging in the classroom in different ways and for different reasons, including for the purposes of literacy development. For example, translanguaging can be used to “build

10

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

students’ background knowledge, to deepen understanding and improve critical thinking, to increase comprehension, to facilitate cross-linguistic transfer and metalinguistic awareness, and to strengthen students’ identity awareness” (Krulatz, Dahl, & Flognfeldt, p. 140). In a multiliteracies approach, learners can use different languages for different modes within the same text, which affirms their identities and community languages (Rajendram, 2015).

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Changes are gradually occurring to the way that the SFL teaching profession approaches literacy instruction, particularly in classrooms with multilingual learners. These new approaches are cropping up in response to the requirements of contemporary communication, the conceptions of multiliteracies and multimodalities, and the provisions of diverse learning contexts. Teachers and educational researchers are attempting to design new pedagogies to respond to the potential of multiliteracies and embed them within existing curricula. To use a multiliteracies approach in classrooms with multilingual learners requires teachers to explore their own practice and reflect on learners’ experiences in acquiring literacy. While the use of digital technologies may seem like second nature to many SFL teachers in the 21st century, it was not always the case. One of the authors of this chapter (Murray) recalls the beginnings of her own development relative to digital literacy.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

I was doing a class in literacy with Shirley Brice-Heath. She asked us to do a small ethnography of literacy practices of someone we saw frequently. Of course, when you are married, the person you see most frequently is either your children or spouse. So, I decided to follow my husband around. One night he was in the study on the computer terminal (he’s a computer scientist), sitting in front of a monitor with a black screen with green text. I brought him in a cup of coffee. I suddenly saw that the text was moving. He was typing, his short text would scroll up. Then, something would appear on the screen that he hadn’t written, and he would read it; then he was typing again. I was familiar with computers, having typed my master’s thesis on a mainframe, using a text editing program, but I had never seen what looked like speech between two people on the screen. I said, “What on earth are you doing?” I needed to know this, because this was a literacy practice. And so, he explained the concept of messages to me and, then, email. Now this is back in 1983, when the only people who had email were a few universities and propriety companies, like IBM, which was the company that he worked for. I was intrigued with this, so I focused most of that ethnographic report on his interactions, using both messages (or what we would now call “chat,” which of course didn’t exist as “chat” in those days) and email. He was interacting in real time with a colleague over a technical issue from work. So, when Shirley saw my ethnography, she said, more or less, “Okay, that’s your dissertation topic.” (Murray, Research notes) Murray and Christison (2019) suggest that teachers take time to explore what it means to be multiliterate on their own and as part of their ongoing professional development. The first step is to discover a concept for oneself with the goal of developing sensitivity to the issues and raising self-awareness, such as the complexities of literacy. For example, Baynham (1995) suggests that teachers find an advertisement in a newspaper or magazine and answer Questions 1-5 and then partner with another teacher to discuss Questions 6-9.

11

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Why do you think this text exists? What is its purpose? Whose interests does it serve? Whose interests does it undermine? How does it achieve its purpose? What do you need to know to be able to answer Questions 1-5? Do you think your students would be able to answer these questions as easily as you did? Why? Why not? 8. Do you think your students would answer the questions the same as you did? Why? Why not? 9. What other skills do you think multilingual learners need to answer these questions? Embracing a multiliteracies approach, which includes the concept of digital literacy, requires that teachers must be knowledgeable about digital technology. As a first step, teachers should be on the lookout for opportunities to engage with their colleagues about digital technologies, especially as they relate to what their learners are using, such as social media, blogging, and gaming. A challenging task for many teachers resides in how to provide opportunities for students to develop multiple literacies in the classroom. To create meaningful activities and tasks for learners, teachers need to work with the technologies themselves. Teachers should learn to locate, evaluate, and process information and, then, communicate what they have learned to others. The suggestions that follow are not meant be exhaustive. We offer them to encourage the use of multiliteracies in classrooms with multilingual learners.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Create Multimodal Classroom Activities In order for students to engage in multiliteracy practices, teachers must think of classroom tasks and activities in terms of modalities and using available technology. It is important to be cognizant of the fact that some teaching contexts are technology-rich, while others have limited resources. Nevertheless, all teachers of multilingual students should be aware of what is available locally. Many multimodal tasks can be achieved with as little as cellular phones. Visual literacy can be promoted by mixing print text with audio or visuals. Other tasks, for example, Five Card Flickr (see http://5card.cogdogblog.com/ index.php) have the potential to use all five semiotic systems—audio, gestural, linguistic, spatial, and visual. To implement Five Card Flickr in a way that encourages learners to use all five semiotic systems, teachers could first provide learners with five random photos or images. Learners are asked to write a word associated with each photo or image to develop the linguistic system. Three more tasks follow, which promote the use of audio and gestural systems, along with furthering visual and spatial systems. For example, learners can be asked to name a song that reminds them of each image and, then, identify what all five images have in common. Once learners have responded individually, they are invited to work in small groups to compare their responses with those of their classmates and discuss similarities and differences. One of the authors of this chapter (Murray) reflects on her experiences with adult refugee learners and describes how these early experiences as a teacher helped her understand multimodal classroom activities and conceptualize visual literacy.

12

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

In 1981, I was teaching an adult English as a second language (ESL) class to refugees. The class had around 40 students. Most were Ethnic Chinese Vietnamese who had escaped after the fall of Saigon. They’d arrived in the U.S. via refugee camps in Thailand. Many of the Vietnamese had owned small businesses in South Vietnam. Some were teenagers who were in the local high school but taking intensive ESL in the adult school. Some were from hill tribes like the Hmong, who’d supported the U.S. war effort. There was also an older highly educated couple, also refugees, from Iran. The hill tribe students were pre-literate, but the rest of the class was literate in their L1, and some, like the Iranians, were highly educated. This was the first time I’d taught pre-literate students. My previous experiences had been with preuniversity programs and students already at university. I felt, from my own personal experience, that literacy would help them in life and even in English language acquisition. So, I included the pre-literate students in the writing/reading tasks (such as drawing about an experience they’d had and then writing about it), but I expected less of them. My main reason for including them was based on the terrible experience I’d had trying to learn Thai when I lived in Thailand. I was hampered by not being able to read the script fast enough. For example, sitting on the bus going out to the university every day, I’d see all these signs that I couldn’t decipher. So, I only had aural input. But, then, we went to Malaysia for a short vacation. Malay uses a similar script to English, and so I picked up more Malay in a week than I’d picked up Thai in three months. I realized that was because in Malaysia I was making use of my own background in literacy to work out new words from signs, etc. I realized once I’d studied literacy for my Ph.D. that my reaction to learning Thai was that of a literate person who was very dependent on the written word. I thought about the poor students in my class! I had assumed that they’d need to read and write in English to survive and that if I helped them to read and write, it would help them outside of class so that they could fill out forms, read labels etc.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

In hindsight, I accept that I was not as sensitive about the needs of my pre-literate learners as I might have been. I did, however, realize that all the students needed to recognize visual clues in the environment, and so for each lesson, I brought lots of realia to class. By embedding realia in the lesson, the learners could see what the labels looked like, what signs looked like, and begin to recognize them. I used newspaper ads from supermarkets, so they could see how different foods were displayed, knowing that, like Thailand, they were used to markets and bargaining. (Research and teaching notes, Murray, 1981). The teaching tip that follows offers more detailed information on developing visual awareness with adult refugees who are emergent literacy learners. As the author of the vignette noted, bringing realia to class and then creating instructional activities based on the realia is an excellent strategy for building visual awareness, which is a precursor for the development of visual literacy. Even though emergent literacy learners may not be able to read the information on labels, they can learn to recognize the signs and symbols that are used to represent food, such as canned fruits and vegetables, soups, canned meats, cleaning supplies, and pet food.

13

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

Teaching Tip In her adult refugee classroom, Dem’s students are learning about food and how to recognize food in cans; she targets one area at a time. For example, today she targets canned fruits and vegetables, so that she does not overwhelm learners with too much information. She has selected about five canned vegetables and five fruits for the beginning lesson and brought small paper plates and plastic forks and spoons for each student. She has chosen the particular cans because there is a picture of the food on the can. First, she shows the can, for example, beans. She says the word beans and writes it on the board several times as she says the word. She also writes the word beans on a colored card and gives it to one of the students. Then, she demonstrates opening the first can and gives each student a small paper plate and a fork. She sticks one fork in the beans and shows them how to use the fork to move a few beans from the can to their individual plates. Learners are free to taste any of the foods they wish. Dem recognizes that not all students may be familiar with all types of food available in cans and that including gustatory senses may be important in the process of learning and in retrieving new words for later use. She follows the same procedure with each can except that after the first can, learners open the cans themselves. When new words are introduced, Dem goes back to the previous words written on the board, points to the words, and says the words again so that the building of words is layered. Then, Dem works with the small colored cards that she has given to the students. She does this is several different ways to allow for multiple uses of the words in multiple contexts. In the first way, she begins by asking, for example, “Who has beans?” The student with the word beans holds up the card. She does this several times with each new word. If a learner is not able to recognize the word, Dem helps the student by saying, “Let me see your card. No, you don’t have beans” or “Let me see your card. Here are the beans!” She checks several cards until she finds the one she is looking for. The next way she uses the colored cards is by asking the students to exchange cards because not all learners have cards. When Dem says, “Who has beans?” one student, Vin, holds up his card. She then asks Vin to give his card to another student, Marcela, “Vin, please give your card to Marcela. Now, who has the beans?” Finally, she collects all of the colored cards and tapes them to the board. Then, she asks the students to retrieve the cards in random order, “Who can find the word beans?” Although these pre-emergent learners may not be able to read all (or even any) of the words, they can begin to recognize how the words look on the labels and match the words and the pictures. For adult learners who are pre-emergent readers, these types of activities are important because they develop visual awareness and introduce learners to the importance of the print environment. By working with signs and symbols in the environment, they begin to grasp the idea that signs and symbols are used to represent thoughts and ideas. Over time, Dem’s learners can develop skills for successfully negotiating the challenge of shopping independently and buying food in a grocery store.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Diversify Text Media Textbooks are useful for organizing and guiding instruction, but they should not be the only source of information for learners. To embrace a multiliteracies approach, teachers of multilingual learners will want to provide numerous ways for students to interact with text, such as print, audio, and electronic books. There are many free audio books and podcasts available on YouTube, as well as videos and slideshows, which include written text, images, and voiceover. In addition, learners of all ages, from young children to adults, and from beginning to advanced proficiency levels can enjoy listening to audiobooks and following along in the print version. Audiobook activities can be motivating for multilingual literacy development, especially if students are able to select their own audiobooks or if the books to which they have access have been selected with students’ interests in mind. The use of audiobooks can help build students’ confidence in learning how to pronounce sight words so that they are more likely to use them in oral communication (Koskinen et al.,2000) In fact, using audiobooks might be necessary if learners’ main source of input in the SFL is in the context of the classroom. Teachers have also had positive feedback from learners when they have used infographics, a clipped compound word created from two words information and graphics, to diversify text media. Infographics are graphic visual representations of information, data, or knowledge, such as a graph. The use of infographics is most effective when they are posted (in the classroom or online) where all students can access, read, and respond to them.

14

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

Provide Access to Digital Media If you are a teacher of multilingual learners who does not use digital media to a large extent outside of the classroom or if you are a teacher who does not have or has little access to digital media in the classroom context, it may prove challenging to provide access to digital media. Nevertheless, if teachers are to prepare learners for the challenges they face with literacy in the 21st century, then digital media must become embedded in pedagogy and instruction to the extent that it is possible. For example, if there is only one computer in the classroom, it is teacher’s responsibility to ensure 1. that all students have access and 2. that all students have access as often as the context allows. Teachers who have few digital classroom resources may wish to have their students work in small groups to read and respond to blogs, websites, and videos on YouTube, or research topics of interest. The sites and the URLs need to be determined in advance by teachers, and learners should be given parameters for searching and discovering information for themselves, shown examples of blogs, videos, and websites, and then guided through the process of creating these types of digital media. As a culminating task, students can present what they have learned either within the class or to another group. Teachers who have never created a blog or made a short video and uploaded it to YouTube, for example, will be challenged with the prospect of incorporating these types of digital tasks in their classroom pedagogy and may need to ask peers to help and provide guidance. One of the authors of this chapter (Christison) recalls a conversation with a Grade 8 teacher who felt overwhelmed by the prospect of the demands related to embedding digital technology in her pedagogical practice. In her approach she did not try to make changes all at once but focused on what she felt were her strengths. In my 8th grade language arts class, I am focused on preparing my students for high school and beyond. I give them an opportunity to choose their own topic to research. Then, I try to guide them in finding information on web sites, reading web pages, identifying who the authors might be, determining the credibility of the information, and citing sources. I am good at searching and using web pages, so that was the task on which I focused. I did not have them do anything fancy for their presentations. I know that PowerPoint is now sort of old school, but I taught them the basics of PowerPoint anyway because I know that I am quite good at it and could answer their questions and guide them (Christison, research notes, 2017).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Use Social Media For teachers who use social media and work with multilingual learners who are teenagers or adults, it may be important to consider incorporating social media into instructional planning. For example, teachers can set up a classroom Twitter account or a Facebook group and use these media to communicate with their learners. To this end, it is important for multilingual students to learn how to interact on social media and develop appropriate literacy practices, and the classroom is an excellent place for them to learn rules of appropriate behavior and literacy practices for social media as teachers can model how to interact and establish rules for interaction so that posting and responding to peers feels safe and is rewarding for learners. By incorporating the use of social media into classroom pedagogy and modeling, it is possible to influence learners and learning so that ethical contributions become the norm.

15

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

Provide Multiliteracies Resources for Students Approaching teaching from a multiliteracies viewpoint requires teachers to understand technology themselves, so teachers should look for ways to engage with their colleagues in using the technology. Teachers may want to find out which of their learners are actively using digital technologies, such as social media, blogging, and gaming and ask them to demonstrate how to do things. Most multilingual learners are eager to show their teachers and peers what they know. Teachers should also focus on helping learners locate, evaluate, and process the information they find, as well as communicate what they have learned to others. In addition to integrating multiliteracies into classroom pedagogy, it is important for teachers of multilingual learners to remember that there are many resources available for learners to develop multiliteracies, such as gaming, podcasts, the Internet, and social media outlets, and that learners will naturally use these resources if they are available to them. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that access to resources outside of the classroom may be limited for some multilingual learners, especially if they are newly arrived immigrants or in regions with limited bandwidth or where digital technology is unaffordable. Teachers must, therefore, be aware of how to help learners gain access to resources if these resources are not personally available to them. Many libraries now recognize the importance of providing resources such as free computers, email and Internet access, e-book check-out, free audiobooks, tablet access, and even free digital media workshops. Other tools that might be considered free if the school has software licenses for classroom computers would be iMovies for video creation, as well as MS word, Excel, and PowerPoint. There are also Google products, such as Google Docs, Google Sheets, and Google Slides. On Android phones, Stitcher or Spotify are useful applications for accessing podcasts, while on iPhones, there are Apple podcasts. Students can also use free tools that are available on their smartphones, digital devices, or computers to explore multiliteracies.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter focused on conceptions of literacy and how the concept has evolved over time and in response to societal changes, such as changes in demographics and advances in digital technology. In 1958, UNESCO’s definition was “a literate person is one who can, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on his or her everyday life” (UNESCO, 2004, p. 12). For most English language teachers who work with diverse groups of learners in the 21st century, the 1958 UNESCO definition of literacy, with its focus on reading and writing text and being able to make simple statements about everyday life, is not sufficient. Literacy is not a static construct but is a sociocultural one; therefore, it should not seem surprising that in 2003, UNESCO redefined literacy as “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts” (UNESCO Education Sector, 2004, p. 13). This definition of literacy goes beyond reading and writing to include the contextual nature of literacy and the cognitive strategies that underpin the acquisition of literacy skills. The chapter has provided a brief overview of the development of literacy concepts as they have evolved over time and considered some of the forces that have influenced their development. The chapter also explored some of the theoretical considerations that underpin the evolving nature of literacy in the 21st century, particularly as it relates to the education of multilingual learners. These considerations 16

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

include multiliteracies, multimodal literacies, translanguaging, and an exploration of the different types of literacy that multilingual learners need to acquire to navigate their digital and multilingual world, for example digital and visual literacy. Finally, the chapter offered some practical suggestions for incorporating the theoretical ideas in classroom pedagogy for multilingual learners. These ideas include creating multimodal classroom activities, diversifying text media, accessing digital media, using social media, and providing resources for multiliteracies. By taking a multiliteracies approach to SFL instruction with multilingual, multicultural learners, teachers help prepare them for the globalized digital world of the 21st century. Additionally, because this approach views literacy as multifaceted, protean, and evolving, it provides teachers with a conceptual framework to be able to adapt to and incorporate new technologies and literacies in the future. Discussion Questions 1. What is your definition of critical literacy? How do you think it fundamentally differs from traditional approaches to literacy? 2. How would you define multiliteracies? How can teachers include multiliteracies in classroom pedagogy in a way that provides an appropriate response to globalization and advances in online technologies? 3. Give a classroom example of how teachers can encourage multilingual learners to develop their literacy skills through translanguaging.

REFERENCES Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2011). Helping teachers to explore multimodal texts. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 8(16). Retrieved from www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/helping_teachers_to_explore_multimodal_texts,31522.html?issuesID=12141 Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–33. doi:10.2307/3586949 Baynham, M. (1995). Literacies practices. Essex, UK: Longman. Common Sense Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge. DSE/CEOV. (1994). Keys to life: Professional development program for secondary subject teachers. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Secondary Education/Catholic Education of Victoria (DSE/CEOV). Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect, 5(7), 7–16. García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education (3rd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_9-1

17

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gee, J. P. (1992). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 31–48. doi:10.1017/S0267190500002130 Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: St. Martins Griffin. Gee, J. P. (2013). Good video games and good learning. Bern, Switzerland: Pater Lang. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Arnold. Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, lie, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511841057 Kleckova, G., & Svejda, P. (2019). Creating visually effective materials for English learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Koskinen, P. S., Blum, I. H., Bisson, S. A., Phillips, S. M., Creamer, T. S., & Baker, T. K. (2000). Book access, shared reading, and audio models: The effects of supporting the literacy learning of linguistically diverse students in school and at home. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 23–36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.23 Krulatz, A., Dahl, A., & Flognfeldt, M. E. (2018). Enacting multilingualism: From research to teaching practice in the English classroom. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm. Lawton, D., & Gordon, V. (1996). Dictionary of English. London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton. Lee, H. N. (2015). Using picture books in EFL college reading classrooms. The Reading Matrix, 15(1), 66–77.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (2001). Australian literacies informing national policy on literacy Education. Canberra, Australia: Language Australia Ltd. Lockridge, K. A. (1974). Literacy in colonial New England: An inquiry into the social construct of literacy in the early modern west. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. McConigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. London, UK: Penguin Books. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

18

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill. Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151–169. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000085 Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. A. (2019). What English language teachers need to know: Vol. 1. Understanding learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp New London Group (NLG). (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u New London Group (NLG). (2014). Multiliteracies: New learning theories. Retrieved from https://www. learning-theories.com/multiliteracies-new-london-group.html Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow-further results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: OECD. Rajendram, S. (2015). Potentials of the multiliteracies pedagogy for teaching English language learners (ELLs): A review of the literature. Critical Intersections in Education, 3, 1–18. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674433014 Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Curry, M. J. (2018). Educating refugee-background students. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. doi:10.1177/136216880000400304

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. The New Media Consortium. (2008). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century literacy summit. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/search#?page=4&publicationandcollection_search=New%20 Media%20Consortium%20(NMC)&sortBy=relevance&sortOrder=asc UNESCO Education Sector. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf Wall, T., & Leong, M. (Eds.). (2010). Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Bow Valley, Canada: Bow Valley College. Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

19

 An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wales, UK.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Critical Literacy: An approach to literacy that goes beyond decoding and encoding and focuses on the meaning embedded in texts. Decoding: The process of converting written text into its spoken counterpart. Digital Literacy: The ability to use information and communication technologies to find, create, and communicate information that requires both cognitive and technological skills. Encoding: The ability to write correct symbols to represent spoken language. Languaging: The process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experiences through language. Multilingual Learners: Children and adults who use multiple languages on a regular basis in school and in contexts outside of school. Multiliteracies: A pedagogical approach for making classroom teaching more inclusive in relation to cultural, linguistic, and technological diversity. Multimodal Literacy: The ability to use and comprehend two or more modes of meaning in a text. Semiotic Systems: Semiotics is the study of the process of making meaning from signs. There are five semiotic systems in total—audio, gestural, linguistic, spatial, and visual. Translanguaging: The process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience by using the repertoire of languages available. Visual Literacy: The ability to understand and evaluate information presented visually.

20

An Overview of Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Needs for the 21st Century

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. This volume reports on Heath’s multi-year ethnography of children from two different communities in the Piedmont region of South Carolina learning how to use language at home and school. She shows how these children’s use of language is conditioned by the socio-cultural environment in which each community lives. Their patterns of use are dramatically different from each other, but both also vary from the mainstream uses of language by the powerful who live in the nearby town. 2. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2011). Helping teachers to explore multimodal texts. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 8(16). Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/helping_teachers_to_explore_multimodal_texts,31522.html?issueID=12141 These are two helpful references from Anstey and Bull. The book explains the characteristics of multilteracies and demonstrates their relevance to teaching. The authors describe the five semiotic systems that are the modalities used for communication: linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, and spatial. The volume also includes resources and strategies for how teachers can incorporate the concepts of multiliteracies and multimodality in their instruction to help students navigate the multimodal world of the 21st century. While the volume gives detailed information on using multimodality in classrooms, the article is easily accessible and provides an excellent summary of the key ideas presented in the book. 3. Wall, T. & Leong, M. (Eds.) (2010). Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Bow Valley, Canada: Bow Valley College.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This volume consists of papers form the fifth annual LESLLA conference. The chapter authors are researchers and practitioners from Australia, Europe, and North America. The volume includes chapters on practice and instruction as well as on research into strategies for literacy instruction for low-educated adult second language learners. 4. The New Media Consortium. (2008). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century literacy summit. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/search#?page=4&publicationandcollecti on_search=New%20Media%20Consortium%20(NMC)&sortBy=relevance&sortOrder=asc This report is a result of a gathering of a group of leading authors, researchers, policy makers, educators, and artists from around the world to explore the changing nature of visual, aural, and digital literacy. The document provides a rich discussion of the nature of literacy in a media-rich world and its implications for teachers and students.

21

22

Chapter 2

Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century Ping Yang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3646-438X Western Sydney University, Australia

ABSTRACT In the 21st century, language teacher education faces new challenges to cultivate multiliteracy in culturally diverse classrooms. This chapter focuses on the intercultural literacy language teachers need to develop as part of their teacher education and proposes a new model of intercultural literacy which includes intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness. These skills will contribute to language teacher education of the 21st century and the teachers’ newfound intercultural literacy will help them meet the intercultural challenges and learning needs of culturally diverse students. This raises the question of why language teachers may need intercultural literacy. The four components of the model are described in detail, supported with current research, and illustrated with examples of literacy practices that can be implemented in the classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The 21st century has witnessed an increasing flow of population from East to West as well as from West to East for the purpose of studying abroad (Barkhuizen, 2017; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Tavakoli, 2018; Yang, 2016). For example, the U.S. topped the tally when it hosted 1.09 million international students in 2017 (Zong & Batalove, 2018). The U.K. hosted 458,450 international students in 2017/2018 (UK Council for International Student Affairs, 2019), and Australia had 399,087 international students enrolled at its universities in 2018 (excluding 477,312 international students enrolled in nonuniversity courses) (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2018). The released statistics of the international student flow to the East show that China hosted 492,185 international DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch002

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

students in the university programs offered in mainland China alone (The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2019), and that Japan reported its intake of 298,980 international students in 2018, a 12% increase from the previous year (Japan Student Services Organization, 2019). Such a massive international student movement between East and West means that many of these students need to study the language of the destination country. It follows that language (e.g., first language and second language) teachers, including pre-service teachers, should develop and upgrade their cultural literacy as part of their education programs, and attend professional development to meet the challenges of the 21st century education. This chapter aims to conceptualize a new theoretical framework of intercultural literacy and offer relevant tips for language classroom practices as part of language teacher education. It first reviews relevant literature about intercultural literacy and then presents a new model of intercultural literacy. Next, it considers four components of intercultural literacy: 1. intercultural verbal communication competence, 2. intercultural attitudes, 3. intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and 4. intercultural awareness, which are then applied to multilingual classrooms to help teachers optimize instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse learners.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Understanding Intercultural Literacy As international education in the East and West has become more commonplace, language teachers can find abundant opportunities to work with students of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds at different educational levels (e.g., secondary, undergraduate, and postgraduate). To work with these students effectively and successfully, language teachers need to understand intercultural literacy and become interculturally literate for their daily work (Arizpe et al., 2014; Harbon, 2013; Heyward, 2000; Yang, 2017). Intercultural literacy has drawn increasing attention and research. Based on his own personal experience with an international school in Indonesia, Heyward (2000) comes to realize the importance of intercultural literacy needed by language teachers. His case study of an international school in Indonesia with reference to his multidimensional developmental model of intercultural literacy arises from the broad context of international education as part of globalization. Heyward (2000) defines intercultural literacy as “the understandings, competences, attitudes, language abilities, participation and identities that enable effective engagement with a second culture” (p. 31). While he does elaborate on six attributes (understandings, competencies, attitudes, language proficiencies, participation, and identities) of intercultural literacy, his attempt to cover a range of competences seems to be insufficient. For example, he emphasizes the importance of intercultural contact, in which intercultural interactants cannot do without intercultural communication competence. However, intercultural communication competence is absent from his model and definition of intercultural literacy. Although other publications do not explicitly use the term intercultural literacy, they do focus on key components contributing to this new area of research. Holliday (2019) takes a practical approach to the intercultural communication framework. He identifies various intercultural issues arising in different settings and proposes helpful solutions to work them out, thus making communication among people

23

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

of diverse cultures effective and successful. Using specific examples and scenarios, he demonstrates how people from different cultural backgrounds communicate verbally in various settings and manage intercultural misunderstanding. Eaves and Leathers (2018) not only describe the general principles of nonverbal communication, but also focus on its applications in everyday life using examples from celebrity figures, sports stars, and politician giants to explain the cases in which successful intercultural nonverbal communication takes place in applied settings. Others cover intercultural verbal communication competence and intercultural nonverbal communication competence, considering both equally important in intercultural communication (Yang, 2018, 2019). Malczewska-Webb (2014) believes that developing intercultural awareness of international students studying at an Australian university is a challenging but important part of their overseas study experience, with some achieving progress in intercultural awareness and others still having a long way to go before their intercultural competence is developed. Based on her own intercultural teaching experience in the United States, Hsu (2014) argues that teachers’ open and positive attitudes towards working with students from different cultural backgrounds can lead to win-win outcomes: both teachers and students have good classroom experiences as a result of effective and successful intercultural interaction. However, to date, the intercultural literacy components discussed above are addressed separately by different researchers and have not been integrated into one model. An integrated perspective is needed to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. Intercultural literacy is important to language teachers, among others, because they work with linguistically and culturally diverse student populations at the front line of international education. Language teacher education faces new challenges to cultivate multi-literacy in the increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms (see Christison & Murray and Goltsev & Bredthauer in this volume), and intercultural literacy has topped the list as it is multidimensional and involves a complex system. As indicated in the introduction, intercultural literacy equips a person with a systematic set of knowledge, skills, and competencies that prepare them for effective interaction with speakers from different cultures. The systematic knowledge involves a person knowing one’s own language and culture and those of others, including their similarities but particularly their differences. This comprehensive skill set covers both intercultural verbal communication competence and intercultural nonverbal communication competence. The former includes several linguistic components such as phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of different languages and their appropriate use in context, and the latter covers multiple dimensions (e.g., paralinguistic, kinesic, and proxemic) (Yang, 2018) and multidisciplinary areas such as psychology, sociology, psychiatry, cognitive science, communication, anthropology, and education (Giles & Le Poire, 2006). Other aspects include intercultural attitudes and intercultural awareness. Intercultural communication competence poses high expectation on language teachers and language education, which highlights the importance of a new intercultural literacy model that integrates these major components to meet the needs of contemporary language teacher education.

Approaching a New Model of Intercultural Literacy Although the term intercultural literacy is not new, its dimensions need to be expanded and a multidisciplinary consideration needs to be taken into account. Few researchers mention intercultural nonverbal communication competence in intercultural classroom interaction (Yang, 2015b, 2017, 2018). Therefore,

24

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

intercultural nonverbal communication competence should constitute an additional and important component of intercultural literacy. Terms such as intercultural verbal communication competence (Lim, 2017), intercultural attitudes (Kathryn & Jason, 2017), and intercultural awareness (Baker, 2012, 2016; Susilo, Yang, & Qi, 2019) have been used in general intercultural communication studies, and they play an important role in intercultural literacy of the 21st century. I define intercultural literacy as a systematic combination of knowledge, skills, and mindset that a person needs to have to engage in effective verbal and nonverbal communication with others from diverse cultural backgrounds and maintain collaborative bonding with culturally appropriate attitudes and awareness at all times. A complete model of intercultural literacy should additionally include the following components: intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness (Figure 1).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. A new model of intercultural literacy

First, intercultural verbal communication competence is essential for language teachers to communicate and build intercultural connections with students from other cultural backgrounds, and to manage potential issues arising from intercultural differences. As language classrooms are becoming increasingly culturally diverse, teachers need to develop intercultural verbal communication competence to communicate, to understand their students’ learning needs, and to provide needed learning support (McCalman, 2014; Yang, 2017). International students studying abroad for the first time may not be familiar with the new learning environment and take more time to get used to a new learning style. Language teachers who are plurilingually and interculturally competent are in a better position to communicate with the learners who need help in their language learning and adaptation to the new cultural environment. Using an easy-to-understand language, language teachers need to demonstrate their intercultural verbal communication competence, foster a caring learning environment for their students, local or international, and scaffold student learning.

25

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

The next component of intercultural literacy, namely intercultural attitudes, refers to a person’s positive response to another person with a different cultural identity. Cultural identity covers a range of attributes characteristic of an ethnic group and community. They include cultural values, language(s) they speak, food they eat, clothes they wear, and music they listen to, among others (Salminen, Toivanen, Virkkala, Hankama, & Vahermaa, 2017). Language teachers have a good opportunity to co-construct their intercultural identity in their intercultural interaction with culturally diverse students in the classroom setting (Yang, 2018). When language teachers sense any negative responses (whether it is their own response or some student groups’) to the class community due to varied cultural identities, they need to take action and create a classroom culture that accommodates these differences. The third component of intercultural literacy is intercultural nonverbal communication competence. It is much less researched than intercultural verbal communication competence, though its role is no less important. Because the message of intercultural nonverbal communication is hidden and implied, the competence to understand and use intercultural nonverbal communication needs more attention on the part of language teachers. Yang (2015b) points out that although intercultural nonverbal communication competence is crucial for Australian university academic staff members to deliver better pedagogical outcomes, and for professional staff to provide international students with a good campus experience, none of them have ever received formal intercultural nonverbal communication education or have ever undertaken any appropriate professional development training in this area. Insisting that intercultural nonverbal communication competence needs to be integrated with verbal communication competence to make the concept of intercultural communication competence complete, Yang (2018) discusses three major supporting dimensions including paralinguistic competence, kinesic competence, and proxemic competence and explains how they contribute to intercultural communication competence. For example, language teachers with paralinguistic competence make intercultural communication effective when they use appropriate speech rate and speech volume in class. Language teachers with kinesic competence facilitate intercultural communication when they use helpful gestures (e.g., iconic, metaphoric, deictic, and beat) and body language in teaching. Language teachers with proxemic competence are able to perceive and manage the physical and psychological distance well in the classroom. Finally, intercultural awareness is defined as “a conscious understanding of the role culturally based forms, practices, and frames of understanding can have in intercultural communication, and an ability to put these conceptions into practice in a flexible and context specific manner in real time communication” (Baker, 2012, p. 66). The trajectory development of intercultural awareness can be viewed from three levels (Table 1). The first level involves basic cultural awareness concerning fundamental knowledge about one’s own and other cultures. The second level is about advanced cultural awareness concerning a higher level of understanding of cultural differences and competence to manage the potential cultural conflicts. Finally, the third level entails intercultural awareness concerning competence and empathy to see other cultures from an ethical perspective (Baker, 2012; Chen & Starosta, 1998). Intercultural interactants with sufficient intercultural awareness can flexibly respond to dynamic cultural contexts and find positive solutions to intercultural conflicts, which they address in a fair and open manner.

26

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Table 1. Three levels of intercultural awareness development Level

Key components / Awareness of

Basic cultural awareness

1. Culture as a set of shared behaviors, beliefs, and values; 2. The role culture and context play in any interpretation of meaning; 3. Own culturally induced behavior, values, and beliefs and the ability to articulate this; 4. Others’ culturally induced behavior, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with own culturally induced behavior, values, and beliefs.

Advanced cultural awareness

5. The relative nature of cultural norms; 6. Cultural understanding as provisional and open to revision; 7. Multiple voices or perspectives within any cultural grouping; 8. Individuals as members of many social groupings including cultural ones; 9. Common ground between specific cultures as well as an awareness of possibilities for mismatch and miscommunication between specific cultures.

Intercultural awareness

10. Culturally based frames of reference, forms, and communicative practices as being related both to specific cultures and also as emergent and hybrid in intercultural communication; 11. Initial interaction in intercultural communication as possibly based on cultural stereotypes or generalizations but an ability to move beyond these; 12. A capacity to negotiate and mediate between different emergent socioculturally grounded communication modes and frames of reference based on the above understanding of culture in intercultural communication.

Note. Data taken from Baker (2012, p. 66).

As seen in Figure 1, the bi-directional arrows between intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, intercultural awareness, and intercultural literacy symbolize that these components have a mutual impact on each other. For example, the development of intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness contributes to the development of language teacher intercultural literacy, and at the same time, the intercultural literacy framework provides a theoretical guide to language teacher development in each of the four dimensions. The next section of the chapter considers the importance of including intercultural literacy in language teacher education in the 21st century. It provides a rationale for why intercultural literacy should be included as a component in language teacher education programs, and it discusses how its inclusion ensures sustainability and intercultural responsiveness of teacher education. These issues are discussed with reference to the new model of intercultural literacy proposed above.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS A culturally responsive initiative to challenges in international education is needed to ensure that language teacher preparation programs are interculturally oriented and all pre- and in-service language teachers are interculturally literate. It is essential that language teacher education policy-makers and language teacher education program designers understand the importance and support the inclusion of intercultural literacy in language teacher education. Meanwhile, language teachers need to advocate for intercultural literacy as part of language teacher education and professional development.

27

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Language Teachers’ Intercultural Verbal Communication Competence The Council of Europe has been active in promoting “plurilingualism, linguistic diversity and language learning the field of education” (Council of Europe, 2019) and has published several documents highlighting the importance of intercultural education, for example, “Multicultural societies, pluricultural people and the project of Intercultural Education” by Byram (2009) and “Specifying languages’ contribution to intercultural education: lessons learned from the CEFR” by Beacco (2013). In one article, Beacco et al. (2016) stress the importance of including plurilingual and intercultural education in vocational and primary education programs and map out strategic guidance for curriculum development. They continue to expound on plurilingual and intercultural competence:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Plurilingual and intercultural competence is the ability to use a plural repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources to meet communication needs or interact with other people, and enrich that repertoire while doing so. Plurilingual competence refers to the repertoire of resources which individual learners acquire in all the languages they know or have learned, and which also relate to the cultures associated with those languages (languages of schooling, regional/minority and migration languages, modern or classical languages); pluriculturality denotes the ability to participate in different cultures, inter alia by acquiring several languages. Intercultural competence, for its part, is the ability to experience otherness and cultural diversity, to analyze that experience and to derive benefit from it. Once acquired, intercultural competence makes it easier to understand otherness, establish cognitive and affective links between past and new experiences of otherness, mediate between members of two (or more) social groups and their cultures, and question the assumptions of one’s own cultural group and environment. (p. 10) As the excerpt stresses, plurilingual competence forms the foundation on which intercultural competence is developed, and the two contribute to an intercultural education system. Plurilingual competence and intercultural competence are expected not only of the students but also of their teachers as a higher priority and at a higher standard. The new model of intercultural literacy presented above highlights the importance of intercultural verbal communication competence with which language teachers should equip themselves in their daily interaction with culturally diverse students, including using the existing knowledge and home language skills of the students to tap into potential and motivation to learn additional languages. Language teachers need flexibly and thoughtfully to use their adult students’ home language to motivate them to learn the language(s) of the host country. This itself is a kind of reward for the students as they can use their existing knowledge and skills in their first language (L1) to learn a second language (L2). Collaborative learning through the use of L1 can help adult learners increase the syntactic complexity in L2 writing because they can use their current L1 syntactic knowledge and home language skills without diminishing accuracy, fluency, or text quality (Zhang, 2018). For instance, when translating English idioms to Swedish, non-native advanced Swedish speakers automatically activate L1 knowledge, i.e., L1 lexical networks, in learning English as an L2 (Carrol, Conklin, & Gyllstad, 2016). In case when languages differ with respect to some grammatical feature or pragmatic use (Yang, 2015a), as is the case with English on the one hand, and Chinese, Japanese, Thai, or Vietnamese on the other, teachers can prompt learners to compare and contrast similarities and differences between the L1 and L2. Teachers can also display positive attitudes towards learners’ use of home languages in class, thus lessening anxiety. Teaching Tip 1 illustrates how teachers can work with these issues in the classroom.

28

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Teaching Tip 1 Howard is an ESL teacher for two culturally diverse English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes at a university in Australia, level 1 (beginner) and level 3 (intermediate). Most of his students come from Asian countries, such as China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. Based on their previous written work, Howard knows that one of their learning difficulties is the use of the definite article (the) because there is no equivalent in these Asian languages. He is also aware that the communication styles (e.g., greetings) his students use is different from those of native English speakers. He plans to focus on the former point for level 1 class and the latter one for level 3 class today. Howard wants his students to learn through inductive learning, namely through guided exploration and discovery. First, he models how to find examples of ‘out of question/out of the question’ in digital newspapers (e.g., the Australian) on the internet and briefly explains the role ‘the’ plays in the two sentences. Then Howard shows other pairs of phrases, in ‘charge of/in the charge of’ and in ‘front of/in the front of’ on a slide. He divides students into two groups, with one of them working on ‘in charge of/in the charge of’ and the other on ‘in front of/in the front of.’ He asks each group to look for two sentences with the two phrases. After they find the sentences, Howard asks them to read them out aloud and explain what each sentence means. Through peer discussion, occasionally in their home language for assistance and confirmation, students are able to clarify the meaning of the sentences based on the context, which raises their awareness of the use of the definitive article in English. Finally, Howard asks the students to produce translations of the English phrases into their home languages to increase their understanding of the similarities and differences between the L1 and L2. In his intermediate class, Howard wants to emphasize that different communication styles are associated with cultural practices. To illustrate this point, Howard uses a real-life incident and instructs his students to read and reflect on the news report on the internet. It focuses on understanding different communication styles used by Australian English and Korean speakers. After a Korean student, Mr. Chang, was attacked in a Melbourne parkland at night in September 2012, he reported it to the police, but was frustrated by the police investigation. Mr. Chang said he was told by police he was responsible for the brutal attack because he ‘was in the wrong place at the wrong hours,’ sparking alarm in South Korea. But the spokesperson said that, while police eventually apologized for the remark to Mr. Chang, he might have ‘misunderstood the intention behind it and taken in the wrong way due to cultural differences.’ (Han, 2012) Howard asks students the following questions one by one to engage them in small group discussion. 1. What is your understanding of ‘’was in the wrong place at the wrong hours’’? 2. What did the Australian police officers mean to say? 3. Why was the Korean student frustrated? 4. Why did this incident spark alarm in South Korea? 5. If you were the police officers, what would you say in your home language? 6. Is it similar to or different from what the Australian police officers said? 7. What are the differences you have identified? 8. How do you think a different language and communication style could have changed the situation? 9. How important do you think intercultural verbal communication competence is when communicating across languages and cultures? 10. What would you recommend to police officers as they work in a multilingual and multicultural country?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Howard uses two teaching techniques for EAP level 3 class. First, he uses authentic readings from real life so that students become interested in it due to its relevance. Second, all students have opportunity to participate in the discussion and voice their opinions. Although students have different opinions, it is through open group discussion that they understand that speakers from different language and cultural backgrounds talk and behave in their own ways and that showing intercultural understanding in intercultural interaction helps intercultural communication. Language teachers need to help students understand the language and cultural differences through authentic and relevant learning materials, for example, through examples of language found in newspapers or an actual intercultural encounter between the Korean speaker and the Australian policeman. The questions can further test students’ understanding of what goes wrong between the two parties and make them reflect on how to respond to similar scenarios and communicate with speakers of diverse cultural backgrounds. Languages employ different grammatical means to communicate messages, and people from different cultures use different language expressions and communication styles. They work without any issues with speakers who share the same cultural values and conventions. However, things could go wrong when these speakers communicate across languages and cultures if they do not have appropriate intercultural verbal communication competence. By comparing and contrasting languages and cultures, teachers can help their learners reflect on the importance of and need for intercultural verbal communication competence as part of intercultural literacy.

29

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Language Teachers’ Development of Intercultural Attitudes in the Classroom Language teachers working in multilingual classrooms may face various challenges and exciting opportunities to develop their intercultural attitudes in action. For example, they may find that their cultural identity is different from those of their students, such as students from refugee backgrounds. The New South Wales Government has supported multicultural education in schools by implementing measures to promote cultural diversity, anti-racism education, and teaching English as an additional language or dialect education, and actively supporting refugee students (NSW Department of Education, 2017). Working with immigrant students, particularly the refugees as a unique group, language teachers can develop their intercultural attitudes through learning a second/foreign language and culture, and through engaging in task-based teaching and learning activities in the classroom setting (see also Farrelly & Fakhrutdinova in this volume). Developing positive intercultural attitudes is particularly important for teachers working with refugee populations. When new refugee students arrive in the host country, they often take a placement test in which their literacy level and communication skills are assessed in order to place them in an appropriate class. When joining the multilingual and multicultural classroom, the refugee students may need to adapt themselves to the new language and cultural environments (Birman & Tran, 2017). It is important to make them feel at home and welcome. In this case, language teachers play a key role in giving the refugee students opportunities to engage in classroom learning activities and showing positive attitudes towards the refugee students who need much assistance in learning the language of the host country and managing culture shock. While working with students of refugee backgrounds, language teachers need to understand their prior life experiences, provide individual assistance in language development, and seek bilingual/bicultural assistance (e.g., interpreting or counselling) from community learning support services to foster culture of learning environments (Naidoo, 2015). This helps to increase the chance that the refugee students feel at home, become motivated to learn the new language, open up to their fellow students, and progress with personal confidence.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Language Teachers’ Intercultural Nonverbal Communication Competence Intercultural nonverbal communication competence is expected of language teachers working with students of diverse cultural backgrounds. It involves the capacity to acquire knowledge and skills in applying at least three major dimensions of nonverbal communication in the multicultural classroom setting. First, teachers need intercultural paralinguistic communication competence. This involves speech volume, speech rate, speech pauses, silences, and more. Language teachers need to become aware of these speaking strategies and fully use their functions to facilitate student learning. Appropriate speech volume is especially crucial for students with hearing disabilities, aging learners, and for those sitting at the back of the room (Skoog Waller et al., 2015). Language teachers need to talk louder enough for all students to hear but should not sound like they are screaming or shouting. Similarly, speech rate is equally important for beginning students. For example, research suggests that L1 Japanese students perform better in listening comprehension of English spoken texts at a reduced speech rate (Matsuura et al., 2014). So is the case with Swedish-speaking children who perform better on a slow-speech test than a fast-speech test (Haake et al., 2014). Language teachers should take speech pauses as learners sometimes cognitively process what they hear through mentally translating into their L1 and confirming its meaning and understanding. To allow for processing, sufficient wait time is needed for students to employ thinking and evaluating as part of their learning (Kozar, 2016; Maroni, 2011; Smith & King, 2017). 30

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Second, language teachers’ intercultural kinesic communication competence can help achieve pedagogically effective and successful teaching and learning in the classroom (Yang, 2017). Language teachers can employ their body resources to facilitate student learning. For instance, they can use gestures to represent the shape of an object they are describing so that their verbal description and gestural representation go hand in hand for effective communication and enhanced meaning. However, it is worth noting that people from different cultures may use similar categories of gesture for different meanings. For example, a thumb-up hand gesture can indicate endorsement of a good job, and the same gesture used by a person on the roadside may stand for a request for a lift from a passing vehicle. People from different cultures may use different forms of similar gestures to cover the same meaning. For example, while an index finger pointing is commonly used for deictic communication (Flack, Naylor, & Leavens, 2018), nose and head pointing is preferred by locals in the Yupno of Papua New Guinea (Cooperrider, Slotta, & Núñez, 2018), while lip-pointing is used by Laotians (Enfield, 2001), and chin-up pointing by some Mandarin Chinese speakers (Yang, 2010). Though people from different language and cultural backgrounds communicate nonverbally in their culturally unique ways, one simple thing to remember is ‘Do as Romans do when in Rome’ strategically and flexibly in a manner culturally appropriate to the host culture and one’s own. Teaching tip 2 gives some examples of working with intercultural nonverbal communication competence. Teaching Tip 2 When language teachers teach in a host cultural context, they need to know about different and new rules in practice there. The codes of conduct for classroom teachers vary from country to country. For example, dress codes as one of intercultural nonverbal communication dimensions accepted in the classroom of one cultural context may be rejected in another cultural context. John is currently a TESOL teacher trainer at an Australian university and works with TESOL students from diverse cultural backgrounds. He has had a few years of experience teaching in Asian countries such as China, Korea, and Japan. In Australia, where John comes from, it is not uncommon for people to have tattoos, and he himself has a few tattoos on his body. As one form of individual freedom of choices and expressions in the West, body tattoos and body piercings are common in Australia. For example, some Australian police officers, politicians, movie stars, TV personalities, and sport celebrities have body tattoos. They are socially and culturally accepted in the workplace and on the public occasions, formal and informal. However, John’s overseas experience tells a different story. He taught English language courses at secondary schools and universities in Japan. Besides saying that he enjoys his teaching career and after work life there, John shares the following advice on dress codes in Japanese context. Language teachers need to keep themselves informed of the dress codes of the school where they teach. While teacher dress codes tend to be less formal in Australian schools and universities, the teacher dress codes are very specific about what is unacceptable for male and female teachers in Japanese schools and universities (https://www.westgatejapan.com/M-1-4.html). Male and female teacher dress codes in Japanese classrooms.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gender

Unacceptable

Male

Jeans/khakis/denim fabric slacks Short pants Slip-on shoes with uncovered heels Earrings Body and/or facial piercings (if visible) Tattoos (if visible)

Female

Revealing clothes Sleeveless clothes Jeans/khakis/denim fabric slacks Slip-on shoes with uncovered heels Open-toed footwear Bare legs Loud manicure or accessories Body and/or facial piercings (if visible) Tattoos (if visible)

31

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

John’s experience teaching in Japan has helped him develop his intercultural nonverbal communication competence. He recalls his Japanese student gossip about the visible tattoos on his arms. He regrets that he failed to take it seriously when he read the code of conduct for teachers before entering the classroom. He has learned his lesson, and now integrates intercultural nonverbal communication competence in his teaching to help the pre-service teachers in his care avoid similar offences in their future jobs. To get his students to learn through action, John instructs them to have role play in class. One female plays the role of an EFL teacher in a Japanese classroom and dresses herself up in accordance to the corresponding dress code (see above). One male is to play the role of another EFL teacher in a Japanese classroom but dress up against some of the corresponding dress code. After the role plays, students are encouraged to make comments on the intercultural differences about the different dress codes between Australian and Japanese classrooms. Students find that teachers at Australian universities are encouraged to dress comfortably but not too casually in classroom and those in Japanese universities are expected to stick to the written dress code of conduct. The message is that what is socially and culturally accepted in one cultural context may not be readily understood in another. His students learn the cultural differences and reflect on cultural diversity thoughtfully through participation, reflection, and presentation. By inviting his students to participate in a role play, John engaged them in an interculturally interactive activity that created a specific context in which they interacted nonverbally and were able to observe and analyze various intercultural kinesthetic communication differences with reference to the new cultural contexts and values. As the role play engaged student learning through participating, thinking, analyzing, and presenting, the teaching and learning outcomes were more pedagogically effective than the language teacher’s one-way talk only.

Third, language teachers’ intercultural proxemic communication competence can build teacher-student bonding, facilitate collaborative learning, and pedagogically motivate learner interest and autonomy. Both language teachers and culturally diverse students perceive and use space and distance based on their own cultural framework. Equipped with intercultural proxemic communication competence, language teachers understand their students’ cultural orientation to space and distance and are able to accommodate their cultural needs. For example, language teachers should be aware that most Arabic female students do not sit next to males or shake hands with them even if they know each other. Thus, language teachers should make alternative seating arrangements suitable for these students as needed and use appropriate greeting gestures instead of handshaking. Interculturally competent teachers are aware of how to use teacher immediacy (Kelly, et al., 2015) to foster physical and psychological closeness and minimize teacher-student barrier caused by distance.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Language Teachers’ Intercultural Awareness As reviewed early, intercultural awareness is one of the essential components of intercultural literacy that language teachers need to work effectively in a culturally diverse workplace. Pan and Wang (2017) report that Chinese teachers teaching Chinese as a heritage language in Canada need to undertake professional development so as to develop and enhance their intercultural communication competence and intercultural awareness expected for them to teach in the Canadian context. Susilo, Yang, and Qi (2019) focus on cultivating Indonesian university EFL teachers’ development of critical intercultural awareness through designing and using YouTube clips as a pedagogical mediation in the classroom setting. Below are some tips for developing teachers’ intercultural awareness in three steps. To meet the learning needs of culturally diverse students, language teachers need to have intercultural awareness in preparing their teaching, particularly the visual learning materials, and in identifying which are culturally appropriate and inappropriate. They also need to demonstrate intercultural awareness of different language and cultural behaviors while interacting with students in classroom, asking them and answering their questions. Personal reflection after each teaching session allows language teachers to review what their intercultural awareness helped them achieve and what needs improvement in this dimension. Teaching tip 3 illustrates a lesson that explores the cultural richness in the classroom and ways in which both the teacher and the learners can benefit from it. 32

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Teaching Tip 3 Helen is another Australian TESOL teacher working with culturally diverse students at a university. Her extensive teaching experience with international students tells that it is helpful to use a range of innovative teaching materials and learning activities so as to develop student intercultural awareness. She also understands that she can further enhance her own intercultural awareness while working with different students each semester. While preparing her lesson plans, resources, and activities, Helen considers authentic materials related to intercultural awareness development and engaging techniques to use them. She browses through her university library e-resources and finds relevant authentic materials including videos and YouTube which visualize intercultural interaction and report recent events (e.g., political, economic, cultural, and educational). Then she determines which of the available materials are culturally appropriate for their students and considers using a mix of easy-to-challenging contents so as to meet the varied student learning needs and levels and stimulate their learning interest. Next, she organizes the materials in a sequence that is appropriate for students of different abilities and needs. She thinks it a good idea to prioritize the use of materials that are familiar and relevant to their students. Helen’s innovative approach is to utilize digital resources and motivate her students to use YouTube clips to tell stories about their unique cultural practice and beliefs. She asks other students to reflect on intercultural awareness messages. For example, while showing a YouTube clip on Indian parents rolling their baby on cow manure, an Indian student explains that they do so to give their baby a blessing of prosperity and luck. Cows are seen as a maternal figure in Indian culture. In another example, an African woman displays a digital photo of several cows and tells that they are a sign of wealth. The cows came from her husband as a wedding confirmation. Some students reflect that cows are hardworking cattle, eating grass and giving milk and others say that they like the cows for milk and beef which they consume regularly. An assessment task requires that students work in pairs as a team and tell a digital story about unique cultural practice. One Maori student from New Zealand and an Australian Aboriginal student choose to tell their heritage cultural stories. Using a few YouTube clips, the Maori girl vividly describes the important role Haka dance plays in Maori culture. Then the Australian Aboriginal student continues to show everyone how Hakka dance is performed on some formal occasions such as a state guest welcome, a wedding party, and a funeral ceremony. Next, also using a few YouTube clips, the Australian Aboriginal student begins playing didgeridoo, an Aboriginal music instrument. He is telling an Australian Aboriginal cultural and history stories through it. Next, the Maori girl shows her boomerang, an Australian Aboriginal souvenir. Stories about fishing and hunting continue. Helen’s additional teaching technique is to have a Q&A session toward the end of her class each time. This creates an additional opportunity to have teacher-student and student-student interaction and sometimes short debates.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

After class, Helen reflects on her lesson planning and teaching experience, carefully examining what worked well and what will need improvement. For example, she noticed that the video of a baby being rolled in cow manure made some students uneasy, and she made a note to bring the issue of cultural differences again, illustrating with other examples. She also realized that in this class, she and her students focused a lot on celebrations and traditions, and that she has to be careful to help her students avoid forming negative stereotypes about other cultures. Overall, however, she feels that both she and her students had a rich learning experience, and finds that most of the students were excited to share information about their cultures with the classmates. Helen has developed her intercultural awareness through preparing, teaching, and reflecting on her teaching. Her students have also developed their intercultural awareness through participating, discussing, researching, and presenting their work.

Language teachers can develop their intercultural awareness while they design teaching materials, deliver learning activities, and engage in interaction with culturally diverse students (Kusumaningputri & Widodo, 2018; Susilo et al., 2019). They may find it beneficial to use interculturally orientated materials (e.g., YouTube clips, TV shows) because these dynamic and authentic visual learning resources help connect classroom learning with a wide and exciting world, and provide rich and authentic information about diverse cultures. They also help engage teacher-student interactions in collaborative classroom activities and increase both teacher’s and students’ intercultural awareness. Put together, the new intercultural literacy model presented in this chapter highlights the mutual interaction between intercultural literacy and intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness. In particular, it includes intercultural nonverbal communication competence which is not considered in other intercultural literacy models although it plays a significant role in the multicultural classroom. When language teachers are interculturally literate, they are competent in working with students of diverse cultural backgrounds and can use culturally appropriate resources to engage them in critical learning.

33

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter has examined intercultural literacy for language teacher education in the 21st century. It has proposed a new model of intercultural literacy consisting of intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness. However, as current language teacher education programs may not cover the four components of this new intercultural literacy model, the chapter also examined some important implications of the model for pre- and in-service teachers. Language teacher education providers need to take action to re-evaluate current language teacher education programs and ensure that intercultural literacy is present in the curriculum. If intercultural literacy is absent or incomplete due to missing components, a needs analysis of language teacher education programs should be undertaken in order to fully incorporate intercultural literacy and intercultural education. Furthermore, in-service language teachers need to refresh their intercultural literacy through attending professional development training. Yang (2015b) calls on both academic and professional staff members working at Australian universities to attend training workshops on intercultural nonverbal communication competence so that they can work effectively with both local and international students. It is proposed that intercultural literacy be stipulated as one of the requirements of teacher training, particularly language teacher education. This can help to increase the likelihood that language teachers are professionally, psychologically, and emotionally prepared for intercultural interactions with culturally diverse students. This will give future language teachers the potential to make their intercultural communication in the classroom effective and successful. Future research on intercultural literacy can focus on the role each of the four dimensions of the new theoretical model discussed above plays in language teacher education. Specifically, it is important to investigate how they each contribute to effective and successful language teacher education programs and language teacher professional development. Quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed-methods research projects can be undertaken to examine how and how much the specific elements within each dimension contribute to language teacher education programs and teacher professional development. The results can be used to inform language teacher education program developers and teacher educators so that they update relevant program curricula to meet these arising needs. Next, this can guide the development of specific unit syllabi and training modules to be delivered in pre-service teacher courses and those attending in-service teacher training sessions. As language teachers are interacting with an increasing number of international students, it becomes more useful and relevant to develop intercultural literacy so that they can build self-confidence, enhance intercultural understanding, provide good student learning experiences, and achieve both personal and professional successes. All these are possible when intercultural literacy is fully implemented in language teacher education programs and teacher professional development as a long-term vision. Discussion Questions 1. What do language teachers need to do to develop intercultural verbal communication competence? How could you do this in your own teaching context? 2. Why is it meaningful for language teachers to value intercultural education and demonstrate positive intercultural attitudes? In what ways can they demonstrate it in the classroom? 3. What do you think is an effective approach to developing your own and your students’ intercultural nonverbal communication competence?

34

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I thank the editors of this volume for their helpful comments. I also thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback on the manuscript.

REFERENCES Arizpe, E., Bagelman, C., Devlin, A. M., Farrell, M., & McAdam, J. E. (2014). Visualizing intercultural literacy: Engaging critically with diversity and migration in the classroom through an image-based approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(3), 304–321. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.903056 Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2018). International student data 2018. Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Pages/ InternationalStudentData2018.aspx Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62–70. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr017 Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: Student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), 437–451. doi:10.10 80/14708477.2016.1168053 Barkhuizen, G. (2017). Investigating multilingual identity in study abroad contexts: A short story analysis approach. System, 71, 102–112. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.09.014 Beacco, J.-C. (2013). Specifying languages’ contribution to intercultural education: lessons learned from the CEFR. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/specifying-languages-contribution-to-interculturaleducation-lessons-l/16808ae53b Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2016). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docu mentId=09000016806ae621

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Birman, D., & Tran, N. (2017). When worlds collide: Academic adjustment of Somali Bantu students with limited formal education in a U.S. elementary school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 132–144. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.06.008 Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 38–52. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.008 Byram, M. (2009). Multicultural societies, pluricultural people, and the project of intercultural education. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent? documentId=09000016805a223c Carrol, G., Conklin, K., & Gyllstad, H. (2016). Found in translation: The influence of the L1 on the reading of idioms in an L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 403–443. doi:10.1017/ S0272263115000492 35

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. (1998). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. Human Communication, 2(1), 27–54. Cooperrider, K., Slotta, J., & Núñez, R. (2018). The preference for pointing with the hand is not universal. Cognitive Science, 42(4), 1375–1390. doi:10.1111/cogs.12585 PMID:29349840 Council of Europe. (2019). The council of Europe and language education. Retrieved from https://www.coe. int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/language-policy-in-the-council-of-europe Eaves, M. H., & Leathers, D. (2018). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Enfield, N. J. (2001). ‘Lip-pointing’: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1(2), 185–212. doi:10.1075/gest.1.2.06enf Flack, Z. M., Naylor, M., & Leavens, D. A. (2018). Pointing to visible and invisible targets. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(2), 221–236. doi:10.100710919-017-0270-3 PMID:29527081 Giles, H., & Le Poire, B. A. (2006). Introduction: The ubiquity and social meaningfulness of nonverbal communication. In V. Manusov, & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 15–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Haake, M., Hansson, K., Gulz, A., Schötz, S., & Sahlén, B. (2014). The slower the better? Does the speaker’s speech rate influence children’s performance on a language comprehension test? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(2), 181–190. doi:10.3109/17549507.2013.845690 PMID:24160304 Han, E. (2012, November 29). Outcry over police reaction to assaulted Korean student. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/outcry-over-police-reaction-to-assaultedkorean-student-20121128-2ae93.html Harbon, L. (2013). Second language teachers and intercultural literacy. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 77–87. Heyward, M. (2000). Intercultural literacy and the international school. The International Schools Journal, 19(2), 29–36.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Holliday, A. (2019). Understanding intercultural communication: Negotiating a grammar of culture (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Hsu, C. F. (2014). Open and positive attitudes toward teaching. In K. G. Hendrix, & A. Hebbani (Eds.), Hidden roads: Non-native English-speaking international professors in the classroom (pp. 41–49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Japan Student Services Organization. (2019). Overview of international students’ acceptance. Retrieved from https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2018/index.html Kathryn, J., & Jason, R. M. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

36

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Kelly, S., Rice, C., Wyatt, B., Ducking, J., & Denton, Z. (2015). Teacher immediacy and decreased student quantitative reasoning anxiety: The mediating effect of perception. Communication Education, 64(2), 171-186. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1014383 Kozar, O. (2016). Teachers’ reaction to silence and teachers’ wait time in video and audioconferencing English lessons: Do webcams make a difference? System, 62, 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.07.002 Kusumaningputri, R., & Widodo, H. P. (2018). Promoting Indonesian university students’ critical intercultural awareness in tertiary EAL classrooms: The use of digital photograph-mediated intercultural tasks. System, 72, 49–61. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.10.003 Lim, T.-S. (2017). Verbal communication across cultures. In L. Chen (Ed.), Intercultural communication (pp. 179–197). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9781501500060-008 Malczewska-Webb, B. (2014). Cultural and intercultural awareness of international students at an Australian university. In A. Lyda, & K. Szczepaniak (Eds.), Awareness in action (pp. 225–239). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_15 Maroni, B. (2011). Pauses, gaps and wait time in classroom interaction in primary schools. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(7), 2081–2093. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.006 Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., Mahoney, S., & Rilling, S. (2014). Accent and speech rate effects in English as a lingua franca. System, 46, 143–150. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.07.015 McCalman, C. L. (2014). International instructor preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms in the United States: Teaching intercultural communication competence online. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 138(138), 73–81. doi:10.1002/tl.20098 Naidoo, L. (2015). Educating refugee-background students in Australian schools and universities. Intercultural Education, 26(3), 210–217. doi:10.1080/14675986.2015.1048079 NSW Department of Education. (2017). Multicultural education. Retrieved from https://education.nsw. gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/multicultural-education

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pan, M., & Wang, S. (2017). The construction of interculturality: A study of Chinese as heritage language teachers in Canada. In T. Jin, & F. Dervin (Eds.), Interculturality in Chinese language education (pp. 63–87). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-58322-2_4 Salminen, S., Toivanen, P., Virkkala, J., Hankama, S., & Vahermaa, J. (2017). Reflections on North– South collaboration in music education. In E. Lehtomäki, H. Janhonen-Abruquah, & G. L. Kahangwa (Eds.), Culturally responsive education: Reflections from the global South and North (pp. 131–142). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315201900-9 Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2019). Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 54–71. doi:10.1016/j. pragma.2018.08.006 Schweitzer, R., Perkoulidis, S., Krome, S., Ludlow, C., & Ryan, M. (2005). Attitudes towards refugees: The dark side of prejudice in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 170–179. doi:10.1080/00049530500125199

37

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Skoog Waller, S., Eriksson, M., & Sörqvist, P. (2015). Can you hear my age? Influences of speech rate and speech spontaneity on estimation of speaker age. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00978 PMID:26236259 Smith, L., & King, J. (2017). A dynamic systems approach to wait time in the second language classroom. System, 68, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.05.005 Susilo, A., Yang, P., & Qi, R. (2019). Shaping EFL teachers’ critical intercultural awareness through intercultural education. In D. Mulyadi, H. D. Santoso, S. Aimah, & R. Rahim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd English language and literature international conference (pp. 316–324). Bratislava, Slovakia: EAI (European Alliance for Innovation). 10.4108/eai.27-4-2019.2285307 Tavakoli, P. (2018). L2 development in an intensive Study Abroad EAP context. System, 72, 62–74. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.10.009 The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2019). Statistical report on international students in China for 2018. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/201904/ t20190418_378586.html UK Council for International Student Affairs. (2019). International student statistics: UK higher education. Retrieved from https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research--Policy/Statistics/International-studentstatistics-UK-higher-education Yang, P. (2010). Nonverbal gender differences: Examining gestures of university-educated Mandarin Chinese speakers. Text & Talk - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse & Communication, 33(3), 333–357. doi:10.1515/text.2010.017 Yang, P. (2015a). Developing intercultural competence in TESOL service-learning: Volunteer tutoring for recently-arrived adult refugees in learning English as a second language. In A. J. Wurr, & J. M. Perren (Eds.), Learning the language of global citizenship: Strengthening service-learning in TESOL (pp. 328–351). Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yang, P. (2015b). Intercultural nonverbal communication competence: Meeting body language challenges in facilitating and working with students from culturally diverse backgrounds in the Australian higher education context. In G. M. Martinez (Ed.), Recent advances in language and communication (pp. 81–96). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Yang, P. (2016). Intercultural communication between East and West: Implications for students on study abroad programs to China. In D. M. Velliaris, & D. Coleman-George (Eds.), Handbook of research on study abroad programs and outbound mobility (pp. 755–777). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-5225-0169-5.ch030 Yang, P. (2017). Intercultural nonverbal communication competence as intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom. In J. Kathryn, & R. M. Jason (Eds.), Intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom (pp. 127–147). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-5225-2069-6.ch008 Yang, P. (2018). Developing TESOL teacher intercultural identity: An intercultural communication competence approach. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 525–541. doi:10.1002/tesj.356

38

 Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

Yang, P. (2019). Intercultural dialogue as constructive and positive communication: From intercultural communication to global peacebuilding. In S. Peleg (Ed.), Intercultural and interfaith dialogues for global peacebuilding and stability (pp. 30–49). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7585-6.ch002 Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009 Zong, J., & Batalove, J. (2018). International students in the United States. Retrieved from https://www. migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-states

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Intercultural Attitudes: Either positive or negative responses a person has to another person with different cultural identity. Intercultural Awareness: A conscious understanding of the culturally appropriate behaviors and an ability to practice in intercultural communication. Intercultural Education: The systematically designed courses or training programs with the teaching philosophy to focus on openness and willingness to interact with speakers of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds with mutual understanding and in culturally appropriate manners. Intercultural Literacy: A person with intercultural literacy has working knowledge, high level of intercultural skills, open-mindedness, and strong intercultural orientation to diverse cultures. The new model proposed in this chapter includes four supporting dimensions of intercultural literacy: intercultural verbal communication competence, intercultural attitudes, intercultural nonverbal communication competence, and intercultural awareness. Intercultural Nonverbal Communication Competence: Capacity to develop intercultural knowledge, skills, and intercultural awareness to engage in successful and effective interaction through paralinguistic, kinesic, and proxemics cues with speakers of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Intercultural Verbal Communication Competence: Capacity to develop intercultural knowledge, skills, and intercultural awareness to engage in successful and effective interaction with speakers of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Language Teacher Education: This inclusive concept covers first/second/foreign/additional language courses pursued by pre-service teachers at various levels (e.g., BA, MA, and PhD) for various cohorts (e.g., pre-school, primary, secondary, and post-secondary) and includes professional development training undertaken to meet the current education and professional needs. Language Teacher Professional Development: Training sessions and programs designed to improve and upgrade the skills needed by first/second/foreign/additional language teachers in their professional work.

39

Towards Intercultural Literacy of Language Teacher Education in the 21st Century

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Arizpe, E., Bagelman, C., Devlin, A. M., Farrell, M., & McAdam, J. E. (2014). Visualizing intercultural literacy: Engaging critically with diversity and migration in the classroom through an image-based approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(3), 304–321. This article describes primary school language teachers who used relevant images as visual materials in assisting culturally diverse refugee and asylum-seeking children in learning English language skills. The children-centered learning activities were engaging and helped to simulate and maintain the young learners’ interest in participation and interaction. 2. Harbon, L. (2013). Second language teachers and intercultural literacy. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 77–87. This article focuses on the learning experience of in-service Chinese EFL university teachers taking a postgraduate course delivered by an Australian lecturer in China. The teachers improved their intercultural literacy through working on an essay assignment with new and innovative subject matter on intercultural language education. They examined the definitions of intercultural language education through critically discussing various differences identified in current theories. They also critically analyzed the intercultural literacy challenges arising from EFL education in China. 3. Yang, P. (2018). Developing TESOL teacher intercultural identity: An intercultural communication competence approach. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 525-541.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This article conceptually examines TESOL teacher intercultural identity development in the Australian multicultural context. Using intercultural communication competence theory, the author discusses how TESOL teacher intercultural identity is developed and transformed in action and across languages and cultures. The author also proposes three strategies for TESOL teacher intercultural identity development and points out the future research on its potential contributing and/or interfering factors.

40

41

Chapter 3

Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners: From Theory to Practice Lisa Gonzalves https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2621-191X University of California, Davis, USA

ABSTRACT Globally, many adults lack access to education due to gender, poverty, ethnic discrimination, political confict, and geographic proximity. Moreover, many of these same adults may migrate at some point in their lives, needing to adapt to new linguistic settings. Oftentimes, such adults need to learn both an entirely new language and frst-time literacy - not necessarily in their frst language, but in the new language (L2) which they may not yet speak. By providing a robust overview of scholarship on emergent literacy acquisition in children and adults, this chapter heightens understanding of the complexity of acquiring literacy for the frst time as an L2 adult migrant. The chapter provides practical guidelines on how teachers of L2 adults with emergent literacy can apply this knowledge in the classroom, focusing on three pedagogical areas - vocabulary acquisition, metalinguistic awareness, and academic socialization.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Around the world, many adults are denied access to education for political, economic, or social reasons. Consequently, today over 750,000,000 adults worldwide are considered illiterate – nearly 10% of the world population (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2017). Moreover, many of these same adults may migrate at some point in their lives, needing to adapt to new linguistic settings. Often, such adults need to learn both an entirely new language and first-time literacy – not necessarily in their first language (L1) (which is arguably more difficult to acquire as an adult than as a child), but likely in the new, additional language (L2), which they may not yet speak. The simultaneous development of first-time literacy combined with the acquisition of an entirely new language underscores the difficulty in the developmental processes such learners must face. To illustrate, imagine attempting to copy simple text from the classroom board while DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch003

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

struggling to a) distinguish and recognize novel shapes (letters), b) recreate the novel shapes in tandem with the instructor’s own orthography, c) understand how to orient the paper you are writing upon, all while d) not having any idea what the teacher is saying or the meaning of what you are writing, and e) lacking a systematic understanding of all the parts and components of written language, how they relate to one another, and how to engage with such text. For these students new to literacy, understanding the world of print, particularly in a new language, can be an arduous undertaking. While there exists a wealth of scholarship dedicated to second language learning and literacy, much of this literature is conducted on students who are literate in their L1 and therefore does not directly apply to L2 learners with emergent literacy (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; Tarone, 2010). Moreover, research on adult emergent literacy in the L2 context is still relatively unexplored (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; Strube, 2009; van de Craats, Kurvers, & Young-Scholten, 2006). As a result, practitioners suffer from a lack of materials and resources to teach first-time literacy to adult migrants in an L2 context; furthermore, many L2 teaching certificate programs do not include courses on how to teach students who are not L1 literate (McCluskey, 2012; Vinogradov & Liden, 2009; Young-Scholten, Peyton, Sosinski, & Cabeza, 2015). While some may say a natural starting point would be to first teach literacy to these adults in their L1 (Gillespie, 1994; Malaga, 2008; Roberts, 1994), in a multilingual classroom of immigrant and refugee background students from different countries such a suggestion may not only be impossible, but may not match the immediate goals of a learner adapting to a new linguistic environment. This chapter aims to contribute to our understanding of the great complexity of acquiring literacy for the first time as an adult migrant in an L2 classroom. The chapter begins with an overview of the scholarship on emergent literacy acquisition in children, L1 adults, and L2 adults. Following, practical teaching guidelines are presented in three chosen pedagogical areas: vocabulary acquisition, metalinguistic awareness (including a sample classroom lesson), and academic socialization. These three areas were chosen due to their critical role in first-time literacy development in an L2 learning context (as elaborated upon in the literature review). The chapter concludes with discussion questions and additional resources.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Scholarship on Children’s Emergent Literacy To understand the process of acquiring literacy for the first time in adulthood, one starting point is the scholarship conducted on L1 children’s development of reading. Learning to read entails a multitude of skills, including sound-graph knowledge (Boyer & Ehri, 2011; Ehri, 2011; Megino-Elvira, MartínLobo, & Vergara-Moragues, 2016) and (in the case of alphabetic languages), phonological awareness (Furnes & Samuelsson, 2011; Goswami & Bryant, 2016; Sermier Dessemontet & de Chambrier, 2015); consequently children benefit when receiving explicit instruction in phonics (Boyer & Ehri, 2011; Suggate, 2016; Szabo, 2010), and/or syllabic associations (Díaz-Cárdenas, Díaz-Furlong, Díaz-Furlong, & Sankey-García, 2016; Doignon-Camus & Zagar, 2014). Several other skills contribute to success in reading, including word-level knowledge: lexical and semantic knowledge and strategies (Brinchmann, Hjetland, & Lyster, 2016; Kim, Otaiba, Puranik, Folsom, & Gruelich, 2014; Quinn, Wagner, Petscher, & Lopez, 2015), as well as morphological knowledge (Carlisle & Kearns, 2017; Desrochers, Manolitsis, & Georgiou, 2018; Guo, Roehrig, & Williams, 2011). Reading in alphabetic languages (such as English) is not just about phonetic decoding; rather, it is a synchronous understanding of orthographic, 42

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

phonological, and morphological forms combined with lexical and semantic meanings (Kendeou, Van Den Broek, Helder, & Karlsson, 2014; Perfetti, 2017; Rayner & Reichle, 2010). While it may seem that reading and writing go hand in hand, they are arguably separate processes sharing considerable amounts of reciprocity (Bloodgood, 1999; Vaessen & Blomert, 2013). Children pass through a whole series of (overlapping) stages as they learn to develop their writing skills. For example, children learn to scribble, draw, and engage in their own play ‘writing’ long before they learn anything about phonemic decoding (Puranik & Lonigan, 2011; Cristina Silva & Alves-Martins, 2002; Sulzby, 1992). Through this play, the child progressively refines their motor skills, starting from whole arm movements and later developing the ability to control movements at the wrist and fingers (Huffman & Fortenberry, 2011). As the child’s development continues, scribbles turn into wavy lines, and wavy lines begin to adhere to different shapes and forms; simultaneously, the child acquires norms of directionality (left to right, or right to left) and spacing between ‘words’, etc. (Gombert & Fayol, 1992). As the child learns letters and some graph-sound correlations, they engage in invented spellings, eventually moving from a syllabic stage (writing one ‘letter’ per perceived syllable, such as writing ‘O-O-O’ for a 3 syllable word) to a greater adherence to phonological criteria (Fox & Saracho, 1990; Tolchinsky & Teberosky, 1998). While a handful of contending studies have attempted to provide some structure to discuss the various trajectories encompassing emergent writing in children (see e.g., Berninger, 2000; Gentry, 2000; Puranik & Lonigan, 2014, 2011; Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002; Tolchinsky & Teberosky, 1998; Vernon & Ferreiro, 1999), these models do share varying amounts of overlap and interaction, all which contribute to our understanding of the multitude of skills a child acquires on the path to developing alphabetic literacy. Undoubtedly, the acquisition of reading and writing skills are intertwined. However, children often display differentiated ability to decode words (reading) versus spelling the same words (Fletcher-Flinn, Shankweiler, & Frost, 2004; Nation, 2013; Rahbari, 2019; Webb, 2005). Possible explanations include: a) while reading may simply employ a phonetic strategy, spelling employs a phonetic strategy and recalling the correct grapheme and recalling the grapheme positionality (Bruck & Waters, 1988); b) non-phonetically consistent languages place an additional reliance on learning morphological patterns (Chliounaki & Bryant, 2007); and c) spelling is inherently multi-modal, encompassing “visual-perceptual, motor-kinesthetic and linguistic information” which requires more time than decoding (Shahar-Yames & Share, 2008). These visual-perceptual skills allow children to recall and make judgements about visual ‘correctness’ allowing them to choose correctly spelled words prior to their ability to correctly decode novel or pseudowords (Deacon, Pasquarella, Marinus, Tims, & Castles, 2018); children from non-phonetic languages such as Mandarin similarly rely on stored orthographic representations (McBride, 2016). In such cases, children learn to decode by recalling orthographic strings individually as opposed to developing decoding skills in a sequential stage-like manner (Shahar-Yames & Share, 2008; Share, 1995).

Research on Emergent Adult Literacy Some adults lack the opportunity to develop literacy as children. Nonetheless, unlike children, adults without literacy have higher levels of print awareness (i.e., understanding the functional purpose of literacy) than children despite their inability to decode text (Boon & Kurvers, 2008; Greenberg, 1998; Kurvers, van Hout, & Vallen, 2009). Being fully aware of the affordances of literacy, these adults are not likely to go through the same stages of scribbles, drawing, or play writing as children do. Moreover, adults may not cognitively engage with literacy in the same way as children or literate adults. 43

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

To begin, literate adults parse oral language using lexical and phonological strategies, whereas adults without literacy tend to rely on more semantic knowledge when processing oral language (Kosmidis, Tsapkini, Folia, Vlahou, & Kiosseoglou, 2004; Reis & Castro-Caldas, 1997). This difference is largely due to a lack of basic metalinguistic awareness and knowledge (Nagy & Anderson, 1999). Metalinguistic awareness, defined as “the ability to identify, analyze, and manipulate language forms” (Koda, 2007, p. 2), is fundamentally connected to literacy and reading development (Morais & Kolinsky, 2004). Language studies conducted with non-literate L1 adults have indicated that literacy (reading) affects metalinguistic awareness, for instance metaphonological abilities (Castro-Caldas, Petersson, Reis, Stone-Elander, & Ingvar, 1998; De Santos Loureiro et al., 2004; Landgraf et al., 2012; Morais & Kolinsky, 2019). To illustrate, one cannot begin to sound out a word while still learning to parse individual sounds (Kosmidis et al., 2004). Additionally, adults with emergent literacy struggle with morphological awareness (Tighe & Binder, 2015; To, Tighe, & Binder, 2016; Worthy & Viise, 1996); consequently, explicit morphophonemic training has helped adult literacy learners (Gray, Ehri, & Locke, 2018). Furthermore, literacy affects the capacity of one’s verbal working memory (Reis, Guerreiro, & Petersson, 2003; Silva, Faísca, Ingvar, Petersson, & Reis, 2012), creating additional burdens on a new reader’s cognitive load while decoding text. Yet, L1 adult literacy learners are better at visually identifying orthographic patterns than children (who excel at using phonetic features) (Viise, 1996); similarly, adults developing first time literacy occasionally rely on more ‘logographic’ or sight word-type strategies to recall orthographic forms (Kurvers, 2007; Smyser & Alt, 2018). For reasons such as these, we cannot assume that literacy models designed for children’s literacy development necessarily apply to adults with emergent literacy (Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011; Comings & Soricone, 2007; Mellard, Woods, & Fall, 2011).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

L2 Adults with Emergent Literacy in Multilingual Classrooms Adults learning to become literate for the first time in their L1 advantageously possess a high command of the language, which includes not only a robust lexical bank but a comprehensive semantic, syntactic and pragmatic repertoire to rely upon. Conversely, L2 learners gaining first time literacy must develop this systematic understanding of the basic parts of words (e.g., syllables, consonant clusters, morphemes) in the target language in addition to a new syntactic system and an entire lexicon of new words. These learners must then apply this knowledge during their acquisition of first-time literacy, as orthographic systems are direct representations of a particular languages’ phonology, morphology, and lexicon (Llaurado & Tolchinsky, 2016). However, one’s cognitive ability to comprehend structural elements of the L2 is compromised if one lacks L1 literacy (Kurvers, 2015; Kurvers, Vallen, & van Hout, 2006; Onderdelinden, van de Craats, & Kurvers, 2009; Young-Scholten & Strom, 2006), as such individuals cannot ‘align’ a knowledge of these forms from the L1 to L2 (MacWhinney, 2018). Increasing the challenge, these learners must develop this knowledge in a new language comprised of novel components. For example, adult L2 learners with emergent literacy must learn to graphically represent and decode phonemes which may not exist in their L1; accordingly, the student may have difficulty perceiving, distinguishing, or producing these phonemes, not to mention the novelty of parsing these phonemes. Nevertheless, this metaphonological knowledge is not enough to tackle literacy. A study on non-literate adults learning Finnish as a second language confirmed that, despite having highly transparent orthography, learning sound-graph correspondences was not enough to learn to read; rather, students need to have acquired the L2 vocabulary to then draw upon (Tammelin-Laine & Martin, 2015).

44

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

As mentioned in the previous section, adults developing first time literacy often rely on orthographic memory (as opposed to a phonetic strategy) when producing or decoding text. For adult L2 learners, this may largely be due to the novelty of the L2 sounds combined with one’s emergent ability to segment phonemes. Nonetheless, utilizing visualization strategies still requires an understanding of phonological rules - letter clusters and patterns - to be cognizant of allowable strings and be sensitive to prohibited sequences, a task often difficult in a novel script (Koda, 1999). On top of this wealth of metalinguistic and lexical knowledge that must be acquired, there are additional semiotic rules an L2 learner must interpret and acquire (Kress, 2000; Larsen-Freeman, 2018). These norms include linearity, capital vs. lower-case, etc. (Song & Wiese, 2011). These language-specific norms are woven into the larger school discourse which may itself be unusual for adults undergoing first-time socialization into academic learning (DeCapua, 2016; Gee, 2001). Given the mass of items adult L2 learners must pay attention to, there can be an overwhelming perceptual load involved in their acquisition of first-time literacy. For example, in English, even for children, simply decoding a familiar word phonetically involves recognizing both 52 letter shapes (26 upper case and 26 lower case) and their corresponding sounds (Ehri, 2011). Furthermore, handwriting fluency may be correlated directly to writing development, as children who are still attending to the motor skills involved in handwriting may be devoting most of their cognitive resources to this physiological development, allowing little attunement to word structure (Wagner et al., 2011). For adult L2 learners, the vast amount of details one must attend to - orthography, vocabulary, phonology, morphology, motor skills, semiotics, etc. - can quickly overload one’s attention (Bourke & Adams, 2010). Despite the challenge, this wealth of skills can indeed be developed by adults with emergent literacy given appropriate time and instruction.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS While the scholarship on L2 adults with emergent literacy is limited, we can still glean a few best practices from this knowledge. This section will highlight three practical ways to apply this research in one’s instruction with such learners in multilingual settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Building L2 Vocabulary To begin, building vocabulary is critical in adult language learners with both limited literacy and emergent L2 oral language skills. By developing oral language, learners can begin correlating semantic meanings to acoustic representations of new words; later, they can map this cognitive understanding onto a print version of the same word. As reading involves both decoding print and retrieving meaning, it makes little sense to delve solely into phonics and print decoding if the learner has little to no understanding of what the target word means. Similarly, as writing involves the remembering of orthographic form as attached to semantic meaning, having students copy words they do not understand does not directly lend itself to literacy development. For these reasons, when working with adult L2 learners with emergent literacy, teachers should prioritize the building of oral language. Just as children and L1 adults draw upon a robust oral vocabulary bank when developing initial literacy skills, L2 adult literacy students must leverage preexisting oral vocabulary knowledge. Unsurprisingly, a study conducted on L2 adults with emergent literacy showed that those with higher L2 oral skills outperformed their peers with low L2 oral skills in reading acquisition (Condelli, Wrigley, & Yoon, 2002), presumably because they had the vocabulary knowledge to 45

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

draw upon and map to print. Correspondingly, as learners focus on phonetic/morphosyntactic decoding of print, they must be able to correlate those familiar sounds to words they have already learned in order to ‘read’ the words. Conversely, if students decode sounds and word parts but have no familiar word(s) to correlate them to, they will remain perplexed by a lack of lexical understanding, resulting in an incomplete process (and a strained cognitive load). To aid in oral vocabulary instruction, adult literacy practitioners have emphasized targeted, meaningful classroom lessons on topics and issues reflecting learners’ lives (Burt, Peyton, & Schaetzel, 2008; Vinogradov, 2008; Weinstein, 1999; Wrigley & Guth, 1992). In such contextualized lessons, learners can acquire vocabulary which has personal meaning, resulting in words which can be more easily internalized and stored in memory, again easing processing due to a lack of abstractness (Reis et al., 2003; Whiteside, 2008). Just as teachers often pre-teach vocabulary prior to a reading activity, this building of oral language and schema helps prepare learners to then tackle print text. There are many approaches to teaching first-time vocabulary, such as relying on visuals or realia (Vinogradov & Liden, 2009; Wrigley & Guth, 1992); this is especially important in a multilingual context where students may not have L1 partners with whom to socially construct knowledge. Similarly, adult literacy proponents have praised the use of the language experience approach (LEA) whereby practitioners leverage learners’ own experiences to convey vocabulary that is highly relevant and of high interest to the students (Huang, 2013; Marrapodi, 2013; Spiegel & Sunderland, 2006). Some resources for teaching initial oral vocabulary to L2 adult emergent readers are listed later in this chapter.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Metalinguistic Awareness A second area of instructional importance is on word foundational skills. While building vocabulary is critically important, focusing on communication or meaning alone does not aid in developing a high proficiency in the L2; to this end, integrating a focus on form in the lesson can help in achieving this goal (Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Swain, 1998; White, 1998). Note that the word ‘form’ is not limited to grammatical forms, but also includes word parts: phonemes, syllables, stress, and morphosyntax. This word-level knowledge correlates directly to literacy development, providing students skills to decode print text as well as provide them a toolkit of strategies for writing (Carlisle, 2003; Morais & Kolinsky, 2004; Nagy et al., 2003). Many L2 adults with emergent literacy may not have had the opportunity to develop this metalinguistic awareness in their L1; predictably, metalinguistic awareness has proven to be problematic for second language learners without L1 literacy (Kurvers, 2015; Kurvers et al., 2006; Young-Scholten & Strom, 2006). Practitioners of L2 adults with emergent literacy have subsequently supported instructional approaches which balance both content as well as this focus on form (Auerbach, 1992; Crandall & Peyton, 1993). Thus, in addition to emphasizing meaning and communication during instruction, the instructor calls attention to the forms present in the language (Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Long, 1998, 2000). By calling attention to the form, the instructor can then foster the act of noticing - a necessary precursor to cognitive understanding of language (Schmidt, 1990). For adults new to literacy, this metalinguistic understanding of linguistic parts may be a novel concept. Therefore, encouraging students to not only notice forms but also think about forms, talk about forms, and engage in some sort of metalinguistic reflection on forms may be one way to help bridge this cognitive gap (Bialystok, 1979). One strategy is the use of oral metalinguistic reflection, including rule verbalization tasks (Alderson, Clapham, & Steel, 1997; Hu, 2011) as well as think-aloud processes (Berne, 2004; Davis & Bistodeau, 1993; Swain, 1998). For example, dialogues about language can occur collectively, whereby students 46

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

jointly reflect upon and construct an understanding of linguistic elements in a shared fashion. Importantly, meta-talk, or discussion about linguistic ‘code’ (Færch, 1985), need not be technical in nature (Basturkmen et al., 2002; Berry, 2014), and it can be performed by students with little to no L1 literacy (Young, 2016). A sample lesson on building metalinguistic awareness and the use of meta-talk in adults with emergent literacy is provided as a teaching tip below. Teaching Tip Lina teaches beginning English as a second language (ESL) literacy at her local K-12 Adult School. Her class consists of about 25 adult students, all from different language backgrounds, and many with little to no former literacy skills. Curricular standards governing her adult school include the College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) for Adult Education (Pimentel, 2013), which outline English language arts skills for adult English language learners. In addition to reading, writing, speaking and listening objectives, these standards list grammatical knowledge, which includes elements such as students’ demonstrating a basic understanding of plurality and agreement, starting at the beginning level. To illustrate, CCRS states: • Language Anchor 1 (Level A, bullet c): Use singular and plural nouns with matching verbs in basic sentences (e.g., He hops; We hop) (Pimentel, 2013, p. 33). Lina introduced the concept of subject-verb agreement by building upon previous lessons on plural nouns, underscoring that the following verb must be in accordance. For example, she highlighted the distinction between the use of ‘is’ vs. ‘are’ depending on whether the corresponding noun is singular or plural (stated in easier terms). To do so, she first reviewed singularity and plurality by calling on known items, such as ‘book,’ and reviewing the concept of adding an -s to the end of the word when referring to more than one item. She then introduced the concept of nuancing the succeeding noun depending on the number of subjects, using simple sentences to demonstrate:

‘The book is blue.’



‘The books are blue.’

After presenting ample examples of changing the verb in accordance with the subject, Lina provided opportunities for the students to choose the correct word, using familiar words in oral or written sentences such as:

‘The students __________ hungry.’

To engage and elicit metalinguistic awareness, Lina asked students (as individuals, pairs, and/or groups) to explain the rationale for their answer. Due to the students’ possible limited (oral) vocabulary, some of them used limited words to convey core meaning. Here is a sample dialogue which ensued as part of this lesson:

Lina: The table ______ heavy.



Lina: Why ‘is’? How do you know?



Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Student(s): Is. Student(s) (possible answers):

One.



Because one.



One table.



Because one table.

While the students were limited in their ability to express themselves, these short-word possibilities (and more!) still conveyed an understanding of singularity. As such, the lone word ‘one’ can be deemed a level-appropriate, adequate way for beginning literacy level students to demonstrate their metalinguistic understanding of singular nouns and their connection to corresponding verbs. Here is another excerpt:

Lina: The socks....



Student(s): Are.

Lina: Why ‘are’? How do you know?



Student(s) (possible answers):

Two.



Two socks.



Because two.



Because two socks.

47

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Teaching Tip In these examples, ‘why’ and ‘how do you know’ served as simple yet important prompts for a deeper interaction between the participants and the material. Instead of simply producing the correct answer, the students were provided the opportunity to articulate their understanding of the underlying concept. As a result, these interactions proved pivotal in encouraging and ultimately showcasing the students’ emerging metalinguistic understanding of English. As students developed familiarity and fluency in both the concept of subject-verb agreement along with the novelty of having to justify one’s answers in an academic setting, the examples and tasks presented by Lina continued to expand and included more challenging concepts, such as utilizing third person singular -s (as indicated in the CCR Standard above). To understand third person singular -s, the students needed to have an awareness of the singularity or plurality of the subject and additionally understand the concept of personhood: I vs. you vs. we vs. he, etc. Traditionally, L2 students of English are exposed to this form (verbal and written) prior to explicit instruction of the same. As such, explicit teaching regarding this concept serves to prompt the noticing of this morphosyntactic marker, and ultimately to aid in both understanding and using the marker in speech and written text. Thus, after students have developed a basic working understanding of plurality and subject pronouns, Lina introduced a new lesson on subject-verb agreement, focusing on third person singular -s, and how it attaches to the end of some verbs in accordance with the subject. She demonstrated the concept by providing various sample sentences (oral and written) using familiar vocabulary to illustrate the distinction:

‘I walk.’



‘She walks.’

After presenting ample examples of modifying the verb in accordance with the subject, Lina then provided opportunities for the students to produce or choose the correct word/verb, using familiar words in oral or written sentences such as:

‘I eat.’



‘She eats.



‘We ______.’

To engage and elicit metalinguistic reflection, Lina asked the students (as individuals, pairs, and/or groups) to explain the rationale for their answers. Again, due to the students’ possible limited (oral) vocabulary, the students used limited words to convey core meaning:

Lina: He writes. I write. We….



Lina: S or no s?



Student(s): Write. Student(s): No s.

Lina: Why? How do you know?



Student(s) (possible answers):

We.



Because we.



Because no s/he.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

In the sample dialogues above, Lina asked the students explicitly whether they need an -s after specific words (verbs), and then prompted them to explain their rationale to engage their thinking. Her intention was to move beyond only asking students to provide the correct answer by additionally prompting students to notice, understand, and reflect upon different linguistic parts of language. In sum, students’ low level of literacy and oracy should not prevent teachers from engaging in a metalinguistic dialogue with the class. Instead, Lina fostered an environment where deeper thinking about language is encouraged, and where short yet meaningful dialogues demonstrate heightened awareness.

Focus on Academic Socialization The entire classroom landscape can be novel for adults with no previous schooling. Students new to academic environments may not have been previously exposed to or socialized into what is often taken for granted as standard academic practices (DeCapua & Marshall, 2011a; Watson-Gegeo, 2004). Furthermore, expected patterns of classroom thinking and behavior are rooted in culture and therefore vary from place to place. Accordingly, students new to the preconceived notions of ‘learning’ may face a large degree of cultural dissonance as they attempt to navigate new educational paradigms (Currie & Cray, 2004; DeCapua & Marshall, 2011b; see also Farrelly & Fakhrutdinova in this volume). 48

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

To illustrate, the language classroom is often laden with decontextualized skills such as discussing fictitious characters and situations, practicing role plays not relevant to the immediate situation, matching vocabulary words to definitions out of any meaningful context, bubbling in circles on a scantron, etc. These types of activities may be in stark contrast to the structures of learning acquired at home or in one’s community. Learning to cook, sew, change a tire, care for children, take the bus, or drive a car all involve performing a real-time, relevant act resulting in an immediate outcome - which may additionally coincide with one’s personal goals. Conversely, learning to read involves an incredible amount of abstraction, including mapping sounds onto random symbols and stringing them together to represent individual units of language, in addition to understanding that many of these units or partial units (such as -ing or uni-) hold unique meanings. As one can imagine, this transition into abstract ways of thinking and performing is not a sudden shift, as situating these new paradigms onto one’s pre-existing ways can require time (Gee, 2008). This would explain why those with even a bit of prior schooling would advance at a more accelerated rate than those without schooling, as the former received some socialization into these academic paradigms. Moreover, the classroom discourse may not fit in with student’s epistemologies (Gegeo & WatsonGegeo, 1999; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). To illustrate, the western classroom may emphasize individual work and success, creating an atmosphere of competition. This framing may conflict with the values of students coming from more collective cultures where one’s well-being is intrinsically tied to those around them. If students are accustomed to learning by performing an act with others, asking them to work individually may be an entirely foreign and uncomfortable notion. Explicit instruction and socialization into the culturally-based/culturally-appropriate academic expectations and dominant frameworks present in the classroom can assist students in their understanding of how to ‘do school’ (DeCapua, 2016; Duff, 2010; Gee, 2008). For example, teachers should be explicit with classroom structures and routines, such as adhering to a daily schedule, posting a classroom agenda on the board, or modeling classroom activities with a seasoned student to demonstrate how to perform particular partner or small group activities. Furthermore, teachers should avoid choosing or creating worksheets that contain a multitude of novel semiotic features such as unknown symbols, unnecessary lines, historical images, or clip art, all which may require cultural knowledge to decipher (Altherr Flores, 2017, 2018). Moreover, teachers ought to provide explicit instruction of home-based literacy study skills, such as demonstrating how to use flashcards, or how to engage their family members to help with oral and written review (for instance, having someone read aloud a word list to mimic a spelling test). As students may face contention when asked to engage in novel ways of thinking or performing, such as knowing when or when not to help a partner, it is critical that the instructor demonstrate ongoing direction for learners. Undoubtedly, an adult new to school and literacy faces an incredible amount of novelty in the target language classroom. Grasping new words and parts of language in addition to acquiring first time literacy, combined with different ways of being and thinking in an unfamiliar context, can be extremely overwhelming. Furthermore, in a multilingual classroom, students may not have L1 partners to rely upon for clarity or to discuss new information with. Unsurprisingly, students can experience cognitive overload quite quickly as they try to juggle and comprehend a wealth of new processes and paradigms. Ideally, the instructor should remain attentive to the amount of cognitive demand they place upon students, aiming to challenge them while not overburdening their individual capacity.

49

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

CONCLUSION Building upon research conducted on emergent literacy in children and adults, this chapter attempted to relay the complexity of acquiring literacy for the first time as an adult L2 learner, and how this knowledge can then inform our instructional approaches in the areas of vocabulary, metalinguistic awareness, and academic socialization. Indeed, the scholarship on L2 adults with emergent literacy is still limited, and much more research needs to be conducted. In her review of the literature on this population of students, Tarone (2010) made a call to replicate all second language acquisition research on L2 adults without literacy, underscoring the fact that traditional SLA research does not pertain to this particular subset of learners, and that understanding the pedagogical needs of such learners requires a much more nuanced approach. To this end, organizations such as Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults (LESLLA) have aimed to contribute to this gap by hosting an annual symposium on L2 literacy research. This annual conference brings together practitioners around the globe to discuss critical L2 literacy issues affecting a variety of languages and educational settings. LESLLA then makes the proceedings fully available on their website (www.leslla.org) as part of their mission to support communities of practice worldwide. This much-needed research, in addition to the works appearing in LESLLA’s edited volumes, critically addresses the existing gap and contributes to our growing insight into working with L2 adults with emergent literacy, thus assisting us in better serving these students through our educational policies and practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank my advisors Vaidehi Ramanathan, Julia Menard-Warwick, and Claudia SánchezGutiérrez for their guidance and feedback regarding my ongoing research on adult L2 literacy.1 Discussion Questions 1. In your local area, who are the L2 learners acquiring first time literacy (by demographics)? How can a knowledge of their L1/years of previous schooling/literacy-level inform pedagogical approaches? 2. In what ways can a better understanding of the cognitive processes involved in acquiring first time literacy as an adult L2 learner transform our mandated educational policies and procedures (curriculum, assessments, placement, courses offered, etc.)? 3. In what instructional and social ways might our classrooms be novel to L2 adults with emergent literacy? As instructors, what are some ways to provide explicit instruction regarding our classroom norms and expectations?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude, and foreign language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 93–121. doi:10.1177/136216889700100202 Altherr Flores, J. A. (2017). Social semiotics and multimodal assessment of L2 adult emergent readers from refugee backgrounds. In M. Sosinski (Ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje de idiomas por adultos: investigación, política educativa y práctica docente [Adult literacy and language learning: Research, educational policy, and teaching practice] (pp. 9–31). Granada, Spain: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

50

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Altherr Flores, J. A. (2018). Decoding citizenship in USCIS naturalization test materials: A critical social semiotic analysis. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 6(1), 22–50. Auerbach, E. R. (1992). Making meaning, making change. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/09658410208667042 Berne, J. (2004). Think-aloud protocol and adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 14(3), 153–173. Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 65–84. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020040-00007 Berry, R. (2014). Investigating language awareness: The role of terminology. In A. Łyda, & K. Szcześniak (Eds.), Awareness in action: The role of consciousness in language acquisition (pp. 21–34). Bern, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_2 Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29(1), 81–103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01053.x Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 689–700. doi:10.2307/3588285 Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000109 Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 342–367. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.3.5 Boon, D., & Kurvers, J. (2008). Learning to read Portuguese in Timor-Leste: Strategies of adult literacy learners. In M. Young-Scholten (Ed.), Low-Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition: Research, Policy, and Practice (pp. 75–90). Durham, UK: Roundtuit Publishing. Bourke, L., & Adams, A. M. (2010). Cognitive constraints and the early learning goals in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 94–110. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01434.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440–470. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 Brinchmann, E. I., Hjetland, H. N., & Lyster, S. A. H. (2016). Lexical quality matters: Effects of word knowledge instruction on the language and literacy skills of third- and fourth-grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 165–180. doi:10.1002/rrq.128 Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their reading and spelling skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 77–92. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000461 Burt, M., Peyton, J., & Schaetzel, K. (2008). Working with adult English language learners with limited literacy: Research, practice, and professional development. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

51

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3–4), 291–322. doi:10.1080/02702710390227369 Carlisle, J. F., & Kearns, D. (2017). Learning to read morphologically complex words. In K. Cain, D. Compton, & R. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of Reading Development (pp. 191–214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075wll.15.11car Castro-Caldas, A., Petersson, K. M., Reis, A., Stone-Elander, S., & Ingvar, M. (1998). The illiterate brain. Learning to read and write during childhood influences the functional organization of the adult brain. Brain, 121(6), 1053–1063. doi:10.1093/brain/121.6.1053 PMID:9648541 Chliounaki, K., & Bryant, P. (2007). How children learn about morphological spelling rules. Child Development, 78(4), 1360–1373. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01070.x PMID:17650143 Comings, J., & Soricone, L. (2007). Adult literacy research: Opportunities and challenges. Washington, DC: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy and National Institute for Literacy. Condelli, L., Wrigley, H. S., & Yoon, K. (2002). What works study for adult ESL literacy students. Washington, DC: Aguirre International & American Institutes for Research. Crandall, J., & Peyton, J. K. (1993). Approaches to adult ESL literacy instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Currie, P., & Cray, E. (2004). ESL literacy: Language practice or social practice? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 111–132. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.008 Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 459–472. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01993.x De Santos Loureiro, C., Willadino Braga, L., Do Nascimento Souza, L., Nunes Filho, G., Queiroz, E., & Dellatolas, G. (2004). Degree of illiteracy and phonological and metaphonological skills in unschooled adults. Brain and Language, 89(3), 499–502. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2003.12.008 PMID:15120540 Deacon, H., Pasquarella, A., Marinus, E., Tims, T., & Castles, A. (2018). Orthographic processing and children’s word reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(2), 509–534. doi:10.1017/S0142716418000681

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

DeCapua, A. (2016). Reaching students with limited or interrupted formal education through culturally responsive teaching. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(5), 225–237. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12183 DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. (2011a). Breaking new ground: Teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education in secondary schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/ mpub.1975824 DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2011b). Reaching ELLs at risk: Instruction for students with limited or interrupted formal education. Preventing School Failure, 55(1), 35–41. doi:10.1080/10459880903291680 Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., & Georgiou, G. G. (2018). Early contribution of morphological awareness to literacy skills across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1695–1719. doi:10.100711145-017-9772-y

52

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Díaz-Cárdenas, A. F., Díaz-Furlong, H. A., Díaz-Furlong, A., & Sankey-García, M. R. (2016). Syllabic schemes and knowledge of the alphabet in reading acquisition: Onset or nucleus variation. International Education Studies, 9(11), 151–162. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n11p151 Doignon-Camus, N., & Zagar, D. (2014). The syllabic bridge: The first step in learning spelling-to-sound correspondences. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1147–1165. doi:10.1017/S0305000913000305 PMID:24040752 Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000048 Ehri, L. (2011). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. Metsalal, & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). New York, NY: Routledge. Færch, C. (1985). Meta talk in the FL classroom discourse. Studies in Higher Education, 7(2), 184–199. Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., Shankweiler, D., & Frost, S. (2004). Coordination of reading and spelling in early literacy development: An examination of the discrepancy hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 17(6), 617–644. doi:10.1023/B:READ.0000044297.85675.f5 Fox, B. J., & Saracho, O. N. (1990). Emergent writing: Young children solving the written language puzzle. Early Child Development and Care, 56(1), 81–90. doi:10.1080/0300443900560108 Furnes, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2011). Phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming predicting early development in reading and spelling: Results from a cross-linguistic longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 85–95. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.10.005 PMID:21359098 Gee, J. (2001). Reading as situated language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725. doi:10.1598/JAAL.44.8.3 Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802157.006 Gegeo, D., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1999). Adult education, language change, and issues of identity and authenticity in Kwara’ae. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(1), 22–36. doi:10.1525/ aeq.1999.30.1.22

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gentry, J. R. (2000). A retrospective on invented spelling and a look forward. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 318–332. Gillespie, M. K. (1994). Rationales for adult native language literacy and directions for research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Gombert, J. E., & Fayol, M. (1992). Writing in preliterate children. Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 23–41. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(92)90003-5 Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2016). Phonological skills and learning to read. New York, NY: Psychology Press and Routledge Classic Editions.

53

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Gray, S. H., Ehri, L. C., & Locke, J. L. (2018). Morpho-phonemic analysis boosts word reading for adult struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31(1), 75–98. doi:10.100711145-017-9774-9 PMID:29367806 Greenberg, D. (1998). Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(4), 252–261. Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S. (2011). The relation of morphological awareness and syntactic awareness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary knowledge a mediating variable? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. doi:10.1177/1086296X11403086 Hu, G. (2011). Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System, 39(1), 63–77. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011 Huang, J. (2013). Bridging authentic experiences and literacy skills through the language experience approach. Journal of Adult Education, 42(1), 8–15. Huffman, J. M., & Fortenberry, C. (2011). Helping preschoolers prepare for writing: Developing fine motor skills. Young Children, 66(5), 100–103. Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12025 Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., & Gruelich, L. (2014). The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartners. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 237–253. doi:10.100711145-013-9440-9 PMID:24982590 Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. Modern Languages, 83(1), 51–64. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00005 Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(Suppl. 1), 1–44. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1 Kosmidis, M. H., Tsapkini, K., Folia, V., Vlahou, C. H., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2004). Semantic and phonological processing in illiteracy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10(6), 818–827. doi:10.1017/S1355617704106036 PMID:15637772

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 337–340. doi:10.2307/3587959 Kurvers, J. (2007). Development of word recognition skills of adult L2 beginning readers. In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Research, policy and practice- Proceedings of the 2nd annual forum (pp. 23–44). Richmond, VA: The Literacy Institute. Kurvers, J. (2015). Emerging literacy in adult second-language learners: A synthesis of research findings in the Netherlands. Writing Systems Research, 7(1), 58–78. doi:10.1080/17586801.2014.943149 Kurvers, J., Vallen, T., & van Hout, R. (2006). Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates. In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 69–88). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT.

54

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Kurvers, J., van Hout, R., & Vallen, T. (2009). Print awareness of adult illiterates: A comparison with young pre-readers and low-educated adult readers. Reading and Writing, 22(8), 863–887. doi:10.100711145008-9129-7 PMID:19768120 Landgraf, S., Beyer, R., Hild, I., Schneider, N., Horn, E., Schaadt, G., ... van der Meer, E. (2012). Impact of phonological processing skills on written language acquisition in illiterate adults. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(Suppl. 1), S129–S138. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.11.006 PMID:22682902 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 55–72. doi:10.1111/flan.12314 Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429–448. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009517 Llaurado, A., & Tolchinsky, L. (2016). The developmental pattern of spelling in Catalan from first to fifth school grade. Writing Systems Research, 8(1), 64–83. doi:10.1080/17586801.2014.1000812 Long, M. H. (1998). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/z.96.11lon MacWhinney, B. (2018). A unified model of first and second language learning. In M. Hickmann, E. Veneziano, & H. Jisa (Eds.), Sources of variation in first language acquisition: Languages, contexts, and learners (pp. 287–312). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tilar.22.15mac Malaga, K. (2008). Maestra, ¿qué es un alfabeto? / Teacher, what is an alphabet? (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hamline University, St. Paul, MN. Marrapodi, J. (2013). What doesn’t work for the lowest level literacy learners and why? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 7–23. McBride, C. A. (2016). Is Chinese special? Four aspects of Chinese literacy acquisition that might distinguish learning Chinese from learning alphabetic orthographies. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 523–549. doi:10.100710648-015-9318-2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

McCluskey, C. (2012). Professional development to work with low-educated adult ESL learners: Searching beyond the program. The CATESOL Journal, 23(1), 56–64. Megino-Elvira, L., Martín-Lobo, P., & Vergara-Moragues, E. (2016). Influence of eye movements, auditory perception, and phonemic awareness in the reading process. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 567–573. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.994197 Mellard, D., Woods, K., & Fall, E. (2011). Assessment and instruction of oral reading fluency among adults with low literacy. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(1), 3–14. PMID:23795231

55

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2004). The linguistic consequences of literacy. In T. Nunes, & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 599–622). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94017-1731-1_31 Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2019). Phonological abilities in fully illiterate adults. In D. Perin (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of adult literacy (pp. 41–61). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119261407.ch2 Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness and literacy acquisition in different languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 155–160. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 730–742. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.730 Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139858656 Onderdelinden, L., van de Craats, I., & Kurvers, J. (2009). Word concept of illiterates and low-literates: Worlds apart? In I. van de Craats, & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 35–48). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Perfetti, C. (2017). Lexical quality revisited. In E. Segers & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven (pp. 51–67). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/z.206.04per Pimentel, S. (2013). College and career readiness standards for adult education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. (2014). Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 453–467. doi:10.1002/rrq.79 PMID:25316955 Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). From scribbles to Scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 567–589. doi:10.100711145-009-9220-8 PMID:22448101 Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–175. doi:10.1111/cdev.12292 PMID:25201552

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Rahbari, N. (2019). Error patterns in word reading and spelling in Persian: Is spelling more difficult than reading? Reading and Writing, 32(3), 585–601. doi:10.100711145-018-9884-z Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 417–447. doi:10.1017/S0305000902005111 PMID:12109379 Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 787–799. doi:10.1002/wcs.68 PMID:21170142

56

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: A cause for biased cognitive development. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3(5), 444–450. doi:10.1017/S135561779700444X PMID:9322403 Reis, A., Guerreiro, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2003). A sociodemographic and neuropsychological characterization of an illiterate population. Applied Neuropsychology, 10(4), 191–204. doi:10.120715324826an1004_1 PMID:14690800 Roberts, C. A. (1994). Transferring literacy skills from L1 to L2: From theory to practice. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13(Spring), 209–221. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 163–191. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.001115 Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Sermier Dessemontet, R., & de Chambrier, A. F. (2015). The role of phonological awareness and lettersound knowledge in the reading development of children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 41–42, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.04.001 PMID:25965277 Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1), 22–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00359.x Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 PMID:7789090 Silva, C., & Alves-Martins, M. (2002). Phonological skills and writing of presyllabic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 466–483. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.4.6 Silva, C., Faísca, L., Ingvar, M., Petersson, K. M., & Reis, A. (2012). Literacy: Exploring working memory systems. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34(4), 369–377. doi:10.108 0/13803395.2011.645017 PMID:22260217 Smyser, H., & Alt, M. (2018). Developing mental orthographic representations in refugee spellers with low literacy: How much input is too much? Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 455–474.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Song, H. J., & Wiese, R. (2011). Resistance to complexity interacting with visual shape - German and Korean orthography. Writing Systems Research, 2(2), 87–103. doi:10.1093/wsr/wsq010 Spiegel, M., & Sunderland, H. (2006). Teaching basic literacy to ESOL learners. London, UK: London South Bank University. Strube, S. (2009). What do teachers do? A look at the oral skills practices in the LESLLA classroom. In I. van de Craats, & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 49–62). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension intervnetions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96. doi:10.1177/0022219414528540 PMID:24704662

57

 Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Sulzby, E. (1992). Research directions: Transitions from emergent to conventional writing. Language Arts, 69(4), 290–297. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Szabo, S. (2010). Older children need phonemic awareness instruction, too. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 130–141. doi:10.5054/tj.2010.215246 Tammelin-Laine, T., & Martin, M. (2015). The simultaneous development of receptive skills in an orthographically transparent second language. Writing Systems Research, 7(1), 39–57. doi:10.1080/17 586801.2014.943148 Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied population. Language Teaching, 43(1), 75–83. doi:10.1017/S0261444809005734 Tighe, E., & Binder, K. S. (2015). An investigation of morphological awareness and processing in adults with low literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 245–273. doi:10.1017/S0142716413000222 PMID:25926711 To, N. L., Tighe, E. L., & Binder, K. S. (2016). Investigating morphological awareness and the processing of transparent and opaque words in adults with low literacy skills and in skilled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(2), 171–188. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12036 PMID:27158173 Tolchinsky, L., & Teberosky, A. (1998). The development of word segmentation and writing in two scripts. Cognitive Development, 13(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90018-1 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2017). Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. UNESCO Fact Sheet. Montreal, Canada: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs45-literacy-rates-continue-risegeneration-to-next-en-2017_0.pdf Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2013). The cognitive linkage and divergence of spelling and reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 89–107. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.614665

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

van de Craats, I., Kurvers, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (2006). Research on low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & M. Young-Scholten (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 7–23). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Vernon, S., & Ferreiro, E. (1999). Writing development: A neglected variable in the consideration of phonological Aa. Harvard Educational Review, 69(4), 395–415. doi:10.17763/haer.69.4.p411667586738x0w Viise, N. M. (1996). A study of the spelling development of adult literacy learners compared with that of classroom children. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(4), 561–587. doi:10.1080/10862969609547940

58

Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

Vinogradov, P. (2008). “Maestra! The letters speak.” Adult ESL students learning to read for the first time. MinneWITESOL Journal, 25. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/category/journal-archive/ mtj-2008/ Vinogradov, P., & Liden, A. (2009). Principled training for LESLLA instructors. In I. van de Craats, & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 133 ̶ 144). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Wagner, R., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 203–220. doi:10.100711145010-9266-7 PMID:22228924 Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331–350. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00233.x Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33–52. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050023 Weinstein, G. (1999). Learners’ lives as curriculum: Six journeys to immigrant literacy. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91–128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Whiteside, A. (2008). Who is “you”?: ESL literacy, written text and troubles with deixis in imagined spaces. In M. Young-Scholten (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the third annual forum (pp. 99–108). Durham, UK: Roundtuit Publishing. Worthy, J., & Viise, N. M. (1996). Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences between the spelling of normally achieving children and basic literacy adults. Reading and Writing, 8(2), 139–159. doi:10.1007/BF00555366 Wrigley, H. S., & Guth, G. J. (1992). Bringing literacy to life: Issues and options in adult ESL literacy. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Young, S. C. (2016). Reframing metalinguistic awareness for low-literate L2 learners: Four case studies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Young-Scholten, M., Peyton, J., Sosinski, M., & Cabeza, A. M. (2015). LESLLA teachers’ views of the knowledge and skills they need: An international study. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & R. van Hout (Eds.), Adult literacy, second language, and cognition (pp. 165–186). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Center for Language Studies. Young-Scholten, M., & Strom, N. (2006). First-time L2 readers: Is there a critical period? In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 45–68). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT.

59

Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Academic Socialization: The process of being socially indoctrinated into the culturally-based norms of doing school; knowing how to think and act in a classroom (including understanding and responding to classroom cues), and how to interact with varying academic tasks to meet institutional expectations and gain educational success. Cognitive Load: The amount of information being processed within one’s working memory. Cognitive overload, then, refers to data exceeding the capacity of an individual’s working memory. Pedagogically, teachers are advised to be mindful of the amount of novel data and tasks assigned to a student, to prevent overload (and stifle learning). Cultural Dissonance: Potential confusion, uncomfortableness, and/or disagreement experienced by someone in a novel cultural environment. For example, second language learners may feel confronted with new types of classroom designs, sociocultural practices, and ethical values which may conflict with those they previously experienced and held. Focus on Form: In pedagogy, an intentional method utilized by instructors to draw students’ attention to parts and patterns of language. The term can also refer to the students’ independent attention to the same. Metalinguistic Awareness: The ability to understand language as a construction of various parts (phonemic, morphological, etc.), identify those parts in a word or sentence, and maneuver them for linguistic purposes (such as replacing/deleting sounds, stringing together morphemes, etc.). More specific terms such as metaphonological awareness, metamorphological awareness, etc., can also be used. Metalinguistic Reflection: The act of expressing one’s thinking and understanding about linguistic parts of language. Examples include classroom dialogues, interviews, and written journals. Orthographic Form: The written representation of language and linguistic elements. It can include graphemic (i.e., letter) shapes and font, sound-meaning-graph correlations, and graph sequencing.

ENDNOTES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

60

Portions of this work were taken from my doctoral dissertation, Understanding and Supporting Emergent Writing in L2 Adults Developing First-Time Literacy (Gonzalves, forthcoming)

Emergent Literacy Development in Adult L2 Learners

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136. This article provides an overview of scholarship surrounding adult L2 learners with emergent literacy, highlighting research conducted on L2 adults, introducing relevant studies on L1 adults and children, and presenting the implications for classroom instruction and educational policy. 2. DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., and Tang, L.F. (2009). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted schooling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Focused on adolescent learners with limited/little literacy and prior schooling, this handbook provides a detailed overview of the struggles these L2 learners face in the classroom, instructional areas of priority, pedagogical best practices, and how to address the cultural dissonance faced by learners new to western academic settings. 3. Huettig, F., & Mishra, R. K. (2014). How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind – A critical examination of theories and evidence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(10), 401–427. This paper provides a comprehensive review of research dedicated to metalinguistic awareness and cognitive processing in non- and low-literate adults. While focused on L1, the findings have great implications for L2 adult learners. 4. Tacoma Community House Training Project. (2005). Making it real: Teaching pre-literate adult refugee students. Tacoma, WA: Tacoma Community House Training Project. Available at: https:// www.tacomacommunityhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Making-it-Real.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This is an excellent resource for teachers new to L2 adults with emergent literacy, providing step by step classroom instruction for teaching vocabulary and initial literacy within a multilingual (and multilevel) setting.

61

62

Chapter 4

Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2:

Sensitivity to Phonological Awareness and Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in L2 English Elena Theodosis Kkese Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus

ABSTRACT Phonological awareness is the conscious awareness that oral language can be subdivided into subcomponents, including words, syllables, rhymes, and sounds. Its importance has been identifed in the development of children’s literacy in L1, especially in terms of spelling, writing, and reading. Phonological awareness is of special importance for L2 acquisition as well, suggesting a strong correlation between this metalinguistic profciency and literacy. This chapter examines this relation in young adults who are already literate in the L1 by providing an overview of the understudied area of L2 phonological awareness and its connection to spoken and written literacy. It is argued that phonological awareness infuences spoken and written literacy skills given that L2 English users transfer L1 phonological awareness skills to the target language. In this context, the author suggests that instruction should be provided in the form of short, fun activities matching the interests of the young L2 adults.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Discovering the processes that enable acquisition of a second language (often referred to as L2) has always been a challenging task for researchers, educators, and language users. An L2 may refer to any subsequent language learned in addition to the mother tongue(s). Acquiring an L2 implies that adult language learners have already acquired their first language (L1), which may influence them during the L2 acquisition, and they are often expected to draw on this knowledge while acquiring the target language. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch004

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

They further possess general knowledge about the world, communication strategies, and knowledge of how language works in general, which are factors affecting the acquisition of an L2. This chapter is concerned with the development of oral and written literacy in alphabetic languages, in other words, the skills, abilities, and knowledge that are needed for spelling, writing, and reading to develop (Justice & Pullen, 2003). The emphasis is on young adults learning an L2 in a new orthography and how phonological awareness can aid them in this endeavour, even though the chapter has larger implications for L1 and L2 populations across different orthographies. Becoming literate in a language involves mastering the code that refers to the skill of matching graphemes to the phonemes they represent. Given that language is code-based, decoding and recoding are necessary for reading and writing (Fricke, Bowyer-Crane, Haley, Hulme, & Snowling, 2013; Krijnen, van Steensel, Meeuwisse, Jongerling, & Severiens, 2019; Lems, Miller, & Soro, 2017). As a consequence, literacy development depends on several factors, such as oral language, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge. However, for the context under investigation, the relationship of literacy to phonological awareness is considered to be the most suitable predictor of literacy development in both the L1 and L2. It is argued that knowledge of the grapheme-phoneme correspondences, also referred to as alphabetic knowledge (Lems, Miller, & Soro, 2017), is of particular importance for literacy acquisition to reach an advanced level. When considering the learning and teaching of the English as an L2, the question that emerges is how L2 users develop phonological skills in the target language. Also, a further question is whether these skills have already been developed in the L1, including the knowledge of the L1 phonological system, and whether this knowledge can be transferred to the L2 (Anderson, 2004). A number of studies emphasize the relationships between L1 and L2 literacy skills (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2003; Abu-Rabia & Siegel 2002; Shimron & Sivan, 1994). Literacy skills in L2 English seem to be related to literacy skills in the L1 despite the use of different orthographies as in the case of L1 Arabic, Hebrew, and Mandarin, which are languages that use a different script and have diverse phonological representations when compared to L2 English. Studies of literate adult L2 learners from non-alphabet and alphabet L1 languages emphasize the same need, which is the need of instruction in the phoneme-grapheme correspondences of written L2 English (Strucker, 2002). Literate adults in an alphabetic language have developed their reading skills and behaviors in the L1 and are aware that written language can represent speech. They also have exposure to written speech outside the L2 classroom, and most of them may not face major difficulties when reading English because they are more familiar with the English alphabet compared to non-alphabet L2 learners. However, the present chapter examines both alphabetic L1 and L2 languages pointing to the need of longitudinal, cross-language studies on systems that employ different orthographies.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Phonological Awareness Phonological awareness refers to the understanding that words consist of smaller parts, and it is one of substantial metalinguistic skills that allow conscious thought about language. Dixon, Chuang, and Quiroz (2012) define phonological awareness as “the ability to analyze and manipulate units of sound in speech” (p. 372). According to Castles and Coltheart (2004), this ability seems to involve conscious processing since “[t]he “awareness” component of the term is as important to the definition as the “phonological” component, for the skill is proposed to involve, not simply unconsciously discriminating speech-sounds, 63

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

but explicitly and deliberately processing and acting upon them” (p.78). Thus, phonological awareness consists of multiple elements, including syllable awareness, onset-rime awareness, and phonemic awareness. Syllable awareness is the ability to perceive and manipulate language at the syllable level (McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong, & Yanping, 2004). Onset-rime awareness involves the ability to divide syllables into onsets and rimes and to identify which words alliterate or rhyme. Lastly, phonemic awareness is the knowledge that the spoken word consists of successive speech sounds and the ability to manipulate these sounds (van Bon & van Leeuwe, 2003, p. 195). In terms of literacy development, phonemic awareness is thought to be the most complex and important phonological skill as it is a predictor of readiness for reading in both L1 and L2 learners (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000; Troia, 2004) compared to onset-rime awareness (Foy & Mann, 2003; Geudens, 2006). Research suggests that generally, phonological awareness develops from larger to smaller units, with phonemic awareness being the last to develop. Children first become aware of larger units (words, syllables, rimes, and onsets) and then proceed to smaller and more abstract units (phonemes) (Goodrich & Lonigan, 2014). Moreover, research has indicated that these three levels (syllable, onset-rime, and phonemic) are related. Specifically, onset-rime awareness and phonemic awareness may be related, but these are also independent abilities (Carroll, Snowling, Hulme, & Stevenson, 2003; Foy & Mann, 2001, 2003). Awareness of syllables and rimes develops spontaneously without instruction (Foy & Mann, 2001), but phonemic awareness does not. Phonemic awareness develops through literacy acquisition or explicit instruction. Several studies comparing literate and illiterate adults indicate that the latter cannot perform phonemic awareness tasks even if their performance on tasks referring to implicit phonological awareness and rhyming is comparable to that of literate adults (Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979; Tarone & Bigelow, 2005). What is more, onset-rime awareness seems to be more strongly related to speech perception than phonemic awareness, which in turn is more strongly related to vocabulary and letter knowledge (Foy & Mann, 2001). In the following sections, the relation between phonological awareness and the development of L1 and L2 literacy will be examined.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Phonological Awareness and the Development of L1 Literacy Phonological awareness is closely connected to literacy, especially with reference to the development of the skills of spelling, writing, and reading. According to Homer (2002), when children learn a language, they go through different stages of language acquisition that permits them to “actively construct their own knowledge” (p. 152). Understanding the written text becomes feasible by matching graphemes to phonemes. Olson (1999), commenting on the relationship between speech and writing, proposed that when readers learn to read, besides sounding out the graphemes facilitated through the knowledge of the corresponding phonemes, they gain segmentational knowledge through exposure to print, and, as a result, “phonological form is represented, perceived or brought into consciousness” (p. 93) (see also Espinas, Wang, & Li in this volume). Moreover, phonological awareness seems to be of crucial importance when learning to read and/ or write in any alphabetic writing system (Ehri, 2004; Troia, 2004). English uses an alphabetic writing system in which letters represent sounds (grapheme-phoneme correspondences). Nonetheless, the grapheme-phoneme relation in English is not that direct in certain cases since it may contain elements that are not directly related to their “phonological value” (Pennington, 1996). Such cases may refer to different classes of lexical items (Kkese, 2020). One category involves homophones or homonyms that are words with the same pronunciation but of different spelling and meaning (i.e., write, right, wright). A second category is homographs referring to words pronounced and spelled identically but which differ 64

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

in meaning (i.e., set: put down/group of matching items). A third category may be heterographs involving words that have the same pronunciation and meaning but differ in spelling (i.e., theatre/theatre). Another category is heteronyms that have the same spelling but different meaning and pronunciation (i.e., desert: abandon/expanse of arid land). Further categories may be words containing Latin and Greek spellings (i.e., Latin: datum/data, Greek: criterion/criteria), archaic spellings (i.e., programme), and silent letters (i.e., gh in night, light, right). By using the alphabetic principle (Liberman, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1989; Troia, 2004), English language users can break words into sounds, identify them and put them together again. Phonological awareness allows English language users to work with the print system to understand grapheme-phoneme correspondences and the way they represent the spoken word. An example of phonemic awareness with reference to written text is thinking about the word that is produced when the first sound of “fish” is replaced with the first sound of “day” resulting in “dish”. Foy and Mann (2001), who studied preschool children between the ages 4-6, suggested that there is a clear relationship between phonological awareness, specifically phonemic awareness, and early reading ability. Their study examined rhyme awareness, phoneme awareness, articulatory skill assessment (articulation errors), analysis of speech perception, vocabulary as well as letter and word knowledge. Their findings highlighted the associations of spoken language tasks and the several aspects of phonological awareness, even though phonological representation was not the only contributor to children’s skills when it involved reading. Attempting to write words should involve children practicing saying words slowly, one sound at a time, which is the skill that allows segmenting words by individual phonemes (O’Connor, Notari-Syverso & Vadasy, 2005). When children figure out what sounds a word consists of, it becomes easier for them to decide which letters to use in order to write it down. If more time is devoted to written spelling, students are less likely to experience reading difficulties (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla, 1996). Also, sight words can be very useful since children may attempt to write some high-frequency words from their exposure to words in the classroom. In this manner, the teacher can help students practice phonemic analysis in a meaningful context and can combine instruction about conventions and print purposes (Scanlon & Vellutino, 1996, 1997; Snow & Juel, 2005). Several stage theories, attempting to identify different stages of orthographic awareness, have been proposed concerning spelling development (Ehri, 1986; Gentry, 2000; Henderson, 1985) in an effort to explain how children learn to spell. Gentry’s model (2000) distinguishes between five stages, in the pre-communication (3-5 years old, examples: bBP=monster, TX=This is my house), the semiphonetic (5-6 years old, examples: mtr=monster, e=eagle), the phonetic (6-7 years old, examples: mostr=monster, egl=eagle), the transitional (7-9 years old, examples: monstur=monster, eegel=eagle), and the conventional stage (10-11 years old, examples: moster, eagle). Although these stages develop sequentially, spelling ability improves over time, which implies that a range of spelling competences can be expected at any age (Gentry, 2000). Another influential stage theory was proposed by Ehri (1986), who distinguished only three stages, namely the semiphonetic (corresponding to Gentry’s pre-communication stage), the phonetic (corresponding to Gentry’s semiphonetic stage), and the morphemic stage (corresponding to Gentry’s phonetic stage). A third influential stage theory was suggested by Henderson (1985), who supported a life-long approach to spelling development. This theory involved five stages, namely the preliterate, the letter-name spelling, the within-word pattern, the syllable juncture, and the derivational principles stage. This last stage continues throughout life as vocabulary continues to build. Knowing the different stages of spelling development can assist teachers of literacy to compel development with their instruction. 65

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Although stage theories indicate a general description of spelling development, the importance of phonological awareness should not be neglected (Treiman & Bourassa, 2000). Phonological awareness seems to influence spelling development, as emphasized by Griffith (1991) who distinguished its three functions. The first function refers to the fact that children can learn grapheme-phoneme correspondences due to phonological awareness that can help to produce accurate spellings. The second function is using phonological awareness skills to segment a word into its phonemes while spelling a word. Lastly, phonological awareness facilitates the spelling memorization of certain word patterns that can be very useful for the reading process. Consequently, performance in spelling seems to affect reading and performance in reading seems to affect spelling (Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Ehri, 2000; Morris & Perney, 1984). Phonological awareness is necessary in order to use phonics knowledge, namely an understanding of the phoneme and grapheme relationships in a language, when spelling, writing, and reading effectively. When readers experience weaknesses in phonological awareness, they tend to be poor spellers (Cassar, Treiman, Moats, Pollo, & Kessler, 2005). It seems, therefore, that there is a strong correlation between phonological awareness and spelling since spelling errors are usually phonetically accurate (Kamhi & Hinton, 2000). More straightforward phonological awareness tasks such as separating words into phonemes can be a strong predictor of spelling ability (Nation & Hulme, 1997). On the other hand, more complex phonological awareness tasks such as producing a word without a specific letter depend on visualizing a word and moving around letters, both of which involve the skills and strategies used in spelling (Ball, 1997). Nonetheless, spelling difficulties may not be merely the result of phonological awareness, since there are other factors that may interfere with the development of spelling ability (Clarke-Klein, 1994). Examples may involve speech sound awareness and knowledge about basic orthographic rules. An understanding of phonological awareness is of crucial importance for becoming a literate language user in both the L1 and L2. Phonological awareness seems to be the most common difficulty for students who have problems when reading because of the non-direct grapheme-phoneme correspondences of English, the limited academic experiences, or reading disabilities such as dyslexia. The next section deals specifically with the importance of phonological awareness with reference to the acquisition of the L2.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Phonological Awareness and the Development of L2 Literacy Phonological awareness allows language learners to understand the alphabetic principle as well as to improve in terms of reading and writing (Bialystok, 2006; Stanovich, 1986) by facilitating growth in the printed word recognition. Thus, the question that emerges is whether phonological awareness can be transferred across languages. Bialystok (2002) argues that “if phonological awareness transfers across languages, then bilingual children who speak languages that differ in their accessibility to phonological structure may benefit by transferring metalinguistic understanding of one language to their other language” (p. 185). The emphasis of the present chapter is on young adults who are already literate and educated in an alphabetic language and are learning English as the L2. The limited research on L2 phonological awareness of adults suggests that it consists of explicit knowledge just like L1 phonological awareness (Kennedy, 2012; Kennedy & Blanchet, 2014; Kennedy, Blanchet & Trofimovich, 2014; Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2010; Moore, 1997; Ramírez-Verdugo, 2006; Venkatagiri & Levis, 2007; Wrembel, 2011, 2013, 2015). However, several authors have acknowledged that L2 phonological awareness also entails implicit knowledge, which cannot be verbalised (Alves, 2009; Ellis, 2004; Mora, Rochdi, & Kivistö-de 66

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Souza, 2014; Piske, 2008). L2 users already have the system of the L1 available that may be transferred to some extent to the target language. Therefore, they do not start from a blank slate-state. Consequently, an accurate perception of the phonological system of the L2 implies the restructuring of the pre-existing L1 neural connections with reference to the perceptual and articulatory L1 settings to accommodate to the L2 (Ellis, 2002). It is also suggested that speech acquisition depends on the speaker’s motoric skills and it involves a high degree of fluency. Therefore, L2 users can benefit from explicit instruction on phonological awareness and conscious effort in order to perceptually and articulatorily accommodate to the L2. This suggests that phonological awareness is necessary during the initial stages of L2 acquisition. What is more, L2 phonological awareness seems to form a continuum with one end representing lower-level awareness and the other a more profound understanding of the phonological system of the L2. It is influenced by literacy development (i.e., could be used to assess literacy achievement, predict future literacy skills) and could be transferred to L2. With reference to bilingualism, Bialystok (2006) suggests that phonological awareness can be used to predict the reading proficiency levels, which can be extended to both the L1 and L2. The use of phonological information by L2 readers seems to be also influenced by the L1 orthographic properties. This implies that L2 users of alphabetic L1 backgrounds may rely more on phonemic information while L2 users of logographic L1 backgrounds may depend more on holistic visual cues (Akamatsu, 1999; Hamada & Koda, 2008, 2010; Koda, 1990, 1999). As a result, L2 users of alphabetic L1 backgrounds “have the skill to assemble phonemes in order to access lexical representations in memory” (Yamashita, 2013, p.53) when reading a text, which allows them to segment and manipulate phonemes needed for alphabetic literacy (Koda, 2005). With reference to writing, this could also assist spelling (and vice versa) because through sound spelling, language learners can become more attuned to each sound comprising a word (Catalado & Ellis, 1990). On the other hand, logographic symbols may stand for either morphemes or syllables (Perfetti, 2003) and logographic literacy may not involve the same degree of analysis as in the alphabetic literacy. This means that logographic literacy may depend more on holistic visual cues without segmentation (Koda, 2007). Hold and Dodd’s study (1996) addressing phonological awareness and reading suggests that these skills are closely related. In their study, L2 English users from Hong-Kong, mainland China, and Vietnam performed poorly in terms of phonological awareness and nonword decoding due to the lack of phonological experience in L1. This indicates that L1 transfer is effective when the written input processing is similar in the two languages but not when it is dissimilar (Hamada & Koda, 2010; Holm & Dodd, 1996). Geva and Siegel (2000) explained this in terms of the Script Dependent Hypothesis about alphabetic languages, which states that differences in orthographic complexity between languages may require different processing pathways. Phonological awareness seems to be also linked to spelling skills in the L2. Studies by Kkese (2010, 2018, 2020) have indicated that most of the spelling errors produced by L2 English users of Cypriot Greek (CG) are the outcome of transfer from L1. Examples may involve the word “glasses” normally pronounced as /ʝa’ʎa/ in the L1 but spelled as “yuaya” in the L2 and the word “xylophone” pronounced as /ˈzaɪləfəʊn/ in the L2 but spelled as “ksilofonoe”. Nonetheless, spelling instruction seems to be absent in the L2 classroom context since it is believed that it is a skill that will develop on its own through incidental learning during reading only in the context of a sustained reading program and in an L2 context (Kkese, 2020; Krashen, 1993; Sok, 2014). Therefore, spelling in the L2 is rendered a matter of secondary importance in literacy teaching despite its essential role when it comes to “the school context, career progression, and identity formation as in the case of the social networks that the reader judges the writer solely on their literacy skills” (Kkese, 2020, p. 95). 67

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The strong correlation between phonological awareness and spelling skills indicates that L2 users may encounter difficulties perceiving specific L2 phonemes since they do not attend to the acoustic cues or set of cues (e.g., vowel duration, consonant duration, consonant voicing, first formant transition, formant structure, vowel-inherent spectral change) necessary for their identification since these may differ from their L1. Even though acoustic cues are available for both the L1 and L2 users, the latter category lacks adequate perceptual skills when it comes to attending such cues in the L2. Specifically, L2 users exhibit some degree of L1 influence on their weighting of acoustic cues in perception (Holliday, 2010; Kkese, 2016). Phonological awareness also seems to be related to L2 pronunciation. Mora et al. (2014) suggest a positive relationship between the participants’ accurate production of L2 Voice Onset Time (VOT), which is an important cue for the perception of voicing and aspiration in plosive consonants (Kkese, 2016), and their ability to mimic L2 accented L1. Baker and Trofimovich (2006) argue that a strong correlation exists between self-perception and accurate production of L2 vowels. Further, Kennedy and Trofimovich (2010), as well as Kennedy, Blanchet, and Trofimovich (2014), indicate a relation between the depth of explicit L2 phonological awareness and L2 pronunciation. A positive relation between L2 and speech perception has also been suggested with reference to plosive consonants in L2 English by CG users (Kkese, 2016; Kkese & Petinou, 2017). This may be attributed to the fact that the specific class of phonemes may be absent or realized differently in two languages. Specifically, in the study conducted by Kkese (2016), CG users of L2 English experienced difficulties with the voiced plosive consonants /b d g/ in the target language. The two auditory tasks presented to the participants involved minimal pairs at the word and sentence level. The first task was a two-alternative forced task in which participants had to circle the word they could hear; the second was a words-in-sentences task in which they had to fill in two gaps in the same sentence involving a minimal pair. Performance was significantly better with reference to voiceless plosive consonants compared to their voiced counterparts at the word-initial position (i.e., pacing-basing, towering-dowering, crammer-grammar), word-medial position (i.e., calipers-calibers, sighting-siding, lacquered-laggard), and word-final position (i.e., tripe-tribe, squat-squad, broke-brogue). These difficulties may be the outcome of VOT cues since the VOTs are more difficult to produce in the lead voicing region (voiced plosive consonants). Venkatagiri and Levis (2007) also suggest a relationship between the ability to manipulate segments accurately and L2 comprehensibility. A correlation between phonological awareness and L2 pronunciation may have a twofold explanation, that is, L2 pronunciation is increased due to phonological awareness and/or phonological awareness is the cause for the more native-like or improved L2 pronunciation. This implies that more accurate L2 pronunciation may depend on whether learners are able to pay attention to less salient features.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS In an effort to assist the development of literacy skills in the L2, teachers should emphasize the importance of phonological awareness by explicitly and systematically teaching and exposing language learners to this interrelation between literacy skills and phonological awareness. Nonetheless, the age and proficiency level of students must be kept in mind so that they will be motivated to undertake the activities designed to help them develop both their phonological awareness skills and literacy in the target language. Given the fact that the emphasis of this chapter is on young adults, teachers have to adjust the materials, techniques and approaches to this specific group by including adult-relevant materials and by 68

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

addressing both letters and sounds to teach grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Young adults should be aware of the connection between phonological awareness activities and their long-term goals in the L2 while the most suitable tasks may be segmenting and blending. Therefore, short activities should be included in each lesson. Authentic materials addressing language learners’ goals, needs, and interests are suggested to draw students’ attention. Usually, the problems in an L2 classroom are the outcome of a lack of instruction (Saito, 2012). The quote from a language user summarizes these deficiencies in an accurate manner, “It’s not that no one ever taught me how to read before; it’s just that they never took me back far enough. They didn’t know what I didn’t know” (Podhajski, 1998, p. 1). This implies that language users have some skills with reference to phonological awareness and specifically phonemic awareness, but generally L2 adult beginning readers and intermediate readers have limited phonemic awareness (Kruidenier, 2002; Read, 1988). The Teaching Tip provides a step-by-step example of “how to” teach phonological awareness to develop spoken and written literacy skills in the L2. Teaching Tip Elena works with young adult L2 learners of English from a variety of L1 linguistic backgrounds at a university level teaching linguistics and English academic writing classes. All her classes employ English as the language of instruction even if the language is not the L1 of most students. The L1 of the majority of students is CG but in the same classroom more L1s can be encountered (i.e., Russian, Arabic, Filipino, English, Vietnamese, etc.). During sessions, Elena and her students spend some time working explicitly on phonological awareness, more specifically on words and syllables, onset-rime segments, and individual phonemes in an effort to help the students appreciate the many-to-one correspondences of English and how these may differ compared to their L1. This can be achieved by making direct references to the latter or by asking students to contribute with reference to the way their L1 works on the phonological and orthographic levels. Areas of focus are all the English phonemes, but special attention is given to the most problematic sounds in L2 English for her students who speak CG as their L1, namely, L2 plosive, fricative, and nasal consonants as well as vowels (i.e., monophthongs and diphthongs). The specific tasks Elena formulates for developing phonological awareness are usually realized as warm-up exercises before reading, spelling, writing or vocabulary instruction or sometimes distributed at the production stage (especially the writing tasks). These may involve oral as well as written exercises, in which the former refers to pre-recorded tasks pronounced by a variety of L1 English speakers. The words Elena selects aim at helping the young L2 adults find the tasks interesting and worth undertaking. Most of the words involved are low-frequency words, utilized so that the students are not able to predict them easily (i.e., calipers-calibers, mettlesome-meddlesome, lacquered-laggard). Low-frequency words cannot be identified on the basis of fewer perceptual features, unlike high-frequency words. Also, words may involve pop culture jargon and slang (e.g., social media lingo, school-yard epithets and surfing terms) that young adults find particularly interesting. In the past week, the guiding objectives for Elena’s introductory phonology lessons were: • Ensure that the student has a basic acquaintance with the study of English phonology

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• Equip students with a sound competence in dealing with phonemic representations, which is one of the key linguistic analytical skills that are necessary for many other modules. In order to identify the difficulties met by students and help them improve their L2 perceptual abilities, Elena uses a warm-up activity involving minimal pairs in which students have to listen and report back what they have heard. To achieve this objective, Elena has developed different speech perception tasks taking into consideration the L2 sounds that are usually problematic for her students. These sounds are in most cases presented as minimal pairs at a word or sentence level. According to Hyman (1975), the presence of minimal pairs in a language provides evidence for the existence of phonemic contrast in the language under question. In the first part of the activity, Elena focuses on word level. She asks her students to listen to a spoken stimulus consisting of the target word and at least another word (minimal pair) and select what they hear from the response set that involves orthographic representations. Examples involving minimal pairs are contrasted in word-initial, -medial, and -final position. Students must circle the word they hear from a two-alternative forced-choice task as illustrated below: 1. (a) pillow (b) billow 2. (a) touting (b) doubting 3. (a) clamorous (b) glamorous

69

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Teaching Tip Responses to this task are collected by Elena, who informs students that they will return to these toward the end of the class. Students then listen to the lecture prepared by Elena, which introduces them to the phonology of English, emphasizing both consonants and vowels. Soon after, Elena provides examples for further practice with the L2 phonological system emphasizing on speech perception as well as IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) transcription. Next, ten minutes before the end of the class, Elena gives back the minimal pair test and asks the students to compare their answers with a partner. Finally, Elena corrects the task together with the students in an attempt to identify the most problematic sounds. As is expected, the most difficult sounds are plosive consonants given that in the CG dialect, voiced plosive consonants are absent or realised differently (Kkese, 2016; Kkese & Petinou, 2017) (see chart below). Vowels constitute another area of difficulty due to the simple five-vowel system of the L1 and the fact that vowel length is not a contrastive factor. IPA charts for L1 CG and L2 English plosive consonants Bilabial L1 CG

ͫ b p p ͪ:

L2 English

pb

Alveolar

Velar

d t t ͪ:

ᵑg k k ͪ:

td

kg

n

For the next session, Elena plans to distribute a second minimal pair task. The new task will involve sentences containing minimal pairs rather than isolated words. In this way, she can investigate the effect of context and whether students depend on this to cope with the task needs. To this end, the students will listen to a series of unconnected declarative sentences and fill in the missing word(s) based on what they hear. Two gaps will be included in each sentence using minimal pair words. Here the target words, which would normally be missing, are underlined: 1. If we disburse their bonuses, maybe the angry crowd will disperse. 2. The unheated subject went unheeded at the meeting. 3. As a territorial delegate, Steve occupied a delicate position. The minimal pair task provides an opportunity to use real words in isolation without any linguistic context and/or environmental cues. For the task involving sentences, even though unconnected sentences will be used, the sentential context (syntax and semantics) will be available to help the students in identifying the correct words or type of words based on what it could make sense in the blanks constructing meaning from the test itself. So, what exactly did Elena accomplish by engaging her students in these tasks? We already know that as a teacher of L2 university students with a CG linguistic background, Elena is highly aware that she needs to modify the general objectives of her module descriptors to meet the needs of her students. The drive for this is the fact that CG students have learned to spell English by rote given the emphasis of the approaches and methods used in the classroom context. Therefore, when confronted with phonological awareness tasks, their ability to spell gets in the way leading them to draw on the letters in a word rather than the sounds. This can be attributed to the L1, which is obviously much more transparent compared to English. Since CG students have learned to rely on grapheme-phoneme correspondences for literacy in the L1, they transfer these skills in the L2 as well.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nonetheless, in English not all phonemes are represented by a single letter, and similar speech sounds in terms of place and manner of articulation may be a major source of confusion while speech sounds may be coarticulated in connected speech and, as a consequence, may not be pronounced separately. Given that these skills were not adequately developed during early childhood, L2 users may struggle with phonological awareness that will unavoidably affect literacy skills resulting in inaccurate decoding of new, unknown words, mispronunciation of words, poor spelling, and difficulty remembering or recalling new words. In order to deal with all these challenges, Elena has developed the abovementioned phonological awareness tasks that she has linked to literacy skills in order to assist her students to become more efficient L2 users. She uses this type of tasks in most of her classes and not necessarily to the classes which focus on phonology. When the module does not involve phonology teaching, these tasks can be very short (5-10mins) and the teacher can collect and correct her students’ answers after class. The rationale for this type of tasks is to encourage students to focus on the sounds in a word. Consequently, if the students cannot hear the sounds, they will not be able to map the correct graphemes to phonemes, which is a prerequisite for L2 (and L1) literacy acquisition.

Strategies and Assessment of Phonological Awareness In order to address the needs of their students, namely the need to recode and decode the L2, teachers must have a good understanding of learners’ phonological awareness knowledge especially in the L2 context in which students bring another well-established language system in class (i.e., their L1). At the university level, most students already have a good awareness of how to divide words into syllables, how

70

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

to identify and make words rhyme, and how to select individual sounds in words in their L1 and probably in the L2 as well. Consequently, teachers need to observe students over time in a variety of activities in order to be able to develop an accurate idea of what students know and what they need to learn. Short activities should occur at the word, syllable, rhyme, and phoneme level and should involve the skills of segmenting, blending, deleting, and substituting as these are key components of phonological awareness. Teachers should provide ample opportunities so that students are able to explore the relationship between words and sounds in the L2. This can be achieved through daily spelling, writing, and reading activities, including short speech perception tasks as the ones mentioned in the teaching tip. Chard and Dickson (1999) suggest that phonological awareness skills form a continuum of complexity. More specifically, activities such as rhyming songs and sentence segmentation are less complex, occupying the less complex end of the continuum but complexity can increase when students have to segment words into onsets and rimes and blend onsets and rimes into words (Chard & Dickson, 1999). Table 2 provides some examples of activities that promote phonological awareness. Table 2. Examples of activities that promote phonological awareness Complexity level

Example

Less complex

Write the missing rhyming word that makes sense

The black cat is very _______

↑

Identify the words that rhyme (final word with the same sounds)

Matt, pat

Identify the word with the odd sound in a set of written words that rhyme

man, can, fan, pan, look

Fill in the blanks with the words you can hear at the beginning, middle or end of an utterance

______ is spoken in the UK / Our team ____ _____ game and lost three games / The students noted down in their notebooks the sentences they had learned by ____.

|

Identify the initial, middle or final letter (not sound) of the words

shore, ashore, ash

|

Identify the number of syllables in the word

nose, shoulder, fingertips

Identify whether the words pronounced as minimal pairs or sets are the same or different

sit, seat

Identify the initial, middle or final sound (not the letter) of words

man-tan, tanning-tapping, tan-tap

Distinguish or mix the phonemes, syllables, and onset-rime in words or word parts

m-an, man

Produce writing

Interactive or independent

| | | | | | |

| | | | | ↓ More complex

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Activity type

Through the abovementioned tasks, teachers can facilitate the development of phonological awareness and help students to record their oral language on paper by becoming aware of how sound patterns work in the L2. Research suggests that instruction spanning over 90 hours can lead to improved literacy skills, emphasizing the important role of phonological awareness in literacy acquisition and especially spelling and word recognition (Durgunoğlu & Öney, 2002). However, lengthy phonological awareness instruction may not be feasible in most L1 or L2 classroom contexts. Phonological awareness instruction can be effective even if it may involve shorter periods of time when it makes explicit how learners can apply

71

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

phonological skills to spelling, writing, and reading tasks, and enables them to grasp how the alphabetic system works in English by helping them spell, write, and read words in several ways. Consequently, phonological awareness can be a key component to spelling, writing, and reading instruction, but there is obviously much more that needs to be taught to allow learners acquire spelling, writing, and reading competence. Teachers can emphasize tasks that require students to manipulate spoken units larger than phonemes, gradually moving to tasks requiring phoneme manipulation, which are more challenging.

Connecting Reading and Writing to Phonological Awareness To help students focus on the sounds of the L2, teachers can work with L2 learners on reading and writing activities. Even if the emphasis of phonological awareness is on oral language, the connection to print is also important. Reading activities can involve read-alouds in which sections of a text may be read while students listen for specific features of language. Another type of activity involves shared reading in which the teacher reads the text out loud several times and, once students are familiar with the story, they address different aspects of phonological awareness together. Writing instruction can also be very useful for young adult L2 users since phonological awareness is developed through meaningful and frequent writing. In shared writing, the teacher and students work together to write a story or a message. The teacher models how writing works while students contribute to the composition of the story or message. The teacher can help students by providing examples using rhyme analogy to spell a word, segmenting the sounds and writing a letter for each, and saying the polysyllabic words syllable by syllable. With time, students become more willing to contribute to the discussion, following the teacher’s example, and gradually develop advanced levels of phonological awareness. In interactive writing, on the other hand, the teacher and the students produce a text together or “share a pen”, while in independent writing, students write a text on their own. These different types of writing provide opportunities for students to explore sounds and words in everyday writing activities relying on grapheme-phoneme correspondences to express their ideas. By segmenting sounds into words on their own, L2 learners become more efficient writers, spellers, and readers.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION The aim of this chapter was to give an overview of the understudied area of L2 phonological awareness and its relation to spoken and written literacy. Although phonological awareness in the L1 has been widely studied, awareness about the L2 phonology has received scarce attention. Nonetheless, phonological awareness has a very important role in language acquisition and the development of literacy in both the L1 and L2. When it comes to L2 acquisition, this strong correlation is evident irrespectively of the age of the L2 users suggesting that explicit and systematic instruction to phonological awareness can benefit students who are English language learners (Grabe, 2009; Lane & Pullen, 2004). This implies that phonological awareness can have a positive impact on developing literacy and specifically the skills of spelling, writing, and reading. When teaching phonological awareness to young adults it is important to expose them to graphemeto-phoneme correspondences. Teachers should observe their young adult L2 students over time in a range of tasks in order to be able to address their needs. Perception tasks such as auditory blending, auditory segmenting, and phonemic manipulation can help students acquire L2 literacy skills. Specifically, these 72

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

perception tasks should require young L2 adults to blend words that are presented in segmented form, segment words into their individual sounds, and become aware that sounds could be added, deleted, or moved around in words. Instruction of young L2 adults may be quite challenging and literacy skills may take longer to acquire than children, but it can also be rewarding as teachers see their students becoming efficient spellers, writers, and readers in the target language. Further studies on phonological awareness and literacy acquisition should focus on the creation and comparison of consciousness-raising activities in order to investigate the effects of explicit and systematic instruction on L2 phonological awareness. By emphasizing the link between L2 phonological awareness and literacy, this chapter has contributed to the understanding of L2 phonological awareness and to L2 acquisition in general. Nonetheless, there are still several questions to be answered, suggesting that L2 phonological awareness and its links to literacy development can be a very promising area in the study of the acquisition of any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue. Discussion Questions 1. Discuss the extent to which adult L2 students who have received L2 phonetics and phonology instruction indicate a different degree of L2 phonological awareness. In what ways do you consider phonological awareness to be related to L2 pronunciation accuracy? 2. Reflect on the ways L2 teachers of English could differentiate instruction in order to provide extra practice for decoding and acquiring literacy skills in the target language to adult users from backgrounds with different orthographies than the alphabet of their L1. 3. Considering what you have learned in this chapter, how would you approach working with L2 adult English learners who never had the benefit of formal instruction? Would you advise them to first learn to read and write in their L1 or in English? Why? You may also want to consult the chapter by Minuz, Hazendar, Peyton, and Young-Scholten, which discusses working with pre-literate adults in more detail.

REFERENCES Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2002). Reading, writing, orthographic, phonological, syntactic and memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Arab children in Canada. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(6), 661–678. doi:10.1023/A:1021221206119 PMID:12599919 Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic–Hebrew–English-speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing, 16(7), 611–634. doi:10.1023/A:1025838029204

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 381–403. doi:10.1023/A:1008053520326 Alves, U. K. (2009). Conciência dos aspectos fonético-fonológicos da L2. [Awareness about the phonetic-phonological aspects of the L2] In R. Lamprecht (Ed.), Consciência dos sons da língua: Subsídios teóricos e práticos para alfabetizadores, fonoaudiólogos e professores de língua inglesa [Awareness of speech sounds: Theoretical and practical resources for literacy instructors, speech therapists, and English language teachers] (pp. 201–231). Porto Alegre, Spain: EDIPUCRS. Anderson, R. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss and implications for clinical practice. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in SpanishEnglish speakers (pp. 187–212). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

73

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2006). Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(3), 231–250. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2006.010 Ball, E. W. (1997). Phonological awareness: Implications for whole language and emergent literacy programs. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(3), 14–26. doi:10.1097/00011363-199705000-00004 Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52(1), 159–199. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00180 Bialystok, E. (2006). The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In T. Bhatia, & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 577–601). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. doi:10.1002/9780470756997.ch22 Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.7194 Carroll, J., Snowling, M., Hulme, C., & Stevenson, J. (2003). The development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 913–923. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.913 PMID:12952403 Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing, 18(1), 27–49. doi:10.100711145-004-2345-x Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a casual link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91(1), 77–111. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00164-1 PMID:14711492 Catalado, S., & Ellis, N. (Eds.). (1990). Learning to spell, learning to read. Bristol, UK: The Palmer Press. Chard, D. J., & Dickson, S. V. (1999). Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 261–270. doi:10.1177/105345129903400502 Clarke-Klein, S. M. (1994). Expressive phonological deficiencies: Impact on spelling development. Topics in Language Disorders, 14(2), 40–55. doi:10.1097/00011363-199402000-00006

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: A crosslinguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 372–392. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness in literacy acquisition: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3), 245–266. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0603_3 Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence (pp. 153–186). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Ehri, L. C. (1986). Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and read. In M. Wolraich, & D. Routh (Eds.), Advances in developmental and behavioral pediatrics (pp. 121–195). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00005

74

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002140 Ellis, N. C., Natsume, M., Stavropoulou, K., Hoxhallari, L., van Daal, V. H. P., Polyzoe, N., ... Petalas, M. (2004). The effects of orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 438–468. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x Foy, J., & Mann, V. (2001). Does strength of phonological representations predict phonological awareness in preschool children? Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(3), 301–325. doi:10.1017/S0142716401003022 Foy, J., & Mann, V. (2003). Home literacy environment and phonological awareness in preschool: Differential effects for rhyme and phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 59–88. doi:10.1017/ S0142716403000043 Fricke, S., Bowyer-Crane, C., Haley, A. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Efficacy of language intervention in the early years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54(3), 280–290. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12010 PMID:23176547 Gentry, R. (2000). A retrospective on invented spelling and a look forward. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 318–333. Geudens, A. (2006). Phonological awareness and learning to read a first language: Controversies and new perspectives. LOT Occasional Series, 6, 25–43. Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12(1), 1–30. doi:10.1023/A:1008017710115 Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Lexical characteristics of words and phonological awareness skills of preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1509–1531. doi:10.1017/S0142716414000526 Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Griffith, P. L. (1991). Phonemic awareness helps first graders invent spellings and third graders remember correct spellings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 215–233. doi:10.1080/10862969109547737

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2008). Influence of first language orthographic experience on second language decoding and word learning. Language Learning, 58(1), 1–31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00433.x Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2010). The role of phonological decoding in second language word-meaning inference. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 513–531. doi:10.1093/applin/amp061 Henderson, E. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Holliday, J. J. (2010). Inter- and intra-L1 differences in L2 speech perception. Talk given at the INTERSPEECH 2010 Satellite Workshop on Second Language Studies: Acquisition, Learning, Education and Technology. Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. September 22, 2010.

75

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition of English literacy. Cognition, 59(2), 119–147. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00691-5 PMID:8681508 Homer, B. (2002). Literacy and metalinguistic thought: Development through knowledge construction & cultural mediation. In J. Brockmeir, M. Wang, & D. Olson (Eds.), Literacy, narrative and culture (pp. 266–282). London, UK: Curzon Press. Hyman, L. M. (1975). Phonology: Theory and analysis. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Justice, L., & Pullen, P. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(3), 99–113. doi:10.1177 /02711214030230030101 Kamhi, A. G., & Hinton, L. N. (2000). Explaining individual differences in spelling ability. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 37–49. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00006 Kennedy, S. (2012). Exploring the relationship between language awareness and second language use. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 398–408. doi:10.1002/tesq.24 Kennedy, S., & Blanchet, J. (2014). Language awareness and perception of connected speech in second language. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 92–106. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863904 Kennedy, S., Blanchet, J., & Trofimovich, P. (2014). Learner pronunciation, awareness, and instruction in French as a second language. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 79–96. doi:10.1111/flan.12066 Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness, 19(3), 171–185. doi:10.1080/09658416.2010.486439 Kkese, E. (2010). Issues in L2 acquisition of spelling: When spelling tests are simply not enough. In P. Pavlou (Ed.), Research on English as a foreign language in Cyprus (pp. 223–257). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Nicosia Press. Kkese, E. (2016). Identifying plosives in L2 English: The case of L1 Cypriot Greek speakers. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG. doi:10.3726/b10379 Kkese, E. (2018). Assessing L2 writing in the absence of scoring procedures: Construction of rating scales in a Cypriot-Greek EFL in-class context. Journal of English Education, 3(2), 46–56. doi:10.31327/ jee.v3i2.809

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kkese, E. (2020). L2 writing assessment: The neglected skill of spelling. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kkese, E., & Petinou, K. (2017). Perception abilities of L1 Cypriot Greek listeners –Types of errors involving plosive consonants in L2 English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(1), 1–25. doi:10.100710936-016-9417-3 PMID:26965243 Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1 orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 393–410. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009499

76

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 51–64. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00005 Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524841 Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1–44. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1 Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Krijnen, E., van Steensel, R., Meeuwisse, M., & Jongerling, J. (2019). Exploring a refined model of home literacy activities and associations with children’s emergent literacy skills. Reading and Writing, 1–32. doi:10.100711145-019-09957-4 Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. doi:10.1037/e561252012-001 Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2004). Phonological awareness assessment and instruction: A sound beginning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Lems, K., Miller, L. D., & Soro, T. M. (2017). Building literacy with English language learners: Insights from linguistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler, & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1–33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K., & Yanping, L. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(2), 93–111. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.05.001 PMID:15388300 Moore, H. (1997). Learning pronunciation and intonation of Japanese through drama by beginning language students: A case for reflective journals. Japanese Association of Language Teachers Journal, 19(2), 235–269. Mora, J. C., Rochdi, Y., & Kivistö-de Souza, H. (2014). Mimicking accented speech as L2 phonological awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 57–75. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863898

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7(4), 323–331. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(79)90020-9 Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor of first grade reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 441–457. doi:10.1086/461375 Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 154–167. doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.2.2 O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2005). Ladders to literacy: A kindergarten activity book (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.

77

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Olson, G. A. (1999). Toward a post-process composition: Abandoning the rhetoric of assertion. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing process paradigm (pp. 7–15). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Pennington, M. (1996). Phonology in English language teaching. London, UK: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Piske, T. (2008). Phonetic awareness, phonetic sensitivity and the second language learner. In J. Cenoz, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 155–166). New York, NY: Springer Science. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_146 Podhajski, B. (1998). Reading through common sounds. Linkages: Linking Literacy and Learning Disabilities, 5(1), 1–3. Ramírez-Verdugo, D. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language Awareness, 15(3), 141–159. doi:10.2167/la404.0 Read, C. (1988). Phonological awareness and adult readers. A final report to the US DOE. Madison, WI: Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasiexperimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854. doi:10.1002/tesq.67 Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2(1), 54–63. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1996)2:13.0.CO;2-X Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 191–215. doi:10.12071532799xssr0103_2 Shimron, J., & Sivan, T. (1994). Reading proðciency and orthography: Evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44(1), 5–27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01447.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470757642.ch26 Sok, S. (2014). Deconstructing the concept of ‘incidental’ L2 vocabulary learning. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 21–37. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1 Strucker, J. (2002, June). NCSALL’s adult reading components study (ARCS). Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Dyslexia Association, Washington, D.C.

78

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 77–97. doi:10.1017/ S0267190505000048 Torgesen, J. K., & Mathes, P. (2000). A basic guide to understanding, assessing, and teaching phonological awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Treiman, R., & Bourassa, D. C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 1–18. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00004 Troia, G. A. (2004). Phonological processing and its influence on literacy learning. In C. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 271–301). New York, NY: Guilford Press. van Bon, W. H. J., & van Leeuwe, J. F. J. (2003). Assessing phonemic awareness in kindergarten: The case for the phoneme recognition task. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 195–219. doi:10.1017/ S0142716403000109 Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R. S., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16(4), 263–277. doi:10.2167/la417.0 Wrembel, M. (2011). Metaphonetic awareness in the production of speech. In M. Pawlak, E. WaniekKlimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language acquisition (pp. 169–182). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847694126-013 Wrembel, M. (2013). Metalinguistic awareness in third language phonological acquisition. In K. Roehr, & G. A. Gánem-Gutiérrez (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 119–144). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Wrembel, M. (2015). Metaphonological awareness in multilinguals: A case of L3 Polish. Language Awareness, 24(1), 60–83. doi:10.1080/09658416.2014.890209

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yamashita, J. (2013). Word recognition subcomponents and passage level reading in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(1), 52–71.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Cypriot Greek (CG): Also referred to as Kypriaka, CG is the variety used in Greek-speaking Cyprus that has evolved from Koine. It is considered one of the major Greek dialects commonly used in modern times, along with Pontic and Standard Modern Greek. Decoding: What readers do to sound out words in order to translate written language into oral language.

79

 Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Grapheme: The smallest unit of a writing system of any given language such as “b” and “d” in English that can produce distinct words like “big” and “dig”. Onset: The initial consonant sound of a syllable, for instance, the first segment /b/ in “bile” or /h/ in “hunt”. Phoneme: The smallest unit of sound that changes the meaning of spoken words. In the word “if”, there are two, namely /ɪ/ and /f/. Phonemic Awareness: The ability to hear and identify phonemes (individual sounds). Phonological Awareness: The understanding that the oral language consists of words, syllables, onsets, and rimes. Rime: The part of a syllable that includes the vowel and any consonant sounds that come after it, for instance, the two segments /aɪ/ and /l/ in “bile” and the three segments /ʌ/, /n/, and /t/ in “hunt”. Syllable: A word part that contains a vowel sound as in e-vent and/or news-pa-per.

80

Phonological Awareness and Literacy in L2

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language reading in text. Language Learning, 53(2), 207–231. This article examines the influence of L1 orthography on L2 reading speed by fluent L2 readers of different L1 backgrounds. Chinese, Japanese, and Persian L2 users of English were examined in terms of basic processing in L2 reading. The results indicate that Persian L2 users of English performed significantly better due to the fact that both the L1 and L2 are alphabetic languages while L1 Chinese and Japanese are non-alphabetic. This article suggests that a link exists between phonological awareness and literacy skills, and the findings may be relevant to teachers dealing with learners of both alphabetic and non-alphabetic orthographies. 2. Burt, J. S., & Shrubsole, C. S. (2000). Processing of phonological representations and adult spelling proficiency. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 100–109. This paper focuses on the phonological skills of tertiary level students who were unexpectedly poor spellers compared to their word reading accuracy. Even though there was no phonological deficit, students performed worse when presented with nonwords and/or long, difficult-to-spell words. The results suggest that these difficulties were caused by students identifying and parsing the orthographic input rather than the phonological retrieval. Consequently, students need to stop relying heavily on the orthographic form of words and the way to achieve this is through explicit and implicit practice provided by teachers. 3. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness in literacy acquisition: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3), 245-266.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This article investigates the role of instruction and adult literacy acquisition. The findings suggest that after only 90 hours of instruction, 59 women participating in an intensive adult literacy program improved considerably in letter and word recognition, phonological awareness, and spelling. Specifically, word recognition and spelling were predicted by phonological awareness. This illustrates the need for teachers to dedicate classroom time to short, enjoyable phonological awareness activities to promote learners’ literacy skills. 4. Pinnell, G. S. & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in the reading/ writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This is an introductory book on literacy and the role of phonological awareness that focuses on L1. The book is based on research as well as the experiences of the authors as teachers of literacy emphasizing what teachers can do to help our students acquire effective writing, spelling, and reading skills.

81

82

Chapter 5

Orthographic Learning: A Multilingual Perspective Daniel R. Espinas University of Maryland, College Park, USA Min Wang University of Maryland, College Park, USA Yixun Li https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2193-6126 University of Maryland, College Park, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter discusses orthographic learning, i.e., how children learn the relation between their spoken language and writing system. The process is discussed for children learning to read and write in one language, as well as for multilingual children acquiring literacy in more than one language. In both cases, the developmental course is mapped from children’s frst insights into the form and function of their writing systems to the development of word-specifc mental representations that code for multiple linguistic forms (i.e., sound, spelling, and meaning). The chapter concludes with instructional recommendations for supporting children’s orthographic learning throughout development.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The texts that children read today in school and for leisure are far more complex than ever in the past (Adams, 2009; Hiebert & Martin, 2015). While many factors account for this complexity, vocabulary stands out perhaps as the most important (Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Indeed, Hiebert, Goodwin, and Cervetti (2018) recently estimated that literate English-speaking high school graduates need to know a core vocabulary of at least 11,298 words. Looking back to middle school, we see that texts at this level are also densely packed with novel vocabulary (Jitendra et al., 2001). Even in first grade, approximately 23 of every 100 words that children encounter in print are new (Hiebert & Martin, 2009). From these findDOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch005

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Orthographic Learning

ings, we can see that the scale and rate by which vocabulary must be learned far exceeds the capacity of any direct instructional effort (Share, 1995). Nonetheless, when faced with this immense challenge, the bulk of children remarkably prevail. However, a substantial proportion of children of course do not (National Center on Education Statistics, 2018). This certainly is the case for many multilingual learners. For example, on the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 9% of fourth grade students identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) scored at or above the proficiency level in reading. By eighth grade, this figure dropped to a startling 5%. This is in stark contrast to the 38% of fourth and eighth grade non-ELL students who demonstrated proficient reading. Many factors have been hypothesized to account for ELL students’ troubling underachievement in literacy (Uccelli, Galloway, Barr, Meneses, & Dobbs, 2015). Among these, vocabulary has enjoyed the greatest attention. As was mentioned above, a large and sophisticated vocabulary is critical for accessing the complex texts that children are expected to read from a young age (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005). Furthermore, while many linguistic skills easily transfer among languages, vocabulary does not (August, Calderón, & Carlo, 2002). Researchers, then, have devoted great effort to understanding multilingual vocabulary development (Wagner, Muse, & Tannenbaum, 2006). These efforts have revealed much about how children learn and integrate the various linguistic forms of words. Based on these findings, a myriad of instructional interventions targeting vocabulary from infancy throughout the school-age years have emerged. For school-aged children, interventions have focused both on developing word-specific knowledge and word-learning skills (Wright & Cervetti, 2017). Regarding the former, words’ phonological and semantic (i.e., meaning) forms are often linked through direct instruction. For example, the word cat may be explained as a furry, four-legged animal that stars in videos on the Internet. Words are often selected for their importance to specific texts of broader instructional themes. The benefits of such efforts for children’s reading comprehension is clear (Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009; Wright & Cervetti, 2017). However, existing vocabulary interventions have largely neglected words’ orthographic forms. In this chapter, we show that to read or write a word, children must possess knowledge of its phonological, semantic, and orthographic forms. Consequently, literacy instruction for multilingual children must focus on all three (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Literacy development has attracted great interest since the earliest days of psychological and educational research (Cattel, 1886; Huey, 1908). For much of this time, efforts have focused almost exclusively on monolingual learners of English and a subset of other European languages (Share, 2008a). However, the ubiquity of multilingualism throughout the world (Crystal, 2012) presents a great need for expanding research to understand how literacy develops within and across a broader range of the languages and writing systems (Daniels & Share, 2018). In recent years, investigators have increasingly taken on this challenge (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2017). Much of the research to date, however, has focused on the neural and cognitive processes that underlie static states of reading and writing performance. For example, many studies have examined how phonological processing skills correlate with children’s reading and writing skills at various time points (e.g., fall of first grade). Although such findings have enriched our understanding of patterns in children’s reading and writing development, they offer little in terms of understanding the mechanisms that underlie this development. In this chapter, we focus attention on

83

 Orthographic Learning

the major findings and theories that have emerged from the growing body of research on children’s orthographic learning.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Defining Orthographic Learning Orthographic learning is the process by which knowledge of a language’s written form is acquired (Nation & Castles, 2017). The product of this learning – both of word-specific spellings and generalized patterns and rules – is referred to as orthographic knowledge (Apel, Henbest, & Masterson, 2019; Wagner & Baker, 1994). An important distinction to make here is that as with other long-term mental representations, orthographic knowledge is static. It should not be conflated, then, with the dynamic processes of spelling and decoding although, it is recruited for both. As suggested above, orthographic knowledge can be split into two broad categories: sublexical and lexical. Lexical orthographic knowledge entails the rules and patterns that govern the writing system. In English, for example, this includes conventions such as prohibiting words from beginning with the letter pair 1 or ending with . Conversely, lexical orthographic knowledge comprises one’s store of word-specific spellings (e.g., ROSE versus ROWS) (Apel et al., 2019). As we will see throughout this chapter, both types of knowledge are acquired simultaneously across development through varied reading and writing experiences (Nation, 2017). There is an astounding variation among the languages and writing systems of the world (Lyovin, Kessler, & Leben, 2017). Learning to read and write in one langue, then, does not ensure literacy in another. For example, although English and Chinese literacy depend on the same basic ingredients – phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and semantic knowledge – being literate in English provides little help for reading in Chinese (Yu & Reichle, 2017). Although clear differences abound in the final states of literacy development between languages, what of the process of learning itself? Does learning to read in one language differ from learning to read in another? In a broad sense, no. Literacy development in all languages entails the same basic process of learning how to map speech onto print (Li, Bicknell, Liu, Wei, & Rayner, 2014; Perfetti, 2003). However, cultural differences in how literacy is taught and idiosyncrasies in the structure of the languages and writing systems abound (Katz & Frost, 1992; Rogoff, 1990; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). Consequently, different developmental time courses and pathways emerge. For example, Seymour and colleagues (2003) found in a study comparing literacy acquisition in 13 European orthographies that differences among phonological (i.e., sound) and orthographic (i.e., writing) structures affected the rate by which children learned to read and write. We can see this clearly by returning to the example of Chinese and English. As we will detail later in this chapter, learning to read in English relies initially on a relatively small set of generalizable phonemegrapheme correspondence rules. However, as many have observed, English writing is not a system of perfect phonetic transcription. Indeed, the morphophonemic structure of English orthography is also governed by influences of morphology (e.g., the ED in SMILED, GRILLED, and JUMPED) and etymology (e.g., the II in SKIING) (Venezky, 1999). Armed with knowledge of these three systems, and how they interact, children can easily decode and spell almost all the words in their language (J. Bowers & Bowers, 2017). Indeed, by the end of their fourth year in school, most English-speaking children are able to do so. Contrast this with a child learning to read and write in Chinese. In the Chinese writing system, phonological information is encoded far less transparently and reliably than in English (Yu & Reichle, 2017). Consequently, in English, children can easily determine the phonological form of a word by applying phoneme-grapheme rules, while Chinese-speaking children are often provided no such cues. In Chinese, attention is directed instead to semantic cues. That is, written characters come to be associated 84

 Orthographic Learning

first with specific meanings. These symbol-meaning pairing are then paired with phonological forms as lexical units in memory (Chen & Pasquarella, 2017). From the discussion above, we clearly see how the shared goal among readers and writers of developing orthographic knowledge takes markedly different paths depending on the language and writing system that the child is learning. Indeed, successful literacy development depends on learning experiences that are aligned to the structure of the child’s language and writing system. However, we have not yet considered children learning to read and write in more than one language. For these children, who number in the billions across the globe, literacy development may differ substantially. To this end, we next examine how the sounds, spellings, and meanings of words are mentally stored and later accessed when children read and write.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lexical Representations The Lexical Quality Hypothesis (LQH) provides a good starting point for understanding the mental storage of lexical, or word, knowledge (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). The LQH posits that lexical knowledge is comprised of up to three overlapping representations: phonological, orthographic, and semantic. A lexical representation for the word horse, then, might entail knowledge of how it sounds (phonological), what it means (semantic), and for the literate child, how it is spelled (orthographic). Although these representations are formed individually, they are stored within tight, lexical networks. As a feature of this design, when one representation within the network is activated, so are the others (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). When a child with a high-quality lexical representation for horse encounters the letter string HORSE in a book, corresponding phonological (/hɔrs/) and semantic (i.e., a farmyard animal) representations will also be recognized. As we will discuss later in the chapter, these representations and their connections within lexical networks are gradually strengthened through experience (Share, 2008b). For example, a complete understanding of the meaning of justice presumably eludes children upon their first encounter with the word. Only through multiple and varied exposures does a full appreciation gradually emerge. The same holds true for orthographic knowledge (Logan, 1997; Share, 2008b). Initially, rough approximations of written forms are developed. In this state, these weak representations cannot be accessed with the accuracy or efficiency needed to support skilled reading or writing. Through repeated exposures, however, these representations and their interconnections are gradually strengthened (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Therefore, skilled literacy depends both on a large breath (Hiebert, Goodwin, & Cervetti; 2018) and depth of word knowledge (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Lexical representations are interconnected within larger memory networks (Hoffman, McClelland, & Lambon Ralph, 2018; Landauer & Dumais, 1997). For example, horse might be connected to other farmyard animals such as cow, chicken, and mule. Similarly, it might exist within a network of racing terms such as track, jockey, and prize. Words are connected also by how they sound (phonological neighbors) and how they are spelled (orthographic neighbors). Orthographic neighbors for BIN might be GIN, BUN, and BIG, each of which differs from BIN by only one letter (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2018). The nature of this design results in neighborhood effects referred to as coactivation of neighboring lexical representations. After reading BIN, for example, representations for GIN, BUN, and BIG might also be activated. This pattern is also found for words spread across different languages, as central concepts (e.g., horse) that underlie lexical representations, which largely transcend languages (Cummins, 1979; Wang, 2017). The concept of horse, for example, is the same in Chinese as it is in English. However, 85

 Orthographic Learning

phonological and orthographic forms of concepts can differ greatly between languages. For example, knowing the English spelling HORSE provides little insight into recognizing the Chinese equivalent of 马. Although spelled identically, the meaning of PIE (a dessert item) in English differs greatly from PIE (foot) in Spanish. As with monolingual learners, a primary task for multilingual children is to form networked connections among their store of lexical representations. This requires extensive practice recognizing and producing words in varying contexts (Nation, 2017). The challenge of this task is eased when there is overlap between languages. For example, in addition to sharing many words (i.e., cognates), English and Spanish also have similar phonological structures and writing systems. Transferring knowledge between these two languages, then, is considerably easier than in pairs with less phonological and orthographic overlap (August et al., 2002; Wang, Yang, & Cheng, 2009). In contrast to English and Spanish, little is shared between Chinese and English. Consequently, in addition to learning two oral languages, the Chinese-English multilingual child must also learn two systems of writing (Yu & Reichle, 2017). As would be expected, all else being equal, it takes longer to learn two or more languages than one (Bialystok, Craik, Green, & Gollan, 2009). Consequently, the number of words that multilingual children learn in each language is typically smaller than what is acquired by monolingual children (Hoff, 2018). That is to say, a child learning only Chinese will typically achieve a larger Chinese lexicon than a child learning both Chinese and English. However, the sum total of multilingual children’s lexical knowledge may far exceed that of monolingual children. Outcomes vary widely, though, based on when and how the languages are acquired (e.g., simultaneously, sequentially) (Hartshrone, Tenenbaum, & Pinker, 2018; Kim, Park, & Lust, 2018). As we discuss next, the support that children receive for learning their languages also matters a great deal.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Process of Orthographic Learning With little exception, children start out with the same mental hardware and innate endowment for acquiring language (Bloom, 2000; Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002). However, language learning requires rich and sustained input (Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). Indeed, the amount and quality of language exposure in infancy and early childhood strongly predict differences in children’s communicative faculties years later (Rowe, 2014; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). Although this is also true for literacy development, the process by which children learn to read and write differs. That is because the invention and widespread use of writing occurred too recently in our evolutionary history for an endowed capacity for literacy to have developed (Dehaene, 2009). Therefore, in contrast to the ease in which oral language is acquired, written language “...must be painstakingly bolted on” (Pinker, 1997, p. ix). In the following sections, we discuss the process and role of orthographic learning at sublexical and lexical levels for developing literacy.

Sublexical Orthographic Learning In most literate societies, the process of “bolting on” literacy happens early in life through engagement with environmental print and various shared literacy experiences (Bissex, 1980; Rogoff, 1990). Indeed, when provided print engagement opportunities, young children are remarkably adept at quickly developing tacit forms of orthographic knowledge (Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). Prior to formal literacy instruction, for example, both Chinese- and English-speaking children are easily able to differentiate 86

 Orthographic Learning

drawings from writing and letters from numbers (Geva & Willows, 1994; Treiman & Yin, 2011). Beyond these basic functions, children in both languages are also able to identify subtle rules and patterns that govern their writing systems. In a seminal study, Cassar and Treiman (1997) found that children who speak English as their first language (L1) demonstrate a preference for words that obey rather than violate orthographic conventions (i.e., permissible versus non-permissible doublets). Importantly, the children in this study had not yet received formal decoding or spelling instruction, and the authors inferred that participants’ orthographic knowledge had been acquired through mere print exposure. Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, and Cleeremans (2001) further tested this hypothesis in a study of first-grade French-speaking children. Participants were tasked with selecting which, from a pair of pseudowords (e.g., TUKKE versus TUUKE), was more “word-like.” Unlike in Cassar and Treiman’s (1997) study, both options violated the orthographic conventions in the language the children were tested. In the case of TUKKE versus TUUKE, for example, neither the kk and uu pattern exist in French. In this task, then, children were unable to simply rely on memorized knowledge of orthographic patterns. Rather, it appeared that they applied abstracted rules about their writing system, i.e., they understood that since consonants, but not vowels, can be doubled, TUKKE is more “word-like” than TUUKE (Pacton et al., 2001). Subsequent research has confirmed that children are quite adept at learning orthographic patterns and rules implicitly through exposure to print (Arciuli, 2018; Elleman, Steacy, & Compton, 2019; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Treiman, 2018). Early exposure to and engagement with print, then, is critical for providing young children opportunities to develop an implicit understanding of the rules and patterns that govern their writing system (Seidenberg, & MacDonald, 2018). These foundations prove critical later in development for constraining the learning process. For example, knowing that words in English cannot begin with CK usefully narrows the potential options for spelling CAT. However, skilled reading and writing obviously require more than this implicit form of knowledge. In order to achieve fluent word recognition and production skills, children must develop a large stock of word-specific orthographic representations (Logan, 1997; Share, 1995).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lexical Orthographic Learning Ehri’s Theory of Orthographic Mapping (2014) explains, at least for English L1 children, how implicit orthographic knowledge is brought into explicit control. In Ehri’s four-phase model, children gradually develop an understanding of the mapping, or relation, between their language and writing system. As in other accounts of orthographic learning (e.g., Pollo, Treiman, & Kessler, 2008; Rau, Moeller, & Landerl, 2014; Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005), Ehri (2014) posits a developmental progression in which children utilize varying strategies (e.g., phonological, orthographic, morphological) to recognize progressively larger orthographic units (e.g., letters, rimes, words). According to Ehri (2014), children’s learning commences in the pre-alphabetic phase. As the name suggests, children in this phase show no appreciation for the alphabetic principle. However, they are not without knowledge of their writing system, but possess a tacit understanding of the relation between language and print. For example, as we saw above, they are easily able to differentiate print from drawings (Geva & Willows, 1994). Furthermore, they often attend to semantic features when “writing” words (Bialystok, 1992). For example, when prompted to write mosquito and dinosaur, children in this phase have been shown to write mosquito using smaller print, despite the equal number of phonemes and letters in each (Zhang & Treiman, 2015) (see also Kkese in this volume). 87

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Orthographic Learning

As children develop an understanding of sound-symbol relations, they enter the partial alphabetic phase (Ehri, 2014). In English, this is characterized by the practice of “invented spelling” in which children apply rudimentary phonics skills to produce phonologically plausible but orthographically unconventional spellings such as GNYS (genius) (Bissex, 1980). With the adoption of more conventional spellings, children enter the full alphabetic phase (Ehri, 2014). In orthographically transparent languages – those with close sound-symbol mappings (e.g., Spanish) – this marks the endpoint in development. However, in quasi-regular orthographies, such as English, a fourth phase is required. In this final, consolidated phase, children become aware of the morphological influences on their writing system (Ehri, 2014). For example, to preserve the meaning of the -ED suffix (i.e., past tense marker), its spelling is preserved for three different pronunciations (e.g., ACTED, SMILED, JUMPED). Central to Ehri’s (2014) account of orthographic learning is the importance of phonological decoding. Similarly, Share’s (1995) Self-Teaching Hypothesis (STH) positions phonological decoding as the sine qua non of orthographic learning. Indeed, the STH posits that it is the process of pairing a word’s phonological and orthographic forms that secures it memory. In an early test of the STH, Share (1999) asked a sample of Hebrew L1 participants to read ten brief texts with one of 10 target nonsense words (e.g., ELZACH) embedded within each. Three days later, he administered three measures of orthographic learning: orthographic choice, naming, and spelling. Results from each measure showed evidence of orthographic learning. On the choice task, for example, participants reliably selected target nonsense words over foils with similar spellings (e.g., ELZACH and ELZCAH). To further test his hypothesis, Share (1999) investigated if disrupting phonological decoding would impair children’s orthographic learning. To do this, he presented participants with target words but prevented them from phonologically decoding. He found that in this condition, orthographic learning was greatly attenuated. Subsequent replications of these findings by Share (1999) and others provide strong causal evidence for the role of phonological decoding, during oral and silent reading, for orthographic learning in at least English, Hebrew, and Dutch (Bowey & Miller, 2007; Bowey & Muller, 2005; Cunningham, 2006; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Share, 2002; de Jong, Bitter, van Setten, & Marinus, 2009; Kyte & Johnson, 2006; Share, 1999; 2004). If phonological decoding alone was sufficient for orthographic learning, we might expect to learn every word that we encounter and successfully decode in text. However, this is certainly not the case. Some words stick in our memory and others do not. Indeed, Nagy, Herman, and Anderson (1985) estimate that we only learn between 5% and 15% of the words that we encounter while reading. Share (2004) examined why this might be the case. In a study, similar to the one described above, he tested a sample of Hebrew L1 children’s orthographic learning. This time, however, he varied the number of target word exposures to one, two and four times. He then tested participants’ orthographic learning three, seven, and 30 days later. Remarkably, participants demonstrated evidence of orthographic learning after only one exposure. Furthermore, these effects were maintained up 30 days later. Nation, Angells, and Castles (2007) also found evidence of orthographic learning from a single word exposure with a sample of English L1 participants. However, participants’ orthographic representations were weakly formed and maintained for only one day. In a subsequent study, Tamura, Castles, and Nation (2017) further explored the effects of varying exposures on the durability of English L1 children’s orthographic learning. They found that participants’ orthographic representations strengthened over multiple exposures. Indeed, a threshold of four exposures is needed to develop a strong enough representation to perform above chance on a recognition task. From these findings, we see that the durability of orthographic learning appears to be mediated by the language and writing system to which children are exposed. It may be the case that in 88

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Orthographic Learning

more orthographically transparent languages, such as Hebrew, fewer encounters are needed to develop a memory trace strong enough for subsequent recognition (Logan, 1997; Share, 2004). Conversely, in languages with more opaque sound-symbol mapping systems, more exposures may be needed. However, the small number of studies and limited sample of languages here precludes any strong conclusions. Additional research is certainly needed to further examine this question. Furthermore, little can be gleaned from this regarding how many exposures are needed to develop mental representations with sufficient strength to later spell, rather than simply recognize, a word (Bosman & Van Orden, 1997; Conrad, 2008). In the discussion above on the LQH, we saw that knowing the meaning of word, in addition to its phonological and orthographic forms, strengthens the quality of its lexical representation (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). It follows then that situations that reveal semantic forms, in contrast to those that do not, should better facilitate orthographic learning. This question has been examined through two lines of research. First, researchers have studied orthographic learning for words presented in extended text, as often encountered through reading, or in isolation. If indeed semantic information is supportive of orthographic learning, then words should be better learned when presented in context than in isolation. The former provides cues that can be used to predict the syntactical and semantic forms of upcoming words; the latter provides no such information. In an early study, Landi, Perfetti, Bolger, Dunlap, and Foorman (2006) exposed English L1 children, between 5-8 years old, to novel words either in isolation or embedded within texts. They found that children read words more accurately in context than in isolation. However, words learned in isolation were retained better than those learned in context. In a similarly designed study, also with English L1 children, Nation, Angell, and Castles (2007) did not find any context effects; that is, words were learned and retained no better when presented in isolation than when presented in context. Wang, Castles, Nickels, and Nation (2011) also found no context effects for phonologically regular words. However, they found that phonologically irregular words were learned better when presented in context than when presented in isolation. Li, Wang, and Sherlock (submitted) found in a sample of fifth-grade Chinese L1 English as a second language (L2) children that novel words were learned better when presented in context than in isolation. Martin-Chang and colleagues (Martin-Chang, 2017; Martin-Chang & Levy, 2005; Martin-Chang, Levy, & O’Neil, 2007) also found evidence that words are retained better when learned in context than in isolation. However, this was only found for reading; for spelling, words learned in isolation seem to be better retained (Martin-Chang & Levesque, 2013; Martin-Chang, Ouellette, & Bond, 2017). We see from this literature that the role of context in orthographic learning varies depending on the type of words (e.g., regular or irregular), the target learning outcomes (e.g., reading or spelling), and the learner’s language profile. More research is certainly needed to clarify these conflicting results. In the second line of research, researchers have more directly tested the role of semantic information on children’s orthographic learning by contrasting conditions in which target meanings of words are either taught or not. Ouellette and Fraser (2009) taught 10 target nonwords (words that are phonologically decodable but that have no meaning, e.g., WUG) to a sample of English L1 fourth grade children. Five of these words were presented with semantic information and the other five without. Participants were then tested on their ability to identify and spell the targets one and four days later. Ouellette and Fraser (2009) found that recognition was significantly better for words presented in the semantic condition, suggesting a facilitative effect of semantic knowledge of orthographic learning. However, Ricketts, Bishop, Pimperton, and Nation (2011) failed to replicate this finding. In their study with 7- and 8-year-old English L1 children, they found that semantic knowledge was not predictive of orthographic learning. However, Mimeau, Ricketts, and Deacon (2018) found that both orthographic and semantic learning 89

 Orthographic Learning

were predictive of word reading. Furthermore, Y. Li, Li, and Wang (in press), who studied Chinese orthographic learning among a sample of Mandarin-speaking third graders (n = 24) in China, also found that providing children with semantic information facilitated their orthographic learning. Results from these studies suggest that similar to phonological representations, semantic representations provide useful anchors for acquiring orthographic knowledge. However, more research is needed to understand the varying conditions under which this may be the case. Much of the research to date has focused on orthographic learning with monolingual children. Consequently, it is unclear precisely what we can infer from these findings regarding multilingual children. Several studies, however, have directly examined orthographic learning with multilingual participants and between languages. In the first of these, Schwartz, Kahn-Horwitz, and Share (2014) examined how prior L1 orthographic knowledge affected children’s L2 orthographic learning. They tested English orthographic learning with a sample of Russian L1/Hebrew L2, Hebrew L1/Russian L2, and Hebrew L1 children. Participants in each group demonstrated English orthographic learning, with the Russian L1/ Hebrew L2 children outperforming the others. Schwartz et al. (2014) interpreted this as evidence that the closer proximity between Russian and English than between Hebrew and English had a facilitative effect on children’s orthographic learning. That is, participants were more able to transfer orthographic knowledge between Russian and English than between Hebrew and English. Li, Wang, and Sherlock (submitted) similarly found an L1 effect on children’s orthographic learning. For example, in Chinese, there are no consonant clusters (e.g., ). Consequently, Chinese L1 children’s English L2 orthographic learning was stronger for words that did not contain consonant clusters (e.g., CAP) than for words that did (e.g., CLAP). Chung, Chen, Commissaire, Krenca, and Deacon (2019) examined French L2 orthographic learning with a sample of 52 English L1 children in grades 4 and 6. Similar to Schwartz et al. (2014), they found evidence of L2 orthographic learning. However, they did not find a L1 facilitative effect. Participants in their study learned words with orthographic patterns shared between English and French (e.g., OSE) no better than words with uniquely French patterns (e.g., EURT). The reason for these divergent findings is unclear. More research is needed with a broader range of participants and language and script comparisons. However, these initial findings suggest that children apply the same self-teaching mechanisms for orthographic learning in their second languages (Chung et al., 2019; Schwartz et al., 2014) as in their first language. Furthermore, as theorists have posited for years, orthographic knowledge in a first language can affect orthographic learning in a second (Schwartz et al., 2014).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Developing skilled literacy depends on a sophisticated lexicon comprised of thousands of words. Children gradually accumulate this knowledge through various forms of engagement with print (Nation, 2017). Beginning in the primary grades, much of children’s lexical knowledge is acquired independently through reading (Share, 1995). However, this process is gradual, with children usually learning only 5-15 of every 100 novel words that they encounter in text (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). It is critical, then, that children read often from a wide variety of sources (Nation, 2017). This requires children to develop fluency reading at the word and discourse levels (Adams, 2008). In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss practices designed to support prekindergarten through school-aged children in developing the orthographic knowledge needed for fluent reading.

90

 Orthographic Learning

Reading Fluency Although fluency is widely recognized as an important factor in skilled reading and writing (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Espin & Deno, 2016; L. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Stahl, 2004), its application in these two domains has often suffered from definitional haziness (Biancarosa & Shanley, 2016; Latif, 2013; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). This is probably because fluency is not only a cognitive process, but rather, as Oppenheimer (2008) states, “...the subjective experience of ease or difficulty with which we are able to process information…” (p. 237). As it relates to reading, fluency entails both automaticity and prosody (Rasinki & Samuels, 2011), i.e., the ability to automatically recognize text and to read it with the rhythm, intonation, and pitch of spoken language. Word-level fluency develops gradually through repeated encounters with words (Logan, 1997; Nation, 2017; Share, 1995). Initially, weak orthographic representations are formed resulting in slow and inaccurate processing. However, upon subsequent encounters, these representations are strengthened, resulting in an increase in processing speed and accuracy (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014; Share, 2008b). This, in effect, frees cognitive resources for higher-level comprehension processes (L. Fuchs et al., 2001). Models of writing fluency posit similar processes and effects (Kellogg, 1996; McCutchen, 1996; Ritchey et al. 2016). Reading fluency is often considered only at the discourse level. However, clear evidence is presented in the section above for the importance also of word-level fluency (Pagán, Bird, Hsiao, & Nation, in press). Indeed, children’s discourse processing is constrained by their ability to quickly and accurately process words (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). We have shown that children’s facility with word-level processing depends in large measure on environmental factors (for a discussion of genetic factors that affect children’s literacy development, see Olson, Keenan, Byrne, and Samuelsson, 2014). General and word-specific orthographic knowledge is acquired gradually through a myriad of reading and writing experiences (Nation, 2017). In the sections that follow, we focus on three research and evidence-based instructional practices aimed at supporting children’s orthographic learning, and ultimately reading and writing fluency: 1. Shared Reading, 2. Word Analysis, and 3. Independent and Peer-Assisted Reading.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Shared Reading Shared reading is a common activity for many young children and their caregivers (see also Aerila & Kauppinen in this volume). Although this practice can take many forms, it occurs when an adult or older child reads aloud to a younger child. This simple activity provides a unique opportunity for exposing young children to concepts, vocabulary, and language that are critical for later school outcomes, but are rarely found in other modes of communication (Montag, Jones, & Smith, 2015; Sénéchal, Pagan, Lever, & Ouellette, 2008). As a result, reading and discussing books with young children can yield large effects on children’s subsequent language, literacy, and broader educational development (Mol & Bus, 2011; Muhinyi & Rowe, 2019). Shared reading can also serve as a powerful tool for building children’s orthographic knowledge (Justice & Ezell, 2002; Pullen & Justice, 2003). Indeed, Justice and colleagues (2002, 2003) have shown that a variety of simple verbal and nonverbal moves can improve children’s attention to and understanding of print. For example, parents and teachers may track the print as they read aloud to children. Doing so conveys both the directionality of writing and also, at a more fundamental level, that print represents language. Such insights may appear obvious to the literate adult but must indeed be learned by children. Teachers may directly engage children in thinking about print with questions and comments (Justice & Ezell, 2002). Books with fanciful print, a variety of long and 91

 Orthographic Learning

short words, and repeated orthographic patterns provide great opportunities for such conversations. By engaging in these activities, teachers can provide young children with useful opportunities to learn the form, function, and rules that govern their writing system(s) (Adams, 1990; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). Such knowledge serves as the foundation for learning how to decode and spell later in schooling.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Word Analysis Orthographic learning entails linking orthographic and phonological forms of words (Share, 2008). To this end, phonological decoding skills are critical (Ehri, 2014; Share, 1995). Fortunately, such “codebased” skills are a major focus in the primary grades (Connor & Al Otaiba, 2015). As a goal of these efforts, children learn the form and structure of their writing system. In English, this entails understanding how phonological, morphological, and etymological factors influence how words are spelled (Ehri, 2014; J. Bowers & Bowers, 2017). For example, JUMP can easily be decoded and spelled by applying phoneme-grapheme correspondence rules. However, reading and writing the past tense form of the word, JUMPED, also relies on the understanding of morphology. As with many other words in English, the past tense is marked in JUMPED with the –ED suffix. This simple convention clearly conveys the tense of the word to the reader. By preserving this spelling, however, simple phoneme-grapheme correspondence rules are abandoned. Whereas –ED represents the /t/ sound in JUMPED, it represents the /d/ and /ed/ sounds in GRILLED and MELTED, respectively. English is notorious for such occurrences (Venezky, 1999), but they are also common to other writing systems (Daniels & Share, 2018). In addition to morphological influences, foreign imports also have complicated simple sound-symbol conversions. For example, the unusual double spelling in SKIING can be traced back to the 18th century adoption into English orthography of a Norwegian spelling for the wintertime sport. Other such imports pervade English orthography (Venezky, 1999) and must be learned in order to reach what Ehri (2014) terms the consolidated phase of decoding and spelling (see above). In order to fluently decode and spell, it is imperative that children learn the structure and conventions of their writing system. In English, Bowers and Bowers (2017) recommend expanding traditional phonics instruction to also emphasize the influences of morphology and etymology. As in the examples above, otherwise unaccountable spellings (e.g., the three sounds associated with –ED, the double in SKIING) can be understood by looking beyond phonic conventions. Similarly, Kearns and Whaley (2019) have recommended teaching children to take into account spelling patterns and rules associated with different syllable types (e.g., closed, open) and morphological families. Word analysis is addressed in a variety of commercial instructional programs. One popular approach is framed within theories of developmental spelling stages/phases. Like the Ehri’s (2014) Theory of Orthographic Mapping, such accounts posit that children progress through various stages/phases defined by the qualitatively distinct linguistic strategies and knowledge. Words Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnson, 2015) and Word Journeys (Ganske, 2014) are two popular examples. In both, feature assessments are used to determine which developmental stage/phase a child is currently in. Instruction is then matched to the child’s performance level. In both programs, instruction entails exposure to sets of words that share a target orthographic pattern (e.g., spelling for /eɪ/ sound). Over the course of multiple days (~1 to 2 weeks), children come to identify and internalize the rules governing these spellings through a variety of sorting and writing activities. Other programs have focused instead on how syllables patterns influence English spelling. One such program, Megawords (Johnson & Bayrd, 2010), teaches students six English syllable patterns: (1) Closed, 92

 Orthographic Learning

(2) Open, (3) r-Controlled, (4) -le, (5) Variant, and (6) Unaccented (Schwa). For each pattern, children are taught associated spelling rules. For example, they learn that in closed syllables, vowel sounds are short and spelled with a single letter (, , , , or ). In contrast, open syllables all contain long vowel sounds that can be spelled with considerably more variability. As with developmental spelling programs, children learn these patterns and rules over multiple days and through a variety of instructional activities. This approach helps to ensure that content is thoroughly learned and generalized. Although children acquire much of their orthographic knowledge through self-teaching (Share, 1995), much of this remains implicit. The goal of word analysis programs, then, is to bring orthographic regularities into clearer view and more explicit control. As discussed above, various approaches have been taken to this end. Indeed, over the years, several word analysis programs have been developed. In selecting from the broad array of options, teachers should aim for programs and practices that accurately and comprehensively reveal the structure of their writing system (J. Bowers & Bowers, 2017). Such instruction is critical for all children. However, it is especially important for multilingual children, particularly when there is an incongruence between the writing systems of their languages (e.g., Chinese and English).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Independent and Peer-Assisted Reading As children enter the school-age years, most of their orthographic learning occurs through independent reading (Nation, 2017). In its most basic form, independent reading simply entails children sitting with a book, iPad, or some other form of text and reading to themselves. The benefits of such leisurely reading are undeniable (Torppa et al., in press). However, a variety of more structured approaches have also been developed and tested (Rasinki & Samuels, 2011). Among these, the practice of repeated reading has received the greatest attention. Two primary variations of this exist. With reference to the first, children read a text selection several times over. Alternatively, for the second approach, children read a variety of texts. The ultimate goal of both approaches is to improve children’s reading fluency; that is, their reading rate, accuracy, and prosody (Rasinki & Samuels, 2011). To this end, both approaches recognize the importance of providing children with multiple encounters with specific words in meaningful contexts in order to develop and refine their orthographic representations (Share, 1995; Nation, 2017). Given the ease with which these practices can be implemented and the substantial benefits they can offer, such interventions should certainly be considered in designing any literacy instructional program (National Reading Panel, 2000). In addition to independent reading, many cooperative and collaborative reading programs also support children’s reading fluency (Klingner, Vaughn, Boardman, & Swanson, 2012; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Zhao & Christison in this volume). As with the independent reading programs described above, many variations of these exist. In most, however, children read texts in dyads or peer groups often with ultimate aim to improve their reading comprehension. As they relate to fluency, these programs typically use similar approaches to those described above for independent reading. However, as Meltzer and colleagues (2015) explain, peers can provide a uniquely powerful source of mentoring, regulation, and motivation. Consequently, the use of peers for teaching and practicing reading fluency skills can yield impressive literacy outcomes (e.g., D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). One such approach is Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS; Fuchs et al., 2001). PALS is an evidence-based program that pairs students of varying reading abilities. These student pairs, then, use a variety of strategies to tutor each other with word recognition, reading fluency, and reading comprehension skills (Kearns, Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Sáenz, L, 2015). In effect, children are provided with frequent and structured op93

 Orthographic Learning

portunities to practice and receive immediate feedback on their reading. In the Teaching Tip, we further detail the components of this program and provide recommendations for implementation. Teaching Tip Mr. Butler is a first-grade English language arts teacher. In his class of 20 students, there are seven English language learners (ELLs). Of these, four are Spanish L1, two Vietnamese L1, and one Chinese L1. Mr. Butler knows that to support the reading comprehension in the upper grades, his students need to develop strong foundations in reading fluency. However, he understands that this may present a particular challenge for his ELL students. One of his students, Giselle, for example, recently immigrated to the United States from Colombia. While she is expressive in Spanish, her English vocabulary is quite limited. Bình and his family also recently immigrated to the United States from Vietnam. Bình has had limited exposure to both spoken and written English. As it is common in many American classrooms (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017), Mr. Butler’s other ELL students similarly have diverse language and literacy experiences. As part of a comprehensive literacy curriculum, Mr. Butler uses Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS; D. Fuchs et al., 2001). PALS is an evidence-based reading program designed to build students’ word- and passage-level fluency (McMaster, D. Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006). Although many such approaches exist (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001), Mr. Butler selected PALS for several reasons. First, cooperative learning is central to the design of the program; that is, students learn directly from each other (Kearns, D. Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Sáenz, 2015). Second, this peer learning is done in heterogeneous groupings. This encourages engagement among students who may otherwise have little interaction (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). For example, during PALS, Giselle is matched with John, an English L1 student. While John commands a superior English vocabulary, Giselle’s knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, even of the English ones, far exceeds his. Together, the two students, are able to support and learn from each other. Third, PALS has been shown in numerous studies to improve student performance on a variety of reading outcome measures (McMaster, D. Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006). Mr. Butler can, therefore, expect that the program will also yield positive outcomes for his students. Mr. Butler allocates 45 minutes three times per week for his students to work on PALS. Each time, he begins by introducing and modeling to the whole class how to read a new letter-sound correspondence (e.g., /k/ for ) and a high-frequency word (e.g., THE). Students are then divided into pairs. These pairings are determined by rank ordering the class, splitting this list in half, matching the highest student from one list to the lowest of the other, and then continuing until all the students have been paired. Once paired, students work on a set of phonics, high frequency words, sentence reading, and book reading activities. For each activity, students follow detailed procedures for providing corrective feedback and encouragement to each other. After completing the phonics, word reading, and sentence reading activities, students practice reading a book of their choice. Importantly, these books are leveled to the lower readers’ ability. The higher reader first models reading a passage. This provides the lower reader with modeling. Then, the lower reader reads aloud the same passage. While reading, peers provide corrective feedback to each other as needed. In his first year, Mr. Butler followed the program guidelines closely. This was important for learning how the program worked and for ensuring implementation fidelity. In subsequent years, however, he adapted the program based on his students’ needs (McMaster et al., 2014). For example, he added English-Spanish cognates to the content and provided additional support for letter-sound correspondences that he found particularly difficult for his multilingual learners. Furthermore, in addition to the phonological and orthographic forms of words, he also began to teach their meanings. This has influenced the words that he has selected for teaching. In these ways, Mr. Butler has been able to effectively support his multilingual learners with developing reading fluency.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Orthographic learning is foundational for skilled literacy as our abilities to read and write hinge on developing and maintaining word-specific orthographic representations. Although considerable previous research has detailed how these representations are stored in memory (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014), less attention has focused on how these presentations are formed; in this chapter, we examined this issue. Throughout, we considered the role of environmental input. We showed that although children are endowed with powerful inductive learning mechanisms, rich and varied experiences with print are required throughout development (Nation, 2017; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). For instance, we illustrated how the simple act of reading to children, particularly in ways that emphasize print (Justice & Ezell, 2002), can support their understanding of the form, function, and governing rules of their writing system (Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). Building upon these early, often implicit foundations, children gradually develop explicit knowledge of their writing system. This follows a developmental

94

 Orthographic Learning

progression in which children apply varying strategies to recognize progressively larger orthographic units (e.g., letters, rime units, words) (Ehri, 2014). Central to this process of developing word-specific mental representations is linkage of the phonological, orthographic, and semantic forms of words (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). This at least partially accounts for the challenge that many multilingual learners experience in acquiring L2 vocabulary knowledge. Without phonological and semantic representations to anchor their orthographic representations, words are not easily learned (Adams, 2008; MancillaMartinez & Lesaux, 2011). Word-level reading and writing instruction, then, should focus on teaching these multiple linguistic representations (Kearns & Al Ghanem, 2019). Furthermore, children should be provided with regular opportunities to engage in the wide and varied reading needed for orthographic learning (Nation, 2017). In doing so, multilingual children may be better equipped to learn the thousands of words needed to meaningfully access and engage with the complex texts commonly used in today classrooms and beyond (Adams, 2009).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The second author was supported by the Spencer Foundation under Grant Number 201900053 awarded by the University of Maryland. The third author was supported by a University of Maryland Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation under Grant number 1449815 awarded to the University of Maryland. Discussion Questions 1. What challenges do multilingual students confront in orthographic learning? Specifically, how might multiple languages and writing systems complicate the learning process? In what ways are multilingual students advantaged and disadvantaged in this process? 2. As it relates to orthographic learning, why is it important for children to read large volumes of texts? How can teachers support multilingual children to this end? 3. Why is it beneficial to teach word meanings along with their spelling? Why might this be particularly important for multilingual children?

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J. (2008). The limits of the self-teaching hypothesis. In S. B. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America: Top experts tackle poverty, literacy, and achievement in our schools (pp. 277–300). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2 Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., & Masterson, J. (2019). Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading and Writing, 32(4), 873–889. doi:10.100711145-018-9895-9

95

 Orthographic Learning

Arciuli, J. (2018). Reading as statistical learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3S), 634–643. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-STLT1-17-0135 PMID:30120442 August, D., Calderón, M., & Carlo, M. (2002). Transfer of skills from Spanish to English: A study of young learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2005.00120.x Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, F. (2015). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Bialystok, E. (1992). Symbolic representation of letters and numbers. Cognitive Development, 7(3), 301–316. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(92)90018-M Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. doi:10.1177/1529100610387084 PMID:26168404 Biancarosa, G., & Shanley, L. (2016). What is fluency? In K. D. Cummings, & Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_1 Bissex, G. L. (1980). GNYS at WRK: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/3577.001.0001 Bosman, A. M. T., & van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 173–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 124–141. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571 Bowey, J. A., & Miller, R. (2007). Correlates of orthographic learning in third-grade children’s silent reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(2), 115–128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00335.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bowey, J. A., & Muller, D. (2005). Phonological recoding and rapid orthographic learning in thirdgraders’ silent reading: A critical test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(3), 203–219. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.06.005 PMID:16095604 Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 631–644. doi:10.1037/00220663.89.4.631 Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11(41), 63–65. doi:10.1093/mind/ os-XI.41.63

96

 Orthographic Learning

Chen, X., & Pasquarella, A. (2017). Learning to read in Chinese. In L. Verhoeven, & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 31–56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752.002 Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. doi:10.1177/0741088301018001004 Connor, C. M., & Al Otaiba, S. A. (2015). Primary grade reading instruction in the United States. In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 415–430). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869–878. doi:10.1037/a0012544 Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139196970 Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222 Cunningham, A. E. (2006). Account for children’s orthographic learning while reading text: Do children self-teach? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95(1), 56–77. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.03.008 PMID:16714031 Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Share, D. L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading: Examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82(3), 185–199. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00008-5 PMID:12093106 Daniels, P. T., & Share, D. L. (2018). Writing system variation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(1), 101–116. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1379082 de Jong, P. F., Bitter, D. J. L., van Setten, M., & Marinus, E. (2009). Does phonological recoding occur during silent reading, and is it necessary for orthographic learning? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(3), 267–282. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.06.002 PMID:19608198 Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, J. B. (2018). Visual word recognition in multilinguals. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 118–143). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/19345740802539200

97

 Orthographic Learning

Elleman, A. M., Steacy, L. M., & Compton, D. L. (2019). The role of statistical learning in word reading and spelling development: More questions than answers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(1), 1–7. doi :10.1080/10888438.2018.1549045 PMID:30718941 Espin, C. A., & Deno, S. L. (2016). Conclusion: Oral reading fluency or reading aloud from text: An analysis through a unified view of construct validity. In K. D. Cummings & Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 365–384). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_13 Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11001841 PMID:22929057 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Svenson, E., Yen, L., Thompson, A., McMaster, K., ... Braun, M. (2001). Peerassisted learning strategies: First grade reading. Nashville, TN: Center on Accelerating Student Learning. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3 Ganske, K. (2014). Word Journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford. Geva, E., & Willows, D. (1994). Orthographic knowledge is orthographic knowledge is orthographic knowledge. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge. Neuropsychology and Cognition (Vol. 8). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3492-9_11 Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007 PMID:29729947 Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. doi:10.1126cience.298.5598.1569 PMID:12446899

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hiebert, E. H., Goodwin, A. P., & Cervetti, G. N. (2018). Core vocabulary: Its morphological content and presence in exemplar texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 29–49. doi:10.1002/rrq.183 Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2009). Repetition of words: The forgotten variable in texts for beginning and struggling readers. In E. H. Hiebert, & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 47–69). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2015). Changes in the texts of reading instruction during the past 50 years. In P. D. Pearson, & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 215–236). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hoff, E. (2018). Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 80–86. doi:10.1111/cdep.12262 PMID:29805472

98

 Orthographic Learning

Hoffman, P., McClelland, J. L., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2018). Concepts, control, and context: A connectionist account of normal and disorder semantic cognition. Psychological Review, 125(3), 293–328. doi:10.1037/rev0000094 PMID:29733663 Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company. Jitendra, A. K., Nolet, V., Xin, N. P., Gomez, O., Renouf, K., Iskold, L., & DaCosta, J. (2001). An analysis of middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(2), 151–173. doi:10.1080/105735601300007606 Johnson, K., & Bayrd, P. (2010). Megawords: Decoding, spelling, and understanding multisyllabic words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: School Specialty Inc. Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 17–29. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/003) Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. Advances in Psychology, 94, 67–84. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62789-2 Kearns, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. L., & Sáenz, L. (2015). Peer-assisted learning strategies to improve students’ word recognition and reading comprehension. In K. R. Harris, & L. Meltzer (Eds.), The power of peers in the classroom: Enhancing learning and social skills (pp. 143–187). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Kearns, D. M., & Al Ghanem, R. (2019). The role of semantic information in children’s word reading: Does meaning affect readers’ ability to say polysyllabic words aloud? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 933–956. doi:10.1037/edu0000316 Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kim, A.-Y., Park, A., & Lust, B. (2018). Simultaneous vs. successive bilingualism among preschoolaged children: A study of four-year-old Korean-English bilinguals in the USA. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 164–178. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1145186 Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A., & Swanson, E. (2012). Now we get it: Boosting comprehension with collaborative strategic reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kyte, C. S., & Johnson, C. J. (2006). The role of phonological recoding in orthographic learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(2), 166–185. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.09.003 PMID:16246358 Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211 Landi, N., Perfetti, C. A., Bolger, D. J., Dunlap, S., & Foorman, B. R. (2006). The role of discourse context in developing word form representations: A paradoxical relation between reading and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(2), 114–133. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.12.004 PMID:16600285

99

 Orthographic Learning

Latif, M. M. M. A. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 99–105. doi:10.1093/applin/ams073 Li, X., Bicknell, K., Liu, P., Wei, W., & Rayner, K. (2014). Reading is fundamentally similar across disparate writing systems: A systematic characterization of how words and characters influence eye movements in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(2), 895–913. doi:10.1037/ a0033580 PMID:23834023 Li, Y., Wang, M., & Sherlock, D. R. (submitted). Orthographic learning in Chinese L1 English L2 children. Li, Y., Li, H., & Wang, M. (2019, September 19). The roles of phonological recoding, semantic radicals and writing practice in orthographic learning in Chinese. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1–12. doi:10.1 080/10888438.2019.1663199 Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 123–146. doi:10.1080/1057356970130203 Logan, J. A. R., Justice, L., Yumus, M., & Chaparro-Moreno, L. J. (2019). When children are not read to at home: The million word gap. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(5), 383–386. doi:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000657 PMID:30908424 Lyovin, A., Kessler, B., & Leben, W. (2017). An introduction to the languages of the world (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2011.01633.x PMID:21848955 Martin-Chang, S. (2017). Learning to read with and without feedback, in and out of context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 233–244. doi:10.1037/edu0000131 Martin-Chang, S., & Levesque, K. (2013). Taken out of context: Differential processing in contextual and isolated word reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(3), 330–349. doi:10.1111/j.14679817.2011.01506.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Martin-Chang, S., Ouellette, G., & Bond, L. (2017). Differential effects of context and feedback on orthographic learning: How good is good enough? Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(1), 17–30. doi:10. 1080/10888438.2016.1263993 Martin-Chang, S. L., & Levy, B. A. (2005). Fluency transfer: Differential gains in reading speed and accuracy following isolated word and context training. Reading and Writing, 18(4), 343–376. doi:10.100711145-005-0668-x Martin-Chang, S. L., Levy, B. A., & O’Neil, S. (2007). Word acquisition, retention, and transfer: Findings from contextual and isolated word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 37–56. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.08.004 PMID:17034812 McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325. doi:10.1007/BF01464076

100

 Orthographic Learning

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/10573560500203491 McMaster, K. L., Jing, P.-G., Brandes, D., Pinto, V., Fuchs, D., Kearns, D., ... Yen, L. (2014). Customizing a research-based reading practice: Balancing the importance of implementation fidelity with professional judgment. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 173–183. doi:10.1002/trtr.1301 Meltzer, L., Greschler, M., Kurkul, K., & Stacey, W. (2015). Executive functioning and peer mentoring: Fostering metacognitive awareness, effort, and academic success. In K. R. Harris, & L. Meltzer (Eds.), The power of peers in the classroom: Enhancing learning and social skills (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Guilford. Minmeau, C., Ricketts, J., & Deacon, S. H. (2018). The role of orthographic and semantic learning in word reading and reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(5), 384–400. doi:10.1080/ 10888438.2018.1464575 Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890 PMID:21219054 Montag, J. L., Jones, M. N., & Smith, L. B. (2015). The words children hear: Picture books and the statistics for language learning. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1489–1496. doi:10.1177/0956797615594361 PMID:26243292 Muhinyi, A., & Rowe, M. L. (2019). Shared reading with preverbal infants and later language development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 64, 101053. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101053 Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253. doi:10.2307/747758 Nation, K. (2017). Nurturing a lexical legacy: reading experience is critical for the development of word reading skill. npj Science of Learning, 2(3). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539017-0004-7

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.06.004 PMID:16904123 Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2017). Putting the learning in orthographic learning. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 147–168). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075wll.15.09nat National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). National assessment for education progress reading report card. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.

101

 Orthographic Learning

Olson, R. K., Keenan, J. M., Byrne, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2014). Why do children differ in their development of reading and related skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 38–54. doi:10.1080/108884 38.2013.800521 PMID:25104901 Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014 PMID:18468944 Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning in real word context: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(3), 401–426. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.401 PMID:11561917 Pagán, A., Bird, M., Hsiao, Y., & Nation, K. (2019, September 29). Both semantic diversity and frequency influence children’s sentence reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1–9. doi:10.1080/108884 38.2019.1670664 Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.12071532690xci0102_1 Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687 Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1), 3–24. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_02 Pinker, S. (1997). Foreword. In D. McGuinness (Ed.), Why our children can’t read: And what we can do about it. New York, NY: The Free Press. Pollo, T. C., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2008). Three perspectives on spelling development. In E. L. Grigorenko, & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 175–191). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. C. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in preschool children. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(2), 87–98. doi:10.1177/10 534512030390020401

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Rasinski, T. V., & Samuels, S. J. (2011). Reading fluency: What it is and what it is not. In S. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 94–114). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0829.04 Rau, A. K., Moeller, K., & Landerl, K. (2014). The transition from sublexical to lexical processing in a consistent orthography: An eye-tracking study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(3), 224–233. doi:10 .1080/10888438.2013.857673 Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V. M., Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2011). The role of self-teaching in learning orthographic and semantic aspects of words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 47–70. doi:10.1080/ 10888438.2011.536129 Ritchey, K. D., McMaster, K. L., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C. S., Kim, Y.-S. G., Parker, D. C., & Ortiz, M. (2016). Indicators of fluent writing in beginning writers. In K. D. Cummings, & Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 21–66). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_2

102

 Orthographic Learning

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70(2), 332–348. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00025 PMID:10218258 Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rowe, M. L. (2014). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762–1774. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2012.01805.x PMID:22716950 Schwartz, M., Kahn-Horwitz, J., & Share, D. L. (2014). Orthographic learning and self-teaching in a bilingual and biliterate context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117, 45–58. doi:10.1016/j. jecp.2013.08.008 PMID:24140992 Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2018). The impact of language experience on language and reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 38(1), 66–83. doi:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000144 Sénéchal, M., Pagan, S., Lever, R., & Ouellette, G. P. (2008). Relations among the frequency of shared reading and 4-year old children’s vocabulary, morphological and syntax comprehension, and narrative skills. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 27–44. doi:10.1080/10409280701838710 Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859 PMID:12803812 Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 PMID:7789090 Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72(2), 95–129. doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2481 PMID:9927525 Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(4), 267–298. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.001 PMID:15050455

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Share, D. L. (2008a). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615. doi:10.1037/00332909.134.4.584 PMID:18605821 Share, D. L. (2008b). Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 31–82. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(08)00002-5 PMID:18808041 Snow, C. E., & Kang, J. Y. (2007). Becoming bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural. In A. N. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 75–102). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge or academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008

103

 Orthographic Learning

Tamura, N., Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2017). Orthographic learning, fast and slow: Lexical competition effects reveal the time course of word learning in developing readers. Cognition, 163, 93–102. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.002 PMID:28314178 Torppa, M., Niemi, P., Vasalampi, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Tolvanen, A., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2019, March 30). Leisure reading (but not any kind) and reading comprehension support each other – a longitudinal study across grade 1 and 9. Child Development, cdev.13241. doi:10.1111/cdev.13241 PMID:30927457 Treiman, R. (2018). Statistical learning and spelling. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3S), 644–652. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-STLT1-17-0122 PMID:30120443 Treiman, R., & Yin, L. (2011). Early differentiation between drawing and writing in Chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(4), 786–801. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.013 PMID:21106204 Tucker, R., Castles, A., Laroche, A., & Deacon, S. H. (2016). The nature of orthographic learning in self-teaching: Testing the extent of transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 79–94. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.12.007 PMID:26826469 Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. doi:10.1002/rrq.104 Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. New York, NY: Guildford. Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (Eds.). (2017). Learning to read across languages and writing systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752 Wagner, R. K., & Barker, T. A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge. Neuropsychology and Cognition (pp. 243–276). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3492-9_8 Wagner, R. K., Muse, A. E., & Tannenbaum, K. R. (Eds.). (2006). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Wang, H.-C., Castles, A., Nickels, L., & Nation, K. (2011). Context effects on orthographic learning of regular and irregular words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(1), 39–57. doi:10.1016/j. jecp.2010.11.005 PMID:21315372 Wang, M. (2017). Learning and second language. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 131–153). New York, NY: Routledge. Wang, M., Yang, C., & Cheng, C. (2009). The contributions of phonology, orthography, and morphology in Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 291–314. doi:10.1017/ S0142716409090122 Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2

104

 Orthographic Learning

Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A systematic review of research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226. doi:10.1002/rrq.163 Yu, L., & Reichle, E. D. (2017). Chinese versus English: Insights on cognition during reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(10), 721–724. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.004 PMID:28676283 Zhang, L., & Treiman, R. (2015). Writing dinosaur large and mosquito small: Prephonological spellers’ use of semantic information. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(6), 434–445. doi:10.1080/10888438.20 15.1072820 PMID:27064560 Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 PMID:15631549

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Biliteracy: The ability to read and write in more than one language. Lexical Representation: A mental representation at approximately the word-level. Multilingualism: The ability to communicate in more than one language. Orthographic Knowledge: Broadly, an understanding of how language is encoded in writing. More specifically, general knowledge about the rules, patterns, and word-specific forms of written language. Orthographic Learning: The cognitive process by which orthographic knowledge is acquired. Orthographic Representation: A word-specific, mental representation of word spelling. Orthography: The system used to encode language into writing. Phonological Representation: A mental representation of how a word is pronounced. Reading: The ability to draw an intended meaning from a text. Semantic Representation: The mental representation of a word’s meaning. Sublexial Representation: The mental representation of a subcomponent of a word (e.g., letters, phonemes). Visual Word Recognition: The ability to recognize printed words (i.e., read). Writing: The ability to convey information in a written, symbolic form.

ENDNOTES Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1



Throughout this chapter, we use the convention of presenting word spellings in capital letters (e.g., CAT), enclosing sounds in slashes (e.g., /cat/) and letters in brackets (e.g., ), and referring to word-level concepts in italics (e.g., cat).

105

Orthographic Learning

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., & Masterson, J. (2019). Orthographic knowledge: clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading & Writing, 32(4), 873–889. This recent review provides a detailed definition and discussion of orthographic knowledge. It overviews the major theories, experimental studies, and practical implications of research in this area. Furthermore, it provides recommendations for future research. 2. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.  This recent monograph provides a detailed and authoritative account of reading development and evidence-based reading instruction. They provide a detailed account of the role of orthographic learning in reading development and its relation to other reading constructs (e.g., vocabulary, comprehension). The article also provides recommendations for how to design and implement instruction aimed at building children’s orthographic knowledge and orthographic learning faculties. 3. Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2017). Putting the learning in orthographic learning. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 147–168). Philadelphia, PA: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.  

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This review article provides a detailed and nuanced discussion of central theories and recent research on orthographic learning. The authors discuss advances in both theory and methods for studying orthographic learning. They conclude with recommendations for future research in this area.

106

Section 2

Multimodal Approaches to Literacy Development

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 2 discusses various ways in which different modalities (e.g., visual, audio, digital, virtual) can deepen students’ literacy skills in culturally and linguistically diverse classroom settings. The chapters in this section highlight the shifts and developments in today’s classrooms that call for the integration and recognition of varying combinations of tools to create a learning environment that adequately prepares learners to communicate effectively in an increasingly multimodal world. They discuss pedagogical applications that combine two or more modes to enhance students’ literacy skills.

108

Chapter 6

Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners Christina Nicole Giannikas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5653-6803 Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus

ABSTRACT Digital technologies have become an important part of language learning and teaching across the globe at various levels of education. The advances in question have altered texts and tools available to teachers and students and have given practitioners and researchers a new understanding of L2 literacy development. More specifcally, the successful attempts of integrating the blogosphere in language education suggest the improvement of L2 writing. Through blogging, students are given the opportunity to use the new language they are learning and new technologies to strengthen social bonds and express their thoughts and refections on the online platform. This chapter elaborates on the use of the blog in teenage learners’ L2 literacy in the digital age, and examines the impact that blogs have on the authorship, personal expression, writing fuency, and confdence of the L2 teenage language learner. The chapter also ofers a theoretical, practical scope to establish the full perspective of integrating blogs into the language classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Literacy refers the understanding, evaluation, the ability to use and engage with written text in order to achieve one’s goals and develop one’s knowledge and potential (OECD, 2013). Learning to write in either a first (L1), second language (L2), or foreign language is one of the most challenging tasks that one can endeavor (Archibald, 2004). However, in a number of learning contexts across the globe, the writing task is more concerned with the form rather than with abstract thinking to construct meaning. Richards’ (1990) observations show that the process of moving from concepts, thoughts, and ideas to DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch006

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

their written form is rather complex. This is due to the fact that writing is a difficult skill to develop and master, as it demands syntactic and lexical knowledge in the L2, and the capacity to organize and present thoughts in a way that can be clearly communicated to the reader (Quintero, 2008). The complex area of writing can bring anxiety to language learners. Researchers have made suggestions on how teachers can assist and tackle students’ writing anxiety. Lee (2001), for instance, has suggested that there needs to be an appropriate relationship of writing apprehension to the revision process, and the selection of a relatable topic would be a positive factor for students’ learning writing and reducing their anxiety. Anxiety, however, is a very complex area that can cause problems to the majority of students in both the L1 and the L2. Rollinson (2005) has suggested that students’ anxiety can be released via peer feedback. This suggestion is valid as it can help discharge students’ negative emotion. Digital technology can be employed to put this suggestion to practice and to support students with their writing. One of the greatest transformations in the teaching of literacy in the 21st century is that our understanding of the term has challenged the traditional understanding of literacy. While traditionally literacy was seen as being only about the ability to read and write, more recently the term has come to encompass the barrage of technological and digital innovations of today (Kinkead-Clark, 2017). Digital technologies have become a pivotal part of English language learning and teaching across the globe (see Ruhe in this volume). The advances in question have altered texts and tools available to teachers and students and have given practitioners and researchers a new understanding of L2 literacy development. In the light of these advances, several studies have lent support to the assertion that Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and their contribution to language education have been beneficial to the development of L2 literacy (Chapelle, 2009; Hubbard, 2008). A form of CMC that has provided a number of benefits to L2 literacy development is the blogosphere. The blogging experience in a language learning setting provides the potential for alternative expression and reflection, leading to deeper learning (Bartlett-Bragg, 2003). Empirical studies have described successful attempts of integrating the blogosphere in language education for the purpose of improving L2 writing and developing an L2 community of writers (Downes, 2014; Hourigan & Murray, 2010; Quintero, 2008). More specifically, research has explored how teenage learners use language and new technologies in order to strengthen social bonds and articulate their thoughts and reflections online (Guzzetti & Gamboa, 2005; Lankshear & Knobel, 2002), and through social networks (Grinter & Palen, 2002; Lewis & Fabos, 2005; Shiu & Lenhart, 2004). The outcomes present various perspectives of L2 literacy development a teenage learner may endure in the digital age. Students and teachers are now presented with a world of online resources and platforms that can intrigue them to explore literacy in a different learning environment, using a different approach. The present chapter elaborates on the use of blogs in teenage learners’ L2 literacy in the digital age, and the impact blogs have on the authorship, personal expression, writing fluency, and confidence of the L2 teenage language learner. Furthermore, the chapter offers a theoretical, as well as a practical scope in order to establish the full perspective of integrating blogs into the language classroom.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The advent of new technologies in the language classroom has sparked renewed interest in the field of applied linguistics, as these technologies now play an essential part of language learning and school

109

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

curricula (Richards, 2014). Safieddine (2014) reviewed the literature on the use of Web 2.0 interactive tools in foreign language writing classrooms. The study revealed that Web 2.0 interactive tools have found their way into almost all pedagogical practices in L2 classrooms, especially in L2 literacy. Contemporary social tools, such as blogs, encourage the development of L2 writing (Sun & Chang, 2012), changing the traditional context of L2 literacy and challenging instructional approaches. The use of blogs and similar social media tools has expanded learning and teaching possibilities and practices in ways that were unimaginable a decade ago (Giannikas, 2019a). According to the literature, blogs are mainly supported by the constructivist approach since they promote learner interactions among peers and teachers (Kern, 2006). Through these constructivist approaches, blogging has been found to support students’ emergent literacy development (Gebhard & Herman, 2011). More specifically, Gebhard and Herman’s study showed that the functions for which participants used blogging pushed and expanded their meaning-making repertoires in regard to graphology, lexicogrammar, and discourse semantics. Blogging has been observed to help L2 learners construct knowledge and meaning from past experiences, which can serve as a tool for developing ideas collaboratively (Jones & Brader–Araje, 2002). In such a learning context, teachers can guide their L2 students as they prepare blogging projects and portfolios. Language teachers can use blogs to increase their students’ motivation level and enhance their perceptions toward foreign language learning as blogging provides students the opportunity to solve problems related to their effectiveness (Aydin, 2014). Organized activities can help enhance students’ sharing and exchanging of knowledge, their autonomous learning and self-expression, and their use of blogs as a learning space (Aydin, 2014). Furthermore, research suggests that through ongoing blog-based writing, teachers can help students develop fluency and build confidence in their L2 writing skills (Lee, 2017).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Research Outcomes on the Use of Blogs Sykes, Oskoz and Thorne (2008) argue that blogs allow students individual authorship that could be relevant to a wider community, offering students a more original platform to share their thoughts and grasp the opportunity to interact with others via the written word. The content of a blog becomes the sole responsibility of the author/student, and their decision and objectivity of what to write in order to engage their readership is in their control (Giannikas, 2019a). Similarly, Lee’s (2010) research reported that blogging affords students opportunities for personal expression and collaborative interaction. Nonetheless, research indicates that using blogs to enhance L2 writing skills has considerable effects on language learners with respect to their writing performance, their skills to monitor writing, their perceptions of writing, and their interactions and participation in these online forms of writing projects. This means that blogging “enhances expository, narrative, digital vernacular texts originating in blogs and noted that student-selected or -created expository and narrative prose” (Aydin, 2014, p. 219). Blogs provide learners with opportunities for revision of written materials, the giving and receiving of feedback, and the participation in peer-review activities (Giannikas, 2019a; Liu & Peng, 2009). Research studies that focus on the use of blogs to improve writing skills show that this tool can be easily integrated into a virtual L2 writing environment (Murray & Hourigan, 2008). Their study observed that using blogs for the creative and reflective purposes led to increased confidence and development of learners’ own writing styles. Liu and Peng (2009) found that first-year students who use blogs make more revision-oriented peer comments and are more successful in revising their own written work, providing a suitable platform for learners to interact in an L2 writing course. Robertson (2011) reports on

110

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

a study about the blogs were used for self-reflection as an important aspect of self-directed learning. In the study, participants used their learning journal blogs while planning their own learning, monitoring their progress, and evaluating their own performance. An important consideration from Robertson’s findings is that blogs have the potential to trigger participants’ reflections on their own process by means of interaction through peer feedback. It is vital to consider the fact that students go through three different stages when blogging (Boud, 2011). They write about their experience, attend to feelings, and re-evaluate the experience. Therefore, students in Bound’s study engaged in communication with their readers, reflected on what they had done, how they felt, and what they would do differently in future writing experiences. Giannikas’s (2019a) research, found that teenage learners, although reluctant to write for a wider audience at first, gradually embraced the process. The study showed a 15-20% increase in the use of advanced vocabulary, structure/ word order, and grammar, a significant increase in the coherence of the students’ writing (40%), and a decrease of 30-40% in spelling and recurring errors.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Challenges of Digital Literacies Even with their increasing use and the growing body of associated research (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Oskoz & Elola, 2016a, 2016b; Reinhardt, Warner & Lange, 2014), the new digital literacies are still problematic for instructors because they require not only an understanding of communication theory in general (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008) but also knowledge of the linguistic and rhetorical conventions associated with specific digital genres (Oskoz & Elola, 2012). It is of vital importance that students are guided through certain steps that will help them work online and benefit from the various digital genres. Teachers should guide students to become responsible digital citizens in order to develop skills to communicate respectfully on public discussion forums, subscribe to education feeds, and use in Web 2.0 resources, such as blogs and social networks (Richards, 2010). Digital literacy does not imply just the acquisition of a discrete set of skills, such as knowing how to use social media; it is also about recognizing the purpose of communication “to build a community of like-minded individuals and to use that community for professional and personal development” (Dudeney & Hockly, 2016, p. 117). In the digital context, mastering a variety of media means that in addition to being digitally competent and aware of current literacies, L2 writers need to develop the ability to negotiate a complex set of skills. With the use of blogs, for instance, students should be expected to communicate using various mediational means; cooperate via web-based interactions; and provide information on an online platform (Erstad, 2011). This results in digital literacy becoming a challenge when blogging is integrated in the curriculum. If students are not confident with the technology, they may find themselves frustrated with the blogging process, especially if a technical problem presents itself. Nonetheless, a well-organized instructional design with an understanding of the benefits and challenges can make blogging an invaluable tool (Asadi, 2016). To achieve all this, L2 learners need to have the ability to understand how to use images and sounds, manipulate and transform digital media, and easily adapt to new forms of written communication (cf. NMC, 2005). As displayed in this section of the chapter, the literature shows the impact and profound transformations in L2 literacy with the integration of digital media, specifically blogs. The following section will attempt to put these theoretical concepts and research results into practice.

111

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Initial Steps Blogs can prove to be very beneficial in the L2 classroom; however, there are certain steps teachers need to follow before they can make an impact on students’ L2 writing literacy. As a first step, it is vital that practitioners become accustomed with blogs before they are integrated into their L2 literacy teaching. More specifically, it is important for teachers to pre-select the platform their students will be using, and they need to check whether the students would be comfortable writing for a wider audience or within the microcosm of a platform that is only exposed to their language learning community. There are a number of secure platforms used by teachers and students nowadays, such as: 1. EduBlog, which is a private platform teachers can customize and include photos, videos, and podcasts; 2. Kidblog, which is also a private platform, safe and free for up to 50 students; and 3. Wordpress, which is a public website and free, with no need to purchase a domain name. The selection of the appropriate platform for students and context should be discussed with the school principal, the school board, and the students. It is helpful to include your students in the decision-making process, as their input is useful. Most significantly, such attempts give them a sense of ownership. Once a decision has been made regarding the platform, an outline of blogging guidelines, etiquette, and expectations should be communicated with the students. This is important as many students may have used blogs outside the classroom; nonetheless, their use would be of an entertaining nature (and most probably in their L1) rather than for the purpose of L2 literacy development. Goals and guidelines should be clear and according to what is acceptable in the context. For example, a school may or may not allow photos of students online or written permission from a parent may be required in order for a student to participate in blog writing. For ease and easy access, guidelines can be published and updated on the class blog. Furthermore, the goals and guidelines of blog use need to be communicated clearly and effectively. Teachers can go out of the ordinary written handbooks or class instructions and create a clip that would catch the students’ attention. The clip could be created on simple video makers online (such as Animoto) or on a smartphone and shared with students. The guidelines can be made explicit and tailor-made to the teacher’s and students’ needs and context. The clips can also be shared with parents in order for them to be able to monitor students’ blogging from their end, usually when students are to deliver their homework via blogs. Finally, the teacher needs to set the dynamic between blog and classroom. The online writing tool is the most beneficial if it acts as an extension of the work conducted in the classroom. It is important to specify that the blog will not be the sole source of literacy development, nor will it replace the classroom learning environment. The interaction between blogs and the classroom must be made clear to students in the guidelines.

Commenting Skills and Netiquette A very important element of using blogs, or any online tool, with language learners is the need to educate students on appropriate online behavior. Students’ online interactions assist in their literacy development and how language learners can master real-life communication by using the written word. For

112

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

such communication to run smoothly and have positive learning effects, it must be brought to students’ attention that online written interaction differs from speaking to someone in person. Online interaction supports traits, colors, lingo, and digital familiarity, which play a vital role in blog writing and interaction and call for a specific type of netiquette. Netiquette is considered to be evidence of conformity online (Cinnirella & Green, 2006), and it is necessary for all who communicate online. It is a term that derives from ‘networks’ and ‘etiquette’ applied in conversations for politeness and courtesy, in order to prompt positive online interaction (Scheuermann & Taylor, 1997). There is a specific netiquette, which favors students’ acquiescing to the comments and ideas shared as an expectation of using blogs. This is not to imply that interlocutors must accept all ideas shared, but that healthy disagreement occurs with the potential to lead to better understanding through co-construction of knowledge. Netiquette skills need to be developed and brought to students’ attention early on, before the use of blogs is integrated into the curriculum. Table 1 introduces communication and etiquette issues for effective and appropriate online interaction that can guide students as to why the matter of netiquette is important for their confidence and accepting their peers’ perspective via online writing.

Table 1. Communication and netiquette when using blogs

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The What-s

The Why-s

Respect

It can be tempting to become aggressive when interlocutors are placed behind a screen. It is important that students bear in mind that their peers and teachers can be affected by conversations written on a blog commentary. Disrespectful behavior can negatively affect one’s writing, lead to less confident students becoming reluctant to use blogs as a means of literacy development, and create a negative atmosphere in the classroom. Certain wording, or even punctuation points, can be considered aggressive, and should be brought to students’ attention in order to be avoided.

Take Care of Written Text

Due to the fact that communication is not face to face, one cannot appreciate tone of voice, facial expressions, or gestures. This could lead to written text being misunderstood. Strong abrupt language, capital letters, and multiple exclamation marks can be easily misinterpreted in an online context. One of the positive aspects of writing is that the writer can review and rephrase what has been written. Students should be encouraged to proofread their commentary/online interactions and ask questions such as: How would this comment make me feel about my writing? Is this too negative? Is it too passive?

Emoticons

The use of emoticons is very popular online; however, our students need to be made aware that their work will be reviewed by both their peers and teachers. Readers will be focusing on the written word, and if the use of emoticons is excessive, it will be difficult for readers to appreciate the written message. Students must ensure that their message is successfully conveyed through text and not emoticons. Of course, this does not mean that emoticons should be eliminated from teenage learners’ written work, but that students should not depend on emoticons to make their point.

Grammar and Spelling Matters

In an educational setting, it is important for students to understand that correct grammar and spelling are essential in order to enhance the quality of their writing and positively influence their peers.

Online Material to Support Writing

Blogs offer writers the option of including supporting material to their work; this could include images, clips, links, etc. Before posting, the author must be sure that the content of any supporting material is appropriate and will not offend other readers.

Personal Expression

Personal expression should be encouraged when using blogs for L2 literacy development. It is important for students to respect their readers and offer quality work through their own personal expression. This will help learners develop into successful L2 writers and develop their confidence in delivering written work in the foreign language. Students should not be shut down for expressing themselves, as long as they follow basic netiquette while doing so.

113

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

Online Safety With the development of digital technologies and online tools, the matter of online safety has become a very serious issue among parents and educators of all fields. While adolescents benefit from their use of social media by interacting and learning from other writers, they are also at the risk of being exposed to large amounts of offensive and inappropriate online content, invasive programs (pop-ups, etc.), extreme material, abusive images, registering with inappropriate websites and cyberbullying (Giannikas, 2019b). Cyberbullying, especially, has increased dangers and can risk the language learning development of the student as well as their well-being. It usually occurs via offensive messages posted on various social media platforms, which increases the urgency for clear guidelines, online safety awareness, and detecting online offensive contents. As this has become an issue of great concern in the field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English Language Teaching (ELT), there is educational material available that can be used in the classroom to assist teachers in warning students about online dangers. These should be selected according to context and relatability. These sources are available online, i.e. clips created by the British Council where a teenager shares his cyberbullying experience (Cyberbullying-let’s fight it together http://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/study-break/video-zone/cyberbullying-lets-fight-ittogether). Furthermore, teachers can increase cyber safety awareness by introducing child-friendly online quizzes to students, i.e. via https://www.esafety.gov.au/kids-quiz/, which has been initiated and created by the Australian Ministry of Education, or via https://jr.brainpop.com/artsandtechnology/technology/ internetsafety/, a resource website for teachers of all subjects.

Ethics in Online Writing The responsible use of intellectual property is key element of using blogs for language learning purposes. Students may interpret working online as prompting them to use an unlimited amount of resources; nonetheless, it is vital that they are introduced to ethical conduct before they are exposed to the resources available to them and apply a fundamental understanding of ethical and legal issues surrounding the access and use of digital media. Language teachers need to apply a reliable methodology to facilitate effective policy regarding ethical behavior when working online (Darling-Hammond, Flook, CookHarvey, Barron, & Osher, 2019). Solid pedagogical approaches could include an introduction to ethics and examples of good and bad ethical decisions, followed by activities that require making decisions using hypothetical scenarios. In the scenarios, the following topics can be included:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

•

114

Citations and Plagiarism (Scenario: A friend attempts to complete a blogging assignment by copying information of websites found online and submit it as their own work/thoughts. Your friend shares this information with you and sees it as an efective and easy way to complete an assignment. What do you do? Example of ethical decision: You explain why your friend should not plagiarize, as this is a type of stealing. Try to make your friend see how s/he would feel if someone did something similar to them. Sample Activity: Multiple Choice activity) Identifcation of inappropriate content (Scenario: The students are torn as there has been negative talk about a girl in their class on Social Media. The students do not know how to react or help so they bring up the issue to their teacher and show them the inappropriate content and explain to the

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

•

teacher why the content has made them feel uncomfortable. Example of ethical decision: Creating an intervention in class presenting the issue of inappropriate content. Sample Activity: The class works together and plans the intervention. They can also host the intervention and assign roles to carry out a role play) Writer’s honesty (Scenario: There is a sponsorship competition and your students are competing. One of the challenges of good scholarship is to take what has already been done, said, or argued, and incorporating it into one’s work in an original way. Example of ethical considerations: Students need to blog about their own ideas and cite the work of others in order to present their own work. Sample Activity: Students write a blog article on the benefts of L2 Literacy. The students can be prompted to do research on their subject and become more familiar with existing scholarly work, which in turn can provide models for their own writing).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Putting Blogs to Practice As the classroom is ever changing, the job market is rapidly changing as well. Teenage language learners’ future careers will likely depend on strong computer skills. Blogging can help students develop these skills and assist in their continuing education and gainful employment. In order to gain understanding of blogging or provide a rich text, various language skills and learning strategies need to be selected, such as language, images, sound, and movement (Unsworth, 2008), giving new light to meaning making, reading, and producing of written texts (Walsh, 2009). Students can be encouraged to write creatively and address a number of genres, all the while taking authorship of their work as they are now writing for a wider audience. Moreover, weekly blog posts can prove to be beneficial for the continuous development of L2 literacy. This provides consistency and gradual literacy improvement, as students are given the opportunity to practice their writing, revisit linguistic features and challenges, and accept feedback from their teacher and peers, which is an element of the constructivist approach blog writing supports (Kern, 2006). Giannikas’s (2019a) research quoted above showed that weekly blog posts resulted in 20% improvement of the quality of student writing in comparison to their past on-paper assignments. More specifically, within a 10-month period a 15-20% increase was observed in 1. advanced vocabulary, 2. structure/word order, and 3). grammar. Additionally, there was a 40% increase in the coherence of the students’ writing. Spelling and recurring errors were recorded to have a 30% and 40% decrease respectively, which is a noteworthy development as it allows ample room for improvement. Finally, students were prompted to notice their errors and address particular linguistic phenomena in order to improve their writing. From a practical perspective, as discussed above, language teachers can create an online environment where students use their creativity in L2 writing. Tanti (2012) has conducted a study to investigate the depth and potential of blogging for the development of writing skills and strategies, and grammatical features were matched to the syllabus writing outcomes and indicators. The study used Droga and Humphrey’s (2003) key grammatical features of the literary recount text type, assessing range of adjectives, verbs, nouns, sentences that contain adverbial and dependent clauses, lexical cohesion, and figurative language and modality within the students’ blog posts. Each student was responsible of creating and maintaining their individual blog, with posts ranging from 10-200-word contributions. The study showed that the students effectively used key grammatical features of a text type and had developed editing techniques to

115

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

create well-structured posts. Numerous grammatical features in the posts showed that the students were deliberate to achieve an interpersonal function (Droga & Humphrey, 2003). According to Tanti’s (2012) data, students’ contributions continued outside the classroom, allowing them to reflect and respond to their critical literacy skills. Students frequently asked their audience for feedback at the conclusion of their posts. This shows that the students wished to use the social aspect of blogs and sought various ways to improve their writing from more sources than only from their teacher. This does not imply that the feedback is always be helpful or frequent. As Tanti’s (2012) investigation showed, the number of comments made on each post varied and the majority of the comments made were unproductive and lacked the aspect of a critical review. Even though Tanti’s (2012) study focused on the development of writing skills, it was evident that the rereading and editing of texts allowed students to extend their literacy skills, whilst creating multimodal posts to be published on the classroom blog. Such opportunities give students and educators a virtual timeline of student’s skill improvement and personal development. More importantly, blogs offer students the chance to learn firsthand how powerful their words and ideas can be. Managing blogs and starting the process positively are essential; however, it is vital to keep students interested and motivated. If learners are not encouraged to post regularly, blogs can quickly be abandoned. It is vital that the teacher acts as a facilitator in order to maintain students’ interest and steadily increase their motivation. This will help students view blogging as an interesting and creative way of developing their writing. Some tips on how this can be accomplished are as follows: • • •

Teachers should respond to student posts promptly and provide feedback related to their writing and content. The teacher can invite responses by asking questions and create stimulus for L2 writing. Students should be actively encouraged to follow the teachers’ lead. They should be expected to read and respond to their peers. This can be done via the commenting feature of any blog. Writing tasks in the form of a blog could also become a part of the curriculum, for example by assigning blog writing for homework or including it in assessment.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Blog writing can prove to be very effective in L2 literacy development, and it can help students develop their knowledge of the course content. Nonetheless, the integration of blogs in the L2 curriculum requires students to deepen their writing skills and communicate their ideas. Teaching time should be spent to give emphasis on the importance of acquiring writing styles and grammar. This can be accomplished in the classroom or via the blog’s comment section for feedback on students’ writing. Students can interact with the published material and when blogging, they can be guided on communication etiquette. This can be done by using examples or creating a set of posting or commenting criteria. Some sample tasks that teachers can apply in order to use blogs to their full potential are as follows: • •

116

Project Based Blogging: A blog can become a platform for developing a writing project. The project can be shared between several classes of similar level, or classes in diferent regions or countries. Guest Blogger: The teacher can invite another teacher or students someone the students have never met. They can write as a guest blogger and the students can engage them in a conversation and fnd out more about the guest blogger’s identity.

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

Teaching Tip In their L2 classroom, Ms. Fox and her students have set aside time each week to do some blog writing. The students have been introduced to online safety, ethics, and online writing guidelines in order to deliver their blog assignments and provide each other with meaningful and efficient feedback. The students have access to computers equipped with web browsers, where students can conduct research on a range of topics in English, as well as in their native language(s). In the curriculum, the literacy objective of the English lessons is: • Students will be able to develop their writing online in a collaborative and respective manner. Students are to develop an understanding of netiquette and digital literacy, as well as differentiate social and academic writing through project-based blogging (English Curriculum B1 CEFR level). Ms. Fox designed specific tasks for the building-background stage of this specific project. First, she handed out post-it notes in two different colors and a pen or pencil. She asked the students to pick a safe online avatar nickname and write it on the top of the note. All students were asked to write on the same colored post-it. Ms. Fox then gave one “post it starter,” such as “My favorite smell reminds me of” with an illustration. She gave the students time to read each other’s post-it-notes to prompt collaboration and feedback. At this point, she also reminded the students of netiquette and asked them to use the second color post-it to respond to someone’s “blog post.” The students were told to repeat steps 3-5 as long as time allows. To Ms. Fox’s surprise, the students became very involved and willing to complete the second color post-it to respond on their peer’s “blog post”, all the while abiding to netiquette. Next, Ms. Fox prompted the students to read out each post and the corresponding comments, and to discuss the following questions: Which posts received the most comments? Why did some receive less? What was the reason behind it? Which posts turned into social nature? Ms. Fox found that these questions would help students think and reflect about the process. Finally, it was time to move from the paper and pencil blog to the real blog. Ms. Fox had already chosen a platform she was familiar with (EduBlogs) and had prepared guidelines for the students in order to smoothly prompt them into blog posting, thus supporting and enhancing their digital literacies. Through this process, Ms. Fox managed to prepare the students for the actual blog entries and develop their collaborative skills as well. Students became eager to complete the post-it starters and work with each other. Ms. Fox acted as a facilitator in order to maintain students’ interest and steadily increase their motivation. This helped students view blogging as a creative and contemporary alternative to their L2 writing development. Students were asked to write about their past experience of writing tasks and compare them to their present ones. The activity was organized so as to help enhance students’ sharing and exchanging of knowledge, their autonomous learning, selfexpression, and awareness of their writing potential. Students would then read their peers’ work and exchange ideas and thoughts. The aim of the project was to help students develop fluency and build confidence in their L2 writing skills.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, a fundamental understanding of writing in the L2 is the creation of a writing environment that encourages students to develop their writing skills. Blogs are powerful online tools that can act as an effective and beneficial writing environment. The online platform can be considered an innovative intellectual tool, and a potentially powerful educational medium, which empowers students and introduces new potential to the concept of writing. The online environment can prompt an interest in writing as it is relatable and familiar to teenage leaners. This fact can increase students’ motivation to regularly engage in writing tasks. Furthermore, writing in this kind of technology mediated environments prompts students to express themselves freely and creatively based on their own thoughts and experiences (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2019). The role of feedback provided by peers and teachers can help students create higher quality texts along the process of L2 writing development (Schillings, Roebertsen, Savelberg, Whittingham, & Dolmans, 2019). The feedback provided to students via blogging can play a scaffolding role, thus leading students to notice feedback and apply what has been suggested in their blog posts, provided that the feedback is sincere and constructive. Feedback via blogs can potentially become the factor that helps students to move from writing simple texts to more complex and longer ones. The teacher’s part changes when blogging is integrated in the curriculum, as they now become part of the writing community, acting as the most experienced and knowledgeable person of the group. This also helps lower students’ anxiety,

117

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

as the teacher’s role and the online experience are less intimidating, giving learners more of a motive to potentially take risks in their writing and increasing their confidence in their writing skills. Finally, it is important to give language learners the time to properly invest in their writing. Often, when in class, students are rushed to complete their written work, leaving little time for reflection, which leads to poor literacy. When students start to take pride in their own writing, they become more persistent in working on their weaknesses and improving their literacy skills. Redrafting, re-evaluating, and slowing down the writing process are vital. It is evident that the digital age has brought about new means of teaching and learning a foreign language. This means that teachers need to be adoptable to the new tools available to them. A digitally literate teacher can help students reach new heights; however, for teachers to reach this stage it is important to encourage teacher education programs to revamp their aims and include digital literacy into their curriculum. According to McLoughlin and Luca (2000), a suitable environment and support must be a prerequisite for teaching and learning in this day and age. Therefore, researchers have suggested that student teachers use blogs for their professional development (Zhandi, Thang, & Krish, 2014). Providing the appropriate structures can reshape how teachers approach blogging and change how they view literacy learning and teaching. Teachers need such exposure to blogs in order to be able to use it to its full potential when teaching L2 literacy. Discussion Questions 1. What dynamic do you think could be created between blog and classroom, and how do you believe this would affect L2 learners’ literacy skills? 2. How would you select the appropriate blogging platform for your language learners? 3. How would you encourage efficient and effective peer feedback and prevent cyber-bulling in your own classroom?

REFERENCES Archibald, A. (2004). Writing in a second language. Retrieved from http://www.lang.itsn.ac.uk/index.aspx Asadi, B. (2016). Blogging or paper-and-pencil writing? Evidence from an Iranian academic L2 setting. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 4(5), 60–67.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Aydin, S. (2014). The use of blogs in learning English as a foreign language. [MIJE]. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(1), 244–259. doi:10.13054/mije.13.79.4.1 Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2003). Blogging to learn. Knowledge Tree e-journal. Retrieved from http://Knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition04/pdf/Blogging_to_learn.pdf Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (90), 9–18. doi:10.1002/ace.16 Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 741–753. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x

118

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

Cinnirella, M., & Green, B. (2007). Does ‘cyber-conformity’ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 2011–2025. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.009 Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 23(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 Downes, P. (2014). Access to education in Europe: A framework and agenda for system change. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8795-6 Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. Berry, Australia: Target Texts. Ducate, L. I., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28. doi:10.1080/09588220701865474 Dudeney, G., & Hockley, N. (2016). Literacies, technology and language teaching. In F. Farr, & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 115–126). New York, NY: Routledge. Erstad, O. (2011). Citizens navigating in literate worlds: The case of digital literacy. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology and the new literacies (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Routledge. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to high-stakes school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55. doi:10.1016/j. jslw.2010.12.007 Giannikas, C. N. (2019a). Enhancing literacy and collaborative skills through blogging: The teenage language learner. In C. N. Giannikas, E. Kakoulli-Constantinou, & S. Papadima-Sophocleous, (Eds.), Professional development in CALL: A selection of papers (pp. 145–158). Research-publishing.net. Giannikas, C. N. (2019b, February). Designing digital experiences for positive primary language learning. Paper presented at the International House Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Grinter, R. E., & Palen, L. (2002, November). Instant messaging in teen life. Paper presented at the 2002 Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587082 Guzzetti, B. J., & Gamboa, M. (2005). Online journaling: The informal writings of two adolescent girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(1), 168–206. Healy, A. (2008). Expanding student capacities. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies: Pedagogies for diverse learners (pp. 2–29). Sydney, Australia: Oxford University Press. Hourigan, T., & Murray, L. (2010). Using blogs to help language students to develop reflective learning strategies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 209–225. doi:10.14742/ajet.1091

119

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

Hubbard, P. (2009). A general introduction to computer assisted language learning. In P. Hubbard (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics. Volume I – Foundations of CALL (pp.1–20). New York, NY: Routledge. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3). Retrieved from https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ f674/80594ca2ab46e25777653a8cc4f05fbe3135.pdf Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210. doi:10.2307/40264516 Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2017). Early readers’ perceptions of the value of literacy in their lives. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5(1), 57–70. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2002). DOOM or Mortal Kombat? Bilingual literacy in the mainstream classroom. In D. L. Soto (Ed.), Making a difference in the lives of bilingual/bicultural children, (pp. 31 ̶ 52). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(2), 212–222. doi:10.1017/S095834401000008X Lee, L. (2017). Learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of blogging for L2 writing in fully online language courses. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 19–33. doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2017010102 Lee, S. (2001). The relationship of writing apprehension to the revision process and topic preference: A student perspective. Paper presented at the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan. Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.4.5 Liu, M., & Peng, W. (2009). Cognitive and psychological predictors of the negative outcomes associated with playing MMOGs (massively multiplayer online games). Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1306–1311. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.002

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2001). An e-learning solution to creating work-related skills and competencies for the knowledge-based economy. In J. Cook (Ed.), e-Xplore 2001: A face-to-face odyssey: Proceedings of the Apple University consortium conference 2001 (pp. 14-1–14-13), Queensland, Australia: ECU Publications. New Media Consortium. (2005). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century literacy summit. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/Global_Imperative.pdf OECD. (2013). Skilled for life? Key findings from the survey of adult skills. Paris, France: OECD. Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2012). Understanding the impact of social tools in the FL classroom: Activity theory at work. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 131–153). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

120

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

Oskoz, A., & Pérez-Broncano, O. (2016). What did you say? How did you say it? Linguistic choices in online discussions. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 772–788. doi:10.1111/flan.12240 Quintero, L. (2008). Blogging: A way to foster EFL writing. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 10(1), 7–49. Reinhardt, J., Warner, C., & Lange, K. (2014). Digital games as practices and texts: New literacies and genres in an L2 German classroom. In J. P. Guikema, & L. Williams (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education (pp. 159–190). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Richards, J. C. (1990). The teacher as self-observer. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), The language teaching matrix (pp. 118–143). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667152.009 Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1628–1644. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.003 Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003 Safieddine, Z. N. (2014). Interactive web 2.0 technology in L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 139–145. doi:10.12785/jtte/020205 Scheuermann, L., & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette. Internet Research, 7(4), 269–273. doi:10.1108/10662249710187268 Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H., Whittingham, J., & Dolmans, D. (2019). Peer-to-peer dialogue about teachers’ written feedback enhances students’ understanding on how to improve writing skills, Educational Studies, 45(1), 1 ̶14. Shiu, E., & Lenhart, A. (2004) How Americans use instant messaging? Retrieved from https://www. pewinternet.org/2004/09/01/how-americans-use-instant-messaging/ Sun, Y., & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 43–61. Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528–546. doi:10.1558/cj.v25i3.528-546

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Tanti, M. (2012). Literacy education in the digital age: Using blogging to teach writing. Teaching English with Technology, Special Edition on LAMS and Learning Design, 12(2), 132–146. Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). Bridging activities, new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558–572. doi:10.1558/cj.v25i3.558-572 Unsworth, L. (2008). Explicating inter-modal meaning-making in media and literary texts: Towards a metalanguage of image/language relations. In A. Burn, & C. Durrant (Eds.), Media teaching: Language, audience, production (pp. 48–80). Kent Town, South Australia: Wakefield Press and AATE-NATE. Walsh, A. (2009). Information literacy assessment: Where do we start? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1), 19–28. doi:10.1177/0961000608099896

121

 Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

Zandi, P., Thang, S., & Krish, P. (2014). Teacher professional development through blogging: Some preliminary findings. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118(22), 530–536. doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.02.072

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Blogger: Someone who writes on an online journal or website regularly. Blogosphere: A collection of blogs, with their writers and readers as a distinct online network. Cyberbullying: The use of electronic communication to bully someone online. Digital Citizens: Regular internet users who understand its appropriate use. Digital Literacy: The ability to understand, process and create media content in a digital environment. Emoticons: A blend of “emotion and icon” that refers to facial expressions represented by keyboard characters. L2 Writing: The ability and knowledge of writing a text in a second/foreign language. Netiquette: A blend of the words net and etiquette, which have come to mean the proper and appropriate use of online communication.

122

Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (Eds.). (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York, NY: Peter Lang. This volume presents a range of literacy practices taking place in online environments. The authors draw on sociocultural theory, approaching new language and literacy practices as communicative resources tied to new contexts of use. This collection of chapters describes the role of language and literacy in production and negotiation of meaning in technology-mediated contexts such as wireless classrooms, popular Web sites, online and offline role-playing games, fanfiction Websites, and blogs. 2. Smith, G. (2009). Voices from the field: Obtaining, processing, and constructing English: Blogging in the ESL classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 75–80. This article briefly documents ways in which students can obtain, process and construct English, terms taken from the standards published in 2006 by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). These three skills are equivalent to traditional reading, writing, and comprehension, but are more useful in describing the skills of the multiple literacies needed for the multi-modalities of modern life. 3. Lapadat, J. C., Brown, W. I., Thielmann, G., & McGregor, C. E. (2010). Teaching with blogs: A case study of technologically mediated literacy. International Journal of Learning and Media, 2(2-3), 63–79. This publication discusses the outcomes of a case study focusing on educational blogging via classroom observations and blog analysis of one teacher and 28 teenage students over a two-month period. The study concludes that students used hybrid (print and digital) literacies in the classroom and that they were motivated to read and write on the online platform. The case study also presents the three aspects of digital literacy that were taught in this classroom, which may guide other teachers in implementing digital literacy pedagogy.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Al-Qallaf, C.L., & Al-Mutairi, A.S. (2016). Digital literacy and digital content supports learning: The impact of blogs on teaching English as a foreign language. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 522–547. This paper aims to investigate the impact of blogs on teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) to primary students. The study also explores educators’ perceptions of social media tools and digital literacy in school environments. The findings show that by the end of the semester, students were writing lengthy sentences, had fewer spelling and grammatical mistakes, were more motivated and independent, and displayed a more positive attitude towards learning EFL. The educators were enthusiastic about using Web technologies in their teaching practices but have several concerns such as digital literacy competencies, technology-use behavior, and lack of accessibility to digital content.

123

Effectively Incorporating Blogs for the L2 Literacy Development of Teenage Language Learners

5. Downes, C. (2015). Using information and communication technologies to promote participation and peer co- operation during collaborative literacy tasks for English-language learners. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 5(1), 2–11.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This article discusses collaborative learning tasks, which enhances the literacy development of English language learners. In some cases, however, peer-assisted activities promote language learning because of dominant– passive interaction patterns and the onset of performance anxiety. Communication technologies have provided an alternative to face-to-face interactions that can potentially overcome these limitations of collaborative literacy tasks. The paper by Downes, investigates the use of applications such as Google Docs, Facebook, Internet blogs, and wikis in both school and home environments and stresses the benefits of using such technology to increase the participation, co-operation, and literacy development in EFL.

124

125

Chapter 7

Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom:

Digital Stories of Undocumented Youth Stefanie Ruhe Ruhr University Bochum, Germany

ABSTRACT This chapter employs the mediazation of politics, or the changes that the use of media for political purposes has brought about, to understand the intertwinement of the rules and regulations by which media products abide. Through examples of digital stories of undocumented youth in the U.S., posted on YouTube, the chapter demonstrates that digital stories not only provide a solid base for multimodal analysis, but they may also foster (digital) media literacy skills of English as foreign language learners in German high school. Yet, students need to understand how to read the multimodal language of new media correctly to truly participate in current political debates of the 21st century.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Since the mid-eighties, a rich body of theory has sprung from the study of the “mass media phenomenon” (Martens, 2010, p. 3) that early pioneers of the field such as Marshall McLuhan (1964) have initiated (cf. Rosenfeld, 2016; see also Cline, 2016; Hobbs & Jensen, 2009; Klook & Spahr, 2000). The focus of McLuhan’s work lay on media messages, media industries and the effects on their audiences – from the mass to the individual consumer. In particular, McLuhan (1964) proposed that the medium itself, not the content it carries, “shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (p. 24). Therefore, understanding new media such as television, according to McLuhan (1964), bears immense power to, on the one hand, manipulate entire populations and, on the other hand, “moderate” DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch007

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

the extent to which media influences audiences (p. 30). In sum, McLuhan’s theory was coined under the famous understanding of the medium as the message. This statement would influence much of the theory-building on the key concepts of media literacy today, as the media gained a sense of power that they were not ascribed to before, and that called for media awareness in the consumer (cf. Cline, 2016; see also Jolls & Wilson, 2010). When movies became popular, for instance, the work of McLuhan and his peers “emphasized the development of abilities that enable children to have an understanding of the techniques and language of film” (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009, p. 3). Today, media literacy education is still built upon this principle – the understanding that “each medium has its own technological grammar or bias that shapes and creates a message in a unique way” (Jolls & Wilson, 2014, p. 69), which calls for a systematic study of the medium in order to read the message correctly (Altheide & Snow, 1979; Hobbs & Jensen, 2009; Stöckl, 2004). Learning how to read “film grammar” became important among “a whole generation of educators [who] began to not only acknowledge film and television as new, legitimate forms of expression and communication, but also explored practical ways to promote serious inquiry and analysis – in higher education, in the family, and in K-12 and afterschool contexts” (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009, p. 3). Understanding this “grammar of communication” (Altheide & Snow, 1979, p. 10) further formed the basis of a theoretical perspective named mediatization (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Hjavard, 2008). Recent technological developments such as social media platforms, applications, and massively changing authorship models have further constantly redefined the focus of the study and definition of media literacy (Chen, 2016; Friesem, Quaglia, & Crane, 2014; Hobbs & Jensen, 2009). Over the past two decades, Duncan argues, scholars have more frequently called for “making [media] literacy more meaningful in the curriculum” (as cited in Jolls & Wilson, 2014, p. 76; see also Hobbs & Jensen, 2009). As a consequence, the theoretical and practical approaches as well as perspectives to media literacy (education) have left educators with “conceptual pieces or one-shot studies that generate, at best, exploratory findings” (Martens, 2010, p. 15; see also Chen, 2016). This is best reflected in the myriad of definitions of the skills and concepts attached to media literacy. For instance, digital or new literacies have emphasized participatory skills of literacy and active involvement in the digital world (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009). Yet, there is consensus among researchers in Germany, where this study is based, that schools do not necessarily teach students what they need to know in order to express themselves digitally and become active participants of this (digital) world; nor have schools and universities “proven to be adept at enabling demand-driven and distributed learning networks for imaginative rather than instrumental purposes” (Hartley, 2009, p. 131; see also Grafe 2011; Manzoor, 2016; Martens, 2010). According to MüllerHartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth (2018), research on how “virtual environments” and “electronic media [could be] integrated into the foreign language classroom” (p. 144) has long been called for. “To be truly literate”, however, “means being able to use the dominant symbol systems of the culture for personal, aesthetic, cultural, social, and political goals” (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009, pp. 4-5). This maxim has become pre-eminent for media literacy education across the globe (cf. Masterman, 1985). As recently as in 2018, Germany passed the DigitalPakt Schule, an act that is designed to assist schools in the “digitalen Transformationsprozess” [digital transformation process] and, most importantly, foster media literacy skills (Bezirksregierung Detmold, 2019, p. 1; see also Kultusministerkonferenz, 2016). Based on the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), a framework by the European Commission that seeks “strategic action to spread […] more active digital participation of citizens” (Cortoni, Lo Presti, & Cervelli, 2015, p. 46), German schools are supposed to develop a cross-disciplinary approach to fostering media competence by 2021 (Kultusministerkonferenz, 2016). 126

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

One vital element of this program, however, is that Medienkompetenz [media competence], as media literacy is referred to in German discourse, is supposed to be taught not as a separate school subject but as cross-disciplinary skills that are to be embraced by all subjects of the curriculum on top of the skills that are to be learned within the individual subject areas. In this contribution, the teaching of media literacy skills is explored in the context of the foreign language classroom with German high school students (advanced English learners). The choice of this group and the frame of the project, which is further explained in the practical section of this contribution, was made because the German curriculum explicitly demands the fostering of media competence skills (cf. QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). The subject of English as a Foreign Language in Germany, too, intents for students to develop media competence through the access to, information on and via, the use and production of, and the reflection on media products in the English language classroom as language-independent skills, alongside the use of English as the exclusive language of communication (cf. Haß, 2012; QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). Likewise, advanced English learners in German high school are supposed to develop skills for literary analysis and continuously reflect on their own points of view, cultural norms, and values (cf. QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). This approach is comprised in the “main goal of foreign language learning” in Europe, namely the “intercultural communicative competence” (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2018, p. 18), within which “sociocultural” competences is equally important as “strategic,” “discourse,” and “grammatical” competences (p. 21). This chapter suggests for educators to rely on a basic teaching principle: the meaningfulness and authenticity of the context in which (digital) media literacy is taught (Chen, 2016). Media and intercultural or socio-political knowledge cannot be taught as separate phenomena in a digitalized world. Instead, both aspects need to be embedded in a framework that creates meaningful learning experiences and fosters the development of core (digital) media literacy skills in the classroom (Merse & Schmidt, 2018; Kervin, Mantei, & Herrington, 2009). The connection of the political implications of different media products – such as digital stories on YouTube – and the topic of immigration, as it is proposed in this chapter, serves as a practical example for the intertwinement of both spheres. Employing global migration as a prominent topic in foreign language classrooms can be viewed as an approach to an “authentic” learning situation (Kervin, Mantei, & Herrington, 2009, p. 208). Authenticity, here, is primarily understood in terms of the usage of “authentic material,” meaning “the use of materials that were not originally developed for pedagogical purposes, such as the use of magazines, newspapers, advertisements, news reports, or songs” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 43). Digital stories of undocumented youth have been produced for the sake of serving their political logic of the immigrant rights movement in the United States that has recently been led by young undocumented immigrants (Pérez, 2012). Using this material therefore illustrates one of the fundamental characteristics of “authentic [learning] material,” as such materials are “often thought to contain more realistic and natural examples of language use than those found in textbooks and other specially developed teaching materials” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 43). The English language found in these digital stories clearly demonstrates how English is used by millions of young people living in the United States and therefore more so than in many other English-speaking learning contexts serves as an example of English as a lingua franca in a globalized world. Further, although public debates on (undocumented) immigration and refugee crises are reaching a peak worldwide, what it really means to be an undocumented immigrant has not received as much attention as the “Fachwissen” (factual knowledge) (Budke & Hoogen, 2018, p. 133). This type of knowledge is manifested in some federal curricula in Germany (e.g., in curricula in North Rhine-Westphalia, where 127

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

the research discussed in this chapter originates), yet its focus lies on migration as a consequence of socio-political conflict in school subjects such as geography, history, or politics. Issues of illegal immigration are even less represented in German school curricular (Budke & Hoogen, 2018). Instruction on immigration in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes covers general aspects, such as immigration history in the United States (topics such as the waves of immigration in the twentieth century or the Great Migration) or general socio-demographic and policy developments, likewise leaving current socio-cultural developments – and even more so of illegal migration – aside (QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). As a consequence, the knowledge on immigration passed to EFL learners in German schools does not provide an accurate representation of the reality that immigrants experience on a day-to-day basis. Yet, the topic of migration worldwide is a large part of socio-cultural knowledge designated to be taught to advanced students of English in the German curriculum. Questions like the following, therefore, should be included in the plan for teaching this topic: How does life in the underground feel like, for instance, for those eleven million immigrants in the U.S. that do not have any papers? Does their motivation exceed the striving for a stale version of the American Dream? What are immediate, day-to-day effects of the Trump administration on these immigrants? Digital narratives of undocumented immigrant youth living in the United States have spread across the web in all shapes and sizes imaginable telling their audience about their aspirations, hardships, and the American Dream by using different media channels, thereby becoming part of the public, political discussion (Pallares, 2015; Pérez, 2012; Quakernack, 2018). By publishing their digital stories on social sites such as YouTube, undocumented immigrant youth in the U.S. have begun to transform the Immigrant Rights Movement, coming out of the shadows virtually, and educating the public about their plights as undocumented children, students, friends, and political activists (Quakernack, 2018). Thereby, undocumented youth adapt to the logic of the medium YouTube. In other words, undocumented youth adhere to the media logic, defined as “the process through which media present and transmit information” (Altheide & Snow, 1979, p. 10), at the same time as they transmit their political messages (a process called mediatization). They further employ the digital storytelling techniques, narrative style, and implicit rules on distributing content on YouTube. This way, undocumented immigrant youth have found a vibrant pathway into the public sphere (Quakernack, 2018). Their digital stories make authentic examples for teaching (digital) media literacy skills and socio-cultural aspects of undocumented immigration in the EFL classroom. As this example shows, the line between the production of content – political and otherwise – and the choice of the medium is blurred. Yet, as indicated above, the German curriculum for EFL (high school) differentiates between teaching so-called socio-cultural orientation knowledge (meaning political, social, and cultural realities or global challenges) on the one hand, and textual/media competences on the other (QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). This separation of the medium from its content, however, is highly problematic when teaching current socio-political phenomena in new media. Further, in the German curriculum, blogs, vlogs, or posts only appear in the category called mediated texts (QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). The co-dependence of a medium and its content, in McLuhan’s understanding of the term medium, however, calls for an understanding of new media not merely as mediators of cultural content, but also as cultural products inherently shaped by the logic of their medium. Digital media do not simply mediate content; they always change it according to their unique logic. This chapter suggests a path to solve the issues outlined above. First of all, media competence/literacy should not be reduced to textual analysis in the EFL classroom. It should, instead, be treated as a wider, essential set of skills and underlying concepts that have been subsumed under the terms digital literacy and media literacy, which the first part of the theoretical introduction to this chapter discusses. Second, 128

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

teaching essential (digital) media literacy skills should be integrated into teaching current political contexts and topics such as immigration. Stories of undocumented immigrant youth serve as such socio-political (con-)texts, bearing important cultural and political knowledge for EFL learners of German high school that enables them to participate in global debates and issues of their time – one of the primary goals of English Foreign Language Teaching in Germany (Haß, 2012; QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). At the same time, this approach ensures multifaceted (and authentic) English language input as well as students learn the language of digital storytelling, which is called multimodality (Benmayor, 2012; Ventola, Charles, & Kaltenbacher, 2004). Digital Storytelling, from thereon, refers to the use of “digital technologies to tell stories,” meanwhile “emphasiz[ing] the medium” and its varied, multimodal possibilities for the creation of a story (Benmayor, 2012, p. 510). In this chapter, digital storytelling refers to the digital stories published by undocumented immigrant youth on YouTube. In contrast to the original idea of the term that Benmayer suggested, in this chapter, digital storytelling does not necessarily imply the creation of own stories but rather the critical reception of and reflection on the stories. As many of the students themselves have a migration background (for more information on the target group please see the practical applications section of this contribution), the development of workshop days could and should go into that direction, however, in order to ensure essential productive and creative skills in relation to new media, as the upcoming sections of this contribution shall show. Lastly, this chapter proposes a practical step-by-step example of how to integrate specific media products such as digital stories of undocumented youth, using EFL learners in the upper grades of German high school as an example of how teachers can decipher mediatization processes while fostering essential (digital) media literacy skills of the students. This underlying, theoretical perspective is also called the mediatization of politics (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014). Esser and Strömbäck understand our society – from the individual to major institutions – to be in a “co-dependent, multidimensional relationship with media” (2014, p. 7). The mediatization perspective further systemizes the intertwinement of media logic and political logic as one of the dimensions that “refers to the degree to which media content and the coverage of politics and current affairs is guided by media logic or political logic” (p. 237). As indicated above, this chapter thus creates an essential understanding of the interdependency of media products, their creators, and the consumers.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Media Literacy and the Mediatization of Politics: Key Concepts One of the first scholars to catalogue underlying principles for media literacy skills was UK-based Len Masterman. In North America, Masterman’s complex ideas were first taken up and published in condensed form by the newly formed, Canada-based Association for Media Literacy (AML) in 1989, which still influences much of the Western theory-building on media literacy today. The AML’s listed the following key concepts pertaining to media literacy (Jolls & Wilson, 2014, p. 71): 1. All media are constructions. 2. The media construct reality. 3. Audiences negotiate meaning in media. 129

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Media have commercial implications. Media contain ideological and value messages. Media have social and political implications. Form and content are closely related in the media. Each medium has a unique aesthetic form.

In order for learners to attain media literacy, instruction needs to be based upon these key concepts (Grafe, 2011; Hobbs, 2010). While all of these concepts are also manifested in the concept of the mediatization of politics, the following sections of this chapter focus on the most prominent ones that aid the understanding of digital stories of undocumented youth and their application to the classroom. Most prominently, just like the key concepts of media literacy, the mediatization perspective acknowledges that media contain ideological messages as well as social and political implications (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014). It extends the increasing presence and importance of the media to “all aspects of private, social, political, cultural and economic life” (Esser & Strömback, 2014, p. 10). Human communication is particularly affected by media (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014; Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2014). Therefore, mediatization fosters an understanding of media – and especially new media – as “the key to the public sphere” (Esser & Strömback, 2014, p. 4). This aspect is necessary for understanding the context of undocumented immigrant protest in new media. Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. – those migrants that crossed the border/ borders without any papers or overstayed their visas–live in constant fear of human rights abuses, detention, and deportation (Orner, 2008). Having to work without a social security number, for example, leaves many undocumented immigrants in constant danger of getting replaced as well as subject to poor work conditions and low pay (Yoshikawa, 2011). Minor traffic violations such as running a stop sign can mean being put into detention. Other challenges undocumented immigrants are subject to constant high levels of psychological distress, lowered availability to social support, and paying out-of-state tuition for college (Pallares, 2015; Yoshikawa, 2011). Given the violation of these oftentimes basic rights, this large group of people has increasingly organized politically in recent years (Ramirez, 2011; Quakernack, 2018), despite the dangers of speaking out and outing oneself in public as an undocumented immigrant (Pérez, 2012; Quakernack, 2018). Starting roughly around the year of 2006, when mass demonstrations were held in major cities of the U.S., hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest a congressional bill that would turn “undocumented immigrants and anyone who assisted them into felons” (Flores-González & Gutiérrez, 2010, p. 5). It was young people, in particular, who formed groups for undocumented students as well as statewide networks in ever-growing numbers to oppose this act of criminalization (Pérez, 2012). The politics of this revived Immigrant Rights Movement has changed quite a bit ever since, most clearly from emphasizing the exceptional, deserving, and innocent undocumented students who claim to have been dragged into the U.S. involuntarily to the undocumented, unafraid, unapologetic immigrants who openly fought for family re-unification, claiming a right to family as their basic human right (Pallares, 2015). To undocumented youth, new media are serving as an outlet and an engine at the same time (Pérez, 2012; Quakernack, 2018). Research shows that new media “undoubtedly have the potential to affect the direction and outcomes of political activism at all levels” (White & Wyn, 2008, p. 220). Digital sites, in particular, have become a popular resource for political struggles as they are easy to use for political organization and action (White & Wyn, 2008). They also enable “information, co-ordination, communication and co-operation of protest movements” (Fuchs, 2011, p. 291). Further, new media devices and the world wide web have enabled participation in the public discourse on immigration through their use of 130

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

social networking sites. This way, according to Pérez (2012), social networking sites such as YouTube “have become a powerful tool for undocumented youth activism” (p. 83). It is particularly through their personal, digital stories published online, that undocumented youth come out of the shadows, aspire to be heard, gain supporters for their cause, and influence policy-making, in which they were partly successful during the Obama administration (Johnson, 2017; Quakernack, 2018). While these aspects demonstrate the potential of new media as a means of political protest (Jenkins, 2006; White & Wyn, 2008), critics caution about “participation gap[s]” that apply to anybody who is not proficient enough to participate on the web (Jenkins, 2006, p. 258) or “online predators” (Zollers, 2009, p. 602). Thus, the socio-political potential is lost when not all participants are media literate.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

(Digital) Media Literacy Skills: From Consumer to Producer The examples of stories of undocumented youth show the real impact that digital media have on people’s lives. Digital literacy–a set of skills that is required in order to read digital stories – is generally regarded as a “fundamental skill that is necessary for accessing all subjects across the curriculum” (Rosenfeld, 2016, p. 117). Yet, as implied earlier, the discussion on media/digital literacy is not solely about which skills should be included but “the term media literacy itself is a point of discussion” (Martens, 2010, p. 2). Media literacy skills are understood as the basis for all work with media–be it old or new (Jolls & Wilson, 2014). Here, the understanding of literacy expands “the ability to read and write in a language” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 345). The basic key concepts for media literacy have rather unanimously been defined as “being able to access media on a basic level, to analyze it in a critical way based on certain key concepts, to evaluate it based on that analysis and, finally, to produce media oneself” (Hobbs, 2010, p. 18; see also Aufderheide, 1993; Dvorghets & Shaturnaya, 2015; Manzoor, 2016; Martens, 2010). Digital literacy expands the presumptions that media literacy makes to more recent topics and issues such as digital storytelling, digital citizenship, safety on the Internet, and violence in media (Jolls & Wilson, 2014). Scholars particularly advocate for skills that are crucial in the digital sphere, such as critical access, production, and reception (Rosenfeld, 2016). This encompasses critical reading skills that focus on truth, ethics, and social justice in a digital, globalized world (Rosenfeld, 2016). Digital literacy is, therefore, a necessary adaptation to the fast-changing educational landscape and technologies that should never, however, lead educators to neglect teaching basic media literacy concepts and skills as well (see also Giannikas in this volume). While there is consensus on the media literacy skills as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and create messages in a variety of forms” (Manzoor, 2016, p. 250), recently, the emphasis on the evaluative and productive skills has increased (Ferrari 2013; Jenkins, 2006; Jolls & Wilson, 2014; Merse & Schmidt, 2018). Jenkins (2006), for instance, labels the productive skills of media/digital literacy as the most important skills for active participation in the digital sphere. He further expands the meaning of the evaluative and reflective skills to skills of “critical reflection”, which he regards as potentially empowering (p. 258). What is more, the creation of content has become the center of attention. In a European-based study, Ferrari (2013) found that recently, productive media literacy skills include the actual development of content by means of programming as well as specific knowledge of copyright and licenses for individually created media products. Adding programming skills to media/digital literacy skills adds a level of agency to digital and media literacy skills that stresses the shift from amateurs to professional creators of content (Rosenfeld, 2016). This makes instruction of how to produce web content all the more necessary for students in order for them to make informed decisions on producing and distributing media products on the web. 131

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

The importance ascribed to the reflective and evaluative skills of digital/media literacy in teaching, in particular, distinguishes digital from media literacy. Yet, the focus on production and participation in the digital world has gained so much attention recently that Jolls and Wilson (2014) caution that “there remains the danger of media literacy fundamentals being lost as they are passed over in favor of students learning media production alone […], without encouraging a much-needed critical analysis” (p. 74). Jenkins (2006), too, points to the immediate consequence of not sufficiently teaching digital literacy skills such as creating and acting in the digital sphere. Without the ability to critically reflect on media products on the web and actively creating – participating – for themselves, Internet platforms open up “participation gap[s]” that apply to anybody who is not proficient enough to participate on the web, (Jenkins2006, p. 258). Nevertheless, as Manzoor (2016) observes, many people actively participate in activities on line as publishers and broadcasters as a result of the popularity enjoyed by various digital and social networking platforms. This shift from consumer to producer is also referred to as an “actor-centric perspective” (Schulz, 2014, p. 62), relativizing weight and one-dimensional media influence and effects on the individual. Media and society are now understood to be in a dynamic, co-dependent relationship that challenges media-induced influence as a primary, linear force (Marcinkowski & Steiner, 2014). For the EFL classroom, this means that students using the world wide web become so-called “prosumers”, using the web as passive recipients as well as active producers of content (Merse & Schmidt, 2018; Schmidt, 2010). While the production of content becomes increasingly important (Rosenfeld, 2016,), it has constantly become more diverse and difficult for students to navigate, which has led to a call for a digital literacy framework in all educational settings. Rosenfeld (2016) continues that a self-reliant production implies the “creation, composition and the generation of content, including how messages can be created and produced using different codes” (p. 130) as well as the dissemination of content through different platforms. The manifold competences that are implied by the composition of messages in different media need to be taken up in the curriculum, which does not seem to always be the case. The lack of skills also applies to the so-called digital natives–the generation of digital media users and producers that is falsely believed to have naturally developed media literacy skills from well-reflected consumption, navigation between media, and skills of professional production (Kervin, Mantei, & Herrington, 2009). These web users, however, oftentimes do not actually discern the logic that underlies a particular media product on the web. It is important to understand that although a degree of familiarity with digital technologies and previous experience with digital applications is necessary for successful participation, young adults do not develop media literacy skills naturally (Burgess & Green, 2009). On the contrary, digital natives require the same close attention to the different literacy practices as is given to any other group of digital users (Kervin, Mantei, & Herrington, 2009). In sum, it needs to be emphasized that media and digital literacies need to be taught to teach digital literacy skills to learners of all ages and backgrounds (in the sense of prior media contact), just as the Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States, formulated by the National Association for Media Literacy Education in 2007 has stated (NAMLE, 2007).

Multimodality as Media Logic The previous section elaborated on the idea that the traditional understanding of literacy needs to be redefined and adapted to the modern EFL classroom. In order to fully contextualize and evaluate digital stories by undocumented immigrants on YouTube the audience needs skills that extend beyond the mere 132

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

ability to read and write (Tan & Tan, 2011) to and encompass an ability to understand the inner workings and dynamics of YouTube as a social network (Burgess & Green, 2009). According to Hjarvard (2008), media “increasingly organize public and private communication in ways that are adjusted to the individual medium’s logic and market considerations” (p. 17). As is the case with other media, the purpose of YouTube cannot be reduced to mediating or communicating the (political) content of the stories (Lundby, 2008). Instead, it actively shapes this content because it prescribes a set of rules to the producer that show strongly in the final product which the consumer perceives as a normal way to communicate a message (Altheide & Snow, 1979). This process of presenting and transmitting information lies at the core of mediatization (Hjarvard, 2008). Each media technology is characterized by certain properties that can both enable and restrict the intended purpose of the media product (Esser & Strömback, 2014). Thus, media technology pressures producers of media output “to adapt to and take advantage of the particular format of that medium, whether it is television with its emphasis on visuals, radio with its emphasis on audio, newspapers with their emphasis on print or digital media with their emphasis on interactivity and instantaneousness” (Esser & Strömback, 2014, p. 18). A medium’s technology is an important part of the message, too. Media creators can be considered media literate when they are able to make conscious artistic choices of specific styles in order to best convey their message to the intended audiences (Hobbs, 2010). This statement, in turn, underscores that production processes of social content on the web are highly mediatized processes from the start (Livingstone, 2009). Undocumented immigrant youth who post their stories online need to be understood as political actors that follow the respective media logic(s), making use of the available technological affordances that fit their political logic in the best way. As a consequence, one central digital literacy skill of EFL learners is to understand that digital media experiences are shaped by the particular media and online tools that they use and in doing so, they change their character (Esser & Strömback, 2014). It follows that “creative, expressive, semiotic, and social competencies” (Rosenfeld, 2016, p. 127) make up an important part of digital media literacy skills for students. More specifically, EFL learners need to learn how to “create, share, understand and think critically about the messages conveyed using signs and symbols that have been defined within the media system” (Boileau, 2015, p. 507). Multimodality becomes the language for digital storytelling – which, on YouTube, requires the capacity to understand how to best integrate the different modes into the final media product, namely the video, in order to create a particular message in a way that is not blatant (Beach, 2009). In order to achieve this, users need a skilled understanding of the video composition practices to take advantage of the multimodal affordances of a medium such as YouTube (Vasudevan et al., 2010). In other words, understanding the logic of the medium is needed in order to safely consume as well as use YouTube videos according to their purpose. As a result, students need to understand how to read this multimodal language of new media correctly in order to participate. Unfortunately, Vasudevan et al. (2010) continue, “despite a proliferation of opportunities for multimodal composing outside of school (e.g. blogging, social networking), all too frequently youth only read and compose paper-based printed texts inside school” (p. 446). The following sections focus on how to practically apply the concepts of (digital) media literacy, their skills, and underlying mediatization perspective in the classroom.

133

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Referencing Migration: Bilingual Project Day at Ruhr University Bochum On a practical level, this chapter is based on the so-called Bilinguale Projekttage [bilingual project days] i.e., a project at the Alfried-Krupp Schülerlabor [students’ lab] at Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany. Using English as the main language for communication, these one-day workshops are designed for high school students (grades 11-13) to foster their knowledge relevant topics and enable them to work with the new concepts hands-on to an extent that is not normally possible in the classroom. Since the students are advanced speakers/learners of English, there is little to no use of the native language, which for many of the students is German, and the entire workshop as well as organizational aspects are handled in English. Hence, the project days are not bilingual in the actual sense of the word but part of a program uses primarily English as the language for instruction, meanwhile focusing on topics that foster intercultural communicative competence and intercultural knowledge to a greater deal than day-to-day instruction in schools. The bilingual project days therefore offer a practical solution to the time and resource constraints teachers have to deal with in their everyday practice (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2018). Further, in the German state of North Rhine-Westfalia, where Ruhr University Bochum is located and the bilingual project introduced above takes place, the immediacy of dealing with the topic of migration in the EFL classroom, which the bilingual project proposed in this contribution does, is particularly apparent, as the number of migrant children has increased steadily in the past years (Ott, 2017). According to the Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE, The Federal Network for Civic Engagement, as cited in Ott, 2017), approximately 28% (and rising) of all high school students in Germany have migration backgrounds; at the primary school level, these numbers amount to about 34%. In general, these numbers are even higher in the heavily industrialized cities of the Ruhr area, such as Bochum (Chlosta & Ostermann, 2017), where the project is located. It follows that bi-or multilingualism generally is an important topic for the student body that attends the bilingual workshops. Therefore, many students are affected by the diverse experiences that their migration background has created in their daily lives. The personal background of the students is only one among many reasons why dealing with the topic of migration in the classroom becomes increasingly important in modern EFL classrooms. On a more global scale, teachers need to prepare their students for the challenges of the twenty-first century and provide them core competencies such as “a deep knowledge of global issues and universal values such as justice, equality, dignity and respect (e.g. understanding of the process of globalization, interdependence / interconnectedness, the global challenges which cannot be adequately or uniquely addressed by nation states […])” (Deetjen, 2019, n.p.). In combination with the teaching of basic media/digital literacy skills fostered by the analysis of (multimodal) digital storytelling as introduced above, using migration as topic for the bilingual project day seems to provide a level of authenticity (Chen, 2016) to the bilingual project proposed in this contribution

Bilingual Project: Digital Storytelling of Undocumented Immigrant Youth The potentially meaningful and hence motivating context of migration serves as an ideal platform for integrating digital stories on social media into a curriculum. The fact that immigrant youth publish their narratives as undocumented migrants in order to protest against the perceived faults of their immediate and global society adds yet another level of meaningfulness to the bilingual project, as EFL 134

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

learners themselves are trained to be media literate and participate in that same, digital realm. During the workshop, students are led to engage with the responsibilities that these undocumented immigrants already perceive as their duties and as a global citizen. In this contribution, global citizenship refers to learners who are capable of acting “collaboratively and responsibly to find global solutions for global challenges,” such as migration, and who are able to adopt “a multiperspective approach that recognizes the different dimensions, perspectives and angles of issues” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 9). The topic, therefore, exceeds the competences and objectives of the curriculum for English as a Second/Foreign Language in North-Rhine-Westfalia, Germany. Teaching students about immigrant politics as an exclusively cultural phenomenon, on the one hand, and fostering media literacy/competence, on the other hand, as it seems to be proposed in the curriculum (cf. QUA-LiS NRW, 2013), is an endeavor that leads to a mastery of a meaningful topic such as migration and basic (media/ digital) literacy skills. This approach is in accordance with Boileau’s (2015) suggestion of how to teach digital literacy skills in this day and age:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Methods for teaching digital literacy skills begin by providing learners with access to digital technologies in the classroom when it is appropriate and useful. Educators must also model creative and critical ways to locate, create, communicate, and evaluate information within a networked environment to further the learners’ subject knowledge, regardless of subject area. (Boileau, 2015, p. 508) Therefore, the main objectives of parents, educators, and curricula should revolve around including as many different (digital) media literacy skills based upon as many key concepts of digital and media literacy as possible. The competences and skills aimed at in the bilingual project day workshops are, most prominently, media literacy skills that are introduced by means of socio-political/cultural knowledge on undocumented immigration in the U.S. – i.e., cultural competences that are also anchored in the curriculum for senior high school grades in North Rhine-Westphalia (QUA-LiS NRW, 2013). However, the question of what it is like to be an undocumented youth in the U.S. – hence, the cultural knowledge – is introduced implicitly. It is not separated from the medium’s logic and language of multimodality of YouTube that the narrators adopt in their videos. Therefore, questions regarding the content of their videos, the reasons for publishing as well as the stylistic devices used in the videos of undocumented youth are relevant. In the light of recent research introduced in this chapter, different media/digital literacy skills come into play at different stages of the project day and build upon each other. The project day is about eight hours long and consists of three phases. In the first phase, theoretical terms such as medium, media logic, and the public sphere are taught inductively. The students are supposed to react promptly to videos posted online and verbalize their reactions, thereby acting as audiences in the public sphere. In this phase, the students also reflect on their media usage and the conventions and obligations (as part of its media logic) that each medium imposes upon its users. Phase two introduces undocumented immigration in the U.S., immigrant activism, and the concept of political logic. The fact that online media may have a vital effect in the offline life is exemplified by online videos of immigrant protest on YouTube. Visualizations of different modes that can be used for digital storytelling, the teacher then introduces the students to the idea of multimodality and helps them analyze digital stories of undocumented immigrant youth. The Teaching Tip below discusses an example that can be used in the EFL classroom while focusing on political activism in new media such as YouTube. It further provides a step-by-step lesson plan that spans over an entire day (approximately eight hours). It establishes links to the core media literacy

135

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

skills as well as the underlying key concepts for media and digital literacy, which are subsumed in the last three paragraphs of the teaching tip. Teaching Tip Stefanie conducts a project day for advanced learners of English as a foreign language classroom in Germany. The general topics they work with are global migration and the new media. The students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds, yet all of them aspire to obtain the highest high school diploma attainable in Germany, the so-called A-levels. As media literacy is an overarching, common goal for all majors, the students participating in Stefanie’s workshop are supposed to acquire media literacy skills through discussion of an actual, meaningful topic such as immigration. The workshop takes about eight hours (including breaks). It consists of three phases, for all of which laptops, writing utensils, and spaces (e.g., posters, a whiteboard or the like), headphones for each student, and mode cards (visualizations of individual modes) are needed. Students work individually as well as in groups or in plenum with Stefanie. Phase one strongly relies on theoretical terms such as medium, media logic, and public sphere, which Stefanie introduces to the students. Phase two introduces undocumented immigration in the U.S., immigrant activism, and the concept of political logic. Using visualizations of different modes that can be used for digital storytelling, Stefanie introduces the students to the idea of multimodality and helps them analyze digital stories of undocumented youth. First, Stefanie introduces the topic of new media use in modern day society. She presents a personalized account of her media usage and life with and in media. Next, the students are asked to answer three reflective questions: 1. What does your day look like? 2. Which media do you use? 3. Which media are the most important to you? Stefanie then collects the individual answers and uses some of them as examples to explain how media surround all people like water surrounds fish in a bowl (cf. Deuze’s (2012) use of the metaphor in his book Media Life). She also uses an image of a car as a metaphor to explain that a medium always and necessarily carries a message. Next, students generate messages using different media channels that they employ in their daily lives. This includes, for instance, Instagram or Twitter posts. As a second step of phase one, Stefanie explains the concept of media logic/grammar of a medium. She tells the students that these are types of rules that they (need to) follow when interacting through a social media platform. Stefanie highlights the ways social media users change their behavior and adapt it to the medium (e.g., editing a photo so one looks different from reality). The students are then asked to reflect on the logic, that is, the rules they, themselves, have to consider and follow when acting on YouTube. In groups, the students are asked to compare their results to a second media platform of their choice. They are told to answer the following question: What are the user’s (media) options and rules on, for instance, Twitter or Instagram? On YouTube? They are then told to compare their answers with those of other groups. As a last activity of phase one, students watch three digital stories that undocumented youth posted on YouTube in order to protest against their discrimination in the U.S. society. The students are asked to comment on and react to the videos, using emoji photo booth props (such as a sad smiley on a ‘stick’) and speech/thought bubbles to write their comments on, reflecting on their first, spontaneous opinions, thoughts, or emotions (just as random consumers would). In plenum, the students then compare and evaluate the emotions that have been noted in the audience. In phase two of the workshop, the students summarize what they have learned about the lives of undocumented immigrant youth in the U.S. from watching the videos during phase one on the board or a poster. Stefanie then adds details about life as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S., and respective political goals and strategies, thus introducing the political logic of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. With this information in mind, the students browse posts by undocumented youth on different online platforms and are asked to list the differences in the political output that each medium sends. In the third phase of the project, Stefanie explains the terms modes and multimodality to the students by giving definitions and examples. Then, she distributes mode cards on which modes are explained via the use of visual examples to the students. Depending on the chosen videos, these can include:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• Modes of the moving image: non-verbal language, such as the movement of hands, arms, or the whole body, gestures and facial expressions, and principles of film-making, such as the camera angle, camera shots, cuts, setting, and props; • Modes of auditory language (speech): voice quality or editing (here, the students can additionally listen to audio files demonstrating the particular modes); • Visual language (writing): captions; • Sound: recorded or performed music, background noise. With the help of the mode cards, students watch the videos in pairs. Then, they choose between one and three modes, search for them in the videos, and note them down. Next, the students interpret the political message that is augmented (or weakened) by the modes with the help of the mode cards in pairs or small groups and present their findings to the whole class.

136

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Teaching Tip The division of the project into three major phases sets three different foci that build up on each other thematically and lead into analyzing digital stories of undocumented youth from a critical perspective. Stefanie’s students reflect on their own media usage and media habits, and on how media change our behavior in the offline as well as online world. They learn that the messages created on digital media platforms serve different purposes. Thus, the students are confronted with basic ideas of the media literacy concept, namely that media are constructions, that audiences negotiate meaning, and that each medium has a unique aesthetic form. In phase one, students act as consumers of digital stories posted on YouTube via the use of comments (simulated comment cards) or emojis (emoji photo props). As they get the chance to react onto the content directly on comment cards simulating online comments on YouTube, they use the particularly designed affordances of YouTube as a medium in a reflective way. They actively experience what it means to be part of the public sphere by reacting to and commenting on the videos. In the second phase of the bilingual project on digital storytelling of undocumented immigrant youth, the students learn that online platforms are spaces for political participation (i.e., public spaces). In terms of media literacy, the students are thus made aware of the fact that media have social and political implications and that each medium has a unique aesthetic form and functioning (i.e., media logic). They learn to discern different media designs, as digital media experiences are shaped by the tools its users use. They analyze different types of output on different online platforms and the effects the design has on the political message (i.e., political logic). In the third phase of the project on digital storytelling of undocumented immigrant youth, Stefanie’s students learn about multimodality and learn to discern between the mode and message of a video. The students apply their knowledge of the individual aesthetic forms of the videos and analyze and evaluate the most subtle nuances of political messages. This corresponds to discerning a medium’s unique aesthetic forms, political implications, and shaping of the experience by the tools used by the platform. Thus, the students make informed decisions about building an opinion on the political messages transmitted by the digital story videos, relying on their pre-existing knowledge of YouTube as well as the newly instructed aspects of multimodality and the current immigrant rights movement in the U.S.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Using digital stories of undocumented youth on YouTube as authentic material to teach media literacy, this chapter has proposed that the instruction of media literacy skills in EFL classrooms should include current, relevant, and global topics, such as migration. The definition of media literacy presented here is based on Hobbs’ (2010) key concepts of media literacy. These propose that media products are constructions (of reality) that are expressed in a unique, aesthetic form. Further, it has been argued that the meaning of media products is created by the audience, and that media have commercial, ideological, social, political, and value implications. These latter characteristics of media become particularly important with regard to new, digital products such as the digital stories of undocumented immigrant youth who have found a vibrant pathway into the public sphere by the publication of their digital stories on media platforms such as YouTube for the sake of political protest. Sharing important details of their lives, such as the search for a job with social security, paying for college, or societal discrimination, fear of detention with their viewers, undocumented youth enter the public sphere via their digital stories posted on YouTube. In their videos, the political logic of the immigrant rights movement and the media logic of the platform YouTube intertwines, as the use of multimodality as a language for storytelling in their videos shows. In this chapter, the underlying rationale of this approach to the digital stories of undocumented youth on YouTube is called mediatization. Mediatization acknowledges the increasing presence and importance of media in all aspects of social and political life. Echoing Marshall McLuhan (1964), the chapter argued that each medium has its unique technological grammar that shapes the message a medium produces in a unique way (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014). It follows that digital media are therefore not merely mediators of cultural content, but they are cultural products inherently shaped by the logic of their medium. Further, as demonstrated in the teaching tip section, this chapter pointed out that worldly knowledge and digital literacy skills cannot be taught separately and should be integrated in cross-disciplinary classrooms. Not only does this approach provide socio-cultural and political knowledge, but it also facilitates language

137

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

learning through authentic language input as well as it teaches the language of digital storytelling on YouTube called multimodality, i.e., the art of best combining different modes and media, such as texts, images, audio, or video. The topic of immigration provides an authentic teaching context for the EFL classroom, as it engages with global issues that are relevant to students of all majors. Accordingly, digital stories of undocumented youth foster the preoccupation with this topic as well as the acquisition of key (digital) media literacy skills. This chapter attempted to demonstrate that if media literacies are consistent with possibilities for critical reflection, there is a potential deliberation and action that may be empowering for EFL students. In the Teaching Tip presented above, EFL students learn, for instance, how to read the political messages of undocumented youth and distinguish this political logic from the medium they are published in. Therefore, digital media literacy is a necessary adaptation to the fast-changing educational landscape and technologies of the digital age as it emphasizes the youths’ participation in the public sphere of the digital age – the Internet. In contrast to traditional media literacy skills, digital literacy emphasizes that students need to be able work with and in media and become more than just the critically engaged consumers for the media industry. They should also become creators in a network in order to become fully participating, digital citizens of the 21st century. In the future, media literacy education needs to be re-adjusted to this goal and made a solid, interdisciplinary part of the curriculum world-wide (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009; UNESCO, 2014). Educators and researchers need to continuously promote “critical thinking about the messages we receive and create” and engage learners of all ages so that media literacy education may develop participants that make informed decisions based on their very own reflection, which is a vital element of a democratic society (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009). There is need for continuous work on the curriculum and a suitably methodology that remains close to the actual media experiences of all students. Discussion Questions 1. How can meaningful topics related to Undocumented Immigrant Youth be integrated into the EFL classroom? 2. How could one further implement the media literacy skill of “creating” into the bilingual project day so that students become active participants themselves? 3. Which skills and key concepts of media and digital literacy, as proposed in this chapter, do undocumented immigrant youth themselves demonstrate in their online videos?

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute. Beach, R. (2009). Digital tools for collecting, connecting, constructing, responding to, creating, and conducting media ethnographies of audience use of media texts. In R. Hammer & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 206–228). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Benmayor, R. (2012). Digital testimonio as a signature pedagogy for Latin@ Studies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(3), 507–524. doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.698180

138

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Boileau, T. (2015). Methods for teaching digital literacy skills. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 507–509). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Budke, A., & Hoogen, A. (2018). Das Boot ist voll: Wie Bilder in Geographieschulbüchern Vorstellungen von illegalen Migrantinnen und Migranten produzieren. [The boat is jammed: How visuals in geography books produce images of illegal migrants] In C. Rass, & M. Ulz (Eds.), Migration ein Bild geben: Visuelle Aushandlungen von Diversität [Imagining migration: Visual negotiations of diversity] (pp. 129–160). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-10442-9_7 Burgess, J., & Green, J. (Eds.). (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Chen, J. J. (2016). Educating English language learners for success in the 21st century: Facilitating their acquisition of multiliteracies. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 75–90). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9.ch004 Chlosta, C., & Ostermann, T. (2017). Grunddaten zur Mehrsprachigkeit im deutschen Bildungssystem. [Basic data on multilingualism in the German educational system]. In B. Ahrenholz, & I. Oomen-Welke (Eds.), Deutsch als Zweitsprache [German as a second language]. Vol. 9, pp. 21–40). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. Cline, B. J. (2016). Media ecology and the 21st century classroom. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 275–290). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9.ch013 Cortoni, I., Lo Presti, V., & Cervelli, P. (2015). Digital competence assessment: A proposal for operationalizing the critical dimension. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 7(1), 46–57. Deetjen, C. (2019). Teaching for a global perspective: Multimedia narrative and archiving projects on the refugee crisis in the EFL classroom. Paper presented at the Educating the Global Citizen: International Perspectives on Foreign Language Teaching in the Digital Age Conference, Munich, Germany. Detmold, B. (2019). Leitlinie ‚Schule in der digitalen Welt [Guidelines for school in the digital world]. Retrieved from https://www.bezreg-detmold.nrw.de/200_Aufgaben/025_Schule/015_Bildung-in-derdigitalen-Welt/017_Infopool/Dokumente/Leitlinie-Schule-in-der-digitalen-Welt.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Deuze, M. (2012). Media life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Dvorghets, O. S., & Shaturnaya, Y. A. (2015). Developing students’ media literacy in the English language teaching context. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 192–198. doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.08.051 Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformations of Western democracies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137275844 Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Retrieved from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83167/lb-na26035-enn.pdf

139

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Flores-González, N., & Gutiérrez, E. R. (2010). Taking the public square: The national struggle for immigrant rights. In A. Pallares, & N. Flores- González (Eds.), Marcha! Latino Chicago and the immigrant rights movement (pp. 3–36). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Friesem, Y., Quaglia, D., & Crane, E. (2014). Media now: A historical review of a media literacy curriculum. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 35–55. doi:10.23860/JMLE-2016-06-02-4 Fuchs, C. (2011). Foundations of critical media and information studies. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203830864 Grafe, S. (2011). Media literacy und media (literacy) education in den USA: Ein Brückenschlag über den Atlantik [Media literacy and media (literacy) education in the U.S.A: Bridging the gap across the Atlantic]. Medien-Pädagogik [Media education] 20, 59–80. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Hartley, J. (2009). Uses of YouTube: Digital literacy and the growth of knowledge. In J. Burgess, & J. Green (Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (pp. 126–143). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Haß, F. (2012). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition, Innovation, Praxis [English didactics: Tradition, innovation, practice]. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen. Hjarvard, S. (Ed.). (2008). The mediatization of religion: A theory of the media as agents of religious change. Bristol, UK: Intellect. Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Retrieved from https://knightfoundation. org/reports/digital-and-media-literacy-plan-action Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 1–11. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press. Johnson, K. R. (2017). Immigration and civil rights in the Trump administration: Law and policy making by executive order. Santa Clara Law Review, 57, 611–665.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jolls, T., & Wilson, C. (2014). The core concepts: Fundamental to media literacy yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 68–78. doi:10.23860/JMLE-2016-06-02-6 Kervin, L., Mantei, J., & Herrington, J. (2009). Using technology in pedagogically responsive ways to support literacy learners. In L. T. W. Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 203–215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch013 Kloock, D., & Spahr, A. (2000). Medientheorien: Eine Einführung [Media theories: An introduction]. München, Germany: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

140

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Kultusministerkonferenz. (2016). Bildung in der digitalen Welt. Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz [Education in a digital world: Strategies of the standing conference of the ministers of education and cultural affairs of Germany]. Retrieved from https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2017/Strategie_neu_2017_datum_1.pdf Livingstone, S. (2009). Foreword: Coming to terms with mediatization. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 9–13). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lundby, K. (Ed.). (2008). Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self-representations in new media. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Mansell, R. (2009). The power of new media networks. In R. Hammer, & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media / cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 107–122). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Manzoor, A. (2016). Media literacy in the digital age: Literacy projects and organizations. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 249–274). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9.ch012 Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2014). Mediatization and political autonomy: A systems approach. In F. Esser, & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformations of Western democracies (pp. 74–89). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137275844_5 Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1–22. Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. London, UK: Comedia. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York, NY: William Terrence Gordon. Merse, T., & Schmidt, J. (2018). Internet-Medien und Web 2.0. [Media of the internet and web 2.0]. In C. Lütge (Ed.), Englisch Methodik [English methodology] (pp. 156 ̶ 177). Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-v. Ditfurth, M. (2018). Introduction to English language teaching. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett. NAMLE. (2007). Core principles of media literacy education. Retrieved from https://namle.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/coreprinciples.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Orner, P. (2008). Underground America: Narratives of undocumented lives. San Francisco, CA: McSweeney’s Books. Ott, M. (2017). Zweitsprachler in der Sekundarstufe. [Second language learners in secondary learning]. In B. Ahrenholz, & I. Oomen-Welke (Eds.), Deutsch als Zweitsprache [German as a second language]. vol. 9, pp. 251–263). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. Pallares, A. (2015). Family activism: Immigrant struggles and the politics of noncitizenship. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pérez, W. (2012). Americans by heart: Undocumented Latino students and the promise of higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

141

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

QUA-LiS NRW. (2013). Kernlehrplan: Gymnasium Sek II [Core curriculum: High school, grades 1113]. Retrieved from https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/lehrplannavigator-s-ii/gymnasialeoberstufe/ Quakernack, S. (2018). Political protest and undocumented immigrant youth: (Re-)framing testimonio. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351232234 Ramírez, L. (2011). Social action. In L. Ramírez (Ed.), Chicanas of 18th street: Narratives of a movement from Latino Chicago (pp. 166 ̶ 200). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Literacy. In J. C. Richards, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (p. 345). New York, NY: Routledge. Rosenfeld, K. N. (2016). Terms of the digital age: Realities and cultural paradigms. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 115–144). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9.ch006 Schmidt, T. (2010). Multimediale Lernumgebungen für das Fremdsprachenlernen. [Multimedia learning environments for second language learning] In W. Hallet, & F. G. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik [Handbook of foreign language didactics] (pp. 280–284). Seelze-Velber, Germany: Klett. Schulz, W. (2014). Mediatization and new media. In F. Esser, & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformations of Western democracies (pp. 57–73). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137275844_4 Stöckl, H. (2004). In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In E. Ventola, C. Cassily, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ddcs.6.03sto Tan, S.-C., & Tan, A.-L. (2011). Developing students’ new literacies with computer-supported collaborative argumentation. In C. M. L. Ho, K. T. Anderson, & A. P. Leong (Eds.), Transforming literacies and language: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age (pp. 105 ̶ 121). London, UK: Continuum. UNESCO. (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. Retrieved from http://www.eunec.eu/sites/www.eunec.eu/files/attachment/files/global_citizenship_education_report.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217 Ventola, E., Charles, C., & Kaltenbacher, M. (Eds.). (2004). Perspectives on multimodality. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ddcs.6 White, R., & Wyn, J. (2008). Youth & society: Exploring the social dynamics of youth experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

142

 Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Zollers, A. (2009). Critical perspectives on social network sites. In R. Hammer, & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 602–614). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Core Principles of Media Literacy Education: Principles that the National Association for Media Literacy (NAMLE) defined in the year of 2007 and that articulated common grounds for the development of media literacy education as a field of research. Most importantly, the Core Principles declare that the purpose of media literacy education is to teach media/digital literacy skills to learners of all ages and backgrounds, not only to younger learners in school. They further declare consensus over the idea that traditional literacy (e.g., ability to read and write) needs to be expanded to include all forms of media and that media audiences themselves need to become informed, critical participants of the online culture. Digital Literacy: A skill that is necessary in the digital age in order to participate socially, culturally, and politically and make well-informed decisions in the digital world. In contrast to media literacy, this focus on participatory skills is said to enable active participation in digital media. It emphasizes the well-informed and able consumer/producer of media, who is able to access, use, understand, and create (new) media. Media Literacy: Media Literacy comprises a set of skills including a person’s ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, reflect, and act in and with media. It is based on key concepts for media literacy that claim that media products are constructions (of reality) that are expressed in a unique, aesthetic form. The meaning of media products is created by the audience, and that media have commercial, ideological, social, political, and value implications. Media Literacy Education: Education that emphasizes critical reflection of media contents as constructed representations of reality. Media literacy education has been guided by Core Principles that are still grounds for many media literacy educational programs today. These principles put representation at the core of media education. Media literacy education further expands the traditional understanding of literacy to all media, and it understands all media as parts of culture. Ever since the preoccupation with media literacy, educators call for a more substantial integration of media literacy education in school curricula worldwide. Media Logic: The grammar of a medium, that is, the structure, aesthetic, and particular characteristics of a medium through which it presents, shapes, and transmits its messages (e.g., political messages). Mediatization: A theoretical perspective that acknowledges the increasing presence of media in all aspects of personal and political life, arguing that media logic and political logic intertwine. The mediatization perspective views digital media as the key to the concept of the public sphere by Habermas (1989), thesocio-political space that all citizens participate in. From a mediatization perspective, media and society are understood to be in a dynamic, co-dependent relationship that challenges media-induced influence as a primary, linear force. Multimodality: The language for digital storytelling, which, on YouTube, requires the capacity to understand how to best combine modes, such as texts, images, audio, or video in order to craft a visual argument. Political Logic: The public face, tactics, and strategies for winning political support and publicity of a political group that, according to mediatization theory, is negotiated with the logic of the medium.

143

Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Undocumented Immigrant Youth: Those migrants who crossed the border (in this chapter: the U.S. border) without papers and live in the country without proper documentation. Due to their active involvement in social media, undocumented immigrant youth have become the voice of the immigrant rights movement of the 21st century. YouTube: A video-sharing platform created in 2006 that has recently increased its options for usergenerated content, allowing them to use the platform as a network where users may not only view but also comment on, rate, and share videos in addition to uploading their own, self-made videos. With regard to media literacy skills, YouTube is an important channel for publication of amateur videos and hence increases the means of digital participation in the national and global society.

144

Fostering (Digital) Media Literacy Skills and Global Citizenship in the EFL Classroom

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 1–11. Hobbs and Jenson’s article appeared in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Media Literacy Education, the leading journal in the field. It carefully outlines the development of media literacy education as a field of research. It also provides a simple depiction of the historical as well as international developments of the field of media literacy and discusses its key players. Lastly, the authors prognosticate important directions for the future of media literacy research and education worldwide. 2. Stöckl, H. (2004). In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher. (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Despite the fact that Stöckl’s chapter seems to be focusing merely on printed media, it provides a scheme that entails a detailed overview of the different modes and their relations to each other. This scheme is useful when attempting to make sense of the multimodal ensemble and distinguishing different modes with students of all levels. 3. Quakernack, S. (2018). Political protest and undocumented immigrant youth: (Re-)framing testimonio. London, UK: Routledge. Quakernack carefully studies political protest of undocumented youth in the U.S. and supports her findings with field research that took place in an underground organization in Chicago in 2014. In this book, Quakernack takes a mediatization approach to analyze a body of digital narratives posted on YouTube by undocumented immigrant activists and analyzes them according to different modes (=media logic) and the political logic she found in her field work.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Media Smarts. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/. The website Media Smarts–a Canadian, national organization formerly known as the Media Awareness Network–offers a variety of media literacy resources that can be used by parents, teachers, or schools. Most notably, it offers extensive lesson plans that incorporate media literacy skills into different subject areas to download for free.

145

146

Chapter 8

Telecollaborative Storytelling:

Reframing English Language Learners’ and Pre-service Teachers’ Identity, Multimodal Literacy, and Intercultural Competency Andrea Enikő Lypka Learning Empowered, USA Dustin De Felice Michigan State University, USA

ABSTRACT Telecollaborative multimodal storytelling has evolved into an innovative pedagogic design that fuses information technologies, semiotic repertoires, and modalities with cooperative learning, personal accounts, and academic content. Informed by social constructionism and poststructuralism, this chapter presents a semester-long virtual exchange with language learners and pre-service teachers in two universities and the format of this initiative with a focus on pedagogical suggestions. Not only did this collaboration transcend the classroom, but it provided a supportive environment for multiliteracy, disciplinary knowledge, and cross-cultural competency development and identity negotiation within traditional and virtual learning spaces. Co-authored multimedia ensembles, refective writing, and teamwork can enable learners to generate meaningful narratives, forge reciprocal partnerships, engender social consciousness, and express themselves creatively across linguistic, cultural, and technology capital.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION To navigate effectively and responsively in superdiverse and technology-saturated environments, in addition to writing, reading, numeracy, disciplinary, discourse, and linguistic knowledge individuals need to master digital literacy, technological, visual, and information literacies and cross-cultural communicative competencies (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; New London Group, 1996; Priego & Liaw, 2017; Vinogradova, Linville, & Bickel, 2011). Instructional techniques intertwined with digital DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch008

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

technology (e.g., mobile devices, digital cameras, video streaming, and application software, etc.), local and global perspectives, semiotic modalities (e.g., verbal, visual, gestural, musical, and hypertextual modalities that can include images, video clips, sounds, emojis, animations, etc.), and out-of-school digital literacy practices (e.g., social networking, gaming, and vlogging, etc.) blur geographic, political, demographic, linguistic, disciplinary, cultural, community, and digital sites. By bridging the home, community, and academic worlds, these methods reframe education as a dynamic and fluid identity performance in a dynamic and global discourse community. In multilingual and multicultural contexts, participatory multimodal models of pedagogy contest face-to-face, lecture-based, monolingual, and monocultural instruction that has pervaded the Western education, advocating for student-driven instruction and literacy skills needed for successful global communication, linguistic and cultural diversity, and equitable academic prospects (Castañeda, Shen, & Claros-Berlioz, 2018; Vasudevan, Schultz, & Bateman, 2010). Telecollaboration (Coelho, Galante, & Pires, 2016; De Felice & Ortiz Alcocer, 2011), narrative writing, digital storytelling (DS) (Castañeda, 2013a; Vasudevan et al., 2010; Vinogradova, 2007), mobile learning, community-based digital photography (Lypka, 2019), and filmmaking (Lypka, 2018) attend to individuals’ nonlinear, simultaneous communication, informal knowledge systems, agency, identities, interests, literacy practices, and subjective realities to produce knowledge. Infusing digital literacy skills in foreign and second language (L2) classrooms can stimulate multimodal literacy alongside the development of L2 proficiency, intercultural competence, and interconnectedness. Furthermore, these collaborative digital technology methods can amplify emotions and insights that might not emerge in traditional learning zones (Johnson & Kendrick, 2016; Lindholm & Mednick Myles, 2019). As research into language teaching and learning indicates, cultivating identity expressions necessary for digital cross-cultural engagement requires time investment, resources, and scaffolding (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016; De Felice & Lypka, 2013; Santos Green, 2013; Lin, Thang, Jaafar, & Zabidi, 2013; Lypka, 2019; Miller, Hafner, & Fun, 2012; Raven & O’Donnell, 2010). Enhancing these skills can be problematic for language learners who struggle to negotiate their own cultural values with the academic expectations in the host country and the language skills and literacies needed to complete their programs (Vasudevan et al., 2010; Vinogradova et al., 2011). Deeper insights into students’ educational journeys, cultural patterns, literacies, and learning processes can prepare practitioners to inquire into asset-based pedagogies, such as telecollaborative DS (Priego & Liaw, 2017), to further understanding of diverse learning needs. Considering the shift to intercultural multimodal language education (e.g., De Felice, Curtis, & Ortiz Alcocer, 2020; Galante, 2014; Priego & Liaw, 2017), the author-practitioners review current DS scholarship and offer practical applications to implementing DS initiatives. They also draw on an intercultural virtual DS project to reveal how this task augmented respect for openness, the values of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences, equal voice, and collaborative learning in two different universities in the U.S. For the language learners, this project aimed to nurture appreciation of cultural differences and identity expressions to navigate an academic discourse community. For the pre-service teachers, it focused on enriching pedagogical knowledge and praxis while also helping them learn more about working with language learners. The authors also reflect on their evolution with participatory responsive digital pedagogy with an emphasis on multiliteracies and distance education. Addressing these topics is more pertinent in settings where instructors may lack expertise with multifaceted cross-cultural issues, educational technology, and multiliteracies.

147

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Identity, Multimodal Literacy, and Intercultural Communication The assumptions underpinning this paper are social constructionism (Wray, 2010) and poststructuralism (Norton & Morgan, 2013), two philosophical worldviews whereby meaning is not individual, objective, static, homogenous, and ingrained but “learned, used, and revised in social interaction” (Harris, 2010, p. 10), subjective, ambiguous, and fluid. Through digital literacy projects, the authors sought to tap into learners’ local wisdom, cultural values, and semiotic systems or multiliteracies (e.g., the written, verbal, visual, gestural, etc.) (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996) to enhance learning in third spaces (Bhabha, 1994). By uncovering intangible aspects of lived histories and positioning students as intercultural knowledge creators (Johnson & Kendrick, 2016), digital literacy tasks become symbolic zones where “the potential for an expanded form of learning and the development of new knowledge are heightened” (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 152). Social constructionist and poststructuralist scholarship pushes back on monolithic orientations to identity, culture, literacy, and power that influence L2 development. Lindholm and Mednick-Myles (2019) conceptualize culture as part of identity and as a set of ever-changing practices, customs, and beliefs embodied in verbal and non-verbal literacy practices. Norton (2013) defines identity as “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (p. 45). Culturally responsive interactants employ agreed-upon symbols through a wide array of communication methods and modalities to perform intended meanings and curate who they are, while navigating observable (e.g., festivals and food) and invisible aspects of culture (e.g., interpersonal relationships, body language, power distance, and time conventions). Individuals also need to negotiate salient identities or memberships in social networks (e.g., mother, student, Hindu, etc.) (Norton, 2013; Vinogradova, 2007). Identity negotiation becomes sometimes “a site of struggle” (Norton, 2013) in “communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) or groups with joint interests, resources, and norms (see also Zhao & Christison in this volume). For example, in the language classrooms, learners can resist ascribed labels (e.g., non-native speaker, immigrant, undocumented, etc.) within ideologies of majority language, culture, and institutional discourses and beliefs that marginalize them through non-participation and silence or construction of counter narratives in web-mediated zones. Through mentoring, students invest in the group’s practices, establish positive identities, and legitimize themselves in these groups. Deconstructing the identityculture-literacy-power interplay can unveil how individuals constitute group memberships and insights from multiple perspectives that might be challenging to articulate given the cultural dissonance (De Felice & Ortiz Alcocer, 2014; Johnson & Kendrick, 2016; Lypka, 2019, 2018). In language education, the print-based understandings of literacy have been broadened with learnercentered approaches to multiliteracies, and social identities (Alcantud-Díaz 2016; Vinogradova et al., 2011). For instance, international students in the study by Vinogradova et al. (2011) employed a wide range of semiotics or multiliteracies to design brief accounts about their distinct cultural backgrounds, histories, and immersion process in the host culture. Alcantud-Díaz (2016) combined DS with academic report writing to intensify teacher candidates’ research and academic skills and awareness on the refugee situation in a foreign language learning course in Spain. Sharing digital stories in classrooms, virtually, and at film festivals can expand meaning making and increase consciousness of the pedagogical value of DS in linguistic and cross-cultural competence growth. These projects emphasize that L2 learning is a 148

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

sociocultural endeavor: students achieve their full potential and become intercultural knowledge producers when they collectively author digital multimodal narratives. Participatory DS can bridge language, literacy, and cultural barriers, connect individuals and stories, and mediate successful cross-cultural interaction by “combining language skills with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that help them [the students] become ‘intercultural citizens,’ able to engage in intercultural communication, to think and act critically, and to negotiate the complexities of today’s world” (Byram, 2008 in Byram & Wagner, 2018, p. 141). These studies reveal that DS is a viable pedagogical design to affix the curriculum to students’ intricate life-worlds and communication resources congruent with the ways of living in a global world. Through the social constructionist and poststructuralist lens, the present chapter situates identity, multiliteracy, and intercultural perspectives as performances expressed through multiple communication forms in a DS-infused curriculum. The authors are motivated by a belief that normative teaching-research models that fail to promote students’ experiences and linguistic-cultural capital cannot adequately prepare them to critically consume texts and efficiently capture intended messages (Gutiérrez, 2008). Telecollaborative DS can empower students to critically analyze power, culture, and language and co-construct sociocultural consciousness.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Telecollaboration In language pedagogy, telecollaboration is operationalized as a virtual cooperative learning approach between communities of practice across geographical locations using different types of literacies and technology devices (Coelho et al., 2016; De Felice & Ortiz Alcocer, 2014). Telecollaboration involves emails, online discussion forums, blogs, and other user-friendly computer-supported applications and socially-mediated networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, VoiceThread, etc.) to intensify authentic language and cultural learning opportunities not always available in the local context (De Felice & Ortiz Alcocer, 2014). Virtual partnerships emerged rapidly after the widespread availability of multiple online devices in the 1990s. These include the ability to chat, share text and images, and store content. Educators began leveraging these tools as another way of bringing learners together online, mostly asynchronously, to enhance language and cultural skills. As technology improves, telecollaboration may require a higher level of digital literacy from the learners. In these cases, virtual partnerships often aim to augment digital literacy skills (De Felice et al., 2020). A growing body of research documents the implementation of virtual learning in various countries with learners of all kinds of languages, though many initiatives stem from foreign language contexts because of their need to link learners to speakers who are not available locally. De Felice and Ortiz Alcocer (2014) illustrate how students in Mexico who needed to practice English paired up with pre-service teachers in the U.S. who needed to acquire teaching practice and intercultural awareness in an online project. Posting photographs, videos, and blogs on the Ning platform, the authors argue, opened an alternative space for knowledge sharing among students. However, time zone and schedule differences, messy commenting features, some students’ limited language and technology skills, and slow Internet connection negatively impacted interactions. Similarly, Coelho et al. (2016) invited English language learners in the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and Portugal to distribute information related to travel, college life, and challenges in their home and host countries on the Edmodo platform. To ensure the success of the project, the authors recommend setting up clear objectives and topics engaging to students. In another study, Priego and Liaw (2017) blended a virtual exchange and multilingual DS to enrich intercultural collaboration and knowledge sharing between English language students in Taiwan and French as a second language teachers in Canada. They reported that despite issues related to communication, co-creating DS about learner-relevant issues stimulated collaborative L2 writing, intercultural competence, and problem-solving skills. A key strand emerging from these studies 149

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

acknowledges that international online collaborations can mask the boundaries between learning spaces and maximize authentic language practice, digital literacy, intercultural awareness, and identity construction, while minimizing logistical issues related to face-to-face learning spaces (e.g., finding appropriate time for interactions). Harnessing telecollaboration can widen the lens of language development to include the online interactions and multimodalities.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Digital Multimodal Storytelling in Second Language Teaching and Learning Viewed through a socio-constructionist and poststructuralist lens, DS is a technologically-mediated, cocreated, cyclical, reflective, and generative performance and a media product aligned with curriculum, practice, and real-life (Castañeda, 2013b; Lambert, 2013, 2009; Miller & Kim, 2015; Santos Green, 2013; Vasudevan et al., 2010; Vinogradova 2007) (see de Jager, Fogarty, Tewson, Lenette, & Boydell, 2017 for a systematic review). According to McDrury and Alterio (2003), storytelling, the essence of DS, is “a human experience that enables us to convey, through the language of words, aspects of ourselves and others, and the worlds, real or imagined, that we inhabit. Stories enable us to come to know these worlds and our place in them, given that we are all, to some degree, constituted by stories” (p. 31). Storytellers construct two to five-minute personalized narratives by consciously interweaving the traditional literacies of narration and writing with new technology, multiliteracies, and artistic communication forms (e.g., poetry, digital photography, painting, and theatre) to inform, advocate, entertain, and emotionally engage a global audience (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016; Robin, 2006). Digital stories can range from teacher-generated, student-authored, or joint autobiographical narratives, to scientific documentaries, public service announcements, campaigns, picture books, historical documentaries, and tutorials. By connecting learners’ insights and reading, writing, researching, technology literacy skills, DS honors alternative knowledges, literacy practices, and voices. Similar to community filmmaking and photography (Lypka, 2019, 2018), DS is a process-based and story-driven collective digital literacy initiative that takes into account different abilities and promotes change on a personal and social level (Castañeda, 2013a). Members of a community of practice purposefully compose and publicize stories about issues relevant to them, drawing on diverse modes (e.g., visual, aural) and modalities (e.g., writing, cameras, voice recorders), steps, and accessibility features. Throughout the design, production, and publishing phases, storytellers use familiar and affordable audiovisual recording devices, authoring software, and social networking platforms (e.g., websites, Learning Management Systems, or LMSs, and video streaming platforms) to create and select the music, narration, still visuals, graphics, and video footage to accompany their stories. By engaging in this multimodal composing process, they draft scripts and storyboards, record voice overs, evaluate, and reflect on their realities using diverse technology tools and small group and large group discussions. Through brainstorming, visualizing narratives and emotions, planning, writing, scripting, and storyboarding, providing peer feedback, revising, digitizing the story elements (e.g., recording the voiceovers, ambient sound, and interviews), and showcasing the project (Lambert, 2013), students invest in process-based learning. Throughout this process they apply purposeful language, content, and teamwork skills and take on positions of peer support, translator, photographer, storyteller, designer, and audience. DS tasks can follow Lambert’s (2009) procedural stages that consist of brainstorming about the main idea, collaborating in storycircles, producing a written script, evaluating these narratives, generating a storyboard, recording the voiceovers, digitizing the story components, and disseminating the videos (Vinogradova et al., 2011) or a modified design (e.g., collecting data, storyboarding, and digitizing the project in Johnson and Kendrick, 2016). This method can be blended with telecollaboration (Priego & 150

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

Liaw, 2017), service-learning, exploratory action research, and participatory media production principles (Lypka, 2018) to interlace student- and community-authored data, guided discussion, reflection, and analysis, and participating in public exhibit to catalyze educational and advocacy goals. Although DS may seem time and resource intensive and distracting, lack of access to technology, and unfamiliarity with the DS process and technology remain major challenges, this instructional device is more engaging than exams for language learners and pre-service teachers (e.g., Alcantud-Diaz, 2016; Castañeda, 2013a, 2013b; Santos Green, 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Miller & Kim, 2015). In the following paragraphs, the authors investigate its value in disciplinary, linguistic, technology, and global skills advancement.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Educational Benefits of DS Multimedia storytelling has been enacted to provide profounder insight into language learners’ personal experience while sustaining disciplinary learning needs and language competences, including listening, speaking (Goretti Zaragoza Ninet & Brígido Corachán, 2011; Vinogradova et al., 2011), reading (e.g., Liu, Yang, & Chao, 2019), and writing (e.g., Abdel-Hack & Helwa, 2014). Abdel-Hack and Helwa (2014) intermixed DS and blogs to magnify narrative writing and critical thinking among English-as-a foreign-language majors at a university in Egypt. Goretti Zaragoza Ninet and Brígido Corachán (2011) have acknowledged that peer-collaboration in DS can enhance communicative competence, self-esteem, and situational learning. Furthermore, the authors found that combining DS with peer evaluations is an effective speaking assessment. A common finding is that as an alternative to textbook-based and teacher-fronted tasks and interview evaluations, DS promotes linguistic, digital, and disciplinary literacies in a synergistic and non-threatening project-based environment. By offering choices on technology sources, topics, and forms of expression and respecting individual learning differences, DS may outweigh traditional academic assessments. A growing number of scholars have paid attention to the multimodal affordances of DS to endorse learners’ proficiency with global skills, including cross-cultural identities (Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Galante, 2014; Vinogradova et al., 2011), social justice (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017), critical thinking (Abdel-Hack & Helwa, 2014; Alcantud-Díaz, 2016), multimodal literacy (e.g., Liu, Wang, & Tai, 2019), and technological proficiency (Vinogradova et al., 2011). The digital multimodal design invites dialogue about pressing issues, marginalized communities, and cultural values and practices (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016; Galante, 2014). For instance, international students and newcomers in an English as an Additional Language program in Canada (Galante, 2014) and an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course in the U.S. (Vinogradova et al., 2011) captured complex personal accounts about cross-cultural experiences related to time, relationships, and family and reflected on their histories. Using DS, Emirati college students imparted pride in local languages, places, and people (Raven & O’Donnell, 2010), and pre-service teachers at a university in Spain raised awareness on the Syrian refugee crisis (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016). As noted in these studies, DS engenders critical and reflective dialogue about pressing issues and marginalized communities and enriches the transmission of ideas beyond the linguistic mode (Raven & O’Donnell, 2010; Vinogradova et al., 2011). These investigations show that when blended with reflective discussions and narrative writing, DS can strengthen meaning making and contextualize consciousness on culture and language. Other articles have inspected the role of DS in identity expressions, such as ethnic identity (Raven & O’Donnell, 2010), intercultural identity (Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Priego & Liaw, 2017), and teacher identity (Park, 2019), emotions, strenuous past lived experiences (Castañeda, 2013b; Johnson & Kendrick, 2016), motivation (Liu et al., 2016), agency, and autonomy (e.g., Lin et al., 2013; Vasudevan 151

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

et al., 2010). Park (2019) coupled DS, written reflections, a project report, and a presentation to explore pre-service teachers’ cultural and linguistic pedagogical knowledge development at a U.S. university. The findings indicate that reflective and hybrid tasks enabled the teacher candidates to imagine implementing technology in their future practice. Johnson and Kendrick (2016) reported that a multimodal identity task in a school’s transition program in Canada empowered refugee youth to produce multimedia narratives that “powerfully and compellingly depicted their identities and experiences in a way that they had not accomplished to this degree through previous personal writing projects” (p. 7). Vasudevan et al. (2010) focused on the role of DS to encourage literacy skills by having fifth-graders articulate their new literate identities. They make the case that the creation of multimodal texts reinforced students’ literacy skills and academic engagement. Anderson and Macleroy (2017) discuss a 5-year long multilingual DS collaboration with learners in secondary schools in the UK and eight other countries to expose the culture and language relationship in their narratives. They were intentional about infusing theatre, street dance, drawings, maps, and play to embody insights related to migration, homelessness, and indigenous cultures and to depict emotional states. The authors contend that DS pedagogy fostered a sense of authorship and a storyteller community of practice. In addition to promoting identity expressions, multiliteracy skills, and academic engagement, for practitioners DS can provide insights into learners’ transnational ties (Noguerón-Liu & Hogan, 2017). While the interrelationship among DS, language, culture, and identity have received significant scholarly attention, scant research has outlined telecollaborative DS projects with language learners and teacher candidates. Furthermore, studies have largely emphasized student and instructor perspectives on the instructive values of DS. However, in-depth discussions about the DS procedures, diverse practical and classroom applications, and longitudinal examinations remain relatively underexamined. The results of these investigations yield insights into the role of the instructor to help students navigate cross-cultural relations and the affordances of educational multimedia storytelling to effectively address learners’ needs. This association has been achieved in DS workshops through both researcher-practitioners and participants sharing stories, drafting and revising scripts and storyboards, digitizing narratives based on peer- and instructor feedback, and presenting video creations. The authors integrated story-making, transnational technology-mediated communication, and multiple literacy modes with language learners and pre-service teachers to transcend the academia-home-community frontiers and boost authentic learning and multiliteracies in an environment based on mutual honesty and trust. Such joint digital initiatives foster cultural-linguistic competences, alternate ways of knowing, and transnational identities in classrooms that too often endorse uncritical conformity with linguistic and cultural values.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS This chapter outlines a telecollaborative multimedia narrative collaboration in an intensive EAP Program in the Southeastern U.S. and at a Midwestern college in the U.S. The international students in the first author’s EAP classes aimed to refine skills in reading, vocabulary, grammar, and composition and to gain knowledge of and confidence in academic texts and university interactions, while exploring subjects of American and international cultural, social, and historical context. The teacher candidates in the second author’s language teaching courses aimed to inquire about language acquisition, pedagogy, technology, and classroom practices and sought out hands-on practices to further refine their teaching abilities.

152

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

The authors adopted a virtual collaboration and DS to bridge learners’ cultures and languages in meaningful ways. In the project reported here, to reinforce the relevance of this task, culture-specific information from students was integrated in the curriculum. International students were guided to discover resources in their own learning context and to interact directly with English-speaking pre-service teachers in another academic setting. Pre-service teachers were paired with international students to foster their teaching abilities and metalinguistic awareness while simultaneously supporting them to broaden their worldview and foster respect to the students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences. Much of this extension occurred through the DS activities whereby the learners discovered how to talk about themselves as English speakers, as representatives of a particular culture, and as soon-to-be professionals. Students produced personal multimodal accounts (Robin, 2006) about topics relevant to them and then provided feedback in teams. The English language was chosen for communication among team members. After the teams established first contact via email, team members could adopt preferred communication platforms (e.g., Flipgrid, VoiceThread, WhatsApp, GroupMe chat, Facebook, or email). Students could share the links of their individual works uploaded on Google Drive, YouTube, Kaltura Mediaspace, Prezi, or other platforms to seek further feedback from their team.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Telecollaborative Digital Storytelling: One Project Design Example In this section, a 6-week virtual exchange and multimedia storytelling activity with an emphasis on the pedagogical applications of the study will be outlined. The authors aimed to widen engagement with other student populations, learning contexts, and digital pedagogical techniques. They also intended to reiterate the procedure as opposed to the final product, student-centered as opposed to lecture-based teaching, real-world as opposed to academic tasks, cooperation as opposed to competition, and reflection as opposed to rote memorization. Another goal was to instill the technique of research and writing and mastering an audience awareness, respect, and understanding towards different modes of thinking. The participatory multimodal story design seemed appropriate to address these objectives. Students engaged in a mixture of face-to-face and virtual group work, reflection, and individual learning and adopted technology available to them to construct a short film titled, “Who Am I?,” about their educational or L2 learning journeys and to perform a 10-minute presentation. As part of this task, teams of two language learners and a pre-service teacher collaborated in a peer-review process on Google Docs. To stretch meaning-making, students were encouraged to make visible intricate experiences through visual and textual metaphors, such as “learning is a puzzle,” expressions in their L1s, artifacts, pictures, or videos of families, locations, and events in their native and host countries. Not all students pursued this idea, but the instructors welcomed interlacing original poetry or other written, arts-based, and visual accounts to elevate the personal, emotional, and relevancy values of narratives (Vasudevan et al., 2010). Enacting a DS experience involved brainstorming, scripting, storyboarding, collecting multimedia data, and engaging in peer feedback, production, presentation, reflection, and screening activities (Lambert 2009, 2013), employing freeware web applications (e.g., StoryboardThat and Google Docs for planning and storyboarding, Flipgrid and Google docs for video-based and written comments, Padlet for reflection, and InShot, Adobe Spark, and Powtoon for video editing and presentation making). First, students brainstormed a topic of interest. They then gathered data by downloading visuals from PhotosforClass, Pics4Learning, Flickr Creative Commons, or other resources of non-copyrighted images. Students captured photographs and videos and videotape interviews using iPads, cellular phones, or Flip cameras. Next, they drafted a 300-word-long summary script of the DS, using Word, Google Docs or Notability, 153

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

and participated in peer-review on Google Docs. Following the feedback on their script, students merged the script, scenes, visuals, transitions, sound, and graphic effects into a storyboard using a hard copy, PowerPoint slides, or StoryboardThat (https://www.storyboardthat.com/). They then digitized the multimodal data, using researcher-authored, commercial, or open source cross-platform software for video editing (e.g., Adobe Spark, Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, PhotoStory, iMovie, Windows Movie Maker, or VoiceThread), sound editing (e.g., AuditionDesk, Audacity, or GarageBand), image editing, graphic design (e.g., Canva, GIMP, or Fotor), 3D modelling (e.g., SketchUp or Hexagon), collage making (e.g., Adobe Spark), or presentation creation software (PowerPoint, Google Slides, Prezi, Powtoon, Adobe Connect, or Nearpod). Finally, they presented and disseminated their work on social media platforms (e.g., YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, or Instagram), LMS (e.g., Canvas, Moodle, or Edmodo), or blog sites (e.g., Weebly, Wix, Blogger, or Wordpress) to reach a wide range of audiences. To increase comprehension on the pedagogical effectiveness of DS, students completed an individual open-ended questionnaire and a reflection paper at the beginning and after the completion of the project. In one such pre-activity, they reflected on their prior knowledge and abilities with technology, telecollaboration, DS, intercultural communication, and preferred feedback style. These reflections were guided by questions about whether they had ever done a video or photo slideshow, (anticipated) benefits of DS related to language learning and teaching and other disciplines, and the drawbacks of adopting DS. Other questions elicited comments about the values and knowledge that frame students’ worldviews, the type of tasks that may have been done through or with multimedia content, software, apps, or programs for video editing, and the ways technology could influence intercultural interactions, language teaching and learning, and identities. Responses helped instructors generate teams by combining students with various experiences before the initiative commenced. The interactive, reflective, and multimodal nature of DS revealed that language, culture, and identity are not static but rather ambiguous and dynamic. DS afforded ongoing sense-making and identity negotiations between the language learners and pre-service teachers in multiple ways— procedures central to social constructionism and poststructuralism. In addition, both groups contextualized their content in relation to their lived histories. During the DS initiative, they became critical thinkers and dynamic content creators who could navigate cultural practices, values, and perspectives. Language learners authored two DSs in which the instructional goals were to visualize and narrate their stories while also applying understanding of tenses, adjective clauses, gerunds, and infinitives. In the first task entitled “Who am I?” they compared their education experiences in the U.S. and in their home country. Their second project captured a challenge they faced in their current educational context (e.g., request help from and formulating emails to professors, building relationships with other students) and provided possible solutions. Throughout the semester, the students brainstormed topics, drafted scripts and storyboards in class, and used the on-campus computer lab or their mobile phones to edit stories. After they refined their scripts and storyboards and highlighted grammar concepts in Google Docs, they sought further comments from their peers, teacher candidates, and the instructor. Their reflections affirmed that planning, repetition, and ongoing revision scaffolded with constructive comments intensified their linguistic and content knowledge, cultural awareness, and oral fluency in the target language. In line with social constructionism and poststructuralism, formative assessments confronted them to take risks, experiment with alternative perspectives, and reflect on their identity intersections (caretakers, students, workers). The Teaching Tip illustrates the stages of developing a DS project that guide learners and promote best classroom practices.

154

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

Teaching Tip International students from diverse cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds in Andrea’s blended EAP course desire to master the target language, academic norms, and study skills for undergraduate-level programs where English is the medium of instruction. To better understand students’ academic and professional goals, on the first day of class, Andrea asks her students to introduce themselves on the discussion board in the course LMS (e.g., names, nicknames, L1s, other language spoken, academic and career goals, and major). Even though the students are proficient English speakers and are pursuing programs in Engineering, Business, and Natural Sciences, they mention discomfort interacting with other English speakers engaging in research, and producing engaging academic presentations. Andrea also observes that many of her students seek exclusively the company of others from similar cultural and linguistic background. These learners’ needs range from general language, content knowledge, and academic norms (e.g., grammar structures, vocabulary, and presentation, research, academic writing, technology, test-taking, and study skills) to program and discipline-specific language, knowledge, and skills (e.g., topics, vocabulary, and genre knowledge). To engender meaningful learning space, the instructor aligns students’ need for academic and language socialization, the institution’s commitment to inclusive global learning, the program’s contentbased instruction philosophy, and the teacher candidates’ needs. To assist students to co-construct meaning and take charge of their learning, Andrea substitutes one of the major assignments (e.g., research paper, argumentative essay) with a DS partnership rooted in students’ experiential, visual, linguistic, and gestural literacy practices, community arts, and cooperative learning outside the classroom. This activity aims to expose students to topics relevant to them, academic genres, campus events, services, student organizations, and programs, while attending to various modalities (listening, speaking, reading, research, writing, grammar) and digital literacy skill development. To scaffold learning, Andrea breaks down the project into steps, provides a handout on these steps, presents and repeats this content in multiple formats (face-to-face, written instructions, and video overview), and publishes the material on the LMS so that students can review it at their own pace. To promote multimodal collaborative learning, she designs activities that utilize independent work, in-class pair work, online teamwork, and tutoring at the campus writing center and digital media lab. She asks students to provide feedback and comments face-to-face and online, engage in reading academic texts, and conduct research. Finally, she stresses the importance of culture, language, and content objectives in this project as opposed to the technology or aesthetic aspects. Designing and creating digital stories requires procedures inspired by Lambert’s steps (2006) and an advocacy approach. 1. In Part 1 of the assignment, the students are introduced to the concepts of DS, telecollaboration, and culture and are asked to analyze videos on StoryCenter.org (https://www.storycenter.org/), the YouTube channel of StoryCenter (https://www.youtube.com/user/ CenterOfTheStory), and StoryCorps (https://storycorps.org/). For example, they identify DS elements (transition, background music, storyline, etc.). Then they take notes of cultural values and perspectives in the videos, share their views in class, and reflect on their beliefs and value systems that influence their own worldviews. 2. In Part 2, in class, the students brainstorm in groups ideas and sources for their projects. After these discussions, they share summaries, outlines, concept maps, or mind maps of their work with their classmates, using Mindmeister, Coggle, or other apps and graphic organizers. Andrea provides examples of summaries, outlines, and mindmaps and an evaluation rubric. 3. In Part 3, they practice reading, identifying key words and ideas, noticing language forms, annotating, and summarizing two academic readings on the topics chosen for DS projects (e.g., academic socialization). The students also complete individual pre-project survey, reflection, and an optional journal (e.g., they can reflect on the topic, title, and learning experiences and draft an action plan that includes data sources and data collection techniques with due dates). 4. In Part 4, they write the first draft of their script on Google Docs and participate in a peer-review activity with their classmates using the Add Comment feature. Following the feedback, the students revise their scripts and solicit further feedback from the pre-service teachers online. Then, they submit their updated script to the instructor. Andrea notes common errors, discusses the class with her colleague, which helps her think more carefully about these challenges, distributes a checklist to students, and designs mini-lessons or video tutorials to address some common issues.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

5. In Part 5, in class, the students draft their storyboards, solicit feedback, and provide comments on other storyboards on Google Docs. They submit their revised work for further feedback to the pre-service teachers and then the instructor. At this stage, Andrea reminds the students to gather and store materials on a thumb drive or Google Drive, view video editing tutorials on YouTube, and utilize resources in the media lab. 6. In Part 6, outside class, they record their first-person narrative, digitize the multimedia data using the software available to them, incorporate sources (in-text citation, referencing), and create a working draft of their projects. 7. In Part 7, the students solicit feedback from their peers and pre-service teachers, provide comments on other work, and submit their video to the instructor for further feedback. 8. In Part 8, they present their work at the screening event in class and solicit comments from the audience. 9. In Part 9, they digitally publish their videos and share links with team members. 10. In Part 10, they submit their final project, individual post-project survey, and reflection in the course LMS.

155

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

Teaching Tip So, what did Andrea accomplish by engaging the students in this telecollaborative DS initiative? The DS design enables Andrea to combine academic genres with multiple literacies and online communication to meet her students’ needs. In addition to practicing general and academic language and study skills, such as reading and vocabulary comprehension, annotation, note taking, and time management, telecollaborative DS can increase awareness on the audience, the writing and research processes, cooperative learning, cultural awareness, and technology skills. For example, the students were aware that their digital stories would be shown to pre-service teachers, classmates, and a global audience. This allowed them to select topics and visuals they wanted to discuss with the public and explore digital tools to interact with the audience. For example, students could use automatic live closed-captioning through Google Voice Typing, Google Forms, Google Translate, Microsoft Translator, Microsoft Dictate, and Microsoft Immersive Reader. They could also engage in online research using Google Scholar and Academia, interactions on Flipgrid (https://info.flipgrid.com/), and upload their reflections and final projects on Padlet (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/padlet/id834618886). Through these assignments, Andrea’s students engaged in meaningful learning, reflected on their experiences, made connections to their identities, future studies, and communities of practice beyond the classroom. Some encountered deficit discourses, while others developed respect for cultural values, aspects, and identities that were different from their own. To foster mutual respect, Andrea approaches learners’ linguistic, cultural, and literacy socialization with empathy and care. Students can enact literacy, language, and global citizenship skills and convey distinct experiences with an emphasis on lived experiences rather than technological aspects (Castañeda, 2013a, 2013b; Lambert, 2009). Individual work, group work, mentoring, and peer-reviewing occur in stages and with diverse members. For instance, a student who is familiar with editing would share their knowledge with classmates. In another instance, a student might mentor teammates in editing the script. Andrea continues to monitor student progress, provide ongoing feedback, and assist in video editing. She also conveys this assignment to staff at the writing center and digital media lab. To avoid potential grading bias, she implements peer-assessment and self-assessment following rubrics. She also videotapes the presentations and provides a rubric to assess individual performance. These recordings can be used to follow up with students on their progress.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Andrea continues implementing DS with other students over the course of several semesters. Her results support the conclusion that co-authored multimedia storytelling holds promise to nurture educational growth and identity constitution while enhancing cross-cultural digital communicative competence (Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Vinogradova et al., 2011) in third spaces (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez, 2008). Recognizing and embodying the multiliteracies and intersectional identities that students bring into the classroom can assist in exercising intercultural multimodal dialogue, identity negotiation, and digital literacy development (Castañeda et al., 2018; Vinogradova et al., 2011).

The objective for the language learners was to mediate their cross-cultural academic and digital literacy skills and the expression of their voices as transnational communicators. As part of this task, they videotaped their environment, gathered data from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other social networking sites accessible on smartphones and other portable devices, evaluated sources, organized, and represented information through different modes of representation or multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996). At the same time, they cooperated in multiple ways: they corresponded online with pre-service teachers to receive feedback on their work, commented on their peers’ videos, and reached out to experts and community members. They also learned to accommodate individuals with various needs. These competencies are relevant for individuals with limited exposure to intercultural communication or those who are marginalized within their communities. DS initiatives can therefore enrich educational and professional growth by providing the means for students to configure their transnational identities and represent their cultures and literacy capital in a positive light. Since this DS activity was only one of the tasks for teacher candidates, they were exposed to several devices that empowered them to digitally disseminate narratives based on instructional objectives. With the focus on the same question for all DS collaborators (i.e., “Who Am I?”), the students were taught that it was not important which tool was adopted. Instead, the authors requested a specific file type (a video file in mpeg-4 format), and that their finished product must be “published” on a video-sharing service like YouTube, Kaltura or another similar video-sharing service. The overall structure of the video was also less rigid in that the learners made the choice for how they structured their videos and whether they integrated voice-overs, still photos, videos, music, or slides.

156

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

While, the main task for the language learners was to design and convey their perceptions about the educational context in the U.S. and in their home countries and strategies to overcome their obstacles, the pre-service teachers in the project were expected to author a tutorial. Members from both groups were introduced to the genre of DS and an overview on their assignment. Within this presentation, there were several sample DS videos online. The authors also provided their own examples that followed the instruction guidelines of a creating a 2-3-minute video answering the following question: “Who Am I?” Since the pre-service teachers were studying language instruction, they were asked to include several required grammatical structures into their narration. Once they completed their task, they uploaded the video file to a video hosting service and shared the link to the language learners assigned to them. Teacher candidates could seek clarifications about this task at any time whether in the LMS, during office hours, or by email. Since the teacher candidates needed to explain grammatical structures, they were included the discrete points into their educational videos. Following instructional objectives, they needed to utilize at least eight adverbs, at least three different phrasal verb types and verbs with varying transitivity (e.g., transitive, intransitive or ditransitive), two verbs that require gerunds after it, and five modal verbs. While most grammatical functions emphasized the word/phrase level, the learners also needed to develop sentences that were situated in a variety of aspects, tenses, and complexity. Unlike in the assignment requirement for language learners, in this task, it was not required that they produce a script. However, the specificity and number of grammatical structures meant many of them created one. During the video-making phase, the pre-service teachers also became interested in the principles of universal design and accessibility where a script is a required element for effective practice. Research on pedagogical applications of DS indicates that this approach can reinforce language abilities and motivation (Liu et al., 2016), linkages between lived experience and course content (Noguerón-Liu & Hogan, 2017), and intercultural communication competence (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016). However, storytelling, like all communication, has involved more than one modality. DS enriches traditional storytelling with technological instruments and multimodal mixtures of text types to bond nonlinear personal accounts of events, experiential learning, and reflections with academic and professional content. As seen in multimedia journalism, applied linguistics, and language education, multimodality allows educators to acknowledge their students’ linguistic, cultural, and digital capital to amplify inclusion and the articulation of positive identity expressions through semiotic repertoires (Alcantud-Díaz, 2016; Lypka, 2019, 2018). Through storytelling accompanied by visuals, individuals engage in reflective and critical thinking, share their manifold realities, and recognize interlocutors’ cultures and experiences (McDrury & Alterio, 2003). Furthermore, in comparison with more traditional school genres, storytelling amalgamated with digital modalities enhances memberships in discourse communities through the performance of cultures and the “witnessing of events in personal and collective accounts” (Noguerón-Liu & Hogan, 2017, p. 282). Well-suited to the social constructionist classroom, DS purposefully bridges course objectives with individuals’ characteristics, needs, and viewpoints. By intertwining individual and group learning, multimodal planning, and digital technology, DS fosters investment in the language, culture, academic, and pedagogical content while implementing into the curriculum the 21st century skills of digital communication, teamwork, critical thinking, problem solving, technology skills, and visual, informational, and global literacies (Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Robin, 2006). Some avenues for assessing the multimedia product and its procedures include self-assessment, story circles, and peer reviews. For self-assessment, learners can record their work as often as possible. Once they are satisfied with their recording, they can use an evaluation form to determine the strengths and 157

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

weaknesses of their recording. Part of this assessment can include opportunities to set short- and longterm goals in preparation for the final tasks where students face evaluation on structure, pronunciation, grammatical accuracy, and verbal presentation characteristics. Another avenue for evaluation is story circles, in which learners listen and review peer scripts and recordings. In some cases, they may need to provide written comments on the content. In other instances, they can discuss the merits of the story within the presentation. These story circles give students another opportunity to reflect on what they learn about themselves, what they can improve on, and what they can absorb from their peers. Social constructionism draws on the ways in which individuals construct and disseminate information digitally through a plethora of choices. Many DS tools exist for educational purposes that include apps for iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and Apple Watch users. Within these devices, learners must be cognizant of a variety of considerations for working digitally that include the use of copyrighted material, the legal sharing and reuse of cultural, educational, and scientific works, as well as privacy, security, accessibility, and technology-related issues. This focus on legality is especially germane to digital stories because the nature of this task necessitates the use of joint contributions, royalty free, and Open Educational Resources (OER), including music, images, video, and lesson plans. Some platforms can block users who have infringed on copyright usage norms. As such, the authors provided multiple sources for freely available audio files from Jamendo, Jewelbeat, YouTube Audio Library, and FreePlayMusic. In some cases, students authored their own soundtracks using Audacity and GarageBand. This chapter sought to enrich the digital savviness of the students through exposure to issues covered through Creative Commons and OER protocols. It also discussed the privacy settings on YouTube so that students can make informed decisions about the visibility of their narratives using the private, unlisted, and public functions and improve the audience interaction using the analytics features on the Creator Studio app. To increase the accessibility of their video products, students can choose to embed closed captions, translate, and summarize, implement high contrast between the text and background, explain concepts through simple language, and provide transcripts and alternative texts for images. This focus aligns closely to constructionism in that individuals needed to grasp and apply the established conventions and accessibility standards to fully cooperate in the DS project and to make the content available to a global audience. Activities that teachers can employ with learners to practice literacy and intercultural sensitivity include the following: •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• • • •

158

Guide students to customize frameworks of intercultural sensitivity and the degrees of linguistic and cultural awareness (see summary of these frameworks in Lindholm and Melnick Myles, 2019). Host a short flm festival and awards ceremony; invite students’ families, faculty, and other community members to join this event and critique students’ work, using a feedback template. Students could use their L1s and involve their families and friends in a DS task via Skype or Zoom or other free communication tools. Students would translate these narratives into English or provide English subtitles. Learners can submit their fnal work to short flm festivals to bring consciousness on issues relevant to them. Students work in pairs and use hashtags on Twitter to identify content that relates to their topic and post their opinion about using a hashtag created for this class or project (e.g., #EAPDS). Instructor may bring screenshots and other visuals if social networking sites are not available in the school.

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

• •

• •

Create a class website, blog (e.g., wix.com, blogspot.com), or a closed Facebook group to discuss and publish students’ work. Students partner with a community-based organization and design a public service announcement or fundraising campaign that addresses the organization’s needs and the course goals. The video can be shared with the organization and stakeholders can attend the Exhibition Night or public screening of your video. Students could livestream their presentation on YouTube and host a live Q&A so that the online audience can view the videos and provide real-time feedback. Appeal to learners to distribute stories from their countries of origin related to a course topic (e.g., culture, education, family) on the course LMS and translate these creations to their classmates.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION To open classrooms to a global society, educators need to connect learners and community members through telecollaborative chats, DS, and other pedagogical practices that equitably utilize students’ life experiences, cultural-linguistic competences, and multiliteracies and recognize the complexity of learning needs. However, telecollaborative DS is not a simple panacea to strengthen learning and professional development. Ohler (2006) cautions that “[if] digital stories are going to survive in education, they need to be tied to the curriculum and used to strengthen students’ critical thinking, report writing, and media literacy skills” (p. 46). Complementing socio constructionist and poststructuralist views on education, enacting a pedagogically-sound, digital, intercultural, and multimodal orientation can validate learners’ strengths and available resources and generate fertile spaces for identity expression, storytelling, translingual and transcultural communication, and community building. Implications include that a deeper understanding of how students orchestrate intersemiotic resources can assist practitioners in designing curricula to leverage diversity and inclusion, transcend academiahome-community borders, and equip learners to thrive as global citizens (Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Vinogradova et al., 2011). Employing multimedia storytelling and virtual teamwork has the potential to amplify cultural self-awareness in an environment “in which students begin to reconceive who they are and what they might be able to accomplish academically and beyond” (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 148). Critical multimodal literacy pedagogy can support learners to extract from their linguistic, literacy, and cultural reservoirs and engage with linguistic and cultural rhetoric they encounter during their academic and professional endeavors. At the same time, it can enable pre-service teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (De Felice & Lypka, 2013) to better understand language learners. Such initiatives can intensify engagement with sociocultural phenomena and invite learners to adopt multiple communication modes and digital technology to author and recycle content while sharing viewpoints and interpretations. Future research in this age of instantaneous digital communication may investigate how educators may be doing a disservice to their students by centering exclusively on mono-modal forms of communication, particularly written language, when so much of their discourse is multimodal in nature. As students and practitioners continue to consume and create multimodal texts, both groups need more research focused on the expression of oral language that occurs in less of a linear fashion and in more of a multimodal ensemble. Lastly, more research is needed on language learners and their need

159

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

to master the knowledge and skills necessary to critically deconstruct the rhetoric they encounter in multimodal global contexts. Discussion Questions 1. In what ways can instructors make use of collaborative DS to help their learners become savvy, 21st century global citizens and intercultural communicators? 2. What are the advantages of using multimodal texts in classroom activities? Are there challenges with engaging learners in creating multimodal texts? If so, how can educators modify activities to mitigate these disadvantages? 3. Design a DS project for a specific group of students or multilingual learning context. What would work for this type of activity? What instructional objectives would underlie the project? What steps or procedures may guide learners to meeting the instructional objectives?

REFERENCES Abdel-Hack, E. M., & Helwa, H. S. A.-H. A. (2014). Using digital storytelling and weblogs instruction to enhance EFL narrative writing and critical thinking skills among EFL majors at faculty of education. Educational Research, 5(1), 8–41. Alcantud-Díaz, M. (2016). Digital storytelling with pre-service teachers. Raising awareness for refugees through ICTs in ESL primary classes. Digital Education Review, 30, 1–16. Anderson, J., & Macleroy, V. (2017). Connecting worlds: Interculturality, identity and multilingual digital stories in the making. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(4), 494–517. doi:10.108 0/14708477.2017.1375592 Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge. Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–151. doi:10.1111/flan.12319 Castañeda, M., Shen, X., & Claros-Berlioz, E. (2018). English learners (ELs) have stories to tell: Digital storytelling as a venue to bring justice to life. English Journal, 107(6), 20–25. Castañeda, M. E. (2013a). Digital storytelling: Building 21st-century literacy in the foreign language classroom. NECTFL Review, 71, 55–65.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Castañeda, M. E. (2013b). ‘I am proud that I did it and it’s a piece of me’: Digital storytelling in the foreign language classroom. CALICO Journal, 30(1), 44–62. doi:10.11139/cj.30.1.44-62 Coelho, D., Galante, A., & Pires, L. A. (2016). Online collaboration for English Learners: Implementing an international project with Edmodo. TESL-EJ, 19(4). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/ issues/volume19/ej76/ej76int/ Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044

160

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

De Felice, D., Curtis, W., & Ortiz Alcocer, L. M. (2020). Effectively utilizing a socially-mediated network: Facilitating meaningful collaboration among preservice student-teachers and university EFL students. In C. Stevenson (Ed.), Enriching collaboration and communication in online learning communities (pp. 168–185). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. De Felice, D., & Lypka, A. (2013). The knowledge base in second language teacher education. De Linguis, 11(2), 15–22. Retrieved from http://delinguis.dgenp.unam.mx/home/volumenes/volumen-11/articulo-02 De Felice, D., & Ortiz Alcocer, L. M. (2014). Building collaborations between university preservice student-teachers and English language students through a socially mediated network. In C. Stevenson, & J. Bauer (Eds.), Building online communities in higher education institutions: Creating collaborative experience (pp. 44–68). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5178-4.ch003 de Jager, A., Fogarty, A., Tewson, A., Lenette, C., & Boydell, K. M. (2017). Digital storytelling in research: A systematic review. Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2548–2582. Galante, A. (2014). Developing EAL learners’ intercultural sensitivity through a digital literacy project. TESL Canada Journal, 32(1), 53–66. doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1199 Goretti Zaragoza Ninet, M., & Brígido Corachán, A. (2011). Creative evaluation of communicative competence through digital story. The Grove: Working Papers on English Studies, 18, 285–303. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3 Harris, S. R. (2010). What is constructionism? Navigating its use in sociology. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Johnson, L., & Kendrick, M. (2016). “Impossible is nothing”: Expressing difficult knowledge through digital storytelling. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(6), 1–9. Lambert, J. (2009). Where it all started: The center for digital storytelling in California. In J. Hartley, & K. McWilliam (Eds.), Story circle: Digital storytelling around the world (pp. 79–90). New York, NY: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9781444310580.ch4 Lambert, J. (2013). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating communities (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203102329

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lin, L. K., Thang, S. M., Jaafar, N. M., & Zabidi, N. A. (2013). Digital storytelling as a project in an E.A.P. course: Insights from Malaysian undergraduates. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 11(2), 48–67. Lindholm, T., & Mednick Myles, J. (2019). Navigating the intercultural classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press.

161

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

Liu, C., Wang, P., & Tai, S. D. (2016). An analysis of student engagement patterns in language learning facilitated by web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 28(2), 104–122. doi:10.1017/ S095834401600001X Liu, C. C., Yang, C. Y., & Chao, P. Y. (2019). A longitudinal analysis of student participation in a digital collaborative storytelling activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 907–929. doi:10.100711423-019-09666-3 Lypka, A. (2018). Infusing participatory digital service-learning to deepen community-engaged professional excellence: Triumphs and challenges. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 8(2), 77–93. Lypka, A. (2019). Transforming L2 learning and identity negotiation through linguistic landscapes and field trips. In A. L. G. Saglam, & K. Dikilitas (Eds.), Stories by teacher researchers in an online research community (pp. 33–44). Kent, ME: IATEFL. McDrury, J., & Alterio, M. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using reflection & experience to improve learning. London, UK: Kogan Page. Miller, J. K., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Digital storytelling as an integrated approach to second language learning and teaching. Language and Communication Quarterly, 4(3-4), 41–55. Miller, L., Hafner, C. A., & Fun, N. K. (2012). Project-based learning in a technologically enhanced learning environment for second language learners: Students’ perceptions. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 183–195. doi:10.2304/elea.2012.9.2.183 New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Noguerón-Liu, S., & Hogan, J. J. (2017). Remembering Michoacán: Digital representations of the homeland by immigrant adults and adolescents. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 267–289. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783090563 Norton, B., & Morgan, B. (2013). Poststructuralism. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ohler, J. (2006). The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 44–47. Park, H. R. (2019). ESOL preservice teachers’ experiences and learning in completing a reflection paper and digital storytelling. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 63–77. doi:10.14742/ ajet.4117 Priego, S., & Liaw, M. L. (2017). Understanding different levels of group functionality: Activity systems analysis of an intercultural telecollaborative multilingual digital storytelling project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(5), 368–389. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1306567 Raven, J., & O’Donnell, K. (2010). Using digital storytelling to build a sense of national identity amongst Emirati students. Education, Business, and Society, 3(3), 201–217. doi:10.1108/17537981011070118

162

 Telecollaborative Storytelling

Robin, B. (2006). The educational uses of digital storytelling. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber,, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 709–716). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Santos Green, L. (2013). Language learning through a lens: The case for digital storytelling in the second language classroom. School Libraries Worldwide, 19(2), 23–36. Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217 Vinogradova, P. (2007). Positive social self: Symbolic construction of social identity in digital storytelling. International Journal of the Humanities, 5(8), 69–78. doi:10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v05i08/42189 Vinogradova, P., Linville, H. A., & Bickel, B. (2011). “Listen to my story and you will know me”: Digital stories as student-centered collaborative projects. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 173–202. doi:10.5054/ tj.2011.250380 Wray, B. K. (2010). Kuhn’s constructionism. Perspectives on Science, 18(3), 311–327. doi:10.1162/ POSC_a_00014

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Constructionism: This theoretical orientation is concerned with learners constructing mental models to make sense of the world around them. Digital Multiliteracies: Diverse modes of communication found in digital communities of practice (e.g., the cellular telephones, internet, multimedia devices, etc.). Digital Storytelling (DS): Digital literacy projects that integrate technological tools and multimodal texts to connect emic accounts, experiential understanding, and reflection with academic content in a short movie or video project. English for Academic Purposes (EAP): Courses for language learners who wish to study in academic contexts where English is used as a medium of instruction. Identity: An ongoing social sense-making process, sometimes a struggle, to gain membership in various groups, by employing diverse semiotic repertoires, such as verbal, written, visual, or a combination of modes. Intercultural Communicative Competence: The ability of individuals to draw on sociocultural awareness, pragmatics, and verbal and nonverbal communication capital to contextualize intended meanings and effectively interact with individuals across social networks, and cultural, linguistic, and geographical boundaries. Multimodal Communicative Competence: The ability to use computer-mediated multimodal communication (e.g., visual, spatial, aural dimensions). Multimodal Literacy: Communication that occurs through two or more modes of meaning that can include text, video, and images. Poststructuralism: A theory that is focused on helping individuals to better understand or interpret the social environment by questioning established meaning.

163

Telecollaborative Storytelling

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Second language (L2) Development: Learning an additional language or languages beyond the initial language(s) can include learning to speak, listen, read, write, as well as fostering competency in culture, pragmatics, and usage. Much of this process occurs in stages, and it is often a messy, challenging process. Telecollaboration: A virtual partnership between learning communities in different geographical locations to address pedagogical goals.

164

Telecollaborative Storytelling

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Afrilyasanti, R., & Basthomi, Y. (2011). Digital storytelling: A case study on the teaching of speaking to Indonesian EFL students. Language in India, 11(2), 8191. Retrieved from http://www. languageinindia.com/feb2011/ridastorytellingfinal.pdf This paper discusses how multimedia has become more appealing in language teaching and learning, as it is interactive and encouraging. The study demonstrates one way of improving motivation through building students’ curiosity. Educators can view the results of using storyboards and the benefits for them with speaking abilities. 2. Psomos, P., & Kordaki, M. (2015). A novel educational digital storytelling tool focusing on students’ misconceptions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(2), 82–86. This article outlines the design and enactment of a DS tool for to enhance students to reflect on and overcome their learning difficulties. Teachers may find this resource useful in designing their own reflective activities. 3. Robin, B. R., & McNeil, S. G. (2012). What educators should know about teaching digital storytelling. Digital Education Review, 22(2), 37–51. The authors of this article present important lessons they have learned from teaching courses, conducting workshops, writing articles, and supervising graduate student research on the educational uses of DS. The guidelines can help educators teach students all phases of the DS process. 4. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487–506. This study aimed to assist Egyptian teachers and their students in learning the process of producing their own digital stories using MS Photo Story, while being introduced to desktop production and editing tools. The authors also present and disseminate their own stories with other students in the class. The article provides an overview for educators interested in digital story evaluation, rubric development, and transformative pedagogy models.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

5.

Skouge, J. R., & Rao, K. (2009). Digital Storytelling in teacher education: Creating transformations through narrative. Educational Perspectives, 42(1&2), 54–60. Retrieved from http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ858390.pdf

This study demonstrates the affordances of DS to communicate experiences and to explore ideas while using DS to teach the core values in special education. Educators interested in an approach that honors cultural diversity and empowers students to reflect on and share their experiences will benefit from this article.

165

166

Chapter 9

Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners: Multimodal Texts in ContentBased Instruction Vera Savić https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0912-4275 University of Kragujevac, Serbia

ABSTRACT Acquiring literacy skills for the 21st century requires learners to move beyond the traditional print literacy skills and to develop strategies for efective communication in predominantly visual environments. The chapter explores how teachers of young language learners may scafold children’s development of visual literacy in Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and thus prepare them both for comprehending and producing visual images and multimodal texts. The chapter frst provides a framework for understanding visual literacy and then describes pedagogical strategies language teachers may apply to promote visual literacy in a young learner classroom. Finally, it highlights the role of visual images in CBI and gives examples of classroom activities that foster simultaneous development of visual literacy and foreign/ second language (L2) communication skills for young learners.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION New information and communication media are changing a communication environment globally, introducing mulimodality into meaning-making in the way that “written-linguistic modes of meaning interface with oral, visual, audio, gestural, tactile and spatial patterns of meaning” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012a, p. 1). Unlike traditional literacy in which meaning is carried by words and sentences, in multimodal texts, visuals contribute to meaning in complex ways, requiring learners to develop effective multimodal communication skills (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012a; Mayer, 2005). Mayer (2005) defines multimedia learning as learning from words and pictures through building mental representations from both modes. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch009

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

The term visual literacy was coined half a century ago to refer to the ability of making meaning from visual images (Bamford, 2003; Eilam, 2012; Felten, 2008; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012b; Matusiak, Heinbach, Harper, & Bovee, 2019; Mayer, 2005; Royce, 2002; Serafini, 2012, 2017). It is not limited to any specific discipline and has been accepted and discussed in areas like art, psychology, sociology, and education, “but in doing so it has probably suffered from a too great a variety of interpretations across all of these different academic discourses” (Allen, 2012, p. 22). Generally, visual literacy involves interpreting and discussing the content of visual images, their social impact and purpose, as well as their manipulative use, by judging their validity, worth, and accuracy (Bamford, 2003; Royce, 2002). Although visual literacy has been significant throughout human history and across a number of disciplines (e.g., map reading), it is particularly important within the 21st century skills development and for successful learning in increasingly multimodal communication contexts, with multiple means replacing communication achieved exclusively through written or spoken language. Societies are currently surrounded by pictures that are used to convey instant messages; it is estimated that about 90% of all information transmitted to the brain is visual and that human beings generally have the ability to process visual images 60,000 times faster than text (Olivares, 2013). Given that a high percentage of our sensory learning is visual and that about 40% of people prefer visual learning over auditory or kinesthetic, the dependence of contemporary culture on the visual image (mainly through technology use) can partly be explained (Bamford, 2003). Consequently, the need for being visually literate is beginning to be “a matter of survival, especially in the workplace” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 3). In education, “[t]he proliferation of images means that visual literacy is now crucial for obtaining information, constructing knowledge, and building successful educational outcomes” (Bamford, 2003, p. 3). Children may be introduced to specific kinds of visual literacy with “the very first books [they] encounter” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 23), which generally occurs in early childhood; as a result, visual communication is mainly achieved through the parents’ attitudes to the events and characters appearing in the book. Later, children gain the ability to express their own interpretations of visual images. However, the increasing number of visual images that are currently available to children through media and the internet demands well-developed visual literacy skills and well-informed viewers. Although visual literacy needs to be taught “from the youngest age” (Bamford, 2003, p. 2), it is rarely given proper attention in school contexts. It is, therefore, critical to equip learners with skills needed to successfully use the new resources of representation by introducing visual literacy development into current curricula, at all levels. Visual literacy skills and strategies empower learners for deeper analysis of images and prepare them for successful reading of multimodal texts, i.e., the texts in which written language is accompanied by visual images in unique ways. This chapter explores how visual literacy and its components can assist teachers in developing visual literacy in the classroom, especially when teaching English to young learners through Content-Based Instruction (CBI). It provides guidelines for using an L2 as a tool for interpreting, describing, studying, analyzing, and discussing visual images when learning about a subject content or while reading a multimodal text related to a theme being studied. First, the chapter provides an overview of the terms, visual grammar, visual syntax and visual semantics. Then, it reviews literature on promoting visual literacy in the classroom through equipping learners with skills required for comprehending a multimodal text. Next, it reviews literature on the roles visual images play in teaching English to young learners, focusing on visual images in CBI. Finally, it provides some examples of activities for developing visual literacy in a young learner classroom, which are easily adaptable for a variety of teaching contexts worldwide.

167

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Understanding Visual Literacy Unlike traditional literacy, the grammar, syntax and semantics of visual literacy are not fixed, and meaning is constructed by seeing an image and contemplating about it. Verbal and visual grammar differ significantly but have a similar purpose of providing the rules for deriving meaning. Visual grammar is a general grammar of visual design that describes a social resource and involves “explicit and implicit knowledge and practices around a resource, consisting of the elements and rules underlying a culturespecific form of visual communication” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 3). It further describes the way in which visual elements (places, things, and people) are combined in visual statements, and it is concerned with the ways in which images like drawings, pictures, textbook and picture book illustrations, photos, web-based images, symbols, diagrams, maps, charts, graphic organizers, signs, or information graphics, communicate meaning (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006; Serafini, 2012, 2017). Although both linguistic structures and visual structures “point to particular interpretations of experience and forms of social interaction” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 2), they realize meanings differently—the former through choices of word classes and clause structures, and the latter through choices of different uses of colors and compositional structures. To understand multimodal texts, it is crucial to know both similarities and differences between these two modes. Some of the meanings may be mapped irrespective of the semiotic mode used, i.e., whether expressed by linguistic or by visual means, but most of the meanings are semiotic mode specific, i.e., conveyed either only by linguistic means, like words, or only by non-linguistic means, like visual images. Perception of images is a cultural process in which the learner decides about visual aspects that are important depending on how a culture teaches them what to look for or expect (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012b; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Moreover, being culturally bound, visual images cannot always be easily understood globally as they relate to specific cultural contexts of their production and may have different meanings in different cultures. What is more, if a text is followed by a visual component, the visual component may be connected to the text, but it may carry an independent message, too. It must be pointed out that each of these semiotic modes has its own limitations, and “[n]ot everything that can be realized in language can also be realized by means of images, or vice versa” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 19). While visual images can represent concrete details clearly, it is not true for their use in presenting abstract concepts, unless they are strongly coded (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Since images carry aesthetic, expressive, social, political, and communicative dimensions, they cannot be regarded as subordinate to language or as replicas of reality, but rather as open and independent visual forms (Donaghy & Xerri, 2017; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012b; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006; Zakime, 2017). Lack of visual literacy skills hinders effective communication, while understanding of visual literacy principles enables learners to communicate more efficiently by interpreting and presenting visual ideas (Bamford, 2003; Donaghy & Xerri, 2017). Successful understanding of different meanings of visual images can be achieved by combining syntax and semantics of visuals (Bamford, 2003; Zakime, 2017).Visual syntax involves the building blocks of an image, such as graphic composition of images (i.e. lines, colors, and shapes), camera placement, point of view, juxtaposition, editing, and manipulation of placement and proximity, while visual semantics refers to the relationship between the images (form) and culturally defined global issues (Bamford, 2003). Examples of visual syntax include shape, viewer’s perspective, size, scale, dimension, 168

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

arrangement, framing, color, light, contrast, direction, motion, balance, labeling, visual/text relationship, foreground, background, and editing, while visual semantics determines how meaning is created by form and structure, through culturally constructed ideas and through social interaction with the visual. By asking the questions about who created the image, when, why and for whom it was created, what the image says about an event, society, culture, individual, and national identity and history, teachers can create a language-rich environment and raise learners’ awareness of meanings communicated by a visual image (Bamford, 2003; Zakime, 2017). Serafini (2017) argues that the original definition of visual literacy as “a set of visual competencies or cognitive skills and strategies one needs to make sense of visual images” (p. 1) does not consider the contexts of image production, dissemination and reception, or individual cognitive abilities, and should therefore be reformulated to provide a more comprehensive definition of visual literacy “as a process of generating meanings in transaction with multimodal ensembles that include written text, visual images, and design elements from a variety of perspectives to meet the requirements of particular social contexts” (p. 1). Becoming visually literate does not mean “simply learning a set of fixed skills or grammars” (Bamford, 2003, p. 4), but rather practicing it socially in different contexts and for a variety of purposes. Visual literacy, thus, is determined by its use. It further differs depending on the form of media used, as video, film, magazines, or interactive media have their own characteristics and literacies. Finally, visual literacy and the use of images depends on the users’ age, ethnicity, and gender. Hence, children should be given ample opportunities to develop the ability to understand and use visual grammar in classroom activities designed to promote learners’ understanding of visual language (see also Thørnby in this volume).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Promoting Visual Literacy Some visual literacy skills can be developed without much input from the teacher, but such automatic reading of visuals “tends to be only the lower order thinking skills” (Bamford, 2003, p. 5). Helping learners acquire higher order visual literacy skills, like problem solving and critical thinking, which are necessary for understanding the implications of visuals, can be achieved only through instruction (Bamford, 2003). Bamford (2003) argues that higher order visual literacy skills can be used in all areas of learning, making learners more resistant to any kind of manipulation carried out through visual means. She contends that this can be achieved by developing critical thinking when interacting with visual images, by broadening vocabulary needed for discussing visual images, by integrating visual literacy development across the curriculum, by encouraging learners to analyze and evaluate the underlying ideas and values of images, by ensuring a balance of visual and verbal literacies in instruction, and by allowing learners to respond both affectively and imaginatively to images. Strategies and pedagogical techniques that can be used involve asking questions about images, introducing learners with image production even at the youngest ages, and introducing different media for generating images in the classroom, from drawing to using graphic design software. When discussing images, teachers may ask questions aiming to make learners consider and respond to the following broad areas (based on Bamford, 2003): •

Issues—asking what issues are shown, how learners see the issues, and how their view is similar to or diferent from the image, what general meanings of the image may exist, and what the message of the image is.

169

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

•

• • •

Information—asking where the information in the image comes from, what information is included in or omitted from the image, what proportion of the image may be inaccurate, what information in the image is factual or manipulated, what the relationship between the image and a text is, and what impact the size of the image has in the picture. People—what people are shown in the image, who created it and for what purpose, who the intended audience is, and whose point of view is taken into account in the image. Persuasion—why a certain media has been chosen, why the image has been chosen, what devices are used for transferring the message to the viewer, and how the message has been afected by the information omitted in the image. Assumptions—what attitudes, points of view, and experiences are assumed, and whose voice is heard or not heard.

Pedagogical strategies for developing visual literacy in the classroom should involve lesson planning with a clear statement of objectives for reinforcing visual literacy. To achieve such objectives, teachers should carefully consider the kind of activities that create the context necessary for developing visual literacy skills. Often, visual literacy is embedded in children’s cognitive, emotional, and social development across the curriculum. This may be one of the reasons why visual literacy generally receives little attention when multimodal texts are being used in reading lessons (Liu, 2013).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Comprehending Visual Images in Multimodal Texts Multimodal texts, like picture books, integrate visual messages into language. On the one hand, they may present a greater challenge for a reader than written texts alone because of their complexity created by two semiotic modes: readers are required to construct meaning from a position in the temporal sequence (written text) and from spatial relations (grammar of visual images) by simultaneously processing “written text, visual images, and elements of design” (Serafini, 2011, p. 342). On the other hand, as Paivio (2006) argues in his dual coding theory (DCT), “beginning readers learn to read concrete words by sight much faster when the words are accompanied by referent pictures than when paired only with their pronunciations” (p. 11), and he suggests using both pictures and words rather than words alone, as well as placing pictures and text close together in time or space, when focusing on effective multimodal text design. DCT has been seen as the most applicable theory on combining visual images and text as studies consistently suggest that multiple communication of information improves reading comprehension and cognition in general (Liu, 2004). Multimodality of meaning, according to Cope and Kalantzis (2009), involves the following eight modalities: 1. written language; 2. oral language; 3. visual representation; 4. audio representation; 5. tactile representation; 6. gestural representation; 7. representation to oneself; and 8. spatial representation (p. 178). The authors contend that meaning expressed by one mode cannot be translated fully into another mode because each mode’s meaning-making is achieved through distinctive resources and relies on specific abilities. However, simultaneous use of different modalities in teaching allows learners to learn from the mode that is easier or more comfortable to them, or to extend their favored modes by adding those that may be particularly useful in certain circumstances. In both cases, learning may be powerful, like in the case of a multimodal text in which a diagram of a graph may support understanding of a written text (Mayer, 2005). Moreover, “conscious mode-switching makes for more powerful and relevant learning” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012c, p. 364). 170

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Simultaneous cognitive engagement with a text and visuals may have diverse effects on meaning making by language learners (Felten, 2008; Mayer, 2005; Royce, 2002; Serafini, 2011, 2012, 2017). Serafini (2011) contends that to be able to comprehend a multimodal text, learners need help to add to their cognitive comprehension strategies these three perspectives: 1. art theory and criticism; 2. the grammar of visual design; and 3. media literacies. Teachers should introduce learners to these perspectives by drawing their attention to the elements of visual images and design, and by providing metalanguage for their interpretation. Drawing from Panofsky’s three levels of meaning, i.e., preiconographic, iconographic, and iconological (Panofsky, 1955, cited in Serafini, 2011), Serafini (2011) proposes a framework for comprehending a multimodal text in the form of a noticing-connections-wonderings (NCW) chart, or its revised version of noticing-meanings-implications (NMI) chart, whose three columns correspond to the three levels of meaning in the following way. First, learners are asked to describe and classify elements of the visual image that they notice. Then, learners are asked to consider the meaning of these elements. Finally, learners are asked to consider what these elements might imply beyond text. There are three components of visual grammar essential for understanding multimodal texts and visual images (Serafini, 2011, drawing from work of Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996), namely: 1. composition, referring to arrangement and placement of objects in a visual image, their size, color, and contrast; 2. perspective, referring to positioning objects and characters in relation to viewers; and 3. visual structure, referring to visual symbols representing conventionalized ideas in sociocultural context. Apart from using a series of questions for developing visual literacy of learners and discussing motifs and symbols in a book, it may be very effective to give learners tasks that may contribute to their awareness of the components of visual grammar. For instance, teachers can ask learners to find examples of picture books in which objects or characters are located in different positions in relation to viewers and to draw conclusions about the effects of perspective on the meanings and implications conveyed (Serafini, 2011, 2017). Such instructional strategies draw learners’ attention to the components of visual syntax crucial for meaning making. Similarly, Liu (2013) argues that in the process of comprehending a multimodal text, learners should be encouraged to develop effective visual literacy strategies, such as: 1. meta-interpretive strategies, i.e., gaining awareness of the way the meaning of a multimodal text is constructed by combining text and illustrations; 2. perceptual strategies, i.e., perceiving and interpreting the visual and design elements of a multimodal text by asking and answering questions about distinct characteristics of the visual image and its design; 3. analytical strategies, i.e., considering the meaning of the perceived characteristics and moving beyond a literal interpretation; and 4. sociocultural strategies, i.e., focusing on historical, cultural, political, and social context of the visual. These strategies may allow the reader to move beyond cognitive reading comprehension strategies for achieving full literacy needed in the 21st century. Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Visual Literacy in Teacher Education A key role in the process of developing visual literacy in L2 classes should be played by competent teachers, and visual literacy should be part of any language teacher education program. To be able to help learners enhance their communicative competence by adding a multimodal aspect, English language teachers “need to be able to talk and think seriously about multimodal communication” (Royce, 2002, p. 192). Development of teaching strategies for enhancing visual literacy should involve not only locating, interpreting, and evaluating visual media, but also analyzing their cultural, aesthetic, and contextual components, as well as creating and using images in multimodal texts (Schoen, 2015; Zakime, 171

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

2017). Cope and Kalantzis (2009) argue that in a pedagogy of multiliteracies, i.e., teaching learners to comprehend and communicate meaning through a variety of media, all resources of meaning-making “should be regarded as dynamic processes of transformation rather than processes of reproduction” (p. 175), and the aim of literacy teaching should be supporting learners as designers of meaning. As a result, pedagogy of multiliteracies should focus on the processes of “experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing and applying” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 184) as ways of knowing through old and new experience, by generalizing from the particular, by evaluating and analyzing critically, and by applying the learned knowledge in real life situations (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, pp. 184-186). The use of different knowledge processes may lead to deeper learning characterized by longer retention of knowledge and its wider applicability. Such transformative knowledge favors the 21st century skills like problem solving, and critical and creative thinking, which contribute to developing lifelong learning skills. Despite the significance of multiliteracies in general, and visual literacy in particular, visual literacy is still an overlooked issue in language teacher education, being mainly considered secondary in conveying information (Donaghy & Xerri, 2017; Matusiak, Heinbach, Harper, & Bovee, 2019; Yi, 2014). What is more, pre-service and in-service language teachers need to be fully aware not only of pedagogical benefits, but also of pedagogical challenges like contextual, cognitive and cultural appropriateness of visual representations (Eilam, 2012; Yi, 2014). One of the major challenges may be to fit multimodal literacy development into the existing curriculum, or to connect it to the assessment and testing requirements of the curriculum. Further, multimodal approach may limit the focus on developing traditional literacy in a language classroom or give learners a false feeling that traditional reading and writing have become less important than multimodal literacies (Yi, 2014). It may be concluded that a proper balance needs to be established between written academic literacy practices and multimodal literacy practices in language teaching. Educating visually literate learners, therefore, should begin with educating visually literate teachers able to fully exploit a multimodal text and provide a rich experience of multimodal communication in their teaching contexts. Research has already pointed to enhanced linguistic, academic, and content learning and strategy development through multiliteracy pedagogy applied in a language classroom (Romero & Bobkina, 2017; Seburn, 2017; Wasilevska, 2017; Whitcher, 2017; Yi, 2014; Zakime, 2017). Teacher-created visual materials focused on providing a deeper insight into the writer’s ideas expressed in a monomodal text may play a key role in a reading comprehension lesson by facilitating learners’ understanding of text concepts (Seburn, 2017), while appropriate use of multimodal texts may result in more holistic language learning (Romero & Bobkina, 2017). Enhancing skills and strategies needed for interpreting visual images may improve the learning of science concepts and contribute to linguistic development as well (Serafini, 2017). Learners engaged in creating visual images may develop wider autonomy, stronger communication and digital skills, and increased self-confidence in using English (Wasilevska, 2017; Whitcher, 2017). The age group that may greatly benefit from visual literacy activities in a language classroom are young language learners (aged 7-11) (see also Tørnby in this volume).

Young Language Learners and Visual Images Visuals play a significant role in L2 teaching and learning, especially at preprimary and primary levels (Brewster, Ellis, & Girard, 2002; Cameron, 2008; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2016; Moon, 2005; Savić, 2013; Savić & Shin, 2013; Shin & Crandall, 2014; Slattery & Willis, 2001). Children as language learners focus on meaning rather than on form, and appropriate visuals contribute to creating comprehensible 172

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

input in low anxiety situations needed for foreign language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Visual images are valuable teaching materials in all three stages of language learning (Brewster, Ellis & Girard, 2002): 1. Meeting the new language—the teacher presents the new language with the assistance of flashcards, pictures, photos, or drawings, creating a context for the comprehensible input in an interesting and motivating way; 2. Manipulating the new language—learners practice the new language in a variety of activities with the support of pictures, maps, charts, and other visuals; 3. Making the language their own—in pair or group work, learners use the new language in meaningful and purposeful activities, personalizing the language use with self-created pictures, photographs, or other visuals. Pictures and other visuals play different roles in these three stages: “[i]n the beginning stages, pictures help the teacher to convey meaning, but later the same or similar pictures can be used as cues for partner activities or group work so that they become aids to communication as well as to vocabulary” (Curtain & Dahlberg, 2016, p. 318). Self-created photos have been found to contribute to visual literacy of preschool children (Freidman, 2016). Freidman (2016) reports of a year-long project that involved children in kindergarten taking digital photos of scenes from their everyday life and discussing the photos both with parents at home and with teachers and peers at the preschool institution. The project was part of a formal curriculum focused on developing digital literacy by giving “photography a central role in all areas of preschool learning: the children take pictures of all their daily preschool activities, and view and learn with photographs from various resources” using self-created materials (Friedman, 2016, p. 17). Although the project did not involve development of L2 communication skills, it can lend itself well to an L2 classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Multimodal Texts in Teaching Languages to Young Learners Coursebooks and other materials used in the L2 classroom, like posters, photographs, maps, charts, or graphs, have always been highly multimodal. Teachers share the belief that different media enhance language teaching “assisting teachers in their jobs, bringing the outside world into the classroom, and, in short, making the task of language learning a more meaningful and exciting one” (Brinton, 2001, p. 460). Moreover, being naturally curious and interested in investigation and exploration, young learners tend to find appropriately applied visual images stimulating and motivating. The use of visual texts in English language teaching has been shown to increase learner participation, inspire motivation, and improve reading comprehension (Thompson & McIlnay, 2019). Pictures, drawings, diagrams, photographs, flashcards, posters, realia or digital images, are the most usual resources and techniques used by teachers to explain the meanings of new words (Cameron, 2008) and to create the context for teaching the new language (Savić, 2013; Savić & Shin, 2013), but have the potential to be used in the process of recycling and consolidating vocabulary through creative activities. If young learners are involved in making visual resources, like spinners with pictures, their motivation to participate in freer oral practice may be enhanced through the introduction of “[a] game-like element into the practice which makes the activity more purposeful and enjoyable” (Moon, 2005, p. 137). What is more, pictures or learners’ drawings illustrating an interesting story can be used as prompts for oral or written retelling of a story or for modifying its ending, thus contributing to fluency of children’s 173

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

speaking and writing skills in a foreign language. When teaching very young language learners, teachers can effectively use picture book illustrations as prompts to engage children with a story in pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading activities, offering them a unique language experience (Slattery & Willis, 2001; Savić, 2013b; Savić & Shin, 2013; Shin & Crandall, 2014). However, “it is not the materials in themselves which are important, but how they are used to help pupils’ language learning. [...] A child might spend ten minutes happily looking at the attractive pictures, but this would not help him/her learn English.” (Moon, 2005, p. 86). To benefit from a multimodal text, a learner needs to be engaged in a number of activities involving the visuals. But some studies suggest that visual images in multimodal texts are not always adequately used even by the author or publisher of a textbook, functioning mainly as aids or decoration (Donaghy & Xerri, 2017; Hill, 2013). Analyzing the use of pictures in multimodal texts of British coursebooks for teaching English to young adults and adults, Hill (2013) found that “a majority of pictures included are used only for decorative purposes, and that those used for language purposes tend to concentrate on low-level language skills related to basic language manipulation” (p. 165). The author concluded that not giving a real purpose to coursebook illustrations “is a great waste of effort on the part of the publisher and a great waste of opportunity for the language learner and teacher” (p. 163), and suggested that pictures should be used to stimulate a creative linguistic response and to allow learners to bring their own personal world and imagination into the classroom (Hill, 2013). Hill (2013) gives a powerful example of a suitable task based on visuals that provide a context for a creative use of the language that learners possess: learners are given different pictures depicting country roads, like paths in the fields, in the woods, or roads in the mountains, without people, vehicles, or animals. After learners study their pictures, they are given a task to imagine themselves standing on a particular road and to describe something they can see outside the picture on the left, something outside the picture on the right, something in front of them they do not like when walking along the road, something they find on the road and pick up, something they can hear, and something they can taste. Learners are then asked to share their answers with a partner, thus engaging in long conversations about the reasons for their answers and how the pictures stimulated certain personal responses (Hill, 2013). This example activity has great potential for developing visual literacy and can easily be adapted for teaching young learners, giving them a lifelike context, stimulating their imagination, engaging their background world knowledge and experience, and creating a social context that children need to construct meaning. Although visual literacy is not limited to any specific curricular area in primary curriculum, it may potentially have a significant role in CBI since in CBI “the curriculum is communicated to learners through multimodal texts – the images and writing in a heavily illustrated textbook or web resource, the oral language and gesture of a teacher, the showing and telling of small group work, the diagrams or models that students make and the writing they do” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012c, p. 342). Language teaching approaches such as CBI lend themselves perfectly to multiliteracies teaching and for developing the 21st century skills. The next section focuses on using visual images in CBI classrooms and on possibilities of engaging language learners cognitively and creatively in visual literacy development.

Visual Images in Content-Based Instruction CBI is an approach to language instruction “in which teaching is organized around the content or subject matter that students will acquire, such as history or social studies, rather than around a linguistic or other type of syllabus” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 116). Content refers to subject matter and its use for 174

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

L2 teaching, usually consisting of topics or themes learners are studying in their science or geography classes (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2016; Shin, 2007; Shin & Crandall, 2014; Snow, 2001). CBI may be content- or language-driven to various degrees: some of its models are more language-driven than content-driven, like theme-based instruction (TBI), in which the focus is on learning a language through content, with content learning being more incidental, and the regular curriculum being the vehicle for making language activities more cognitively engaging (Curtain & Dahlberg, 2016; Shin, 2007; Shin & Crandall, 2014), while approaches like Total Immersion, Partial Immersion, Sheltered Courses, English-Medium Instruction (EMI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) are more content-driven, and language is used as a tool for teaching the subject content (Bentley, 2010; Brown & Bradford, 2017; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Snow, 2001). Numerous varieties of CBI have been applied in both foreign and second language context in educational systems worldwide for several decades now (Brown & Bradford, 2017; Cenoz, 2015; Graddol, 2006; Snow, 2001) mainly because of CBI’s potential to promote linguistic competences, such as spontaneous oral production, reading, and listening skills (Cenoz, 2015; Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Ioannou-Georgiou, 2012), and to stimulate learners’ cognitive flexibility through cognitive engagement, problem solving, and higher-order thinking (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). Goals and outcomes of a wide variety of CBI approaches often overlap, and their names are sometimes used interchangeably, which is particularly true for CBI and CLIL (Brown & Bradford, 2017; Cenoz, 2015; Krulatz, 2019). Comparing the essential and accidental characteristics of CBI and CLIL, Cenoz (2015) concludes that these approaches do not differ “regarding their essential properties” (p. 21) such as using the non-linguistic content to enhance L2 proficiency, while their accidental differences, which appear due to the specific contexts where the programs are applied, “are not unique for CBI or CLIL.” (p. 22). Both terms will be used in the chapter, but while CBI will be used in the body of the text, CLIL may appear in the quotes from references. Organizing language instruction around themes in CBI allows language teachers to incorporate major curricular units and topics into their language classes in the form of thematic units (TU) consisting of four or five lessons (Shin, 2007), thus bringing the world into the classroom and increasing meaningfulness and purposefulness of using a foreign language in a school setting. Benefits for learners are seen in increased exposure, enhanced motivation and self-confidence, integration of skills and development of learning strategies, increased cooperation, development of creative and critical thinking, and enhanced learner autonomy, communicative and intercultural competence (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010; Savić, 2013a, 2012; Shin, 2007; Shin & Crandall, 2014). Defining the umbrella term of the approach, Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) argue that it is “an educational approach in which various language supportive methodologies are used which lead to dualfocused form of instruction where attention is given both to the language and the content” (p. 3). The authors propose a 4C’s framework for planning CBI instruction, its components being: content, communication, cognition, and culture. Content refers to understanding, skills and new knowledge acquired in CBI lessons. Communication involves language of learning (e.g., grammar, key words, functions), language for learning (e.g., asking questions, agreeing, disagreeing), and language through learning (e.g., discussion skills, dictionary skills, presentation skills). Cognition refers to engagement in problem solving, higher order thinking, and reflecting on the ways of dealing with challenges in learning, while culture involves awareness of different perspectives and one’s understanding of citizenship and global issues. The 4C’s are connected into an integrated whole, enabling teachers to adopt a more inclusive and holistic approach to their practice.

175

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

One of the factors critical to the success of a CBI approach is teaching materials, which mainly have to be adapted either from resources found on the internet or from textbooks created in and/or for other teaching contexts, or to be created by teachers themselves. The process of CBI lesson planning, selecting, modifying, and creating materials can be rather demanding (Brewster, Ellis, & Girard, 2004). Materials should have dual focus, i.e., both linguistic and content-based, they should take into account the needs, interests, and language levels of the learners, and, most importantly, they should provide an appropriate input for comprehension, learning, and growth of the learners (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). Krashen (1982, 2004) argues that in order to provide comprehensible input that is just above the language level of the learners, teachers need to ensure the appropriate balance between fluency and accuracy through monitor effect, which should be the methodological and pedagogical base for designing CBI materials. These demands can be best met by exposing learners to a range of sources and by pre-teaching specific concepts by using self-created multimodal texts, visuals, or real objects (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). Language teaching approaches such as CBI lend themselves perfectly to multiliteracies teaching because visuals have great potential across disciplines both for teaching and assessing learning. Simultaneous application of multiple communication modes in teaching and assessment can maximize learning and effectively respond to learner diversity and creativity (Felten, 2008). When materials are found on the internet, the teacher has to make a number of difficult decisions, like which parts of the text to keep and in which order, whether to modify the text, which images to keep or add, and how to use tables, charts, graphs, artefacts, or visuals. Discussing the difficulty of common forms of text types, Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) suggest a hierarchy of text types, arguing:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Tables, diagrams and flowcharts can (depending on their construction) also imply an additional element of an opportunity for ‘language-free’ thinking and learning skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation. They often rest on a visual reading of material or processes. The lowest level (artefacts/ visuals) represent the most language-free examples of text and should be valuable for starting points in CLIL classrooms. (pp. 96-97). The authors give examples of how different text types on a topic or theme should be combined so that they scaffold comprehension and learning in the classroom. A short, connected text including audio and/or video should be combined with bullet points, a table, and a couple of illustrations to create a structured input for individual thinking and dialogue about the topic. If a table/diagram is missing, the teacher should construct it to include information from a longer text, while a photo may be used to connect to another text from a different site. In this way, by modifying the existing texts and adding visuals to them, the teacher creates multimodal texts. Multimedia and digital technology has made it possible both for teachers and learners to design visual materials for the content-based classroom. Images, drawings, visual organizers, photographs, sound and video recordings, and multimodal texts combining verbal texts, images and sounds, can be created to support understanding of and learning the content and a foreign language. When learners engage in making presentations, posters, and other forms of multimodal texts, either alone or in pairs or groups, they need to interpret the visual images they select or create and read their meanings before using them purposefully in creating a multimodal text. Teacher’s guidance is critical in the initial stages of developing learners’ ability to implicitly use the visual grammar of images, from assisting them in reading surface meanings to sharing a deeper analysis of visuals learners engage with.

176

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Using Visuals in Young Learner Content-Based Classroom Visuals appear to be indispensable for providing comprehensible input in CBI. Teachers need to formulate questions that allow learners to speak about and interpret the visuals, but they should be careful when asking open-ended questions that might require learners to use complex structures and lexis they are not familiar with. Development of visual literacy may thus be limited by linguistic abilities of learners, unless appropriate scaffolding is provided by the teacher. Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) offer teaching strategies for helping learners to read images in a foreign language in a content-based classroom. First, the input needs to be manageable and anxiety-free so that learners possess enough language to process tables and images. Second, there should be teacher-learner negotiation so that the teacher scaffolds activities upon requests by learners. For example, the teacher can adapt the requirements related to learner responses by allowing for visual and non-verbal responses together with verbal ones. Third, when creating materials, the teacher may select a simple visual image from an external source instead of creating it and thus make a more effective use of lesson planning time. Depending on teachers’ creativity, materials can be represented by teacher-created posters with visual images, key words, and prompt questions. An effective example of a visual image used with young learners in teaching geography content is given by Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010), and it will be explained in detail in the next section. Visual organizers, like tables, T-charts, time-lines, bar charts, mind maps, diagrams, flow charts, line graphs, binary keys, cause-effect diagrams, pie charts, cycles, Venn diagrams, tree diagrams, quadrants, and storyboards are resources indispensable for presenting information in content-based lessons. They support learners’ understanding and learning by connecting knowledge and ideas presented in contentbased lessons, by supporting their creative thinking, and by scaffolding oral and written production (Bentley, 2010). The purposes of using these resources are dynamic and depend on lesson stages in the following ways: • •

•

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

At the beginning of a lesson they may be used for recalling information, engaging learners with the topic, and introducing new ideas. During the lesson, they support learners’ comprehension, taking notes, and their oral or written production, allowing learners to focus more on language functions than on factual information, while at the same time allowing teachers to monitor to what extent the resources allow all learners to follow the content. At the end of the lesson, they help teachers assess learners’ understanding of concepts and their progress in linguistic development. After the lesson, they help learners link ideas and concepts presented in the lesson and associate appropriate language used to talk about them.

When pictures, photographs, or drawings are used in a content-based lesson, teachers may add visual literacy purposes to the above list: before focusing on the content or linguistic aspects of the lesson, learners’ awareness of the components of visual grammar can be enhanced by discussing, analyzing, and interpreting the composition, perspective and visual structure of images. The following sections provide some examples of highlighting visual grammar in young learner content-based classroom.

177

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Application of content-based approaches in teaching a foreign language to young learners may be an extremely demanding task for a language teacher. Planning units focused both on content and language “necessarily requires extensive development of curricula and materials which integrate the teaching of language skills with content, and hence, may be very labor intensive” (Snow, 2001, p. 316), especially in the early years of a teacher’s career. However, as soon as teachers manage to develop basic CBI teaching strategies and techniques, as well as collect and create appropriate materials and resources, they feel empowered to “construct their own context-sensitive theory of practice” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 173). Professional development (PD) in this area may make this process less daunting, as Savić and Shin (2016) argue in a summary of primary English language teachers’ reports on perceived effectiveness of a PD in applying CBI in teaching young learners. The participants reported their own growth in the skills for using a variety of resources in content-based teaching and newly-acquired awareness of the learners’ needs for developing the 21st century skills (see Savić & Shin, 2016, for more details). The 21st century skills for young learners involved, among other literacies, the development of visual literacy within the 4C’s framework of contentbased thematic units. In the examples of classroom application that follow we will apply the framework for planning thematic units and lessons by considering the objectives within Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture, focusing on deeper comprehension and interpretation of visual images.

Developing Visual Literacy through 4C’s Framework There are many possible ways to develop young learners’ visual literacy in a content-based classroom. The following example illustrates a series of lessons that explore topics related to geography for grade 4 primary school learners. The example has been adapted from Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010, pp. 104107) and is outlined as a thematic unit (TU) titled Effects of Flooding and Rainfall Patterns, focusing on rainfall patterns in different parts of the world and effects of flooding. A 4C’s framework defines clear content and language objectives for the learners (see Table 1) to be achieved in a series of TU lessons. The teaching material used for developing visual literacy, communication skills, thinking skills, and content knowledge, is a photograph titled Children swimming in floodwater, depicting a group of children Table 1. Thematic Unit Objectives within 4C’s Framework (Theme: Rainfall Patterns and Effects of Flooding)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4C’s Framework Content

Cognition Communication

Culture

Thematic Unit Objectives • To raise awareness of the effects of flooding. • To determine rainfall patterns in different parts of the world. • To discuss reasons for different levels of rainfall and flooding. • To develop visual literacy by practicing reading a photograph. • To develop learners’ thinking skills using lower and higher order thinking questions. • To compare rainfall data between two locations. • To enhance the learners’ ability to describe a visual image by developing lexis and sentence structures using connectives (language of learning). • To express and justify an opinion using because (language through learning). • To raise awareness of flooding disasters and enhance the learners’ ability to empathize (with many children and people living in the parts of the world with heavy rainfall and being exposed to seasonal flooding).

Note. Data adapted from Coyle, Hood, & Marsh (2010, pp. 104-107)

178

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

surrounded by water, five younger boys without t-shirts, and two girls wearing sleeveless dresses. Since young learners may not be able to describe the photo without knowing the context, the teacher begins the lesson by asking a sequence of questions (see Table 2). Table 2. Progressive Questions with Scaffolding for Developing Visual Literacy Question

Scaffolding

1. How many people can you see?

(no scaffolding needed)

2. Who are these people?

(no scaffolding needed)

3. Are they in a swimming pool? Where are they?

(no scaffolding needed)

4. How do you know this?

the water is everywhere, the water is not clear, the water is not smooth.

5. When was the photograph taken?

in winter, in summer, in spring, in autumn, at daytime, on the weekend, on vacation.

6. What are the children doing?

They are sitting ..., They are lying..., They are playing ..., They are talking about ... .

7. How do the children feel?

sad, happy; quiet, worried, scared, frowning, laughing, smiling, talking, joking.

8. Why do they feel sad/happy?

I think that / the girls are / worried / because they are / frowning. I think that / the boys are / happy / because they are / smiling.

9. How can you describe the picture to a friend who hasn’t seen it?

I think that / some of the children are / not happy / because they look as if they are / scared. I think that / they are / happy / because they are / laughing / and they look as if they are/having fun.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Note. Data adapted from Coyle, Hood, & Marsh (2010, pp. 104-107)

The teacher asks two groups of progressive questions in order to develop visual literacy and to achieve the other TU objectives. The first group (questions 1-3 in Table 2) refers to visual syntax and focuses on observation skills, while the second group (questions 4-8 in Table 2) involves open-ended questions tackling visual semantics. By asking simple questions 1-3 (see Table 2) the teacher aims to engage all the learners in brainstorming the information about the photo, while the second group of questions raises the level of the learners’ cognitive engagement by demanding speculation and deeper thinking. To answer the simple questions the learners do not need any scaffolding, but the open-ended questions that follow the first set of questions require children to use the vocabulary and sentence structures that might be new to them. Therefore, the teacher introduces scaffolding by allowing children to work in pairs and small groups and by eliciting or providing new vocabulary and sentence structures. For example, before answering question 5 (see Table 2), the learners can work in small groups to brainstorm vocabulary within the four relevant lexical sets (weather, light, clothing, landscape), while for answering question 7 (see Table 2), the groups can make two spider diagrams with adjectives and action verbs describing the concepts of sadness and happiness. In the task that follows, a model cause-effect sentence is provided for the learners, as well as a substitution table that scaffolds learners in combining the sentence elements to answer question 8 (see Table 2), which offers both correct and incorrect combinations of words in terms of content, so that the learners need to think critically to provide correct sentences. Finally, the learners may summarize the discussion by guessing the title of the picture and by comparing their suggestions to the one the teacher provides. In the subsequent TU lessons, learners discuss

179

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

and compare geographical data about different rainfall amounts in different regions and color a map of the world on the basis of rainfall data provided in multimodal texts. The descriptions of the photograph that the learners are able to produce upon the progressive questioning take into account the visual, factual, and affective elements of the visual semantics and visual syntax. A followup written task (question 9 in Table 2) titled Describe the picture to a friend who hasn’t seen it may provide a valuable feedback to the teacher of how well the learners have mastered reading a visual image. The learners’ thinking may be stimulated with a new substitution table that is created by expending the model sentences provided for answering question 8 (see Table 2). The purpose of this type of scaffolding is twofold: first, the substitution table will provide necessary linguistic assistance to weaker learners, and second, it will guide language selection of all learners. By scaffolding learners’ expression in L2, the teacher not only stimulates their thinking needed for making appropriate choices from the substitution table, but also engages all learners, enhances their self-confidence and improves their motivation. The visual literacy tasks and activities in this CBI geography lesson are made manageable and anxietyfree through the application of well-sequenced questions, linguistic support, and pair and group work for valuable peer interaction. The learners are assisted in achieving full comprehension of the photograph not only at the surface level, but at a deeper one as well (Bamford, 2003), by being given sets of carefully sequenced questions that span from determining the visual syntax to visual semantics and rely on all three groups of strategies: perceptual, analytical, and sociocultural (Liu, 2013). The photograph inspires a written task in English and introduces an important theme to young global citizens. It also raises their awareness of a major global problem and enhances their ability to empathize, contributing to the achievement of all 4C’s objectives for this TU (see Table 1). How the teacher develops and applies her/his methods of scaffolding is crucial for the success of a content-based and learner-centered classroom (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). The teacher’s scaffolding techniques should be activated in choosing and modifying teaching materials, selecting and organising activities, preparing and sequencing questions, and providing appropriate linguistic input that facilitates learner interaction, successful reading of visual images, and deeper understanding of subject content and a cultural context (Bamford, 2003; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2020; Serafini, 2011). The Teaching Tip demonstrates the application of pedagogical scaffolding in balancing visual and linguistic literacies in a young learner content-based classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Teaching Tip In Jelena’s grade 4 class, she implements a curriculum that highlights the need for developing 21st century skills and values that are required for successful communication and collaboration. Jelena is well aware of the importance to focus on developing multiple literacies in her young language learner classroom. She is also acquainted with theory and practice of CBI for young foreign language learners and has developed the strategies and skills for enhancing visual literacy in educational settings. Although she knows that visual literacy is transferable and can be applied in other subjects, she considers it a core skill for social studies and civic education of her young learners and has decided to include it in the CBI unit plan objectives. This time, she has chosen the theme of road safety and has developed the activities for teaching the topics of safety rules, traffic, means of transport, and safe school trips within the TU titled Road Safety. Jelena believes that through CBI and visual literacy activities she can best respond to her learners’ need to be taught the language of road safety and how to stay safe while walking or traveling to school. The teaching material she has chosen for visual literacy activities is a set of photographs depicting 25 of the most dangerous and unusual journeys to school in the world (Nėjė, 2014). She is convinced that the theme and the material will allow her to connect her learners’ background knowledge to new experiences relevant to their life in ways that are meaningful to them, and to expose them to new meanings beyond what they experience every day. Jelena has defined the objectives of the unit within a 4C’s framework (see chart below). She has included a dual focus, wishing her learners to develop both their linguistic skills and their content knowledge. Moreover, she has determined objectives related to developing her learners’ visual literacy, cultural knowledge and thinking skills (see chart below). Thematic Unit Objectives within 4C’s Framework (Theme: Road Safety)

180

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

4C’s Framework

TU Objectives

Content

• To increase learners’ awareness of the need for road safety. • To learn about the traffic rules and different means of transport. • To develop visual literacy by practicing reading a photograph.

Cognition

• To develop learners’ thinking skills using lower and higher order thinking questions. • To compare different means of transport that children use to get to school in different parts of the world.

Communication

• To enhance learners’ ability to describe a visual image by developing lexis and sentence structures using connectives (language of learning). • To express, negotiate and justify an opinion using because (language through learning).

Culture

•To develop learners’ ability to empathize (with children who walk or travel long distances to school, using unsafe roads or means of transport).

Jelena introduced the theme showing a power point presentation (PPT) with the photographs downloaded from the internet (Nėjė, 2014) and formulated the six specific tasks within six activities. She applied both progressive questioning and scaffolding techniques (see chart below) to foster the learners’ understanding of the pictures and to encourage communication in L2. 1. In Activity 1, learners worked in pairs; each pair was given a different picture from the set of pictures printed from the PPT and assigned to describe it by answering five simple questions (questions 1-5 in the chart below). The pairs were scaffolded in learning the new vocabulary (words and chunks) needed to accomplish the assignment (questions 3 and 4 in the chart below). With question 5 (see chart below), Jelena raised the thinking level of her learners and invited pairs to reason and speculate. Progressive Questions with Scaffolding for Developing Visual Literacy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Question

Scaffolding

1. How many people (animals/vehicles) can you see?

(no scaffolding needed)

2. Who are these people?

(no scaffolding needed)

3. Where are they?

Mountains, rock, snow, ice, river, broken bridge, damaged suspension bridge, wooden ladders, bull, tuktuk, canoe, steel cable, tightrope, raft, wooden boat, inflated tire tube, horse cart, plank, forest.

4. What are the children (adults) doing?

Traveling by boat, walking across a plank/on a tightrope, riding a bull/a tuktuk/a horse cart, flying on a steel cable, climbing on unsecured wooden ladders, crossing a damaged suspension bridge, canoeing.

5. Why are they travelling that way?

Because / there is no road. Because / there is only one cart. Because / there is no school bus.

6. How safe is it to travel that way? Why?

I think that / riding a horse cart with twenty other children / is unsafe / because / children can fall down. I think that / climbing on unsecured wooden ladders / is very dangerous / because you can be hurt.

7. How is this way of going to school different from yours?

Dangerous, a long distance, difficult, slow, no road or bridge, no school bus.

8. What is similar in the picture to the way you go to school?

School bag, school uniform, school mates, friends, parent(s), adult(s).

9. How does this picture make you feel? Why?

Sad, frightened, surprised, scared, afraid, amazed, horrified, anxious, terrified, interested.

10. How do you think the children (people) in the pictures feel? Why?

I think that / some of the children are / scared / because they are / frowning. I think that / the girls are / not afraid / because they are / in company.

11. Who created the pictures and why?

Tourists, journalists, parents, friends, teachers.

12. What is the message of the pictures?

Road safety is very important.

181

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

2. In Activity 2, the pairs presented their pictures to the class by summarizing the answers to the questions in Activity 1. Pairs posted pictures on the board, numbered them, and discussed the safety of children shown in their pictures by answering question 6 (above). Jelena provided a model cause-effect sentence for the learners, as well as a substitution table to scaffold learners in combining the sentence elements (question 6). 3. Activity 3 was a Pyramid Discussion on the most dangerous journey to school, organized as a think-pair-share activity: first, learners were instructed to individually select three pictures depicting the most dangerous journey to school; then, they were asked to pair with another learner and to agree on three choices by comparing and negotiating their original choices; next, two pairs joined into a group of four learners and were instructed to agree on three choices; finally, groups gave feedback and justified their choices. 4. In Activity 4, the learners were asked to work in initial pairs made in Activity 1 to brainstorm vocabulary needed for expressing personal reactions to the pictures and were supported with frames created by the teacher. Next, Jelena posted the questions that requires deeper understanding of the visual image (higher level thinking) (questions 7-9). Monitoring pair work, Jelena elicited the vocabulary learners needed to answer the questions. The learners were asked to compare their personal responses to question 9 with their partners. 5. In Activity 5, the students considered a particular cultural and social context by focusing on the stories behind the pictures. Their interpretations were guided by questions 10-12, while the substitution table provided by the teacher offered necessary scaffolding. By inviting the learners to speculate about the context of taking a particular photo (question 11), Jelena allowed them to respond imaginatively to the image. The theme of road safety was elicited through the learners’ responses to question 12. 6. In Activity 6, the students worked in groups of four on one of the tasks: 1. to brainstorm the possible dangers/obstacles/risks they experience on the roads to school; 2. to brainstorm the safety features on the roads they walk/travel on to school. Then the groups working on the same task joined to design a poster to communicate the information. Finally, Jelena invited the groups to present the information on their posters and discuss further the safety measures that are needed on the roads to school. In the subsequent TU lessons Jelena developed her learners’ understanding of the traffic rules and different means of transport by selecting and using multimodal texts that allowed her learners to apply their visual and linguistic literacies developed in the above activities. By engaging her learners in these six activities, Jelena managed to accomplish most of the objectives within the 4C’s framework. The activities for developing visual literacy allowed the learners to achieve the following: 1. to activate their perceptual, analytical, and sociocultural strategies; 2. to develop oral communication, collaboration, and production of content vocabulary; 3. to develop critical thinking when interacting with visual images; 4. to broaden vocabulary needed for discussing visual images; 5. to learn about different cultures through pictures; and 6. to raise their awareness of social and cultural differences without being judgmental (Bamford, 2003; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). In addition, allowing the learners to collaborate in pairs and groups, and scaffolding their pair and group work, Jelena managed to create an anxiety-free setting, support the weaker learners, and facilitate task completion. By choosing a theme relevant to the learners’ life, she made the tasks meaningful and purposeful, and allowed the learners to bring their background knowledge to the discussions. Carefully selected and sequenced questions applied in the process of interpreting the photographs contributed greatly to enhancing the learners’ visual literacy, while the poster-design task allowed the learners to apply their visual literacy and creativity, to personalize the language use, and to create a multimodal text. The same activity assisted Jelena in assessing the learners’ visual literacy and linguistic progress. In conclusion, combining CBI and visual literacy activities in her young learner classroom, Jelena created conditions for a holistic, learner-centered approach to language education.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION The chapter aimed to study the possibilities of developing visual literacy in applying a CBI approach to teaching L2 to young learners. Visual literacy was defined as a set of skills and competences necessary for successful comprehension of visual images and multimodal texts, both widely used in CBI. Considering the fact that children are increasingly exposed to visual images through the internet and a variety of media, making meaning of the information communicated by these means requires well-developed visual literacy skills. The chapter has explored paths for introducing young language learners to visual literacy in content-based instruction. It has been argued that learners’ participation in activities promoting visual literacy through visual images and multimodal texts may enhance their understanding how picture and multimodal text design elements work to create meaningful representations (Bamford, 2003; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012d; Liu, 2013). Moreover, it has been concluded that learners’ engagement in visual literacy activities within the 4C’s framework may contribute to the development of oral communication, collaboration, and production of content vocabulary, and may also raise learners’ awareness of sociocultural issues (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010).

182

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Current presence of a multiplicity of modes for communicating meaning have made the task of a language teacher both more difficult and more rewarding (Kress, 2017). The need to expand written literacy development to multimodal literacies learning poses high demands not only on teachers and teacher educators, but on literacy curriculum designers and policy makers. It has been argued in the chapter that L2 teachers should gain awareness of the theoretical and practical aspects of teaching visual literacy but should keep their autonomy in choosing the visuals and designing multimodal texts for content-based teaching. Keeping pace with rapid changes brought by information and communication technology requires systematic multiliteracy development not only in the area of L2 teaching, but across the curriculum. To be successful at school, learners have to master all these modes of communication in all the subjects of the curriculum. CBI has been proposed in the chapter as a successful approach to developing multiliteracies of young language learners. It is hoped that the chapter may serve as a framework for pre- and in-service language teacher education and professional development needed for applying learning-centered approaches to teaching visual literacy. As this is an aspect of L2 teaching that is still developing, extensive research will be needed to determine the effectiveness of current approaches and to examine possible factors that may contribute to success of visual literacy development. New empirical research should examine the impact of multimodal literacy development in language education and to further explore the effectiveness of a multimodal approach to L2 teaching on young learners’ literacies development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The chapter has resulted from the author’s research activities within COST Action IS1410 DigiLitEY – The digital literacy and multimodal practices of young children in the period 2018-2019. Discussion Questions 1. Choose a globally relevant theme and find an appropriate picture to introduce the theme to young learners. What factors influence your choice of image for the task? How do you settle on appropriate strategies to focus on your teaching context? 2. Use the picture you considered in Discussion Question 1 of this section to design TU objectives by applying the 4C’s framework. What content, cognition, communication, and culture objectives are appropriate for your learners? What visual literacy objectives related to the picture will you include? What questions can you use to develop your learners’ thinking skills? How do your questions help the learners read the picture?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Allen, P. T. (2012). Media transformations: Framing, multimodality and visual literacy in contemporary media spaces (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bradford, UK. Bamford, A. (2003). The visual literacy white paper. Retrieved from https://www.aperture.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/05/visual-literacy-wp.pdf Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

183

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Brewster, J., Ellis, G., & Girard, D. (2002). The primary English teacher’s guide. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Brinton, D. M. (2001). The use of media in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 459–475). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp. 328–334). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Cameron, D. (2008). Teaching languages to young learners (11th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2016). Languages and learners: Making the match: World language instruction in K-8 classrooms and beyond. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000092 Donaghy, K., & Xerri, D. (2017). The image in ELT: An introduction. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 1–11). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Eilam, B. (2012). Teaching, learning, and visual literacy: The dual role of visual representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026611 Felten, P. (2008). Visual literacy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(6), 60–64. Friedman, A. (2016). Three-year-old photographers: Educational and parental mediation as a basis for visual literacy via digital photography in early childhood. Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education, 8(1), 15–31.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London, UK: British Council Publications. Hill, D. A. (2013). The visual elements in EFL coursebooks. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 157–166). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504. doi:10.1093/ elt/ccs047 Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012a). The work of learning and teaching literacies. In M. Kalantzis, & B. Cope, Literacies (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196581.001

184

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012b). Making visual meanings. In M. Kalantzis, & B. Cope, Literacies (pp. 248–280). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196581.013 Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012c). Literacies to think and learn. In M. Kalantzis, & B. Cope, Literacies (pp. 325–354). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196581.017 Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012d). Literacies pedagogy. In M. Kalantzis, & B. Cope, Literacies (pp. 355–373). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196581.018 Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from research (2nd ed.). London, UK: Libraries Unlimited. Kress, G. (2017). Making meaning: from teaching language to designing environments for learning in the contemporary world. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 9–10). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203619728 Krulatz, A. (2019). Content based instruction in teacher education: Reshaping pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language teaching. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 22, 9–16. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. doi:10.4324/9781410615725 Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners’ reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 223–243. Liu, J. (2013). Visual images interpretive strategies in multimodal texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1259–1263. Matusiak, K., Heinbach, C., Harper, A., & Bovee, M. (2019). Visual literacy in practice: Use of images in students’ academic work. College & Research Libraries, 80(1). Retrieved from https://crl.acrl.org/ index.php/crl/article/view/16950/19370 Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819 Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Moon, J. (2005). Children learning English. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education. Nėjė, J. (2014). 25 of the most dangerous and unusual journeys to school in the world. Retrieved from https://www.boredpanda.com/dangerous-journey-to-school/ Olivares, E. (2013, January 11). We are 90% visual beings [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ernestoolivares.com/we-are-90-visuals-beings/ Paivio, A. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. Pathways to literacy achievement for high poverty children. Detroit, MI: The University of Michigan, School of Education.

185

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Romero, E. D., & Bobkina, J. (2017). Teaching visual literacy through memes in the language classroom. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 59–69). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191–205. doi:10.2307/3588330 Royce, T. (2007). Multimodal communicative competence in second language context. In T. Royce, & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 361–390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Savić, V. (2012). Effective CLIL lesson planning: What lies behind it? In R. Popović, & V. Savić (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in teaching English to young learners (pp. 35–45). Jagodina, Serbia: University of Kragujevac. Savić, V. (2013a). Developing intercultural literacy in the young learner classroom. In V. Savić, & I. Cirkovic-Miladinivic (Eds.), Integrating culture and language teaching in TEYL (pp. 35–51), Jagodina, Serbia: University of Kragujevac. Savić, V. (2013b). Using stories in theme-based instruction. Uzdanica, 10(1), 169–186. Savić, V., & Shin, J. K. (2013). Contextualizing language learning through stories in Serbia. Teaching Innovations, 26(1), 62–83. Savić, V., & Shin, J. K. (2016). Improving quality of primary English language teaching in Serbia through Theme-based instruction. In J. Teodorović (Ed.), Improving quality of elementary education (pp. 328–338). Jagodina, Serbia: University of Kragujevac. Schoen, M. J. (2015). Teaching visual literacy skills in a one-shot session. VRA Bulletin, 41(1). Retrieved from https://online.vraweb.org/vrab/vol41/iss1/6 Seburn, T. (2017). Learner-sourced visuals for deeper text engagement and conceptual comprehension. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 79–88). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Serafini, F. (2011). Expanding perspectives for comprehending visual images in multimodal texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 342–350. Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the 21st century. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 26–32. Serafini, F. (2017). Visual literacy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Retrieved from http:// frankserafini.com/publications/serafini-oxford-vis-lit.pdf Shin, J. K. (2007). Developing dynamic units for EFL. English Teaching Forum, 45(2), 2–9. Shin, J. K., & Crandall, J. A. (2014). Teaching young learners English: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.

186

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers: A handbook of activities & classroom language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-Based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 303–318). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Thompson, R., & McIlnay, M. (2019). Nobody wants to read anymore! Using a multimodal approach to make literature engaging. Children’s Literature in English Language Education (CLELE), 7(1), 61–80. Wasilewska, M. (2017). The power of image nation: How to teach a visual generation. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 43–50). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Whitcher, A. (2017). Image makers: the new language learners of the 21st century. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 13–22). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Yi, Y. (2014). Possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in teaching and learning English as an additional language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(4), 158–169. Zakime, A. (2017). Using Pinterest to promote genuine communication and enhance personalised learning. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 51–58). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): An approach to foreign and second language teaching which integrates language and content learning. Like CBI, it is dual-focused and L2 is regarded as a vehicle for learning subject content. It shares several characteristics with CBI, and both terms, i.e., CLIL and CBI, are regarded umbrella terms for a number of varieties that are applied throughout the world. Content-Based Instruction (CBI): An approach to foreign and second language teaching in which language teaching is organized around subject content. The approach is dual-focused and L2 is used both for content and language teaching. It shares the many characteristics with Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and both terms, i.e. CBI and CLIL, are regarded umbrella terms for range of programs that are applied throughout the world. Multimedia: Presenting a written or spoken text together with pictures, such as illustrations, photographs, animations, or videos. Multimodal Text: A text in which verbal and visual semiotic modes are integrated to communicate a complex meaning. New Visual Literacy: Successful comprehension of images as independent visual forms and the ability to talk about the process of reading the visual codes. Thematic Unit (TU): A series of four to five content-based lessons connected by the same crosscurricular theme. Subject content taught in L2 creates an interesting and meaningful context for L2 use and contributes to more authentic communication in the classroom.

187

 Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Visual Grammar: A general grammar of visual design that describes the ways in which visual elements and visual images, such as photos, illustrations, pictures, diagrams and maps, which are combined in visual statements to communicate meaning. Visual literacy is comprised of visual grammar and visual syntax. Visual Literacy: The ability to make meaning from interpreting visual images; it involves effectiveness in finding, interpreting, evaluating, using, and creating visual images as well as understanding contextual, cultural, aesthetic, ethical, intellectual, and technical elements of producing and using visual images. Visual Semantics: The relationship between visual images and culturally defined world issues used for creating meaning. Visual Syntax: Graphic composition of an image, like shape, perspective, size, scale, dimension, arrangement, framing, color, light, contrast, direction, motion, balance, labelling, visual/text relationship, foreground, background, and editing. Combined with visual semantics, visual syntax enables successful comprehension of different meanings of visual images.

188

Visual Literacy for Young Language Learners

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Arizpe, E. & Styles, M. (2004). Children reading pictures: Interpreting visual texts. London, UK: Routledge. This book presents results of a study of children’s interpretations of three picture books and of their drawings based on the books, showing that children are capable of reading complex visual texts. It highlights the roles teachers play in developing children’s skills to successfully observe and comprehend a visual text. The book may be useful to the practitioners who wish to develop young learners’ deeper understanding of multimodal texts like picture books. 2. Frey, N. & Fisher, D. B. (2008) (Eds.). Teaching visual literacy: Using comicbooks, graphic novels, anime, cartoons, and more to develop comprehension and thinking skills. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. The book describes innovative approaches to developing visual literacy when reading interesting multimodal texts. A number of authors approach visual literacy as a skill that can be both developed and used to increase learner engagement. The book provides concrete examples of how to work with multimodal texts in the classroom. 3. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This is a theoretical book that gives both a framework for studying multimodality and examples of analyses of multimodal texts. The book focuses on the ways meaning is created in multimodal texts by combining visual images and written texts. It offers approaches to understanding multimodal texts created for children and by children.

189

190

Chapter 10

Visual Literacy and Young Learners Hilde Tørnby Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

ABSTRACT This chapter explores visual literacy from theoretical and practical perspectives. Ideas of what is meant by visual literacy and why this is important are presented through a selection of studies. The impact that visual literacy may have on students’ learning and development is further elaborated. A case study from a Norwegian frst-grade classroom is included to shed light on the ways in which visual work in the classroom can be implemented. In addition, exemplars of students’ written verbal and visual texts are thoroughly examined. A tendency in the material is that the illustrations are detailed and elaborate, and carry a distinct sense of the written text. Hence, the visual text may be understood as the more important text and may be vital in a child’s literacy development.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The ability to read images and communicate ideas through visual representations is ever present in our communities both inside and outside of school. Teachers and students alike experience that visual language expresses ideas differently from written verbal language (Mackenzie, 2011). One might think of visual literacy in teaching contexts as being rather new, but the term itself was coined in 1969 by Debes. In essence, visual literacy denotes using, seeing, and sensing to develop and use visual affordances in perception and communication. If visual expressions were considered equally as important as verbal expressions, classrooms around the globe might be more inclusive and supportive, particularly of young children and children with multilingual backgrounds. Today, visual literacy is dominant in the press and numerous social media platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram. The younger generations express themselves and participate confidently in many of these environments. However, educational environments may not necessarily view social media platforms as learning opportunities. However, a more expansive inclusion of art and visual literacy across subjects may give new insights and understandings. Eisner’s (2009) reflections on what art may offer education are worth contemplating: “It serves as a reminder DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch010

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

that how something is taught, how curricula are organized, and how schools are designed impacts what students will learn” (p. 7). The aim of this chapter is to introduce the field of visual literacy and present first-grade students’ visual texts to inspire working with visual texts in the classroom.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Visual Literacy In recent years, in alignment with the expansion of the internet and online resources, visual literacy has emerged as a field of research in various teaching contexts (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006; KümmerlingMeibauer, 2018; Painter, 2018). For elementary and advanced readers alike, it is of interest to note what the visual text communicates through affordances such as colors, lines, and composition (Albers, 2013; Feisner, 2006; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). In this sense, the use of visuals to construct meaning is one essential perspective of visual literacy. Also, the ability to read images is a widely accepted as integral to understanding this concept (Dresang & Koh, 2009; Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen 2006). At first glance, reading visuals may seem elementary. However, when considering composition, codes, use of colors, and more, researchers have pointed out that visual literacy definitely needs to be learned (Kress, 1997). Furthermore, the nature of visuals does not follow set standards as many literary genres do. Visuals are diverse due to the array of expressions spanning from traditional art to multimodal online texts, which complicates our understanding of visuals (see also Huyn, Thomas, & To in this volume). A major concern frequently voiced is that visual literacy is given too little attention in school contexts (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Kress 1997; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006) and needs to be taught (Honeyford & Boyd, 2015; Pantaleo, 2015). The concept of foregrounding provides one way of working with visual literacy in education. The term originated in Gestalt theory, and it refers to the placement of figures, as well as the organization of figures, in relation to one another and in relation to the ground (figure–ground organization) (Hamlyn, 2017). Stockwell (2005) related foregrounding to an analytical tool for literature and explained it as follows: “Certain aspects of literary texts are commonly seen as being more important or salient than others” (p. 14). What stands out to the reader is often derived from certain devices in the text such as repetition and creative, detailed descriptions. In this chapter, Stockwell’s ideas are applied to visual literacy. Particularly fruitful are his ideas of foregrounding and how objects can be located “on top of, or in front of, or above or larger than the rest of the field that is then the ground” (p. 15). Investigating what elements are centered and cornered, as much as analyzing what is given the larger space on the page, enhances visual literacy. In other words, how the different elements are arranged on the page warrants attention. Furthermore, what stands out in terms of being centered or taking up the larger part of the visualization is meaningful. What is in the foreground is given more emphasis than elements placed in the background. To understand what visual literacy entails is important in learning environments. One might say that visual literacy is twofold: first, it includes the child’s response to the images, and second, it relates to their own creation of visual texts. Responding to images by words, ideas, or emotions is crucial “to develop students’ visual literacy competence” (Pantaleo, 2015, p. 126). However, acknowledging a child’s own creation of visual texts as a naturally integrated part of learning is a different matter. Studies where this has been conducted have successfully shed light on the possibilities for deeper understanding and

191

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

learning such practices hold (Arizpe, 2013; Honeyford & Boyd, 2015; Pantaleo, 2015; Tørnby & Stokke, 2018). In her work with Shaun Tan’s wordless picture book The arrival (see also Curtin in this volume), Arizpe emphasized that “if children are expected to recreate the story in words, this should be only after a process of meaning-making that does not force words into the process until they are ready for them” (2013, p. 174). The perspective of time as a means of developing visual and written verbal literacies seems to be a common concern because this kind of classroom work requires time and exploration. As Honeyford and Bond (2015) argued, “Rather than narrowing, limiting, and simplifying tasks, texts, and purposes, we need to broaden literacy and language arts as creative, complex, and critical spaces for students to play, compose and learn” (p. 72). Kümmerling-Meibauer (2012) stated that young children are capable of reading images before reading words, thus underscoring that using visuals, such as picture books, can aid children in developing visual literacy alongside print literacy, stressing that “The intensive consideration of the images in early-concept books may not only foster visual literacy but enhances language acquisition as well” (p. 152). A study carried out in a Norwegian setting looking at the impact of the pictures/illustration, found that reading authentic picture books has the potential to impact students’ writing in a second language (Birketveit & Rimmereide, 2017, p. 115). Children’s visuals may be understood as an early stage of writing; therefore, the connection between drawing and writing is worth emphasizing. Vygotsky (1978) noticed that this connection “gives us grounds for regarding children’s drawings as a preliminary stage in the development of written language” (p. 113). Young children draw and write verbal texts long before being given a formal school education. Some children read their written verbal texts despite the nonsensical alphabet they employ and can give detailed instructions on how to interpret their drawings. This is often referred to as a pre-literate stage. Later, when children write letters in long lists or group them, they have by then realized that there is a system, a stage often denoted as emergent writing. A phonemic awareness emerges at this stage. When children realize there is a connection between the letters and the sounds they represent, the early phonemic stage is reached. Following this are the stages where a child can distinguish among the sounds, and phrase writing is developed. This stage is referred to as the transitional stage. In the last stage, writing letters and words comes with ease – the fluent stage. In a 2011 study where drawing was deliberately used to support the reading program, Mackenzie found that “if teachers encourage emergent writers to see drawing and writing as a unified system for making meaning, children create texts which are more complex than those they can create with words alone” (p. 322).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Remediation In language arts classrooms, the idea of reworking a text from one medium to another, for example, turning a fairy tale into a film, is widely acknowledged as a fruitful approach to developing students’ comprehension (Bolter & Grusin, 1999; Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). According to Østern (2008), in this process, an active aesthetic response is the premise and will bring about an aesthetic transformation. The original text may be expanded or limited (Østern, 2008). One such expansion was evident when a group of fifth graders made an animation movie attributing more evil traits to Mr. Hazel than the original text expressed (Tørnby & Stokke, 2018, p. 333). In the movie, Mr. Hazel steals fuel and hits Danny with his car. These happenings are not found in the original text. In other instances when students are asked to illustrate their initial written text, this process may be understood as a remediation of their written verbal text into a visual language (see Figures 2 and 3 below). Somehow, their words or the way

192

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

they feel about these words enters a new landscape: the creative, visual world of a child. From being a collection of words and sentences, the text now becomes a piece of an aesthetic expression. Details, colors, and new elements can be understood as an expansion and elaboration of the original text. In turn, some visual texts may exclude information from the written verbal text and, hence, diminish the original.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Emotional Literacy Visual literacy is the ability to read and comprehend pictures, photos, collages, and paintings and to engage with emotions through the use of colors, design, and composition. To artists, enhancing an emotional response is at the core of their work. In this way, visual literacy is related to emotional literacy, the connection being that emotions trump cognition. In the traditional theory of mind (Baron-Cohen, 1997), the idea is to understand how others think, whereas emotional literacy focuses on understanding how others feel. Listening to what people say can indicate how they think because words and thoughts are frequently linked. Thus, sensing how others think may be possible. Emotion stands in contrast to the cognitive process of thought. In recent years, greater attention has been given to students’ inherent emotional literacy when reading picture books (Nikolajeva, 2015, 2018; Stokke, 2013). In picture books, emotions are first and foremost depicted in the pictures; nevertheless, at times, the written verbal text can also convey emotions. As Nikolajeva (2018) pointed out, “images seem to be far superior to words in representing interiority” (p. 113). Furthermore, she reminds us of the fact that “picture books frequently utilize images, including wordless double spreads, to convey strong emotions for which words would be insufficient and inadequate” (p. 114). Images function as gateways into the sensed and felt human experience: where we lack words, pictures help us perceive. Returning to the starting point of this chapter, the idea that visual literacy offers other ways of knowing has been described by many scholars (Arizpe, 2013; Honeyford & Boyd, 2015; Pantaleo, 2015; Tørnby & Stokke, 2018). Eisner (2009) elaborated on what can be learned from visual arts, outlining eight main points wherein he addresses the limits of language and reminds the reader that: “What schools need to attend to are the cultivation of literacy in its many forms. Each form of literacy provides another way to be in the world, another way to form experience, another way to recover and express meaning” (p. 8). This was the case in Tørnby’s (2019b) study in which pre-service teachers’ visualizations of their practicum were analyzed. The study found that these visualizations expressed emotional responses – something sensed rather than something thought. The students’ illustrations became insightful texts about their practice experiences. They were asked to “visualize what made the greatest impression,” using crayons, pens, yarn, glue, tape, and different kinds of paper (colored, cardboard, wrapping, tissue, newspapers, etc.). First, the students worked individually and then shared their work in groups. The analysis of these visualizations revealed that the emotional and relational aspects dominated, indicating the importance of such aspects. A majority of the illustrations showed the heartfelt relationship between pre-service teachers and their students during practicum, as represented through group hugs, inclusion of hearts, and the use of warm colors frequently associated with love, compassion, and happiness. A large number of the illustrations showed the world of a child at school and outside of school. In these visualizations, concern, worry, and care for a child’s well-being were expressed through the compositions and through the use of bleak and dark colors. The readers of these visual texts sensed the emotions connected to the practicum and may have read these visual stories as powerful narrations that words may not have been able to communicate.

193

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

Freedom of Play Exploring the practicum through a visual representation (Tørnby, 2019b) included a sense of freedom and play, and it created unique visual texts that differed greatly from verbal texts obtained through logs or answers to a set of questions. Honeyford and Boyd (2015) explored a wide range of literacy practices through play and argued that “concerns about literacy achievement need to be reframed as concerns about the paucity of spaces, media/modes, structures, and practices that count as literacy and are used in literacy curriculum and interaction” (p. 71). Their work using play as a starting point for developing visual literacy describes how students created self-portraits. By exploring a selection of materials in this process, visual and verbal literacy are enhanced. The idea that play is the first and most fundamental learning a child encounters is widely accepted, but sometimes it may be forgotten in school. The renowned German writer Schiller stated that everything is play, and that it is of the utmost importance in our lives: “But what is meant by a mere play, when we know that in all conditions of humanity that very thing is play, and only that is play which makes man complete and develops simultaneously his twofold nature?” (1795, letter XV). When Schiller talked about the twofold nature, he referred to his profound understanding of man – that a person consists of an intellect and a body – and he claimed that education seems to be tailored to the intellect rather than to creativity and play. From his perspective, it is within the realms of play that true freedom and learning are to be found. When individuals imagine, make believe, make artwork, fantasize, or role-play, a new dimension appears. Young children are experts at entering into this world of play, and for some, this world feels more real than everything else (Guss, 2015). Play fosters surprise, which again enriches learning communities. As Eisner (2009) contended, “Educators should not resist surprise but create conditions to make it happen. It is one of the most powerful sources of intrinsic satisfaction” (p. 8).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Some of the research presented in this chapter (Arizpe, 2013; Eisner, 2009; Honeyford & Boyd, 2015; Pantaleo, 2015; Tørnby & Stokke, 2018) raised questions about educational practices that implement visual literacy and how to embed this in formal education, and even more how to acknowledge visual literacy as a gateway to new knowledge. Students’ visual and written verbal texts have been discussed to some extent previously in this chapter. To enable students to illustrate their own written verbal texts can easily be accommodated in any classroom and across different disciplines. For linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, embedding visual texts as starting points or as end products may bring about a feeling of mastery and empowerment in the learner when developing literacies and writing skills. Using art, drawings, or other images as pre-reading or pre-writing activities may scaffold students’ learning process. In other words, “Visual pre-tasks are significant in activating inner landscapes that, in turn, can frame the pre- and early reading stages” (Tørnby, 2019c, p. 102). Also, using visual texts to monitor reading comprehension may be valuable for students and teachers alike. For instance, if a learner has read about deforestation in science class or in a short story in English class, the visual representations of these texts may give a unique understanding of which elements the student remembers, thinks about, and regards as important. In this manner, the teacher may use drawings or visuals as a means of alternative assessment. Such visual texts may reveal more than cognitive aspects; they may also be understood as emotional responses to the read material. This can primarily be seen in the use of color (Albers, 2013) 194

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

and placement on the page (see discussion related to Figure 4). Upon considering the visual affordances provided by students, one might contemplate new ways of utilizing them. For instance, in which ways would written verbal texts change if the students’ visual texts were produced first and used as inspiration for writing? Finally, visuals may offer a means of promoting critical thinking prior to or after reading. For example, talking about the cover of the picture book This is not my hat (Klasen, 2012) may be used as a starting point for reflecting on the idea of stealing. Is it right to steal? But also, what do we steal from one another without noticing (people’s happiness, confidence, their trust, etc.)?

Implementing Visual Literacy in First-Grade: A Case Study During the years 2017–2019, I visited the same group of first-grade students several times throughout their first two years of school in a Norwegian suburb, an area regarded as middle class. The class consisted of 17 students with many different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. There were two students with German as their first language, two with English, one with Serbian, and one with Albanian. Additionally, one student was hearing impaired, which required the use of a microphone by the teacher and other students. As a result, all desks had microphones permanently installed on them, and the teacher wore a headset microphone. The school where the project was conducted employed the write-to-read approach (skrive seg til lesning or SLT+ in Norwegian). The STL+ approach is based on the assumption that children can learn to read through engagement in writing through the use computer technology. Specifically, when students write texts on their iPads, the program sounds out the letters and reads the words and sentences. The idea is that, by using this approach, pupils learn to read faster and begin to write at an earlier age. In Norway, many schools use this method when teaching reading both in Norwegian and in English. It is debated

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Example of a student’s writing done on an iPad, February 2019

195

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

and considered controversial by many (Clark & Luckin, 2013; Picard, Martin, & Tsao, 2014) because students do not use their handwriting, only touch the screen when learning to write. The method is also disputed because it considers writing as the starting point for reading rather than the other way around. This case study was conducted in the first-grade class by a team of researchers and aimed at several dimensions. First, the team was eager to observe an iPad classroom. Thus, the perspective of the development of reading and writing skills was of great interest. Another perspective was the role of the teacher as a facilitator in this digital learning context: how the iPad influenced the role of the teacher in terms of structuring and leadership was analyzed. Through observations, interviews, student texts, videos of iPad screens completed throughout a writing session, as well as videos taken by head-cameras, the team gained extensive insights into the students and teacher’s activities. In this chapter, only the student texts will be presented. The students wrote their texts on iPads. Later, these texts were printed out, cut, and glued into notebooks. Last, these verbal printed texts were illustrated by the learners. No instruction or scaffolding other than telling the students to “illustrate” their texts was given. The following section presents a sample text composed early in the school year in Norwegian, the first language of many students in Norway. The elicited texts (Figures 2, 3, and 4) were about animals and followed the same pattern: “I like….”. In essence, the words were more or less the same, aside from which animals students included. When asked about the origin of this work, it was explained that many of the student texts were inspired by a model text introduced as a pre-writing sequence. Noticeably, these written verbal texts were essentially a copy of the model. However, in the visual text, students created unique images since there was no model visual text. In the visual text in Figure 2, the student drew an animal with features from her written list of animals: a cat’s tail, a camel’s hump, a hen’s comb, and a hamster’s ears. Additionally, seven vertical lines were drawn beneath the main body of the animal which possibly represent four legs and udder teats. The placement of this imaginary animal in a green, nurturing scenery with lots of grass,

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 2. Student visual and written verbal text about animals

196

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

sunshine, a flower, and a tree bears witness to a young child’s awareness of animals’ affiliation with nature. Notably, the animal is encircled by a blue line connected to the tree, which may underscore the idea of belonging, or it may be read as fencing in the animal. Notably, this visual text is composed of details and colors completely absent in the written verbal text. The second text (Figure 2) followed the same pattern as the first, namely “I like…”. This visual text (Figure 3) included more animals and is more specific regarding the represented species: a blue dolphin, a black-and-white panda (although a panda is not really striped), a lion with a bright orange mane, and a pink hamster (although hamsters are most commonly white, grey, or ginger). A common denominator is that all the animals are happy and smile at us. In the illustration, a small palm tree is placed to the left, indicating that these animals live in warmer climates.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 3. Student visual and written verbal text about animals

It was clear that the student had chosen a few animals from her long list, but there was no way of knowing why these four were included in the drawing. Colorful animals on a white backdrop bear similarity to old-fashioned school wall charts. In the third example (Figure 4), there is a feel of a story being told. Looking at this picture, it is clear that the student used the whole spread and did not feel limited to only one page: the sun in the sky and a blue house with a person outside are elements placed above and below the written text. There are two suns – one on each page. The visual text may be seen as a text independent of the written verbal text. The dragon flies in front of the snowcapped mountains and the lion with his prominent mane is easily spotted. This visual text stands out as something completely different from the list of animals in the

197

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

written verbal text. Besides, there are two blue characters, one located outside the blue house and one almost hidden in the bottom right corner, which puzzles the reader. Who are they, and how are they connected to the mountain story? Are they hunters who try to shoot these animals, or are they part of a different tale in addition to the story about the animals? Figure 4. Student written verbal and visual texts about animals

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

As previously mentioned, these texts came early in the school year for beginner learners, and the teacher explained that the class collaborated in a pre-writing session where they made sentences, counted words, and clapped syllables. Finally, the teacher wrote some sentences on the whiteboard and some of the children copied his sentences.

Written Verbal and Visual Texts The written verbal text is clearly inspired by the model text in all of the “I like … animal” texts. Other early texts in the notebooks are all built upon a similar sentence structure: “I like …”, “I see …” and “I have …”. The variations in the texts are in the selection of animals or in the sequencing of the sentences. Thus, the written verbal texts show little individuality and creativity. In fact, they are nearly identical. This sameness is essentially absent in the visual texts because they do not follow a model text in the

198

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

same manner. What is more, the students often expanded the written verbal text in their illustrations, feeling free to compose a unique visual text, as seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4. The composition and choice of colors produced a more personal aesthetic voice. Elements that are absent in the written verbal texts are very much present in the visual (e.g., emotions often expressed in the characters’ facial expression). The majority of the animals in these visualizations have a smiling face. However, the facial expressions in the scene described in Figure 5 are varied: daddy buying coffee is very happy, but the lady (long hair, green dress) is very grumpy. Another possible reading of the visual text is that it is about the student’s mom and dad. There is no coffee stand, but a bed where the mother is asleep, and the father comes with coffee. The written text may be meant to be God kaffe (good coffee) rather than Bod kaffe (coffee stall). What is interesting about this visual representation is that it describes a scene that is not included in the written verbal text. The student wrote a text about her mother and father, but nothing about her father buying coffee or bringing coffee to the mother. She wrote “Father likes coffee.” One is drawn into the visual text and a question emerges – What happened, and when did it happen? One starts to think about the lady in the green dress. Is she asleep (no pupils are visible in her eyes) or is she selling coffee? Is she sullen, or are her pursed lips unintended by the artist?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 5. Student visual and written verbal text about her mother and father

Whereas the written text is stripped down to a minimum in these very early texts, the visualizations are elaborate because they include more detail. The reasons for this may be multifold. In my work as a painter, I have experienced that I communicate ideas and emotions without words for people of all languages to read. It is not uncommon for people to express themselves either visually or verbally. An

199

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

additional reason may be found in the writing prompts because they may not have offered ideas on how elaborate the written texts should be. If students had been given an opportunity and the inspiration to include words for description, their written texts could have been expanded. However, techniques of describing through words are more in focus when the children become more confident writing. One cannot help but wonder what these written verbal texts would be if the sequencing of the writing sessions was different, namely, if the students created a visual text first and used it as a scaffold or starting point for the written verbal text. To color, draw, and describe through drawing comes naturally to younger children. In the student notebooks, some students tried to include as much as possible from the written verbal text along with the visual texts (e.g., Figure 2), while others expanded, elaborated (Figures 3, 4), or told an altogether new story in their visual texts (Figure 5). Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 are unique examples of multimodal texts (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). Differences in the two modes are evident when reading the written verbal text and the visual text. The visual text may be understood as a remediation (Bolter & Grusin, 1999; Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006) of the written verbal text since it is a two-step process – first writing on an iPad and then, after the written verbal text is glued into a notebook, making the illustration. Furthermore, since the remediation includes an aesthetic form of expression, it may be understood as an aesthetic transformation (Østern, 2008). Upon reading the visual texts, it is evident that emotions of the written verbal text are transferred through the choice and use of colors, as much as through the visual composition. Another point worth noticing is the facial expressions included in animals and people in the visual texts shown in these figures; they reveal the emotions in the characters. Reading and including facial expressions in visual texts may help students develop emotional literacy (Allen, 2009; Nikolajeva, 2013, 2018; Stokke, 2014). Facial expressions set a certain mood in the text. Such details assist readers in comprehending, and by taking in the visualization through the senses, the reader feels the text. In this sense, the written verbal and visual texts have dissimilar centers of gravity. Moreover, the visual texts described above may be seen as a staging of the written verbal text, a gestalting (Hamlyn, 2017/1957; Stockwell, 2005). By arranging the visual elements on the page, the student gives emphasis to these and the relationship between them, for example, the two people in Figure 5. They are placed in the foreground, and the reader understands that there is something happening between them (see description above). There might also be details that the viewer is drawn to, for instance, the animal in Figure 2 or the flying eagle in Figure 4. Stockwell (2005) described this as “coming into figure” (p. 15). For some, this happens with the very happy father in Figure 5. The reader might start to think about the importance of happy fathers and the love this young child feels for her own father. The final sentence in the written verbal text, “I love daddy,” underscores this idea. Because the visualizations are given a very open framework, the students may feel that play is at the core of this work. Exploring their written verbal texts using pens, pencils, and crayons, without limits or regulations, may create a sense of freedom and play (Guss, 2005; Schiller, 1795, letter XV) as much as develop their literacies (Honeyford & Boyd, 2015). Essentially, using a visual language has the potential to provide a sense of play and freedom which is present in all of the examples provided in this chapter. Freedom is evident in the visual texts due to the choice of elements, composition, movement, and color. In particular, the drawing in Figure 4 communicates a deeply felt sense of freedom through the movement of the bird flying across the page and through the inclusion of an additional narrative with the two square characters in the bottom line.

200

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

Teaching Tip Susanne works as a fifth-grade English as a foreign language teacher in a public school in a large city. For the past three weeks, she and her students have been working with picture books. First, they read some sample picture books and talked about the written verbal and visual elements in the books. For example, they considered the following questions: What do the words narrate? What do the pictures communicate? Next, Susanne asked her students to create their own picture books. She scaffolded the writing sequence for her students through extensive reading of picture books and through pre-writing tasks (e.g., list of words for writing starters, visual storyboards, etc.). Classroom dialogue about meaningfulness and communication, which included writing frameworks, such as structure, narration, and plot, preceded the planning and writing sequence. Awareness of audience was also a part of this project – the students were to read the picture books they created for each other, as well as for a group of first-grade students. The activities that Suzanne implemented can be summarized as follows: • The entire class, led by the teacher, read a selection of picture books, which was followed by a conversation of the written verbal and visual texts in small groups. • The teacher provided a brief introduction to storyboards (i.e., graphic organizers with boxes for image and text which are used to visualize the sequence of a cartoon, picture book, or film). • The teacher made a list of words intended as starters for writing a story. • Students began to plan and draft the story using storyboards. • Students shared their ideas in pairs and with the teacher. • Students made the final adjustments to their story based on feedback received. • Picture books were crafted, including words and illustrations. • A shared reading took place in groups of 5 to 6 students. • Books were put on display during a parent-teacher conference. • Children read their books to reading buddies in a first-grade class at the school. By giving her students time to make real picture books, Susanne gave them an opportunity to express meaning in complex and creative ways. Students’ stories materialized into books, which were then shared with parents and other students at the school, thus becoming authentic texts, rather than simply texts written for school purposes. Additionally, the visual aspects were essential for the picture books, so the importance of students’ visual literacy became evident to everyone. Figure 6 displays a picture book made by one of Susanne’s students.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 6. Picture book created by a fifth-grade student

201

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

CONCLUSION Using visuals to educate students about art concepts, narration, or emotions brings about new insights and understanding (Nikolajeva 2015; 2018; Pantaleo, 2015; Stokke, 2014; Tørnby & Stokke, 2018). In this respect, visual texts and multimodal texts such as picture books offer meaningful starting points for thought and reasoning (Tørnby, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The basic question which every student can answer, and which may produce interesting ideas, is: “What do you see?” Arizpe (2013) described how immigrant children were given the possibility to voice their own stories and engage with and add words to the story of the protagonist in The arrival (Tan, 2006), a wordless picture book. For students of diverse linguistic backgrounds, expressing ideas related to visuals seems to empower their reflections and their personal stories (Arizpe, 2013). Given the opportunity to create texts visually may provide meaningful opportunities for language and communication. In the case study presented here, which took place in a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom, some of the students expanded their written verbal texts with more details, more color, and more story elements in their visual text, which is particularly evident in Figures 4 and 5. In the example provided in the Teaching Tip, it can be observed how the student imagined what the family looked like. For instance, the father has a beard and the mother has curly, yellow hair and a pink dress. We see how the student imagined the gold fish Bubble when he rides his bike. In all these examples, the visual texts expand the written verbal texts, which may have been done deliberately. Namely, the visual and the written verbal texts complement or are counterpoints to one another (Nikolajeva & Scott, 2006; Tørnby, 2019c; Tørnby & Stokke, 2018). However, the difference in visual and written verbal expressions may also stem from the young learners’ incapacities to express in words what the visuals express. The examples presented in this chapter are limited, and there is a great need for more research on students’ visual literacy and what visual text may offer in learning contexts, particularly regarding developing writing skills and craftmanship of texts. One place to begin is to reflect on Vygotsky’s (1978) words: “We had the opportunity of observing experimentally how children’s drawings become real written language…” (p. 113). Moreover, he stated that to create meaningful writing tasks and contexts, “writing should be meaningful for children, …an intrinsic need should be aroused in them, and… writing should be incorporated into a task that is necessary and relevant for life” (p. 118). When the topic of visual literacy in educational contexts surfaces, the idea of time also becomes relevant. Because working aesthetically requires time and because it is not always clear how visual literacy provides for improved scores on national tests, teachers may exclude such pathways. Eisner’s (2009) remark about imagination may give impetus to do this: “We ought to be helping our students discover new seas upon which to sail rather than old ports at which to dock” (p. 9).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Discussion Questions 1. This chapter describes how visual texts can be thought of as “…real written language…” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 113). Do you agree? Why or why not? 2. What is your own experience with creation of visual texts? 3. Create a visual text that illustrates one or two points from this chapter that you find important. In pairs or larger groups, show your visual text and elaborate on it using words.

202

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

REFERENCES Albers, J. (2013). Interaction of color (4th ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Allen, J. (2009). At mentalisere i praksis. [Mentalization in practice] In J. Allen, J. H. Sørensen, P. Fonagy, & A. Slade (Eds.), Mentaliseringsbaseret behandling i teori og praksis [Mentalization based treatment in theory and practice]. (pp. 17–41). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Arizpe, E. (2013). Meaning-making from wordless (or nearly wordless) picturebooks: What educational research expects and what readers have to say. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2), 163–176. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2013.767879 Arizpe, E., Colomer, T., & Martínez-Roldán, C. (2014). Visual journeys through wordless narratives. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of arts in education. Berlin, Germany: Waxmann. Bamford, A. (2010–2011). Arts and cultural education in Norway. Retrieved from https://www.kulturskoleradet.no/upload/bruker/dokumenter/Dokumentarkiv/10_Forskning/2012_Arts_and_Cultural_Education_in_Norway.pdf Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/4635.001.0001 Birkeland, T., Mjør, I., & Teigland, A.-S. (2018). Barnelitteratur: sjangarar og teksttypar [Children’s literature: Genre and types of texts]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm. Birketveit, A., & Rimmereide, H. E. (2017). Using authentic picture books and illustrated books to improve L2 writing among 11-year-olds. Language Learning Journal, 45(1), 100–116. doi:10.1080/0 9571736.2013.833280 Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bowers, M. A. (2004). Magic(al) realism. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203625002

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Clark, W., & Luckin, R. (2013). iPads in the Classroom: What the research says. Retrieved from http:// ss-web-stag.westminster.ac.uk/teachingandlearning/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/08/2013-iPads-inthe-Classroom-Lit-Review-1.pdf Debes, J. (1969). The loom of visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction, 14(8), 25–27. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Minton, Balch, and Company. Dresang, E. T., & Koh, K. (2009). Radical change theory, youth information behavior, and school libraries. Library Trends, 58(1), 26–50. doi:10.1353/lib.0.0070 Eisner, E. (2009). The Lowenfeld lecture 2008: What education can learn from the arts. Art Education, 62(2), 6–9. doi:10.1080/00043125.2009.11519006

203

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

Evans, D. (2003). Emotion: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ actrade/9780192804617.001.0001 Evans, J. (2009). Talking beyond the page: Reading and responding to picture books. London, UK: Routledge. Feisner, E. A. (2006). Colour: How to use colour in art and design. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam. How new pedagogies find deep learning. Retrieved from https://www.michaelfullan.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf Gardner, H. (2004). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts: Threshold of interpretation (J. Lewin, Trans.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1987) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511549373 Guss, F. G. (2005). Dramatic playing beyond the theory of multiple intelligences. Research in Drama Education, 10(1), 43–54. doi:10.1080/13569780500053155 Guss, F. G. (2015). Barnekulturens iscenesettelser 1: Lekens dynamiske verdener [The gestalting of child culture 1: The dynamic worlds of play]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Guss, F. G. (2017). Barnekulturens iscenesettelser: II: Dramaturgiske spiraler [The gestalting of child culture 2: The dynamic worlds of play]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Haese, A., Costandius, E., & Oostendorp, M. (2018). Fostering a culture of reading with wordless picturebooks in a South African context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(4), 587–598. doi:10.1111/jade.12202 Hamlyn, D. W. (2017). The psychology of perception. A philosophical examination of gestalt theory and derivative theories of perception. London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1957) doi:10.4324/9781315473291 Hohr, H. (2015). Estetisk oppdragelse og kunst [Aesthetic fostering and art]. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk [Nordic Journal of Pedagogy and Critique], 1, 1–11. Honeyford, M. A., & Boyd, K. (2015). Learning through play. Portraits, photoshop, and visual literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(1), 63–73. doi:10.1002/jaal.428

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Itten, J. (1993). The art of color: The subjective experience and objective rationale of color. New York, NY: John Wiley. Jakobsen, I. K., & Tønnessen, E. S. (2018). A design-oriented analysis of multimodality in English as a foreign language. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 40–52. doi:10.16993/dfl.89 Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. R. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Klassen, J. (2012). This is not my hat. London, UK: Walker Books.

204

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

Kress, G. (1997). Multimodal texts and critical discourse analysis. In E. Pedro (Ed.), Proceedings of the first international conference on discourse analysis (pp. 367–383). Lisbon, Portugal: Colibri. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, UK: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203619728 Kümmerling-Meibauer, B. (2012). Bilder intermedial. Visuelle Codes erfassen. [The medium of pictures. Understanding visual codes] In A. Pompe (Ed.), Literaturisches Lermen im Anfangsunterricht [Literary learning for beginners]. (pp. 19–33). Balmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Kümmerling-Meibauer, B., & Meibauer, J. (2018). Early-concept books and concept books. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 149–157). London, UK: Routledge. Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Levy, R. (2008). Third spaces are interesting places: Applying third space theory to nursery-aged children’s constructions of themselves as readers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1), 43–66. doi:10.1177/1468798407087161 Lindqvist, G. (2002). Lekens estetik [The aesthetics of play]. Psyke & Logos [Psyche & Logos], 5(23), 437–450. Mackenzie, N. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching priorities in the first six months of school? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(3), 322–340. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4 Nikolajeva, M. (2013). Picturebooks and emotional literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 249–254. doi:10.1002/trtr.1229

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nikolajeva, M. (2018). Emotions in picturebooks. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 110–118). London, UK: Routledge. Nikolajeva, M., & Scott, C. (2006). How picturebooks work. New York, NY: Routledge. Østern, A.-L. (2008). Aktiv estetisk respons som utfordring i litteraturundervisning. [Active aesthetic response as a challenge in teaching literature] In A.-L. Østern, H. Otnes, & H. Hestnes (Eds.), Estetisk tilnærming til tekstarbeid i språkfagene [Aesthetic approach to text work in language subjects]. Vol. 2, pp. 15–23. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Akademisk Forlag. Painter, C. (2018). Multimodal analysis of picturebooks. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 420–427). London, UK: Routledge.

205

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

Pantaleo, S. (2018). Paratexts in picturebooks. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 38–48). London, UK: Routledge. Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acp rof:oso/9780198717959.001.0001 Picard, D., Martin, P., & Tsao, R. (2014). iPads at school? A quantitative comparison of elementary schoolchildren’s pen-on-paper versus finger-on-screen drawing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 203–212. doi:10.2190/EC.50.2.c Pike, M. A. (2003). Personal to social transaction: A model of aesthetic reading in the classroom. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37(2), 61–72. doi:10.2307/3527455 Raney, K. (1998). A matter of survival: On being visually literate. The English and Media Magazine, 39, 37–42. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America. Sipe, L. R. (2008). Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sipe, L. R., & McGuire, C. (2006). Picturebook endpapers: Resources for literary and aesthetic interpretation. Children’s Literature in Education, 37(4), 291–304. doi:10.100710583-006-9007-3 Skerrett, A. (2011). “Wide open to rap, tagging, and real life”: Preparing teachers for multiliteracies pedagogy. Pedagogies, 6(3), 185–199. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2011.579048 Stockwell, P. (2005).Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203995143 Stokke, S. R. I. (2014). Men han har forskjellig farge på øynene. Om barns møte med litteratur i skolen sett i lys av teori om mentalisering og theory of mind [But his eyes have different colors. Children’s exposure to literature in school examined in light of theory of mentalization and theory of mind]. Norsklæreren [Norwegian Teacher], 4, 43–55.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Tan, S. (2006). The arrival. New York, NY: Scholastic Imprint. Tørnby, H. (2019a). How could this be? An exchange visit’s transformative power. In S. Hammond, & M. Sangster (Eds.), Perspectives on educational practice around the world (pp. 125–129). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Tørnby, H. (2019b). “To draw is to think in another way” om studenters estetiske visualiseringer av praksis. [“To draw is to think in another way”: Students’ aesthetic visualizations of practicum] In K. Thorsen, & S. Michelet (Eds.), Teoretiske og praktiske kunnskaper i lærerkvalifisering. Sammenhenger og spenninger [Theoretical and practical knowledge in teacher qualification]. (pp. 75–95). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

206

 Visual Literacy and Young Learners

Tørnby, H. (2019c). Picturebooks in the classroom. Perspectives on life skills, sustainable development, and democracy & citizenship. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Tørnby, H., & Stokke, S. R. I. (2018). Estetiske dimensjoner i litteraturarbeid. [Aesthetic dimensions in working with literature] In S. R. I. Stokke, & E. S. Tønnessen (Eds.), Møter med barnelitteratur: Introduksjon for lærere [Meetings with children’s literature: An introduction for teachers]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Aesthetics: Traditionally, the term refers to something that is seen as beautiful. However, in teaching contexts, the term refers to sense-based learning, meaning that knowledge and insight stem from the way one experiences the world through one’s senses. Creativity: The ability to think of original ideas, invent new things, and find new ways of expression. In teaching contexts, the term is often seen as troublesome because creative approaches to teaching and learning are challenging to assess. Foregrounding: A term used in art, literature, and language to denote a figure, a word, or a character, which stands out either by placement or by features. Literacy: There are different kinds of literacies, for instance, visual literacy and mathematical literacy. Originally, the term referred to understanding and using written language: being able to read, write, speak, and listen. Multilingual: A person who uses several languages. Most frequently used when the speaker has a different first language than the language of the society in which he or she lives. Remediation: When a text is reconstructed into a new medium, for instance, when a novel is made into a movie. Transformation: To change from one form to another like the caterpillar which transforms into a butterfly. In the context of this chapter, it refers to change in a wide sense, for example, when an experience changes into a new perspective or way of life. Visual literacy: Being able to make meaning of pictures, images, drawings, and more.

207

Visual Literacy and Young Learners

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Nikolajeva, M. (2013). Picturebooks and emotional literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 249–254. In this article, the author explores ways that children may learn to express emotions through reading picture books and develop a vocabulary for emotions through reading the illustrations in great detail develop a vocabulary for emotions. Additionally, Nikolajeva points out that giving attention to detail in picture books may help children pay attention to their own as well as their peers’ emotions. 2. Honeyford, M.A. & Boyd, K. (2015). Learning through play. Portraits, photoshop, and visual literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(1), 63–73. The article describes an after-school literacy program where students used aesthetic, playful, creative approaches to develop students visual and verbal literacies. Through creation of individual portraits, using a wide variety of materials in a playful context, visual and verbal literacies emerged. 3. Painter, C. (2018). Multimodal analysis of picture books. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer. The Routledge companion to picture books. (pp. 420–427). London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter presents a framework for analyzing meaning in picture books. Meaning is created through different modes (verbal, visual) and the synergy between the two. Specific and detailed ways to construct meaning are provided.

208

Section 3

Promoting Critical Literacy in Academic Contexts

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 3 provides a state-of-the-art review of the literature on the pivotal role of critical literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The chapters in this section discuss approaches to learning that encourage students to critically engage and interact with various texts to develop their critical literacy skills as well as ways in which educators can assess literacy skills in various contexts. The authors also highlight ways in which critical literacy can be employed to empower minority students within English-speaking settings.

210

Chapter 11

Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated Speech Communities Mario R. Moya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7445-8829 University of East London, UK

ABSTRACT This chapter explores the nuances of critical literacy reviewing the infuence of the sociocultural context and the critical element that arises from the individuals who negotiate their identities as they interact with others in a variety of settings. The perspective adopted here focuses on multilingual learners as they engage in literacy practices in English, the dominant language, within schooled environments resulting in hybrid productions within a Third Space, which is a metaphorical setting that promotes expansive learning. Such literacy productions consider the lived-in experiences of the individuals and their personal histories as tools for learning with the potential to liberate themselves from the dominant literacy practices. The chapter includes a discussion of the role and status of English to empower non-dominant groups within English-speaking settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Literacy is often viewed as a complex process that is very challenging to define. In 1989, James Gee concluded that this concept encompasses much more than the mere knowledge of letters and sounds and, consequently, proposed that literacy, as solely the application of alphabetic knowledge, was quite

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch011

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

narrow. Gee (2015) maintains that the concept of literacy needs to acknowledge its complexity, the purposes of the people who engage with it, and the contexts where literacy practices happen. In line with Gee, other researchers, such as Street (1984), Dyson (2001), and Brandt (2001), also highlight the intricacies of a definition. Street’s (1984) research, for example, indicates that an exclusive focus on the application of the alphabetic principle to define literacy is restrictive. While this alphabetic knowledge is still very important, contemporary research from Barratt-Pugh (2002) and Brandt and Clinton (2002) expand the concept of literacy by focusing on how individuals’ interactions at home, school, or other community settings contribute to an understanding of the uses, the power, and the need for literacy as a social practice. From this position, literacy is a social tool used by individuals in their daily life shaped by people’s socio-cultural experiences. As Hammer (2005) explains “[the] socio-cultural view of literacy emphasizes the role literacy plays in today’s society and supports children to actively take part in and access a wide range of social and cultural activities” (p. 71). Literacy, in its most basic sense, refers to communication involving the use of written language. Reading and writing are recognizable literacy activities; however, perspectives on what is meant by literacy and what it means to be literate vary according to the particular traditions that researchers or policy makers draw on. Studies of literacy have been carried out within various academic disciplines —notably psychology, applied linguistics, anthropology, sociolinguistics, and education. Not surprisingly, studies from such a range of academic disciplines focusing on different aspects have given rise to rather different conceptions of literacy. Most obviously, literacy studies are characterized by: • • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

A focus on the individual’s perceptual and cognitive functioning (within psychology); A focus on the analysis of written texts and the use of such analysis for the teaching of reading and writing (within applied linguistics); An interest in the observation and documentation of literacy activities in everyday life, emphasizing the social contexts of literacy (within anthropology and, increasingly, sociolinguistics); An interest in researching ways in which children and adults learn to read and write (within education).

The debate on the definition of literacy is mostly centered on the positions of those who advocate a code-based approach to teaching reading and writing and those who emphasize the place of meaning. Such a distinction has led to two dominant positions or models out of several, namely the autonomous and the ideological (Damber, 2012), where the former is associated with a set of cognitive skills (Cook & Klipfel, 2015) whilst the latter sees literacy as embedded in social practices (Street, 2013). The autonomous model considers that literacy itself has consequences irrespective of, or autonomous of, context while the ideological model argues that literacy not only varies with social context and with cultural norms but with discourses regarding, for instance, identity, gender, and beliefs, and that its uses and meanings are always embedded in relationships of power. Street (2013) argues that it is in this sense that literacy is always ideological—it always involves contexts over meanings, definitions and boundaries, and struggles for control of the literacy agenda. It is this latter aspect that this chapter explores, emphasizing critical literacy in relation to its socio-critical and cultural aspects focusing on a metaphorical place called the Third Space (Guitiérrez, 2008) where individuals coming from nondominant linguistic backgrounds are empowered through liberating literacy practices based on their lived experiences to develop their own voices. The chapter, therefore, aims to:

211

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

1. Review the autonomous and the ideological models of literacy as traditionally discussed in the literature with a focus on implications for teaching and learning practices. 2. Consider the main tenets of functional and critical literacies with a focus on the former in relation to multilingualism in speech communities where English is the dominant language. 3. Explore the nuances of critical literacy in relation to aspects of culture and criticality for teaching and learning English as a foreign or second language. 4. Review the theory of socio-critical literacy and the metaphors of the Third Space and zones of contact as a form of expansive learning to apply them in classroom contexts.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Given the complexity surrounding the definition of literacy, researchers have traditionally focused their attention on explaining the purposes underpinning the uses that people make of literacy. One of these approaches is based on the knowledge of a set of sounds and a script used to record them. To be considered literate, individuals need to have a fairly good knowledge of how to transcribe sounds (writing) as well as to link the script to particular sounds to interpret them (reading). Literacy is, therefore, essentially a cognitive process (Olson & Torrance, 2017). Critiques to the autonomous model focus on the fact that literacy is not a single phenomenon because individuals deploy a variety of skills depending on the social contexts and situations where they use literacy. In this sense, the researchers supporting this view indicate that it is more adequate to talk about literacies and of literacy practices as this terminology offers a more accurate perspective of the social nature of literacy. This view has given rise to the ideological model since literacy practices are never neutral as they are embedded with and in particular ideologies. The following sections review both models.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Autonomous Model of Literacy The autonomous model views literacy as a set of universal technical skills, the same everywhere, which is normally linked with the type of practice taught and developed in schools underpinned by a cognitive approach whereby children learn a set of reading and writing skills based on a phonetic relationship involving the transcription of sounds into a given script. The research carried out within this model has traditionally focused on the way in which individuals decode texts and has included, for instance, studies on readers’ eye movement when scanning a page (White et al., 2015), and others investigating the psychological and perceptual processes involved in reading (Whiteford & Titone, 2016). More recently, the type of research underpinned by a cognitive perspective includes the study of sense-making strategies that readers use to comprehend text, and how children learn to use alphabetic and other scripts (Perfetti & Harris, 2017). Research in this domain has been very useful in investigations into dyslexia and other specific language processing difficulties that influence the design of assistive technology, including computer-mediated programs used for teaching reading. The autonomous perspective considers that the script provides the model for thinking about the sound structure of speech. This has serious implications for teaching of literacy as there is a theoretical position that argues that becoming literate has specific and profound effects on ways of thinking, both for society and individuals. However, Olson (2017) claims that literacy is connected to a particular way with words, their meanings, and their roles in expressions rather than the ability to inscribe. Wray (1997) also argues that “it is the process of beginning to learn 212

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

to read that draws the child’s attention to letters, sounds and their relationships, enabling the insight which unlocks the system” (p. 2); however, formal learning of the phoneme/grapheme relationship – or phonics – is not enough: learners also learn through practice and use. With this assertion, it is possible to see a shift in paradigm that brings about the social element of literacy.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Ideological Model of Literacy The ideological model is underpinned by the New Literacy Studies, which is a collection of research about the language and social theory known as social literacies and the dialogic nature of language (Street & Lefstein, 2007). In relation to the former, one of the premises of this model rests on the idea that learning to read and write is not simply a cognitive process based on phonetic relationships or the use of a script to transcribe sounds, but it is indeed much more encompassing as literacy occurs naturally in social life, taking into account the context and different meanings that literacy has for different cultural groups. An implication of this view is that individuals are exposed to a plurality of literacies which vary according to social settings. The ideological model, therefore, not only argues that literacy varies with social context and with cultural norms and discourses regarding identity, gender, and belief, but also that the uses of literacy and its meanings are always embedded in relations of power. However, some proponents of the New Literacy Studies do not agree with the notions of multiple literacies since this concept implies some stability which is seen as a paradox that some researchers reject (Cope & Kalantzi, 2000). Whilst Street (2017) considers that for strategic reasons, different world agencies “present literacy as the panacea to social ills and the key ingredient to modernization, the dominant assumption has been of a single autonomous literacy that is the same everywhere and simply needs transplanting to new environments” (p. 25). However, given the dynamic and culturally varied quality of literacy practices, it is more accurate to speak of a plurality of literacies. The term literacy practices is of vital importance within the New Literacy Studies circles as it refers to the specificity of cultural practices with which reading and/or writing are associated in given contexts. The term also acknowledges that within a given cultural domain there may be many literacy practices rather than one culture, one literacy. In this sense, Street (2017) argues that literacy practices not only refer to observable behaviors around literacy, but also the concepts and the meanings brought to those events which give them meaning. This perspective has paved the way for a type of research into literacy practices from the point of view of ethnography, characterized by flux, ambiguity, and uncertainty because of the diverse nature of literacy practices. One of the earliest examples of this type of research was carried out by Prinsloo and Breier (1996) in South Africa, focusing on the everyday literacy practices of people in the Cape area. Similar studies abound in the contemporary research, particularly those exploring literacy practices in different environments, especially home and school, though not exclusively (Alston-Abel & Berninger, 2018; Nash et al., 2018; Nag et al., 2019; see also Farrelly & Fahkrutdinova in this volume). The models reviewed above have contributed to the development of different assumptions or theoretical postulates that help us see literacy from particular viewpoints which are summarized below, and which have contributed to the emergence of some teaching and learning practices. Whilst the first framework (i.e., functional literacy) emerges directly from the autonomous models, the others (i.e., cultural literacy and critical literacy) are further developments of the ideological model, where the main purpose is to question the ideas and beliefs upon which certain literacy practices are enacted in society. Since the focus of this chapter is on critical literacy, the topic of functional literacy is only briefly introduced to provide background information. 213

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Functional Literacy The acquisition of knowledge of how to code and decode texts to achieve practical aims through the skills of reading and writing is the fundamental basis of functional literacy. In response to a lack of literacy skills amongst a large percentage of the population in developing countries, Gray (1956) coined the term functional for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to refer to the training of children and adults to “meet independently the reading and writing demands placed on them” (p. 21). At the time, literacy experts were concerned that the teaching of literacy in developing countries was focused solely on skills and needed a greater focus on practices. According to Comings (2019), this concern led to UNESCO’s emphasis on literacy as a functional skill, and literacy instruction consistent with this approach was referred to as functional literacy. The purpose of functional literacy is a basic one (Graff cited in Verhoeven, 1994, p. 40), and it refers to a level of reading and writing that are sufficient for everyday life (Egbo, 2000). In many countries, this framework refers to the process and content of learning to read and write in the preparation for work and vocational training, as well as for increasing the means of productivity. Egbo (2000) argues that functional literacy is necessary to facilitate reading and writing to enable people to participate in the social, economic, and political processes for the betterment of their lives and for social change, and it is the type of literacy associated with school practices. From a global perspective, Rassool (1996) indicates that reading and writing can be quantified and, as such, results can be compared against economic outcomes criteria. Research following this perspective are largely focused on correlations between levels of functional literacy, education, employment, and age in the population, amongst other variables, which also indicate the characteristics of individuals with low literacy levels (Rabušicová & Oplatková, 2010). This framework is followed by international agencies, such as UNESCO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) through the PISA reading performance test, which “measures the capacity to understand, use and reflect on written texts in order to achieve goals, develop knowledge and potential, and participate in society” (OECD.org, 2019). In contrast, Levine (1982) notes the importance of the cultural and socioeconomic context when determining the nature and value of literacy, which he describes as a “positional good” (p. 259) that has value in terms of social status and not just utility. According to Burgess and Hamilton (2011), Levine’s view prefigures the approach to literacy as a socio-cultural practice which was beginning to be articulated at that time (see Scribner and Cole, 1981; Heath 1983; Street, 1984) and has since become established as the New Literacy Studies (see Barton and Hamilton, 1998; Barton, Hamilton and Ivanič, 2000; Gee, 2015; Brandt, 2001; Street, 2001).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Critical Literacy Critical literacy is an instructional approach stemming from Marxist critical pedagogy (Luke, 2012) that advocates the adoption of “critical” perspectives toward text (Gee, 2015) as a response to the oppressive classroom practices based exclusively on the acquisition of mechanical reading and writing skills. Critical literacy encourages readers to actively analyze texts and offers strategies for what proponents describe as uncovering underlying messages (Ochoa et al., 2018). Two key proponents of this approach are Macedo and Freire (1987) who argue that those who are critically literate can not only understand how meaning is socially constructed within texts but can also come to understand the political and economic contexts in which those texts were created and embedded. In action, Macedo and Freire employed critical literacy 214

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

to address the social and geographical needs of marginalized communities while developing community members’ literacy skills. There are several different theoretical perspectives on critical literacy that have produced different pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning (McDaniel, 2006). All of these approaches share the basic premise that literacy requires the literate consumers of text to adopt a critical and questioning approach (Higgins, 2009). In the following section on practical applications, critical literacy is discussed in relation to multilingualism, cultural literacy, and socio-critical aspects in settings where minorities operate in English dominant spaces.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

English and Non-Dominant Literacies The status of English as a lingua franca brings with it a series of connotations that considers language as a commodity to access symbolic goods, aiding individuals’ self-actualization, to positions denouncing that English encourages the displacement of minority languages and their corresponding literacy practices (Phillipson, 2013). This latter view sees English as a form of cultural colonization which imposes dominant alien values and practices over nondominant groups. The inability to use English has been a debate in the United Kingdom as well as in other English-speaking countries where people who are not competent in the dominant language are, by far, singled out as illiterate, an assumption that does not take into consideration that those individuals may be literate in one, or maybe more, languages. The teaching of English to speakers from different linguistic backgrounds in a cross-cultural context, as Pennycook (1994) argues, is not simply teaching language facts, but teaching a way of living and a mode that can subvert their native identities. For a long time, certain literacy practices in nondominant languages have been discouraged within schools with a stringent policy of English-only in many countries in the world. Anything incompatible with the dominant or official discourse in such contexts is considered atypical and, as a result, unofficial voices are suppressed, and multivocality is silenced (Qu, 2011). On the other hand, English is seen as a weapon for self-actualization and social development, leading Pennycook (2008) to argue that English “is always a language in translation, a language of translingual use” (p. 34). These views are in direct relationship with Gee’s (2015) characterization of Primary and Secondary Discourses, where he uses the term Discourse to mean “ways of being in the world” (p. 21) – that is more than just language, but ways of displaying membership to particular social groups. Therefore, it is not uncommon to hear nonnative speakers of English indicating that they live in a linguistic duality in English-speaking countries: whilst English, the Secondary Discourse, is the language of schooling, the individuals’ mother tongues, or Primary Discourse, are used in other settings or communicative situations within their own linguistic communities. Since individuals move from home to school, they move from familiar domestic worlds which are part of their primary socialization to take on other identities, ways of behaving, and ways of using language. In this sense, Gee (2015) argues that “literacy is mastery of, or fluent control over, a Secondary Discourse” (p. 153). These perspectives are not neutral as they point to another reality within the field -to use Bourdieu’s terminology (Bourdieu, 1990) of language as a social and cultural commodity: languages are perceived to have a higher status (H) as opposed to the ones that do not, also known as (L) languages, where L stands for lower status, each with their corresponding practices. Various studies have examined what may be seen as lower status and higher status literacy (Street, 2001). According to Ferguson’s (1959) categories “H languages are prestigious, learnt formally and used formally while L languages are acquired at home and used in informal situations” (Barrett, 1994, p. 5). In a western migrant situation, lower status literacy may be that assigned to literacy skills in managing the 215

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

household (domestic) whilst higher status literacy may be that offered by college courses (Street, 2001). Domestic literacies would be trivialized whereas literacies that increase job opportunities are intrinsically more valued. The implication of views such as these is that English as a lingua franca is seen as offering a platform for the development of higher status literacies whereas indigenous languages, despite their intrinsic wealth, continue to perpetuate a lower status (Kashina, 1994). Rassool (1999) asserts that the relative value attached to particular languages in national policy may derive from dominant ideas about what constitutes the nation and may be directly related to cultural, economic and linguistic factors. In turn, Street (2001) suggests that in such instances, the dominant literacy may be presented as one that facilitates “access to power and exclusion from it” (Blanc & Hamers, 2000, p. 222). It is not surprising, therefore, that English as the lingua franca has such an intrinsic power. Teaching English as a foreign or as a second language – or any language – has traditionally followed the autonomous model as an ideology-free literacy. The “ideological model,” on the other hand, sees English language teaching and learning as practices involving values, risks of identity change, and other complicated social concerns, because English as a value-laden language forces its idiosyncratic values upon its learners. However, embedding English teaching in a social context does not mean rejecting all the values it carries with it or lead to seeing English literacy in terms of identity politics. Gee (2015) offers a constructive approach: “We can also talk about a literacy being liberating (‘powerful’) if it can be used as ‘meta-language’ or a ‘meta-discourse’ (a set of meta-words, meta-values, meta-beliefs) for the critique of other literacies and the way they constitute us as persons and situate us in society” (p. 177). The implication of such a view is that there is no English teaching approach immune to ideologies and the topics we teach in English, based on the lived experiences of the learners, have a potential to empower individuals to develop an active role in society where they are a minority.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Multilingualism Although multilingualism and multilingual education are not new phenomena, our emergence into the 21st century has brought some renewed interest and contestation around them. Ethnolinguistic diversity and inequality, intercultural communication and contact, and global political and economic interdependence are more than ever acknowledged realities of globalization, adding new demands to educational systems around the globe. Now, as throughout history, as De Costa (2016) claims, multilingual education offers the best possibilities for preparing students to participate in constructing more just and democratic societies in a globalized and intercultural world; however, such an education is not unproblematically achieved. To understand multilingual education, it is necessary to consider three aspects related to multilingual, multicultural education: first, the multilingual perspective involves the use and the value of more than one language in teaching and learning; second, the intercultural perspective recognizes and values understanding and dialogue across different lived experiences and cultural worldviews; and third, an acknowledgement of the knowledge that students bring to the classroom encouraging their full and indispensable participation in society – locally, nationally, and globally (Coulmas, 2018). Opening up spaces for multilingual education, therefore, requires teaching and learning opportunities that take into account all languages in the ecology of multilingual students whilst recognizing that the language(s) they are involved in are situated in social spaces and contexts which may require a crossover of different literacy practices in their mother tongue(s) as well as in a dominant new language. This is the case, for example, of children who can operate fluently in Pashto, Urdu, and Punjabi who are learning English upon the belief that English will provide them with more and better prospects. 216

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Researchers, such as Pennycook (1998) and Phillipson (2007), argue that teaching English is a form of cultural colonization that imposes dominant alien cultural values and practices upon others that are disadvantaged for various reasons within a very competitive world. These scholars have challenged the de-ideologized neutrality of traditional English teaching practices, viewing English classes as contact zones where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today (Pratt 1991, p. 34). Such a reality points to a concern about other languages in an English-speaking setting as weapons of cultural threat which have arisen largely from identity politics that stresses exclusive group membership (Horner & Lu, 2007). Identity politics, trading on cultural differences, defines anything different from self as the foreign or the other, characterized by a psyche of victimization and othering (Phillipson, 2007). It is important to emphasize then that critical literacy studies, as a discipline rooted in critical theory, has contributed to the development of tools to re-conceptualize literacy as a subversive practice with the potential to empower linguistic minorities, break the monolingual silence, and challenge biases (see Duggan in this volume). In fact, literacy cannot be considered a static skill but should be seen as a set of multiple practices that vary across languages, cultures and contexts to empower individuals by enhancing their critical literacy skills. Some authors, including Gee (2015) and Street (2001) emphasize the situatedness of literacy practices and, as such, it is important to reflect on the sociocultural contexts where those practices take place. Whilst it is not a discrete entity separated from critical literacy, cultural literacy is a further aspect within the complexity of the latter that needs attention when discussing literacies and literacy practices in multilingual settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cultural Literacy Cultural literacy refers to the aspect of critical literacy that empowers nondominant groups to understand the nuances and overtones of the dominant linguistic group and negotiate strategies for them to function appropriately in such a group. However, cultural literacy may exist in tension. For instance, one view of cultural literacy may relate directly to the notion of linguistic competence. Bourdieu (1990) asserts that foreign language teaching should concentrate on equipping learners with the means of accessing and analyzing any cultural practices and meanings they encounter regardless of their status, a view also shared by Christensen (1994). These assertions are of particular interest where a foreign language and culture may often be perceived as invasive since it is often the case that Western practices may be seen to have an impact on the way individuals construct and deconstruct texts in society. This is not a new debate as it was first discussed in the United Kingdom back in 1987 when teachers asked the question: “Whose culture should we teach?” (Villegas 1988, p. 37). Recent international studies have focused on critical literacy as situated in the context of post-apartheid South Africa (Janks, 2010), and in relation to place and space in the context of climate change in Australia (Comber, 2010). There have also been studies in Central and South America, for example in Mexico (Kalman, 1999) and Brazil where the work of Paulo Freire (1972) originated (Bartlett, 2005). Critical literacy pedagogies then aim at the interrogation of canonical texts, often from home and community settings, that then open up new spaces in which young people can draw on their funds of knowledge and cultural capital (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti,2005; Lee, 2007; Morrell & Duncan-Andrade, 2002; Richardson, 2006). This engagement with out-of-school texts can then offer Third Spaces where these literacies are valued alongside canonical texts, and young people’s out-of-school literacy practices are 217

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

recognized (Moje et al., 2004). The metaphorical aspect of a Third Space and the affordances they provide are explored later in the chapter. All the practical applications of critical literacy reveal the relevance and significance of textual interpretations in the broadest sense, the understanding of definitions and the ability to analyze texts and discourses beyond the technical skills involved in decoding words. Critical literacy is thus often regarded as inherently political because it challenges established readings, an assertion that finds echo in the work of Stables (2003), who argues that critical literacy is the ability to read socio-cultural practice through the study of texts, thus “allowing readers to gain some control over ideologies and socio-cultural practices” (p. 61). An example of this is presented in the teaching tip below. Researchers have demonstrated that young children are quite capable of taking up issues of hegemony and representation (Dyson, 1989; Leland et al., 2005; Ryan, 2010; Wohlwend & Lewis, 2011). Dyson (1989) was among the first to describe how young children resist dominant narratives to position themselves as agents in their own childhoods and uses the concept of remix to describe how children draw on literacy practices outside school and mixed them with in-school practices, using Bahktin’s ideas that texts are dialogic and that literacy only empowers individuals when it renders them active questioners of the social reality around them (Bahktin, 1981). In so doing, Dyson (1990) acknowledges the intertextual nature of children’s textual productions across sites while Phal and Burnett (2016) recognize the way in which “children’s textual productions, despite being composed at school, seep outside into the worlds of home and community” (p. 4). In relation to second language learning, Cummins (2001) acknowledges that effective instruction must focus initially on culture, meaning, and messages. He suggests that in order to engage students to their cognitive maximum and deepen their understanding of language and content, comprehensible input must be transformed into critical literacy (2001). In fact, he argues that instruction solely based on the development of learners’ knowledge about the language creates a less easily detectable undertow of meaning, which appears to be a drawback of current bilingual teaching approaches. To put Cumming’s ideas into a context, it is worth noting that large numbers of ethnic minority students in British schools have spent a significant proportion of their lives in Britain and use colloquial English with ease. Many of these students may have reached a plateau in which they do not seem able to make further progress in English. Current systems in education continue to identify such students as one-dimensional bilinguals speaking a minority language at home whilst learning English at school. These concepts may be of little help for teachers in developing adequate teaching approaches and strategies since it is necessary for them to rethink the romantic notion of bilingualism and take a more realistic look at what we call bilingual learners in face of the multilingual and multiethnic youth who inhabit a world where language, culture and ethnicity are fluid and change from generation to generation (Naldic, 2019). In this sense, it is interesting to note that Neal and Kelly (1999) argue that skills associated with critical literacies, for example critical thinking, are amiss because the emphasis of the instruction is mostly placed on the development of basic skills (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, and listening). This assertion seems to imply that teachers need greater awareness and training to be able to implement critical literacy instruction more effectively because, as Comber, Thompson, and Wells (2001) claim, teachers are usually left out of the debate on the value and purposes of literacy in the wider world. When considering the practical aspects of doing critical literacy, Rassool (1999) explains that this demands skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for exploring and making informed decisions in a democratic society. Freire (1972) alludes to issues of the individual and identity in liberation struggles. Pennycook (1994), in turn, puts forward that critical pedagogy views schools as cultural and political arenas where different, cultural, ideological, and social forms are constantly in struggle. Scholars using 218

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

critical literacy pedagogy have interrogated texts as sites of power imbalances and have argued that the process of reading texts critically can create shifts in understanding and social structures (Janks, 2010). In the same vein, Armour (2001) shifts the focus from the commonly held view of critical literacy as the interpretation of texts in the broadest sense to the ability of individuals to display responsible participation with others. This idea is in line with Street (1995), who argues that people should be allowed to manage their daily lives, intellectually, emotionally, practically, and economically without the elaborate definitions and distinctions associated with literacy and illiteracy in the west. For instance, a study by Parajuli and Enslin (1990) shows how women achieved critical consciousness through a literacy program whilst Gutiérrez (2008) explains how Latino students in a migrant center in California developed hybrid language practices by challenging traditional forms of academic literacy. In both studies, participants used their first language as a tool to negotiate meanings in English (languaging) with positive results. These examples show that functional skills that involve the day to day use may also create consciousness and challenge oppressive literacy practices by giving individuals back their own voices (Gutiérrez, 2008). Rather than reproducing stifled literacy models of schooling, learning outcomes and standards pushed down on them, the cultural dimension of literacy practices emphasizes individuals’ agency beyond the school dimension while giving individuals an opportunity to liberate themselves from the school discourse and, instead, use their lived experiences to formulate their own curriculum shaped by relationships, spaces, narratives, and language (Olson, 2000).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Socio-Critical Literacy A major tenet of critical literacy, as reviewed above, is its situated nature. Street (2013) argues that the term situatedness allows us “to specify the particularity of cultural practices with which uses of reading and or writing are associated in given contexts. Within a given cultural domain there may be many literacy practices, i.e. not one culture and one literacy” (p. 34). Street goes on to explain that literacy practices are not only observable behaviors around literacy, but also the concepts and the meanings brought to those events and which give them meaning. This argument is very interesting in so much as it challenges an exclusively Western understanding of literacy that Gregory and William (2000) develop in their account of distinctive literacy practices of language minority children and for their teaching implications in the mainstream. Traditionally, an autonomous view of literacy has taken for granted that classroom literacy instruction is constructed and practiced as neutral technology (Street & Street, 1995), favoring a view of literacy as involving the unproblematic teaching of skills, with little contextualization of practice, and little acknowledgement of the distinctly different literacy experiences that bilingual learners may have in their linguistic repertoire. In this sense, Wallace (2002) indicates that “the job of educators is to acknowledge the differences, to build bridges between the domains of school and everyday life” (p. 54). This stance on literacies and their different domains, especially those of bilingual children, has been discussed by Gutiérrez (2008) who explains that such experiences emerge from meaningful classroom practices that include the students’ vernacular to empower minority linguistic groups. He uses the metaphor of a Third Space, which he describes as the social environment for development in which students begin to reconceive who they are and what they might be able to accomplish academically and beyond. In other words, this perspective looks at the individuals, their identities, their aspirations as well as their own views of the world, acknowledging their linguistic capital as factors contributing to their academic achievement thus subverting the English-only, one-size-fits-all curricula. Gutiérrez (2008), when highlighting the importance of the students’ identity – an agentive process – introduces the 219

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

concept of historicity into the discussion to refer to the students’ lived literacy experiences in everyday life as well as in school to frame them into powerful literacies oriented towards critical social thought. This is what he calls socio-critical literacies whose distinguishing feature is its attention to contradictions in and between texts lived and studied, institutions (i.e., classrooms), and social practices, locally experienced and historically influenced. The views on socio-critical literacies as discussed by Gutiérrez (2008) are essentially based on Berstein’s (1999) vertical and horizontal literacies. The latter are segmental and embedded in ongoing practices and directed to specific goals and are often acquired through apprenticeship whilst the former is scaffolded in schools and learned rather than acquired or picked up on the job. Street and Street (1995) argue that “it is not that school literacies are inferior attempts at ‘the real thing’, but they are qualitatively different” (p. 106). Wallace (2003), for instance, argues that schooled language, which is literate-like rather than necessarily delivered through the medium of print is a code for learning and for wider communication rather than for day-to-day use. Nor is it the case that primary knowledge, including, most importantly, knowledge of home languages and literacies, is to be discarded; rather, it is rearticulated among a greater diversity of voices and experiences, which accompany the move into socialization. Gutiérrez (2008) posits that the importance of historicity as this notion demonstrates an alignment with cultural-historical approaches to learning and development whereas school-based literacies generally emphasize ahistorical and vertical forms of learning. When Wallace (2003, p. 46) talks about “a greater diversity of voices and experiences,” she is tapping into Gutiérrez’s idea of the Third Space, which she sees it as a hybrid space emerging from both vertical and horizontal forms of learning thus giving students wider repertoires of literacy practices. Such repertoires include not only what students learn in formal learning environments, such as schools, but also what they learn by participating in a range of practices outside school. The Third Space that Gutiérrez (2008) talks about can be seen as an instance of expansive learning. Traditionally, change has been defined along a vertical dimension, moving, for example, from immaturity and incompetence to maturity and competence (Engeström, 1996). A more expansive view of development is concerned with the horizontal forms of expertise that are developed within and across an individual’s practices and how students negotiate the significant overlaps across boundaries as people, tools, and practices travel through different and even contradictory contexts and activities. It is from this perspective that we begin to understand the cultural dimensions of learning and development that occur as “people, ideas, and practices of different communities meet, collide, and merge (Engeström 2005, p. 46). In everyday life, people live their lives and learn across multiple settings, and this holds true not only across the span of their lives but also across and within the institutions and communities they inhabit. The Third Space, therefore, means differences in involvement, participation, and learning of students in classroom instructional activities within multiple social spaces with distinctive participations and power relations. Gutiérrez (2008) concludes that: [T]he use of the Third Space construct has always been more than a celebration of the local literacies of students from nondominant groups; and certainly more than what students can do with assistance or scaffolding; and also more than ahistorical accounts of individual discrete events, literacy practices, and the social interactions within. Instead, it is a transformative space where the potential for an expanded form of learning and the development of new knowledge are heightened (p. 152). To summarize, a socio-critical literacy is a syncretic literacy organized around a pedagogical approach that focuses on how individuals and their communities influence and are influenced by socio-political and cultural discourses and practices in historically specific times and locations (Cruz, 2006), offering a 220

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

historicized view of the students’ own socio-cultural situation whilst rejecting the traditional mismatch theories of home-school discontinuities. Such frameworks reinterpret the deficit portraits of home that compels educators to act to fix communities and their members so that they match normative views and practices without regard to the students’ existing repertoires of practice (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003).

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS While there are various approaches and techniques for developing critical literacies in the classroom, a pragmatic perspective has been adopted in this chapter since different settings require different techniques. With this in mind, two frameworks have been used to illustrate how to develop critical literacy practices in the classroom, namely, McLaughlin and Allen’s (2002) and Janks’s (2010). When combined, these frameworks provide a practical guidance to develop different skills to enable learners to read beyond the printed word and for teachers to create contexts for critical literacy to flourish. One distinguishing feature of both frameworks is the emphasis on access, a concept understood as opportunities that are available to individuals through their engagement with literacy practices. As a socio-critical approach requires learners to negotiate their identities and imbalances in power relations in zones of contact, it is important to consider the following three stages to facilitate such negotiations: 1. activation of prior knowledge, 2. problem posing, and 3. evaluation of own perspectives, beliefs, and attitudes.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Activation of Prior Knowledge A fundamental premise of the socio-critical approach to literacy rests upon the belief that learners’ lived experiences are, indeed, the real curriculum (Vickery, 2016). This statement has profound implications as it postulates that learners already possess a wealth of knowledge and experiences they can build upon as they encounter new learning. By facilitating the activation of prior knowledge, teachers can use learners’ life experiences to make links between a topic in the subject curriculum and their own personal narratives. Such links can intrinsically increase learners’ engagement and motivation while creating the right atmosphere for learning. The activation of prior knowledge can be prompted through a variety of techniques. The most frequent is the use of graded questions ranging from yes/no items to others with a much wider scope inviting learners to share personal narratives. The teacher should steer the learners’ responses so that these align to the learning objectives of a lesson. In teaching groups where there are migrant students or those whose linguistic background is different from the national language, minimum proficiency in this language should not be seen as a communicative barrier. In this case, these learners should be encouraged to use their first language(s) and use other peers speaking the same language(s) to provide a translation. For example, a teacher can gauge how much their students know about the topic of worldviews before introducing the theme through the poem The blind men and the elephant (Saxe, 1863). By using questions, the teacher can ask students to jot down their ideas on a piece of paper as this will help learners to trace their understanding of the concept of worldwide as the lesson progresses, which can be used again at the end for the purpose of self-assessment. Alternative techniques to activate prior knowledge include the K-W-L chart. Students write and share what they already know about the topic in the K (What I Know) section. They then add questions in the W (What I Want to Know) section and write their learnings in the L (What I Learned) section as they 221

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

uncover new information through written and digital texts. This can be a powerful resource to monitor how learners’ perceptions, ideas, beliefs, and positions have changed throughout the lesson. These charts can be useful to monitor students’ learning and to gauge the impact of the lesson which, from the point of view of critical literacy, should aim at challenging students’ taken-for-granted perspectives.

Problem Posing Critical literacy is based on the idea that no text is neutral (Janks, Dixon, Ferreira, Granville, & Newfield, 2014). In fact, Janks et al. (2014) argue that texts are partial since they cannot capture the world as it is. In practice, this means that texts only offer a part of a story and that they reflect the point of view of the text producer. In this sense, partial is the opposite of impartial. Learners should be guided to develop a critical awareness by learning how to read beyond the written word to capture the totality of meaning and consider such aspects as language and power, discourse and power, and diversity and inclusion (or exclusion). This can be achieved by guiding learners’ thinking through a series of prompts, which can include the following questions: • • • • • •

Who is in the text/picture/ situation? Who is missing? Whose voices are represented? Whose voices are marginalized or discounted? What are the intentions of the author? What does the author want the reader to think? What would an alternative text/picture/situation say? How can the reader use this information to promote equity?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The use of denotation and connotation usually facilitates the development of critical awareness. For example, the poem The blind men and the elephant (Saxe, 1963), at a surface level, can be analyzed in relation to a particular textual genre containing particular literary devices; however, from a more critical perspective, it is possible to interpret that individuals see the world from different perspectives depending where they are positioned. A person may be educated or uneducated, liberal or conservative, rich or poor, nonbelieving or God-fearing, but all people act and live in certain ways because they are guided by particular worldviews. An alternative technique includes the use of reflection through Connection Stems. These are prompts that provide a structure to make connections while reading narrative and informational texts. Examples of Connections Stems include the following: • • • • • • •

That reminds me of… I remember when … I have a connection … An experience I have had like that … I felt like that character when … If I were that character, I would … I remember another book about this …

When sharing their completed Connection Stems, learners use text support and personal experiences to explain connections or to problematize pieces of information. 222

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Evaluation of Own Perspectives, Beliefs and Attitudes When learners engage in critical literacy practices, their views are constantly challenged as they grapple with different conflicting perspectives. Janks et al., (2014) talk about redesign to refer to the internal and external processes that take place when individuals immerse themselves into the life of texts. In fact, Christensen (2006) argues that critical literacy “equips students to engage in a dialogue with texts and society instead of silently consuming other people’s words” (p. 385). To be able to achieve this dialogue, learners should be able to evaluate and re-evaluate their positions constantly and act upon their new perspectives which emerge as a result of their active involvement with texts. As critical literacy is linked to social justice (Comber, 2015), action is key to show how such a dialogue unfolds to create a more equitable society and empower individuals. A good way for learners to take action on different social issues is to encourage them to record their views prior, during, and after a lesson where competing views are presented. For this purpose, the K-W-L chart, as explained earlier, can be a very effective resource. Other alternative options include the use of reflective diaries or more creative resources, such as plays, music, and art, where learners are given an opportunity to express themselves. For example, as a concluding technique for the lesson on worldviews, learners can be asked to produce a drawing or a collage or even perform a short play based on the characters in the poem The blind men and the elephant (Saxe, 1863) since activities such are these this will certainly help to reinforce the learning that has taken place in the lesson. Additionally, the technique of switching, where learners are encouraged to put themselves in someone else’s shoes, does not only develop empathy but also prompts learners to see the world from different positions so that they can re-evaluate their believes and attitudes according to different roles. There are many variations of this technique; for example, gender, theme, setting, body-style, clothing, emotion, ethnic/race, language, and relationship/organization switching (see DeVoogd & McLaughlin, 2004, for further examples). Encouraging students to delve into the different meanings encapsulated in texts will certainly help them to become more aware of a multiplicity of worldviews. Teaching Tip

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

John is a newly qualified teacher who works in a school in the outskirts of a major city in the United Kingdom. The composition of his teaching group in an upper primary school reflects the population diversity of the local area. John has identified that his students tend to retreat and group with peers sharing the same cultural and linguistic backgrounds and, as such, they find it difficult to blend, thus creating many isolated subgroups within the classroom. In order to enable students to mingle, John decided to implement a small crosscurricular project to introduce the idea of ‘otherness’ as an attempt to get his students to develop an awareness of how different points of views influence the way people conceive the world and also other people. The overarching theme of this project is immigration, as most of the learners are newly arrived students. The project also seeks to address stereotypical views with the goal of fostering community integration and the elimination of communicative and other types of barriers in his classroom. John hopes that this project will contribute to the development of children’s empathy by challenging their ways of thinking about one another (most of whom are new to the country) and usually portrayed as having special language needs by the school. For this purpose, John has collected a variety of text (printed and audiovisual ones) for the learners to engage with. The task, therefore, aims at exploring how people develop ideas about others by discussing language and power relations exercising what Freire (1972) calls “critical consciousness” (p. 52), a way of thinking about personal literacies that engages learners in empathy and compassion, in living lives as change agents. The task includes input from the following school subjects: • Geography: Knowledge of the world, countries, migration and displacement; • History: Formation of nation states, current affairs influencing people’s lives; • English: Elements of argumentative and persuasive speech/writing; • Modern Languages: The self, description of family life with an emphasis on cultural knowledge;

223

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Teaching Tip • Mathematics: Interpretation of statistical information to make comparisons; • Drama and Art: Focus on empathy by acting out different feelings and by representing migrants or displaced people’s feelings through a collage; • Personal, Social, and Health Education: Integration of migrant groups to the society, sense of belonging, loss and struggle for survival. John begins the lesson with a video sequence of five children talking about their experiences of leaving their countries and relocating in the United Kingdom. Different situations are illustrated in the video sequence; for instance, asylum seeking, the refugee experience, economic migration, and sojourners’ experiences. This is an introductory activity aimed at developing students’ awareness of the different socio-political situations and contexts that prompt people to leave their home countries to seek new opportunities in other parts of the world, using their personal narratives as the main curriculum. This activity is expected to contribute to the creation of an atmosphere for the students to begin to question their own perceptions about otherness while encouraging them to think about one another in a more positive manner. As the children watch a video clip, there are prompts for reflection about how some migrant children have been portrayed by mass media, with newspaper clips arranged in different parts of the classroom, which they will use as part of some writing tasks. John uses questions to trigger learners’ views and encourages the newly arrived students to share their views using their own home languages with other children translating into English or using the technique of translanguaging to give them a voice. This experience is expected to help all learners to develop and consolidate learning in the Third Space’ (Gutiérrez, 2008) while challenging dominant narratives that successful learners are the ones who can speak English. John decides to follow the above activity with a discussion introduced by the question: What if our ways of looking at the world were upside down? This task is aided by the an upside down map (https://map-centre.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Upside-DownWorld-Wall-Map.png) with the title “Change your perspective” displayed on the board. The activity aims at engaging students in the exchange of perceptions about the imagined north and what this represents for them. John requests the learners to re-arrange the layout of the classroom to enable group discussions which will help them to complete a series of brief literacy and numeracy tasks consisting of a comparison of statistical information regarding, among others, number of inhabitants in the countries where they come from, percentages of languages spoken in the world, and how many languages are represented in the classroom. This activity is meant to promote a discussion about opportunities and inequalities by comparing and discussing facts about the North and the Global South, bringing learners’ personal histories, developing dialogic learning, and valuing oracy as a form of literacy-as-event, which Burnett and Merchant (2018) define it as a heuristic for thinking with the fluid and elusive nature of meaningmaking where an event is generated as people and things come into relation. For the last part of the project, John decides to use a creative way of assessing students’ knowledge by asking learners to plan and carry out a creative production (either a small role-play situation, a collage, or a piece of music) to be performed to the rest of the group. Given the topics covered previously, John expects that the students will display issues concerning struggles of acceptance and of asymmetric power relations between the dominant language and their home language/s, tensions between academic practices in schools and at-home, cultural clashes, and their wishes in relation to the use of the English language for their future aspirations, among others. While all these topics are essential, John ensures that all the learners in his class are fully engaged with a role to play regardless of home language, cultural background, or proficiency in English. This part of the task is underpinned by the metaphor of the English class as a zone of contact, i.e., a social space where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power (McKey, 2002).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION The chapter explored some of the nuances involved in the view of literacy as a social practice embedded in the cultural and the socio-critical domains whilst considering aspects of multilingualism and the teaching of English as a lingua franca within a framework of critical literacy. The aim of literacy education has generally come to be understood as the development of critical (rather than functional) literacy, specific to one form of activity or social practice. It is generally understood that critical literacy refers to the practice of adopting a critical perspective in the learning process, and yet it is not so easy to be critical since the basic hypothesis of these critical theories is that we can never be free from the prejudices developed in socialization. To promote critical capability, we need to address the paradox by exploring possibilities of liberating ourselves from the habituated thinking paradigms in which we are trapped in the process of socialization. To break or interrupt habituation or automation in cognition,

224

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

we need something that is capable of disruption. Gee’s (2015) hypothesis of literacy as a Secondary Discourse may offer a way of enabling such interruption: The key point about secondary Discourses, however, is that they involve by definition, interaction with people with whom one is either not ‘intimate,’ with whom one cannot assume lots of shared knowledge and experience, or they involve interactions where one is being ‘formal,’ that is, taking on an identity that transcends the family or primary socializing group (p. 175). English as a globally used language is “always a language in translation, a language of translingual use” (Pennycook 2008, p. 34). Although Pennycook calls English “the language of international capitalism”, he also acknowledges English “not merely as a language of imperialism, but also as a language of opposition” (1994, p. 262). Canagarajah (1999) is most unequivocal in describing English as an instrument with “the liberatory potential of facilitating critical thinking” (p. 22) in a multicultural context. However, McKay (2002) argues that in encountering an alter culture, speakers are unlikely to end up knowing about the other’s culture. Cross-cultural encounters can be reflexive, as people gain insight from the alter culture into their own culture. This is what she calls a cross-cultural contact zone. McKay (2002) goes on to say that a cross-cultural contact zone can be “a sphere of cross-culturality in EIL [English as an International Language] classrooms so that individuals gain insight into their own culture. These insights can then be shared in cross-cultural encounters undertaken in (inter)national contexts” (p. 100). However, there is a need for further studies to be carried out in order to identify the pedagogical value, if any, of Third Spaces and of contact zones and how they can develop and enhance the quality of literacy practices globally and locally. To conclude, the English class, as a contact zone may not be merely confrontational, as Pratt (1991) once described. It can be a place where English is viewed as the significant other which offers different perceptions that can liberate nondominant groups from the constraints of their own culture; a place where people choose a perception not on the basis of simplistic identity politics that stresses differences only; and a place where people, sharing the benefits of differences, can develop the translingual ability to “translate, transpose and critically reflect on social, cultural and historical meanings” by taking part in a variety of critical literacy practices (Pennycook, 2008, p. 34). In an age of globalization when interaction between cultures has reached an unprecedented high frequency, translingual literacy practices, as shown in this chapter, enable disempowered individuals to transcend identity politics and to shuttle between dominant and nondominant languages and cultures thus giving them an opportunity to develop Third Spaces as a form of personal and group empowerment. Discussion Questions

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. It has been argued that cultural literacy has cosmopolitan overtones. What does this mean and what do you think those overtones are? 2. The chapter takes the views that classrooms and different languages and cultures interact one with the other are zones of contact. What do you think sustains zones of contact and can you identify how such zones operate in migrant learners’ knowledge of the world and their interactions with prescribed school curricula? 3. The Third Space, according to Gutiérrez (2008), is a celebration of local literacies. How can the school curriculum and, more specifically, you as an educator, can provide opportunities for the creation of Third Spaces where the aim is the celebration of your students’ local literacies?

225

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

REFERENCES Alston-Abel, N. L., & Berninger, V. W. (2018). Relationships between home literacy practices and school achievement: Implications for consultation and home–school collaboration. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 28(2), 164–189. doi:10.1080/10474412.2017.1323222 PMID:30083040 Armour, W. S. (2001). This guy is Japanese stuck in a white man’s body: A discussion of meaning making, identity slippage, and cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/01434630108666422 Barratt-Pugh, C. (2002). The socio-cultural context of literacy learning. In C. Barratt-Pugh & M. Rohl (Eds.), Literacy learning in the early years (pp. 1–26). NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Barrett, J. (1994). Why is English still the medium of education in Tanzanian secondary schools? Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 7(1), 3–16. doi:10.1080/07908319409525162 Bartlett, L. (2005). Identity work and cultural artefacts in literacy learning and use: A sociocultural analysis. Language and Education, 19(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/09500780508668801 Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, UK: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, UK: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. doi:10.1080/01425699995380 Bhaktin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. San Francisco, CA: Stanford University Press. Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511810237 Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337–356. doi:10.120715548430jlr3403_4

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Burgess, A., & Hamilton, M. (2011). Back to the future? Functional literacy and the new skills agenda. Retrieved from https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/66608/1/Functional_Literacy_Discussion_Paper_ AB_MH.pdf Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Literacy-as-event: Accounting for relationality in literacy research. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 48(1), 1–12. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Christensen, T. (1994). Whose standard? Teaching standard English. In B. Bigelow, & B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (pp. 142–145). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

226

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Comber, B. (2010). Critical literacies in place: Teachers who work for just and sustainable communities. In J. Lavia, & M. Moore (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives in policy and practice: Decolonizing community contexts (pp. 43–57). London, UK: Routledge. Comber, B. (2015) Critical literacy and social justice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 358–363. Comber, B., Thompson, P., & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a “place”: Writing and social action in a low-income Australian 2/3 classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 10(4), 451–464. doi:10.1086/499681 Comings, J. P. (2019). Functional literacy. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/ document/obo-9780199756797/obo-9780199756797-0032.xml Cook, D., & Klipfel, K. (2015). How do our students learn? References & Users Quarterly, 55(1), 34–41. doi:10.5860/rusq.55n1.34 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan Publishers. Coulmas, F. (2018). An introduction to multilingualism: Language in a changing world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cruz, C. (2006). Testimonial narratives of queer street youth: Toward an epistemology of a brown body. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 14(5), 657–669. doi:10.1080/09518390110059874 Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Damber, U. (2012). Equity and models of literacy in a diverse world. Issues in Educational Research, 22(1), 36–46. De Costa, P. (2016). The power of identity and ideology in language learning: Designer immigrants learning English in Singapore. Lansing, MI: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30211-9 DeVoogd, G. L., & McLaughlin, M. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’ comprehension. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (2001). Where are the childhoods in childhood literacy? An exploration in outer (school) space. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(1), 9–39. doi:10.1177/14687984010011002 Egbo, B. (2000). Gender, literacy, and life chances in sub-Saharan Africa. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

227

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Engeström, Y. (1996). Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55, 126–132. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media. Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 14(2), 47–56. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garve. Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. doi:10.4324/9781315722511 Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Rahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Graff, H. (1994). Literacy, myths and legacies: Lessons from the history of literacy. In L. T. Verhoeven (Ed.), Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (pp. 231–322). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075wll.1.05gra Gray, W. S. (1956). The teaching of reading and writing. Paris, France: UNESCO. Gregory, E., & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies: Learning to read across generations and cultures. London, UK: Routledge. Gutiérrez, K. (2018). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3 Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019 Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605796 Hammer, J. (2005). Exploring literacy with infants from a sociocultural perspective. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’. Work (Reading, Mass.), 2(2), 70–75.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511841057 Higgins, C. (2009). English as a local language: Post-colonial identities and multilingual practices. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847691828 Horner, B., & Lu, M. (2007). Resisting monolingualism in English. In V. Ellis, C. Fox, & B. Street (Eds.), Rethinking English in schools: A new and constructive stage (pp. 65–87). New York, NY: Longman. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge.

228

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Janks, H., Dixon, K., Ferreira, A., Granville, S., & Newfield, D. (2014). Doing critical literacy: Texts and activities for students and teachers. London, UK: Routledge. Kalman, J. (1999). Writing on the plaza: Mediated literacy practice among scribes and clients in Mexico City. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Kashina, K. (1994). The dilemma of standard English in Zambia: Pedagogical, educational and sociocultural considerations. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 7(1), 17–28. doi:10.1080/07908319409525163 Lee, C. (2007). Culture, literacy and learning: Taking Bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Leland, C., Harste, J., & Huber, K. (2005). Out of the box: Critical literacy in a first-grade classroom. Language Arts, 82(4), 257–268. Levine, K. (1982). Functional literacy: Fond illusions and false economies. Harvard Educational Review, 52(3), 249–266. doi:10.17763/haer.52.3.77p7168115610811 Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4 ̶ 11. McDaniel, C. A. (2006). Critical literacy. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. McKey, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4 Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging Hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91(July), 88–92. doi:10.2307/821822 Nag, S., Vagh, S., Dulay, K., & Snowling, M. (2019). Home language, school language and children’s literacy attainment: A systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Review of Education, 7(1), 91–150. doi:10.1002/rev3.3132 Naldic. (2019). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. Retrieved from https://www.naldic.org. uk/eal-teaching-and-learning/outline-guidance/bilingualism/

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nash, K., Howard, J., Miller, E., Boutte, G., Johnson, G., & Reid, L. (2018). Critical racial literacy in homes, schools, and communities: Propositions for early childhood contexts. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(3), 256–273. doi:10.1177/1463949117717293 Neal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (1999). The success of reading recovery for English language learners and descubriendo la lectura for bilingual students in California. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning, 4(2), 81–108. Ochoa, G., McDonald, S., & Monk, N. (2018). Adapting open-space learning techniques to teach cultural literacy. Open Cultural Studies, 2(1), 510–519. doi:10.1515/culture-2018-0046 Oecd.org. (2019). PISA. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/

229

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Olson, D. R. (2000). Curriculum as a multi-storied process. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(3), 169–187. doi:10.2307/1585952 Olson, D. R. (2017). The languages of instruction: The literate bias of schooling. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:10.4324/9781315271644-7 Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. G. (2017). Literacy and cognitive development: A conceptual transformation in the early school years. In S. Meadows (Ed.), Developing thinking: Approaches to children’s cognitive development (pp. 102–121). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315213323-7 Pahl, K., & Burnett, C. (2016). Literacies in homes and communities. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. C. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture (pp. 3–14). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Parajuli, P., & Enslin, E. (1990). From learning literacy to regenerating women’s space: A story of women’s empowerment in Nepal. Convergence (Toronto), 23(1), 44–56. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London, UK: Longman. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London, UK: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a language always in translation. Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 33–47. doi:10.1080/13825570801900521 Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. N. (2017). Learning to read English. In L. Verhoeven, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 347–370). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752.014 Phillipson, R. (2007). English in Europe: Threat or promise? In M. N. Craith (Ed.), Language, power, and identity politics (pp. 65–82). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230592841_4 Phillipson, R. (2013). Linguistic imperialism continued. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203857175 Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33–40. Prinsloo, M., & Breier, M. (Eds.). (1996). The social uses of literacy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: J. Benjamin. doi:10.1075wll.4

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Qu, W. (2011). English, identity and critical literacy. Changing English, 18(3), 297–307. doi:10.1080/ 1358684X.2011.602837 Rabušicová, M., & Oplatková, P. (2010). Functional literacy in people’s lives. Journal of Pedagogy, 1(2), 29–51. doi:10.2478/v10159-010-0008-3 Rasool, E. (1996). Unveiling the heart of fear. In W. James, D. Caliguire, & K. Cullinan (Eds.), Now that we are free: Coloured communities in a democratic South Africa (pp. 54–68). Cape Town, South Africa: IDASA. Richardson, E. (2006). Hiphop Literacies. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203391105

230

 Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Ryan, C. (2010). How do you spell family? Literacy, heteronormativity, and young children of lesbian mothers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio. Saxe, J. G. (1863). The blind men and the elephant; John Godfrey Saxe’s version of the famous Indian legend. New York, NY: Whittlesey House. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674433014 Stables, A. (2003). Environmental education and the arts–science divide: The case for a disciplined environmental literacy. In A. Winnett, & A. Warhust (Eds.), Towards an environment research agenda (pp. 49–59). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230536814_4 Street, B., & Lefstein, A. (2007). Literacy: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203463994 Street, B., & Street, J. (1995). The schooling of literacy. In P. Murphy, M. Selinger, J. Bourne, & M. Briggs (Eds.), Subject learning in the primary curriculum (pp. 179–183). London, UK: Routledge. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies. Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. Harlow, UK: Longman. Street, B. V. (Ed.). (2001). Literacy and development. London, UK: Routledge. Street, B. V. (2013). New literacy studies. In M. Grenfell, D. Bloome, C. Hardy, K. Pahl, J. Rowsell, & B. Street (Eds.), Language, ethnography, and education (pp. 33–55). London, UK: Routledge. Street, B. V. (2017). New literacies, new times: Developments in literacy studies. In B.V. Street, & S. May (Ed.), Literacies and Language Education (pp. 1–̶13) London, UK: Springer International Publishing. Vickery, A. E. (2016). ‘I know what you are about to enter’: Lived experiences as the curricular foundation for teaching citizenship. Gender and Education 28(6), 725–741. Villegas, A. M. (1988). School failure and cultural mismatch: Another view. The Urban Review, 20(4), 253–265. doi:10.1007/BF01120137

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Wallace, C. (2002) Local literacies and global literacies. In D. Black, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 101–114). London, UK: Routledge. Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230514447 White, S. J., Warrington, K. L., McGowan, V. A., & Paterson, K. B. (2015). Eye movements during reading and topic scanning: Effects of word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 233–248. doi:10.1037/xhp0000020 PMID:25528014

231

Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2016). Eye movements and the perceptual span during first- and secondlanguage sentence reading in bilingual older adults. Psychology and Aging, 31(1), 58–70. doi:10.1037/ a0039971 PMID:26866589 Wohlwend, K. E., & Lewis, C. (2011). Critical literacy, critical engagement, and digital technology: Convergence and embodiment in global spheres. In D. Lapp, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 188–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wray, D. (1997). Research into teaching of reading: A 25-year debate. In K. Watson, C. Modgill, & S. Modgill (Eds.), Education dilemmas: Debates and diversity. Quality in education (Vol. 4, pp. 118–126). London, UK: Cassell.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Autonomous Model of Literacy: A model underpinned by the assumption that literacy in itself (i.e., autonomously) has effects on other social and cognitive practices that are neutral and universal. Critical Literacy: Learning to read and write as part of the process of becoming conscious of one’s experience as historically constructed within specific power relations. Critical literacy moves the reader’s focus away from the “self” in critical reading to the interpretation of texts in different environmental and cultural contexts. Cultural Literacy: The ability to understand and participate fluently in a given culture, normally a culture different from one’s own. Expansive Learning: The capacity of individuals involved in an activity to interpret and expand the definition of the object of activity and respond to it in increasingly enriched ways. Expansive learning involves the creation of new knowledge and new practices for a newly emerging activity: that is, learning embedded in and constitutive of qualitative transformation of the entire activity system. Functional Literacy: Knowledge of reading and writing which enables individuals to acquire basic cognitive skills to accomplish practical ends in culturally specific settings. Ideological Model of Literacy: A model that posits that literacy is a social practice, not simply a technical and neutral skill but it is about the ways in which people address reading and writing rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity, and being. Multilingualism: The ability of an individual speaker or a community of speakers to communicate effectively in three or more languages. Socio-critical Literacy: The capacity to historicize literacy that privileges and is contingent upon students’ sociohistorical lives, both proximally and distally. Third Space: A poststructuralist sociolinguistic theory of identity and community realized through language or education. Third Space theory explains the uniqueness of each person, actor or context as a “hybrid.” Zone of Contact: Social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power.

232

Empowering Multilingual Learners Through Critical Liberating Literacy Practices in English-Dominated

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Janks, H., Dixon, K., Ferreira, A., Granville, S., & Newfield, D. (2014) Doing critical literacy. Texts and activities for students and teachers. Oxon, UK: Routledge. This book offers a collection of activities aimed at raising students’ awareness of the use of language in different aspects of everyday life by means of a series of tasks around real-world texts to discuss how authors position themselves to create different responses from readers. 2. Vasquez, V., Tate, S. & Harste, J. (2013) Negotiating critical literacies with teachers. Theoretical foundations and pedagogical resources for pre-service and in-service contexts. Oxon, UK: Routledge. This book examines critical literacy by explaining and illustrating opportunities for pre-service and in-service teachers to “live critical literacies” through experiencing first-hand what it is like to be a learner where the curriculum is built around teachers’ own inquiry questions, passions, and interests. 3. Edwards, V. (2009) Learning to be literate. Multilingual perspectives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This volume offers a comprehensive, accessible overview of bilingualism, biliteracy, and language education around the world. The inclusion of activities and discussion points at the end of each chapter makes the book ideal for core reading at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.

233

234

Chapter 12

Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction:

Addressing the Issue of Language Sexism Paschalia Patsala Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK Maria Michali South-East European Research Center, Greece

ABSTRACT In the past, corpora were primarily employed by linguists. Recently, there has been a growing interest from teachers and researchers in the pedagogical applications of corpora. However, literature of corpusbased instruction has little explored whether corpus-based instruction can reinforce English Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ critical literacy. This chapter builds on research and practices that explore how corpus-based teaching may enhance learners’ critical literacy skills, ofering recommendations to teachers of English as a foreign language. The main features of critical literacy teaching are presented, and consideration is given to tools and techniques through which educators can encourage EFL learners to critically look at authentic language data and question both the language and the reality they are exposed to, afecting or enabling social change.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Moving from the original, traditional definition of literacy as one’s ability to read and write (Online Cambridge Dictionary) towards a more dynamic approach to the concept, different understandings of literacy have been proposed in contemporary theoretical approaches. These include definitions of literacy as: 1. an autonomous set of skills, 2. applied, practiced and situated, 3. a learning process, and lastly 4. text (UNESCO, 2006). Within this framework, the current chapter aims to exemplify how corpus-assisted DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch012

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

language teaching and data-driven learning (DDL) can not only accommodate the above theoretical underpinnings of literacy, but also further enhance learners’ critical literacy, namely of the ability to employ “the technologies of print and other media of communication to analyze, critique, and transform the norms, rule systems, and practices governing the social fields of everyday life” (Luke, 2012, p. 5). A corpus is a representative collection of pieces of a language that are selected according to explicit linguistic criteria and reflect natural chunks of this language in order to be used for a linguistic analysis (McEnery, Xiao, & Tono, 2006; Sinclair, 1996; Tognini-Bonelli, 2001). When considering the pedagogical applications of corpora, it becomes evident that corpus use can enhance DDL and assist learners in facing various literacy demands. The concept of data-driven learning was originally put forward by Tim Johns in 1990, in an attempt to explain how learners could investigate and analyze language data on their own, making language learning evolve from a set-of-rules acquisition process into a more dynamic and “flexible system of recurring and interrelated prototypes” (Hadley, 2002, p. 99). Although the initial work in DDL was performed with rather simplistic, mainly locally accessible sources and less advanced methods (see, for instance, Aston, 1996), the rapid technological advances in Corpus Linguistics with vast amounts of electronically accessed data and sophisticated concordance tools promoted a radical DDL implementation. More precisely, during DDL procedures, learners process examples of the target language, formulate hypotheses, and test them for reaching the target rules (Johns, 1991). Being accompanied by grammatical consciousness-raising (Rutherford, 1987), DDL also encourages learners to perceive language learning as a flexible process where they themselves discover the rules of the language, and not merely as a product where the target language rules are selected a priori and presented to them (Geluso & Yamaguchi, 2014; Lin & Lee, 2015; Moon & Oh, 2018). Besides grammar, lexis can also benefit from DDL; vocabulary learning is a core part of language learning, but it is a complex process including many and diverse skills, such as acquisition and retention (Schneider, Haley, & Bourne, 2002). A number of meta-analyses (see, for example, Goo et al., 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada & Tomita, 2010) suggest that learners better acquire new forms under explicit conditions rather than by being exposed to implicit learning. Thus, in more contemporary approaches to literacy instruction, corpus evidence, and thus corpus-assisted language instruction, can effectively provide learners with strong evidence of literacy events, as Street (1984; 1995; 2007) rightfully points out. The term literacy event was originally introduced by Anderson et al. (1980), and it was described as an instance when one is trying to understand a graphic sign. The term was further elaborated by Heath (1982), who defined it as “any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants’ interactions and their interpretative processes” (p. 50). Considering a significant dimension of literacy, namely critical literacy as an active learning process, the present chapter approaches corpus use and material as a means that encourages learners to reflect on their own learning experience by interpreting, theorizing, and exploring the discourse presented to them through concordances. Lastly, regarding literacy as text (Bhola, 1994), corpora involve and can showcase a vast multiplicity of topics, genres, and disciplines. At the same time, they reveal features and repetitive patterns in texts belonging to a given genre or field by using existing corpus tools and generating concrete queries. Departing from the classical skills-based model of learning to read and write, critical literacy made its appearance originally in the western societies rather recently (Behrman, 2006; Ko & Wang, 2009). Its value and merits prove to be even more significant in an era in which learners receive and exchange massive loads of information, with the potential of becoming—consciously or unconsciously—users of powerful discourses (Janks, 2012; Ko, 2013). Within this context, a number of educators and researchers (e.g., Crookes & Lehner, 1998; Norton & Toohey, 2004; Pennycook, 1999) have been strongly in 235

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

favour of or have implemented critical literary pedagogy in their teaching practices aspiring not only to develop learners’ communitive competence and language proficiency, but also to infuse in their classes the ability and skills needed to question, instead of passively embracing, the information they receive. In addition to discussing the characteristics of critical literacy and its theoretical underpinning as well as briefly presenting the findings of previous studies on the pedagogical value of corpora, the present chapter aims to provide English language teachers with suggestions on how to create effective learning conditions, providing support to the stages of the corpus implementation with which most students have reported difficulties. The steps of the corpus integration into the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context are also described in the practical sections, together with how a direct application of corpora into the classroom can take place in an attempt to enhance students’ literacy potential. In order to address the relevant gaps in previous literature and meet the aims of the chapter, other topics addressed in the present work include foreign language learners’ opinions about the in-class use of authentic corpus examples, how corpus-based teaching material can contribute to the comprehension of grammatical structures and vocabulary enrichment, as well as advantages and challenges of using corpora in the English language classroom to enhance learners’ critical literacy profile.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Use of Corpora in the Learning and Teaching Process Over the past years, especially due to radical technological advances, the field of Corpus Linguistics has been revolutionized (for various applications of corpora, see Baker, 2011; Biber, 2009; Hilpert & Gries, 2009; Mahlberg, 2007; McEnery & Hardie, 2012; O’Donnell, Scott, Mahlberg, & Hoey, 2012; Rayson, 2008; Reppen, 2010; Smith, Hoffmann, & Rayson, 2008). In the past, the process of studying items and patterns in natural languages was considered daunting, expensive, and extremely time consuming. On the contrary, nowadays, linguistic corpora can offer a vast range of options and implementation opportunities, and their contribution is highly appreciated in various scientific fields (for a summary, see Patsala, 2015). The impact of corpora and their interrelation with the process of learning an additional language can be identified in four distinct areas: 1. studies concerning error analysis; 2. studies related to contrastive analyses between languages; 3. research analyzing the features of interlanguage; and 4. studies employing learner corpora towards designing teaching materials and activities (Tono, 2003). Despite the vast literature in the first three areas, the fourth one—which constitutes a direct pedagogical application for classroom practice (Tono, 2003)—remains the most neglected, as only a few studies apply DDL in practice, combined with in-class corpus-based instruction (Sinclair, 2004). Some of the studies employing corpora in the classroom have encouraged students to consult corpus concordances for interpreting linguistic structures, and then detecting or correcting their mistakes through the concordance examples. These studies advocate the positive role that negative evidence plays in learning a foreign language (Boulton & Landure, 2016; Granger, 1996). Other studies have attempted a more direct integration of corpora into the classroom, suggesting that DDL should engage learners in corpus-based tasks and in “analyzing the corpus itself or examples from the corpus prepared by the teacher” (Sinclair, 2004, p. 126), thus creating an immediate link between corpora, pedagogical material, and related tasks. Following Krieger (2003), corpora can be applied in teaching in three distinct ways:

236

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

to support the designing of the syllabus, in materials development, as well as in organizing classroom activities. Irrespective of the growing interest in implementing corpora in the classroom and encouraging inductive approaches, studies on integrating corpus-assisted teaching of grammar and vocabulary remain limited in number. Boulton (2009), for instance, examined whether students of English for Specific Purposes in an engineering college in France could benefit from DDL and from printed concordance lines when learning the linking adverbials. After comparing the performance of the experimental group that employed KWIC concordances to examine the target items to the performance of the standard group employing traditional pedagogical information, the study concluded that corpus data have a higher impact on reference and recall procedures—even if these processes are performed by students who have not received any prior training on the use of corpora. Similarly, Jafarpour and Koosha (2006) explored whether DDL and concordance lines assisted 200 Iranian EFL university students to develop their knowledge of prepositions and collocational patterns, concluding that corpus materials and DDL have “a great explanatory power” (p. 204). Along these lines, Krieger (2003) suggested how EFL teachers may utilize corpus concordances for demonstrating the uses of any. Employing in-class exercises with concordance examples, she indicated the distribution of any and engaged students in discovering different usage patterns and noticing specific language chunks. Based on the results yielded by these studies, teachers’ focus should be on the attempts to revolutionize the way of teaching through corpus-based instruction, which has a potential to enrich the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) with novel and transformative elements (Conrad, 2000). Among the studies which have integrated corpus evidence in ELT to teach vocabulary, El-Esery (2016) utilized COCA concordances for teaching words to thirty EFL students of the Uqlat Asoqour College of Science and Arts. More specifically, in this study, the control group of students were asked to learn the academic vocabulary by being exposed to the traditional method of reiterating words, with the teacher writing them on the board and providing students with the meaning of each new lexical item. The experimental group of students were invited to access and use the online Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), therefore acquiring the new lexis by engaging in concordance and corpusbased tasks. Findings revealed a more satisfying performance for the experimental group. Similarly, Yılmaz and Soruç (2014) implemented COCA in teaching vocabulary to forty EFL Turkish students, adopting a mixed-methods approach, which revealed that “concordance lines had greater effect on teaching vocabulary than the traditional vocabulary instruction” (p. 2629), while DDL was described as an enjoyable learning activity.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Teachers’ and Learners’ Attitudes towards Corpus Integration in the EFL Classroom Despite the value of corpus-assisted instruction, most teachers seem to ignore the impact corpora may have on the teaching and learning process (Mukherjee, 2004; Seidlhofer, 2002; Tribble, 2000). A number of studies have been conducted examining teachers’ and teacher-trainees’ attitudes towards corpus integration into the classroom, including Allan (1999) with secondary English teachers in Hong Kong, and Mukherjee (2006) with 248 EFL school teachers in secondary education in Germany. Both studies suggest that teachers can actually perceive the pedagogical usability of corpora, and they would like to further employ corpora to provide their students with more feedback on target items (Allan, 1999), as

237

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

well as to develop corpus-based teaching materials and activities for in-classroom use (Mukherjee, 2006). Breyer (2009) and Farr (2008) have also conducted similar studies with the participation of teachertrainees. Qualitative and quantitative data emerging from both studies suggested that teachers-to-be valued positively the learner autonomy and the DDL approaches that corpora favor. The study participants also expressed their interest and eagerness to implement corpora in the classroom in the future. In all the above studies, the benefits of DDL and of inductive teaching methods are critically examined. Besides teachers’ perspective of corpus usability, scholars have explored students’ insights about corpus integration within the ELT context. Research that investigated learner perceptions of corpus-assisted instruction found that the majority of English language learners are not aware of corpora and have not experienced any corpus-based teaching (Kaltenböck & Mehlmauer–Larcher, 2005). Yoon and Hirvela (2004) implemented the Collins Birmingham University International Language Database (COBUILD) in academic writing courses with 22 participants and found that corpus use is highly beneficial not only as a way of enhancing learners’ vocabulary skills in academic writing, but also as a resource that can support the acquisition of the usage patterns of the target words. Vannestål and Lindquist’s study (2007) found preference among the Swedish university student participants towards corpus use for writing purposes, while they also expressed some degree of reluctance for corpus use in relation to grammar learning. On the other hand, Braun’s (2007) research conducted in a high school in Germany, investigated concordance-based activities to infer the meaning of the target words. Findings suggest that despite not having received any prior corpus-related training, the experimental group valued the corpus-based activities as more useful compared to how the control group perceived the use of traditional exercises. Finally, Thurstun and Candlin’s research (1998) reported students’ opinions about the usability of concordance-based exercises based on Microconcord Corpus of Academic Texts for teaching vocabulary items. In their study, they concluded that the innovative corpus-based methodology exposes learners to a variety of contextualized examples, while aiding them to develop their analytical and critical skills. Nevertheless, some of the issues students perceived as challenging were the overwhelming number of examples and the occasionally time-consuming interpretations of the concordances. Overall, the studies conducted on teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards corpus integration indicate that corpus-based instruction is embraced positively and is believed to contribute to the enhancement of corpus users’ linguistic skills. Learners themselves, in particular, tend to consider corpus use highly beneficial for lexis learning purposes and for advancing their writing skills. Finally, albeit any challenges that emerge during the in-class corpus use—rather anticipated for every novel teaching/learning methodology which entails new procedures and poses new demands to its recipients and users—these neither intimidate learners, not urge them to overlook the usability, pedagogical value and positive features corpus-based instruction encompasses.

The Role of Critical Literacy in Education Having set the scene, the present chapter aims to present work conducted on the topic of critical literacy as well as relevant teaching applications that involve the use of corpora. We argue for the need of directing our focus to critical literacy primarily due to the powerful relation that exists not only between language and society, but also between language and social changes. One should note that the concept of critical literacy has been defined in the relevant literature in multiple, and often diverse, ways. Yet, scholars (e.g., Comber & Simpson, 2001; Luke, 2000; Morrell, 2004, 2009) recognize its vital role in

238

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

increasing teachers’ and students’ awareness of linguistic strategies and critical thinking skills that can help them construct and deconstruct meaning. Researchers and educators also acknowledge the value of critical literacy (as described by Shor in 1999) in connecting “the political and the personal, the public and the private, the global and the local, the economic and the pedagogical, for rethinking our lives and for promoting justice in place of inequity” (cited in Abid & Manan, 2015, p. 129). Originally shaped by social critical theorists, critical literacy and critical literacy pedagogy have been fundamentally approached in the realm of language teaching as a tool for teaching a large variety of texts from the angle of raising students’ awareness against social inequalities and injustice, and cultivating their systems of values (Crookes, 2010; Curtis & Romney, 2006; Riasati & Mollaei, 2012). Within this framework, learners are called “to read texts in an active, reflective manner for a better understanding of power, inequality, and injustice in human relationships” (Bobkina & Stefanova, 2016, p. 679). Acknowledging this ideologically sensitive approach to language and the fact that critical literacy originated from a socio-cultural approach to language, educational sociology, and post-structuralist theory (Gee, 1996; Janks, 2010; Van, 2009), in this chapter we focus on authentic language use through corpora as a means of developing learners’ critical literacy and critical thinking skills. In other words, we emphasize and exemplify how teachers can encourage their students to approach language (and language learning) by adopting a more critical eye, by learning from and interpreting various genres of texts, and by exploring lexical, grammatical and stylistic features of the target language. Another factor that should not be neglected when theorizing about critical literacy and its application in the classroom is that the majority of studies relevant to this type of literacy are conducted with second, as opposed to foreign language, learners of English. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in an EFL environment (for instance, Ko, 2013; Ko & Wang, 2009; Suarcaya & Prasasti, 2017). This scarcity may be attributed to the fact that not all cultures and societies tend or may be willing to invite learners to question and challenge taken-for-granted assumptions or dominant practices (Ko & Wang, 2013). One may also argue that apart from cultural inappropriateness, this pattern may be due to educators’ own perceptions about EFL learners’ difficulty and pragmatic limitations in expressing themselves in English, which may hinder their positioning on or discussion as local or global citizens about controversial matters and social inequity. When compared to the critical reading of fictional texts within the frame of the EFL classroom based on the interpretation of complete and usually lengthy works, corpora do lack this dimension of length and completeness; yet, they equally encourage the intersection between language and readers. The use of corpora in the language classroom can become a reader-centered activity and process that cultivates critical literacy as it offers learners the opportunity to contemplate how specific language elements— related to lexis, grammar, syntax, stylistics, etc.— can convey or influence meaning in the authentic chunks of language retrieved through concordances or Key-Word-in-Context (KWIC) queries, and also help them interpret various socio-economic parameters that are mirrored in language use. Bobkina and Stefanova (2016) suggest that, while working with texts in the classroom, critical thinking skills are closely interwoven with critical literacy, as they encompass those processes which allow room for “the interpretation of the world, self-reflection, intercultural awareness, critical awareness, reasoning and problem-solving, and language use” (p. 685). It is exactly these qualities that we identify in integrating a critical reading approach in the EFL classroom, facilitated by the use of corpora and the insights their usage can offer to teachers and students alike.

239

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Teaching Approaches and Challenges to Integrating Critical Literacy in the Classroom A number of scholars have strongly advocated critical literacy as a tool to reform society and fight against discriminatory structures by unveiling stereotypes or messages that are hidden in texts, and which reflect power relations, resources allocation biases, and people’s roles (Comber, 2001; Janks, 2010; Kress, 2003; Kumishiro & Ngo, 2007; Lohrey, 1998; Luke, 2000, 2012; Simpson, 1996). As a result, educators who wish to attempt to help their students become critically literate need to train them in reading messages of all types critically and reflectively. Undoubtedly, one needs to recognize that a critical approach can be implemented to any subject across the curriculum, as critical literacy does not constitute an independent course to be practiced or delivered on its own (Vasquez, 2010). Kalogirou and Malafantis (2012), for instance, exemplify how teachers can encourage their students not only to engage with literature, but also to resist reading literary works merely as a product of a specific time period or with a given/pre-assigned interpretation. Focusing on poetry, the authors refrain from offering their university students any authoritarian kind of reading. Instead, they invite them to adopt a solid stance as to what a text might mean. Following Burke’s question-driven approach (2010), they prepare students to become critical readers and to interrogate texts via responding, or addressing to their fellow students, three types of questions: 1. factual or verifiable questions (responding to who, when, what, where, and how); 2. inductive questions (addressing or answering the why, how, so what queries); and, lastly and most importantly, 3. analytical questions (i.e., questions which associate the specific literary work with other settings, ideas, or literary artifacts). Through this approach to poetry, teachers can therefore raise issues about the universalization of war, social power and oppression, discussing with their students the atrocities and the pain it causes across boundaries, cultures and time periods, while advancing at the same time learners’ interpretive potential (see also Ruhe in this volume). Acknowledging that texts extend to any socially produced form of communication (Vasquez, 2010), and they are thus not limited to printed passages, drawing on relevant studies conducted (e.g., Birne and Bromley, 2015) teachers can employ picturebooks and a number of in-class activities they can creatively design to demonstrate how the multimodality of picturebooks can become an effective tool towards strengthening critical literacy skills of young learners, who are nowadays endlessly bombarded with visual stimuli in communication. To enable young learners to fully delve into literacy events, while respecting their diverse socio-economic and cultural background, EFL teachers can challenge even elementary school students to critically and actively make use of all the information contained in a picture book. Adopting more innovative teaching practices, educators may invite students to explain the messages that images convey and whether words lead to the same idea (see also Savić in this volume). Teachers should not overlook that very often a text “can appear fairly neutral and fairly innocent in its treatment of power structures, while images can produce an undesirable effect” (Nikolajeva, 2003, p. 241), while the representation of an ethnic group tends to be introduced through the visual material. Employing picturebooks such as the 10,000 dresses, from kindergarten through to grade 7, teachers of young learners can cautiously raise even LGTB and gender identity issues through a letter-writing activity. Similarly, the picturebook entitled The Rabbits (by John Marsden, appropriate for grades 4 to 7), which narrates the story of a group of rabbits that settle down in a new place and gradually take control of the area from its

240

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

original inhabitants, helps teachers discuss in depth social equality matters, colonization issues, as well as the role of the victim and victimizer (for a more detailed lesson plan, see Birne and Bromley, 2015). Another excellent opportunity for EFL (or environmental science) teachers to trigger their students’ critical literacy skills would be to make use of hip-hop music themed around the natural environment (i.e., the so-called green hip-hop). Either in the form of embedded sessions or as a one/two-week curriculum, environmentally-themed case studies can be discussed in class, as well as the science and other terminology behind them, especially for more advanced English language classes. Activities may involve real data and make reference to, for example, how specific pollutants influence human health. Apart from the new knowledge students acquire through this in-class practice, another parallel advantage it has is that students become informed about community and activist organizations which act upon these issues. Learners can then be invited to listen to a song with lyrics relevant to the topic already discussed, with the lyrics also being provided to them on handouts. Instead of a more traditional type of assessment, students can be asked to compose (in class or at home) a creative response to the material by writing the lyrics of their own green hip-hop song using the terms and constructs related to environmental justice issues. In accordance with practices adopted by a number of educators (e.g., Cermak, 2012, who collected more than 200 creative responses within the framework of what has been called Critical Ecological Literacy), teaching practices like the ones described here can effectively stimulate learning by allowing students to exhibit critical literacy skills that also touch upon ecological or other contemporary matters. In other words, through very engaging and novel teaching practices, EFL learners can become truly aware of environmental injustices and, as a result, become (future) citizens who will actively fight against them. When considering types of injustice that critical literacy could gradually address and help eliminate, one cannot evade discussing the various challenges around multicultural classrooms. Richardson Bruna (2007), for example, vividly describes the issues colored people (teachers and students alike) face in education, while she addresses primarily the necessity “to help white students find new words to talk about their whiteness” (p. 115). Fluctuating between the racial privilege and emotions of guilt, white students make the role of teachers in a multi-cultural educational setting even more challenging. Towards that end, educators can adopt various models suggested by scholars and practitioners (Bunch, 1998; Richardson Bruna, 2007) and follow in their teaching routine the four layers or phases of the critical literacy approach: 1. description, 2. analysis, 3. vision, and 4. strategy, to ensure that they foster discussions and enhance their students’ critical thinking via deconstructing and reconstructing meaning and relations in multicultural education sessions. Instead of focusing on the learning about others path, teachers should invite learners to actively elaborate on two fundamental constructs of multicultural education—those of race and whiteness—and to identify the social messages that mold their life and identity, guiding them to emphasize educational equalities, affinities, and differences between students and cultures. The last stage of this critical literacy approach involves writing novel meanings and ideas about how the world should be. The session could conclude with learners shaping a more personal strategy or plan by reflecting and naming concrete goals towards increasing their own and others’ familiarity with multicultural matters. This final level of meaning-making will allow students to establish for themselves a white yet anti-racist identity that will ultimately facilitate and support their overall socializing skills in life. For such an anti-racist identity to be even more meaningful, EFL teachers of all levels should also emphasize working with dialects and registers which are inevitably and critically interwoven with elements of race. As a result, teachers should expand the traditional definition of literacy that focuses solely on teaching English grammar, lexis, reading, writing, and speaking, to a more inclusive and in-depth stance towards literacy skills, designing lesson plans and activities that raise learners’ awareness of other aspects 241

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

associated with language itself. Particularly in a multicultural and multilingual educational context, it is extremely critical for EFL teachers to touch upon topics associated with the various dialects and register of English, discussing the “unequal power relationships […] and the ways in which certain groups in society are discriminated against because of their use of the language” (Coffey, Davila, & Kolano, 2013, p. 116). Based on Bourdieu’s theory (1991), language cannot be properly examined while neglecting the social framework within which it is used. From this angle, teachers should be very cautious in the English language classroom while presenting (the existence of) various dialects and registers and what they reflect, and through their teaching challenge unequal power relations and social-hierarchy norms. Various scholars (e.g., Wolfram, 2003) highlight the differences between Standard American English— namely the language of power (Delpit, 1995), and other non-standard English dialects, such as Southern or Black English Vernacular. More precisely, EFL teachers can help reshape literacy education in the benefit of marginalized community members, by including in their curriculum literary texts—such as A Lesson before Dying (by Gaines, 1993)—that combine characters who use standard and non-standard dialects, and may also include dialectical maps with further clarifications on the settlement of people and the development of their linguistic code. A well-structured session could involve three stages: first, to establish prior knowledge through dialectical maps and audio recordings and by inviting students to conversations about why and how literary or movie characters speak according to their origin and background. Dialogues of this type will lead learners into acknowledging how one’s dialect may position him/her in society, as well as help them recognize any inequalities or social bias. Depending on students’ language competence, educators could also project movie clips or videos that exemplify differences in dialects and registers. During the next stage, that Coffey, Davila and Kolano (2013) call guided practice, teachers need to engage EFL learners in more specific tasks related to dialectical use. They can play, for instance, in their class recordings of poems in different dialects (e.g. southern English versus standard American English) written though by the same author, and then ask students to compare and contrast the language used, or hypothesize about the poet’s intended audience, and whether he/she has achieved their aim. The last, and more autonomous stage, could comprise a home activity where students may be provided with a transcript to read and analyze; they may also be encouraged to identify points where they observe changes in the register or dialect used and justify why. Undoubtedly, in any multilingual or multicultural environment, critical literacy development should involve teaching any existing linguistic, social, and cultural aspects that can provide the reasons behind the existence of different speech patterns without though depreciating their value or history. As a result, any reference to standard or official languages should be made by educators cautiously enough to avoid leading students to erroneously perceiving informal registers or local dialects as illegitimate and thus stigmatize their users as having a lower status. A more critical attitude to the various dialects or varieties of a language, and more specifically of the English language in an EFL context, could help reduce the negative predisposition against non-native speakers of English, an attitude that has been observed by Lippi-Green (1997) while examining the consequences of foreign and second language learners’ using English in an accented manner. By exposing their students to a wide range of texts and registers, EFL teachers can also ensure that any hidden messages, power issues expressed within and above the classroom, ideologies, or status inequalities can be subtly and efficiently interrogated in a dialectical framework, while complying at the same time with the state or private-school agenda and curriculum. The existence of multicultural and multilingual teaching and learning environments necessitates even more urgently the integration of critical literacy into reform-oriented education that attempts to infuse into learners’ respect for one’s cultural and personal background or for marginal societal groups, as well 242

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

as to fight inequalities. However, according to previous research (Gay, 2002; Marbley, Bonner, McKisick, Henfield, & Watts, 2007; Sleeter, 2001), a high percentage of prospective teachers may not consider themselves ready or confident enough to fulfill their role in a multicultural and diverse educational context. This may be attributed to factors such as lack of awareness of the culture of non-mainstream groups, unconscious bias against students who come from other cultural, social, or linguistic backgrounds, perpetuated prejudice and fear against marginalized, misconceptions about groups of non-natives, etc. Thus, critical literacy can prove to be an effective tool for educators who wish to re-imagine their own and their students’ attitudes against what is taken for granted in social interaction and the messages conveyed through language learning and use. That was the aim of a research study performed by Hadjioannou and Fu (2007) with twenty-one subjects attending a five-year teacher education program (a combined BA and MA degree in elementary education) in a southeastern university in the United States. Although the researchers could not claim, by the end of the postgraduate course Literature, Family and Culture they delivered, that all students eventually translated the knowledge gained into better teaching practices, they did gather strong evidence of positive personal and professional development of the teacher trainees as regards their own literacy skills enhancement and overall thinking about multicultural education and social justice. When implementing a critical literacy approach in the classroom, in addition to assisting learners to fulfill their language needs, teachers should also gradually enable learners to discuss social phenomena and their impact on human interactions, with an ultimate aim to critically reflect on societal norms and values. Towards that direction, and having exposed learners to extended chunks of language, potential questions the teacher may address to stimulate discussions on and against the text may include the following (Liu, 2017):

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. 2. 3. 4.

What is the author’s intention(s)? How does the author utilize language to convey his/her opinion? If you were the author, how would you organize your opinion/thoughts? Apply the assumption and ideas embedded in this passage/language data to your homeland circumstances. Does that transfer work in the new context? Please explain.

Creating the classroom conditions where learners can elaborate on and share their own experiences by mapping them on the ones already described in the text or the teaching material they are introduced to will help them comprehend that traditions, social norms, and perceptions may differ dramatically between different discourses and contexts, especially when learners synthesize a diverse cultural mosaic. As a result, through critical literacy, language is transformed from a vehicle of fossilized perceptions and reproduced power relations into a means to effectively and smoothly challenge and interrogate norms or unfair practices (e.g., related to violence, gender equality, racism, employment law) with a clearly critical eye. Along similar lines, as Borsheim-Black, Macaluso, and Petrone (2014) claim in their work on Critical Literature Pedagogy (CLP), aiming at enhancing students’ critical literacy via focusing on canonical literature, CLP combines two stances: “reading with and against a text” (p. 124). The reading with a text approach encompasses understanding storylines, explaining and discussing literary devices, and engaging students in forming thematic interpretations. However, what this more traditional type of instruction does not encourage is questioning “ideologies of texts—those values or beliefs that help to frame and form the text” (Borsheim-Black et al., 2014, p. 124). In alignment with the model of Critical Literature 243

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Pedagogy, corpus-based teaching can offer teachers the opportunity to invite their learners, besides reading authentic texts, to read against texts; in other words, call learners to explore how language mirrors or is molded by ideologies. Teachers should bear in mind that corpora constitute a tool which can be implemented at various stages of teaching to achieve different objectives. As a result, they should not feel obliged to utilize them on an ongoing basis, but rather to introduce learners to various aspects and parameters associated with authentic language (produced by native or non-native speakers) and which are pertinent to specific needs and topics. What teachers may consider producing for their classroom, depending on the size and level, would be a handout with specific questions or tasks which could facilitate and guide students in their own critical reading journey, as the ultimate goal is to gradually increase learner autonomy. According to Borsheim-Black et al. (2014), the process of teaching of canonical literature from a critical literacy angle might make learners go through a rather unsettling experience. This is mainly due to questioning norms of well-established ideas. A similar kind of uncomfortable attitude or resistance could be also anticipated through a corpus-based instruction process. For a number of scholars (e.g., Petrone & Bullard, 2012) that might constitute evidence or the outcome of students’ learning and involvement with more critical stances and perspectives. A great challenge when considering critical literacy to enhance language teaching is also that EFL teaching relies heavily on the use of pre-determined curricula or textbooks, which claim to cultivate critical thinking skills. Yet, educators who aim to teach critical literacy more explicitly should not strictly abide by teaching guides, or pre-determined, ready-made activities found in EFL textbooks. In an effort to enhance critical literacy skills in their classes, teachers should ensure access to additional resources (i.e., corpus tools in the present case), but also gain the institution’s or their line-manager’s approval to design their own activities beyond the established curriculum.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Teaching Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction Scholars and theorists who have introduced the term critical literacy have been preoccupied with societal structures of power in combination with the key role education could play in reducing inequalities. Following the paradigm of critical literacy supporters (e.g., Beach, 2006), teachers should use existing or develop new curricula to invite learners to critique prevailing texts and practices by teaching traditional literacies and in parallel examining “how such texts perpetuate and/or critique ideas of race, gender, and other social categories” (Borsheim-Black, Macaluso, & Petrone, 2014, p. 124). EFL teachers can make use of corpora in multiple ways in order to detect and unveil gender-marked linguistic items and language patterns, which can then function as a point of departure for designing corpus-based activities that can help students develop their critical literacy skills and become more alerted towards instances of language sexism. Although the ideas provided in the present section are only suggestions, the core idea behind these classroom materials is to ultimately aid learners discover discriminatory structures in general, which tend to be hidden in the target texts and, unfortunately, to (re)produce gender-based representations or social stereotypes. Language educators, for example, can developed corpus-based tasks that will require from students to search among concordance lines for the collocates (i.e., the lexical items that most often occur with a word or phrase) of the lemmas MAN and WOMAN. Students could be encouraged to pay particular attention to the verbs that the terms man and woman are encountered with, as well as whether they form the subject or the object of sentences; verbs, for instance, can be of various types (e.g., action or 244

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

state verbs) and denote various concepts such as action, coercion, obedience, tenderness, violence, etc. (Pearce, 2008). Moreover, taking the discussion a step further, teachers may highlight to their students that the examination of a word’s frequencies can also yield very enlightening and significant findings, especially in relation to stereotypes conveyed through language use. The frequency of the use of female and male pronouns, for example, can easily be examined though corpus data, and even corpora including language samples derived from different time periods can be utilized (e.g., Baker, 2010). Such an examination can lead to concluding arguments towards male bias in language use over the years, as well as on more detailed conclusions referring to the quantitative representation of men and women across different time periods, or societies (e.g., British versus American). Another interesting initiative, which could be also addressed to teacher-trainees at the university or novice-teachers, would be to invite them to examine gendered patterns though corpora that have been compiled with data coming from ELT textbooks. With a few fundamental sessions, university students can learn how to build and use Do-It-Yourself corpora. Following a brief introduction to corpora, university EFL teachers-to-be can explore whether and how textbook authors tend to represent the two genders in the material they build by, i) building their own small corpora with reading texts, grammar usage, vocabulary exercises and so on; ii) conducting frequency counts of specific gender-marked words and their inflected forms (e.g., girl, boy, wife, husband, or wife’s / husband’s, etc.), or iii) examining the order of how women and men are mentioned in a single phrase (e.g. daughter and son versus son and daughter, husband and wife versus wife and husband) etc. (Lee, 2018). Following the study conducted by Sigley and Holmes (2002), which entailed a detailed examination of gender-marked issues that emerge from the distribution of girl and boy, such issues can be transferred to the classroom environment as well. In other words, students can detect through corpus data whether the lexical items girl and boy tend to refer indeed to minors or to non-adults (as denoted by the core meaning of the words), and then attempt to justify what social representations or stereotypes are retrieved through the results. In the above study, for example, it was concluded that the word girl is three times more frequent than boy in referring to adult individuals and, consequently, the use of woman is less frequent than the use of man. Then teachers can have a more in-depth discussion about what language use—evidenced through corpus findings—implies about the role of genders in society as this perceived through language patterns. Another innovative technique to develop learners’ critical literacy through corpus-based instruction involves the use of corpora that rely on spoken discourse. EFL teachers can employ corpora to reveal fascinating similarities and differences in everyday speech produced by males and females, allowing students to reflect and comment on the relations between gender and their everyday parlance. According to Lakoff (1975), such patterns are actually seen as indications of power, social codes and the hierarchical organization within society, and they have been also explored with the use of corpus tools as well (e.g., see Barczewska & Andreasen, 2018; Binnenpoorte, Bael, Os, Boves, 2005). Relevant corpus-based activities could, for example, encourage students to examine various adjectives as these are employed by men and women, in order to generate class discussions as to whether men employ basic/plain adjectives (i.e., good, bad etc.), while women tend to frequently employ the so-called empty adjectives—those adjectives that express the speaker’s emotional reaction and carry therefore more elaborate meanings (e.g., exceptional, marvelous, poor etc.). Other speech patterns that can be examined through corpus data are hedges, euphemisms and, more generally, patterns that convey politeness in sociolinguistics terms. Such a teaching approach oriented towards the use of text/concordance analysis to sensitize students and help them explore via hands-on practice gender-specific elements, but also assist educators in their role to foster into their classroom a constructive and productive dialogue about sexist language or gender talk 245

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

in general, that can be attested in people’s education and later on in their social and work environment as well as interaction (Holmes, 2006). In other words, English teachers can exploit the multiple options offered by available corpus tools (e.g. frequencies, collocations, KWIC, genre filters, etc.) in order to practically apply corpus-based instruction for cultivating critical literacy and developing a gender equality competence in their classrooms. Also, if the rationale of a number of corpus-linguistics studies becomes adapted to the needs and characteristics of any classroom environment, several corpus-based activities can be developed. For example, the teaching tip below illustrates, through a step-by-step description, how an English language session may address issues like language sexism and gender inequalities to affect social change. Teaching Tip Clio is an English language teacher at a junior high-school in Greece, where English is taught as a foreign language. The school is equipped with an IT Lab, which she may reserve in advance and use in order to help her EFL students gain more hands-on-practice and knowledge through activities introducing or analyzing various language elements based on authentic teaching material. In this session Clio aims to: 1. help students revise and enrich their knowledge of occupations/jobs; 2. discuss the role various professionals play, combined also with the use of conventional titles and forms of address; and, most significantly, 3. cultivate students’ critical literacy by raising their awareness about the existence of gendered language and the stereotypical representation of gender roles; this way, Clio can sensitize them towards the gradual use of gender-neutral language, and gender equality in general. Towards that direction, Clio has decided to employ two corpora, namely the British National Corpus (BNC), and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), which she selected for many reasons. First, their web pages are easily accessible and available online without requiring a fee or a subscription (at https://corpus.byu.edu), in contrast to other corpora whose rights of use need to be purchased. Second, their concordances also display a representative sample of the language under examination (BNC: 100 million words, COCA: 560 million words) and they reflect language use in recent times with their sources and corresponding examples from 1980s up to 2017 (BNC: 1980s-1993, COCA: 1990-2017). Finally, both corpora share similar functions, such as the considerable usability in the process of concordancing. Users can modify their linguistic searches and make specific queries according to genre types (Figure 1), or even production time, like in the case of COCA (Figure 2).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Example of modifying the queries in BNC based on genre types

246

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Figure 2. Example of modifying queries in COCA according to genre types and the phrase production time

Teaching Tip Working with both these corpora allows students to identify similarities and differences between British and American English. Having read the work of various scholars and researchers (e.g., Baker, 2013; Doyle, 1998; Hartman and Judd, 1978; Ott, 2016; Spender, 1998), Clio is sensitive to the existence and nature of gendered language which manifests itself in language teaching materials, in various forms and dimensions, such as in terms of gender balance in photos, “female and male subjects/objects in examples and texts, in other words, how many women or men are the subjects or objects of sentences” (Sabater, 2015, p. 199), the professions that both sexes exercise, as well as in the use of pronouns that accompany them, and the titles and forms of address used.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Having already conducted an IT session where Clio has familiarized her students with how to access the BNC and COCA interface and look for specific key-words-in-context (KWIC) whose length can be determined by the corpus user, in this lesson: Clio first asked her students to work in small groups and list as many professions they could think of, also dividing the lexical items they come up with into two categories in case there are different morphologies for the genders (e.g., actor – actress). Next, she instructed her students to work individually on the PCs and use the KWIC function under her guidance to search for the jobs that they had brainstormed. Then, she asked them to concordance the results, identifying also the gender of the person exercising each profession, and/or the accompanying pronoun (e.g., Each doctor suggests the best way he can treat a patient; A careful secretary consults her dictionary often). As a next step, the students were instructed to use the genre corpus classification of both BNC and COCA to classify the sentences according to the source from which they came (e.g., advertisements, newspapers, fiction/drama, etc.) and to take notes on frequencies. They were exposed to authentic language input and therefore able to note differences or similarities in how often the above patterns appeared in different types of discourse. The next in-class activity Clio worked on with her students was to identify occupations that end in the suffix –man, like mailman and policeman, and compare/contrast numbers with the degendered forms such as mailperson or police using the classification under different time periods as well as in American and British English. Then Clio invited students to think of ways that such a bias in language can be avoided, for example through an infinitive form or an indefinite article instead of a possessive article (e.g., Each doctor suggests the best way to treat a patient; A careful secretary consults a dictionary often). Along similar lines, Clio asked her students to compare frequencies retrieved online through the two corpora by reversing the word order in fixed binary expressions, as in Men and women or Ladies and gentlemen, and discuss their results with the whole class. Towards the end of the session, Clio triggered structured discussions on the above findings and invited students to reflect and explain whether, or how, these data reveal any lack of equality or other issues. Lastly, she introduced specific ways illustrated through examples which can help a speaker in dealing with sexist language, such as the introduction of a female-specific referent (e.g., He/She, s(he), etc.), gender-indefinite terms such as human beings/individuals/ people instead of men, the technique of pluralizing the subject of sentences, and many more.

247

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Teaching Tip So, what exactly did Clio accomplish by employing corpus-based material and findings in her class through these or similar tasks? First, learners become interested and significantly engaged when having hands-on-practice sessions combined with intriguing or practical questions. Second, students are asked to pinpoint examples that are teacher-led, appropriate both in terms of language and content, and which correspond to the learners’ language proficiency. Apart from implementing two different corpora which showcase the two main varieties of English (American versus British), students also become familiar with online learning environments that they can exploit both inside and outside the class. By applying corpus-based methodology and tasks in the English language class, as El-Esery (2016) claims, the usability and friendly nature of concordancing fosters “an online Data-driven Learning environment” (p. 59) that also cultivates development of digital literacies. This way, students undertake more responsibility for their own learning, and they are more steadily led towards learner autonomy. At a later or more advanced stage, students can also formulate the queries they wish to explore concerning different aspects of the language they are learning. Yet, the greatest value in activities and sessions that Clio applied is that they set the scene and invite EFL learners to show (at least some degree of) critical consciousness in their in-class discussions, which can be further extended through a reflective or argumentative essay or other tasks. In other words, genuine language data become the avenue for the teacher to involve students in a more critical approach towards various discourses, different time periods, and dialects, and facilitates their structuring and articulating their viewpoint in the follow-up discussions. At the same time, questions that can be answered or somehow quantified through corpus data empower English language instructors to develop their students’ critical literacy levels via an innovative and creative learning experience. By casting light on tangible evidence concerning language features (e.g., the gender asymmetry and sexist language in this case), educators can address sensitive issues (such as social inequities) in a cross-linguistic approach, preparing a fertile ground for the discussion of sexist language, racism, forced labor, violence and displacement, or various other challenging points which are deeply rooted in language(s) and contemporary life.

Should the school facilities not include the use of an Information Technology lab where students can have some hands-on practice with queries on corpora, concordance examples can also be presented in printed form. Printed concordances lines on handouts may be regarded as more appropriate with lower proficiency levels to limit some challenges related with working on a computer, “especially the risk of being overwhelmed by the mass of data” (Johns, 1986, p. 156). That way also, irrelevant examples can be left aside, and target examples can be grouped appropriately by the teacher while preparing the printed handouts. Using printed material, processing the concordance lines does not become a timeconsuming process and may also assist teachers in dealing with time limitations related to in-class practice and activities, monitoring at the same time the quantity of the data students are provided with. And, although this process may seem to limit learner autonomy, learners are still engaged in DDL. Using printed concordances, for instance, learners can seemingly notice specific patterns and formulate hypotheses, they are still provided with more authentic input than in the traditional teaching methods, and this “compromise” with the printed corpus data may be helpful for learners not acquainted with inductive teaching methods (Boulton, 2010, p. 7). When the teacher applies this alternative, learners are first familiarized with corpus evidence and DDL strategies, and then they can more easily develop their confidence for using online corpora independently.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION The present chapter advocated corpus-based instruction as a more objective medium towards using extensive samples of discourse to initiate and maintain a dialogue between learners and teachers. Drawing on a balanced and representative sample of authentic language, using corpora allows teachers to “provoke” students to reflect not only on what is written in the text, but also on what is not written, as language reflects social changes, but also social challenges. Within this context, the sexist (or androcentric) language was employed as one example of the many inequalities and discrimination forms that are expressed, or involuntarily perpetuated, via the use of

248

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

language. It is exactly this type of social discourse that critical literacy as a strategy may assist teachers to reduce, and hopefully, eliminate. Since it is embedded in the linguistic system itself, corpus-based instruction and analysis can help students identify this and similar issues and position themselves towards politically correct language. Undoubtedly, critical literacy cannot be developed at all levels of EFL proficiency. However, research findings suggest that learners found at different competence levels may exhibit critical literacy either in dialogic interactions or through reflective essays and other pieces of work, yet to a different extent (Ko & Wang, 2013). As Ko (2013) highlights, when a teacher employs carefully selected teaching and reading materials, learners’ proficiency can impact their awareness of, and stance towards, critical literacy-based instruction, but not the development of their critical literacy skills itself. Of course, one might claim that older learners compared to the younger ones may already possess strong critical literacy skills in their native language which, in turn, are highly likely to transfer to an additional language. This assumption could constitute a research question to be addressed in future studies. Equally significant as a new research direction may be the hypothesis that, if certain learners have the necessary background in their first language (L1) to further develop their critical literacy skills, while others might be found at a more preliminary stage, this may necessitate using corpora in different ways with young EFL students versus those learners with a strong L1 language and culture already in place. Many studies conducted in the past decades explored learning and teaching strategies based on more traditional approaches to textual analysis (see Bhatia, 1991; Bloor & Bloor, 1992; Fürsich, 2009; Ho, 2009; Khodadady, 2008; Lebart, Salem, & Berry, 1997; Leki, 1991; Watson & Zyngier, 2006; Weber‐Fève, 2009). Yet, without empowering students in the ways described in the present chapter, a great number of serious issues—such as social discrimination, violence, environmental crisis, etc.—may go largely unnoticed. As a result, future research should emphasize how teaching and learning, whether in one’s native or additional language, can fight ideologies implicitly conveyed, by focusing more specifically on teaching material, publicly available texts, as well as the dominant writing practices. Therefore, apart from enriching students’ knowledge in specific areas, or identifying and addressing knowledge gaps, one of the fundamental cornerstones of teaching should be to address cautiously and in a subtle manner “issues of power, normativity, and representation, as well as facilitating opportunities for equity-oriented sociopolitical action” (Borsheim-Black, Macaluso, & Petrone, 2014, p. 123).

Discussion Questions

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. Reflect on and discuss instances and examples of social inequalities that could be addressed through corpus-based instruction in your own teaching setting. 2. Can you think of other hindrances or difficulties—in addition to the ones mentioned in the chapter—that EFL teachers may be faced with while trying to develop their students’ critical literacy skills? 3. Adopt a more active role as a teacher by designing corpus-based in-class tasks for your students aiming to help them cultivate their critical literacy. Provide 2-3 different scenarios depending on students’ language level, their interests, their cultural and socio-economic background(s), as well as the appropriacy of subjects discussed considering the specific cultural context and the challenges this might pose.

249

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

REFERENCES Abid, R. Z., & Manan, S. A. (2015). Integrating corpus linguistics in critical literacy pedagogy: A case study of Lance Armstrong’s transformation from a titleholder to a fraud. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208(20), 128–137. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.189 Allan, G. Q. (1999). Enhancing the language awareness of Hong Kong teachers through corpus data. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 57–74. Anderson, A. B., Teale, W. H., & Estrada, E. (1980). Low-income children’s preschool literacy experiences: Some naturalistic observations. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2, 59–65. Aston, G. (1996). The British National Corpus as a language learner resource. In S. Botley, J. Glass, A. McEnery, & A. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of TALC 1996 (pp. 178–191). Lancaster, UK: UCREL. Baker, P. (2010). Will Ms ever be as frequent as Mr? A corpus-based comparison of gendered terms across four diachronic corpora of British English. Gender and Language, 4(1), 125–149. doi:10.1558/ genl.v4i1.125 Baker, P. (2011). Discourse, news representations, and corpus linguistics. Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, UK. Baker, P. (2013). Introduction. Virtual special issue of Gender and Language on corpus approaches. Gender and Language, 1(1). doi:10.1558/8psxqda5wh3d Barczewska, S., & Andreasen, A. (2018). Good or marvelous? Pretty, cute, or lovely? Male and female adjective use in MICASE. [Contemporary Linguistics]. Suvremena Lingvistika, 44(86), 194–213. Beach, R. (2006). Teachingmedialiteracy.com: A web-linked guide to resources and activities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Behrman, H. (2006). Teaching about power, language, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(6), 490–498. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.6.4 Bhatia, V. K. (1991). A genre‐based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10(2), 153–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00148.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bhola, H. S. (1994). A sourcebook for literacy work: Perspective from the grassroots. Paris, France: UNESCO. Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. doi:10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib Binnenpoorte, D., van Bael, C., den Os, E., & Boves, L. (2005). Gender in everyday speech and language: A corpus-based study. Retrieved from https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/ interspeech_2005/i05_2213.pdf Birner, A., & Bromley, L. (2015). Critical literacy: Using picturebooks to read the world. Journalism, 5(3), 132–142.

250

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6(1), 33–43. Bobkina, J., & Stefanova, S. (2016). Literature and critical literacy pedagogy in the EFL classroom: Towards a model of teaching critical thinking skills. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 677–696. doi:10.14746sllt.2016.6.4.6 Borsheim-Black, C., Macaluso, M., & Petrone, R. (2014). Critical literature pedagogy: Teaching canonical literature for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 123–133. doi:10.1002/ jaal.323 Boulton, A. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. The Journal of EUROCALL, 21(1), 37–54. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000068 Boulton, A. (2010). Data-Driven learning: on paper, in practice. In T. Harris, & M. M. Jaén (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in language teaching (pp. 17–52). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Boulton, A., & Landure, C. (2016). Using corpora in language teaching, learning and use. Researching and Teaching Languages for Specific Purposes, 35(2). Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/ apliut/5433#quotation Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Braun, S. (2007). Integrating corpus work into secondary education: From data-driven learning to needsdriven corpora. ReCALL, 19(3), 307–328. doi:10.1017/S0958344007000535 Breyer, Y. (2009). Learning and teaching with corpora: Reflections by student teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 153–172. doi:10.1080/09588220902778328 Bunch, C. (1998). Not by degrees: Feminist theory and education. In G. Kirk, & M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Women’s lives: Multicultural perspectives (pp. 14–18). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Burke, J. (2010). What’s the big idea? Question-driven units to motivate reading, writing, and thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cermak, M. (2012). Hip-hop, social justice, and environmental education: Toward a critical ecological literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), 192–203. doi:10.1080/00958964.2011.633579

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Coffey, H., Davila, L., & Kolano, L. (2013). Understanding dialect and developing critical literacy with English language learners. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 115–132. doi:10.1515/mlt-20120006 Comber, B. (2001). Classroom explorations in critical literacy. In H. Fehring, & P. Green (Eds.), Critical literacy: A collection of articles from the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (pp. 90–102). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410600288 Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 548–560. doi:10.2307/3587743

251

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Crookes, G. (2010). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(3), 333–348. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990292 Crookes, G., & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical pedagogy teacher education course. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 319–328. doi:10.2307/3587586 Curtis, A., & Romney, M. (Eds.). (2006). Color, race, and English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press. Doyle, M. (1998). Introduction to the A-Z of non-sexist language. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language (pp. 149–154). London, UK: Routledge. El-Esery, A. M. (2016). Corpus concordance for enhancing EFL learners’ vocabulary retention. Journal of Education and Training, 3(1), 56–64. doi:10.5296/jet.v3i1.8202 Farr, F. (2008). Evaluating the use of corpus-based instruction in a language teacher education context: Perspectives from the users. Language Awareness, 17(1), 25–43. doi:10.2167/la414.0 Fürsich, E. (2009). In defense of textual analysis: Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 238–252. doi:10.1080/14616700802374050 Gaines, E. (1993). A lesson before dying. New York, NY: Vintage. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003 Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Geluso, J., & Yamaguchi, A. (2014). Discovering formulaic language through data-driven learning: Student attitudes and efficacy. ReCALL, 26(2), 225–242. doi:10.1017/S0958344014000044 Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075ibil.48.18goo

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Granath, S. (1998). Using corpora in teaching English syntax to EFL students at the university level. In L. Burnard (Ed.), Proceedings of teaching and language corpora: TaLC98 (pp. 87–92). Oxford, UK: Keble College. Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aljmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast. Text- based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press. Hadjioannou, X., & Fu, D. (2007). Critical literacy as a tool for preparing prospective educators for teaching in a multicultural world. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(2), 43–48. Hadley, G. (2002). An introduction to data-driven learning. RELC Journal, 33(2), 99–124. doi:10.1177/003368820203300205

252

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Hartman, P. L., & Judd, E. L. (1978). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 308–393. doi:10.2307/3586137 Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bed-time story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49–78. doi:10.1017/S0047404500009039 Hilpert, M., & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401. doi:10.1093/llc/fqn012 Ho, D. G. E. (2009). Systemic text analysis in the ESL writing classroom: Does it work? RELC Journal, 40(3), 333–359. doi:10.1177/0033688209343869 Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. New York, NY: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470754863 Jafarpour, A. A., & Koosha, M. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 192–209. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Janks, H. (2012). The importance of critical literacy. English Teaching, 11(1), 150–163. Johns, T. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learners’ research tool. System, 14(2), 151–162. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(86)90004-7 Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. In T. Johns, & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing (pp. 1–16). Birmingham, UK: ELR. Kalogirou, T., & Malafantis, K. (2012). Do I dare/disturb the universe? Critical pedagogy and the ethics of resistance to and engagement with literature. The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 265–284. Kaltenböck, G., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65–84. doi:10.1017/ S0958344005000613 Khodadady, E. (2008). Schema-based textual analysis of domain-controlled authentic texts. Iranian. Journal of Language Studies-IJLS, 2(4), 431–448.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ko, M. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of EFL learners’ post-reading reflections in a critical literacybased class. English Linguistics Research, 2(2), 1–14. doi:10.5430/elr.v2n2p1 Ko, M., & Wang, T. F. (2009). Introducing critical literacy to EFL teaching: Three Taiwanese college teachers’ conceptualization. Asian EFL Journal, 11(1), 174–191. Ko, M., & Wang, T. F. (2013). EFL learners’ critical literacy practices: A case study of four college students in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 221–229. doi:10.100740299-012-0013-5 Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.

253

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Krieger, D. (2003). Corpus linguistics: What it is and how it can be applied to teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(3). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Krieger-Corpus.html Kumashiro, K. K., & Ngo, B. (2007). Six lenses for anti-oppressive education: Partial stories, improbable conversations. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1298-0 Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language in woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lebart, L., Salem, A., & Berry, L. (1997). Exploring textual data: Vol. 4. Kluwer. The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media. Lee, J. F. (2018). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks: A corpus study. Gender and Education, 30(3), 379–395. doi:10.1080/09540253.2016.1214690 Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123–143. doi:10.2307/3587031 Lin, M., & Lee, J. (2015). Data-driven learning: Changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, 69(3), 264–274. doi:10.1093/elt/ccv010 Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge. Lohrey, A. (1998). Critical literacy: A professional development resource. Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia. Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448–461. Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139524834.002 Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. doi:10.1080/ 00405841.2012.636324 Macedo, D., & Freire, P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mahlberg, M. (2007). Clusters, key clusters and local textual functions in Dickens. Corpora, 2(1), 1–31. doi:10.3366/cor.2007.2.1.1 Marbley, A., Bonner, F., McKisick, S., Henfield, M., & Watts, L. (2007). Interfacing culture specific pedagogy with counseling: A proposed diversity training model for preparing preservice teachers for diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 14(3), 8–16. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory, and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge.

254

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Moon, S., & Oh, S. (2018). Unlearning overgenerated be through data-driven learning in the secondary EFL classroom. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 30(1), 48–67. doi:10.1017/S0958344017000246 Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers: Literacy and empowerment for urban youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Morrell, E. (2009). Critical research and the future of literacy education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(2), 96–104. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.2.1 Mukherjee, J. (2004). Bridging the gap between applied corpus linguistics and the reality of English language teaching in Germany. In U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 239–250). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi. doi:10.1163/9789004333772_014 Mukherjee, J. (2006). Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of art and beyond. In S. Braun, K. Kohn, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Corpus technology and language pedagogy (pp. 5–24). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. National Education Union and UK Feminista. (2017). “It’s just everywhere”: A study on sexism in schools - and how we tackle it. Retrieved from https://ukfeminista.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ Report-Its-just-everywhere.pdf Nikolajeva, M. (2003). Verbal and visual literacy: The role of picturebooks in the reading of young children. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 235–248). London, UK: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781848608207.n20 Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524834 O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M., & Hoey, M. (2012). Exploring textinitial words, clusters and concgrams in a newspaper corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 73–101. doi:10.1515/ cllt-2012-0004 Ohara, Y., Saft, S., & Crookes, G. (2001). Toward a feminist critical pedagogy in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language class. Japanese Language and Literature: Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 35(2), 105–133. doi:10.2307/489693

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ott, M. (2016). Tweet like a girl: A corpus analysis of gendered language in social media. (Unpublished manuscript). Yale University, CT. Patsala, P. (2015). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of lexicography: The case of concessive connectives in Modern Greek (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Pearce, M. (2008). Investigating the collocational behaviour of MAN and WOMAN in the British National Corpus using Sketch Engine. Corpora, 3(1), 1–29. doi:10.3366/E174950320800004X Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329–348. doi:10.2307/3587668

255

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Petrone, R., & Bullard, L. (2012). Reluctantly recognizing resistance: An analysis of representations of critical literacy in English Journal. English Journal, 102(2), 122–128. Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. doi:10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray Reppen, R. (2010). Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In A. O’ Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 31–37). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203856949.ch3 Riasati, M., & Mollaei, F. (2012). Critical pedagogy and language learning. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(2), 223–229. Richardson Bruna, K. (2007). Finding new words: How I use critical literacy in my multicultural teacher education classroom. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(1), 115–118. doi:10.1080/02607470601098377 Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. New York, NY: Longman. Sabater, C. (2015). Research on sexist language in EFL literature: Towards a non-sexist approach. Porta Linguarum, 23(1), 187–203. Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Pedagogy and local learner corpora: Working with learning driven data. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 213–234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ lllt.6.14sei Shneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (2002). What is learned under difficult circumstances is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 419–440. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2813 Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? The Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism and Practice, 1(4), 1–27. Sigley, R., & Holmes, J. (2002). Looking at girls in corpora of English. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(2), 138–157. doi:10.1177/007242030002004 Simpson, A. (1996). Critical questions: Whose questions? The Reading Teacher, 50(2), 118–127. Sinclair, J. M. (1996). The empty lexicon. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 99–119. doi:10.1075/ijcl.1.1.07sin

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sinclair, J. M. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075cl.12 Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. doi:10.1177/0022487101052002002 Smith, N., Hoffmann, S., & Rayson, P. (2008). Corpus tools and methods, today and tomorrow: Incorporating linguists’ manual annotations. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(2), 163–180. doi:10.1093/ llc/fqn004

256

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x Spender, D. (1998). Extracts from Man Made Language. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language (pp. 93–99). London, UK: Routledge. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London, UK: Longman. Street, B. V., & Lefstein, A. (2007). Literacy: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203463994 Suarcaya, P., & Prasasti, W. D. (2017). Investigating students’ critical reading: Critical literacy in EFL setting. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(2), 220–232. Sun, Y. C. (2000). Using on-line corpus to facilitate language learning. Retrieved from //www.learntechlib.org/p/88735/ Sun, Y. C. (2007). Learner perceptions of a concordancing tool for academic writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 323–343. doi:10.1080/09588220701745791 Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267–280. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00013-6 Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1), 91–102. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00047-6 Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:10.1075cl.6 Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: Design, development, and applications. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Corpus Linguistics Conference (pp. 808–809). Lancaster, UK: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. Tribble, C. (2000). Practical uses for language corpora in ELT. In P. Brett, & G. Motteram (Eds.), A special interest in computers: Learning and teaching with information and communications technologies (pp. 31–41). Kent, UK: IATEFL.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

UNESCO. (2006). Understandings of Literacy. In Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006, 147–159. Retrieved from reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/141639e.pdf Van, T. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 47(3), 2–9. Vannestål, M. E., & Lindquist, H. (2007). Learning English grammar with a corpus: Experimenting with concordancing in a university grammar course. ReCALL, 19(3), 329–350. doi:10.1017/S0958344007000638 Vasquez, V. (2010). Getting beyond I like the book: Creating space for critical literacy in K-6 classrooms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

257

 Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Watson, G., & Zyngier, S. (Eds.). (2006). Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Weber‐Fève, S. (2009). Integrating language and literature: Teaching textual analysis with input and output activities and an input‐to‐output approach. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 453–467. doi:10.1111/j.19449720.2009.01035.x Whistle, J. (1999). Concordancing with students using an ‘off-the-Web’ corpus. ReCALL, 11(2), 74–80. doi:10.1017/S0958344000004985 White, J. W. (2009). Reading “the word and the world”: The double-edged sword of teaching critical literacy. Voices from the Middle, 17(2), 55–57. Wolfram, W. (2003). Language variation in the American south: An introduction. American Speech, 78(2), 123–129. doi:10.1215/00031283-78-2-123 Yılmaz, E., & Soruç, A. (2014). The use of concordance for teaching Vocabulary: A data-driven learning approach. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45(2), 2626–2630. Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257–283. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Concordance (or Concordance Line): A listing of each occurrence of a word (or phrase) in a corpus together with the text it occurs with, shedding light on a word’s collocations and other language patterns. The term is also employed to signify the ‘Key-Word-In-Context’ (KWIC) results retrieved through corpus linguistics software tools. Corpus: Derived from Latin where it originally meant ‘body’, a corpus is a large body of texts which can be stored and processed in an electronic form. Given its size, it constitutes a representative sample of language, while its machine-readable format allows annotation, as well as various types of analysis based on the criteria set and the tools used (e.g., part-of-speech, frequencies, key-word-in-context, etc.). Specialized software allows processing of the data that a corpus contains. (Plural form: corpora) Critical Literacy: The origin of critical literacy is traced back to Marxist critical pedagogy which strongly supported approaching and analyzing texts through a critical viewpoint to identify hidden or implicit concepts, beliefs, and practices. In its contemporary form, critical literacy is perceived as a teaching strategy, or the ability to identify in texts or media (un)conscious bias and social inequalities with an ultimate goal to peacefully fight against them. Data-Driven Learning (DDL): A teaching approach based on which students are presented with samples of naturally-occurring language, and they are encouraged to discover any systematic patterns on their own, without being presented with grammatical rules, the meaning of lexical items, etc. EFL Classroom: The educational setting where English is taught to learners whose native language is not English and they are in a country where English is not an official language. For example, a class where Greek students learn English in Greece.

258

Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gender Asymmetry: The concept signifies the unequal treatment of genders as reflected in the morphology or the semantics of a language. A typical example is the morphological marking of the feminine form of a word while the corresponding masculine form is always unmarked—implying a kind of superiority of the masculine gender, as in the case of female-specific occupation lexical items (e.g., steward vs. stewardess). Language Sexism: A form of sexism encountered in the use of language when it devalues people of a specific gender, usually the female members of a society while assigning a higher status to males. This type of sociolinguistic bias against a specific gender can take many forms, such as how that sex is named and represented, perpetuating stereotypes and social beliefs about sexes. Social Justice: The concept signifies the fair distribution of (material and non-material) goods to individuals and peoples, as well as ensuring that all people are offered equal rights and opportunities.

259

Sharpening Students’ Critical Literacy Skills Through Corpus-Based Instruction

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Behrman, E. H. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(6), 490–498. This paper constitutes a review of thirty-five articles (published between 1999 and 2003) which offer classroom insights and applications of critical literacy instruction at the upper primary and secondary levels. The material is organized under six axes according to the activities or tasks students are called to engage with: reading supplementary texts, reading multiple texts, reading from a resistant perspective, producing counter-texts, conducting student-choice research projects, and, taking social action. 2. Liontou, T. (2020). The effect of data-driven learning activities on young EFL learners’ processing of English idioms. In P. Crosthwaite (Ed.), Data-driven learning for the next generation: Corpora and DDL for pre-tertiary learners. New York, NY: Routledge. Although this empirical study focuses on teaching idiomatic expressions to EFL learners, it offers a carefully documented and critically analyzed report on how Data-driven Learning can be applied to young learners within a 16-week program of study. Moreover, the chapter showcases corpus-based inclass activities and provides practical guidance on DDL instruction. 3. McEnery, T., Xiao, R. & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge. This reading is considered foundational to the area of corpus linguistics, and it is mainly addressed to readers with a rather low entry-level of knowledge, bridging in a very illustrative manner the theory and applications of corpus linguistics. Divided in three well-balanced sections, the book provides the reader with an enlightening introduction to a wide-range corpus methodologies, equipping its audience with a solid background in corpus-based language studies and approaches.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Morgan, W. (2002).  Critical literacy in the classroom: The art of the possible. London, UK: Routledge. This book is a seminal work in the realm of critical literacy and could be a useful resource for prospective and active teachers, as well as researchers, interested in how secondary school teachers have applied a critical literacy approach to their regular classes, with lesson plans and topics that range from Shakespeare to the workplace environment. Readers can also encounter teachers’ reflective reports on their own teaching practices.

260

261

Chapter 13

Linking Criticality and Creativity:

Engagement With Literary Theory in Middle Grades English Education Jessica Allen Hanssen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6707-3349 Nord University, Norway Maja Henriette Jensvoll https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8821-0007 Nord University, Norway

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter provides specifc examples of how current English teaching practices can further engage what can be seen as an interpretative and creative link between comprehension, opinion formation, and language production. Based on awareness of English Language Teaching (ELT) trends in Nordic textbooks and national curricula, with particular respect to curricular developments and trends in Norway and in other Nordic countries, the authors propose specifc changes to the subject contents of English education to better prepare future teachers for the exciting prospects of integrating multiliteracy in their lessons through a new emphasis on criticality. To this efect, this chapter provides a new practical model that can help streamline the sprawling interdisciplinarity of critical theory into a manageable and readily applicable context for working with literature during English lessons.

INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the connection of critical reading and creativity and provides guidance for how current English Language Teaching (ELT) practices can, through the explicit inclusion of elements of literary critical theory, additionally build what can be seen as an interpretative and creative link between DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch013

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

comprehension, opinion-formation, and language production. The chapter focuses on these developments from two perspectives: that of Norwegian and Nordic curriculum objectives and textbooks from grades 5-10, and how teachers and teacher educators at these grade levels, both in the Nordic region and internationally, can implement specific changes to ELT, including a heightened awareness of basic critical theory and its role in English education, in order to better take advantage of the exciting prospects of integrating multiliteracy in their lessons through a new emphasis on criticality. Based on experience and examples from the Norwegian educational context, but with clear relevance to other teaching situations, this chapter also provides a new model for adding critical theory into the middle-grades English classroom. Contextually, we understand criticality as the ability to meet texts, concepts, and understandings with a number of different questions with the aim of developing an understanding of what is being expressed. In times where the exposure to any number of types of texts that all claim to express truth is high, criticality becomes an important tool to navigate and to establish understanding of the world around us, to develop necessary skepticism, and to question the truths presented. In this context, creativity can be understood as the ability to create something new, which can be an object, an intellectual construction, or a feeling that only exists in a person’s mind. This can either be done through recreation and reproduction where people use their memory or previous experiences, or through combination or creation using cognitive skills to rework experiences and create new combinations. One, perhaps underutilized, bridge between the two, as will be explored throughout the chapter, is critical theory, which can be understood as the system of literary and social concepts and intellectual assumptions that are engaged in the interpretation of literary texts (Lynn, 2011). Using curriculum development as a departure point, this chapter discusses how English as a school subject has become a significant testing ground for ideas about multiliteracy, which can be understood as supporting culturally diverse, responsive, and multilingual learning practices and strategies, and which “involves an awareness of the social, economic and wider cultural factors that frame communication” (Müller, Sancho, & Hernández, 2009, p. 88). The realities of English as a lingua franca, which include the economic, technological, social, and cultural motivations for becoming a fluent English user, require a certain flexibility and willingness in learners to attempt new approaches to learning about literature, even when these approaches seem initially challenging (Hall, 2015). Recent developments in the Norwegian National Curriculum provide a clear illustration of a mandate to improve critical engagement with the contents of English as a school subject as well as its methodological practices, this itself being a response to various Nordic outlooks and subject curricula. The 2020 updates to the Norwegian curriculum for English published in November 2019 (LK20) (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019a), and scheduled to be implemented in August 2020, foreground the need for learners to encounter English language texts. Learners are hereupon asked to “reflect on, interpret, and critically evaluate literature in English, including young adult fiction,” and there are numerous other references to critical reading in the curriculum renewal (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019b, p. 8). Culturally speaking, literature has an essential, significance-carrying status – and the formats and approaches we choose for its instruction have deep consequences for what we talk about when we talk about culture. Fenner (2000) describes culture as “the glasses through which we perceive the world and the language we use to express the cultures of which we are a part” (p. 144). Through shaping and sharing powerful narratives that feed the soul and help people understand their importance, literature helps its readers experience and share cultural values such as compassion, dignity, and respect. The English

262

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

classroom regularly employs literature as a language learning medium, but in doing so it also carries culture and opportunities for values development. When learners are able to appreciate the power of narratives, and how, through interpretation, they serve as culture-bearing vessels, they become more inclined to use narratives themselves as a means of communicating meaning because they become members of a new community of practice (Wenger, 2008). The second language, in this case English, becomes a new and important tool for learners to use in their own narrative as a means for communicating experiences, activities, and goals (Lee, 2013, p. 176). When teachers employ strategies for speaking and writing English toward this eventual aim, such as reading and interpreting other texts as an community-building exercise, but without clearly defined and meaningful cultural or critical context to guide the learners, they may run the risk of training students to find information quickly but without any criticality, which could in turn effect their own capabilities to produce narratives. In the specific case of the updated Norwegian national curriculum for middle grades English, which re-centers both the encounter with English language texts and the need for criticality as vital components of the subject, one finds a new opportunity for bridging this gap between communicating the values of the primary text and the creative act of communicating one’s own experiences and values. Examining how these changes have taken place within Norway could help other teachers in other teaching contexts understand the creative potential of using critical theory in their own classrooms. There is, then, a clear link between even basic understandings of interpretative literary critical theory, which Lynn (2011) defines as “the invention strategies that drive the process of writing about texts” (p. xiii), and awakening of the previously untapped power, which one could call the joy of creativity, whereupon discovery English learners feel empowered to generate texts, both oral and written, which showcase ownership, identity, and awareness of how literacy is constructed. Teacher educators in particular have an important responsibility to prepare both future and in-service teachers to be culturally responsive and flexible so they can adapt to the range of settings and variety of learners they will encounter in their careers, while also questioning assumptions about literacy development and instruction that may or may not fully align with one’s own beliefs on the subject. This chapter explores how recent developments in curriculum design for middle grades English, and also how some of the more relevant principles and applications of critical theory, provide valuable scaffolding into critical reading, literacy, and interculturality. The chapter offers strategies for English teachers that allow them to expand or improve their existing lessons, or to create new ones, based on the connection of criticality to creativity, and it provides support for privileging a dynamic and responsive engagement with literary texts. The informed teacher is the empowered teacher, and this sense of empowerment will carry over into creating a classroom where both teachers and learners feel secure, comfortable, and willing to take risks. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to bring awareness of critical theory forward in teacher education, and to provide both the theoretical and practical framework future teachers and teacher educators alike will need in order to take full advantage of the possibilities this framework presents.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The following section provides an introduction to some of the developments in literary critical theory that preceded changes to the Norwegian national curriculum as theoretical background for understanding what is meant by criticality throughout the chapter. The recently revised Norwegian National Curriculum (LK20), specifically its guiding paragraphs and the curriculum for English, is used as an example, of 263

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

how steps can be taken toward recognizing the need for increased attention to criticality, intertextuality, and the inclusion of more literary content in English lessons (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019a). Since these revisions are quite recent, and the drafting process was democratic and well-documented, LK20 provides important context for not just what changes took place, but why they were considered necessary, and is thus interesting in comparison with other national settings and circumstances. The curricular connection of criticality and literary content, which chapter explores, are compared to that of the other Nordic countries. In addition, a brief examination of some of the textbooks that are currently in use in these countries is provided and the ways in which this connection highlights the significance of interculturality, literacy, and creativity in the subject of English are discussed (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019a).

Critical Reading and Interculturality Working with authentic literary texts gives teachers a unique opportunity to teach and explore these elements together with their students, but in order to foster creative production, a formalized emphasis on criticality should also be included (Morrell, 2005). It seems a bit of a paradox to insist that formal questioning hierarchies could lead to creativity, but critical reading becomes a tool, similar to an artist’s brush or musician’s instrument, that ultimately enables creative potential once its user masters basic techniques. Learners need to practice thinking about literature in new ways, and in finding creative solutions for unfamiliar literary or cultural situations. Learning creativity through expressly critical reading strategies is a significant starting point.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Origins of Literary Critical Theory A brief word on the origins of literary critical theory will help contextualize its employment in today’s literature classroom. Before the 20th century, the study of literature in English focused heavily on biographical and historical studies, working around the text rather than through it. It used to be important, for example, to consider the author’s biography in relation to the text as a part of the interpretation process. This period is now understood as pre-structuralist, as it does not foreground the text but rather its historical and biographical context. A theoretical approach beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, which came to be known as New Criticism in the 1940s, revolutionized the way literature is taught by putting the emphasis back on the text itself. New Criticism attempted to isolate the text from its historical background, and to give it an intrinsic value based on relationships within the text, especially repetition, images and symbols, and ironies. New Critics assumed that there is an objective way to read a text, and that, by closely examining, as Cleanth Brooks famously put it in the preface to The well wrought urn, “what the poem says as a poem” (Brooks, 1947, p. iii) one can find its meaning. New Criticism turned literary criticism, and by extension its classroom application, from an art into a science. The movement introduced terms such as theme, symbols, and irony, which are still commonly used in working with texts. New Criticism also democratized the study of literature, which used to be reserved for those with the wherewithal to produce first-hand studies of an author’s biography or historical circumstance. Now, anyone who can learn the methods and terminology can learn to analyze and interpret a text, and to fruitfully compare one text to another. This ideology opened up for other, structuralist outlooks on literature throughout the 20th century, including structural linguistics, or the examination of the formal elements of language structures as significance bearing (Culler, 2008). 264

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Yet the idea of there being an objective way of establishing meaning in literature requires a somewhat mechanical approach that does not allow for expressions of how one really reads; it assumes a sort of ideal reader, and if one accepts that the New Critics, however democratic in sprit, were a rather culturally homogenous group, then one can see how a so-called ideal reader is not, and cannot be, one-size-fits-all. While the validity of such a New Critical reading was challenged by Richards as early as in 1929, in 1938 Louise Rosenblatt, a young literature scholar at the outset of the New Critical approach, began to formalize her objections to what she saw as a false objectivity that did not allow for readers’ personal backgrounds to influence their interpretation of texts. She argued that just because one can learn to be an objective and distant reader does not mean that this is a desirable approach to literature; it leads to the misunderstanding that literature, especially poetry, is a code meant to be cracked rather than an art requiring interpretation. Rosenblatt thus came to develop her own interpretative awareness, which came to be known as reader-response criticism. Reader-response builds upon the guiding principles of New Criticism but also acknowledges that every reader has a unique relationship to the given text, and therefore has a different interpretation of it. Readers differ with respect to education, life experience, gender, age, and the circumstances at the moment of reading, and therefore each reader takes something different away from the text. For Rosenblatt, there exists a “dynamic tension between the work of art and the personality of the reader,” (1994, p. 16), which, following Dewey and Bentley (1991), she refers to as “transactional” (p. 16). The nature of this transaction is that the reader shares in the creation of the meaning of the text, inasmuch as it is possible for a text to have one. By the 1960s and 1970s, many readers worldwide were coming to the conclusion that formalist readings of a given text excluded one point of view in exchange for another, without any kind of consideration as to whether this so-called objective style of reading was indeed objective, and the post-structuralist era of critical theory was born, in which the meaning of a text is now understood as a subjective and constantly evolving process (Gutting, 1998). Later, reader-response critics such as Norman Holland, Stanley Fish, Walter Benn Michaels, and David Bleich, continued to expand the reader-response concept in this direction by approaching it from various inter-disciplinary angles such as post-colonialism, phenomenology, and psychoanalysis, and the result of their work is that reader-response theory is now widely established as a significant development in the study of literature (Thompkins, 1980). Other post-structuralist critical lenses, such as gender, sociopolitical, economic, psychoanalytic, and narratological, among others, also take readerresponse theory as their departure point.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Intercultural Aspects Employing a strategy for critical reading practices also enhances the intercultural aspects of the English classroom. Here, Byram’s (1997) influential model of “Factors of intercultural communication” illustrates how and where reading with critical theory becomes a natural extension of the intercultural sphere of the English classroom (Figure 1).

265

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Byram’s “Factors in intercultural communication” (Byram, 1997, p. 34, our highlights)

If we hold at the center of all our work the general idea of education (what some might call dannelse, even), we might, like Byram (1997), place the skills of interpretation and relation in close connection (i.e., the highlighted text in Byram’s model). They are linked through the need to understand and critique even a developing sense of cultural awareness. When English teachers teach literature via a clear engagement with critical theory, even in the earlier stages of students’ educational process, this relationship becomes increasingly explicit, and could also make the other sides of this relational model more significant and reflexive later on. While Byram’s model might not fully address all of the relevant aspects of teaching interculturality, it does help illustrate where and how reading with critical theory fits into an intercultural approach to English language learning. Finnish researcher Dervin’s (2010) assessment criticizes Byram’s interculturality model because Dervin feels that it does not account fully for in-depth learning. More specifically, Dervin claims that Byram’s model asserts that “openness to others, critical self-awareness and self- analysis are basic values in education, yet there is no way we can prove or test (or trust) if somebody genuinely believes in them,” (2010, p. 163). Dervin goes on to provide his own extensive but helpful taxonomic model for assessment of intercultural competence, in order to support his criticism of Byram and to provide a framework for teaching and testing interculturality. One might, after Derwin’s assessment, understand the inclusion of critical literary theory as a vital part of the language/interculturality connection. The flexibility and creativity of engaging new and complex ideas about literature enhances language production and has a certain democratic and liberating value: it is not strictly necessary that a learner believes in the values they engage, but, for Derwin, even learning how to express these builds language and intercultural fluency. Dervin also notes, citing Barnett (1997), that “high levels of criticality and reflexivity are expected from university students,” (Barnett, 1997, p. 44, as quoted in Dervin, 2010, p. 157) which speaks strongly to the case of teaching criticality more explicitly, not only to all language learners who might go on to university, but specifically to middle-grade teacher education students, who have perhaps not

266

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

yet encountered in their own English teacher education the critical reading techniques they will require to impress this skill upon their own learners in just a few short years. Hoff (2018) has also called attention to the difficulty of assessing a learner’s intercultural competence and questioned whether this action is “even possible” (p. 84). While she stresses that there are some potential pitfalls to enhancing the role interculturality plays in the English classroom, these are readily mitigated by the clear advantages of such an approach. Hoff (2018) alludes to both positives and negatives: It is a time-consuming, challenging and unpredictable undertaking which requires an attentive and flexible teacher. However, it also opens up for the teaching and learning of English to become a deeply personal experience which may have a profound effect on young individuals’ development as human beings (p. 85). Critical theory, integrated into classroom practice in a systematic way, may provide a way of leading into intercultural discussions and comparisons that achieves the adaptability and flexibility Hoff (2018) seeks and believes is necessary for sound pedagogical practice. By forging new critical connections in a logically sound way, learners are invited and challenged to flex their creativity on various fronts, building on what Hoff sees as an essential skill and identity developing process. Hoff (2018), after Dervin (2010), also stresses the desire for a critically open classroom as a way into intercultural competence: A potential danger of focusing first and foremost on agreement and harmony when working with intercultural competence as an educational aim, then, is that it may lead learners to express opinions that they understand to be desirable, but which may not necessarily reflect how they genuinely think and feel” (p 76). Encouraging critical thinking within a clear and readily understood framework thus opens up the English literature classroom by emboldening textual interpretation from various individual and cultural perspectives, rather than closing off interpretations that do not agree with a perceived cultural norm, which ultimately brings about the introspection and convergent thinking that the teaching context requires. The figure below illustrates a suggestion for how these ideas can be engaged in the context of the interpretative process.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 2. Suggested model for the interpretative process as leading to creative output

267

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

An updated understanding of the interpretative process challenges teachers to consider the subject’s contents against the meaning of English as a utility subject (redskapsfag) versus English as a formative subject (dannelsesfag), and to make determinations about the best ways to encourage lifelong reading in English. The curriculum renewal and its heightened emphasis on deep learning embolden literary approaches to language learning. Through the gradual development of skills, concepts, and methods, both within the subject and also from an interdisciplinary perspective, critical theory enables a lasting understanding of literature’s culture-bearing and empathy developing role, even when its readers are placed in increasingly unfamiliar situations. New insights into the ways in which critical literary theory promotes deep learning, such as those that Nikolajeva (2014) formulates as Theory of Mind, from younger ages than previously considered, can provide teachers with specific and concrete tools to generate increased and more interpretive oral and written production. This idea can form part of the employment of criticality in the interpretative process, as in the above model. According to Nikolajeva, Theory of Mind allows for the simultaneous knowledge of one’s own mental state and desires, and that of someone else through an empathetic process of examining not just why, but how, a text produces certain emotions or reactions. Nikolajeva stresses the idea of detachment, claiming that “To be a successful mind-reader, you need to be detached from the mind you are reading” (p. 86). In the context of multilingual learning, middle grades English classes begin to incorporate, in a more explicit and complex way than in early grades, the added cognitive dimension of interpreting a literary text’s plot, characters, or themes in a second language (L2), and these texts are frequently either so-called authentic texts (written for native users of English) or with settings and situations that are germane to English as it is used around the world, thus often containing new and challenging information and ideas and creating a certain amount of positive or negative psychological stress, i.e., the affective filter (Krashen, 1987). Engagement with literature through this affective filter builds empathy for other people’s struggles in a way that is hard to imitate in the first language, and unpacking engagement through a critical lens, as proposed in the above model, provides a necessary framework for this process. If, as Apol (1998) suggests, “literary theory is a tool we can use to help us determine the ideology - the cultural assumptions and unexamined messages - contained in a text...and examine the relationship between the author, the text, the reader and the world” (p. 35), a certain critical distance is inherent, and this seems a good thing if it is desirable for language learners to eventually build an empathetic bridge, whether between one text and another or between themselves and the given text.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Developments in Critical Theory ELT as we know it today has a great deal to do with the rise of discrete literary critical theories. Beginning with the so-called New Criticism, itself a democratic and then-controversial reaction to the way literary reading was taught and moving through today’s ecological or post-colonial theories (Lynn, 2011), literary criticism is not an abstract, intellectual exercise; it is a natural and evolved human response to literature. The various post-New Critical groupings made over the last 100 or so years, whether we call these post-structuralist, feminist, Marxist, psychoanalytical, and so on, “revolutionized” the study of literature by opening up the text and creating a “common language that allowed people…to talk to, understand, and learn from each other across their differing backgrounds and interests” (Parker, 2008, p. 3). Reading with critical theory requires the intimacy and discipline of close reading, and a certain, variable consideration of morality, ethics, politics, or social concerns (Soter, 1999, p. 6). Literary critical theory is inherently interdisciplinary and intercultural, borrowing concepts from other disciplines such 268

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

as philosophy, history, linguistics, psychology, and anthropology, and with diverse cultural influences, to analyze texts more perceptively (see also Duggan in this volume). Critical theory, rather than being an all-encompassing dogma of rigid theoretical principles, is more readily understood as a set of questions that can help one better understand a text. Each theory has a different set of questions, and they all have application and merit at one time or another. Having a strong arsenal of various ways of seeing can enrich the time spent reading literature – rather than seeing a text from just one perspective, which privileges a teacher-led, top down interpretative format, engaging and applying several critical perspectives, even on the same text, makes the given literature more of a reflective tool inviting multiple interpretations, as well as creates a more flexible and dynamic classroom environment. Some of the more relevant interpretative perspectives that are in regular use – perhaps not regularly in English teacher education, as we argue that they should be – include theories of gender, ability, history, psychology, narratology, economics, structure, and culture. Soter (1999, p. 3) has grouped the various interpretative perspectives into four central categories (Figure 3). Figure 3. Soter’s “Four central interpretative perspectives” (Soter, 1999, p.3)

Soter (1999) describes these categories as ways of understanding the interpretative process in light of pre- and post-structuralist developments in critical theory; whereas the first three categories (view relative to reader, context, and text) engage pre-structuralist critical awareness, the fourth (view relative to the author) is post-structuralist, and yet endeavors to situate a text within an autobiographical context. (Soter, 1999) then proceeds to allocate several relevant critical theories (mentioned above) to these four categories. For most applications of critical theory to literature, this would be more than enough, but since teacher education and ELT also frequently serve as a historical presentation of the context for literature in English-language countries, as well as an introduction to format or genre, and do not rely explicitly on written text, one could readily adapt Soter’s model to more explicitly include historical and cultural context and format (Figure 4).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 4. Suggested adaptation of Soter’s interpretative perspectives model

The term consideration connotes multiple, rather than one, viewpoints on the text, thus opening for communication; likewise, the use of format in place of text places emphasis on learning about the function

269

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

and significance of various literary formats, not just the written word. While the suggested adaptation above still groups interpretative theories in essentially the same four major categories as Soter (1999), it additionally foregrounds consideration of historical and cultural context, format, and also adaption, for example when a text originally produced in one format, such as a novel, has been adapted into a graphic novel or film. The suggested adaptation of Soter’s original model thus enhances its relevance and practical employment within the ELT context.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Critical Reading and Literacy Considering all the different information that we are all exposed to, and the question of truth and value in texts, developing critical reading skills contributes to learners’ language development as they practice expressing thoughts about values and opinions, thus building their own repertoire of expression. It is no longer enough just to expose learners to various texts and explicate, especially in a second language. While understanding all of the words on the page might satisfy an initial need for comprehension, it does not address the more central value of reading in-depth, that is, to enable readers to expand their participation in ongoing debates about what society values and why (Myers & Eborfors, 2010). Reading critically, and engaging multiple theoretical perspectives even on the same text, allows learners space to build their critical literacy and make effective judgments about the world which they will increasingly participate in. Critical reading embraces uncertainty and plurality, rather than establishing one correct interpretation, and this speaks strongly to the need for learners to process multiple opinions and worldviews in order to eventually form their own views in a respectful way (Taylor & Hoechmann, 2011). In the communicative second language (L2) situation, in which we attempt to generate as much discussion as possible with the aim of increasing learners’ fluency and confidence (Littlewood, 1981), enabling multiple readings of a text can open up conversations in new and exciting directions (see also Duggan and Moya in this volume). Yet, in the spirit of critical reading, it is also perhaps wise to express certain reservations about the pitfall of reading too critically. It is possible to imbue a given poem, story, or text with so much secondary information that the joy of reading the original text itself is lost. McKensie and Jarvie (2018), following Foucault (1970), question the effect of too much “tear-down” of beloved texts as demoralizing and causing readers to too quickly dismiss a text simply because it appears to contain hidden prejudices. Author Jane Gallop (2000) also warns that creating a “mental checklist,” however well intentioned, for readers to work against when encountering a text for the first time can be too limiting, and might even replace one set of prejudices with another, at the discretion of the teacher, thus creating a new but not necessarily better hierarchical structure. A thoughtful outlook on critical literacy, with respect to the L2 environment, would provide scaffolding to help expand a text, rather than merely the tools to knock it down with no instruction manual. Borsheim‐Black, Macaluso, and Petrone (2014) outline an extensive model for using critical reading in a language classroom, which they title Critical Literature Pedagogy (CLP), and which provides a solid and well-balanced theoretical foundation for the kind of critical literacy required in today’s classrooms. They advocate for the use of canonical literature as a basis for exploration for reading both with and against the text: in working with specific literary elements, “CLP also emphasizes reading against them to explore how the text sends messages about how the world works” (p. 129). Their model is comprehensive, and not necessarily directly applicable to the L2 situation, but nevertheless provides useful context for the kind of practical approaches we enumerate below. 270

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Critical Reading and Creativity The link between intercultural competence, critical thinking about literature, and creativity becomes increasingly relevant when put into the perspective of what Bland (2018) situates as one of the central myths of ELT, namely the “literary text as artifact,” in which “there still seems to be a dominant belief among teachers and their students that there are absolute meanings in texts that must be taught” (p. 9). Bland observes that, in the typical communicative language teaching environment, communication and collaboration are privileged over critical thinking and creativity, at the cost of losing productive competence and awareness (Bland, 2018, p. 43). She advocates the use of contemporary drama and screenplay as a way of bringing both critical literacy and creativity to the forefront of the English classroom, not because it is easy to invoke a critical paradigm, but because these formats are more resistant, allowing a deeper and more challenging – and more rewarding – creative engagement with the text. The teaching example she cites is Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (Rowling, Thorne, & Tiffany, 2017); while it is possible to develop ideas about, for example, gender without a primary text, working with an interactive format such as a playscript enables a subtler take on discussing values and prejudices by providing learners with more freedom for creative expression. Creativity can be developed through “esthetic learning processes understood as learning the subject content through participating and creating, and where the individual may express herself and her understanding through language, drawings, text and bodily activities” (Brekke, 2016, p. 9). According to Austing and Sørensen (2006) esthetic leaning processes can also be described as “a way of learning where the student translates her own impressions of the world through esthetic mediation creating esthetic expressions of form, and through this is able to reflect on and communicate about herself and the world” (p. 107). When it comes to learning about employing critical theory as a language learning strategy, we understand that the process of critical inquiry mirrors the creativity indicators that are used in arts classes: processes that are inquisitive, disciplined, imaginative, collaborative, and persistent (Lutnæs, 2018). Critical theory teaches English students to stand uncertainty and tolerate ambiguity, to ask questions about given truths, and prepares them to solve problems in known and unknown situations.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Case Study: Renewal of the Norwegian National Curriculum The Norwegian word in use for the recent updates to its National Curriculum, fornyelsen, is particularly interesting, as it carries with it connotations of both ‘revision’ and all its politically-driven tedium, as well as of renewal, which connotes fresh perspectives, growth, and opportunity – without abandoning what was good and worth preserving. There are some historical developments here, when considering the various curriculum changes implemented in 1987 (M87) (Norwegian Ministry of Church and Education, 1987.), in 1997 (L97) (Norwegian Ministry of Church, Education and Research, 1996) and leading up to the current curriculum, LK06 (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2006), that signal that we are at a real turning point with regard to the subject contents of English. The curriculum revision/renewal (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019a) and its heightened emphasis on dybdelæring, or in-depth learning, emboldens literary approaches to language learning. The renewal emphasizes the importance of learners developing “the competence to acquire and use knowledge and skills to master challenges and tasks in both known and unknown situations” (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017, p. 10). This competence includes a focus on in-depth learning, understanding, reflection, and critical thinking as well as the development of attitudes and ability for ethical 271

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

evaluations. To develop learners’ creativity means developing their curiosity, endurance, imagination, cooperation, and discipline (Norwegian Ministry of Education, 2015, pp. 31-33). However, studies show that these elements are not always easy to include in teaching and evaluation of student work (Lutnæs, 2018). In particular, areas like wondering and questioning, challenging assumptions, tolerating uncertainty, and using intuition seem to be lacking in many school subjects (Lutnæs, 2018). It is an expressed goal, at least in the renewed Norwegian curriculum but readily applicable to other international contexts, to develop learners’ creativity and critical thinking in order for them to be able to solve unforeseen challenges in the future (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). The teacher’s job is to build conscious citizens, and for these citizens, being able to recite readily available, quantifiable data is less relevant than being able to ask pertinent inter-contextual questions. The teacher’s role becomes to teach how to ask these questions and to spend time opening up new critical perspectives on the world by discussing the possible answers, and not just “the answer,” to the questions they ask. Teachers at all school levels need to start asking themselves how this kind of critical thinking and creativity can be taught, and what types of learning situations will be necessary to facilitate for their students to learn this kind of flexible thinking. This means that learners, teachers, and teacher educators alike will need both a number of more or less subject-specific skills as well as factual knowledge from different fields and the knowledge of how to be both creative and critical. In order to understand the way forward, it might help to look back on the process that led to the renewal’s stated goals. Moving from L97 to LK06, there was an understanding of culture in the subject of English from being a disparate set of knowledge, a kind of trainable skill equal to reading or listening, to emphasizing “tolerant attitudes and acceptance of otherness” in an all-around framework for learning English (L97) (Norwegian Ministry of Church, Education and Research, 1996, pp. 223-233), to the current curriculum, LK06, which groups culture with “community and literature,” ((Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2013, p. 3), thus implying the idea that cultures are learned through literature. This view gives literature an essential, significance-carrying status while the formats and approaches teachers choose acquire deep consequences for what learners come to understand as culture. In the specific example of the Norwegian LK20 subject renewal, certain important distinctions are made: the encounter with English-language texts becomes much more explicit and now directs that “the subject of English should prepare students to understand, analyze, evaluate, use, reflect over, and negotiate with” texts of various formats (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2018, p. 3, our translation). While such phrasing gives teachers freedom to explore methods and approaches that will work best for them and their students, it creates a chicken-and-egg dilemma: should critical literacy be taught on its own, or should teachers opt for a more implicit, literature-first path towards this sense of critical literacy? This question hearkens back to certain pedagogical discussions during the 1970s about whether to privilege structure over content in the learning process, where the approaches developed by, for example, Piaget (1969) and Bruner (1977), a debate respectively simplified as whether learning occurs in stages versus via scaffolding, were in opposition and, frequently, the more structural approaches were preferred, as these were seen as more open and inductive. The idea was that if learning processes were approached in a generalist way, without a specific vehicle or context, they would be universally applicable. While this model had many positive outcomes, its inevitable consequence in the context of the subject of English is that the traditional content, that is to say, the literary text, became somewhat deprioritized, and was replaced with new content about how to read a text, literary or otherwise, in order to find specific information. One now observes the same impulses when it comes to engagement of critical theory. While 272

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

most will agree that it is a good idea to read, for example, poetry in English class, the core question is at which moment the critical skills for poetry interpretation should be taught. In order to retain the pure joy of reading, and to build a logical framework for the interpretive process, the skills required for interpreting poetry should be enabled first through reading and explicating, but then the critical skills should be built into the lesson to enable further exploration of the poem’s significance and increase the potential for creative output, a process illustrated in Figure 2 above. This discussion, however, took on a new urgency in Norway in 2017, when the expert review committee working with the subject renewal sought to refine the core elements, kjerneelementar, of the subject of English to simply communication and language learning (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2018), which can be seen as a continuation of the privileging of structure over content. The committee put together a comprehensive series of suggestions for how to understand and improve the relevance of English within these core elements as a collection of linguistic, socio-linguistic, and pragmatic competences, and with the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training’s ideas such as sustainable growth, democracy, and public health and wellbeing in mind (2018). The committee defined English as both a tool and a formative process by invoking the German-inspired word dannelse, which connotes culture and formation. They left out of these core elements, however, the idea of literature as being a significant and efficient means by which these areas are explored and developed, whereas this awareness had been a discrete feature of previous iterations of the curriculum (Aase, Fleming, Pieper, & Sâmihăian, 2007), and when the committee sent out their suggestions for review, over 300 respondents from the school and higher education sectors, as well as from the interested public, replied with a nearly unanimous call for literature to be included. The committee, as an example of the exact values of sustainability and democracy they mean for English to convey, responded by adding a new “core element” to their initial two, that of “meeting English language texts” (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2018). While to some this might be an afterthought, for us, this is the renewal, because these developments also indicate certain shifts in thinking on a macro level to include more extensive and formalized emphasis on literary content, whereupon the end result appears to be a movement towards new interpretations of English less as a rote subject of fact-finding expediency, and more as a dynamic and formative entrance into a rich international dialogue (Fenner, 2005, 2011).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pan-Nordic Commonalities: A Comparative Examination This section of the chapter endeavors to widen the discussion of curricular development to a Nordic context, with the aim of contextualizing certain recent curriculum developments. There are important pan-Nordic commonalities when it comes to the various national curricula for English, especially the understanding of the value of criticality in language learning, although the outcome of language education varies nationally. For example, Finland’s national curriculum highlights the need for reading critically as a way into value-based discussions, but also implies that the importance to future career advancement to learning a second language (Finnish Ministry of Education, 2014). All four Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark) stress the need for critical and independent reading in their national curricula, but the Finnish curriculum has a stronger focus on multiliteracy and interpretation of various types of texts than either the Danish or the Swedish one – and in that sense it is more like the new Norwegian one, which now amplifies, more strongly than before, “the meeting with English language texts” as a way for learners to build a “foundation to see their and others’ identity in a multilingual and multicultural context” (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019b, p. 3, our transla273

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

tion). The new Norwegian curriculum (LK20) reflects a desire to achieve and expand upon the depth and professionalization of the Finnish perspective. However, it is in the Swedish curriculum for English that we find the language that expresses most completely the need for explicit connection of criticality to production and creative expression:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

In order to deal with spoken language and texts, pupils should be given the opportunity to develop their skills in relating content to their own experiences, living conditions and interests. Teaching should also provide pupils with opportunities to develop knowledge about and an understanding of different living conditions, as well as social and cultural phenomena in the areas and contexts where English is used. (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018, p. 34) The repetition of the word “opportunity” is important here as critical reading is about skill building and empathy development through creating opportunities to engage critically with the learning material. The role of the teacher can here be understood as not only providing the learning material but providing space and opportunity to develop their critical awareness. This departs somewhat from the goals of, for example, the Danish curriculum, published in 2011 and renewed in 2019, which also stresses skill development and the global and multicultural context for English, but with the explicit aim of enhancing future prospects: “In the subject of English the students should develop linguistic, textual, and intercultural competencies in order to use English nationally and globally in their current and future life” (Danish Ministry for Children and Education, 2019, p. 5). There is little explicit discussion of critical reading in the Danish curriculum for English, but the implied need for critical outlooks is clearly strong, as Denmark, like Sweden, stresses the need for “opportunities to develop their understanding of people with different cultural backgrounds and can prepare for life in a global community” (Danish Ministry for Children and Education, 2019, p. 5). The Danish curriculum asks that students “work with topics that highlight how people think and live in the English-speaking world to become familiar with their own culture interacting with other cultures” (Danish Ministry for Children and Education, 2019). From here, the additional practical focus on English as a part of students’ professional future stresses experiences, depth, motivation, innovation, and entrepreneurship, arenas which reward critical thinking. Another idea, repeated throughout the evaluation of the Swedish curriculum goals at the end of grade 9, is that “pupils should discuss in detail…” various circumstances and phenomena surrounding the English language in context (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018, p. 36). In this sense, critical reading, and knowing when and how to ask focused questions about the learning contents, becomes one of the most relevant “functional strategies” that could lead to this expected level of detail. Opportunity is as well an operative word when it comes to the recently revised teacher education model in Norway, which moved from a four-year bachelor’s degree to a five-year master’s degree beginning in 2016 (Norwegian Ministry of Education, 2016). Norwegian teacher education now more closely resembles that of Finland, which is the other Nordic country where teachers are required to have a Master’s degree, unlike Sweden or Denmark, where teacher education remains at the bachelor level (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2008, NOKUT, 2012). One might argue that graduate-level education should promote and reflect dannelse through theoretical engagement. If critical theory is something that has been left out of past versions of Norwegian teacher education due to lack of time, then teacher educators now have a mandate to improve on their own practices by establishing room for it in the new teacher education model.

274

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Texts and Textbooks Swan (2011), for the purposes of language learning, defines text as “the relatively short spoken and written passages that come in textbooks and other teaching materials” (p. 1). Current literature teaching practices, as understood from widely used school textbooks in English, can additionally engage what is readily seen as a missing interpretative link between comprehension (i.e., encountering and explicating the given text), opinion-formation (i.e., producing a reaction to the text), and production (i.e., generating a new text based on the input from the original). This problem can be observed as teachers face an apparent disconnect between the ideas they may wish to bring into their classrooms and the reality of textbook usage as status quo for lesson planning, which can potentially limit opportunities for creative engagement with literary texts. This can be viewed in, for example, various middle grades English textbooks that are in use in Norway, which jump from search-and-find, to basic comprehension questions, to asking for written or oral production, without directly requiring any explicit opportunity for critical thinking. The Norwegian textbook series Stages currently in use for grades 8-10 (comparable to grades 7-9 in the other Nordic countries), for example, presents learning activities focused on the categories understanding, viewpoints, creative corner, writing workshop, and explore, but there is little to no distinguishable critical input in the viewpoints category before getting to the creative corner, which limits the kinds of potential creative responses available to learners as improvisation does not materialize on its own but necessitates a prompt of some kind. This tendency is also demonstrated in the series Crossroads, where a typical activity moves directly from examining rhyme patterns in a poem to writing a poem (see the Teaching Tip below). Likewise, the Swedish 7-9 textbook series Sparks, and the Finnish series Spotlight, do even less to encourage critical thinking or creativity; their utilitarian reliance on mechanical search-and-find type questions after each (notably mainly non-fiction) reading does not readily afford expressions of empathy or complex understanding of different outlooks. More than the others, the Danish 7-9 series A piece of cake, similarly to the Norwegian series Stages, attempts to develop learners’ critical thinking skills in the way it structures questions and activities. For example, it contains a section called A closer look which moves toward a more critically interpretative strategy for the original reading material before creative tasks such as drama-based activities; however, the series does not seem to be systematic in its engagement with specific critical theories such as those we highlight below (Table 1). Teachers could wait for textbook publishers to add this missing critical link, and perhaps this moment will come, but teachers who are compelled to use one of these textbooks, and who have some basic knowledge of the value of critical theory, have the agency to add this themselves. The following sections provide some context and tools for teachers who wish to challenge themselves toward introducing critical reading practices into their English lessons without waiting for the textbook publishers to catch up, as well as to present some ideas on how this can be done.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Critical Reading: Theory into Practice Having introduced the idea of critical reading in the specific contexts of interculturality, literacy, and creativity, and having discussed its place in Nordic curricula, the next section provides a focused dis275

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

cussion of critical reading as a logical and historically driven extension of English as a school subject, moving toward a practical model and suggestions for how middle grades English teachers and teacher educators can begin to engage it in their teaching practice.

Teaching Literature with Theory The major literary formats that are in use in English education in Norway, beginning from the earliest introduction to English in elementary grades, include fiction, poetry, prose/non-fiction, and “new” or other media, which includes multimodal and interactive formats. This is also the case throughout the Nordic region; the national curricula in Finland, Sweden, and Denmark each make a case for the need for diverse formats in English education. Sweden, for example, uses “literature and other fiction in spoken, dramatized and filmed forms” as well as “songs and poems…news, reports and newspaper articles” as specific examples (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). The emphasis on format diversity is representative of a larger value; it is not possible, for example, on the one hand to claim that diversity is important and on the other hand not exemplify it in the choice of learning materials. At the same time, it would be frustrating and unproductive for teachers to introduce every critical interpretative theory they are familiar with into the reading and teaching of any given literary text. Understanding which formats are most relevant to ELT in a given context makes it significantly easier to build a critical model for teaching that limits theoretical explorations to a manageable, approachable, and predictable scale (Table 1).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Suggested model for grouping literary format with critical theories Fiction

Poetry

Prose/Non-Fiction

Other Media

Reader

Form

Historical and Cultural Context

Adaptation

Gender

Structural

Economical

Structural

Psychological

Narratological

Historical

Cultural

Ability

Historical

Gender

Historical

Each of these critical categories can become the basis for thought-provoking discussion questions. By considering, from the given theoretical vantage, whether the literary text at hand contains any hidden assumptions, political or social implications, or how a reader’s personal experience might influence his or her reading of the text, new and potential channels for creative thinking are opened up, as compared to a more simplistic explicative approach to the text. Using critical theory as a way into a literary text helps teachers and readers alike to capitalize on their pre-existing knowledge and bring this to the literary reading process and to their eventual language production. This model is not to suggest that other interpretative modes would not work or be productive, but by somewhat limiting the initial scope of available critical frameworks, teachers can guide their students toward engaging critical theory on a manageable and yet meaningful level. The teaching tip below illustrates how this can be done.

276

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Teaching Tip In their 8th grade English classroom at a Norwegian middle school, Vibeke and her students have been focusing on the poetry selections in their textbook. The classroom is a mixed group of 20 students, with some students of diverse cultural and international backgrounds and/or requiring individual learning plans and assistance. Working with poetry meets the Norwegian Curriculum objective of: Meeting with English language texts as a way for learners to build a foundation to see their and others’ identity in a multilingual and multicultural context (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019b, p. 3, our translation). Vibeke’s school uses the Crossroads series of textbooks, including its workbook and reader companion. Vikebe observed that, when it comes to using the activities that are in the book, there were no activities that focus on critical thinking or questioning between basic explication and word matching activities, such as finding rhyming word pairs, and producing original poetry as a final assignment. One of the poems in the reader is Cat and mouse by Eric Ode (2016, p. 17), a simple poem with some fun rhymes, but without much interpretative space. The activities suggested were to find the rhyming pairs, and then to write a poem. Vibeke decided to use another poem she found called Cat and mouse by Jon M. Nelson (n.d.), also a relatively simple poem about a cat who enjoys chasing and eating mice, as a way into exploring multicultural contexts. After finding some of the rhyming words, as the textbook recommended for Ode’s Cat and mouse poem and which the students appreciated, the students were asked to produce a rhyming two-line stanza. Next, they were invited to consider the background of the author, who had spent time in the American military and is still an enlisted soldier. This led to a discussion of where and how the US military was engaged in the year that the author joined the service, which was 1995. At the time, the American military was engaged in a NATO operation in Serbia meant to support an end to the ongoing ethnic conflict in that region. From there, the class was able to recontextualize the poem through the author’s lived experience. One student, who has documented learning disabilities, was impressed that a soldier can also be a poet. Looking into the author’s life thus provided an important opportunity for talking about who is allowed to write poetry, and whether a simple poem can have a deeper personal significance. Next, the class considered whether cats and mice are natural enemies, or whether they can be friends, by looking at cartoon images (such as Tom and Jerry) and real photos of cats and mice living together. This provoked a discussion about specific circumstances where enemies can learn to get along, for example if they have common interests and can communicate with each other and brought together the ways in which a narrative can be created or manipulated through poetry. Finally, the class also looked for other poems with the same title and found that another poem called Cat and mouse was written in August 1959 by the well-known British poet Ted Hughes. Through a brief bit of discussion and online research, the class discovered that in August 1959, the US and the former Soviet Union were engaged in a space race to reach the moon, and the class looked at some of the satellite images taken from space during this time. Bringing this information back to the original poem by Nelson, the class was able to reconsider the cat and mouse as relating to geopolitical considerations and technological advancement. At this point, students were again asked to write a rhyming two-line stanza. When invited to reflect on their own learning post-activity, the students pointed out that it was interesting with such a varied lesson, including history and the use of pictures, and they liked not using the textbook. They did wish for the teacher to have translated more words into Norwegian, however, as there were some new English expressions, such as in a good mood, but overall, they found that it was easier for them to write rhyming lines of poetry after the lesson. Thus, the specific tasks that were formulated for this lesson were: 1. The teacher performed an out loud reading of the poem “Cat and Mouse” and a quick comprehension check 2. Students were asked to consider the organization of the poem into lines and stanzas, and to find new rhymes for some of the words in the poem 3. Students found and examined information about the poem’s author and his military experience and discussed this as a group 4. Students explored visual images of cats and mice being both friends and enemies and discussed this as a group 5. Students looked for other poems with the same title, and found new information connected to the historical timeline of another poem with the same title and reflected this back onto the original poem 6. Students worked in small groups to write new lines of poetry, but informed by the structural/biographical, narratological, and historical issues they researched.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The lesson accomplished the goal of meeting with English language texts by examining the technical and linguistic qualities of a poem, using the internet to find two additional poems with the same title but different themes as well as supplementary information, and introducing criticality through engaging critical theories from three critical perspectives, leading to an improved creative output. Reflecting back over the 90-minute lesson, Vibeke observed that, during the learning process, it is essential for the teacher to create an environment that is built on a trusting relationship between the teacher and the students. This helps her students feel comfortable speaking in class to share opinions and ask questions. An important aspect, for Vibeke, of building this relationship is that the students feel confident that the teacher has strong subject knowledge. This is because not all students learn the same way; the teacher needs to have a toolbox with as many resources as possible in order to have something for everyone, and to meet the varying needs of students. Vibeke feels that approaching a text from different theoretical perspectives could be one of the ways in which these needs are met. Vibeke relies on her background in English language literature and cultural history to shape her lessons, and to help her students see interdisciplinary connections in the textbook examples. She sees 8th grade as an important time for trying new ways of thinking and reflection; since Norwegian schools do not have national examinations in 8th grade, there is more opportunity to create longer and more holistic lessons without the direct pressure of evaluation. When her students do not feel that they are being immediately tested but have time to explore and work through their ideas, there is more opportunity to be creative and to experiment with new learning styles. This time also provides Vibeke with an opportunity to reach out to higher-achieving students who might otherwise be bored by the lack of explicit theoretical or discussion-building content in the textbook.

277

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

One of the most important advantages of critical reading is that it presents an opportunity to play with a text, and try various interpretations, without any real stakes: there is no wrong answer, just more thoughtful and theoretically grounded responses, more play and room for creativity. The proposed LK20 updates to the Norwegian curriculum that foreground the need for learners to ‘encounter’ English language texts focus on the student’s ability and by extension the teacher’s capacity to “reflect on, interpret, and critically evaluate different types of texts” (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019b, p. 8, our translation), and there are numerous other references to critical reading in the curriculum renewal. The now explicit attention to criticality propels and empowers teachers to take more chances during discussions, and for teacher educators to delve more deeply into critical theory as a part of English teacher education. For example, a teacher might have been employing discussions of gender (or race, economics, ability, or other critical lenses) as a response to a given literary text, but this would come from his or her own experience, not necessarily from a grounded introduction to gender theory in literature as a part of his or her teacher education. The ensuing discussion is therefore somewhat limited by the teacher’s own experience and may not reflect the wealth of discourse due to the lack of theoretical distance that relying on one’s own perspective affords. It is not to say that the teacher’s own experience of gender is not relevant, but it is ultimately just one perspective, whereas employing a deliberate attempt to situate a text or experience in received gender theory opens up for teachers to engage other experiences more readily and without fear of being wrong or seeming inexperienced. Likewise, the learners themselves have an experience of gender (e.g., race, economics, etc.), however nascent, and it occupies a great deal of their attention in arenas other than the English classroom. By employing a formal and yet open critical framework, teachers empower learners to bring their own awareness forward. This awareness, in a multicultural context, is a lived one: a student from Syria has her context, a student whose mother is in the military has another, a student with a disabled sibling has still another, and these are all equally valid once the teacher has set a clear theoretical framework. The teacher should feel comfortable choosing texts or, where this is not an option, approaches to the given texts, where learners can bring in their own criticality and experience as part of a process of discovery and insight. This consideration additionally implies analysis of the texts, for example oral responses, that are created as a result of a given lesson on a primary text. Hoff (2018) sees this as an essential and decentering learning situation:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

(Learners) must also be helped to examine their own response - or lack thereof – from a critical distance. Why do they respond with surprise, empathy, disgust, confusion, or indifference? What may be the reasons that the text does or does not appeal to them? How may their cultural background play a role in this equation? (p. 82). Establishing a clear and concrete theoretical framework for critical explorations of this sort liberates teacher and learner both from unwelcome or hostile responses that could potentially derail what was meant to be an exercise in creativity and growth of skills. If we accept that English is “used as a lingua franca, i.e., a common, transnational language of communication, by a large number of people who do not have that language as their mother tongue…” (Hoff, 2018, p. 74) and will therefore carry with it one’s own cultural connotations as well as the “hybrid” forms that come with experience in what Iversen (2012) calls a “community of disagreement” (p. 62), then critical literary theories inhabit this same space, and promote the individual interpretation of text at the same time as engaging a culturally diverse interpretative community who shares some, but not 278

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

all, of the same context for the critical reading engaged upon. The critical literary theories themselves are established elements of English instruction, but their explicit application to the middle grades L2 English environment represents an innovative, multivalent, and learner-centered approach to language learning. A community of disagreement is still, after all, a community. The inclusion of critical theory as an everyday and routine part of what it means to incorporate literature in English lessons can, somewhat paradoxically to the pedagogical debates of the 1970s, be seen as a movement from divergent to convergent thinking. Villaba (2011) sees critical thinking as a creative and skill-building process, whereupon learners move from being able to “assess and evaluate information in a critical manner,” to being able to “analy(ze) and identi(fy) central issues and assumptions,” through a process of evaluative judgements, and finally into being able to “identif(y) bias in ideas or statements” (p. 323). Whereas a learning process centered on divergence, or “the generation of ideas,” (Villaba, 2011, p. 323) produces multiple interpretations that, while outwardly appearing to be creative, are not necessarily grounded in any kind of meaningful standard, and thus stifling to true creativity, a convergent, or focused learning process, attempts to situate learning in a series of formative responses to increasingly complex ideas, goes beyond surface idea generation and into, ultimately, a deeper and more fully realized comprehension of the implications of the learning contents. The role of the teacher thus becomes not to stifle the generation of ideas, but to channel the evaluative process and situate it in critical thinking, and to provide clear and thoughtful interpretative standards that will increase the “clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, and significance” (Villaba, 2011, p. 323) of the responses generated. The foundation of true creativity is to empower learners from the initial brainstorm into complex interpretation and negotiation with the text, all the way into determining its biases and shortcomings. In a time of “fake news” and increasingly subtle algorithms predicting how and when we receive information in various multimodal formats, this kind of skill-building has clear and timely significance beyond English, in areas such as general digital literacy, but the English literature teaching environment can and perhaps should be its testing ground, in part due to the inherent plasticity and interculturality of such an arena.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Through an examination of the connection of critical reading and creativity, and in light of the specific example of the updated Norwegian school curriculum, this chapter provides specific examples of how current English teaching practices can further engage critical theory as an interpretative and creative link between comprehension, opinion-formation, and language production. Based on awareness of ELT trends in Nordic textbooks and national curricula, as well as the history of curricular changes in Norway, this chapter suggests that it is of special importance for teachers and teacher educators to implement specific changes in the teaching of English in middle grades and in English teacher education through the use of reading techniques informed by critical theory. Opening up discussions of literary texts though the employment of critical theory draws upon both the teacher’s and the student’s pre-existing knowledge in a way that generates creative thinking and language production by drawing on the student’s developing sense of their own interculturality, literacy, and creativity. To this effect, this chapter provides a new model that can help streamline the sprawling interdisciplinarity of critical theory into a manageable and readily applicable context for working with literature during English lessons. The model this chapter provides suggests, but does not dictate, meaningful 279

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

pairings of genre with critical theories that are well suited to the given genre, which gives teachers and teacher educators a blueprint for introducing critical theory, as well as opportunities to experiment with other interpretative paths. Directions for future research should include the application of the new suggested model (Figure 4) for grouping literary format with critical theories in various middle grade settings and circumstances that this chapter has not addressed, such as settings where English is an L3 or where translanguaging is in use, as the connection of criticality and creativity could be affected by the influence of multiple language cultures. Another direction for future research might be, after the 2020 updates to the Norwegian curriculum are implemented, to compare the curriculum in practice to 1. what working teachers (both in Norway and elsewhere) actually do as they engage a heightened awareness of the value of criticality; 2. how updated textbooks either support or neglect the inclusion of critical reading strategies; or 3. how national exams (both in Norway and elsewhere) attempt to quantify creativity and/or critical reading strategies. With consistent application of an open and interpretative critical framework, the study of English literature in middle grades can become a dynamic arena for advancing interculturality, literacy, and creativity as important dimensions of promoting multiliteracy in Norwegian and international education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This chapter is an expanded version of a presentation given at the Experience Conference for English (Competence for Quality [KfK]) at the University of Tromsø, May 2019. The authors thank the participants in this conference for their participation and feedback, as well as the Nord University research group Children’s Literature in ELT (CLELT), led by Professor Janice Bland, where a shorter version of this chapter was also presented for feedback in March 2019. Discussion Questions 1. How can learners practice transferring what they have learned to unfamiliar literary or cultural situations? 2. How can learners practice thinking about literature in new ways and finding creative solutions for interpreting and responding to literature? 3. How can teachers and teacher educators work with a text’s hidden assumptions, political or social implications, or a reader’s personal experience in reading literary texts, and how can they effectively evaluate what aspects of criticality learners have understood as significant? Provide specific examples and relate them to your own teaching context, if possible.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Aase, L., Fleming, M., Pieper, I., & Sâmihăian, F. (2007). Text, literature, and “Bildung”: Comparative perspectives. In I. Pieper (Ed.), Languages as a subject in languages of education (pp. 6 ̶ 30). Prague, Czech Republic: Language Policy Division. Council of Europe. Apol, L. (1998). “But what does this have to do with kids?”: Literary theory and children’s literature in the teacher education classroom. Journal of Children’s Literature, 24(2), 32 ̶ 46. Areklett, K. M., Pettersen, S., Røkaas, F., & Tørnby, H. (2013). Stages 8. Oslo, Norway: Aschehaug.

280

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Areklett, K. M., Pettersen, S., Røkaas, F., & Tørnby, H. (2014). Stages 9. Oslo, Norway: Aschehaug. Areklett, K. M., Pettersen, S., Røkaas, F., & Tørnby, H. (2015). Stages 10. Oslo, Norway: Aschehaug. Austring, B. D., & Sørensen, M. (2009). Æstetik og læring. Grundbog om æstetiske læreprocesser [Aesthetics and learning. Textbook on aesthetic learning processes]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. London, UK: Open University Press. Bland, J. (Ed.). (2018). Using literature in English language education, challenging reading for 8–18 year olds. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Boesen, J., & Rosendal, M. (Eds.). (2011). A piece of cake. Learner’s Guide 7-9. Copenhagen, Denmark: Alinea. Borsheim‐Black, C., Macaluso, M. & Petrone, R. (2014). Critical literature pedagogy: Teaching canonical literature for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy: A Journal from the International Reading Association, 58(2), 123 ̶ 133. Brekke, B. (2016). Kreativitetens næringskjede: estetiske arbeidsformer i lærerutdanningen [The food chain of creativity: Aesthetic forms of work in teacher education] (Master’s thesis, University of Agder, Norway). Retrieved from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2414164 Brooks, C. (1947). The well wrought urn: Studies in the structure of poetry. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. CullerJ. (1998). Structuralism. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N055-1 Danish Ministry for Children and Education. (2019). Engelsk: Læseplan og veiledning [Reading plan and instructions]. Retrieved from https://emu.dk/sites/default/files/2019-08/GSK-L%C3%A6seplanEngelsk.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science. (2016). Professional bachelor programmes. Retrieved from https://ufm.dk/en/education/higher-education/university-colleges/university-college-education Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts in higher education. In F. Dervin, & E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New approaches to assessment in higher education (p. 157174). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1991). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, volume 16 (pp. 1 ̶ 280). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

281

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Fenner, A. B. (2005). Engelskfagets utvikling i et danningsperspektiv. [The development of the subject of English in a bildungs perspective] In K. Børhaug, A.-B. Fenner, & L. Aase (Eds.), Fagenes begrunnelser: skolens fag og arbeidsmåter i danningsperspektiv [Subject reasoning: The school subjects and working practices in a formation perspective]. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Fenner, A. B., & Newby, D. (Eds.). (2000). Approaches to materials design in European textbooks: Implementing principles of authenticity, learner autonomy and cultural awareness. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages, Council of Europe Press. Finnish Ministry of Education. (2014). Grunderna för läroplanen för den grundläggande utbildningen 2014. [The foundation for the national curriculum of primary and secondary education 2014]. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/166434_grunderna_for_laroplanen_verkkojulkaisu.pdf Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader. (pp. 48 ̶ 78.) Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegen Paul. Gallop, J. (2000). The ethics of reading: Close encounters. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 16(3), 7 ̶ 17. GuttingG. (1998). Post-structuralism. Retrieved from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/ post-structuralism/v-1 Hall, G. (2015). Literature in language education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137331847 Heger, H., & Wroldsen, N. (2013). [Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.]. Crossroads, 8B. Hoff, H. E. (2017). Fostering the ‘intercultural reader’? An empirical study of socio-cultural approaches to EFL literature. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(3), 443–464. doi:10.1080/00313 831.2017.1402366 Hoff, H. E. (2018). Intercultural competence. In A. B. Fenner, & A. A. Skulstad (Eds.), Teaching English in the 21st century: Central issues in English didactics (pp. 67 ̶ 89). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Iversen, L. L. (2012). Learning to be Norwegian: A case study in identity management. Münster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag. Iversen, L. L. (2019). From safe spaces to communities of disagreement. British Journal of Religious Education, 41(3), 315 ̶ 326.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jonas, R. C. K., & Lantz, C. (Eds.). (2010). Spotlight 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Natur & Kultur. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Lee, H. (2015). Telling stories and making social relations: Transnational women’s ways of belonging in intercultural contexts. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 174–193. doi:10.1093/applin/amt038 Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

282

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Lutnæs, E. (2013). Regimes of competence in the subject art and crafts. Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 20(3). Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/techneA/ article/view/757 Lutnæs, E. (2018). Creativity in assessment rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.designsociety.org/ publication/40842/creativity+in+assessment+rubrics Lynn, S. (2011). Texts and contexts: Writing about literature with critical theory (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. McKenzie, C., & Jarvie, S. (2018). The limits of resistant reading in critical literacy practices. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17(4), 298 ̶ 309. Morrell, E. (2005). Critical English education. English Education, 37(4), 312 ̶ 321. Müller, J., Sancho, J. M., & Hernández, F. (2009). New media literacy and the digital divide. In L. T. Wee Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and challenges (pp. 72 ̶ 88). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch005 Myers, J., & Eberfors, F. (2010). Globalizing English through intercultural critical literacy. English Education, 42(2), 148 ̶ 170. NelsonJ. M. (n.d.). Cat and mouse. Retrieved from https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/cat-and-mouse-13/ Nikolajeva, M. (2014). Reading for learning: Cognitive approaches to children’s literature. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/clcc.3 NOKUT. (2012). Kjennetegn ved finsk lærerutdanning [Hallmarks of Finnish Teacher Education]. Retrieved from https://www.nokut.no/contentassets/6812ce6c37b24c078c1f539532f17d49/kantardjiev_kim_kjennetegn_ved_finsk_larerutdanning.pdf Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2006). Læreplan for kunnskapsløftet (Vol. LK06). Oslo, Norway: Kunnskapsdepartementet. [Curriculum for knowledge promotion] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2008). Meld. st.11 (2008-2009) Læreren Rollen og utdanningen [White paper: The teacher, the role, and the education system]. Retrieved from https:// www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/stmeld-nr-11-2008-2009-/id544920/sec2?q=svensk%20l%25C3% 25A6rerutdanning%23match_0

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). Læreplan i Engelsk [Curriculum for English]. Retrieved from http://data.udir.no/kl06/ENG1-03.pdf Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Overordnet del – verdier og prinsipper for grunnopplæringen [Guiding introduction to the Norwegian National Curriculum]. Utdanningsdirektoratet. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/ Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2018). Engelsk – oppsummering av innspill [English – Summary of responses]. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/ fagfornyelsen/kjerneelementer/engelsk--oppsummering-av-innspill/

283

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2019a). Nye læreplaner – grunnskolen og gjennomgående fag vgo (LK20) [New curricula – Primary and lower secondary school and continuing subjects for upper secondary school]. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/Udir/PrintPageAsPdfService. ashx?pid=150622&epslanguage=no Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. (2019b). Læreplan i engelsk [Curriculum for English]. Retrieved from https://data.udir.no/kl06/v201906/laereplaner-lk20/ENG01-04.pdf Norwegian Ministry of Church and Education. (1987). Mønsterplan for grunnskolen: M87 [Curriculum for primary and lower secondary school: M87]. Oslo, Norway: Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet. Norwegian Ministry of Church, Education and Research. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen [Curriculum for 1st to 10th grade primary and lower secondary school]. Oslo, Norway: Nasjonalt Læremiddelsenter. Norwegian Ministry of Education. (2015). NOU 2015:8 Fremtidens skole [White paper: The school of the future]. Oslo, Norway: Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon. Norwegian Ministry of Education. (2016). Forskrift om rammeplan for grunnskolelærerutdanning for trinn 5-10 [Regulations of the framework for teacher education for grades 5-10]. Retrieved from https:// lovdata.no/forskrift/2016-06-07-861 Ode, E. (2013). Cat and mouse. In H. Heger, & N. Wroldsen (Eds.), Crossroads 8B (p. 17). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. (Original work published 2006). Parker, R. D. (2008). How to interpret literature: Critical theory for literary and cultural studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Piaget, J. (1969). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Richards, I. A. (1930). Practical criticism: A study of literary judgment. London, UK: Kegen Paul, Trench, Trubner. Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem. The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rowling, J. K., Thorne, J., & Tiffany, J. (2017). Harry Potter and the cursed child. London, UK: Arthur A. Levine Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Soter, A. O. (1999). Young adult literature and the new literary theories: Developing critical readers in middle school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Swan, M. (2011). Using texts constructively: what are texts for? Teaching English. Retrieved from https:// www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/using-texts-constructively-what-are-texts Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2018/ curriculum-for-the-compulsory-school-preschool-class-and-school-age-educare-revised-2018?id=3984 Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2016). Sparks 7. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups.

284

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2017). Sparks 8. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups. Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2018). Sparks 9. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups. Taylor, L., & Hoechsmann, M. (2011). Beyond intellectual insularity: Multicultural literacy as a measure of respect. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L’éducation, 34(2), 219 ̶ 238. Thompkins, J. (1980). An introduction to reader-response criticism. In J. Thompkins (Ed.), Readerresponse criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism (pp. 9–24). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Villaba, E. (2011). Critical thinking. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 323 ̶ 325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Ziehe, T. (2001). De personlige livsverdeners dominans [The dominance of personal lifeworlds]. Uddannelse [Education], 10, 3 ̶ 12.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Aesthetic Learning Processes: A learning process where the student learns through participation and creation to rework, reflect, and communicate about themselves and the world. Creativity: Ability to develop something new, for example an understanding or a feeling, or something concrete, such as an object. To be creative, one has to be able to imagine something one has never seen, felt, or thought of before. Critical Analysis: Meeting and discussing pieces of literature using different analytical and theoretical approaches. Criticality: Meeting texts, concepts, and understandings with a number of different questions with the aim of increasing an understanding of what is being expressed. Critical Literature Pedagogy: Working with literature in the classroom to incorporate different critical literary theories in order to enhance learners’ understanding and ability to discuss and develop understanding of the literature. Curriculum Development: The changes in white paper documents that decide the content and focus of school subjects in a given country. In-depth Learning: The gradual development of knowledge and understanding of concepts, methods, and connections within and between subjects. The goal for students to reflect on their own learning and be able to utilize what they have learned in different known and unknown situations, both individually and together with others. Literacy Development: The learning progression of students as their ability to read, analyze, discuss, and understand different kinds of texts improve over time. Literature-based Instruction: Language teaching that uses literary texts as a starting point for learning language and developing learners’ ability to express themselves and their understanding of themselves and the world.

285

 Linking Criticality and Creativity

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reflection-based Teaching: Teaching that focuses on developing learners’ understanding of a given topic through reflection and discussion. Teaching Strategies: Ways of devising lessons that promote learning for students of a given subject.

286

Linking Criticality and Creativity

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Bland, J. (Ed.). (2018). Using literature in English language education: Challenging reading for 8–18 year-olds. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. In this volume, contributors consider how literature can be used for teaching literary literacy, creative writing, intercultural learning, critical pedagogy, and deep reading in school settings where English is the teaching medium.  2. A.B. Fenner & A.S. Skulstad (Eds.). (2018) Teaching English in the 21st century: Central issues in English didactics. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. This volume defines and discusses concepts and competences related to the teaching and learning of English as a foreign or second language. It brings together historical, theoretical, and practical aspects of the subject.  3. Lutnæs, E. (2018). Creativity in assessment rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.designsociety. org/publication/40842/CREATIVITY+IN+ASSESSMENT+RUBRICS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This resource provides a model that defines five creative habits and serves as a lens to trace dimensions of creativity in teachers’ assessment rubrics from 27 schools across counties of Norway. It identifies possible steps towards cultivating responsible creativity in design education across levels. The model is readily applicable to ELT contexts worldwide.

287

288

Chapter 14

Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy:

Supporting Inclusion, Subverting Bias Jennifer Duggan Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

ABSTRACT This chapter helps teachers use genre for efective language learning in the increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse 21st-century language classroom. The chapter provides an overview of the history of the term genre across various academic disciplines and explains why critical knowledge of genres is a key literacy in the 21st century. It discusses current trends of use of genre in the language classroom and gives tips on how to use genre responsibly with multicultural, multiliterate, multilingual students, focusing in particular on the usefulness of critical literacy in linguistically and culturally diverse language classrooms. The chapter also highlights ways in which teachers can use genres to empower minority students—including those belonging to a linguistic minority—and to counteract bias in their classrooms.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Critical literacy has been a central discussion topic in literacy studies throughout the early 21st century. To be critically literate means to be able to consider more than the surface-level meanings of texts, reflecting upon and questioning their ideological, political, and social implications both historically and in the moment of interpretation (e.g., Bishop, 2014; McLaren & Lankshear, 1993). This includes considering how language itself, as well as texts more broadly, can solidify regimes of power which may empower one group at the expense of others (Foucault, 1970, 1977, 1978, 1985). Critical literacy thus draws attention to how power structures are reified through texts, whose needs are being best served and whose not, and the local and global tensions that may be at play in texts. This means that fostering critical literacy has been valued in the late-20th and early 21st century classroom because of its assumed concomitant fostering of democracy, empowerment, and social justice. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch014

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

At the same time as the term critical literacy has gained traction in approaches to language teaching, genre and its uses in language education have once again become popular topics (e.g., Cirocki, 2012; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Devitt, 2009). However, while genre has been used in various ways to teach language in 20th- and 21st-century education, its use is sometimes contested. Genre-based pedagogies have at times been accused of being too pedantic, too prescriptive, inflexible, and outdated (cf. Bhatia, 2002; Devitt, 2009). Nonetheless, understanding how genres structure the thoughts and expressions of the author and society more widely can make clear the part they play in upholding dominant perspectives. Moreover, developing an understanding of genres common to the target language can equip language learners with the knowledge of text-level grammar they need to successfully communicate across varied domains of language use and various registers (e.g., Bakhtin, 1986; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Halliday, 1985; Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 1985). Genre thus remains an important concept and a useful tool in the twenty-first century language classroom, and it can be used fruitfully to support students’ ability to communicate within the target language and across various social contexts. This chapter will demonstrate how critical literacy and genre can usefully be employed together in the 21st-century language classroom not only to support students’ successful use of the target language but also to support diverse students’ understandings of themselves, each other, and their relationships with and situatedness in the wider world. It will first provide an overview of the terms critical literacy and genre. It will then review of current understandings of the term genre, including contradictions and disagreements in its conceptualization, and summarize key recent theories regarding the use of genre in the language classroom. Finally, it will provide some examples of how these two concepts can be employed in language teaching contexts, focusing in particular on uses of genre that are inclusive of students’ varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds. For this purpose, the chapter will outline how genre pedagogies can be inflected by a critical-pedagogical approach to teaching that champions democratic notions of inclusion despite difference through the identification and subversion of the exclusionary norms which may underpin common genres.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Understanding Critical Literacy Critical literacy is a term which has its roots in social justice and activist movements, and in particular, in the pedagogical movements which have today come to be understood under the umbrella term critical pedagogy (e.g., Bishop, 2014; McLaren & Lankshear, 1993). Stemming from Marxist and social justice–based pedagogies (e.g., Freire, 1970, 1985; hooks, 1994, 2003, 2006), critical pedagogies emphasize “problem-posing” approaches to learning: “problem-posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality, thereby responding to the vocation of persons as beings who are authentic only when engaged in inquiry and creative transformation” (Freire, 1970, p. 84). The critical pedagogical movement seeks to emphasize political and social emancipation from suppressive structures of power through student-driven learning focusing on students’ own experiences and lived identities (Freire, 1970, 1985; hooks, 1994, 2003, 2006). As hooks (1994) has argued, knowledge should never be about “information only,” with “no relation to how one live[s]” (p. 3). Instead, learning must be “liberatory” and “empowering” for students (p. 6); it must include a recognition of, and indeed celebrate, “differences—those determined by class, race, sexual practice, nationality, and so on” (p. 9), 289

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

and through this, encourage the teacher to “genuinely value everyone’s presence” and see all “contributions as resources” (p. 8). To link these concepts explicitly to literacy, then, is to consider literacy “a political battleground,” as a space in which dominant values and perspectives, as made visible through texts, are questioned (Bishop, 2014, p. 51). As such, the value of critical literacy is seen to be its “being grounded in a politics of difference,” offering students the opportunity to become “conscious of [their personal] experience as historically constructed within specific power relations” (Anderson & Irvine, 1993, p. 82). Critical literacy’s focus, then, is on developing students’ awareness of how texts—including the language and structures used as well as explicit text content—uphold or resist existing hegemonic power structures in a given sociopolitical context (see also Hanssen & Jensvoll, Moya, and Patsala & Michali in this volume).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Understanding Genre The original definitions of genre can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. Plato (2009/360 BCE) was the first to discuss genre, through the figure of Socrates, in his Republic (360 BCE). Here, he discussed various aspects of texts that differentiate them from one another, focusing mainly on dramatic, epic, and lyric poetry (p. 3; see also Caraher, 2006). In Poetics (350 BCE), Aristotle (2009/350 BCE) refined Plato’s discussion of poetry, stating that he would discuss “poetry in itself and of its various kinds, noting the essential quality of each, to inquire into the structure of the plot [. . . and] the number and nature of the parts of which a poem is composed” (p. 1; see also Caraher, 2006). In his analysis, he included the patterns of language used (rhythm or melody), the topics covered in the work (as in his discussion of comedy versus tragedy), and whether or not a narrator is used as an interlocuter between the audience and the characters. It is through Aristotle that narrative structures and narrative modes became linked to the concept of genre. In the early 20th century, most scholars examining genre, such as Propp (1968/1928), took a structuralist approach to examining and defining genre. At its most basic, structuralism views objects of study, such as texts, as systems made up of parts which can be analyzed in relation to each other. It assumes that these relations enable the production of meaning and that the meanings of things within a system are relatively stable. As such, early 20th-century scholars sought to classify variants of genres. For example, Propp (1968/1928) argued that there were 31 basic functions, or structures, used in all Russian folktales. However, these early approaches to generic analysis were critiqued as focusing too much on surface-level elements of texts rather than on deeper paradigms within the text. They were also criticized for assuming that meanings and structures remain stable over time. Scholars publishing in the mid-20th century, particularly after the poststructuralist turn, instead focused on sociocultural influences on genres’ structures and content, as well as the ways in which genres shift and change over time. For example, Bakhtin (1986), in his essay “The Problem of Speech Genres” (originally given as a lecture in Russia mid-century), emphasized that “each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire of [. . .] genres that differentiate and grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex” (p. 60). He also explicitly linked sociocultural contexts to knowledge of genre. Similarly, literary scholars began to argue that sociocultural conditions led to the development, use, or fossilization of certain genres, such as the novel or the epic (e.g., Todorov, 1976). This new consideration of genres within their sociocultural contexts led to increased attention paid to genres from the late-20th century to today, particularly within educational contexts.

290

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Because of this complex history, genre is a term which, in the present moment, can be difficult to define, as it is used in different ways both within and between academic disciplines, including studies of folklore, rhetoric, literature, linguistics, and anthropology (see, e.g., Paltridge, 1997 for an overview). Nonetheless, it is important that we attempt to define it if we are to begin to understand it and to use it in a conscientious way in our classrooms. To begin to define genre, then, we ought first to return to Aristotle’s (2009/350 BCE) definition of it, namely, “poetry in itself and of its various kinds, noting the essential quality of each, to inquire into the structure of the plot [. . . and] the number and nature of the parts of which a poem is composed” (p. 1). The purpose of genres, then, is to classify texts by their “various kinds,” considering their “essential qualities,” “structures,” and “the number and nature of [their] parts.” The present chapter will focus on understandings of genre in literature and linguistics.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Genre in Literature In the mid-20th century, Bhaktin (1986) asserted, “Literary genres have been studied more than anything else. [. . .] From antiquity to the present, they have been studied in terms of their specific literary and artistic features, in terms of the differences that distinguish one from the other (within the realm of literature)” (p. 86). Indeed, the concept of genre has proved a useful tool in literary studies since Plato first discussed it. Modern definitions of genre in literary studies have shifted from a structuralist view of genre, which sees genre as a rigid, fixed category, to postmodern, culturalist views, which emphasize how genres develop and are interpreted through readers’ responses to texts within interpretive communities. Theorists (e.g., Barthes, 1977; Bakhtin, 1986; Todorov, 1976) have argued that genres have blurred, overlapping boundaries that are context-dependent and shift over time but that nonetheless invoke intertextual meaning—that is, any new text within a genre invokes previous texts in that same genre.1 Because of the blurred boundaries between genres and uncertainty regarding whether form or content—or a combination of both—should be considered central, the term genre is used in various ways even within the field of literature. The first way in which it is used is to refer to the three literary “modes” discussed by the Ancient Greeks, that is, to narrative, drama, and lyric (or poetry). It can also be used to refer to the category of composition into which a text falls, such as prose, fiction, nonfiction, or poetry. Related to this use of the term are also uses which focus on the formal structure or length, such as novella, sonnet, or short story. The term can further be used to categorize texts based on their expected emotional effect on the reader or the stance they take towards the subject matter; such categorizations include comedy, tragedy, and satire. Finally, the term can be used to refer to content or to expected plot structures, such as fantasy, the Gothic, or crime. The concept of genre can thus shape a reader’s understanding of a text in multiple ways. For example, we expect that a tragedy likely refers to a play. We also usually expect its plot to unfold in a specific order of events. Hence, we can infer that to say a play considered to be part of the tragedy genre is defined solely either by its expected emotional effect on the audience or by its expected content is an incomplete understanding of the term. In reality, most genres invoke a text’s literary mode, category of composition, formal structure and length, expected emotional effect on the audience, stance toward subject matter, content, and expected plot structure. For example, a murder mystery will likely be a fictional narrative in the form of a novel (or possibly, a film); it will likely generate embodied responses from a reader, such as fear, perhaps on behalf of a character or perhaps when lying in bed a night and hearing a noise; and the plot will likely follow the structure of introducing a murder, introducing several possible culprits in the murder (including moments of suspense and suspicion), and finally, solving the murder, usually with 291

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

one or several unexpected twists. This demonstrates how genre and literacy are linked—knowledge of genres allows us to use markers within and around texts, such as cover art, keywords in titles, or opening lines or scenes, to predict the contexts, aims, content, overall structure, and language of the text, as well as our own affective responses to the text. Genres are not static, however. Each new instance of a genre transforms our shared understanding of what that genre entails, and in some instances, a “new” genre comes into being. As Todorov (1976, p. 160) has argued, The fact that a work “disobeys” its genre does not make the latter nonexistent [. . .] because transgression, in order to exist as such, requires a law that will, or course, be transgressed. One could go further: the norm becomes visible—lives—only by its transgressions. [. . .] Not only does the work, for all its being an exception, necessarily presuppose a rule; but this work also, as soon as it is recognized in its exceptional status, becomes in its turn [. . .] a rule. Thus, genres are subject to change and transformation—to the point that new genres can be created by the “inversion,” “displacement,” and “combination” of old genres (Todorov, 1976, p. 161). A good example of this would be feminist, queer, and trans rewritings of literary fairytales. These revisions of known tales based on a feminist politics are now so common as to be a recognized as genre of their own—feminist fairytales. Such tales may, for example, champion active female protagonists whose stories do not necessarily end in marriage (e.g., Westland, 1993) or in which mermaids are used to represent queer/trans characters (e.g., Bacchilega & Alohalani Brown, 2019; Hurley, 2014).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Genre in Linguistics In linguistics, the understanding of genre is somewhat different—although it certainly overlaps with the common conceptualization of genre in literary studies. Approaches to genre in linguistics stem from the desire to develop “a correct determination of the general linguistic nature of the utterance” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 61) as well as to categorize non-literary texts, including rhetorical genres across a variety of institutional contexts, such as the medical, judicial, or political. Bhatia (2004) has described the 21stcentury preoccupation with genre as a preoccupation with the question, “Why does a particular use of language take the shape it does?” (p. 22) The linguistic study of genre relates to an interest in text-level (rather than sentence-level) grammar; that is, it focuses on the overall structure of a text, how the linguistic elements of the text fit together to form a whole (cohesion), how the ideas expressed fit together to present a whole idea (coherence), and the overall effectiveness of the text as a communicative object (e.g., Halliday, 1985; Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 1985). A genre tells us what structures, linguistic elements, and themes we can expect from a text given its institutional context, which will impose “constraints on the use of lexico-grammatical as well as discoursal resources” used to achieve a regularly repeated type of communication (Bhatia, 2004, pp. 23–25). Today, linguistic studies of genre occur in several areas of linguistics, such as rhetoric studies, corpus linguistics, and (systemic) functional linguistics. Although these areas of linguistics overlap, their specific interests in genres can—somewhat simplistically—be understood as differing in contextual focus: the institutional contexts of genres, the communicative contexts of genres, or the disciplinary, linguistic, and cultural contexts of genres. However, it is important to note that while linguistic studies of genre 292

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

may appear on the surface to differ significantly, as Bhatia (2004, p. 23) has emphasized, most attempts at defining and studying genre within this discipline have similar findings: • • • • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

Genre refers to the conventions and structures of types of texts; A genre is a “recognizable communicative event” that has specifc communicative aims; People who are established within a community that frequently uses a specifc genre will be better able to use that genre than people who are new to or outside of that community; People use genres to express both individual and group desires and ideologies; Genres refect cultures and are embedded within the sociocultural practices of their generative cultures; All genres “have integrity of their own, which is often identifed with reference to a combination of textual, discursive and contextual factors.”

This chapter will, for the sake of brevity, focus on the systemic functional approach to genre because it has been the most influential on K–12 educational uses of genres in the early 21st century. This understanding of genre is largely based on the work of Halliday (see esp. Halliday, 1985; Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 1985), who envisioned language as a resource for meaning making that is directly related to sociocultural context. Put simply, Halliday and Hasan (1985) argued that language always has a specific function within a given context. To take a functionalist approach, then, we must consider the purpose of any linguistic interaction (e.g., to instruct, to query, to challenge), the content or subject matter of the communication, the roles of the interlocuters (e.g., an African-American professor and an Asian-German student), the mode of communication (e.g., written, spoken, digital, multimodal), and the wider sociocultural context (e.g., a British government building in colonial Nairobi, Kenya; a rural church in Soviet Russia; a street corner in modern-day Hamburg, Germany). Halliday and Hasan (1985) referred to the overall context of the communicative situation as the register, which they split into three constitutive parts: field (the situation surrounding a text, i.e., what communication is happening, why, and where), tenor (the roles and relative statuses of the interlocuters, i.e., who is involved in creating a text and for whom), and mode (the symbolic organization of the text, i.e., what written, spoken, or multimodal channel(s) of communication are being used and for what rhetorical function, e.g., to persuade or to inform). Thus, a postcard (mode) from two grandchildren to their grandparents (tenor) about their summer holiday in Australia (field) differs from a thank-you card (mode) from the same grandchildren to the same grandparents (tenor) formally thanking them for some holiday gifts (field). Both letter-writing situations also have a relationship with a broader cultural context. When we communicate with other people in a shared discursive community, both we and our interlocuter(s) have expectations regarding how our communication will be structured. These expectations are influenced by our shared experiences with communications over time within our contexts and are both shaped by and shape the mode, tenor, and field of a given communication. The expectations regarding structure, content, language used, and interlocuters can be called genre. The thank-you card is a specific genre of card. As such, both the children writing their thank-you card and the grandparents receiving it (as well as the parents, who may review it) have expectations regarding the mode used (written), the formality of the language, and the content of the message based on their previous experiences with thank-you cards. Moreover, this genre may differ between communicative contexts—for example, the expectations a writer and reader have regarding the structure, content, and formality of a thank-you card written in Okinawa

293

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

today differ from those regarding a thank-you card written in 1923 or from a thank-you card written in England. Genres may also die out as they become less used—for example, it is possible that thank-you cards are becoming a rare genre today; thank-you text messages or snaps are likely more popular now than physical cards, and the change in mode (digital and perhaps multimodal versus a handwritten, physical card) will affect the structure and content of the message. In sum, in the systemic functional approach, genre is generally viewed as functionalist and communicative—that is, a genre develops in order to achieve a specific communicative function frequently required within a specific context. However, once again, genre boundaries are not clear or fixed in this view—and indeed, a single text may include multiple genres (e.g., Bakhtin, 1986; Paltridge, 1997; Swales, 1990). Applied linguistics’ approaches to genre classification tend to emphasize the communicative purpose of a text—who wrote it, for whom, and why?—and the contexts of the text (institutional, cultural, or other)—where, when, and within what formalized structures was it composed?—more than the formal features of the text and characteristics of the text—how is it written and what content does it include?— that are often the main focus of literary studies of genre. Nonetheless, all of these considerations are important when using genre in an educational context.

Critical Literacy, Social Justice, and Genre One further aspect of genres that needs to be considered if they are to be used in a specific educational context is the ideologies—that is, the ideals and commonly held beliefs that underpin a society or the politics of the author—that they reflect. Todorov (1976, p. 164) argued,

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A society chooses and codifies the acts that most closely correspond to its ideology; this is why the existence of certain genres in a society and their absence in another reveal a central ideology, and enable us to establish it with considerable certainty. It is not chance that the epic is possible during one era, the novel during another (the individual hero of the latter being opposed to the collective hero of the former): each of these choices depends upon the ideological framework in which it operates. When using texts in the classroom, it is important to consider the ways in which they reflect dominant ideologies and how these ideologies may affect students’ beliefs about themselves, others, and the world. Certain genres may reflect ideologies which ostracize—or even demonize—groups of people, and these ideologies may not be immediately visible even to the best of readers. As an example, let us consider children’s literature. At the present time, commercially published children’s books rarely reflect the diversity of the children reading them; the Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC, 2019), for example, which annually produces statistics on recently published children’s books, argues that the children’s publishing industry falls woefully short of the mark when it comes to reflecting the diversity of today’s young populations. In western contexts, the overwhelming majority of books focus on white, middle-class, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied characters (e.g., Bold, 2019; CCBC, 2019; CLPE, 2019; Tschida, Ryan, & Ticknor, 2014). For example, in 2017 in North America, only two picture books featured a disabled child as the protagonist (Tyner, 2018a) and under two percent had an LGBTQ+ primary character (Tyner, 2018b), while in 2018 in Britain, under four percent of children’s book protagonists were people of color (CLPE, 2019), possibly because the diversity of authors has declined over the past decade (Bold, 2019). Inclusion, however, is not the only

294

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

way in which commercially published children’s literature lets down minority populations; even in the rare instances when diverse characters are included in texts, depictions of them very often reinforce hurtful stereotypes (CLPE, 2019). Being left out of literature not only invisibilizes a number of populations who, in fact, make up a significant portion of the society but also prioritizes certain ways of life and certain people over others. Perhaps more insidious than the explicit content, however, is the ways in which genres implicitly exclude or demonize minorities. This is not only due to the barriers to publication commonly faced by minority authors (e.g., Bold, 2019) but also the conventions of the genres common to children’s literature. Academic studies examining genres and their effects on readers since the late-20th century have revealed a number of concerns regarding common literary genres like school stories, fantasy, and fairy tales. These range from the ways in which Anglo-American fantasy protagonists are almost always white, while antagonists are often either explicitly or metaphorically depicted as foreigners or people of color (e.g., Thomas, 2019; Young, 2016), to concerns regarding the ways in which the generic structure of some European fairy tales requires feminine passivity or heteronormative endings (e.g., Parsons, 2004; Seifert, 2015; Westland, 1993). Similar concerns have been expressed by scholars elsewhere. In China, for example, the imported genres of Bildugsroman and school stories have been shown to uphold the rigidness of binarized gender and compulsive heterosexuality in most instances (e.g., Shen, 2017, 2018). Majority perspectives dominate children’s texts in part because genres often reiterate existing power structures within the culture in which they were generated and “reveal the constitutive traits of the society in which they belong” (Todorov, 1976, p. 163). As Cirocki (2012) argues, “Since speaking and writing are social practices, learners should be made aware that both skills are invariably linked to such social factors as power, gender, age and geographic location” (p. 79). If this is true, in any classroom-based consideration of genres and the cultures which have produced them, “learners must discover the reasons behind many of their attitudes toward cultural reality and thus confront cultural reality in a new way” (Freire, 1985, p. 54). Simply put, this means that students should, together with their teachers, consider how individual texts and, more broadly, entire genres reflect dominant ideologies in their contexts and how this may influence how they view the world. When working with genre, then, we must consider its deeper, culturally dependent structures, for “to analyze the codification in [a genre or text’s] deep structure [. . .] is to reconstruct the former praxis and to become capable of a new and different praxis” (Freire, 1985, p. 54)—that is, discovering how genres shape our worldviews can help us to envision more emancipatory texts, ways of being, and ways of perceiving. It is important to think about how we can achieve this when using texts with language learners, including examining patterns across a group of texts, such as in genre study. Consider, for example, how teachers might identify and address oppressive or exclusionary aspects of genres with students: Is a discussion enough? How do examples of the genre produced in other locations compare, particularly keeping in mind the quote from Todorov (1976), above, attesting to the cultural and sociohistorical specificity of genres? Can teachers address these issues by working together with their students to find—or even produce their own—liberatory examples that subvert these negative traditions? We cannot fail to acknowledge that many of the texts we use with students are exclusionary, but “a problem-posing critical literacy approach” will allow all students to feel included in the classroom and feel as though their life experiences and reactions to texts matter (Quintero, 2009, pp. 2-3).

295

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Using Genre in the Diverse Language Classroom It has been established above that genres pervade communicative acts and that all “liberties, innovations, creativities, [and] explorations [. . .] are invariably realized within rather than outside the generic boundaries” (Bhatia, 2004, p. 29). It has also been established that genres reflect the conventions, ideologies, and norms of the societies of which they are a part (e.g., Todorov, 1976; Quintero, 2009) and reflect the text-level grammatical structures common to a given language and sociolinguistic context (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, 1985). As such, genre can be considered to be an essential element of language learning, including learning how to communicate effectively through the use of dominant knowledge structures. Explicit focus on genre allows learners to identify how texts are patterned and structured in the target language and thus to ensure that the texts students create will communicate their ideas effectively (Zhu, 2005). Moreover, we can infer that in order to successfully innovate within a genre, or to have the possibility of successfully subverting its traits for the purposes of self-empowerment or social justice, one must first be familiar with the conventions of that genre (e.g., Bhatia, 2004, p. 29). It is for this reason that, building on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976, 1985) work, others (e.g., Christie, 2005; Martin, 1985) have developed what they call “genre pedagogy” or a “genre-based approach”2 to language teaching. At its most basic, this approach aims to make the implicit purposes and expected structures or conventions of specific types of written and spoken communication explicit so that students can use them more effectively. It emphasizes that language is always used in a specific context (including a wider sociohistorical moment and the norms and expectations of communication within a given institution, a specific author within that context, and an intended audience) and with a specific communicative purpose. Focusing on the functions of texts within a genre allows learners to identify the formal aspects of language expected by an intended audience within a specific context. This approach to language learning takes as given that learners must first learn the formal conventions of texts and their functional purposes before they can mimic a text and, later, independently create texts tailored to their specific communicative needs. Moreover, and as Cirocki (2012) argues, “the close relationship of the theory of genre with the theory of register” allows learners to develop, over time, a deep knowledge of how to address different audiences, either formally or informally, because the study of genre emphasizes that “the choice of words people make, the types of clauses or sentences they construct and the kinds of texts they produce are determined by social [context]” (p. 79). Because genres represent communicative conventions at the text level of grammar, focus on genres can draw students’ attention to macro-level grammar, which can aid the overall coherence and cohesion of a text. As we have already learned, a text’s genre helps to make it, as a communicative act, understandable to its audience in a given sociocultural context. Conventions used paratextually—such as on the cover of a book—or intratextually—such as within a text’s title or its opening lines—signal to readers what they can expect from the text. As such, we might consider genres to “function as ‘horizons of expectation’ for readers” as well as “as ‘models of writing’ for authors” (Todorov, 1976, p. 163). For example, a picture book with an image of a princess and a castle on the front which opens with the phrase “Once upon a time” indicates to readers that they can expect a fairy tale—and likely a normative one rather than a feminist retelling. Drawing students’ attention to and practicing such conventions across genres allows them to use these conventions in present and future communications in the target language and adds to their repertoire of possibility models for texts composed in the target language.

296

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Multiliteracies Modern uses of genre pedagogy emphasize a multiliteracies approach which brings together the didactic, the authentic, the functional, and the critical. Multiliteracies is a term first coined by the New London Group in 1996. The term refers to plural “dimensions of literacies [. . . including] the multilingual and the multimodal” and involves “a range of pedagogical moves, including both ‘situated practices’ and ‘overt instruction,’ but also entailing ‘critical framing’ and ‘transformed practice’” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 166). A multiliteracies approach frames any act within a language to be based on what they term available designs, which we can consider to be genres of communication. It suggests that by using available designs to design a new text produces the redesigned—a new iteration of the genre which transforms the genre (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 175). As such, Cope and Kalantzis (2009) argue, a multiliteracies approach to language learning can be a powerful tool to focus on “identity work” relating to “human rights, diversity, multilingualism and multiple epistemologies” (p. 189). In this way, the concerns of multiliteracies approaches clearly overlap with those of critical pedagogies more broadly and critical literacy in particular. In general, genre pedagogies are based on the idea that established members of a community or culture (such as a partner at a law firm in London) will be more familiar with the genres requisite for achieving common, established communicative acts within that community than apprentice members of the community (such as an articling law student), and may not be recognized at all by non-members of the community who may nonetheless by part of the wider society (such as a member of parliament, a bus driver, or a university professor) (Swales, 1990, pp. 52–53). Given this, genre pedagogies assume that familiarity with genres can be learned over time through regular contact with a genre and experiments in using the genre. This is clearly based on a functional understanding of genres as structures which can be mobilized to achieve specific communicative purposes, but it is also directly linked to the clear pedagogical implications of Halliday’s assertion that young children’s learning a language and its structures within a community is a social-constructivist process (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1993; Christie, 1999, p. 761). Ewing (1994) suggests that the functional approaches to language teaching emphasized by the Sydney School foreground valuing students’ diverse linguistic, social, and cultural backgrounds. She argues, also, that a functional approach to genre teaching should provide “meaningful” activities, that is, activities that are purposeful; introduce “a range of texts” to emphasize similarities and differences; value real or authentic texts rather than constructed texts, like those found in textbooks; and include “explicit modelling and joint construction” in order to scaffold students’ learning prior to encouraging independent text production. Christie (1999) suggests that genre-teaching is useful in language learning contexts precisely because genres offer explicit models of the types of texts available in the target language and culture, “providing a framework in which to learn features of grammar and discourse” as well as clearly demonstrating how texts composed within a given framework can achieve a specific communicative purpose (p. 762). Cope and Kalantzis (2009) identify four activity types that are essential in approaching texts: • •

Situated practice, or “experiencing”: immersion activities which allow students to experience texts and consider their real-world contexts and purposes; Overt instruction, or “conceptualizing”: activities in which knowledge of text types is discussed explicitly with students; 297

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

• •

Critical framing, or “analyzing”: activities in which the students, either alone or together with the teacher, attempt to develop a framework for the structures, contexts, and purposes of texts; and Transformed practice, or “applying”: activities which allow students to apply what they know and create texts aimed at achieving a specifc purpose in a given communicative context.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Combining Critical Literacy/ Multiliteracies and Genre Pedagogies Some have criticized the genre pedagogy model because they consider pedagogical uses of genre to be “formulaic and constraining” (Devitt, 2009, p. 337) and to suggest genres are static (see, e.g., Bhatia, 2002). However, circumspect consideration of genre in the multilingual, multicultural classroom allows students to see that genres may change over time and that genres’ iterations may differ between communities of practice. Critical literacy—or “constructing and critically using language (oral and written) as a means of expressing, interpreting, and/or transforming our lives and the lives of those around us” (Quintero, 2010, p. 374)—here coincides quite neatly with the concepts of genre explored above, as both emphasize contexts and communities of practice, as well as the differences between various contexts and communities of practice. Similarly, in approaches to genre termed critical (pedagogic) approaches, the ways in which “genres become embedded in the assumptions, values, and beliefs of the groups in power” are explored together with students, with the hope of helping students to become aware of these embedded ideologies and, through awareness, to find their own voices and “analyze, write, critique, and change or rewrite genres” to serve their own purposes (Dewitt, 2009, pp. 338, 348). Critical pedagogic uses of genre in the classroom highlight how students can develop “a critical stance and their own agency in the face of disciplinary discourses, academic writing, and other realms of literacy” (Dewitt, 2009, p. 337). In linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, it is particularly important to consider how literary genres include and exclude certain groups of children, as was discussed earlier in this chapter. In addition, linguicism—or “discrimination against non-native [. . .] speakers and ethnolinguistic minorities,” inextricably entangled with conceptions of race (Cho, 2017, p. 668)—is a regular problem, particularly in language-teaching contexts (e.g., Cho, 2017). Indeed, children’s ability to learn a language, including the generic structures of the target speech communities, can be affected by many factors that may privilege or disempower them in the language classroom outside of the traditionally considered factors of class, capital, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and so forth, including previous access to education, quality of previous education, geographic location (including within the local community), affinity with teachers or learning styles, distance between first language(s) and the target language, perceived value of spoken languages, ability in spoken languages, number of spoken languages, access to learning materials, closeness with peers, and so forth. Two approaches to writing may be usefully combined with genre pedagogy in order to counteract these systemic injustices. The first, borrowed from critical race theory, is called counterstorying or counterstorytelling. This approach “aims to question tacit assumptions and unarticulated presuppositions of social structures and asymmetrical power relations in them” and thus to see though “the mask of objectivity, colorblindness, white supremacy, and meritocracy, endowing the teller with the power to contest the status quo” (Cho, 2017). Counterstorytelling focuses in particular on personal narratives which either reveal systemic injustice or center and empower sidelined perspectives. Bending is another approach. Although it is closely related to and at times overlaps with the concept of counterstorytelling, bending, as an approach, focuses not on new narratives but on revising old narratives (Thomas, 2019). The term bending is often combined with the particular type of bending at hand: racebending, queerbending, 298

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

genderbending, etc. It is a common practice in online fan communities; for example, fans of the Harry Potter series regularly depict Harry as gay and/or southeast Asian and Hermione as Black in the art and stories they post online, drawing attention not only to the assumed heteronormativity and whiteness of fantasy characters but also to the real-life diversity of Britain (e.g., Duggan, 2019; Fowler, 2019; Gilliland, 2016; Seymour, 2018; Thomas, 2019; Thomas & Stornaiuolo, 2016, 2019; Tosenberger, 2008). Using critical genre pedagogies may help to highlight systemic racism and linguicism—as well as other forms of systemic discrimination—while at the same time providing all students with opportunities to use their own voices and unique perspectives to reimagine existing genres and author resistant narratives. Through such approaches, students are empowered to use genres creatively and to achieve their own ends by subverting expectations and the existing power structures built into the genres being explored—one example of this would be inviting students to compose feminist, queer, critical race, or other revisions of commonly (re)told western fairy tales, such as Cinderella or Snow White.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Although there are many other possible models available for approaching genre, this chapter emphasizes the four activity types listed by Cope and Kalantzis (2009, 2015) in their multiliteracies model: experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing, and applying. Another similar framework which can usefully be appropriated to critical genre pedagogies is the “into, through, beyond” approach of Brinton and Holten (1997), which coincides with the multiliteracies approach on a number of fronts: the “into” phase emphasizes a review of known information (p. 11), the “through” phase introduces students to new materials and concepts (p. 13), and the “beyond” phase invites students to apply what they have learned (p. 14). Because language learning is so contingent on the specific contexts of the learners and the school, local and national guidelines, and other such considerations, all advice given here will need to be adapted to each specific context of language learning as appropriate.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Experiencing The main aim of situated practice activities is to introduce students to a topic or to allow them to experience texts in real-world contexts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Genres can be introduced to students in a number of ways, from exploring or being read example texts to tapping into their knowledge of a genre or asking them to come up with a list of words they associate with a genre. Cruz and Pollock (2004) provided a useful example of this first phase of study in their article “Stepping into the Wardrobe: A Fantasy Genre Study.” Here, they outlined, in detail, how they implemented an immersive study of the fantasy genre in a fourth-grade classroom. Although their study examined at a majority language classroom, their approach is nonetheless useful in multilingual and diverse foreign language–learning contexts. In their genre study, Cruz and Pollock (2004) first reminded students of fantasy books that had been read aloud to them in the past and then asked the students to find—in the classroom, in the library, or at home—some examples of books they considered “fantasy” for the next day. No books were left out of this first gathering exercise. Students were then read Robert Munsch’s (1988) picturebook The Paper Bag Princess as an example of fantasy. Afterwards, the students were asked to look through the books they had gathered and to decide whether they were or were not fantasy, based on the example provided. If they were not sure whether a book counted as fantasy or not, it could be put in a “maybe” pile. 299

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Other useful activities which might achieve a similar result to gathering activities and reading activities include brainstorming about a term or terms, such as “fairy tales” or “dragons”; asking students to engage in an aesthetic exercise, like improvising a telephone call with a partner or drawing a scene in response to a prompt; or providing students with a short, introductory writing activity, such as “Write the first scene of a story beginning with the phrase ‘Once upon a time’” or “Write a quick summary of your favorite fairy tale.”

Conceptualizing Conceptualizing activities include any activities in which knowledge is discussed explicitly by or with students, allowing them to make “the tacit explicit” or to “generaliz[e] from the particular” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 185). Such activities might include creating visual schemas of knowledge, like mind maps or charts; going through gathered materials and organizing them; or providing students with a partial list of generic traits and asking them to add to the list. For example, after students have gained an initial idea of a genre like fantasy through both a gathering activity and a reading aloud activity, they can, with the help of their teacher, create a chart as a group which lists the elements of fantasy; after creating the chart, students can be asked to review fantasy books in groups and to find where the elements of fantasy occurred (Cruz & Pollock, 2004, p. 187). Following such an activity, students can be asked to read further fantasy books in their free time. If the students have completed a gathering activity, bringing books from home or the library, these can be made available in the classroom (Cruz & Pollock, 2004). This will encourage them to reflect further on what they have done in class. Other useful activities that fall under the “conceptualizing” rubric include creating and comparing plot charts for various texts within a genre or finding and discussing the relevance of common paratextual elements, such as the maps often included in fantasy novels. Any activities which encourage students to name elements common to a genre or to theorize aspects of the genre by creating or using interpretive frameworks can be considered “conceptualizing” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Analyzing Analyzing activities aim to encourage students’ further reflection on what they learned in the conceptualizing stage, including the further development of frameworks for the structures, content, and purposes of texts and their critical questioning of those frameworks, as appropriate. Analysis can involve any number of activities, from reading group discussions to co-creating “frame” skeleton texts that can later be used by students when they are authoring their own, original texts. In order to take a critical approach, students should be encouraged to question and explore whose interests texts serve and whose lives they reflect, as well as whose interests and experiences are left out of texts. For example, students can be encouraged to read fantasy independently, both during silent reading and at home. Teachers can stock the classroom with fantasy books from the library for this purpose and pair individual reading with read-aloud sessions and book club discussions focusing on fantasy books (Cruz & Pollock, 2004). Any initial charts or visuals that have been co-created at the beginning of the study can be mass produced so that students can keep track of the fantasy elements in each book they read (Cruz & Pollock, 2004). To encourage students’ criticality, they can be prompted to ask questions about elements like the setting of fantasies (when and where do the stories take place, and why does

300

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

that matter in terms of who is included or excluded?) or what types of people, objects, and beings are commonly depicted as “good” or “bad.”

Applying Finally, in the applying stage, students are encouraged to apply what they know by creating their own texts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). For example, they can be encouraged to make “inquiries”—short, investigative projects—into elements of fantasy that caught their interest, such as “power,” “betrayal,” and “dragons” (Cruz & Pollock, 2004, p. 193). Students can also be encouraged to bring anything they wanted to discuss to the attention of the class during designated discussion periods (Cruz & Pollock 2004, p. 194). Texts created during this stage can either be expected to conform to generic expectations, through activities like students’ authoring their own fantasy picturebooks, or can be freer, allowing students to complete the projects they feel are most valuable. This might mean that students create their own fantasy-inspired artwork, music, or informational texts. It is important during this period to respect students’ own interests, even as teachers may encourage them “toward exploring more complex ideas in the genre,” because they are more likely to be fully engaged if they can choose “the path they travel” themselves (Cruz & Pollock 2004, p. 194). Similarly, Cope and Kalantzis (2015) have suggested that students should be given opportunities to “transfer [their] knowledge to different contexts” and express their own voices and perspectives (p. 16). The following teaching tip shows one possible way to explore genre with students based on Cruz and Pollock’s (2004) example and Cope and Kalantzis’s (2009, 2015) multiliteracies framework. Teaching Tip Anika and her students have recently been studying the science fiction genre, focusing on picturebooks and graphic novels, in their English as a foreign language classroom. The students have found several examples of science fiction picturebooks and graphic novels— some in English, some in other languages—and have brought them in to the classroom. They have examined these examples to create a list of criteria for science fiction stories, and come up with a generic template of a science fiction story’s content and plot (cf. Cruz & Pollock, 2004): • Good versus evil • Quest • Technology • Character change/development • Moral lessons

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Anika wanted to take a closer look at who does what in the science fiction texts they were using. She and her students decided to look closely at the images of the protagonists (the heroes) in each story and to examine how they are depicted. The students worked together in groups of two or three, with each group examining one book. In total, they examined ten books. They were then invited to share their observations. The students came up with the following list (helped by Anika, who asked a number of questions): • Six of the ten protagonists are boys, three are girls, and one is a fantasy creature (an alien). • Only one of the protagonists isn’t “skinny” (a girl). • Only one protagonist is not light-skinned. • Four of the protagonists have blue eyes, one has grey eyes, one has green eyes, two have brown eyes, and two have black eyes. • The protagonists all have black/brown or blond hair. • Only one protagonist speaks more than one language (the alien).

301

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Teaching Tip • In four texts, the protagonists encounter creatures or people who speak a different language. These are all “bad guys.” • None of the protagonists have lived somewhere other than the place they start their journey—they are “not foreign.” • None of the protagonists have any health problems. • Five of the protagonists form a romantic attachment, and all of them fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. Each student was then invited to write a short reflection text responding to the following questions: • To what degree are the protagonists in the books we looked at today like you? (Please describe how they are similar/different from you.) • How often have you come across science fiction protagonists who are like you? After reviewing the students’ responses, Anika suggested that they might write a science fiction graphic novel or picturebook of their own. The students were very excited by this idea. Anika gently suggested to the students that they might consider what they discovered in their previous class about how similar many protagonists are. Together with the students, she discussed the pros and cons of having protagonists who are all the same. The students were given complete freedom in creating their own graphic novel or picturebook science fiction. They were allowed to use multiple languages when creating these texts. While some students reproduced stereotypical protagonists, some drew protagonists who were people of color. Some of the protagonists were foreign or spoke multiple languages—all of which were used in the texts—while some of the protagonists were different in other ways. After every student had created a story, the stories were put on display in the classroom. Students were encouraged to read each other’s stories during silent reading time. What did Anika achieve by engaging her students in making these graphic science fiction stories? Essentially, she tapped into their knowledge of the science fiction genre and worked with them to make visible some of the cultural biases that may be present in science fiction narratives. She encouraged them to reflect further on their discussion, and to relate it to their own experiences and senses of identity. The students were able to create texts which subverted generic expectations and to share these with each other. Even though the target language, English, was present, students were also encouraged to include other languages they knew at their own discretion. Anika used these tasks to activate students’ pre-existing knowledge, prepare them for new learning experiences, and show them how their experiences and knowledge could be useful in creating new and exciting narratives.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Critical genre pedagogies and critical literacy emphasize “participation through personal histories, the sharing of multiple ways of knowing, and transformative action” (Quintero, 2010, p. 374). This chapter discussed critical literacy and the history of the concept of genre, and explained how genre and critical literacy can be fruitfully be used as a part of language teaching in the multilingual, multicultural classroom. It has been shown how critical approaches to genre pedagogy emphasize students’ agency and diversity. These approaches encourage teachers to make what students learn in the classroom relevant to their everyday lives, and to encourage students to find the value in their own experiences and perspectives. As such, these approaches can be considered to be particularly motivating for linguistically and culturally diverse students, and particularly students who may otherwise feel excluded or disenfranchised. However, this chapter is by no means exhaustive in its discussion of possible approaches to genre in the classroom; there are many further ways in which teachers can make students aware of the importance of genre to successful communication and the ways in which genres uphold or resist the status quo, and many of these approaches have yet to be created. This chapter has hopefully inspired its readers to experiment with including critical approaches to genre in their own classrooms.

302

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Discussion Questions 1. Choose one character from a book you feel you can relate to and explain why you feel more able to relate to this character than to other characters. 2. In what ways are the examples of [name of genre] texts in [name of target language] this chapter has looked at different or similar to texts in this genre in the other languages you know? 3. Whose purposes do you feel [name of genre] texts most serve? Whose purposes don’t they serve? How could you revise the genre to be more inclusive?

REFERENCES Anderson, G. L., & Irvine, P. (1993). Informing critical literacy with ethnography. In P. L. McLaren, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 81–104). New York, NY: State University of New York. Aristotle. (2009). Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/ poetics.1.1.html (Original work published 350 BCE). Bacchilega, C., & Alohalani Brown, M. (2019). The Penguin book of mermaids. London, UK. Penguin Classics. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). “Speech genres” and other late essays (VW McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979). Bakhtin, M. M., & Medvedov, P. N. (1985). The formal method in literary scholarship (A. J. Wehrle, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1928). Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image–Music–Text (S. Heath, Trans.) (pp. 142–148). New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/referenceguides/bawarshi-reiff/ Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475–509. Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica, 4, 3–9. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/14e30e86bb124220aea214f382b40298

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London, UK: Continuum. Bishop, E. (2014). Critical literacy: Bringing theory to praxis. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(1), 51–63. Bold, M. R. (2019). Representation of people of colour among children’s book authors and illustrators. Retrieved from https://www.booktrust.org.uk/globalassets/resources/represents/booktrust-representsdiversity-childrens-authors-illustrators-report.pdf

303

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Caraher, B. G. (2006). Genre theory: Cultural and historical motives engendering literary genre. In G. Dowd, L. Stevenson, & J. Strong (Eds.), Genre matters: Essays in theory and criticism (pp. 29–40). Bristol, UK: intellect. Cho, H. (2017). Racism and linguicism: Engaging language minority pre-service teachers in counterstorytelling. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 20(5), 666–680. Cirocki, A. (2012). Genre theory: A horn of plenty for EFL learners. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 11(3), 78–99. Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC). (2019). Publishing statistics on children’s/YA books about people of color and First/Native Nations and by people of color and First/Native Nations authors and illustrators. Cooperative Children’s Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from https://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/pcstats.asp Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4, 164–195. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Cruz, M. C., & Pollock, K. B. (2004). Stepping into the wardrobe: A fantasy genre study. Language Arts, 81(3), 184–195. Dahlen, S. P., & Hyuck, D. (2019, June 19). Picture this: Diversity in children’s books 2018 infographic. Retrieved from https://readingspark.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/picture-this-diversity-in-childrens-books2018-infographic/ Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2012). An appropriate model of language. In Teaching language in context (pp. 2–10). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Devitt, A. (2009). Teaching critical genre awareness. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 337–351). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/ genre/ Dowd, G. (2006). Introduction: Genre matters in theory and criticism. In G. Dowd, L. Stevenson, & J. Strong (Eds.), Genre matters: Essays in theory and criticism (pp. 11–28). Bristol, UK: intellect.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Duggan, J. (2019). Fanfiction: Remixing race, sexuality, and gender(s). In A. Sparrman (Ed.), Making culture: Children’s and young people’s leisure cultures (pp. 47–50). Göteborg, Sweden: Kulturanalys Norden. Ewing, R. (1994). What is a functional model of language? Retrieved from https://www.petaa.edu.au/ iMIS_Prod/PETAA_Docs/PPs-open/095F.pdf Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1985). History of sexuality (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

304

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Fowler, M. J. (2019). Rewriting the school story through racebending in the Harry Potter and Raven Cycle fandoms. Transformative Works and Cultures, 29. doi: . doi:10.3983/twc.2019.1492 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation (D. Macedo, Trans.). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Gilliland, E. (2016). Racebending fandoms and digital futurism. Transformative Works and Cultures, 8. doi: . doi:10.3983/twc.2016.0702 Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional linguistics. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a socialsemiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London, UK: Routledge. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. London, UK: Routledge. hooks, b. (2006). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. London, UK: Routledge. Hughes-Hassell, S. (2013). Multicultural young adult literature as a form of counter-storytelling. The Library Quarterly, 83(3), 212–228. Hurley, N. (2014). The little transgender mermaid: A shape-shifting tale. In M. Reimer, N. Ali, D. England, & M. D. Unrau (Eds.), Seriality and texts for young people: The compulsion to repeat (pp. 258–280). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. McLaren, P. L., & Lankshear, C. (1993). Critical literacy and the postmodern turn. In P. L. McLaren, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 379–426). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames, and writing in research settings. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Parsons, L. T. (2004). Ella evolving: Cinderella stories and the construction of gender-appropriate behavior. Children’s Literature in Education, 35(2), 135–154.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Plato. (2009). The republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic. html. (Original work published 360 BCE). Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (L. Scott, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1928). Quintero, E. P. (2009). Critical literacy in early childhood education: Artful story and the integrated curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Quintero, E. P. (2010). Something to say: Children learning through story. Early Education and Development, 21(3), 372–391.

305

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Seifert, L. (2015). Introduction: Queer(ing) fairy tales. Marvels & Tales, 29(1), 15–20. Seymour, J. (2018). Racebending and prosumer fanart practices in Harry Potter fandom. In P. Booth (Ed.), A companion to media fandom and fan studies (pp. 333–347). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Shen, L. C. (2017). Femininity and gender in contemporary Chinese school stories: The case of Tomboy Dai An. Children’s Literature in Education, 50(3), 278–296. Shen, L. C. (2018). The effeminate boy and queer boyhood in contemporary Chinese adolescent novels. Children’s Literature in Education. doi:10.100710583-018-9357-7 Swales, J. (1990). The concept of genre. In Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings (pp. 33–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, E. E. (2019). The dark fantastic: Race and the imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games. New York, NY: NYU Press. Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2016). Restorying the self: Bending toward textual justice. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 313–338. Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Race, storying, and restorying: What can we learn from Black fans? Transformative Works and Cultures, 29. doi:10.3983/twc.2019.1562 Todorov, T. (1976). The origin of genres (R. M. Berrong, Trans.). New Literary History, 8(1), 159–170. Tosenberger, C. (2008). Homosexuality at the online Hogwarts: Harry Potter slash fanfiction. Children’s Literature, 36, 185–207. Tyner, M. (2018a, February 22). CCBC 2017 multicultural statistics [Blog post]. Retrieved from http:// ccblogc.blogspot.com/2018/02/ccbc-2017-multicultural-statistics.html Tyner, M. (2018b, November 6). CCBC 2017 statistics on LGBTQ+ literature for children & teens [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://ccblogc.blogspot.com/2018/04/ccbc-2017-statistics-on-lgbtq.html Westland, E. (1993). Cinderella in the classroom: Children’s responses to gender roles in fairy-tales. Gender and Education, 5(3), 237–249. Young, H. (2016). Race and popular fantasy literature: Habits of whiteness. London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Zhu, A. (2005). Written communication across cultures: A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Bending: Rewriting and transforming stories so that key characters are more gender, racially, ethnically, linguistically, sexually, or otherwise diverse. Communicative Context: The context—made up of the institutional context, the space, the communicative aims, the interpersonal relationships between interlocuters, and so forth—in which a communication occurs.

306

 Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

Counterstorytelling: Writing personal narratives which undermine the hegemonic status quo and emphasize minority experiences and perspectives. Critical Literacy: Interpreting and composing texts so as to transform our own or others’ lives, champion social justice issues, or advocate for political or social purposes. Critical Pedagogy: A pedagogy, influenced by critical theory, which emphasizes power structures, how they students’ own contexts and lived experiences, and how the oppressed can resist dominant power structures. Genre Pedagogy: Pedagogies which emphasize genres’ structures, contents, traits, and purposes. Language Learning: The process of learning a language. Multicultural Classroom: Classrooms in which students and teachers with diverse backgrounds gather, and hopefully in which those varied backgrounds are equally valued and celebrated. Multiliteracies: An approach to pedagogy which emphasizes various types of literacy, linguistic and cultural diversity, and communicative ability across a spectrum of modes. Social Justice: The seeking of equitable and fair relationships, and the equitable distribution of opportunities and resources, between individuals and groups within society.

ENDNOTES 1



For an in-depth overview of various theories of genre, see Paltridge, 1997. More broadly, this approach is linked to “the Sydney School,” a “functional model of language” or “functional approach,” and “multiliteracies.”

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

2

307

Critical Literacy and Genre Pedagogy

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. McLaren, P. L., & Lankshear, C. (1998). Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. This text is considered foundational to the field of critical literacy and is a useful resource for those of you who may want to explore the concept in greater depth. 2. Bishop, E. (2014). Critical literacy: Bringing theory to praxis. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(1), 51–63. This article discusses how critical literacy and students’ social justice concerns can fruitfully be brought together and mutually developed. 3. Cho, H. (2017). Racism and linguicism: Engaging language minority pre-service teachers in counter-storytelling. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 20(5), 666–680. This text further explains the concept and practice of counterstorytelling and its usefulness in the language classroom. 4. Thomas, E. E. (2019). The dark fantastic: Race and the imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games. New York, NY: NYU Press OR Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2016). Restorying the self: Bending toward textual justice. Harvard Educational Review, 86(6), 313–338.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

These two texts describe the concept and practice of bending (discussed above) in greater depth, with Thomas’s (2019) recent book, The Dark Fantastic, building upon the concepts first discuss in her and Stornaiuolo’s (2016) article.

308

309

Chapter 15

Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms Poonam Anand University of Bahrain, Bahrain

ABSTRACT Older views of the English for Academic Purposes Literacies (EAPL) assessment have been in line with the assessment of the four-skills second language (L2) competencies. However, the new understanding is that literacy is not just a cognitive competence of reading and writing but also a set of other purposeful social processes. This understanding makes EAPL assessment multifaceted by calling upon a set of supra-linguistic behaviors, i.e., cognitive and social skills in addition to L2 competencies. This chapter starts with a brief history and the current state of theoretical constructs (of what is actually assessed) of EAPL assessment. It then centers its discussion on diferent academic literacies models, and the critical issues in measuring EAPL. The author highlights diferent strategies for planning assessment in the practical applications of academic literacies constructs. The chapter ends with the presentation of useful steps in creating EAPL assessments.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION In any educational endeavor, the tripartite relationship of teaching, learning, and assessment are of critical importance. This chapter concentrates on the assessment of the English for academic purposes literacies (EAPL), which is defined as the assessment of second language and literacies of multilingual international students (henceforth considered as L2 learners) at an entry level English for Academic Purposes program in higher educational context. The chapter starts by distinguishing second language tests and academic literacies assessment. It then presents a historical overview of language assessment and assessment of academic literacies, specifically in the context of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Of particular importance are the definition and construct of academic literacies assessment. Based on this review, the chapter then presents practical applications of the discussed EAPL construct. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch015

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

EAPL refers to teaching, learning, and assessment of English that covers a wide range of general as well as discipline-specific topics which aim to help students, “to develop their academic literacy skills to facilitate their effective participation in academic communities” (Hamp-Lyons, 2011, p. 100). Two key considerations need to be taken into account: 1. students need an understanding of how knowledge is created, presented, and debated in any discipline, in addition to linguistic support; and 2. academic literacies (reading, writing, and reasoning in any discipline) are difficult for native and non-native speakers alike (Wingate & Tribble, 2012). Depending on their uses, roles, purposes, and contexts, English language tests and assessments can generally be divided into two types: internally mandated and externally mandated (Davidson & Lynch, 2002). Externally mandated summative assessment occurs at the end of a particular unit of instruction (e.g., chapter, unit or semester), and its purpose is to primarily categorize students’ performances. Internally mandated assessment, on the other hand, can be administered at the beginning or during the course of a unit of instruction. Internally mandated tests, also referred to as formative assessment (i.e., assessments for learning or classroom-based assessments), are related to “the needs of the teachers and learners working within a particular context and … are generally ecologically sensitive” (Fulcher, 2010, pp. 1-2). Such forms of assessment are an essential component of classroom work and are used to inform teaching and learning and ultimately to raise the standards of achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). In addition to diagnosing difficulties in individual learners, internally mandated tests can also be used for placement or achievement purposes. On the other hand, summative assessment (or assessment of learning), is externally mandated by a group of people who often “do not know a great deal about the local learning ecology [context], and probably don’t even know the teachers and learners who will have to cope with the required testing regime” (Fulcher, 2010, p. 2). Such tests (e.g., General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations in England and the College English Test (CET) in China) are high-stakes in nature and are used by policymakers or other stakeholders to make judgments about proficiency and achievement of learners at the end of a study period where learners are expected to have reached a particular standard. Other than stakes, test purposes are also one of the important considerations in using any language test. Proficiency and achievement are two important test purposes of an English for Academic Purposes assessment. A proficiency test measures general ability in language and not specific content, course, curriculum area, or skills in the language. It is based on what learners can do with the language (Fulcher, 2010). An achievement test, on the other hand, is directly related to a language course and aims to measure what has been taught. These tests are based on a detailed course syllabus and objectives and are usually administered at the end of a course or a unit of study. In higher education settings, proficiency tests are used to determine if students are ready to participate in academic contexts. University applicants are generally given two types of proficiency tests: placement and admission (Xi, Bridgeman & Wendler, 2014, 2014). Placement tests can determine if students need special resources (such as English or subject-specific support), while admission tests can determine whether the applicants have a “requisite level of certain knowledge, skills and abilities (such as English proficiency) deemed necessary for success” (Xi et al., 2014, p. 1). These tests can also be useful as diagnostic tools. For example, if it is determined that a student needs special help in the English language, they are generally placed at the appropriate level in an English language support program at the host university (Fox, 2009). Such tests are generally multiple-choice items involving grammar, vocabulary, reading, and listening comprehension. Some of the common examples of these tests are the Pearson Test of English (PTE), the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS).

310

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

The student population in any higher education setting has become socially and culturally diverse and multilingual due to higher rates of student participation i.e., inclusive education and internationalization, and universities have started placing a high premium on academic literacies of students regardless of their linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Murray & Nallaya, 2016). Although it is often difficult to make assumptions about the language and literacy skills with which students come equipped, one common assumption is that students (whether they are native speakers or L1 users or non-native speakers and L2 users) are well-versed in the academic literacies needed to navigate their course of study (Murray & Nallaya, 2016; Wingate, 2015). The prevalent view of the term “academic literacy” is, generally, used in reference to academic reading and writing, which can be considered a narrow view of literacy, limiting the focus of EAP programs to grammatical accuracy and rhetorical appropriateness in academic writing (Lea, 2017; Wingate, 2015). This chapter, however, considers a pluralistic view of academic literacies through the use of printed and/or written multimodal materials for communicating meaning, ideas, and knowledge in discipline-specific academia. For example, students in super-diverse large, lecture-style class settings have to learn discipline-specific discourses in addition to the common academic demands, such as note-taking, summarizing, accessing library materials, and working with peers (Elder, 2017; Fox, Cheng & Zumbo, 2014; Hedgcock & Lee; 2017; Lea, 2017; Roessingh & Douglas, 2012, see also Skein, Knospe, & Sullivan in this volume). Above conceptualization of academic literacies extends beyond linguistic competence by adding social dimensions to it, which is not only specific to non-native English-speaking students, but is required of all students, including native English students. It involves being fluent in academic community discourses, epistemologies, axiologies, and ontologies. All students need to be supported and socialized within the community in order to be fluent, articulate, and literate in achieving a sense of belonging and contributing to academic discourse within the disciplinary communities (Lea, 2017; Wingate, 2015). Keeping these considerations in mind, this chapter aims to contribute to our understanding of the major trends in the EAPL assessment by identifying different purposes and constructs of summative as well as formative assessment of EAPL. It also aims to provide few practical guidelines on how to apply this knowledge to pedagogical practices of EAPL teachers. Before delving deeper into the discussion of EAPL assessment, the chapter will first present an historical overview of language assessment in general and then EAPL assessment in particular.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Historical Overview of Second Language Tests Tests have played different roles for assessment and accountability purposes in general education, as well as in language testing (Linn, 2000; Resnick & Schantz, 2017), and historically, parallel advancements have taken place in both fields. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, influenced by the measurement theories in education, language testing scholars used discrete items to test language knowledge. These tests were mainly in the form of multiple-choice questions and were in line with the dominant pedagogical tradition of grammar-translation or audio-lingual methods prevalent at that time. The first test of measuring academic English, TOEFL, was introduced at this time. Later on, in the 1970s, a shift took place in testing formats. Discrete items were replaced with other parallel assessment methods, such as integrative tests. These tests used the unitary trait construct of

311

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

language ability, in other words the idea that language proficiency is indivisible and cannot be assessed by discrete points or different language elements (Oller, 1979). One of the popular forms of this testing was the ‘Cloze test’ where a portion of text is removed, either grammatically (e.g., verbs, articles) or mechanically (every nth word), and the test-takers selected the best answer from the given multiplechoice options (Chapelle & Plakans, 2013). Other language scholars (Bachman & Palmer, 1982) who viewed language proficiency as one common general factor with several specific factors questioned this view of Oller’s (1979) believing that cloze tests also assessed the knowledge of grammatical structures and vocabulary as their discrete-point predecessors (Green, 2007). From the 1980s onwards, the trends in language teaching started shifting towards more communicative language teaching and testing. In communicative teaching and testing, the goal of instruction is not only the mastery of discrete skills, but also developing the overall communicative ability of the learners (Bachman, 1990; Canale & Swain, 1980). Language testing researchers started considering language ability as consisting of both linguistic and pragmatic knowledge. New communicative tests evolved to test language proficiency including knowledge about language and abilities in language user-in context (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980; Chalhoub-Deville, 2003). The communicative models influenced “a new emphasis on analyzing real-world language use situations that an examinee would be likely to encounter in school and other language use contexts” (Weigle & Malone, 2016, p. 662). With the increase of international students at Anglophone universities, other standardized tests, such as IELTS, were also developed to test academic language. Over the years, these tests have also undergone major revisions of content, format, and delivery modes due to test-user demands and advancements in the theories and practices of language learning, teaching, and testing (Xi et al., 2014). Since most current models of language assessment perceive language ability as a product of interactions between different components, e.g., linguistic, grammatical, sociocultural, and pragmatic, all these components and the test taker’s strategic competence interact to affect the test taker’s performance on the language task. Thus, new test formats, such as integrated skills assessment (Chapelle & Plakans, 2013; Cumming, Kantor, Baba, Erdosy, Eouanzoui, & James, 2005), are being developed. In integrated skills assessment, the examinees are required to read/listen to a text and then speak/write about it. They may be asked to

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

produce written compositions that display appropriate and meaningful uses of and orientations to source evidence, both conceptually (in terms of apprehending, synthesizing, and presenting source ideas) and textually (in terms of stylistic conventions for presenting, citing, and acknowledging sources). (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 34) Such tasks provide challenging and realistic literacy activities for the test takers. Integrated tests have become an important avenue in tests of academic language ability “whose scores are intended to reflect how well examinees’ language will allow them to perform on academic tasks, which typically involve a combination of skills (Chapelle & Plakans, 2013. p. 2). The literature on EAP assessment, however, has also argued that using externally mandated standardized proficiency tests is problematic in deciding the academic readiness of students because standardized proficiency tests, irrespective of their format, are by their very nature reductionist and they can only assess a limited sample of conventional EAP genres for the multilingual L2 learners (Anand, 2018; Banerjee & Wall, 2006; Elder, 2017; Fox, 2004; Green, 2007).

312

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Classroom-Based Assessment and Academic Literacy The emergence of the sociocultural perspective on learning has influenced the field of language assessment. Thus, over the past decade, classroom assessment has been gaining importance in the form of assessment for learning, which is formative in purpose, and provides feedback to learners so that they can improve their learning as opposed to assessment of learning, which is summative and typically occurs at the end of a unit/class with the purpose of assigning a grade (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hamp-Lyons, 2011; Rea-Dickins, 2011). It is an umbrella term applied not only to performance testing, but also to other assessment alternatives to traditional, discrete-point tests such as authentic test tasks, portfolios, conferences, self- or peer-assessment, inquiry-based learning projects. Classroom-based assessments and achievement tests give better opportunities to teachers to gather more observations about what students can or cannot do with the EAPL course objectives as opposed to one-shot proficiency tests. Also, some of the critical 21st century skills such as cognitive skills (e.g., problem solving and critical thinking), inter- and intra-personal skills (e.g., collaboration, cultural sensitivity, self-assessment), and research skills can be assessed through classroom-based continuous assessment. Formative assessment is a process of several components in a task-based or project-based assignment instead of a specific test at the end of assignment (Rea-Dickins, 2011; Wingate & Tribble, 2012). There are many characteristics of EAPL classroom-based or formative assessment. First, teachers and students can both benefit from it because it occurs during an instructional phase – teachers can improve their pedagogical strategies and students can take stock of their learning. Also, sharing the responsibility of assessment between teachers and students, assessment becomes “interactionally mediated…. integrated and iterative process” (Rea-Dickins, 2011, p. 9). Feedback provided during this learning and assessment cycle guides and accelerates students’ learning by providing them with information about the gap between their current and the desired academic performance (Wingate, 2015). Assessment becomes a meaningful ground for rich and constructive feedback, and feedback provided after an assessment activity (as in summative assessment) is less likely to be effective than feedback provided while an assessment activity is ongoing (as in formative assessment) (Wingate, 2015). Formative assessment is of special value for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Even though multilingual students have metacognitive awareness and a key literacy threshold in their first language, transferring this information, or mapping new language acquisition onto pre-existing cognitive frameworks is onerous for those who have low English abilities (Fox, 2004; Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). Assessing EAPL through various formative assessment methods allows such students to learn at their own pace. In conclusion, some of the main purposes of EAPL formative assessment are to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses; to aid students in self-guiding their process of learning by revising their assignments; and to foster responsibilities in students for their own learning (Black & William, 1998; Rea- Dickins, 2011; Wingate, 2015).

Emergence of Academic Literacy Models With respect to academic literacy models, another school of thought has divided EAPL approaches according to content and methodology of writing pedagogy (Lea & Street, 2006; Lillis & Tuck, 2016; Wingate, 2015). Lea and Street (2006) consider academic literacy as a social practice and indicate that the debate about the multidimensionality of academic language or academic literacy practices in higher education is more about the level of epistemology rather than challenging the dominant deficit model of measuring 313

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

language proficiency. They have conceptualized literacy in academic contexts through three mutually exclusive perspectives or overlapping models: a study skills model, an academic socialization model, and an academic literacies model. Assessment of academic literacies varies in these different models. The study skills model assesses language and literacy as cognitive skills focusing on language forms, and it measures surface level features of written or oral production. It assesses rules of grammar and syntax assuming that students can seamlessly transfer their knowledge of academic literacies from one context to another. In contrast, the academic socialization model, as the name suggests, perceives academic literacy as an approach where students learn the stable disciplinary discourses and genres easily once they acquire the ways of thinking and using literacy of any discourse or content area of academic community. Assessment in this model examines the mastery of disciplinary discourse in addition to measuring four language skills. The third model of academic literacies subsumes both of the models mentioned earlier, but is more “concerned with meaning making, identity, power, and authority” (Lea, 2017, p. 152) in student performance. With the emergence of diverse academic and vocational disciplines, and multimodality of teaching and learning, the assessment in this model considers literacy as a fluid skill, which transfers from one context to another and varies with different disciplinary genres, departments, and even academic faculty. Some of the examples of measurements in this model include reflective writing such as reflective journals and peer evaluations in diverse disciplines. One drawback of the above-mentioned academic literacy models, however, is that they pay more attention to writing than other language skills. Wingate (2015), citing Lillis (2001), laments …teaching of academic literacies should include all aspects of literacy such as its epistemological foundations, oral discourses and particularly reading … on the one hand the importance of the written text as the main mode of knowledge construction and communication in higher education, but also the clear neglect of important literacy activities that lead to writing, in particular the selection, evaluation and synthesis of source. However, students’ academic literacy performance is judged on writing only, which is the main assessment tool in higher education (p. 15)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Critical Issues in Measuring English for Academic Purposes Literacies The academic literacy construct, i.e., the description of the language to be tested, is a complicated and complex endeavor (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Douglas, 2013) because it is defined not only in terms of academic situations but also the linguistic features of a language (Douglas, 2013). Most of the existing research in EAP literacies assessment has focused on a monoglossic view of languages as separate entities, disregarding the complex communicative practices of multilinguals and their simultaneous uses of multiple languages (Lopez, Turkan & Guzman-Orth, 2017; Shohamy, 2013). Measuring language as discrete forms, such a view considers academic language as a unitary skill that can be smoothly transferred from one context to another (Lea, 2017). However, it is important to recognize that teaching literacy in language classrooms goes beyond developing reading and writing abilities of multilinguals. New literacy is viewed as a unitary linguistic, cultural, and sociolinguistic ability of multilinguals to deal with the academic demands in academia – referred to as a hetroglossic view (Shohamy, 2013). Therefore, it is important for language teachers to be knowledgeable about EAP literacies and how these fluencies are learned in wide-ranging social and geographical contexts. To help learners meet the

314

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

complex demands of academic literacies, “teachers must become keenly aware of language structure and use, new linguistic realities and strategies for using language skillfully in multilayered contexts” (Hedgcock & Lee, 2017, p. 18). Recent studies (Lea, 2017; Wingate, 2015) have indicated that unless some form of academic intervention (e.g., more practice or explicit guidance) is utilized, multilingual students are unlikely to improve their academic languages and literacies. In terms of assessment of academic literacies, there are different types of discipline specific language knowledge. Assuming that mastering one type would guarantee the mastering of another can be inaccurate as “different instruments are capable of seeing different things” (Shohamy, 2001, p. 102). Despite using various assessment methods, there are many constraints related to measuring academic literacies constructs, which make it difficult for universities to provide sufficient support to multilingual students in advancing their academic literacies (Weigle & Malone, 2016; Wingate, 2015). Some of these constraints are described in the following paragraphs. The first and the foremost is the misconception that academic literacy is equal to linguistic competence. As discussed earlier, this perception is evident in the use of different standardized proficiency tests (e.g., TOEFL and IELTS) by many Anglophone universities. These tests focus exclusively on grammar, structure, and the use of cohesive abilities to use language in academic contexts. For example, Weigle and Malone (2016) state that “a standardized test of any kind cannot accurately evaluate all the idiosyncratic linguistic requirements of any particular academic setting, nor can it reflect the interaction inherent in spoken and written academic environments” (p. 663). Effective EAP use is perforce dialogic rather than monologic, whereas standardized tests are perforce univocal or monologic. This means that because EAP is generally situated within a specific academic community of discourse, it necessarily constitutes part of an ongoing dialogue, or set of exchanges, within that discipline. A standardized test, however, usually utilizes snippets of language divorced from context, so a test taker responds to a ‘cue’ or ‘trigger’, and that response is monologic since it is not part of an exchange. Research has also shown that there is little predictive value in using students’ scores on standardized tests to predict their abilities to use language in academic contexts (e.g. Green, 2007). Elder (2017) has argued that “language proficiency seldom accounts for more than 10% of variance in academic performance (however measured)” (p. 278). Furthermore, most EAP lecturers are trained to teach linguistic competence rather than academic literacies. This focus on linguistic competence results from the failure of most anglophone institutions to distinguish English language per se and English for Academic Purposes (Hamp-Lyons, 20111; Lea, 2017; Wingate, 2015). As a result, lecturers tend to point out weaknesses in students’ assignments at the surface level of writing while neglecting the content area reasoning skills needed to support effective dialogic composition. Furthermore, Anglophone institutions restrict the problems of academic literacy to diverse students, international students, and students linked to specific (often minority) backgrounds. Wingate (2015), however, argued that both home and international students need academic literacy instruction and support. The argument that only international students need support is flawed because this assumption is based on the belief that academic literacy is the same as language proficiency. Second, academic language must be defined within a specific setting. There are several differences in these settings: age of the test-takers (e.g., undergraduate students vs. graduate students), purpose (e.g., writing business vs. technical report) and specific demands of a context (e.g., English as a Foreign Language, English as Second Language, or English for Specific Purposes). Constraints can also be based on sociolinguistic demands across these different settings in written or spoken interactions.

315

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Third, at the university level, there are different specific and general academic contexts (Weigle & Malone, 2016), which may demand written or spoken competence. An example of a specific context are instructions and materials for reading and writing assignments related to a particular course. An example of a general academic context is reading and writing of a variety of texts at the university beyond a specific course. Finally, the EAPL construct itself poses numerous challenges. Any EAP test can measure a portion of all the academic literacies mentioned earlier. As these tests do not generally measure discipline-specific content, they are not necessarily true reflections of a student’s success in university studies. As mentioned earlier, for students to acquire communicative competence in the discipline-specific content, there has to be interaction between experts in a specific community and novices in relevant academic situations. EAP context calls for literacy instructions to be situated in a discipline-specific community rather than special English Language units outside the disciplines (Wingate, 2015). From the previous discussion regarding constraints, it can be concluded that the construct of academic literacies confounds a clear and straightforward theorization (Elder, 2017; Weigle & Malone, 2016), and researchers still have reservations about measuring language skills in tandem with EAP literacies (Elder, 2017; Lea, 2017). Elder (2017) suggested that it is difficult to define and capture the academic language proficiency construct for testing purposes “which can serve highly diverse student populations in contexts which are increasingly internationalized” (p. 271). To date, research concluded that a heteroglossic view of academic literacy is required for assessing and serving highly diverse multilingual students (HampLyons, 2011; Lea, 2017; Shohamy, 2013). In the section below, the importance of EAP literacies for teachers and learners is discussed. The key focus is on the role of EAP teachers in understanding the nuances in assessing diverse and multilingual students.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS This section discusses the practical considerations of the various theoretical concepts discussed above and their implications for teachers and learners. As mentioned above, the boundaries of assessment of EAP academic literacy extend beyond the knowledge, skills, and principles of summative language tests (Davies, 2008; Elder, 2017). More information about students’ learning can be obtained from classroom assessment, which is mainly a domain of teachers. Knowledge and critical reflections on the abovementioned theoretical models in teaching and testing EAP literacies are important for not only novice teachers, but also in-service teachers. Research suggests that teachers with knowledge and training of assessment use assessment to improve their teaching and learning, and teachers without the knowledge of assessment use it “solely” to assign grades (Giraldo, 2018). Further, most teacher-training institutions do not train teachers in EAP and EAPL to a satisfactory degree (Hamp-Lyons, 2011). Teacher preparation programs tend to focus on teaching English for general purposes rather than for specific contexts or purposes. As a result, both private language schools and university based EAP programs employ teachers who are not sufficiently trained in teaching EAPL. Students, too, need an understanding of how academic literacy differs from traditional understandings of literacy. Formative assessment can help students become more aware of their existing understanding of the content and language use in a particular academic context. It can also help them increase their motivation to learn and take responsibility for their own learning as well as enhance their understanding of literacy demands of academia (Eggen & Kauchak, 2010; Wingate, 2015). 316

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Moreover, externally mandated proficiency tests also influence classroom teaching and learning. A prevailing notion in testing literature is that tests (whether high- or low-stakes) have important consequences for both students and teachers, which is known as washback (Alderson & Wall, 1993). For instance, EAP teachers and students may pay more attention to preparing for standardized language proficiency tests (i.e., producing accurate forms) than engaging in the dialogic nature of EAPL in specific interactive contexts. In such situations, there is more likelihood of negative washback. Negative washback occurs when the course objectives and the test focus are not aligned, but teachers have to teach to the test. Doing this may not be compatible with either teacher’s or instructional program’s goals and values (Bachman & Palmer, 2010).

Planning for EAPL Assessments Any formal assessment is a process of collecting the same information from each student in a systematic way. A holistic approach to planning EAPL assessments includes creating both traditional as well as alternative assessments. To make any EAPL assessment effective, it is imperative that both formative and summative forms of assessment are congruent with the learning objectives. In order to create positive washback, teachers need to ensure that they provide clear information to students about assessment and instructions that communicate assessment content. Positive washback occurs when the course objectives and the test focus are aligned, and this alignment helps in improving the quality of teaching and learning. In such cases, positive washback also includes preparing students for assessment that includes different task types, administering assessment, analyzing results, and assigning grades. Teachers can try to reduce text anxiety by expressing positive expectations for students and providing ample opportunities to practice items similar to those that will appear on tests (Anand, 2018; Cheng & Fox, 2017; Eggen & Kauchak, 2010). Finally, teachers should provide detailed feedback regarding students’ academic readiness for future studies not only to students but also to other important stakeholders such as program administrators.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

EAP Literacies Assessment Purposes and Objectives To enhance teaching and learning in an EAPL context, teachers need to understand students’ needs, assessment purposes, and course objectives. It is useful for teachers to know what each student brings to an EAP class, i.e., their existing literacy skills and how these can be used as a scaffold in constructing new knowledge. Furthermore, teachers also need to be aware of students’ learning goals and future academic needs. Needs assessment helps teachers in eliciting information about students in their classes and designing effective course materials accordingly. It enables teachers to identify gaps or discrepancies in a students’ current level of performance and the expected or intended level of performance as specified by the course objectives (Cheng & Fox, 2017). In that sense, needs assessment can be a diagnostic process, which helps in identifying the activities that have greater potential for supporting development of academic literacy. For the purposes of EAPL assessment, it is important for teachers to be able to distinguish between different purposes such as proficiency, placement, achievement, and diagnostic testing. Among these different purposes, diagnostic assessment is the most pertinent from classroom assessment point of view. Calling it different than placement testing and needs assessment, Cheng and Fox (2017) define it as more “narrowly scientific.… to test for specific capabilities that are related to target or intended competencies, skills or abilities” (p. 151). Diagnostic assessments are generally low-stakes 317

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

and can be administered anytime during a teaching cycle. They can also prompt pedagogical interventions in the form of various activities to target weaknesses noted in students’ work. Some of the common course objectives for any EAPL could be summarizing, paraphrasing, referencing, understanding academic genres, argumentative language, and engaging in a debate in either written or oral forms (Cumming, 2014). Wingate (2015) has recommended a holistic instructional approach for teachers to incorporate general EAP course objectives in classroom assessment consisting of the following components: • •

• •

Analyzing and contextualizing the assignment task. This includes situating an assignment’s topic within the wider context of the subject/discipline and clarifying the genre’s communicative purpose Teaching appropriate ways of selecting and evaluating sources. This involves demonstrating to students how to establish a reading focus, and how this emphasis requires careful thinking about the topic and, possibly, taking an initial stance on the topic. It also involves showing students how to recognize and eliminate irrelevant sources Demonstrating, with text examples, how authors build arguments based on the evidence from sources Showing students how the process of argumentation is used to establish a writer’s position, and how the development of the argument is signaled through textual features, such as structure, headings and signposting devices. (p. 160)

Most of these components can be taught through the use of multimedia and integrated skills assessments in project-based tasks. Teachers can share exemplars from previously assessed work, or they can work on non-assessed assignments with students. Other important considerations in assessing any EAPL program’s objectives are assessing other supra-linguistics behaviors such as the 21st century skills which, according to Geisinger (2016), include cognitive skills such as problem solving and critical thinking; intrapersonal or metacognitive skills such as self-assessment and time management; interpersonal skills that can include complex communication and social skills such as collaboration, team work, cultural sensitivity, and dealing with diversity; and technical skills that include research and information fluency.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

EAPL Assessment Strategies In any assessment scenario, two types of assessment strategies are generally used: selected-response items and constructed response items, also known as performance assessment (Eggen & Kauchak, 2010). Teachers should use their professional judgment to decide which one to use based on the advantages and disadvantages of each type. Selected-response items refer to multiple-choice, matching, true-false, and other similar questions where choice of answers is provided. There are many advantages to these items; they are easy to administer, i.e., no special equipment or set up time is required; they can be scored quickly; and they can assess a broad range of skills and knowledge, including factual knowledge, principles, and concepts. However, the drawbacks of using such items is that they are inefficient in measuring complex, higher-level thinking skills and learning outcomes such as oral communication and social skills. On the other hand, the constructed-response items, which are an example of performance assessment, require a test-taker to construct a response from his/her understanding, reasoning, and sociocultural 318

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

communication. These items reflect skills needed in real life, as they require not only skill switching (reading/listening to writing/speaking) in various genres and discourses, but also higher-level cognitive skills, such as problem solving, and application of knowledge. When working with constructed-response items, students have to make use of the formative feedback in self- and peer-assessment as they defend a position. Some of the common models of integrated constructed responses with communicative and contextualized focus are a project-based approach, a task- or text- based approach, and a content- or theme-based approach (Chapelle & Plakans, 2013; Geisinger, 2016; Wingate, 2015). Most of these approaches use a backward design to include aspects of language and culture in presenting oral and written language needed to complete the given assignment. However, the disadvantages of such items are that they are time consuming and costly to prepare, administer, and score. Another issue with performance assessment is that designing items that are a true reflection of students’ knowledge and skills can be difficult (Eggen & Kauchak, 2010; Hedgcock & Lee, 2017). The teaching tip illustrates how teachers can implement formative assessment in linguistically and culturally diverse academic settings. Teaching Tip Multilingual students in Sarah’s college-level EAP literacy class come from diverse cultural backgrounds. Not only are their linguistic and cultural backgrounds different, but their needs for future university studies are diverse, too. For example, while first-year undergraduate students typically attend large lectures and take a multitude of quizzes and multiple-choice test items, graduate students often enroll in smaller classes and work on extensive research-based assignments. In order to prepare her students for academia, working on a backward design, i.e., assessment driving instruction, Sarah designs various integrated-skills assignments that expose students to genres of academic English and are also useful for both formative and summative assessments. The assignments are generally divided into various steps (group work, individual work, and peer-feedback) and span over three to four weeks of instruction. This week, Sarah’s class is working on an assignment on the topic of “Slow vs. Fast Food Movement.” • First, the students are presented with two academic reading and listening tasks, which give opposite views on the topic (e.g., advantages and disadvantages of fast food and slow food movements). They summarize, evaluate, and reflect on the information in the texts. • Next, the students take a stand on one side of the argument and get into groups with other classmates with similar ideas. After a discussion, the students develop a preliminary thesis statement with a list of key words and create an outline to be used in their oral and written work. They can also share their notes with their group members if they wish. Finally, they prepare an oral presentation on either pros or cons of a particular food movement. Sarah provides a rubric that is used to evaluate the presentation at the beginning of the task so that students know the evaluation criteria in advance. • In the next stage of the assignment, taking ideas from their group discussions, oral presentations and notes, students work individually and write an extended argumentative essay with citations to support their stance. At this stage, Sarah provides another grading rubric and detailed instructions about the structure and organization of the essay. The instructions for the organization include:           • Introduction – 1-2 paragraphs using statistics/questions/facts, background information and the thesis statement.           • Body paragraphs – examples such as summaries, paraphrases, quotes from the assigned readings, topic sentences, supporting           sentences, rebuttals and concluding sentences.           • Conclusion – restatement of the thesis and students’ suggestions, opinions and/or predictions.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• In the concluding part of the assignment, students read each other’s essays and give constructive feedback on the accuracy (coherence and accuracy of content), source integration (integration of information from reading and listening tasks, and referencing), organization (logical progression of the ideas), and the use of language (grammar and vocabulary) using the rubric provided earlier by Sarah. So, what did Sarah accomplish by engaging her students in these tasks? In addition to practicing language skills such as reading comprehension, grammar, and writing skills, engaging in constructing such assignments improves students’ technical skills such as research and IT skills. For their individual work, students use language, cognitive, intrapersonal and technical skills, and for the peer feedback they use language and cognitive skills. Furthermore, engagement in group-work improves students’ language, cognitive, interpersonal, and technical skills. Students can replicate these skills in their future academic studies. In addition, multilingual students in Sarah’s class benefit from collaborative learning. When students work in groups, they can help each other in a variety of ways. For example, students who are generally shy in speaking, but better in writing, can learn from students who are better speakers than writers. Finally, working on timed assignments also helps students develop intrapersonal skills such as following deadlines, time management, self-discipline, and self-confidence. Using such EAPL classroom-based assessments promotes discipline-specific learning, measures learning processes, and provides relevant feedback where necessary.

319

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Threats to Validity of Assessments of Diverse and Multilingual Learners As discussed in the other chapters of this book, learner diversity influences teaching and learning in a number of ways. Similarly, learner diversity influences assessment too (Eggen & Kauchak, 2010). Students with diverse backgrounds may not have enough experience and knowledge about assessment procedures, test formats, and essential test-taking strategies to do well on high-stakes proficiency testing. Second, learners in different parts of the world view assessment differently. For example, some students may view assessment as purely useful for accountability purposes and not understand that assessment can be employed as a learning tool. Finally, the complexity of testing language tasks requires measuring language though its own aural and visual medium. Thus, language itself becomes an obstacle in assessment of multilingual learners. To ensure validity and create a positive washback of their assessment methods, teachers should ensure that classroom and assessment activities correspond to each other (Messick, 1996). Validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from test scores (Fox, 2004). Messick (1996) has pointed out two important points in testing to produce positive washback: first, test tasks should be criterion samples, i.e., they should be “authentic and direct samples of the communicative behaviours of listening, speaking, reading and writing of the language being learnt…. and transition from learning exercises to test exercises should be seamless” (p. 241). In other words, there should not be any difference between activities used for learning and tasks used for testing. Second, promoting positive washback and reducing negative washback of tests can be achieved by minimizing two threats to construct validity: construct under-representation and construct irrelevance. Construct under-representation, occurs when “the assessment is deficient: the test is too narrow and fails to include important dimensions or facets of focal construct” (Messick, 1996, p. 244). Construct irrelevance is defined as “the assessment [that] is too broad, containing excess reliable variance that is irrelevant to the interpreted construct” (p. 244). Thus, if an assessment item does not include all the objectives of a course, it detracts from validity. In regard to EAPL assessment, if only four skills are assessed and other supra-linguistics behaviours are not included in assessment, then such assessment can be deemed as invalid (Elder, 2017; Fox, 2009; Wingate, 2015).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Assessment Bias and Student Diversity in Standardized Testing It is imperative that EAP students take some form of proficiency testing during their EAP studies. Teachers can support student learning for standardized testing in two ways: 1. by understanding assessment bias, and 2. preparing their students for standardized tests. Assessment bias is described as “a form of discrimination that occurs when a test or other assessment instrument unfairly penalizes a group of students because of their gender, ethnicity, race or socioeconomic status” (Eggen & Kauchak, 2010, p. 481). Educational measurement literature indicates three types of assessment bias that threat the validity of an assessment: 1. Content bias –when the content and/or word choice of standardized tests might be geared towards Anglophone students, which makes students of cultural minorities disadvantaged. 2. Testing procedure bias – this can occur because students from different cultures respond differently to testing situations.

320

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

3. Test interpretation and use bias – caused in the use of test result and interpretation, for example when test results have adverse effects on minority students’ progress and their acculturation into academia. To sum up, EAPL teachers should keep the following recommendations in mind when planning assessment: • •

• •

• • • •

Include discipline-specifc content by using contextual genres (e.g., fact vs. opinion, cause and efect, classifcation and comparison, and argumentation), and subject content integration with a range of academic vocabulary in comprehension and meaning making activities. Use 21st century skills such as problem solving, creativity, using information technology, and collaborating with peers in assignments. For example, create theme-based extended projects where students can demonstrate what they have learned through research and collaboration using oral and written work. Keep the formative purpose of assessment in mind while creating an assessment i.e., emphasize that assessment promotes learning. Give detailed feedback and foster students’ awareness for measuring their learning as often as they can. In addition to integrated-skills assignments, have frequent low-stakes quizzes and tests to lower test anxiety of students and produce positive washback. If possible, break extended integrated assignments into smaller manageable tasks, so that students feel confdent about achieving few objectives at a time. Encourage the use of multimedia and multimodalities in integrated and extended assignments by incorporating graphic or visual formats. Provide corrective feedback and encourage students to ask questions about diferent assessment items. Clarify the learning objectives of an assignment and ask students to explain the assignment in their own words to make sure that they understand the assignment requirements. Provide extra help to build research skills and clarify concepts such as plagiarism and how to avoid it.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter summarized major trends in the assessment of English for Academic Purposes Literacies. It identified purposes, constructs, and different models of assessing academic literacies of multilingual and diverse students in academic contexts. It further discussed the essential qualities of good assessments and compared the advantages and disadvantages of selected-response items and constructed-response items. The chapter ended by giving practical advice on designing both formative and summative integrated skills tasks to assess EAPL in multilingual contexts. Assessment of EAPL can be explored in many different directions in the future, among which the most fundamental one is to refine the construct and purposes of the assessment of EAPL. This means that assessment of EAPL has to go beyond the basics of assessing reading, writing, interpretation and synthesis (Anand, 2018; Geisinger, 2016) where the language is used for construction and communication of knowledge calling upon supra-linguistic behaviors other than the four language skills. These behav321

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

iors help in indirect measurement of complex academic literacies, which may not be possible through lexical and grammatical information alone, for example, assessing some of the common 21st century skills such as cognitive skills, interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, technical skills, and knowledge of discipline-specific discourse. Furthermore, as learners use multiple mediums (e.g., technology) to construct knowledge (Cumming, 2014), another area to explore is the link between language competence and technical/digital competence (Anand, 2017) where the washback of using multimedia for assessment purposes can be explored. Other aspects related to these could be the differences in assessment between “on screen” processes of integrative reading and writing vs. traditional integrative reading and writing. Construct refinement and inclusion of testing the 21st century skills are some of the future directions for EAPL assessment.

Discussion Questions 1. What are some effective EAPL classroom assessment practices and how can they increase multilingual students’ proficiencies in academic literacies? 2. What are the different elements and decisions involved in designing a complete EAPL assessment system for a particular unit/topic? 3. How might various technologies, commonly used in the multilingual classroom (i.e., PowerPoints, SmartBoards, and interactive media), help or hinder EAPL classroom assessment in achieving academic literacy for students?

REFERENCES Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115̶129. Anand, P. (2017). Integrated skills testing in an academic English program: a potential to increase written proficiency In J. Demperio, M. Deraiche, R. Dewart, & B. Zuercher (Eds.), Proceedings of meeting on language teaching (pp. 2 ̶ 16). Montreal, Canada: UQAM. Anand, P. (2018). Testing regime change as innovation: Washback potential over time (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carleton University, Canada. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 449 ̶ 465.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Banerjee, J., & Wall, D. (2006). Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 50 ̶ 69. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7 ̶ 74.

322

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1 ̶ 47. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369 ̶ 383. Chapelle, C. A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Assessment and testing: Overview. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 240 ̶ 244). Oxford, UK: Blackwell/Wiley. Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom: Teachers supporting student learning. London, UK: Palgrave. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-46484-2 Cumming, A. (2014). Assessing integrated skills. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 216 ̶ 229). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5 ̶ 43. Davidson, F., & Lynch, B. K. (2002). Testcraft: A teacher’s guide to writing and using language test specifications. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Davies, A. (2008). Assessing academic English language proficiency: 40 years of UK language tests. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 73 ̶ 86). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. Douglas, D. (2013). ESP and assessment. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 367 ̶ 383). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2010). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Elder, C. (2017). Language assessment in higher education. In E. Shohamy, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). (pp. 271 ̶ 286). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_35 Fox, J., Cheng, L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Do they make a difference? The impact of English language programs on second language students in Canadian universities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 57 ̶ 85.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Fox, J. D. (2004). Test decisions over time: Tracking validity. Language Testing, 21(4), 437–465. doi:10.1191/0265532204lt292oa Fox, J. D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 26 ̶ 42. Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Geisinger, K.F. (2016). 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245 ̶ 249.

323

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Giraldo, F. (2018). Language assessment literacy: Implications for language teachers. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 20(1), 179 ̶ 195. Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education (Vol. 25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2. (pp. 89 ̶ 105). New York, NY: Routledge. Hedgcock, J. S., & Lee, H. (2017). An exploratory study of academic literacy socialization: Building genre awareness in a teacher education program. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 17 ̶ 28. Lea, M. R. (2017). Academic literacies in theory and practice. In B. V. Street, & S. May (Eds.), Literacies and language education: Encyclopedia of language and education, (pp. 147 ̶ 158). Cham, Switzerland: Springer doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02252-9_19 Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368 ̶ 377. Lillis, T., & Tuck, J. (2016). Academic literacies: A critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 54 ̶ 67). New York, NY: Routledge. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4 ̶ 16. Lopez, A. A., Turkan, S., & Guzman-Orth, D. (2017). Assessing multilingual competence. In E. Shohamy, L. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment, (pp. 91 ̶ 102). Cham, Switzerland: Springer doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_6 Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241 ̶ 256. Murray, N., & Nallaya, S. (2016). Embedding academic literacies in university programme curricula: A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1296 ̶ 1312. Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Longman. Rea-Dickins, P. (2011). Foreword. Formative assessment: Scoping the horizons. In D. Tsagari, & I. Csepeas (Eds), Classroom-based language assessment (pp. 9 ̶ 14). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Resnick, L. B., & Schantz, F. (2017). Testing, teaching, learning: Who is in charge? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 24(3), 424 ̶ 432. Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S. (2012). English language learners’ transitional needs from high school to university: An exploratory study. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 13(3), 285 ̶ 301. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: a critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London, UK: Pearson Education.

324

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Shohamy, E. (2013). Expanding the construct of language testing with regards to language varieties and multilingualism. In D. Tsagari, S. Papadima-Sophocleous, & S. Ioannou-Georgiou (Eds.), International experiences in language testing and assessment–Selected papers in memory of Pavlos Pavlou (pp. 17 ̶ 32). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Weigle, S. C., & Malone, M. M. (2016). Assessment of English for academic purposes. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 608 ̶ 620). New York, NY: Routledge. Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783093496 Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic purposes/ academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481–495. doi:10.1080/030 75079.2010.525630 Xi, X., Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (2014). Tests of English for academic purposes in university admissions. In J. A. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 318 ̶ 337). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Formative Assessment: Assessment that takes place during an instructional cycle. It can be used for enhancing and informing teaching and learning in classroom. High-Stakes Tests: Tests that are viewed as powerful measures to change the course of student’s progress in an EAP program. One example of high-stakes tests is proficiency tests for universities in Anglophone universities where failure can mean expulsion from the program. Integrated Skills Assessment: Assessment that incorporates several skills within one test to determine whether a student can tackle the complexity of real-world tasks in academia that require multiple skill sets. Within an EAP program, integrated skills tests require students to produce written or oral work that incorporates meaningful uses of source evidence, both conceptually - to comprehend, synthesize, and present ideas from sources – and through writing – to conform with stylistic convention for presenting ideas from sources, and acknowledging those sources. Multimodality: Combining different individual modes such as discipline-specific texts, audios, images, and videos to create meaningful communication that encourages interaction and learning in an EAP context. Needs Assessment: Assessment that helps teachers elicit information about students’ needs and design effective course materials. Performance-Based Assessment: A more valid construct of EAPL, performance assessment tasks are authentic tasks that use real-world contexts. They require learners to work independently and use 21st century skills such as higher-level thinking and problem solving. These tasks also help teachers in providing constructive feedback to students about their strength and weaknesses. Examples of performance based EAPL tasks include searching and selecting relevant sources, taking notes, writing essays, and making presentations.

325

 Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Summative Assessment: Assessment that takes place at the end of a teaching cycle to measure students’ learning e.g., achievement testing. Washback: All the intended (or positive) and unintended (or negative) effects of assessment on teaching and learning in the classroom.

326

Assessment of EAP Literacies in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom: Teachers supporting student learning. London, England: Palgrave. This practical book is suitable for language teachers as it helps them take control and monitor their assessment practices in advancing students’ learning. It provides extensive teacher-friendly examples and tasks that are based on current research and theoretical work in the field of language teaching and testing. The book links core concepts of assessment literature to practical application of classroom assessment. 2. Fox, J. D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 26 ̶ 42. This article examines the role of diagnostic assessment in supporting teaching and learning in an EAP program. The focus of the study was on teacher collaboration in creating, developing, and using learner profiles for diagnostic assessment, which helped to promote students’ learning. This article is helpful for EAP teachers in retrofitting a placement or admission test to provide diagnostic feedback to their multilingual learners and also to improve their teaching. 3. Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Addressing the needs of academic literacy at tertiary level EAP programs, this book aids teachers and policymakers in understanding the benefits and drawbacks of various instructional approaches to teaching EAP literacies. Treating the needs of native and non-native learners in academic contexts alike, the book offers various options in academic literacy instruction from the point of view of both generic and discipline-specific approaches. Wingate recommends an inclusive model of literacy instruction that encompasses principles of contextual genre awareness, subject content integration, and collaboration with disciplinary staff in promoting student learning.

327

Section 4

Cultivating Literacy Through Literature

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 4 stresses the pivotal role that incorporating literature—Western and non-Western—can play in enhancing students’ literacy skills in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The chapters in this section provide a thorough overview of the use of literary texts as pedagogy for literacy learning. They also offer practical classroom applications in which literature can promote literary and literacy development in children.

329

Chapter 16

Children’s Literature as Pedagogy:

Learning Literacy Through Identity in Meaningful Communities of Practice Alicia Curtin University College Cork, Ireland

ABSTRACT This chapter explores the use of children’s literature as pedagogy for literacy learning in diverse and multilingual classrooms. The author employs a sociocultural and relational understanding of literacy and learning to establish a theoretical framework for an approach that focuses on meaning-making, doing, and learning through stories as both a personal journey and a sociocultural practice. The complex sociocultural relationships between learning, literacy, identity, experience, power, agency, knowledge, value, success, and failure at the heart of the learning process remain central throughout this chapter. The reader is encouraged to consider their own life stories, experiences, defnitions, and understandings of learning and literacy and the impact these may have on the life stories, experiences, defnitions, and understandings of learning and literacy of the students in their care.

INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Problem with Words Words is oh such a twitch-tickling problem to me all my life. So you must simply try to be patient and stop squibbling. As I am telling you before, I know exactly what words I am wanting to say, but somehow or other they is always getting squiff-squiddled around. Roald Dahl, The BFG, 1982

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch016

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

This chapter explores the use of children’s literature as pedagogy to create meaningful moments of connection through story between teacher and learner when engaging with literacy in diverse and multicultural classrooms. For students in such settings language can be as problematic as Dahl describes through the voice of the much-loved Big Friendly Giant. The chapter adopts a sociocultural and relational perspective on literacy and learning, which views these processes as socially mediated and distributed and negotiated across and between individuals in communities of practice. Such moments of connection through story provide powerful opportunities for learning as teachers and learners negotiate in the moment what learning is and how it may be recognized. The resulting conversation is mediated by teacher and learner understandings of the meanings, values, and complex relationships between a range of key sociocultural concepts, for example literacy, learning, knowledge, identity, power, agency, success, and failure as they learn through narrative and the telling of stories. This chapter defines literacy as it pertains to children’s literature as pedagogy as an authentic, social, and cultural site to be negotiated through meaningful connections and identity work in communities of practice and which carries for each individual participant differential meaning and value. The chapter uses the term communities of practice to refer to groups of learners and teachers together engaging in classrooms with the goal of developing literacy practices. Appropriating this term from Wenger (1999), this chapter overlays Wenger’s theory of learning developed in workplace settings with a sociocultural perspective so as to develop a conceptual synthesis of ideas of community, practice, power, language and learning as they apply to schooling and school institutions in particular. Over time, the communities of practice in classrooms also develop shared histories of learning, language, resources, and practices around meaningful literacy experiences. At the same time, identities develop around these practices and individuals (students and teachers) all stand individually in some relation to it (see also Zhao & Christison in this volume). In this way, the present chapter understands identity as a layering of experiences as people learn about the world, others, and themselves supported through social engagement and interpretation. Personal experiences of the author as a teacher have revealed that where student and teacher definitions, understandings, and previous experiences of literacy and learning align, student and teacher agentively engage in rewarding conversation (and learning) around shared values. Where these understandings misalign, teachers and learners become frustrated in an experience akin to that which the Big Friendly Giant (BFG) describes above. Like many children’s literature texts, Dahl’s own favorite book, The BFG inhabits a space somewhere between child and adult worlds, telling stories about experiences which promise recognition while simultaneously making the familiar change. Readers identify with the words and the world of the BFG and position themselves in some relation to the experience narrated. Sharing their positions with others, they learn different things about the world and themselves. Through his interactions with the world, the BFG also learns, but what he learns is that meanings are not important (Dahl, 1982), a cautionary tale for teachers and students in particular. The author of this chapter suggests that using children’s literature as a pedagogical approach in ways that ask students to engage with different kinds of literacies, experiences, and stories can allow more points of connection across literacy practices for everyone involved. It is important to note that in doing this, the author does not wish to romanticise children’s literature as itself without issue. Indeed, children’s literature as a genre is one that has been challenged for a lack of diversity in approach, character, etc. The children’s literature explored in this chapter, however, is diverse and makes consideration of a wide range of experiences of diverse groups of young people.

330

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

This chapter offers a pedagogy for literacy in diverse and multilingual communities of practice, which focuses on meaning, doing, and learning through stories as both a personal journey of identity development and the sociocultural practices which guide this process. For the purposes of this chapter, the author will focus on four key sociocultural principles of learning and their application through using children’s literature as a pedagogical approach. They are: 1. understanding learning as situated in meaningful communities of practice; 2. the relationships between literacy and identity; 3. the social construction of knowledge within particular structures of power and understandings of value; and 4. opportunity to learn and talk in the moments of connection. The chapter opens with an outline of these key sociocultural principles alongside a brief interrogation of key chapter concepts, namely learning, pedagogy, children, and literature, building around these a sociocultural theoretical background for using children’s literature as literacy pedagogy in diverse and multilingual classrooms. The theoretical framework concludes with the connection of these sociocultural principles of learning to children’s literature pedagogical literature and research. The practical classroom applications and teaching tips developed from this theoretical framework in the second half of the chapter offer exemplars that may help teachers to develop their own meaningful moments of connection with learners in unique and individual settings. These understandings are explored through a discussion of the learning biographies of a number of children and young adults presented in seminal research articles pertaining to sociocultural and identity, illustrating the very powerful ways we learn in communities of practice through identity development and the telling of stories. As is often the case in education theory, policy and practice, we substitute the older for newer ideas without full consideration of context and how we have ended up where we stand. Understanding the importance of meaning and context, this chapter revisits these seminal pieces in light of contemporary debates about pedagogy teaching, learning, research and practice. The stories of three students, Adam, Jake, and Alice in particular illustrate some of the struggles that learners in diverse and multicultural classrooms may face when it comes to literacy and learning. These learning biographies are employed to support and frame the sociocultural understanding of learning, which informs the treatment of literacy in this chapter. Focusing on the experiences of students themselves, these key pieces of research are used here as a teaching tool to encourage the interrogation of the very different learning biographies which make up literacy classrooms, experiences, and practices. The author acknowledges that within the constraints of this chapter, it will not be possible to explore these biographies and related key ideas about teaching and learning in great depth. The aim here is rather to introduce these stories and their implications for teaching and learning. Fuller accounts of each may be found in the referenced supporting publications or a detailed discussion in the author’s own forthcoming publication referenced in the suggested further reading section at the end of this chapter. The author also understands that the focus on these seminal pieces of research within the chapter also necessitates supplementary consideration of most recent sociocultural learning research. The author will, as appropriate, highlight this relevant research with the understanding that the main focus of this chapter as an introduction to the area remains on the learning biographies of the three selected and representative students. The central objective of this chapter is to encourage readers to think about their own life stories and experiences, definitions and understandings of literacy, and how these may impact the life stories and experiences, definitions, understandings, and learning of the students in their care.

331

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Exploring Relationships between Words and Worlds: Learning as Situated in Meaningful Communities of Practice According to McDermott (1999)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Learning is in the conditions that bring people together and organize a point of contact that allows for particular pieces of information to take on relevance; without the points of contact, without the system of relevancies, there is no learning, and there is little memory. Learning does not belong to individual persons, but to the various conversations of which they are a part (p. 16) McDermott’s (1999) learning biography of a student named Adam tells the story of a young boy who loses his words at various and important times in different communities of practice. McDermott (1999) argues that as Adam cannot use his words in a way valued by the community of learners with which he engages, he also loses opportunities to engage in meaningful learning. language and culture are scales along which our pluses and minuses are calculated. The discourses and opportunities available to Adam are not the same as those available to other young people in his class group. It is significant that the researchers note how in their weeks of shadowing Adam and looking at his experiences, they just begin to understand the very many ways in which Adam and his teachers do not understand one other. McDermott (1999) concludes that Adam can only ever learn what is around him to be learnt. Adam’s story marks the starting point for the theoretical framework supporting this chapter (for full account see McDermott, 1999). Moving through everyday life, cooking club, classroom lessons, and testing sessions, Adam is recognized as more or less able as his learning trajectory is traced across his social interactions in different communities of practice. In each context, it is not only Adam but the world around him that changes, a world that works with Adam to develop relational learning and identities where, in his own words, “sometimes if you try harder and harder, it just gets worser and worser.” (McDermott, 1993 p.19). Explaining Adam’s experience from a sociocultural perspective highlights clearly the social and situated nature of learning within the various communities of practice of which Adam is a part. In each group, Adam is a part of a different community of practice, each with its own shared practices, histories of learning, repertoires and language, reifications and resources for negotiating meaning. The learning which occurs in these communities is a feature of and situated in these communities as through social processes of identity development and agency individuals generate new meanings as they learn to participate in the world in new ways. Paris and Alim (2017) developed this context perspective on learning by asking what it means to use culturally sustaining pedagogies in changing contexts and worlds. Using children’s literature as an example of pedagogical approach for literacy learning, this chapter offers an example of how context can be understood, negotiated and mediated through a sociocultural approach to learning in individual classrooms and communities of practice. Within these groups everyone learns but can only ever learn what is made available to them to be learnt. The new shared knowledge and learning developed within these communities are located in and contextualized through the community of practice where people learn to talk, not from talk. For some, this means successfully engaging in the socially and culturally valued endeavors of the group while others

332

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

struggle to participate. Thus, learning comes to be understood as an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations in the world (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As people participate in a wide range of settings and communities of practice through agency, they position themselves and are positioned, always in relation to other people, practices, reifications and routines, in ways that allow them to develop their identities along a variety of trajectories. Like Adam, all learners see and are seen in old and new ways dependent on the learning conversations of which they are a part.

Understanding the Relationship Between Literacy and Identity Literacy practices play a central role in identity development and learning as they help people position themselves in particular ways within communities of practice. Individuals construct certain identities and experience learning in particular ways based on both how literate they are considered to be and the particular types or ways of literacy they practice (Street, 2001). Gutierrez (2006) argues that in the domain of literacy a cultural historical view helps us conceive of the literacy practices as part of a toolkit that is socially and culturally shaped as individuals participate in a range of practices across familiar, new and hybrid contexts and tasks. Applying this to the use of children’s literature as pedagogy for literacy, identity and literacy are understood as situated in experimentation through performance in communities of practice. This development of literacy through identity as situated, mediated, and distributed across unique communities of practice means that definitions or understandings of literacy, success, failure, ability, and talent cannot be assumed and are in fact contested sites for meaning and identity development, and thus pedagogical decision making. Understanding literacy as a tool for identity development and learning, this chapter explores a more inclusive, holistic, and rounded education through the use of children’s literature as pedagogy. It calls attention to the process of how people move between the settings of home, school, and everything in between asking what they bring with them and what they leave behind. Teaching literacy becomes an act of support rather than an act of control, as learners are provided with a space to explore their identities in all their dynamism, fluidity and confusion, which can be stabilizing. Without social context and shared experiences and practices we cannot make sense of literacy and textual experience. As Lankshear (2007) explains,

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

there is no practice without meaning, just as there is no meaning outside of practice. Within contexts of human practice, language (i.e., words, literacy, texts) gives meaning to contexts and, dialectically, contexts give meaning to language. Hence, there is no reading or writing in any meaningful sense of the terms outside of social practices, or discourses. (p. 2) Meaning and the experience of meaning are central concepts to a sociocultural understanding of literacy. The role of meaning suggests that if we are to learn, we need first to identify and find value in the shared values of our community of practice. As we move between different communities of practice, what is understood to be meaningful and of value can change. For example, if we consider a student with English as an Additional Language moving from a familiar home setting where the mother tongue is spoken continuously with family members to a new decontextualized classroom setting where all interaction is completed in English, we could understand that the language, interactions, and practices in

333

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

these settings will differ greatly in terms of what is valued. For the student to move from the periphery to full engagement in the new classroom setting, they will have to learn new ways of being, talking, and doing that are appropriate and expected in this new setting. To achieve this over time the student must first find meaning and a place for personal values, literacies, and identities so that new learning can be understood as developing in dialogue with previous experience. Comber (2005) considers this complex relationship between literacy, power, and value in her definition of critical literacy as using language and other symbolic resources in powerful ways to get things done in the world. For instance, to facilitate adolescent literacy learning, Comber explains that adolescent and children literacies need to have an exchange value in contemporary times, so that they are recognized as legal tender across a variety of sites in everyday life, in home, peer and school communities (Comber, 2005). Aligning with our understanding of the role of meaning in learning, Comber’s research supports the necessity for pedagogical interventions which prioritise the values, understandings, and world views of all its participants, including teacher and students.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Learning as a Social Construction of Knowledge within Particular Structures of Power and Understandings of Value Gee‘s (1997) work on situated meanings and discourses provides a very clear picture of how the sociocultural understanding of literacy explored above might occur in practice. Gee explains that language is given its meaning in use through its association with the situated meanings, cultural models, and the sociocultural groups that socialize learners in communities of practice and literacy practices. Different individuals employ different cultural models of what it is to read different texts based on their alignment within specific communities of practice. He argues that texts are always connected in many different ways to many different worlds and to be able to read and write such worlds (understanding writing here as a metaphor for participating with agency in the world), individuals need to understand and value the practices and communities embedded in the text. This understanding of literacy, as a complex social practice of recognizing patterns of world building and coordinating shared experiences into a socioculturally meaningful dance (Latour, 1991), is achieved in practice through what Gee (1997) terms Discourse. As individuals engage in conversations about learning to be a part of a discourse, others must recognize them as being a student, a teacher, a driver, a tennis player, as well as being a particular type of this identity – a good student, a bad teacher, a careful driver, a professional tennis player, through our use of language, how we act, dress, feel and behave. Gee (1997), though not explicitly stating the fact, is one of the first sociocultural theorists to see literacy and identity as closely related. Gee uses the term Discourse as an attempt to capture the ways in which people enact, perform, and develop their identities through participation in the world. It encompasses the situated nature of learning and the idea that the language and literacies employed by people every day are always also in conversation with wider historical and social Discourses which embed meaning and value to practice. In his own words, “to be literate means being able to handle all aspects of competent performance of the Discourse, including the literacy bits: that is, to be able to handle the various human and non human elements of coordinations” (Gee, 1997, p. 3). In this way, instead of being an end in itself, literacy becomes the lifelong learning of Discourses and the shaping and reshaping of identities. Learning becomes a mediated action involving the use of

334

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

mediational means and cultural tools such as language, literacy bits, and meaning between people. Understanding literacy in this way enables teachers to develop literacy interventions located in interactions between people, such as those explored later in this chapter, which connect words and worlds, texts and experiences, learning and conversations about learning for the students in their classrooms.

Children’s Literature as Pedagogy Affording Opportunity to Learn and Talk in Moments of Connection From a sociocultural perspective, the idea of childhood is also socially constructed and culturally and historically situated in practice. Childhood and adolescence are negotiated and mediated social constructions of identity and can be understood as sites of “discursive and institutional battles... always in the process of being transformed” (Danaher, Schirato, & Webb, 2000, p. 78). Childhood has very different meanings across varying historical, cultural, and social contexts and offers contrasting identity trajectories to young people as a result. For example, in developmental psychology, childhood is understood as a developmental process where young people move through particular stages to reach adolescence and adult maturity. This process is seen in some cultures (e.g., USA) as a very difficult one, involving issues such as peer pressure and body image, while in other cultures (e.g., Samoa) the passage from childhood to adolescence and adulthood is a smooth transition not marked by any emotional or psychological distress. As Holland explains “of all social groups, children have been the least able to explore their view of themselves in the public domain. They have found themselves trapped by received definitions, which are underpinned by powerful adult emotions” (Holland, 2004, p. 205). Using children’s literature as pedagogy can be thought of as unique in its provision of an in between space where young people can interact with particular structures of child and adult worlds to develop their understandings of them. The author of this chapter understands literature and text also as social products and contested cultural sites of authentic storytelling imbued with differential meaning and value. Using children’s literature as pedagogy in diverse and multilingual classrooms creates opportunities for and conversations about learning based on meaningful and identity affirming texts, experiences, and practices of young people.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pedagogy, from this sociocultural perspective, becomes about what is salient to people as they engage in activity and develop competence in the practice in question ... [and] draws attention to the identities which are variously valued, reproduced and transformed as people participate in activity... How the cultural practice is mediated by one’s lived experiences becomes significant for one’s ability to demonstrate oneself as competent and be recognized by others as competent in a given practice [involving] an appreciation of the significance of experiences and mediational aspects as key to supporting learning (Hall, Murphy, & Soler, 2008, p. ix). Applying this understanding to the teaching of literacy using children’s literature, we can develop our definition of pedagogy to encompass the past experiences, identities, and learning of the students in our classrooms. In our selection of texts to support literacy development, we can then also broaden our scope and what we might consider as a traditional literacy text for or group of students, to include, for example, texts which come from a variety of different cultures, interests, and settings.

335

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Literacy, Identity, and Children’s Literature: Quests and Critical Journeys in Reading the Word and the World Melrose (2012) considers an exploration of children’s literature in the following way.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

My ultimate aim is not to try to shield children from the world they live in, but rather to help ... To provide them with the tools to read the world carefully and critically – the secret is in making the connections ... These connections come from a voyage, a journey, a quest useful, critically creative and creatively critical fragments into a coherent whole, so that others may be able to comprehend and make sense of them as they go about their own literary and cultural quests and critical journeys into the cult of childhood (p. 56). This chapter has outlined a sociocultural understanding of literacy and learning as identity development in meaningful communities of practice as teachers and learners engage successfully and less successfully in conversations about learning in moments of connection and disconnect. In the sections that follow, classroom applications of children’s literature as a teaching and learning approach and how it can be employed to respond to and support student learning, literacy, and identity development will be presented. The classroom application of the key ideas of this chapter will be organized around the four key sociocultural learning principles underpinning children’s literature as pedagogy, namely understanding learning as situated in meaningful communities of practice; the relationships between literacy and identity; the social construction of knowledge within particular structures of power and understandings of value; and opportunity to learn and talk in moments of connection. The reader is reminded of the key aim of this chapter – to think about our own life stories and experiences, definitions, and understandings of literacy and how these may impact the life stories and experiences, definitions, understandings, and learning of the students in our care. As such, the following sections do not provide a toolkit for practice as each setting and community are unique, but rather may offer some examples or ideas that can be adapted and developed by readers to lead and research learning (Nind, Curtin, & Hall, 2016), and to nurture engaging teaching and learning connections and relationships across a variety of different settings and practices. In their book Networks of Mind: Learning, Culture, Neuroscience Hall, Curtin and Rutherford (2014) explore in detail a sociocultural perspective on learning and adapt the nautical term “dead reckoning” to describe how learning, memory, and identity development can be understood as a relationship through which as individuals, people keep track of where they are by adding up small changes in position. These “small changes” are central to understanding and defining literacy in diverse and multilingual classrooms as it is through the adding up of all these very small changes in position that students can see themselves beginning and continuing meaningful shared journeys in literacy and learning. The Teaching Tip below exemplifies how these small changes may be fostered through one carefully chosen children’s literature text for young people in diverse and multilingual classrooms, as outlined in the text box below alongside the story of the learning biographies of Jake and Alice, a young boy and an adolescent girl struggling to engage with the literacies and identities offered to them in school.

336

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

Teaching Tip In their classroom community of practice, April and her students have been reading the wordless graphic novel The Arrival by Shaun Tan. This novel has been carefully chosen by the teacher for its migrant story, themes of identity and belonging, and innovative narrative style which wordlessly tells the story of strangers in strange lands. Each panel tells its own story as the reader searches for meaning in a way that blurs the lines between familiarity and strangeness. As the story unfolds, readers also recognize experiences of identification and bits of themselves as they undertake the journey with the narrator to make sense of the strange and meaning of the familiar. With her group of 11-12 year-old students, April has taken a cross curricular approach in her lesson planning for this text. Though using this text to primarily focus on literacy, she has also planned connections to a variety of other subjects (Art, Music, Math, History, Geography) to offer multiple entry points to learning for her students. In her classroom, she has 25 children from nine different countries with varying levels of English language competency. She is also aware of diverse differences in experiences of childhood, home life, and schooling for a number of the children in her care. Finally, she is aware that soon her students will make a similar journey to that of the main character in the text, when they move from primary (elementary) school to a secondary (high school) setting. With this understanding of her particular class group and past, present, and future experiences April hopes to use this text to engage students in a variety of literacy practices - for example exploring visual, artistic, social and communicative literacies; affording students the opportunity to develop their own definitions and understandings of literacy in a way that is meaningful to them and is based on their own previous histories and experiences; connecting in class definitions of literacy with each other, student identities and the experiences of others in a variety of cultures throughout history and ultimately engaging students agentively in a story of literacy that is also a story of their own lives. To develop visual and artistic literacy, April begins with an examination of a number of pages from the beginning, middle, and end of the text. She cuts out the individual panels (pictures) and asks students in groups to sequence these images into their own telling of a story. To do this, students have to carefully consider each image and discuss together both elements of story and where and how they think these images might fit together. In so doing they create their own story which they then also present orally to the class. Once all the stories are presented, they are displayed on the wall of the classroom and used in later lesson to compare and contrast ideas and experience.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The central theme of this text is the making of a journey and each story displayed models this in different ways. April uses this to develop a series of activities focusing on social and communicative literacies, asking students to consider past and future journeys they have or will experience. In particular she asks students to think about successful journeys and what they can learn from these experiences. Another classroom wall is devoted to these stories and the items the young students name as important. These individual stories shared with the group become resources for learning for the young people in April’s classroom. They also allow students the opportunity to see themselves and their peers as successful learners.

Connecting children’s literature with a sociocultural understanding of learning affords the development of a pedagogy that invites teachers and learners, readers and writers, to engage with literacy on deeper levels and enter in between spaces within teaching and learning. The story itself becomes understood as a negotiated site that fills the space in between child and adult worlds and creates moments of connection, conversation and learning along the way. The focus on narrative and journey within children’s literature as pedagogy places teachers and learners in conversation with each other but also within a historically and socially constituted world. Connecting to other stories, experiences, symbols and literacies as well as our own reading and discussing stories allows us to interpret and reinterpret story and personal literacies, learning, and identities. For this process to work best however, stories have to be carefully chosen with the particular community of practice in mind and teachers may have to challenge and extend their understanding of what constitutes a text. If we understand learning as situated in, distributed across and constituted between people in communities of practice then central to our pedagogy must be the selection of meaningful texts which connect to the experiences of the students in our classroom. To achieve this, teachers should aim to develop a literacy toolkit comprising of a set of texts individualised to their own class which supports learners in developing their literacy skills. In her story of a young boy named Jake, Hicks (2001) explains that a reader is a person with a history. Jake is a young boy who is seen as very literate and even gifted at home, but his kindergarten and early school experiences identify him as a failure academically. In her description of the experiences of Jake

337

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

Hicks calls into question traditional classroom pedagogies and suggests that teachers should develop and employ hybrid pedagogies in classroom practice. By this she means pedagogies which adopt and adapt content, tasks, interactions and learning according to the personal histories of their students. Hicks states that this history is both local and cultural. By this she means that within shared communities of practice, we learn through developing our identities in worlds which both shape and are shaped by our practice. Learning is a dual process whereby our locally based interactions influence and are influenced by cultural definitions and understandings of learning and literacy. Literacy learning in classrooms from a sociocultural perspective can be impacted by previous relationships, values, and histories of literacies and learning in other communities of practice, such as at home, with friends, and in the community (Lave, 1991; Wenger, 1999). Building this cultural hybridity into pedagogical practice can be difficult for teachers but as Hicks in her story of Jake argues, it is necessary so that classroom communities of practice become spaces where young people can place new discourses, identities and learning in dialogue with the old ones. For this to be successful, young people, like Adam and Jake, first have to see their old discourses, identities and learning as meaningful and central to practice. Gay (2010) explores in detail how we can employ culturally responsive teaching to support young people in literacy learning. For example, for Jake, this would mean engaging in activities, selecting texts, and interacting with literacy skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening) in ways that are similar but extend the literacy practices he has experienced at home. Returning to our exemplar children’s literature text The Arrival, understanding learning as situated in meaningful communities of practice the teacher could introduce the story of the man in this text by first inviting students to bring in or share their own favourite stories from home about someone who faces a challenge or difficult task. Stories shared will originate in a variety of different countries and cultural backgrounds and plots could range from teaching yourself to be an artist while you live in poverty (e.g., as in The Fantastic Jungles of Henri Rousseau by Markel, 2012) to choosing a new name because the children in your school cannot pronounce your own name (e.g., as in The Name Jar by Choi, 2001) to exploring the meaning and experience of death (e.g., as in Duck, Death and the Tulip by Erlbruch, 2007). In these children’s literature texts French, Korean, and German characters share experiences which are familiar and strange, both to each other and to the experiences of the students in diverse and multilingual classrooms. Sharing familiar experiences through familiar and loved characters and stories while at the same time encountering strange and unfamiliar characters, stories, and experiences allows teachers develop children’s literature as pedagogy through the telling and sharing of stories. Without access to the stories or funds of knowledge (González & Moll, 2005), defined as the knowledge that students bring with them from their own previous histories and experiences which can be drawn on to develop learning in classroom settings, students cannot engage in meaningful classroom practices. Teachers need to consider the funds of knowledge of all the students in their classrooms and examine how these extend their own funds of knowledge around literacy experiences and practices in the process. Further, they can create opportunities to uncover such meaningful banks of characters and stories for their students to talk about, live through, borrow from, and question. Character study offers a most interesting and accessible starting point and gradual transition to considering the characters learners like, dislike, and ultimately identify with as they continue their journey and try to make sense of individual and shared literacy and learning experiences. A very interesting

338

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

way to explore the world of a text with young students in particular is through the use of affinity spaces. Activities can include comparing, contrasting, drawing, studying, and identifying with particular aspects of character experience. One corner of the room is designated as an affinity space for “Our Stories” where the texts and corresponding work are displayed and referred to across the unit of learning. The term affinity space is taken from the work of Gee (2007) where he uses it to define meaningful and participative online and virtual spaces for learning. The term is appropriated here with a central focus on Gee’s understanding that these spaces are organised cultural and social settings where the work of teaching is shared by many people who are connected by a shared interest or passion. To set up affinity spaces, teachers should select one corner or wall of the room as designated only to display the stories being shared as a part of this literacy unit. Teachers and students will use this space to gather, experiment, and interact with the evidence of learning. As teachers complete their planned unit of learning around the study of stories, using the classroom as an affinity space affords students powerful opportunities to step into the shoes of different characters and walk in different worlds, learning both about themselves and world in the process. For students in diverse and multilingual classrooms, this physical and visual context for literacy practice (pictures, student work, projects, and items, for example), which keeps growing as students continue through the unit, supports differentiation, participation, and motivation. Teachers can encourage and remind students of the literacy support and resources by including weekly tasks which ask students to consider, develop, and extend their literacy learning evidenced by the artefacts in their classroom. Beginning tasks could include for example developing character profiles focusing on personal description and later moving towards feelings, while more advanced activities could ask students to identify more closely with aspects of a character, setting, and story and bring these back to their own life experiences. Students can also explore this space at lunch time and other times during the school day, engaging in conversations with peers and reinforcing learning.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Understanding the Relationship between Literacy and Identity Returning to Jake at home, his literacy and learning practices are connected by family, meaning and experience as reading sits amid social practice and relationships which support a successful learner identity for Jake. In school, Jake’s experiences of literacy and learning are very different, and he experiences learning in this community of practice as in a kind of cultural borderland where improvements in his practice are not valued by teachers as successful when measured up against institutional norms and achievements of his peers. As Jake struggles through school, he tries with limited success to make a space and identity for himself and his experiences as a reader in an unfamiliar community of practice. In moments of connection, Jake creates for himself hybrid pedagogical spaces where past and present literacy experiences connect and for a brief while joins the conversation about valued learning in the classroom. For Jake, learning, literacy, reading, and writing are not static and stable fixed entities. They exist more like moving targets. His opportunities for participation, success, failure, literacy, and learning development move and change with the interactional winds (McDermott, 1999) within different communities of practice. To engage young people in learning as identity development we need to not only read but engage learners in different conversations about the words and the worlds within. Children’s literature texts are uniquely placed to engage young people in such conversations about their own learning and identities. As Foucault (1988) explains,

339

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

Too often reading and literature education are compartmentalized and restricted by finalized meanings, learning outcomes and a focus on form that leaves students and teachers on the outside of literary words, moving across words instead of through them; and missing altogether the many narratives and ways of viewing the world that youth bring to a story (p. 23). One of the central questions of Shaun Tan’s The Arrival remains the question of how we can make sense of something when we do not understand it. Zipin’s (2009) exploration of dark pedagogies, i.e., pedagogies which encourage connection with the darker aspects of childhood and adolescent experience, for example drug taking, domestic abuse, child abuse, and bullying, reminds us that no two childhoods are the same. Zipin encourages teachers to understand the importance of including these dark pedagogies in practice also, as appropriate and with varying levels of focus, and claiming that in planning and curriculum development, teachers tend towards lighter pedagogies (for example hobbies, holidays, happy families, and pets). These lighter pedagogies alone do not connect with the experiences of every student and to learn about ourselves also requires a consideration and discussion of the more negative aspects of the human condition. Remembering the nature of diverse and multilingual classrooms, teachers can use children’s literature to touch on darker pedagogies in conversations about experiences in which we might feel uncomfortable or strange. Through discussion of the abstracted images in The Arrival, for example, teachers can create opportunities for students to connect their own experiences with parts of the story and consider their own identity as a result. This consideration is always a positive one, as it encourages students to see their own life histories, funds of knowledge, and experiences as of the utmost importance, and without this frame of reference they would not be able to make sense of the world. Like for the character in The Arrival, learning happens as a result of, not separate from, children’s previous life experiences and understandings.

Learning as a Social Construction of Knowledge within Particular Structures of Power and Understandings of Value

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This personal nature of reading and writing as linked to identity is sometimes overlooked when planning classroom literacy interventions. Luttrell and Parker (2001) tell the story of Alice, a teenager struggling to use familiar literacy practices to develop her identity as a learner within and sometimes in opposition to the communities of practice of school, work and family (for full account see Luttrell and Parker, 2001). Her story reveals in practice a deeply dialogic relationship between student identities and literacy practices in ways that contrast dramatically with teacher understandings of Alice’s learning, identity and experience. It is within these contested spaces and interactions that Alice’s identity as learner develops. As Luttrell and Parker (2001) explain, The world Alice walks into at Central High encourages her to research a poem that is easy rather than one that inspires her, teaches her chorus without teaching her to read music, and more often than not requires a minimal and unchallenging level of writing... Alice has taken up her position but is also engaged in an inner dialogue that challenges this position. She wishes to embrace college as a symbolic place where she will become the reader, writer and artist she cannot be at Central High (p. 2)

340

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

This personal aspect of literacy connects closely with the understanding of knowledge as socially constructed within particular structures of power and understandings of value in individual communities of practice. Understanding Alice as “unable” to engage with valued literacy practices in classroom practice, her teachers make pedagogical, epistemological, and communicative decisions for her and about her which result for Alice in limited agency and positioning in relation to the literacy practices of her peers in her classroom. Just like in Adam’s case, the deficits in learning attributed to Alice are in fact features of the community of practice in which she engages but is not supported in literacy and learning development. González and Moll (2005) offer an explanation for this too common experience of young people in classrooms, outlining how learners’ own frames of reference or “funds of knowledge” (such as home language, family values and traditions, caregiving, friends and family, family outings, household chores, educational activities, favourite tv shows, family occupations, scientific knowledge, etc.) color their literacy experiences, expectations, and values. Taking a children’s literature as pedagogy approach to literacy learning and expanding our definitions of text, literacy and learning afford teachers opportunities to include literacy content, resources, and activities which draw on the funds of knowledge of students already present in the classroom and develop literacy through meaningful and value-laden points of connection for all members of the community of practice. Developing this link between meaningful connection, literacy, history, and value, Zipin (2009) explores connections between power, and light and dark funds of knowledge. Zipin argues that when designing classroom pedagogies, teachers need to carefully consider a redistribution of elite knowledge through the use of the life world knowledge of less powerful others. The funds of knowledge teachers hold, which directly relate to particular funds of knowledge of their students (and vice versa), are sometimes narrow and limited. Understanding that to model literacy success for students, teachers may have to adapt their own definitions of literacy practice to be mindful of the social construction of knowledge within particular structures of power and understandings of value. To do so, teachers can use children’s literature as a pedagogical tool and opportunity to encourage students to think about and develop their own definitions of literacy and learning. Activities on literature which focus on visual, artistic, social, and communicative literacies to help us make sense of our experience could be focused on here for example and could include selecting, studying, linking, mapping, interpreting, and discussing particular images while also considering how particular images make us feel and why.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Children’s Literature as Pedagogy Affording Opportunity to Learn and Talk in Moments of Connection Engaging through meaningful points of connection and conversation about authentic texts, stories, and experiences in a way uniquely afforded through the employment of children’s literature as pedagogy allows students and teachers in diverse and multilingual classrooms to engage in meaningful literacy learning. Rather than curriculum driving practice, past and present shared and unshared practices have to shape curriculum with new types of knowledge that carries life world experiences and uses (such as literacies with currency) for young people. Drawing on knowledge and learning assets from home and community worlds through talk and the telling of stories in this way is the foundation for a pedagogy for literacy which focuses on children’s literature and allows teachers and learners to understand curriculum as “curriculum in the making” between all participants within the community of practice (Roth, 2013). 341

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

Tan’s story presented above is in many ways one of transformation, visibly felt as the opening and closing pages display a number of items important for the hero (such as a letter, a pocket watch, or a camera) as he makes the biggest journey of his life to date, though in the course of the story these objects become transformed in some way. Teachers can use these powerful pages to help students understand the idea of change, as it can occur and have positive or negative effects, but also how individuals can work towards and make the changes they want in their lives, understanding that this process does not happen overnight. Replicating the opening and closing pages of The Arrival, students can tell their own stories of change and transformation. This identity driven approach to learning and literacy makes the story meaningful to each individual student. Just like Tan, students can represent their stories through drawing of images and display and present their story, sharing something of themselves with the classroom without the worry of lacking the words needed to do so. As students learn and talk in moments of meaningful connection to classroom literacy experience and each other, children’s literature affords teachers opportunities to draw out connections within the text to other times, texts, and cultures. In doing this, students are reminded that learning, reading, and writing do not happen in a vacuum, but that they can lean on and borrow from their own stories and the stories of others to tell new stories of themselves and the world. Literacy becomes not an abstract concept which they are measured against but a story of shared life experiences Thinking about how learner experiences in life make up who they are through the stories they tell and the stories that are told about them, in the agentic development of identity, teachers can explore with students how they can think of literacy in a similar way. If learners have little experience of words or particular valued literacy practices, this does not mean that they are illiterate. Rather, the way literacy is perceived and defined needs to be adaptable and transformed in ways that enable all learners to engage in different practices and conversations about literacy. Using children’s literature to engage students with literacy affirms that students learn with and from each other, and this journey is, like the journey undertaken by the lead character in The Arrival, just as important as the destination. Talking and telling stories about this journey and how it changes learners at various points is how they learn. This is the definition of literacy exemplified in a children’s literature as pedagogy approach to literacy learning. For many students in diverse and multilingual classrooms, the experience of Tan’s main character of the strange with glimpses of the familiar in media, which becomes at different times more or less intelligible, tells a similar story to student own experiences of literacy in the classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Webb (2004) explains that Language works through a process that involves using signs to stand in for concrete objects or ideas. Signs include words (both written and spoken), gestures, architectural design, art works, musical notation and sounds, hair styles, dress, and any other range of the devices people use to connect one with another. Language is a representational system because it provides something to stand in for (to represent, to make present) something else (p. 40).

342

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

This chapter has explored the use of children’s literature as pedagogy to create meaningful moments of connection between teacher and learner in the literacy classroom. Using sociocultural theory as a framework for teaching and learning, the chapter highlighted four related key principles for the use of children’s literature as pedagogy for literacy learning in diverse and multilingual classrooms. These key principles are understanding learning as situated in meaningful communities of practice; the relationships between literacy and identity; the social construction of knowledge within particular structures of power and understandings of value; and opportunities to learn and talk in moments of connection. The application of these learning principles in developing pedagogies for literacy development, which focus on meaningful points of connection through the use of children’s literature in diverse classrooms, offer exemplar ideas which can be adapted and developed for the individual and unique communities of practice in which each reader may find themselves as a teacher and a learner. This is in line with the central objective of this chapter which is to encourage readers to think about their own life stories and experiences, definitions, and understandings of literacy and how these may impact on the life stories and experiences, definitions, understandings, and learning of the learners in their care. As Webb (2009) explains, this personal journey through landscapes of literacy is, for both teachers and students, essential to make meaningful literacy connections in diverse and multilingual classroom settings. Understanding language (and literacy) as a shared representational system that can stand in for and make present “something else” in cultivating points of connection between teachers and learners is a first step towards the development of literate and successful communities of practice. Using children’s literature to develop pedagogies for literacy and learning serves the simultaneous and dual purposes of enabling individuals to interact with literacy (and world) structures, while also allowing them to impact and influence these structures with their own values and real-life experiences. Allowing students to come up with their own understandings of literacy and to share and extend these understandings within their community of practice is a powerful pedagogical approach for simultaneous literacy and identity development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to acknowledge Professor Kathy Hall, University College Cork. Without Kathy’s work, time, generosity, and kindness, I would not have been a part of so many interesting conversations about teaching and learning and had the opportunity to deepen my own understandings. It is through these very meaningful conversations that my perspective on learning explored in this chapter has developed.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Discussion Questions 1. Thinking about your own learning biography in relation to literacy, how might you record and reflect on this journey using the four key sociocultural learning strands presented in this chapter? 2. Using the key terms and definitions found at the end of this chapter as prompts, what might you need to consider when planning literacy learning for your own particular group of learners? How could you use these key terms and the ideas within this chapter with learners to find out more about their previous literacy experiences? 3. How could you adapt the children’s literature as pedagogy approach outlined in this chapter to your own community of practice? What would you need to be aware of as you plan meaningful connections for your own students’ literacy experiences and learning?

343

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

REFERENCES Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. New York, NY: Routledge. Choi, Y. (2001). The name jar. Decorah, IA: Dragonfly Books. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human development, 39(5), 250–256. Comber, B. (2005). Literacies with currency: Teachers work to make a difference. Keynote Address presented at AATE/ALEA National Conference: Pleasurable Learning, Passionate Teaching and Provocative Debates, Queensland, Australia. Curtin, A. (2020). And they all lived happily ever after: Literacy through children’s literature. London, UK: Routledge. Dahl, R. (1982). The big friendly giant. London, UK: Penguin. Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki, (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377 ̶ 406). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Erlbruch, W. (2007). Duck, death, and the tulip. Frankfurt, Germany: Kunstmann. Foucault, M. (1988). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977–1984. New York, NY: Routledge. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. P. (1997). A discourse approach to language and literacy. In C. Lankshear (Ed.), Changing literacies (pp. 13-19). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households. New York, NY: Routledge. Gutiérrez, K. (2006) Culture matters: Rethinking educational equity. Retrieved from https://gseis.ucla. edu/faculty/files/gutierrez/gutierrez_culturematters.pdf> Hall, K., Curtin, A., & Rutherford, V. (2014). Networks of mind: Language, culture, neuroscience. London, UK: Routledge. Hall, K., Murphy, P., Murphy, P. F., & Soler, J. (2008). Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities. London, UK: Sage.

344

 Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

Hicks, D. (2001). Literacies and masculinities in the life of a young working-class boy. Language Arts, 78(3), 217–226. Holland, P. (2004). Picturing childhood: The myth of the child in popular imagery. London, UK: I. B. Tauris. Lankshear, C. (2007). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Luttrell, W., & Parker, C. (2001). High school students’ literacy practices and identities, and the figured world of school. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 235–247. Markel, M. (2012). The fantastic jungles of Henri Rousseau. Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdman’s Books. McDermott, R. (1999). On becoming labelled: The story of Adam. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning, and assessment (pp. 1–21). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing. Melrose, A. (2012). Here comes the bogeyman: Exploring contemporary issues in writing for children. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203156872 Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15–48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Nind, M., Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2016). Research methods for pedagogy. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Paris, D., & Alim, S. H. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez, (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Roth, M. (2013). Curriculum in the making: A post constructivist perspective. Victoria, Australia: Peter Lang.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Street, B. (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. Tan, S. (2008). The arrival. Sydney, Australia: Hodder Children’s Books. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thinking and speaking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Webb, J. (2009). Understanding representation. London, UK: Sage. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

345

Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

Zipin, L. (2009). Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy: exploring boundaries between life worlds and schools. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 317–331.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Agency: The strategic making and remaking of selves within structures of power. Agency is not an internal state; rather, it is defined as a way of positioning oneself within communities so as to allow for new identities. Children’s Literature: A genre of literature that represents an in-between space where young people can interact with particular structures of child and adult worlds and develop their understandings of them. Communities of Practice: A group of people with shared histories of learning who develop over time around things that meaningful to its participants and reify repertoires and resources for negotiating meaning within practice such as routines, words, tools, and symbols. In the context of the classroom, this concept becomes much more complex as students are mandated to attend and engage in particular ways while teachers relate differently to students based on particular power differentials. Identity: A layering of events of participation and reification by which our experience and its social interpretation inform each other. Participation: The social process of taking part in the world through doing in social and historical contexts resulting in learning or a changing relationship of participation in the world. Pedagogy: Everything we say, do and experience as we participate and reify our teaching and learning experiences. Situated Learning: A feature of and situated in communities of practice where through social processes of identity development and agency individuals generate new meanings as they learn to participate in the world in new ways. This new knowledge and learning are located in and contextualized through the community of practice where people learn to talk, not from talk. In this way, learning is understood as an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations in the world. Sociocultural Theory: An umbrella term which encompasses the ideas of many authors to include, most significantly, mind as mediated, identity and meaning in communities of practice, legitimate peripheral participation, situated cognition, distributed cognition and planes of participation, the metaphors of participation and acquisition, activity theory, cultural psychology, and power and agency in learning. Learning is located and distributed across groups of people as opposed to in individual brains or minds. Texts: Social products and cultural sites of authentic storytelling imbued with differential meaning and value.

346

Children’s Literature as Pedagogy

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS  1. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. This book provides the theoretical framework for a sociocultural understanding of learning as identity development within communities of practice. Giving a social theory of learning, Wenger explores relationships between community, social practice, meaning, identity, and learning. The focus throughout remains on practices within the informal communities of practice where learning is understood to occur. 2. Lankshear, C. (2007). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1 ̶ 24). New York, NY: Peter Lang.  This chapter outlines a sociocultural understanding of learning as applied to literacy with particular emphasis on reimagining key literacy skills and practices. The chapter explores how literacy can be taught and learnt about in diverse and multilingual classrooms. Applying sociocultural practice to teaching, learning, and pedagogy, the authors offer a variety of approaches for teaching literacy in the classroom. 3. Curtin, A. (2020). And they all lived happily ever after: Literacy through children’s literature. London, England: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This book develops in detail the ideas outlined in this chapter within a sociocultural framework for the use of children’s literature for literacy pedagogy. Each chapter takes a different genre of children’s literature (fairytale, novel, comic book, etc.) and explores theory and practice around engagement with these types of text in the classroom.

347

348

Chapter 17

Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills Jing Zhao Brighton High School, USA MaryAnn Christison https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3760-0619 University of Utah, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter introduces readers to the interactive methodology of literature circles instruction. The chapter shows how this methodology is efective for the development of literacy skills for linguistically and culturally diverse groups of language learners. Literature circles instruction is supported by two key theoretical perspectives in second language acquisition, namely, sociocultural theory (SCT) and the basic tenets of reader-response theory. Also in this chapter is a brief overview of the research on literature circles instruction in two areas: (1) the development of reading comprehension skills and (2) the attributes of efective literature circles instruction, including a discussion of the issues related to the use of literary texts and the importance of student-led discussion groups. The second part of the chapter provides information for classroom practitioners, showing how the principles for literature circles instruction can be enacted in classrooms with diverse language learners.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION In educational environments where there is a population of linguistically and culturally diverse children and young adults learning a majority language, educators are very likely to encounter learners who are at risk in terms of developing literacy skills that transfer well into workplace contexts in the 21st century. The prevalence of at-risk English learners is especially robust in BANA countries (Britain, Australasia, and North America) (see, for example, Ball, 2011; NCES, 2018) but is also prevalent in other countries DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch017

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

that accept large numbers of immigrants and have a great deal of linguistic diversity within their public educational systems (e.g., Hernes, Martin, & Zadra, 2004; Krulatz, Dahl, & Flognfeldt, 2018). In response to the impact of demographic changes and large-scale migration on schools and educational systems, conceptions of literacy and how to teach it to linguistically and culturally diverse learners in the 21st century have been evolving and changing. Although reading and writing are essential components of literacy, these concepts alone are not sufficient to describe the complex practices that educators must embrace to foster its development. Literacy cannot be described simply as learning the letters in an alphabet, writing words and sentences, or reading a book and understanding what has been read. Rather, it must be conceived in terms of the development of a specific set of skills to communicate with others, to expand one’s knowledge of the world, and to foster mutual understanding across cultures and languages (LoBianco & Freebody, 2001; Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004; UNESCO Education Sector, 2004). To meet the needs of language learners, educators continue to look for effective ways to teach literacy to accomplish these goals. Literature circles instruction is an interactive methodology that can be effective in helping language learners develop literacy skills, particularly reading comprehension skills. Even though the ways in which literature circles might be implemented vary depending on the age of the learners, it can be used with learners from as young as aged six to adults who are studying in postsecondary contexts and developing literacy skills in a second or foreign language (SFL). In literature circles instruction, learners are encouraged to read texts and work together in small groups to construct meaning cooperatively (Daniels, 2002). In these student-led discussion groups, each student is assigned a role that corresponds to a specific cognitive task and a reading strategy. In addition, learners are given specific information (in the form of teacher-prepared role sheets) to assist them in carrying out the and in developing language skills. To this end, the student-led discussions not only provide opportunities for group members to construct meaning from the text but also encourage them to develop the language skills related to the assigned roles. Although the student-led discussion groups have been a defining characteristic of the methodology for literature circles instruction, it is not the only important component. Literature circles pedagogy also includes explicit instruction provided by the teacher, which occurs at the beginning and end of each class (Daniels, 2002; Zhao, 2019). The teacher also plays an important role as a facilitator, supporting students in interacting with one another and with the text, particularly during times when learners are learning to work independently in groups (Daniels, 2002; Martinez-Roldan & Lopez-Robertson, 1999; McElvain, 2010). Because of the increase in the number of young language learners in multilinguistic and culturally diverse settings and in the number of young learners who are developing literacy skills in both their first language (L1) and in an SFL concurrently using different writing systems, there is a need for instructional pedagogies that address the development of literacy skills across different orthographies (Tse & Cheung, 2010). The purpose of this chapter is to introduce readers to literature circles instruction in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, its research base, and its pedagogy, and to show how it can be used to help SFLs in the development of literacy skills, particularly reading comprehension skills. To this end, the chapter provides language teaching practitioners with information about both the theory and practice of literature circles so that they can pursue it in their own classrooms. In this chapter, we focus on literature circles as it has been conceptualized by Daniels (2002). The theoretical underpinnings of literature circles instruction and some relevant research that has been carried out to date are introduced in the first section of the chapter. Then, the principle features of literature circles methodology and some of the challenges that SFL teachers may face as they imple349

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

ment literature circles instruction with groups of linguistically and culturally diverse groups of learners are described. Finally, examples of practical applications of literature circles are provided in the form of teaching tips.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Various theoretical perspectives underpin the methodology for literature circles instruction. There are two perspectives that have informed our own work with literature circles: Sociocultural Theory (SCT) (Vygotsky, 1978) and reader-response theory (Rosenblatt, 1978). In the 1970s and 1980s, reading instruction primarily focused on the development of reading comprehension skills and on encouraging learners to search texts for meaning. With the influence of sociocultural and reader-response theories of learning, reading instruction began to shift its focus toward the use of multiple reading strategies that promoted the construction of the meaning of texts through interaction and discussion (Pearson, 2009). In this section, support for SCT is explored as it relates to the zone of proximal development and communities of practice. Reader-response theory is then explained relative to how meaning is created between the reader and the text. Finally, some research related to the effectiveness of literature circles instruction in promoting reading comprehension is reviewed.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sociocultural Theory Sociocultural theorists view language as a tool for thinking or a means of mediation in mental activity. From the perspective of SCT, language is learned as it is embedded within a social context (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978), thereby, making learning a social practice in which learners direct their own interactions and shared processes. In literature circles instruction, these shared processes occur in discussions that learners undertake with their peers (Simeon, 2015). In SCT, learners are viewed as active participants, utilizing their existing knowledge and interacting with the tools of mediation that are available in their environment. Mediation is achieved through the meaningful exchange of ideas, so the most important tool of mediation in literature circles instruction is learners’ interactions with more knowledgeable others. The main goals for SFLs are to 1. construct new knowledge and 2. promote the development of new understandings. Because literature circles instruction is strongly rooted in SCT, it assumes that learning and understanding written language is primarily social, rather than individual, with learners co-constructing knowledge by reflecting on the cultural conventions within social contexts, such as a classroom. As such, literature circles instruction provides learners opportunities to use language to co-construct and communicate meaning. Specific to literacy development, comprehending written text requires an engagement “in culturally defined ways of using text as they participate in a meaningful cultural activity” (Gavelek & Bresnaban, 2008, p.156), rather than a transmission of information from the text to the reader.

The Zone of Proximal Development The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978) is an important concept for SFL teachers within SCT. It is defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem 350

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). In other words, the ZPD represents the difference between what learners can do alone and what they can accomplish when assistance or scaffolding is provided by more knowledgeable others, such as teachers or peers. Most research on the ZPD currently emphasizes that worthwhile contributions and scaffolding can be made by interlocutors who are equal but different (Donato, 1994). Because literature circles instruction supports true peer interaction, in other words, interaction wherein learners share their own thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, it provides a context for mutual assistance in the ZPD. It equips learners with different sources of scaffolding, for example, the teacher and peers, and helps them to advance their language and literacy development and their abilities to think independently (Ohta, 2013). Writing and literacy development emerge as a result of learners’ collaborative interactions (Zhao, 2019).

Communities of Practice SCT views language learning as “the jointly constructed process of transforming socially formed knowledge and skills into individual abilities” (Hall, 2012, p.66). When individuals learn a language, they are exposed to a new culture. As a result, they start forming a sense of a new identity. Lave and Wenger (1991) emphasized that “learning and a sense of identity are inseparable; they are aspects of the same phenomenon” (p.115). Wenger and Wenger-Trayner (2005) proposed the concept of a communities of practice (CoPs), which they defined as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and [they] learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (p.1). The concept of a CoP suggests that learners who have the same interests and engage in the process of collective learning build relationships that enable them to interact, help, and learn from one another. Within the framework of CoPs, language and literacy learning is viewed as a relational engagement among participants of a community (Miller & Kobota, 2013). Through the student-led discussions in literature circles instruction, learners create CoPs (Lin, 2004). Literature circles represent a way of building a community, where students can teach and learn from one another, respect and value the different perspectives of each member of the group, and appreciate cultural and linguistic diversity. Literature circles instruction creates a safe and trusting classroom environment that can help students view their learning experiences as useful beyond the classroom context. It seems logical to assume that students who have positive experiences interacting with diverse learners during student-led discussion groups are more likely to interact successfully with others in real world contexts that are linguistically and culturally diverse (see also Aerila & Kauppinen in this volume).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reader-Response Theory Schlick, Noe, and Johnson (1999) consider reader-response as a defining characteristic of literature circles instruction. Reader-response theory is based on the belief that meaning is created in the transaction between reader and text, and it stresses that readers’ responses to a text are essential beginnings of instruction (Rosenblatt, 1978). Reader-response theory emerged as an opposing view to the New Criticism movement in reading theory, which is a text-centered literary analysis. The New Criticism movement stresses that reading is a process of learning the right or objective interpretation or meaning of a text, and the instructor represents an authority who knows the right answers (Pearson, 2009). On the contrary, reader-response theory argues that there is no “correct” interpretation of any text. Louise Rosenblatt

351

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

(1978), a pioneer in reader-response theory, claimed that meaning exists as the result of interaction between the reader and text, and, as such, a text has no meaning before a reader experiences or reads it. Reader-response theory stresses that both the reader and the text are essential and important elements in the process of constructing meaning because readers bring their personalities, experiences, beliefs, and memories to the symbols on the page. At the same time, the text guides readers’ meaning-making processes. Iser (1972) argued for each piece of literature or literary work having two sides—the artistic and the aesthetic side. The former one is created by the author, and the latter one is “the realization accomplished by the reader” (p. 279). There are inevitable gaps in any literary work, and those gaps require readers to fill them in by making explanations, making connections, and creating and using metaphors. Literature circles instruction supports the basic tenets of reader-response theory, and in doing so, it supports the development of specific literacy skills associated with reading. It provides opportunities for SFLs to present their responses to the texts and encourages them to respond in multiple ways throughout the entire reading process. Instead of searching for the correct answer and the “true” interpretation of a text, students in literature circles instruction are encouraged to think critically and express their ideas and opinions freely. Literature circles instruction encourages SFLs to consider their existing language skills, past experiences, and cultural backgrounds as “funds of knowledge” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992, p.132) in order to produce their unique interpretations of a text. When learners’ responses and interpretations are valued, the learners themselves will likely become more motivated and engaged in reading and, consequently, in the development of literacy skills.

Research on Literature Circles Instruction In the past decade, there has been an increase in research on literature circles instruction. In this chapter, we focus primarily on the research as it relates to reading instruction in the following areas: (1) the effectiveness of literature circles instruction on the development of language learners’ reading comprehension and (2) the attributes of successful literature circles instruction to include using literature and literary texts and student-led discussions. Below, we give an overview of the most important studies.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reading Comprehension and Learner Attitudes To explore the effectiveness of literature circles instruction on the development of learners’ comprehension skills and on increases in motivation, Davis, Resta, Davis, and Camacho (2001) conducted a literature circles instruction study in fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. The majority of the students were Latino who lived in an urban area with low socio-economic status in the United States. The reading measure was the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills standard test, and, in addition, questionnaires were administered that examined students’ attitudes toward reading. The test results showed that students’ scores on the reading test improved significantly after participating in literature circles instruction, with 20% more students passing the posttest compared to the pretest. Pre-and post- attitudinal questionnaires also revealed an increase in the students’ confidence in reading in the SFL and their motivation to read. Similarly, Anderson (2012) examined the impact of literature circles instruction on reading comprehension for English learners, as well as their perceptions of literature circles instruction. The participants were 55 English learners from seventh to eleventh grades who were from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. One group of students was taught using literature circles instruction, and the other group of students was taught using traditional, teacher-led instruction. Students were given a standard352

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

ized reading test, and their perceptions of literature circles instruction were examined through the use of the questionnaire. The findings showed that literature circles instruction affected learners’ perceptions of reading positively and that literature circles instruction also lead to improved standardized reading test scores. Carrison and Ernst-Slavin (2005) examined the effects of literature circles on learners’ attitudes toward reading with 24 fourth-grade students. Five of the 24 students were SFLs. Students were given the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) as a pre- and posttest. The results regarding reading comprehension showed that literature circles helped all students increase their reading comprehension scores and accuracy levels. According to the results of the pre- and posttests (i.e., the QRI), students showed significant improvements in accuracy after participating in literature circles. Two of the students who had the lowest reading levels in the class “increased their reading abilities by at least one grade level” (p.105). Students were also surveyed about their attitudes toward reading before and after participating in literature circles. According to the pre-survey, 16 students viewed reading as being “fun.” In the postsurvey, the number of students who perceived reading as “fun” rose to 21. Interestingly, this study found that the increased levels of enthusiasm and confidence were most evident among the SFLs. Brown (2002) examined the effects of literature circles instruction on reading comprehension with a group of eighth-grade students who were mainly African-American students of low social economic status using two experiments. For the first experiment, one group was taught by literature circles instruction while the other group continued with traditional reading instruction. The groups were swapped for the second experiment. Pre- and posttests were given for each experiment. For the first experiment, the posttest showed students in the literature circles group made significant improvement in reading test scores. However, in the second experiment, the group that was initially introduced to literature circles did better than the traditional reading instruction group on the posttests. The researcher provided a plausible explanation for the result by stating that the initial instruction using literature circles may have resulted in learners developing better long-term literacy skills and that these skills remained effective even when they received traditional reading instruction. The researcher recommended the use of literature circles instruction, alongside traditional reading instruction.

Attributes of Effective Literature Circles Instruction Several studies have examined the attributes of literature circles instruction that correspond with positive reading outcomes: (1) using literary texts and (2) facilitating collaborative student-led discussions. A summary of these findings is presented in what follows.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Using Literary Texts While some SFL educators have emphasized the positive effects of using literary works in teaching language learners (Ghosn, 2002; Hall, 2005; Khatib, Rezaei, Derakhshan, 2011; Lazar, 1993; Lewis, 1997; Shang, 2006), other educators claim that using literature and literary texts pose challenges to facilitating SFL language development (Savvidou, 2004). Some researchers have suggested that the use of literary texts may be most valuable for SFLs at advanced levels of proficiency (Davis, 1989, 1992; Van, 2009). There are several reasons why some SFL scholars hold this point of view. First, research indicates that SFL readers often fail to understand the cultural and historical significance of literary texts and, therefore, lack the ability to give critical responses to them. The inability of SFLs to achieve these 353

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

goals is understandable because as language learners, they may lack important cultural and historical knowledge about the target culture and language (Davis, 1992). Other studies indicate that because of the structural complexity of many literary texts, SFL learners do not have sufficient language proficiency to understand them (Bernhardt, 1990; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995). Teachers’ perceptions of and beliefs about SFL learners’ abilities are important determiners of whether they will choose literature and literary works for instructing language learners. Day and Ainley (2008) conducted a study describing how one teacher’s beliefs regarding the implementation of literature circles with language learners in her classroom evolved over time. At first, the teacher was reluctant to use literature. One of the reasons that made the teacher initially hesitant to use literature with her language learners was a “worry that English language learners are not proficient enough in English to discuss books and that there will be a language barrier between the English language learners and the native English speakers” (p.161). Her impressions about language learners’ inabilities to discuss books changed and evolved over time because her language learners proved to be successful and were able to contribute meaningfully to discussions with native English speakers. When teachers are aware of the challenges that SFL learners may experience while reading and discussing literary texts, they can implement a number of strategies and adjust instruction based on students’ language proficiency. Lower proficiency level learners need more scaffolding and more opportunities to activate and build background knowledge if they are to comprehend texts and participate in discussions of texts. Teachers can help SFLs by selecting texts thoughtfully and carefully and by planning for how learners will incorporate for both linguistic and cultural background information while teaching literature. Day and Ainley (2008) identified four strategies within literature circles instruction that contribute to the success of language learners. These strategies include the following: 1. the use of picture books, 2. the practice of encouraging the use of native languages among students, which is sometimes referred to as translanguaging (see also Neokleous, Park, & Krulatz and Skein, Knospe, & Sullivan in this volume), 3. the process of organized partner reading, and 4. the discussion of texts in small groups. Other researchers have suggested that literature circles instruction is effective with SFL learners when culturally diverse literature is used in the classroom. For example, Farris, Nelson, and L’Allier (2007) recommended using literature that has been designed for a population of readers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. They also encouraged the practice of letting students choose their own reading materials to increase students’ motivation and engagement. Researchers have offered several reasons to support the practice of integrating literature and literary works into language teaching classrooms (Collie & Slater, 1987). First, literature is a form of authentic text, a text that is used in the real world by proficient users of the language. As such, it is considered to be an effective language-teaching tool (Badger & MacDonald, 2010). It provides SFLs with natural language patterns, such as examples of different writing styles, genres, and registers, which are used by native speakers. If adapted versions of literary works are used, teachers can also include a limited number of excerpts from the original texts in order to focus on language, characters, or story development. For literature circles instruction, Day and Ainley (2008) stated that literature offers effective instructional material because the texts can be used for the student-led group discussions, and it is through these discussions that SFL learners construct the meaning of the texts and become familiar with new linguistic forms and communicative functions to which they might not otherwise be exposed. Second, literary works facilitate SLFs’ cultural enrichment because they introduce different cultural patterns, which in turn help them to expand their knowledge of another culture and improve cultural awareness, thereby triggering the need for learners to provide critical responses to the literary works, 354

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

especially responses related to new ideas about other cultures (Collie & Slater, 1987). Literary works enable all learners to understand and appreciate cultures and ideologies that are different from their own. For literature circles instruction, researchers have shown that students of diverse backgrounds are able to express their opinions, ideas, critical responses based on a literary work and explore social and cultural issues through student-led discussions about the world around them (Carrison & Ernst-Slavin, 2005; Jing, 2019; Klassen, 1993; Martinez-Roldan & Lopez-Robertson, 1999). Literary texts can also be useful in the process of learning another language because of the personal involvement they foster in the reader. According to Bygate (2011), texts which promote personal involvement contain “features which signal personal identity and group membership and those which convey personal feelings and attitudes to the interlocutor or the content of discourse” (p. 416). SFL learners may not be able to interpret a literary work based on textual analyses that have been agreed upon by scholars in a particular discipline. Rather, they may do so in terms of their own feelings, experiences, and subjectivity, as argued by the reader-response theory (Rosenblatt, 1978). If SFL teachers can guide learners in identifying with certain characters or with the situation in which the characters find themselves, the texts will become more interesting and meaningful for learners. A study conducted by McElvain (2010) suggested that the practice of helping SFLs make text-toself connections promotes personal involvement and contributes to the development of learners’ reading comprehension and literacy skills as they begin to see themselves as culturally related to the texts. Rather than simply understanding the meaning of the words and sentences, learners can demonstrate that they have the potential to employ language for personal expression by sharing their ideas with other learners and constructing their understandings of texts collaboratively. These practices are consistent with the theoretical perspectives that are consistent with literature circles methodology, namely, SCT and reader-response theory.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Student-led Discussions Discussion is a common instructional activity, and there is a considerable amount of research that has focused on the role of small group discussion in facilitating the development of reading comprehension skills (e.g., Finlay & Faulkner, 2005; Grabe, 2009; Klinger, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004; Turnball & Evans, 2017). In SFL teaching, the forms and purposes of small group discussions have changed quite dramatically in the last decade. Traditionally, discussions were initiated by the teacher who determined the topics or provided the questions that students were to answer in small groups. It was also the teacher who decided whether the students’ answers were correct or not. These practices usually served as tools for assessing students’ comprehension of texts. However, research on discussion practices indicates that the traditional teacher-led form of discussion provides very little room for students to develop their own understandings of texts and create critical responses; in fact, too much teacher control can interrupt students’ interactions, thereby making students passive learners and decreasing their motivation (see e.g., Almasi & Garas-York, 2009). In sociocultural approaches to language teaching, a discussion is viewed as “a dialogic classroom event in which students and teachers are cognitively, socially, and affectively engaged in collaboratively constructing meaning or considering alternate interpretations of texts to arrive at new understandings” (Almasi & Garas-York, 2009, p. 471). The practice of student-led groups within literature circles instruction is embedded within a dialogic theoretical framework and un-

355

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

derstanding of language; consequently, the question on which we want to focus is on how collaborative student-led discussions impacts the development of students’ comprehension and interpretations of text. Two studies that can help us understand this relationship. These two studies analyzed the discourse of student-led discussions within literature circles to examine how they impacted reading comprehension. Goatley, Brock, and Raphael (1995) examined modes of participation, the nature of the interaction, and the way that interaction influenced the reading comprehension of five fifth-grade culturally and linguistically diverse learners when they participated in student-led discussions in literature circles. Through an analysis of classroom discourse findings showed that students were able to construct meanings collaboratively and interpret texts based on their cultural backgrounds and past experiences. Instead of simply retelling the story, they used a variety of strategies and different sources of information to make connections between themselves and the texts. Student learning was assisted by peers and sometimes by teachers who facilitated group interaction. The second study, conducted by Martinez-Roldan and Lopez-Robertson (1999), used literature circles in a first-grade bilingual classroom. Twenty-two Latino students participated in the study; 14 were English dominant and eight were Spanish dominant. Researchers audiotaped the student-led literature circle discussions and categorized students’ responses to literature into seven categories as follows: 1. noticing illustrations; 2. giving aesthetic responses (living through the experience); 3. comprehending; 4. interpreting; 5. connecting to current text to other texts or books; 6. connecting personal life experiences with experiences in the literary text and developing personal stories; 7. exploring social, political, and cultural issues; and 8. learning content (i.e., facts and new information). The results of the analysis showed that throughout the literature discussion, the students were able to make connections between the literary text and their personal experiences, as well as relate new knowledge to other books and information they had learned. SFL learners also paid close attention to illustrations to help them make sense of the meaning of the text and validate their own ideas. The results also showed that SFL learners used the student-led discussions to explore and respond to social, cultural, and political issues. It is interesting to note that in the student-led discussion groups the Spanish-dominant learner group focused more on telling their stories than on the actual content of the text when compared with the English-dominant group. The researchers suggested that this behavior is because oral storytelling is such an important part of everyday life in most Spanish-speaking families. In addition, discussion is perceived as a way of helping people reach a collective understanding, as well as a way to consider personal feelings and experiences. It is worth noting that in this study, Spanish dominant students were instructed in Spanish while English dominant students were taught in English, so it seems likely that cultural practices from the first language users would be influential. Based on the results of this study, the researchers concluded that even first-graders were capable of participating in discussions about literature when they were provided opportunities to engage with books. The studies summarized here provide details about how students engaged in small group, student-led discussions in literature circles instruction. They also showed that student-centered discussion can lead to significant growth in reading comprehension as compared with traditional, teacher-directed discussions. These studies show that literature circles instruction has yielded positive results relative to learners for the development of reading comprehension skills and positive attitudes towards reading. The sections that follow provide some practical suggestions on implementing literature circles instruction in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms.

356

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Implementing literature circles instruction in the classroom requires that SFL teachers become familiar with at least two areas of focus: 1. the basic principles that govern the methodology and 2. the characteristics of student-led discussion groups.

Basic Principles for Literature Circle Instruction Daniels (2002) provides 11 principles that can be characterized as the hallmarks of literature circles instruction. There is a great deal of flexibility available to SFL teachers in how these principles might be applied, particularly in contexts with language learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds; nevertheless, in order to implement the model with fidelity, each principle must be considered. We introduce each of the principles along with commentary on the challenges that SFL teachers might face with each principle during the implementation stage. These principles are characterized as follows: •

•

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

•

Learners choose their own reading materials. Learner choice and control are important factors in both reader-response theory and literature circles instruction. One way that SFL teachers can address this principle is by giving learners an opportunity to participate in the selection the text that they will read. In many contexts, having access to a large number of reading texts and to multiple copies of texts at the same time may be an issue. Teachers and researchers have used a number of diferent strategies for giving students choices. For example, Zhao (2019) located single copies of several diferent books that had been adapted and were suitable for young learners of Chinese as a foreign language who were enrolled in middle school dual language immersion. Her frst step in working with these texts was to make a short presentation to students about each of the texts. Then, she allowed them to vote on their favorite one and ordered the book that received the most votes. Limited resources made this approach necessary. Of course, in other contexts, SFL teachers may have access to a wide range of texts, which would aford language learners more choice and greater control over the content. Small temporary groups are formed, based on book choices. Whether teachers decide to have one group or multiple groups, it is important that all learners in each small group work with the same text. It is also important for learners to know that the groups are only temporary with new groups forming when the students have read the text and completed the instructional tasks. Diferent groups may read diferent books. If there are sufcient resources, it may be possible to have multiple groups working on multiple texts. Multiple copies of short stories may be available, while novels and novellas may be limited. If there are not sufcient resources in terms of texts, a teacher may be limited to a class set of books. In this case, it is reasonable to have multiple student-led discussion groups working on the same text. Whole class discussions about the text that involve all groups provide teachers with insight into how diferent groups might be constructing meaning in diferent ways. Student-led discussion groups meet on a regular, predicable schedule to discuss their understandings of the readings. One important role of the teacher is to plan for the entirety of literature circles instruction so that learners know when diferent activities are to be scheduled. There are three important components that should be repeated with regularity: (1) explicit instruction from the teacher, (2) student-led discussion groups, and (3) individual work in learners’ reading journals. 357

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

Learners are encouraged to create written notes and/or drawings either during or after they read to guide both their individual reading and discussions with their peers. The information and training that learners receive relative to the individual roles that they assume within the student-led discussion groups are one way in which learners gain experience in creating written notes and/or drawings. As learners gain more experience with the methodology, they begin to use the strategies more frequently. Discussion topics are selected by and emerge from interaction among the students. Although teachers prepare descriptions of each of the roles, which may or may not include questions for their peers, it is the learners who determine the direction of the discussion. Student-led discussions aim to be open, natural conversations about books. During discussion time, learners are encouraged to share the personal connections they have with the text and to digress and make connections. The open-ended questions they ask one another are welcomed and encouraged; however, one student is assigned the role of “connector” in order to assure that these connections are made. During student-led discussions, the teacher serves as a facilitator, not as a group member or an instructor. The role of facilitator is not an easy one. Facilitators need to know when to “jump in” and provide a modest amount of help and when to step back and let the students figure it out. A facilitator is not a member of a group. If teachers decide to sit with a group in order to listen and learn from the students, they should change their positions several times during the class. Evaluation is accomplished through teacher observations, as well as students’ self-evaluations. Because the teacher’s role during student-led discussions and individual work on reading journals is as a facilitator, there is ample opportunity for teachers to observe learners and their interactions with peers and to make decisions about instruction. A spirit of playfulness and fun should pervade the classroom as both the teacher and the learners enjoy the process. Teaching tip 1 shows how some of these basic principles can be actualized during student-led discussions.

Teaching Tip In Lin’s 6th grade class, linguistically and culturally diverse learners are working with a book they have chosen titled, The Magic Paintbrush. It is a story about a boy whose magic paintbrush can make everything he draws come to life. A greedy emperor asked the boy to draw a mountain of gold. The boy not only drew the mountain of gold, but he also drew it in the ocean with a big boat beside it. In the big boat he placed the greedy emperor and his friends. Then, he drew a big wave. The big wave broke over the boat and sank it. The emperor and everyone on board the boat drowned.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

In the traditional classroom, the teacher would ask the students Wh- questions to see if they understood the story, such as Who were the main characters in this story? and Where did this story take place? In the student-led discussion groups in Lin’s literature circles classroom, the questions that students raise are quite different, such as If the boy drew a tiger with his magic paint brush, would the tiger eat him or be friends with him? Was the boy a good or a bad person because he killed the emperor and all the people on the boat? Because the hypothetical questions that students often raise during literature circles discussion are qualitatively different from a teacher’s factual questions, they frequently lead to discussions in which students express their different opinions and beliefs. In Lin’s class, some groups talked about whether the boy was a good or bad character, while other groups discussed what the boy should have done to avoid killing the emperor. For example, one student commented1, “I don’t think the boy was a good person because he killed the emperor.” Another student offered another possibility, “I think he should draw a new island without a greedy emperor instead of killing people.” As a group, they were able to evaluate the book, offer a critique of the story, and contribute in novel ways to the group discussion. When these types of discussions occur, they demonstrate that the students are not only highly engaged with the text but are also using their critical thinking skills as they try to understand the characters and plot, participate in the discussion, and explain their points of view. Students can use their own experiences to connect to what the text was about, and they should be encouraged to do so. For instance, students might draw on other stories they know about magic, such as Harry Potter. When students draw on their own experiences and share them with peers, they are participating in what Donato (1994) referred to as mutual scaffolding among second language learners. Each student plays a significant role as a mediator in the literature circles discussion and offers a variety of supportive assistance. All of these actions are useful for all learners in the group and are crucial in facilitating the development of literacy skills in SFLs, particularly reading comprehension skills.

358

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

Characteristics of Student-Led Groups While Daniels (2002) created principles to help practitioners implement literature circles instruction, other researchers, for example, Schlick, Noe, and Johnson (1999) have defined literature circles instruction in terms of its essential characteristics, namely that literature circles instruction is reader-response centered and structured for student independence and responsibility. Even though these essential characteristics clearly capture the theoretical underpinnings of both SCT and reader-response theory, they do not specifically target the concrete practices that classroom teachers need to master in order to implement student-led discussion groups effectively. Short and Pierce (1990) provide a set of six features of literature circles instruction that are meant to guide teachers as they facilitate student-led discussion groups and focus instruction on developing the community of learners involved in literature circles. The role of the teacher is to scaffold learning towards accomplishing the goals of the group, as summarized in the following six features: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Getting to know one another Valuing what each group member has to say Focusing on problem solving and inquiry Sharing responsibility and control Learning through action, reflection, and demonstration Establishing a learning atmosphere that is predictable and, yet, full of real choices.

For each of these six features, teachers need to develop a repertoire of scaffolding techniques that keep the basic tenet of literature circles instruction at the forefront, which is the development literacy skills. In other words, teachers need to scaffold learning so that learners can read a piece of literature and process it “in critical, thoughtful, and personal ways” (Sanders-Brunner, 2004, p.39) within the structure of a student-lead discussion groups. Below, we describe two scaffolding activities that further the development of literacy skills, while at the same time addressing essential features of the methodology.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Scaffolding Activity 1 Teachers ask learners in the group to write down four facts about themselves. At least two facts must be true. Each student takes a turn reading his or her list while other members of the group try to decide which facts are true and which facts are false. When the sharing has been completed, each student is given the following prompt: The members of my group are so interesting, and there are many facts about them and their lives that I did not know. Today I learned that . . . After the prompt, each student writes down one fact about each person in the group. Finally, they share their written essays with one another in a group round robin, reading and passing essays to the right until all essays have been read. This scaffolding activity offers a practical idea for helping students get to know one another in a structured and non-threatening way. The activity also supports the essential feature of sharing responsibility and control as learners must each determine what they will write, how much they disclose, and how they will interact with peers. In addition, each group must decide on its own processes, for example, the order of turn-taking and the time allocated to each learner. The step-by-step features of this activity that are established by the teacher create an atmosphere for learning that is predictable, and this predictability is especially important for learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds who 359

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

often rely quite heavily on routines to construct meaning. The activity also supports learners in making important choices, both individually and as a group, which tends to balance the predictable aspects of the activity. Finally, the activity focuses learners on the development of literacy skills as they participate in both reading and writing, and in each case, the reason for writing and reading is for the purposes of communicating directly with members of their group.

Scaffolding Activity 2 When individuals within a group feel that what they have to say is valued by the group, they are more likely to contribute. Learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds can benefit greatly from a focus on specific language that can be used for valuing what other members in a group have to say. At the top of a large poster, the teacher writes the words, “Let me hear you say.” Then, the teacher makes a list of five or six phrases that members of the student group(s) can say to one another when they want to show they value what was said by individual group members. The poster is placed where all learners can see it and refer to it. This activity supports the essential feature of valuing what each group member has to say. Being introduced to cultural norms that govern valuing, being taught the precise language for valuing others’ contributions, and having an opportunity to practice valuing within the safety of a small group are particularly important for diverse groups of learners. Posting the language needed for valuing in a prominent position allows SFL learners access to the language when needed. Learners also experience what it feels like to be valued, which can contribute to building confidence in using a SFL and developing self-esteem.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Learner Roles in Student-led Discussions Central to literature circles instruction are student-led discussion groups. In order for a student-led discussion group to function effectively, students need to be introduced to some rules for group structure (e.g., turn-taking, learning group members’ names, showing politeness) and to the different learner roles that group members must play if groups are to function effectively. By developing an understanding of the different roles that group members play, SFLs develop clarity relative to how groups function and the roles they play when they adopt a specific role. The teacher is responsible for introducing learners to each role, modeling language associated with each role, developing role sheets to guide learners, and providing opportunities for practice. There are five common roles used in the student-led discussion groups: 1. Vocabulary-enricher, 2. Discussion Director, 3. Illustrator, 4. Summarizer, and 5. Connector (Daniels, 2002). The Vocabularyenricher shares difficult or unfamiliar characters/words with the team members and gives definitions or synonyms based on contextual clues. The Discussion Director shares a list of questions that they want to discuss with other members. The Illustrator draws some kind of picture, such as a cartoon, a flow chart, a diagram or a sketch, related to the reading. The Summarizer provides statements that cover the key points, main highlights, and general ideas of the chapter. The Connector needs to find connections between the book and the learners in the group or between the book and the real world outside of the classroom. One important job for the teacher is to prepare role sheets, which include specific information on how learners can carry out each of roles. In addition, teachers of SFLs need to create support material to assist learners with the specific language they need for each role. By creating a language poster for 360

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

each role and placing the posters around the room, teachers can encourage learners to develop language skills that are necessary for each role. A specific example of a role sheet for the Discussion Director is provided in Figure 1. There is variation among the role sheets for each of the roles, but each role sheet must include at least the following: 1. a description of definition of the role, 2. examples of the role, and 3. an explanation of what the group member needs to do when the group meets. Figure 1. Literature Circles Roles: Discussion Director

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter introduced readers to two theoretical perspectives that support literature circles instruction, namely SCT and reader-response theory, and discussed how these perspectives are enacted in the methodology of literature circles. Within SCT, we discussed the ZPD and how student-led discussion groups provide the type of scaffolding that is necessary for learning to occur. COPs were also discussed in terms of the pivotal role they play in creating the type of relational engagement among learners that is necessary for individual learning abilities to develop. In addition, we provided an overview of some of the research on the use of literature in teaching SFLs, as well as the research that focused on the development of reading comprehension skills with SFLs within literature circles instruction. In terms of practical applications for literature circles instruction, 11 principles (Daniels, 2002) and six essential features (Short & Pierce, 1990) were presented. In addition, we offered some specific teachDiscussion Questions 1. Why do you think the authors of this chapter state that the theoretical underpinnings of literature circles instruction are constructivist in nature and based on SCT and reader-response theory? 2. Do you think that student-led discussion groups in literature circles instruction are actually communities of practice? Explain why or why not? 3. How can teachers work effectively with literature and literary works with culturally and linguistically diverse language learners?

361

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

ing recommendations relative to the implementation of literature circles instruction. We addressed the doubts that many teachers express relative to the degree to which SFLs can contribute meaningfully to student-led discussion groups, offered scaffolding activities that support the essential features of literature circles instruction while at the same time supporting SFLs in developing literacy skills, and suggested how teachers can prepare their learners to carry out different roles within the student-led groups and how the student-led group activity promotes the development of literacy skills. A high-quality reading instruction program, which includes literature circles instruction, has great potential for helping SFLs develop a complex array of literacy skills, including skills for reading comprehension.

REFERENCES Almasi, J. F., & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and discussion of text. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 470–493). New York, NY: Routledge. Anderson, A. R. (2012). Implementing literature circles: An experimental study in an English language learners’ classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minnesota. Badger, R., & MacDonald, M. (2010). Making it real: Authenticity, process, and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 578–582. Ball, J. (2011). Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Paris, France: UNESCO; Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000212270?posInSet= 6&queryId=8ae24925-3f0b-4863-880a-6478f49bceb7 Bernhardt, E. B. (1990). A model of L2 text reconstruction: The recall of literary text by learners of German. In A. Labraca, & L. M. Bailey (Eds.), Issues in L2: Theory as practice/practice as theory. (pp. 21–24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15–34. Brown, B. A. (2002). Literature circles in action in the middle school classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia College and State University, Georgia.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bygate, M. (2011). Teaching and testing speaking. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Carrison, C., & Ernst-Slavin, G. (2005). From silence to a whisper to active participation: Using literature circles with ELL students. Reading Horizons, 46(2), 93–113. Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publisher.

362

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

Davis, B. H., Resta, V., Davis, L. L., & Camacho, A. (2001). Novice teachers learn about literature circles through collaborative action research. Journal of Reading Education, 26(3), 1–6. Davis, J. N. (1989). “The act of reading” in the foreign language: Pedagogical implications of Iser’s reader-response theory. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 420–428. Davis, J. N. (1992). Reading literature in the foreign language: The comprehension/response connection. The French Review, 65(3), 359–370. Day, D., & Ainley, G. (2008). From skeptic to believer: One teacher’s journey implementing literature circles. Reading Horizons, 48(3), 157–176. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 33–56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Farris, P. J., Nelson, P. A., & L’Allier, S. (2007). Using literature circles with English language learners at the middle level. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 38–42. Finlay, S., & Faulkner, G. (2005). Tête à tête: Reading groups and peer learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 32–45. doi:10.1177/1469787405049945 Gavelek, J., & Bresnaban, P. (2008). Ways of meaning making. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 140–176). New York, NY: Routledge. Ghosn, I. (2002). Four good reasons to use literature in primary school ELT. ELT Journal, 56(2), 172–179. Goatley, V., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education “book clubs”. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352–380. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hall, G. (2005). Literature in language education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230502727 Hall, J. K. (2012). Teaching and researching language and culture. London, UK: Routledge. Hernes, G., Martin, M., & Zadra, E. (2004). Planning for diversity: Education in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139016

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Iser, W. (1972). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. New Literary History, 3(2), 279–299. Khatib, M., Rezaei, S., & Derakhshan, A. (2011). Literature in ESL/EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 201–208. Klassen, C. R. (1993). Exploring “The color of peace:” Content-area literature discussions. In K. M. Pierce, & C. J. Gilles (Eds.), Cycles of meaning (pp. 237–259). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading “real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291–302. doi:10.1177/07419325040250050301

363

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

Krulatz, A., Dahl, A., & Flognfeldt, M. E. (2018). Enacting multilingualism from research to teaching practice in the English classroom. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511733048 Lewis, C. (1997). The social drama of literature discussions in a fifth/sixth grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 163–204. Lin, C. (2004). Literature circles. Teacher Librarian, 31(3), 23. Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (2001). Australian literacies informing national policy on literacy Education. Canberra, Australia: Language Australia Ltd. Lonsdale, M., & McCurry, D. (2004). Literacy in the new millennium. Adelaide, Australia: NCVER. Martinez-Roldan, C. M., & Lopez-Robertson, J. M. (1999). Initiating literature circles in a first-grade bilingual classroom. The Reading Teacher, 53(4), 270–281. McElvain, C. M. (2010). Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of English learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 178–205. Miller, E. R., & Kobota, R. (2013). Second language identity construction. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 230–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139051729.015 Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. NCES. (2018). English language learners. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?ik=96

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ohta, A. S. (2013). Sociocultural theory and the zone of proximal development. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 648–649). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139051729.037 Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3 ̶ 31). New York, NY: Routledge. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Sanders-Brunner, M. (2004). Literature circles. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 20(7), 39. Savvidou, C. (2004). An integrated approach to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Savvidou-Literature.html

364

 Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

Schlick Noe, K. L., & Johnson, N. J. (1999). Getting started with literature circles. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Shang, H. (2006). Content-based instruction in an EFL literature curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, 12(11). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Shang-CBI.html Short, K., & Pierce, K. M. (1990). Talking about books: Creating literate communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Simeon, J. (2015). Learner writing strategies of Seychellois ESL secondary school students: A sociocultural theory perspective. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 8, 1–11. Tse, S. K., & Cheung, W. M. (2010). Chinese and the learning of Chinese. In F. Marton, S. K. Tse, & W. M. Cheung (Eds.), On the learning of Chinese (pp. 1–8). Hong Kong, China: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1163/9789460912696_002 Turnball, B., & Evans, M. S. (2017). The effects of L1 and L2 group discussion on L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29(1), 133–154. UNESCO Education Sector. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf Van, T. T. M. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 47(3), 2–7. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice. Retrieved from https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ Zhao, J. (2019). The effects of literature circles on Chinese foreign language immersion students’ literacy skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Utah, Utah.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Communities of Practice: Groups of people who gain experience, knowledge, and understanding regarding a shared passion or interest through interactions with one another. Learner Roles: When learners participate in group discussions, they assume certain responsibilities or roles that help the discussion group function effectively. Possible roles include time (1) Vocabularyenricher, (2) Discussion Director, (3) Illustrator, (4) Summarizer, and (5) Connector. Literature Circles: A student-led discussion group that focuses on comprehending a piece of literature. Literature circles can used for teaching literacy through cooperative interaction within groups of learners. Reader-Response Theory: A theory regarding literacy development. It argues that there is no single correct interpretation for any text. Instead, meaning is created as readers seek their own understandings of what they have read. For example, two different readers may find completely different meanings in the same text and both may be considered equally valid.

365

Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

Scaffolding: The way instructors utilize different techniques to build up a framework for student growth. By utilizing layers of techniques that build upon one another, educators create points of support for students to fall back on. These supports can be removed when the learners progress beyond the point of needing them. Sociocultural Theory (SCT): Sociocultural theory emerged from the work of Vygotsky (1978) and asserts that the development of higher order thinking skills is largely shaped by society. In other words, learning is a social practice reliant upon interactions between learners and those they interact with, including parents, teachers, and peers. Student-Led Discussions: Student-led discussions are sometimes called literature circles. In studentled discussions, learners are self-directed to promote more frequent and meaningful interactions within their learning group. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): There is an actual level of development and a potential level of development for learners. The ZPD is the difference between what a learner can accomplish on his or her own and the zone that represents what a learner cannot accomplish, regardless of assistance. In the ZPD, learners can accomplish tasks with support from others who have greater knowledge and understanding.

ENDNOTES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

366

The students’ quotes used in this teaching tip were excerpted from Zhou (2019) and translated into English.

Using Literature Circles Instruction to Develop Reading Comprehension Skills

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publisher. This book provides a guide to literature circles instruction and an overview of the principles governing its implementation. It presents a number of educational strategies and shows how they are related to and support the methodology. It also includes helpful tips, tools, and resources to help instructors successfully use literature circles in their classrooms. 2. Martinez-Roldan, C. M., & Lopez-Robertson, J. M. (1999). Initiating literature circles in a firstgrade bilingual classroom. The Reading Teacher, 53(4), 270 ̶ 281.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This article provides a detailed description relative to the introduction of literature circles in a first-grade bilingual class. The article presents the students’ reactions and most frequent responses and describes how they participated in the student-led groups. It is particularly useful for teachers who are thinking to use literature circles instruction to promote literacy development with groups of young SFLs from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds.

367

368

Chapter 18

Stories Make Readers:

Enhancing the Use of Fictional Literature With Multilingual Students Juli-Anna Aerila University of Turku, Finland Merja Kauppinen University of Jyväskylä, Finland

ABSTRACT Using literature in multilingual and second language classes promotes literacy skills and helps children to adapt to second language instruction. This chapter presents the theoretical framework and practical implementations for enhancing the use of literature in multilingual environments employing Stories Make Readers (StoRe)–project as an example. StoRe concept helps to promote the use of fctional literature and to increase the reading materials and reading time at school and at home. An important aim is to ofer, in multilingual groups, reading materials that correspond to the reading abilities and interest of the readers, and to connect diferent collaborative, child-centered, and multidisciplinary activities in reading. The multilingual line of the StoRe project, called Creating Innovative Approaches to Language Education (IKI), identifes and promotes innovative models for the use and development of language in education and creates research-based, pedagogical maps that help teachers develop and improve their pedagogical practices.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Literature is beneficial for human growth and education: it supports the development of thinking, promotes readers imagination, gives information about life, society, and language, and allows readers to experience various cultures, people, and life situations with empathy (Aerila, 2010; Nussbaum, 2005). It also plays a key role in language acquisition. Using literature in multilingual and second language classes can promote literacy skills and help children adapt to second language instruction. Literature can act as a change-agent because it deals with real-life situations and aspects of humans and can therefore DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch018

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

affect children’s development and help establish positive relational and intracultural attitudes (Alverman & Phelps, 1998). In multilingual and multicultural settings, literature can have special value for recognizing cultural roots and affirming identity of individuals. Children’s literature acts as a cultural and linguistic resource for individuals of different ages and gives opportunities for interpretation, reflection, and discussion to children and adults; therefore, it increases the sense of language/cultural community and creates opportunities to be active (Ilyas, 2016; see also Curtin in this volume). Exposure to fictional books enhances the development of second language skills because reading literature positively affects vocabulary growth, reading rate, the amount of reading, and motivation to read (Lao & Krashen, 2000). Literature can be used in several areas composing second language acquisition (Alisaari, 2016), and it is particularly effective in increasing vocabulary and literacy skills. The connection between literature and word study is an important notion because communication is challenging without sufficient vocabulary (Hulstijn, 2010), and literacy skills are necessary for success in all school subjects (Alisaari, 2016e). The interest in reading for pleasure has been declining globally over the last decade (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Hooper, 2017). On the contrary, research has reported that students can perceive reading for pleasure as having a role in improving second language skills, and they believe reading literature can help them in their future studies and support them in becoming active members of society (Lao & Krashen, 2000). Therefore, parents and other adults (teachers) have the important task of developing children´s interest in books and reading. This mostly involves making reading an everyday practice and an enjoyable routine; it can entail, for example, making the readership of others visible and creating meaningful reading experiences for children. The value and meaningfulness of reading can be visualized by access to books, opportunities to share reading experiences, time for reading in comfortable places, and motivational activities to connect literature and reading (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019; Cremin, Mottram, Collins, Powell & Safford, 2014; Wigfield, Gladstone, & Turci, 2016). Positive reading atmosphere is also important for pleasant reading experiences and creating a community of readers (Bärlund & Kauppinen, 2017). This is the case in both monolingual and multilingual groups (Enz, 2003). Teachers and the educational environment play a remarkable role in enhancing the knowledge and competencies of multilingual and multicultural families regarding the development of literacy skills, awareness of children’s literature, and the meaning of literature for children. However, multilingual literacy practices seem rare in classrooms and schools (see, for example, Tarnanen, Kauppinen, & Ylämäki, 2017). Classrooms still implement pedagogies that are restrictive, i.e., language development is treated a rigid action, which is not related to individual’s condition and language environments. As a result, pedagogy remains restricting in relation to children’s volition and social interaction as readers. Children seem to consider reading as a matter of proficiency and not pleasure, while teachers tend to use independent reading time to meet the school’s assessment or accountability requirements by, for example, focusing on reading comprehension tasks, rather than enhancing the joy of reading. Moreover, reading aloud, instead of reading and responding to the text, is often practiced for comprehension and vocabulary extension, in line with the assessment expectations (Cremin et al., 2014; Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019a; Merisuo-Storm & Aerila, 2018). To counter such pedagogical approaches to reading and to promote the use of fictional literature in classrooms and during family reading, we have conducted the Stories Make Readers project (StoReproject). This chapter relies on the theoretical framework and experiences of this project. The main issues include the meaning of reading fiction, creating communities of readers, and investing in multilingual resources for children. StoRe-project aims to increase the reading materials and reading time at schools 369

 Stories Make Readers

and home, offer reading materials that correspond to the reading abilities and interest of the readers, and connect reading to different collaborative, child-centered, and multidisciplinary activities. In addition, StoRe-project encourages teachers and parents to be aware of the importance of reading and the influence of their reading habits on children, and it enhances classroom pedagogy so that it focuses on using more literature both in language lessons and other disciplines (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019; Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019a, 2019b). In its original stages in 2017, StoRe-project focused on reading in monolingual settings and then continued and expanded with more multilingual perspectives. The multilingual line of the project, called IKI, aims to identify and promote innovative models for the use and development of language in education from early childhood throughout comprehensive school and to create research-based, pedagogical collections of good practices, that help school and early childhood teachers develop their pedagogical practices. StoRe-project focuses on literature education from the IKI aims’ perspective. The Finnish Ministry of Culture and Education 2018–2021 funds the IKI project. The present chapter presents the theoretical framework and practical implementations for enhancing the use of literature in multilingual and multicultural settings using specific examples from StoRe project. The chapter aims to help teachers, parents, and school administrators alter the dominant, mainly monolingual literacy practices, to promote the use of non-dominant languages in diverse settings, to support the language identity of multilingual children, and to create language-oriented communities at school, where multi-literacy is at the core of learning (cf. Finnish National Board of Education, 2014).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reading Literature in Multicultural Settings Literature plays an important role in the education of second language learners and in multilingual settings. The importance of reading and literacy skills in the development of a child’s academic skills, emotions, and coping mechanisms is undeniable (Aerila & Merisuo-Storm, 2018; Allington & Gabriel, 2012). Recent studies emphasize the value of implementing children’s literature in multilingual classrooms from an early age and indicate that children’s literature can be very effective in acquiring a second language for students of all ages (Aerila & Kokkola, 2015; Chen, 2014). Literature is currently used to teach different school subjects, but it is unclear to what extent. Most commonly, it is employed to motivate or illustrate certain concepts, such as the main character, environment, turning point or plot. Moreover, the methods interconnecting literature to teaching are unstable, as is the general case with teaching language arts (Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019a). For example, in national curricula in Europe, the status of literature can vary from being integrated with language and communication to constituting a separate, autonomous subject (Sawyer & Van de Ven, 2007). In Finland, literature is integrated with first language (L1) teaching, and the national curriculum for basic education (2014) connects literature education with experiential reading, canon-based teaching, and literature analysis (Kauppinen, 2010). Literature is about stories. Storytelling is a profound human activity; we understand and describe our experiences through stories. Stories are used to teach, to remember things, and to entertain or warn of danger. Literature is a form of stories saved for generations, and it is through literature that individuals can ponder and build their life stories (Alsup, 2015; Gottschall, 2012; Schank, 2002). Children should

370

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

have the opportunity to hear and read literature that have characters, settings, or series of events to which they can relate. This is not always easy since different people empathize with different texts and characters (Aerila, 2010; Aerila & Kokkola, 2013; Alsup, 2015). Empathizing with different features of literature is called social imagination, according to which reading literature exposes one’s ability to imagine others’ situations, empathize with them, and consider their perspective (Aerila, 2010; Alsup, 2015). Particularly children from multicultural communities can find role models, experiences, and ideas for the identity work in literature with multicultural contents (Aerila & Kokkola, 2013). Literature affects everyone regardless of age, race, class, or gender, as it has a potential to describe events common to all humanity (Gopalakrishnan, 2011). Reading fiction might be a more effective learning method than reading mere factual material because understanding fiction is more complex; in addition to information processing and reasoning, fiction readers need to imagine and empathize with the described situations, people, and events (Aerila & Kokkola, 2013; Nussbaum, 2005). Therefore, the reader is more involved in the process of understanding the text. The language of fiction is metaphorical; readers, therefore need to interpret the text to understand it. Learning through fiction can be described as abstract conceptualization, wherein new internal perspectives are generated, and issues are understood during the empathetic reading process (Aerila, Soininen & Merisuo-Storm, 2016). At the moment of abstract conceptualization, learners are consciously in contact with their inner worlds and identify with the subject in new ways and on new levels (Beard & Wilson, 2006). Although each person has their own experiences of the world and life, reading fiction allows individuals to see and understand things that are not present in their lives (Aerila et al., 2016). Prior research indicates that supporting student’s agency and participation enhances intrinsic motivation for reading (Cremin et al., 2014). This agency is formed through interaction with the social communities around the student: peers, classmates, and parents (Cremin, Mottram, Collins, Powell, & Safford, 2009). Multicultural literature has diverse definitions. It can refer to a literature with several languages or multicultural themes. In some definitions of multicultural children’s literature, the author’s authentic relationship with the described culture is emphasized (Gopalakrishnan, 2012). According to Short (2007), multicultural books reflecting children’s own lives are essential to building multicultural understanding, and books should have characters that help readers develop deeper understandings of both their own and other nearby cultures. Only after this is attained can teachers introduce multicultural literature to children from a broader and more international perspective. Multicultural literature positively affects people with different backgrounds by increasing cultural awareness, developing self-awareness, and promoting intercultural understanding. Fiction that positively reflects minority groups’ own cultures may increase learners’ self-esteem and help them feel a sense of unity with the majority. Readers from majority groups can better understand diversity and different cultures and learn that despite differences, people have many similarities (De la Iglesia, 2012). In school settings, ensuring that students read literature that reflects their different cultural backgrounds and nationalities is important (Shioshita, 1997). However, achieving the aim of more extensive use of multicultural literature in education requires considerable efforts. In many cases, teachers are unsure of the application of multicultural literature in primary education and are therefore unlikely to use it in the classroom. The uncertainty can be attributable to the limited knowledge of multicultural literature and methods for its use in multicultural education, prejudices and fear of the effects of reading multicultural literature on the children of natives and immigrants, and unwillingness of teachers to read books in their free time (Gopalakrishnan, 2010; Norton, 2005).

371

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

Teachers may be unfamiliar with the multiple research-based pedagogical approaches and more diverse and effective uses of multicultural literature in education. However, some countries, like USA, have invested in enhancing the knowledge and reading experiences of multicultural literature in teacher education. In Finland, Aerila, Soininen and Merisuo-Storm (2016) have tested the effectiveness of reading circles instruction in teacher education as a tool for getting the experiences on reading multicultural literature visible and shared by others. In their study, teacher students could effectively share their reading experiences and respond to multicultural issues in the reading circles organized after individual reading (see also Zhao & Christison in this volume). When literature is combined with an activating pedagogical approach, reading levels improve along with attitudes toward different cultures (Louie, 2006; Norton, 2005). According to Häggblom’s (2006) study of multicultural literature use in Swedish-speaking immersion classes in Finland, literature may increase the awareness of the importance of culture and diversity and help readers feel more empathetic toward diversity and the representatives of another culture (Häggblom, 2006). Therefore, sharing reading experiences with children, discussing reading, and showing interest in children’s views on books, regardless of language, is beneficial. Conversations on books can act as a tool for connecting with speakers of different languages and developing oral skills. This is important because oral linguistic skills connect with children’s present and future reading fluency along with the other benefits of reading literature (Reese, Suggate, Long, & Schaughency, 2010). Multilingual classrooms should have literature in both the school’s and students’ own languages. Home language literacy and second language learning and development are interrelated (Murray, 2007). Studies (Chen, 2014) suggest that the degree of children’s home language proficiency becomes the strongest predictor for their second language development. Further indications show that children’s home language builds a knowledge, concept, and skills base that transfers from reading in the first to the second, third, etc. language (García & Kao, 2014). Moreover, learners’ additional language development is predicted and affected by not only their first language competence but also the level of the second language input, which is expected to be at least one-step beyond the student’s current level of linguistic competence (Chen, 2014). Note that when first and second language lessons include language-learning objectives, various activities with texts make learning more effective. Learning tasks should contain reading, listening, and viewing materials both in large and small groups and in pairs (Kauppinen &Aerila, 2019b). It is also important to remember that for second language learners, learning the language also means learning the culture; this includes the cultural features of certain areas, nations, and communities and identity work of language learners because language is an essential part of one’s identity and personhood (Bärlund & Kauppinen, 2017). For immigrant families, language may create cultural conflicts: children generally learn a majority language at school via social practices faster than the parents or grandparents and start using it at home. This cultural crash is one of the main reasons for immigrant students’ identity crisis and psychosocial stress. In order to avoid that, all kind of language resources have to be recognized and taken into account while considering students’ overall personal and educational development. (e.g., Bialystok & Feng, 2011.) Therefore, teachers should consider the heritage cultures at school (see also Moody, Matthews, & Eslami in this volume). One way to do this is by offering literature other than that in the mainstream language and evaluating the literature used at school from the perspective of the students’ cultures to help them recognize the value of their own cultural heritage. For second language learners, texts with the target and heritage languages can be used for language learning. This kind of literature-based instruction requires that languages are no longer seen as separate subjects with their own objectives and learning cultures,

372

 Stories Make Readers

but resources for broad-based learning. One example of that is the online Active Library with learning activities, which draws on cultural experiences and authentic texts (Bärlund & Kauppinen, 2017). Children’s literature and all semiotic text artefacts have their ideological layers. Therefore, teachers have to be aware of the values and norms included in the texts they use in the classroom. Literature ought to be approached also as a media product, which constructs and maintains ideological issues. Reynolds (2007) considers that literature is a paradoxical cultural place while books comprise traditional didactic meanings and radical and revolutionary issues. From the multi-culturality perspective, teachers need to notice how intersectionality is made visible in books. Issues like ethnicity, gender, race, ability, age, and present social categories can be reproduced in children’s books in many ways. Multi-culturality, a challenging theme in books, can be deconstructed as humor and parody in text (Pesonen, 2017). Multicultural themes can be described otherwise in books by challenging the dominant discourses and ways of talking. The best picture books confront the themes and power statements considered normal in society and offer critical, even odd, alternatives to near the reality (Pesonen 2017; Reynolds 2007).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Creating Communities of Readers — Engagement and Meaningfulness in Reading Literacy is a community practice tied to the community values, which are based on the members’ shared histories and cultural roots (Pahl & Rowsell, 2005). Under the sociocultural theory of reading, children socialize in the text world around them when participating in the activities of their communities (Kauppinen, 2010). Language use and people’s identities in communities are socially constructed. Therefore, in children’s readership, participating in activities related to various situations in books is crucial. If more ways of using books exist in the reading community, more models can be employed to develop children’s reading interest and engagement with books in their free time. The positive social dimension of reading includes safe reading atmosphere, dialogical sharing of reading experiences, reading strategies, and noticing and appropriating others’ ways of reading. As members of a community of readers, individuals of all ages develop their reading identity (Schoenbach, Greenleaf, & Murphy, 2016). Creating communities of readers based on reading for pleasure and engagement is a practice with significant cognitive, emotional, and social benefits. It supports the general learning outcomes, improves literacy and numeracy skills, and increases empathy and mindfulness (Hempel-Jorgensen, Cremin, Harris & Chamberlain, 2018). It is a part of performative and competence pedagogy that focuses on children’s agency as learners (Hempel-Jorgensen et al., 2018). Communities of readers can be created in education and free-time settings. Herein, we first illustrate how communities of readers are created in school settings and the role of an adult reader. Next, the communities of readers are described as environments for language learning. In the practices of the communities of readers, cooperation with families is important. Therefore, this theme is approached in a separate section (Family Literacy). Creating a community of readers requires increasing children’s volition as readers. This means that children should be allowed to choose whom to sit with and be encouraged to engage with peers informally around texts. Teachers’ support and encouragement are crucial for children’s engagement. For example, sometimes it may be good for the teacher to encourage the student to read more challenging texts or to ponder the texts a bit deeper, for example through some post-reading activities. Reading literature should involve reading experiences and immersing oneself in the text; remembering details or filling in worksheets takes pleasure away from reading, transforming it into a school assignment (Aerila & Merisuo-Storm, 2018; Tauveron, 2006). The communities of readers theory focuses on creating peda-

373

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

gogical spaces wherein children can develop motivation and skills as readers and are actively engaged in expressing their experiences by talking about texts and through different creative activities (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). From the identity negotiation perspective, using literature in multifaceted ways is important in multilingual classrooms. Prior research indicates that supporting students’ agency and participation enhances intrinsic motivation for reading (Cremin et al., 2014). Interaction between students and the teacher and among peers creates collaborative spaces wherein minds and identities can meet. All kinds of “scripted” text usage prevents students’ agency in the classroom (Cummins, 2001; Pahl & Rowsell, 2005). Furthermore, choosing the literature available for reading, which should be differentiated according to both literacy and interest, is important. Students should also be encouraged to choose literature that interests them (Allington & Gabriel, 2012). The reading experience expands and deepens when the book choices remain sufficiently close to students’ experiences and knowledge (Aerila & Merisuo-Storm, 2018). Limiting book choices or providing literature and reading assignments that are unrelated to children’s lives negatively affects reading motivation and attitudes (Allington & Cabriel, 2012). Prior research (Cremin et al., 2014; Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019a, 2019b) shows that teachers often need encouragement to use pedagogical approaches that support reading for pleasure and children’s participation and engagement. They do not always possess sufficient subject knowledge of children’s literature and other texts and are not sufficiently conscious of their own (and children’s) everyday reading practices or identities and their relation to the reading activities implemented in the classroom. Several studies indicate that teachers and other adults influence both a group’s positive reading atmosphere and children’s individual literacy development (Cremin et al., 2014; Hellmich & Hoya, 2017; Lerkkanen et al., 2012). To create communities of readers, teachers and adults need encouragement to develop and share individual preferences and enthusiasms, acknowledge family, community, and cultural influences on reading, and consider the pleasures of reading (Hellmich & Hoya, 2017). StoRe-research (2019a, 2019b) shows that teachers do not take advantage of their own reading experiences while guiding children to read. Teachers often concentrate on the instrumental use of books at schools (i.e., learning literacy skills mainly to support academic reading), although they value the imaginations and contentment of reading books during their own free time. Moreover, although teachers promote reading in their discourses, reading is not included in students’ daily activities (Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019a, 2019b). A simple way for teachers to inspire children to read is to share their own reading experiences. Children make notions about the true meaning of reading based on concrete observations like having easy access to books and experiencing teachers’ interest in children’s reading experiences (Merga, 2015). A community of readers can be created in classroom or home environments with very concrete actions. Supporting children’s readership is part of value education. Merely talking about reading and books is not sufficient; teachers must show involvement in reading and books in their everyday lives (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019a; Merga, 2015, 2016). The positive aspects of reading and books should be visible in day care, at school, and at home. For example, sufficient versatile and new reading material should be available at home and in schools. The reading materials should also be easy to access and interesting, and it should change from time to time. Moreover, various reading materials (electronic and print) should be available. In addition to inspiring reading materials, posters and other items should highlight the pleasure of reading: reading instructions and tips from peers, excerpts from stories, and details about the books read at home, in hobby groups, or in education. To ensure that the environment is inspiring, the material should be organized in an aesthetic and child-friendly way (; Roskos & Neuman, 2013). 374

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

Creating communities of readers in one or few classes at school is not always sufficient; however, the entire school should support rich reading practices. In addition to the inspiring environment, the ACC (Amount, Choices, Creativity) model for communities of readers rests on three pillars: increasing the amount of reading time and books offered, investing in individual choices and various literature (themes, levels of difficulty, and forms) for readers, and offering meaningful and creative activities to work with the experiences aroused while reading (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). A simple method of implementing the ACC model is to give children more time to read in groups, pairs, and alone and ensure that all students have time to present their reading experiences. While planning reading times and activities it is important that every student has sufficient time to engage with the text and the activities. The weakest readers generally cannot concentrate on reading or fully participate in the activities (Allington & Gabriel, 2012). Monitoring and regulating reading can be promoted in groups and classrooms by collective book tickets (e.g., filling out a leaf shape document about reading experience to add to a “reading tree”), digital reading diaries (e.g., applications like BookCreator), and book review activities (Aerila, Kauppinen, Niinistö, & Sario, 2019a). Routines are important in the lower grades and for many adolescents and even later (Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019b). Almost as important as reading books are discussions based on the books and sharing reading experiences. At best, the discussion should take place in small groups among students. This way everybody has the possibility to take part and have his or her voice heard. However, students often need support for literature discussions; therefore, assigning different roles or question cards and creative activities (drama, visual arts, and animations with digital applications) are very useful (see also Zhao & Christison in this volume). Via these creative activities, readers can visualize their experiences. This helps to engage everybody in the process of creating joined understanding of the text (Aerila et al., 2019; Aerila, Rönkkö, & Grönman, 2019). Each reader’s experience of a particular literature differs because reading is based on life experiences and personality (prior experiences and knowledge of life and literature, literacy skills, vocabulary, etc.) (Rosenblatt, 1978). Making each reading experience visible is therefore one of the cornerstones of literature education and creating communities of readers. Various creative tasks help students empathize with the text and they enhance the students’ agency. Furthermore, students generally treasure the product they have created and wish to share it with those they care about (Cummins, 2005). Texts should also have elements the students can relate to (Aerila et al., 2019a). For example, they should have a protagonist and events that resonate with the reader’s experiences (sex, age, background, and life situation) (Alsup, 2015). This is highlighted in the themes that interest students: the one interested in playing ice hockey often wants to read about hockey players, whereas the one who has developed an interest in girls may want to read a book that describes dating (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). The community of readers is made up of individuals, which should be remembered while recommending and choosing books and offering book-related activities (Aerila et al., 2019a). According to Bland (2015), many students with multicultural backgrounds enjoy literature describing dramatic and formative events, which emotionally resonate to the life stories of the students. This kind of literature often centers on a young hero/heroine as a focalizer who experiences a life changing adventure. These are, however, all too often ignored in education; both culturally and technologically, education seems to be becoming distanced from people’s daily lives. In sum, literature instruction practices, like student-centered reading environments, make students’ reading experience visible. Student-led literature discussions or composing life stories are aimed to create communities of readers, and they are especially beneficial for multilingual readers because reading facilitates identity exploration (Hempel-Jorgensen et al., 2018). Children who enjoy reading and are 375

 Stories Make Readers

intrinsically motivated to read more; reading for pleasure increases their proficiency and vice versa (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). In communities of readers, multilingual students can exploit the literature and reading materials for identity affirmation. According to Ntelioglou, Fannin, Montanera, and Cummins (2014), multilingual students’ agency is vital for their literacy achievement. Their engagement (literacy engagement framework) is approached by scaffolding meaning, connecting to students’ lives, affirming student identities, and extending students’ awareness and command of academic language across the curriculum. Sharing reading experiences in many ways as well as continuing the texts with peers serve as the means of creating communities of readers. The sense of belonging – not just the reading skills – is crucial in developing children’s readership. This is particularly important for multilingual children who should be empowered to develop literacy skills in both their home language as well as the language of the school. Creating communities of readers, regardless of the languages children possess, is actually not difficult. As Allington and Gabriel (2012) asserted, supporting the readership, reading skills, and the interest in reading can be easily attained if teachers and parents invest time in creating enjoyable reading spaces for children.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Family Literacy Parents as well as teachers play an important role in promoting reading, and they can act as positive role models for reading. However, not all parents know how to confidently support their children’s language and literacy development. From the perspective of children’s equality, teachers should help all the parents understand and succeed in establishing the foundation of literacy and language development and creating a community of readers at home. Families come from different reading and literacy environments and not all parents value reading, books or even advice they receive from teachers. Additionally, especially, in multilingual and multicultural families the parents might be unfamiliar with fictional literature and the value of imagination as well as the meaning and use of libraries. Current research (Curry, Reeves, & McIntyre, 2016; Niklas, Cohrssen, & Tayler, 2016) confirms that children’s literacy develops at home and the development is further supported at school. The fluent cooperation between school and home is required to develop reading interests of multilingual children, while parents need to know the value of home language practices in language development. Schools can affirm families’ cultural identity in formal and informal ways so that all home languages are recognized in the school (Blackledge, 2000). This section presents the forms and definitions of family literacy practices. Family literacy practices are part of the home literacy environment. Hannon (2003) divides family literacy practices into the literacy practices at home, which are based on family routines and theoretically linked to the sociocultural approach, and the formal programs by educational institutions, where parents are involved in their children’s learning. Most family literacy programs are led by educational institutions and do not take advantage of the already existing literacy practices at home. Family literacy programs generally involve children aged four to seven years and their parents (Swain & Cara, 2017). These programs should be extended to also include older children. According to Swain and Cara (2017), family literacy practices offered to families are affected by several factors: 1. family resources, e.g., number of children, and literature at home, family size, parents’ mother tongue, and parents’ education; 2. parental literacy behaviors and attitudes, e.g., the amount of parents’ free-time reading and perception of the importance of literacy and the quality of reading materials at home; 3. parental beliefs and understandings, e.g., the appreciation of homework assignments

376

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

and knowledge of the school’s way of teaching reading-related contents; and 4. the already existing family literacy activities and practices, e.g., the time spent on reading, the times of reading, and parental involvement in reading-related homework. Home interaction is an opportunity to enhance language and explore literacy (Enz, 2003). Even though some parents have positive experiences of family literacy (Swain & Cara, 2017), the lack of literacy experiences is an important factor in the relationship between low socioeconomic status and ethnic minority children’s poor success rates at school (Swain & Cara, 2017). Many parents in immigrant background families struggle with reading and writing themselves and have difficulties in supporting the children to read. Negative feelings like shame and labeling of the parents as inept is projected on the children. A major task of formal education is to prevent the chain of no-reading generation after generation. Here, we present different practices of family literacy, followed by some practical perspectives to the effectiveness and success of these practices. Parents often start establishing their home literacy practices before the birth of a child; they acquire children’s literature and characters familiar in literature such as soft toys or other interior elements (Appleyard, 1998; Heikkilä-Halttunen, 2015). After birth, parents start rhyming and singing songs during the everyday activities of both the child and parents, such as sheathing, eating, or sleeping. The reading moments, like bedtime story reading, build the relationship between a child and an adult and can act as a bridge to attachment (Heikkilä-Halttunen, 2015). A bedtime story is the most common home literacy practice. Its significance for the later reading habits of the child and positive reading experiences is visible until adulthood. Moreover, reading aloud affects many other aspects of child development (Aerila, Kauppinen, Niinistö & Sario, 2019b). Reading instruction that considers the social, cultural, and linguistic strengths of the families and emphasizes the interaction between parents and children provides support for children’s learning both at school and home. This might be a challenge for some minority groups because their cultural learning models differ. Through interactions with teachers and other personnel in day care and at school, parents from minority groups learn to adapt to the practices and beliefs of the majority while teachers learn about the traditions of minority groups. It may be effective for the teacher to provide parents with explicit demands regarding reading, which can be assigned as homework (Reese & Gallimore, 2000; Rodriquez-Brown, 2003). Steensel, McElvany, Kurvers, and Herppich (2011) investigated the effectiveness and forms of family literacy. They observed that family literacies offer a broad range of activities and the current programs focus on holistic approaches of the emergent literacy rather than (primarily code-related) literacy exercises. The programs are mainly aimed at early childhood education, and the most popular activities are shared reading, wherein parents and children construct meaning together, and storybook reading. According to an English consumer survey (2019) (2019), most English parents stop reading bedtime stories when their child reaches age eight, and only 19% of parents read bedtime stories until age ten. Note that parents read bedtime stories to girls (24%) more often than boys (14%). Many families think that once a child has learned read, reading together or recommending books is not required. Finland is often considered to be an example of supporting family literacy and reading skills of children. Therefore, it might be useful to illustrate how family literacy routines are implemented in this country. In Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Hooper’s (2017) study, reading opportunities were evaluated based on the number of books and children’s books, parents’ educational background and profession, and whether the child has his/her own room and home internet connection. Results showed that about one-third (37%) of the Finnish families have good opportunities to support the reading by the child. None of the families was considered 377

 Stories Make Readers

to belong to a group where the family had little resources to support the child’s readership (less than 25 books, 10 or fewer children’s books, and little education of parents). Note that in the early years of family literacy experiences, Finland was ranked behind other Nordic countries and reading experiences in Finland focused on common reading moments (82%) rather than reading and sharing reading (34%). Family literacy programs seem to offer long-term commitment to families toward literacy learning. In case of multicultural classrooms, literacy programs should be based on sociocultural knowledge and offer the information on how different families learn at home. The sociocultural learning model should be based on the idea of emerging minority families learning the traditions of the majority. This way they support each other. Many family literacy programs rely on two main perspectives: parents as teachers and parents as learners (Rodriquez-Brown, 2003). From the perspective of learning a second language and children at risk of reading delays, semiprofessionals are often responsible for training the parents of these children. The training for family literacy activities is sometimes provided by mothers from the target communities who are slightly better-educated than the others. This is a way of approaching parents who can be hard to reach. Moreover, in some programs, the mothers providing training are invited to families’ homes. As a result, the family literacy programs using semi-professionals are almost as effective as the ones using professionals (Steensel et al., 2011). However, a single-family literacy practice is insufficient without the schools’ support in reading. The aim of these practices is to influence the habits and values in families; therefore, their broader aspects should be considered when planning. Family literacy programs cannot differ from the school’s way of guiding reading and teaching literacy. Moreover, the different linguistic and cultural resources of different families should be considered to develop familiar reading practices for families (Swain& Cara, 2017). At worst, the families may be feeling that their previous activities are not valued, or parents may abandon the existing practices (Dugdale & Clark, 2008).

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

In this section, we provide an overview of practices that can be implemented to inspire children to engage with fiction. We present the practical applications of each issue described earlier: enhancing reading practices, encouraging reading fiction, creating communities of readers, and family literacy practices. We start with choosing literature for multicultural classrooms and continue with practical and concrete examples of how to create and inspire learning environment for reading. The last part of this section is dedicated to family literacy practices.

Choosing Literature for Multilingual Classrooms and Families Literature for multicultural and multilingual groups and multicultural-themed literature for versatile groups must be carefully chosen to enhance the educational value and respect the culture and language of all students. Lehman (2011) emphasizes the responsibility of teachers when using and choosing literature with students. This is particularly challenging when the literature is beyond the teachers’ own experience. Although all kinds of books can be read, children should be directed to critical reading and false or biased perceptions should be avoided. Ensuring that the literature does not contain anything offensive that can make a student feel ashamed is important.

378

 Stories Make Readers

Higgins (2000) has developed an instrument for teachers to evaluate and choose literature from the multicultural perspective, asserting that while the concept of multicultural children’s literature has previously been used only for books wherein minority groups are positively described, the current goal is to provide a realistic picture of different cultures. Higgins’ (2000) criteria include stereotypes and negative images of different cultures and a text’s literary quality. The literature used in classrooms should authentically represent the minority groups, and the minority characters should be of equal status with the majority-group characters and depicted as directing their own lives. This means that the teacher must critically evaluate both the illustrations and texts in books. For example, there should be references to all children in classroom and they should give a realistic picture of their life. The teachers can take care that reading materials used in classrooms have representatives of all the cultures present in the classroom. Additionally, it might be a good idea to check that the main characters are not always representing the majority but also the minorities. This does not mean that all the materials should meet these criteria, but the teacher should keep this in mind while choosing the reading materials during the year. Shioshita (1997) stresses the importance of selecting books based on readers’ interests. Additionally, De la Iglesia (2012) confirms that reading multicultural literature should be a positive experience and children should enjoy reading the books without thinking about multicultural values. In a sense, assessing literature suitability based on different criteria and guidelines can be regarded as censorship; however, more important than censorship is that children should be protected from abusive texts. The main aim of these guidelines is to include the cultures and languages of the students in classrooms. All students must find characters that they can empathize with in the reading materials. The simplest recommendation for teachers could be: Think of your students as well as the society and try to choose literature that corresponds to those two.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Creating Communities of Readers StoRe (Stories make Readers) project applies the theory of communities of readers to help learners, teachers and schools co-operate when implementing reading programs. During different interventions of StoRe project, seven aims for creating the positive and engaged reading atmosphere were created: learning environment, activities supporting the engagement, visualizing the interpretations of readers, literature discussions based on expressions aroused during reading, investment in reading time and comfortable reading places, getting information and experiences of current books and reading materials, building effective cooperation with libraries and other local actors and activating the families (Aerila et al., 2019a). One of the best ways to engage children in reading is creating reading routines. Reading lessons can include many choices (reading materials, reading places, and reading in pairs, groups, or alone) but reading is obligatory for all. Some children may enjoy reading the text silently, some might enjoy listening to others read aloud, some want to listen to audiobooks, some prefer reading in reading circles, or in pairs. The teacher should take these different reading preferences into account as well as think of ways to encourage children to read during the scheduled time. For example, teachers can turn on special lamps in the classroom that signal to the children that it is time to read. No additional guidance is needed; everybody starts reading while the lamp is on Aerila et al., 2015). Positive reading atmosphere keeps children engaged in books. For children to enjoy reading, reading moments should be comfortable and often happen in someone’s company. Colorful, aesthetic, and readerfriendly spaces should be designed for both private and shared reading. One important aspect is that the reading place should help the children to concentrate on reading. Therefore, different kinds of reading

379

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

spaces are a good option (Aerila et al., 2015). We have even tested yoga caves as reading cottages, which are small, quiet corners built by children out of old curtains or cardboard boxes built from cardboard boxes, fabrics or furniture. Children have a lot of resources in designing and inventing reading places. Furthermore, the reading environment should inspire students to talk about reading experiences and contain materials in connection to reading. The different places where children read (class, home, school, and library) may, for example, have printed posters of the covers of popular books and slogans about the benefits of reading as well as posters about reading, display pictures, and descriptions of books made by children Students should be active agents in the process of transforming the environment into a reading environment (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). Because reading experiences and making these experiences visible is in the core of creating communities of readers, the pedagogical approaches and activities implemented in classrooms should focus on creative activities and discussions that are not teacher-led (Aerila et al., 2019a). Traditional adult-led discussions tend to test the memory of the reader rather than the expressions aroused while reading (Merisuo-Storm & Aerila, 2018). Different texts are easily combined with drama, apps, visual arts, and writing, allowing children to create their own interpretations. Moreover, literature discussions should be connected to different parts of creative processes (planning and presenting a product and discussing based on the product). Creative activities such as reader’s theater and literature circles not only are effective as interpretations of the expressions aroused but also can be part of reading activities (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). Teachers often complain that children reading in a foreign language suffer from lack of fluency, low phonics knowledge, and decoding and comprehension difficulties. They also ignore punctuation and read slowly and falteringly. One popular method in developing reading fluency is reader’s theater method. In reader’s theater, students prepare a presentation of a text by reading it aloud and illustrating it with sound effects, movements, and creative use of voices. It is similar to radio drama (with visual effects) and acting (the text is part of the presentation and not memorized) (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). Additionally, with reader’s theater method inspiring presentations on books and other texts are easily created. The best readers are found in schools that have a school library and class libraries or are located near a public library. With library visits, students learn to use the library and they seem to visit libraries more often on their free time compared to those not visiting libraries during school time (Aerila et al., 2019a). Unfortunately, many classes and schools lack proper libraries (Aerila & Kauppinen, 2019). According to Allington & Gabriel (2012), in contexts where access to libraries is limited, schools can come up with alternative methods of creating collections of books that are available to students. Teachers can save from other learning material to books and many communities have volunteers (department stores, bookstores, and clubs) who can donate books. Parent associations can also arrange events for collecting funds for books. Finally, it is important for children to see that many people, including the ones they particularly appreciate, read and enjoy reading (Merga, 2015, 2016). Many local community members (sports clubs, charities, and elder students) happily come to school to read and share their reading activities. StoReproject was involved in a project in which the local ice hockey team read chapters of book online, visited schools to read the same book aloud, and told students about the benefits of their reading as a hobby. It was an effective project, especially for boys who dream of becoming professional athletes. Furthermore, ice hockey served as a perfect metaphor for reading; they are both skills that need to be practiced and skills that can be improved throughout the entire life. Programs that invite book authors to visit schools and read from their own books can also be a very effective way of promoting positive attitudes to reading at school and at home. 380

 Stories Make Readers

Teaching Tip 1 Erika works with students of diverse linguistic and cultural background. In order to promote students to develop their communication skills, especially encouraging them to react each other’s comments, Erika has used drama methods. In this case, she invites her students to dramatize fables and fairy tales from students’ own cultures. She encourages them to compose pictures of characters like Giuseppe Arcimboldo did in his art. Arcimboldo was an Italian painter who created imaginative portrait heads in the 16th century. The portraits of him look like they have been composed of fruits, flowers, vegetables, and fish. Erika wants her students to opportunity to use imagination and creativity to impersonate the characters from fables and fairy tales they read. In her recent class, Erika’s students engaged in the following activities: • First, the students carefully examined Arcimboldo’s painting techniques in the pictures available online. Erika asked the students to describe the features of the characters in the paintings. Through the classroom dialogue, students were able to analyze the meanings of different elements in the portraits and at the same the ideas to describe them in the pictures. • Next, the students listed the characters’ features in their own and school languages. The characters could also be described in mandala form, wherein the upper part of the circle presents each character’s features and the lower part presents the features that the character does not have. • Next the students orally presented the descriptions of the portraits of the characters to the others. Using mandala visualizations, even the students with limited vocabulary were able to express themselves in an understandable way. • Next, students created portraits of the characters from a story they recently read. Fliers from supermarkets were used while they offer many colorful pictures of fruits and vegetables, and they are easy to access. The students cut out the pictures and created a head of the character which they glued onto a sheet of paper. • Finally, when the portraits were ready, they were presented in small groups. Now it was time to dramatize the story with the voice and form of each character using readers’ theater. By making portraits of the characters in a story, Erika’s students were enabled to empathize with the characters and adopt the features of their characters using imagination. When composing the fruit picture, the students activated both home language and school language vocabulary. The oral presentation of the characters helped learners to recognize the main features of the story, and dramatizing the story enabled them to better understand the character’s role in it. In addition, the students became familiar with the textual and linguistic features of two genera: a description and a narrative. With the older students, the textual and linguistic features of the genres could be analyzed a little bit carefully.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Activating Families Families play a major role in reading to children. However, not all families have a culture of reading and sometimes require support and ideas for family reading. In many cases, 15-min/day routines are effective. For low-reading families, even reading for 5 min/day can be a good start. Although family reading practices are often thought to involve only the parents, grandparents, godparents, and siblings can be a great resource and many of them do not read because they think children do not like listening to reading. This is a misconception because with the right books and encouragement, everyone becomes a reader. Children can also be motivated to read through visits to different workplaces or interviews with adults. Children should experience explicit evidence that all professions require reading. The reading culture perspectives of each family differ. However, most families are interested in either starting a family literacy activity or further developing it. The activities aimed at families should be offered discreetly and with information on the families’ prior reading habits. Some families, however, are unfamiliar or unaccustomed to family reading practices and may need guidance (Aerila et al., 2019b). Family literacy in day care and at school can be supported by ensuring that families have interesting reading materials that are easily accessible. Another option is a classroom lending library, which enables children to get familiar with storybooks throughout the day and learn how to choose and loan books from city libraries (Allington & Gabriel, 2012; Enz, 2003). Book bags are popular for encouraging family reading. A book bag usually contains three or four books and activities inspired by a specific theme. Book bags are especially helpful for those parents who have difficulties in finding suitable reading

381

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Stories Make Readers

materials and unaccustomed to reading or creating reading moments. Book bags empower parents to become teachers, encourage them to create a supportive home learning environment, and expand their interaction with their children (Enz, 2003). Enz (2003) has listed rules for a successful family literacy moment: the moments should emphasize frequency over duration (5 min or reading two or three times a day instead of 30 min at once), involve reading the same book many times (children learn new things each time and can successfully retell the story), have a base of multiple books (several new books each week), give the children opportunities for handling the books (encourages a child’s involvement in reading sessions), and contain some dramatic elements (reading with different voices to bring the story to life and allowing children play the story). These rules highlight that creating a successful reading moment is not difficult: sometimes it is enough to have books (or sometimes even one book) present and reserve time to read and go through books together. It seems that many families already invest time in reading books together, but less time is devoted to sharing reading experiences and talking about books. However, story times are more motivating for both the parents and children if the reading is implemented in a dialogic way, wherein children describe the illustrations, describe what they think is happening on the page, and predict what might happen next. Moreover, parents should share information about their feelings about the story (Enz, 2003). In addition to getting reading material and guidance for successful reading time, families are often happy to get and share ideas of book-related activities with children. One option for introducing a new activity might be a video clip, after which the teacher reads books with the children and demonstrates oral fluency, enthusiasm, different voices of story characters, literature-based conversation, and activities related to reading sessions. The video clip with the book being read could be filmed at home. It may then act as an educational tool for parents or entertainment for children (Enz, 2003). Another easily implemented method for making the reading moments more dialogic and participate children more is shared reading. Shared reading has specific phases. Before reading, the more experienced reader introduces the story and encourages the children to anticipate it based on the title, cover, and illustrations. Moreover, the reader conducts a picture walk through the book, briefly pointing out specific character actions or events and asking probing questions to engage the students in thinking about the pictures and story without telling the story. During shared reading, the text is read multiple times. The first reading is generally for enjoyment. The adult points to each word as it is read. Here, the more experienced reader applies realistic reactions to the text and uses appropriate voice intonation. After reading, the adult can take the child back to the point of making predictions, whether at the word or story level, and ask how they knew they were right or if their prediction was not quite correct. The second and subsequent readings allow for the child to chime in with now familiar words and phrases (Fountas & Pinell, 1996). Shared reading activities are especially beneficial for multilingual children because they allow the children to enjoy materials that they may be unable to read on their own since it enables the children to act as though they are reading. It may also help the children to learn about the relationship between oral and printed language (Fountas & Pinell, 1996) Another concrete example of a family literacy practice implemented by schools and early childhood education centers is a Bedtime-Story Shelf. A Bedtime-Story Shelf is a special shelf or box of about 25 picture books in the classroom. Children can loan the books from the collection for one night and are encouraged to be active in choosing books and creating reading moments at home. These bookshelves are successful because the books must be returned to school the next day, making reading the books on the same day compulsory (Kauppinen & Aerila, 2019a). The Bedtime-Story Shelf can be easily connected with other activities: the books can present certain themes and have guidance for the reading activity 382

 Stories Make Readers

itself. For example, shared reading activities during which more experienced readers explain the reading process and strategies to children can enhance the reading moments. In shared reading, the reader reads a big book or other enlarged text with fluency and expression. The text must be sufficiently large for all the children to clearly see so that they can share in the reading of the text (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). The Bedtime-Story Shelf is a good example of an activity to start family literacy practices. Based on StoRe-research (Aerila et al., 2019b), although parents are often motivated to implement the activity, some aspects needed consideration. Some parents may not understand the activity and feel that the information provided by the school is not sufficient; they may prefer guidance for the reading moments and a photo of the shelf. Some families may find certain activities stressful because the children consider them as a homework or because the family already has a reading routine in the evening and additional reading activities seem to them unnecessary. Multilingual families, on the other hand, may prefer a book in their home language. This shows that teachers must implement flexible family literacy practices and listen to the needs of the families (Aerila et al., 2019b). Despite the critiques on the Bedtime-Story Shelves presented above, the practice can have very positive outcomes. The possibility of choosing their own reading materials is important for children, but many parents have difficulty finding suitable reading materials and are sometimes too busy to go to libraries. Finding an approach that helps all families to create reading routines and a positive reading climate is Teaching Tip 2 Food culture connects families with different backgrounds and has offered an excellent base for supporting family literacy practices. On example of them are cookbooks, that Erika has composed with her students in co-operation with their families. Erika understands the importance of involving the parents, and she has decided to invite them to participate in a project. Together with families, Erika and her students composed multicultural cookbooks. Food concerns every one of us and students of every age are interested in it. In the means of literacy pedagogy, food culture gives an excellent base for family literacy practices. Multilingual and -cultural cookbooks offer opportunities to engage with language, cultural, history, and aesthetic expression, and pleasure of food in one packet. Cookbooks can appear in many forms, for example a traditional book, an e-book, or a collection of recipe cards. The contents of cookbooks can also vary. Along with recipes, the cookbooks can include facts about spices, herbs, and other ingredients of dishes; fairy tales that connect somehow to dishes and so on. In Erika’s classroom, the students varied the idea of cookbooks: some groups described traditional menus (e.g., typical Thai food), while others presented food recipes for parties and celebrations, like children’s birthday parties or Christmas. Erika began the lesson by asking the students about their favorite dishes, spices, etc. Traditional holidays and foods associated with them as well as the food habits of families were also discussed. Next, the students worked in groups to examine some examples of cookbooks that Erika took out of the local library, and to brainstorm and plan their own cookbooks.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

After deciding on the theme and idea of a cookbook, students needed some support picking out recipes. For homework, the students were asked to consult their family members and do a search on the internet. As a result, they were able to collect some traditional family recipes, including traditional pastry and cookie recipes, as well as some new recipes that they thought they would like to try out. Erika wanted to engage the families in the next step, namely trying out the recipes at a family cooking event. Erika and her students have access to home economics facilities at their school with a fully equipped kitchen. She chose the date with the parents in advance as she wanted to ensure that as many as possible participated. The families worked in teams, and each team prepared one dish following a recipe to share with everyone else. Each of the recipes was then written on a large poster board and the teams took pictures of the dishes they prepared which they added to the posters. The finished posters were displayed on the classroom walls. In the perspective of language learning, composing cookbooks offers many possibilities. The cookbooks are multimodal texts as they contain printed text and drawn images or authentic pictures. Therefore, they serve as a rich resource for meaning making even for students with minimum language skills. Multisensory learning is also used when literacy is tied in concrete acting (cooking), smells, tastes and appearance of food. A cookbook comprising recipes represents instructional text. Multilingual learners learn several aspects of language and text, like vocabulary for food and ingredients, compact written expression, and structure of instructional text. Furthermore, composing cookbooks is a cross-curricular tasks (home economics, chemistry, biology, and language) that prompts integration of meaning-making and phenomenon-based learning. Composing cookbooks expands literacy activities to practices outside of school that involve families. Finally, cookbooks provide a channel to make students’ own cultures visible at school.

383

 Stories Make Readers

difficult, particularly for classrooms with multilingual students, but feasibly solutions can be reached through close school-home collaborations (Aerila et al., 2019b).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Using literature often and in varied ways enhances students’ literacy skills overall. Students learn various means of meaning making through factual and, particularly, through fictional texts containing metaphorical language. Literature also supports understanding of various registers. This knowledge about texts and language use helps develop language awareness, which forms the base of language skills. Using different activities in literature classrooms enhances creativity in composing strategies for interpreting and producing texts. The meta-level skills of language learning are important, while the advanced language skills are the target. Reading and literature education (motivation of reading, attitudes towards reading, literacy skills, child’s readership) go hand in hand with the general school achievement and child’s self-esteem (Alligton & Garbriel, 2012; McGeown, Johnston, Walker, Howatson & Stockburn, 2015; Merisuo-Storm & Aerila, 2018). This means that by adding positive reading experiences and improving literacy skills actively, teachers can prevent the exclusion of adolescents and promote the general wellbeing of children and adolescents. In particular, critical reading and literature education are crucial for multilingual students, who may have wider linguistic resources but are unable to employ them for academic purposes or to express inner emotions (Alisaari, 2016; Brozo, 2010). This is the reason why the role of school and a single teacher is remarkable in creating basis of reading culture. The whole group, class and school is reading also means that families and important communities outside of school should display explicit support for the value of reading. It seems that literature is often considered only as an instrument to improve reading skills, and its use is restricted to enhancing the reading of other texts, like textbooks. This kind of thinking has narrowed the use of literature in education, causing the activities connected to reading literature resemble activities around any text. As a result, children and adolescents move away from the true meaning of reading literature. Reading literature is about increasing vocabulary, fluency and different registers of language, but mostly it is about engagement with reading, empathizing with the characters, and connecting with the stories. If we are able to shift the attention to these goals, literature becomes more meaningful to the readers of all ages and supports us in different situations by comforting and helping us to cope with new situations as well as different feelings. From the perspective of reading at home or in education, the activities connected to reading literature must concentrate on promoting children’s reading experiences and sharing these experiences. In this chapter, we have been illustrating this shift. In multicultural settings, the shift from restricting pedagogy to the pedagogy of sharing experiences is even more important. In addition to improving children’s language skills, literature has the potential to contribute to their world knowledge and allows them to rehearse a change of perspective as well as mentally represent alternative visions for the future (Bland, 2018). Families are not equally active in reading. This is due to many reasons. For instance, literacy practices of multicultural and multilingual families may differ from those promoted at school. Family literacy programs can act as a subtle agent to changing the culture of reading within the homes. However, it is vital to remember that approaches should be modified to align with families’ values, and family literacy programs should not interfere or prevent the already existent reading and storytelling culture at home. 384

 Stories Make Readers

This means, for example, appreciating all home languages and becoming familiar with the role of reading in the traditions and culture of each family. Creating communities of readers is a question about values and value education. Any value is vital only if our discourse is in line with our actions, so that they highlight the same attitude towards the value. If our actions and discourse are in conflict, the actions are more powerful. This reality means that the value of reading should be presented in our actions, as well as words. We as educators often give speeches about our love of reading and its importance. Do these feelings show in our actions at school and at home? Do we invest time in our own reading and share our reading experiences? Do we invest time in children’s reading and listen to their experiences? This chapter aimed to show how to illustrate the value of reading in our actions at home and at school and how this kind of pedagogy of the communities of readers can be not only fun but also effective. Discussion Questions 1. What kind of reading pedagogy do you implement in your classroom? What are the objectives of reading, and how do they reach the students? What are the reading materials like and what is your motivation for using those particular materials? How do you foster a community of readers for your students and at school? 2. What sort of family literacy practices already exist in your school and country that you haven’t applied in your teaching yet? Consider your motivations for embracing or rejecting them. Are there any practices that could help multilingual families to promote all family languages? 3. How are the multilingual students and their languages taken into account in your school and in the classroom? Look around the class and the school (or ask children and parents to do so). Look for evidence of the value of various languages and reading material. If you can notice multilingual learning environments, you can document them together. Generate ideas about enhancing the visibility of all languages of students and cultures within the classroom/school and develop a plan to implement them?

REFERENCES Aerila, J.-A. (2010). Fiktiivisen kirjallisuuden maailmasta monikulttuuriseen Suomeen. Ennakointikertomus kirjallisuudenopetuksen ja monikulttuurisuuskasvatuksen välineenä [From the world of fiction to multicultural Finland] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-4222-0

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Aerila, J.-A., & Kauppinen, M. (2019). Lukukipinä. Pedagogisia keinoja lukuinnon herättelyyn. [Spark for reading: Pedagogical approaches for the enjoyment of reading]. Jyväskylä, Finland: PS-kustannus. Aerila, J.-A., Kauppinen, M., Niinistö, E.-M., & Sario, S. (2019a). Ytimessä-hanke testaa ja kehittää yhteisöllisen lukemisen muotoja. [The core-project tests and develops different forms of communities of readers]. In E.-M. Niinistö, J.-A. Aerila, S. Sario, & M. Kauppinen (Eds.), Ytimessä. Kirja kaiken oppimisen keskiöön [The core. Making books the center of all learning]. (pp. 21–32). Rauma, Finland: The Core-project. Aerila, J.-A., Kauppinen, M., Niinistö, E.-M., & Sario, S. (2019b). Iltasatukirjahyllyillä tasa-arvoa ja tukea perheiden lukemiseen. [The bedtime-story shelves create equality and support to the reading of families]. In E.-M. Niinistö, J.-A. Aerila, S. Sario, & M. Kauppinen (Eds.), Ytimessä. Kirja kaiken oppimisen keskiöön [The Core. Making books the center of all learning.]. (pp. 116–122). Rauma, Finland: The Core-project.

385

 Stories Make Readers

Aerila, J.-A., & Kokkola, L. (2013). Multicultural literature and the use of literature in multicultural education in Finland. Bookbird Journal, 51(2), 39–50. doi:10.1353/bkb.2013.0023 Aerila, J.-A., & Merisuo-Storm, T. (2017). Emergent readers and the joy of reading: A Finnish perspective. Creative Education, 8(15), 2485–2500. doi:10.4236/ce.2017.815171 Aerila, J.-A., Niinistö, E.-M., Kallio, H., Toivanen, M., Heino, S., & Äimälä, P. (2014). Lukuintoa etsimässä. [Looking for engagement in reading]. In P. Atjonen, H. Happonen, J. Korkki, T. LehikoinenSuviranta, R. Patrikainen, & E. Vähän (Eds.), Ohjausta, harjoittelua ja oppimista. Teoria ja käytäntö ohjatussa harjoittelussa. Suomen harjoittelukoulujen julkaisuja [Guidance, practice and learning. Theory and practice]. (pp. 110–125). Joensuu, Finland: The Department of Teacher Education in Joensuu, University of Eastern Finland. Aerila, J.-A., Rönkkö, M.-L., & Grönman, S. (2019). Arts-based activities and stories convey children’s learning experiences. In K. J. Kerry-Moran, & J.-A. Aerila (Eds.), Story in the lives of children: Contributions of the narrative mode (pp. 333–353). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19266-2_17 Aerila, J.-A., Soininen, M., & Merisuo-Storm, T. (2016). Literature as a tool in multicultural education. Perceptions of Finnish student teachers on reading multicultural literature in Finland. Research & Reviews Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 53–62. Alisaari, J. (2016). Songs and poems in the second language classroom: The hidden potential of singing for development writing fluency (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-951-29-6673-8 Allington, R., & Gabriel, R. (2012). Every child, every day. Reading. The Core Skill, 69(6), 10–15. Alsup, J. (2015). A case for teaching literature in the secondary school: Why reading fiction matters in an age of scientific objectivity and standardization. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315742069 Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content reading and literacy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Appleyard, J. A. (1998). Becoming a reader: The experience of fiction from childhood to adulthood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bärlund, P., & Kauppinen, M. (2017). Teaching heritage German and Russian through authentic material in Jyväskylä, Finland: A case study. L1 Educational Studies in Languages and Literature, 17, 1–23.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers. London, UK: Kogan Page. Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2011). Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. In A. Y. Durgunoglu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy development in bilingual settings (pp. 121–138). New York, NY: Guilford. Blackledge, A. (2000). Power relations and the social construction of “literacy” and “illiteracy”: The experience of Bangladeshi women in Birmingham. In M. Martin-Jones, & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

386

 Stories Make Readers

Bland, J. (2015). From a global language to global citizenship: Stories for tolerance and worldmindedness. In C. Lütge (Ed.), Global education: Perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 129–153). Münster, Germany: LIT. Bland, J. (2018). Children’s literature and learner empowerment. Children and teenagers in English language education. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Brozo (2010). The role of content literacy in an effective RTI program. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 147–150. Chen, M. L. (2014). Teaching English as a foreign language through literature. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 232–238. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.2.232-236 Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as readers: Building communities of readers. Literacy, 43(1), 11–19. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2009.00515.x Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315772585 Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education? Sprogforum, 19, 15–21. Cummins, J. (2005). Second language teaching for academic success: A framework for school language policy development. Retrieved from https://www.andrasprak.su.se › 2000_19_Cummins_Eng Curry, D., Reeves, E., & McIntyre, C. (2016). Connecting schools and families: Understanding the influence of home literacy practices. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 4(2), 69 ̶ 77. De la Iglesia, M. (2012). Multicultural literature for children. Retrieved from http://www.ipl.org/div/ pf/entry/48493 Dugdale, G., & Clark, C. (2008). Literacy changes lives: An advocacy resource. London, UK: National Literacy Trust. Enz, B. J. (2003). The ABCs of family literacy. In A. Debruin-Parecki, & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.), Family literacy: From theory to practice (pp. 195–214). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Finnish national core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish National Board of Education.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. García, O., & Kao, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh, & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education. Opportunities and challenges (pp. 258–277). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092246-018 Gopalakrishnan, A. (2011). Multicultural children’s literature: A critical issues approach. New York, NY: Sage.

387

 Stories Make Readers

Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal. How stories make us human. New York, NY: Mariner Books. Häggblom, C. (2006). Young EFL-pupils reading multicultural children’s fiction: An ethnographic case study in a Swedish language primary school in Finland (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http:// urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-765-327-1 Hannon, L. (2003). Delinquency and educational attainment: Cumulative disadvantage or disadvantage saturation? Sociological Inquiry, 73(4), 575–594. doi:10.1111/1475-682X.00072 Heikkilä-Halttunen, P. (2015). Lue lapselle! Opas lasten kirjallisuuskasvatukseen [Read to a child! Guide for children’s literature education]. Helsinki, Finland: Atena. Hellmich, F., & Hoya, F. (2017). Primary school students’ implicit theories and their reading motivation: The role of parents’ and teachers’ effort feedback. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 225(2), 117–126. Hempel-Jorgensen, A., Cremin, T., Harris, D., & Chamberlain, L. (2018). Pedagogy for reading for pleasure in low socio-economic primary schools: Beyond ‘pedagogy of poverty’? Literacy, 52(2), 86–94. doi:10.1111/lit.12157 Higgins, J. J. (2000). Multicultural children’s literature: Creating and applying an evaluation tool in response to the needs of urban educators. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Antioch University, Washington. Hulstijn, J. H. (2010). Linking L2 proficiency to L2 acquisition. Opportunities and challenges of profiling research. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 233–238). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Second Language Association. Ilyas, H. P. (2016). Retaining literature in the Indonesian ELT curriculum. Studies in English Language and Education, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.24815iele.v3i1.3384

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kauppinen, M. (2010). Lukemisen linjaukset: lukutaito ja sen opetus perusopetuksen äidinkielen ja kirjallisuuden opetussuunnitelmissa [Literacy delineated – reading literacy and its instruction in the curricula for mother tongue in basic education] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4011-9 Kauppinen, M., & Aerila, J.-A. (2019a). Luokanopettajien lukijuus ja sen merkitys oppilaiden lukuinnon kasvattamisessa ja kirjallisuudenopetuksen kehittämisessä. [The readership of the class teachers and its meaning to the reading engagement of children and to the development of literature education] In M. Rautiainen, & M. Tarnanen (Eds.), Tutkimuksesta luokkahuoneisiin [From research to classroom practices]. (pp. 144–153). Jyväskylä, Finland: Suomen Ainedidaktinen Seura. Kauppinen, M., & Aerila, J.-A. (2019b). Luokanopettajat kirjallisuuskasvattajina [Classteachers as literature educators]. In M. Murto (Ed.), Kiinni fiktioon [Getting to get a grasp on fiction] (pp. 7 ̶ 15). Helsinki, Finland: Äidinkielen Opettajain Liitto. Lao, C. Y., & Krashen, S. (2000). The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System, 28(2), 261–270. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00011-7

388

 Stories Make Readers

Lehman, B. (2011). Reading globally: The reader’s responsibility in literary transactions. In L. M. Pavonetti (Ed.), Bridges to understanding: Envisioning the world through children’s books (pp. 9–16). Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press. Lerkkanen, M. K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Viljaranta, J., Poikkeus, A. M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., ... Nurmi, J. E. (2012). The role of teaching practices in the development of children’s interest in reading and mathematics in kindergarten. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 266–279. doi:10.1016/j. cedpsych.2011.03.004 Louie, B. Y. (2006). Guiding principles for teaching multicultural literature. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 438–454. doi:10.1598/RT.59.5.3 McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., Walker, J., Howatson, K., Stockburn, A., & Dufton, P. (2015). The relationship between young children’s enjoyment of learning to read, reading attitudes, confidence and attainment. Educational Research, 57(4), 389–402. doi:10.1080/00131881.2015.1091234 Merga, M. (2015). Access to books in the home and adolescent engagement in recreational book reading: Considerations for secondary school educators. English in Education, 49(3), 197 ̶ 215. Merga, M. (2016). “I don’t know if she likes reading”. Are teachers perceived to be keen readers, and how is this determined? English in Education, 50(3), 255–269. doi:10.1111/eie.12126 Merisuo-Storm, T., & Aerila, J. A. (2018). Boys’ reading skills and attitudes during the first six school years. In P. Baldwin, & O. García (Eds.), Reading motivation and achievement differences between boys and girls (pp. 157–181). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75948-7_9 Morgan, P., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73(2), 165–183. doi:10.1177/001440290707300203 Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016: International results in reading. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/ Murray, C. (2007). Reflections on the question of mother tongue instruction in Namibia. Journal of Language and Communication, 1(2), 69–77. Niklas, N., Cohrssen, C., & Tayler, C. (2016). The sooner, the better: Early reading to children. SAGE Open, 6(4). doi:10.1177/2158244016672715

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Norton, D. (2005). Multicultural children’s literature: Through the eyes of many children. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Ntelioglou, B., Fannin, M., Montanera, J., & Cummins, J. (2014). A multilingual and multimodal approach to literacy teaching and learning in urban education: A collaborative inquiry project in an inner city elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(5), 70 ̶ 80. Nussbaum, M. C. (2005). Poetic justice: The literary imagination and public life. London, UK: Beacon Press. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: The new literacy studies in the classroom. London, UK: Paul Chapman.

389

 Stories Make Readers

Pesonen, J. (2017). Monikulttuurisuudesta Tatun ja Patun Suomessa: Kansallista tarinaa rakentamassa vai uudenlaista suomalaisuutta tuottamassa? [On multiculturality in Tatu’s and Patu’s Finland. Building a national story or producing a new kind of Finnishness?] Kirjallisuudentutkimuksen aikakauslehti Avain [The journal of literature research, Key], 3, 38 ̶ 55. Reese, E., Suggate, S., Long, J., & Schaughency, E. (2010). Children’s oral narrative and reading skills in the first 3 years of reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 627–644. doi:10.100711145009-9175-9 Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Immigrant Latinos´ cultural model of literacy development: An alternative perspective on home-school communities. American Journal of Education, 23(1), 57–81. doi:10.1086/444236 Reynolds, K. (2007). Radical children’s literature. Future visions and aesthetic transformations in juvenile fiction. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Rodriques-Brown, F. V. (2003). Family literacy in English language learning communities: Issues related to program development, implementation and practice. In A. Debruin-Parecki, & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.), Family literacy: From theory to practice (pp. 145–172). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0872075117.6 Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: Transactional theory of literary work. Chicago, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (2013). Common core, common places and community in teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 469–473. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1150 Sawyer, W., & van de Ven, P. H. (2007). Starting points: Paradigms in mother-tongue education. L1Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(1), 5–20. doi:10.17239/L1ESLL-2007.07.01.06 Schank, R. C. (2002). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2016). Leadership guide for reading apprenticeship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Wiley & Sons. Shioshita, J. (1997). Beyond good intentions: Selecting multicultural literature. Retrieved from https:// www.leeandlow.com/educators/race/beyond-good-intention-selecting-multicultural-literature

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Short, K. (2007). Critically reading the word and the World. Building intercultural understanding through literature. Bookbird Journal, 2(1), 2–10. Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 69–96. doi:10.3102/0034654310388819 StoRe—Stories make readers. (2019). Retrieved from https://peda.net/id/b7896a1230b Swain, J., & Cara, O. (2017). Changing the home literacy environment through participation in family literacy programs. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12(1), 1–28.

390

Stories Make Readers

Tarnanen, M., Kauppinen, M., & Ylämäki, A. (2017). Oman äidinkielen tekstitaidot monikielisyyttä rakentamassa. Näkökulmia kielille annettuihin merkityksiin ja kielten käyttöön [L1 literacy practices and use of L1 from the perspectives of students and teachers with immigrant background. Meaning making of literacy practices]. In S. Latomaa, E. Luukka, & N. Lilja (Eds.), Kielitietoisuus eriarvoistuvassa yhteiskunnassa [Language awareness in an increasingly unequal society] (pp. 278–297). Helsinki, Finland: AFinLa. Tauveron, C. (2006). Literature in French primary school. Aikakauskirja Äidinkielen opetustiede [The journal of the pedagogical science of the mother tongue], 35, 3–37. Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190–195. doi:10.1111/cdep.12184 PMID:27617030

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

AAC-Model: (Amount, Choices, Creativity) A model created by Aerila and Kauppinen on communities of readers. It rests on three pillars: increasing the amount of reading time and books offered, investing in individual choices and various literature (themes, levels of difficulty, and forms) for readers, and offering meaningful and creative activities to work with the experiences aroused while reading. Bedtime-Story Shelf: A collection of books in the classroom for children. Children loan the books over-night for family reading. Communities of Readers: Groups of people, where the participants are engaged in reading for pleasure while at the same time interacting with each other. Family Literacy: The reading culture of a family and its relation to children’s reading. Literature: Fictional and factual texts with different modes, like oral or multimodal meaning-making. Multicultural Literature: Literature that highlights multicultural themes and strives to tolerance between different people. Multilingual Literacy: Interpreting and producing texts with various languages and their variants. StoRe (Stories make Readers)-project: A Finnish project which aims at creating communities of readers trough arts-based activities and personal meaningfulness.

391

Stories Make Readers

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Bland, J., & Lutge, C. (2013). Children’s literature in second language education. London, UK: Bloomsbury. This book gives a great insight into the meaning of literature in second language education. It contains both the theory and practical aspects of reading literature in second language. Janice Bland has several other publications on this theme. 2. Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F.M., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities of readers: Reading for pleasure. New York, NY: Routledge. Terese Cremin has developed the theory of communities of readers. In this publication she and the other authors provide a very multifaceted picture of how to inspire both parents, children, and teachers to support the engagement in reading. 3. Alsup, J. (2015). A case for teaching literature in the secondary school: Why reading fiction matters in an age of scientific objectivity and standardization. New York, NY: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Janet Alsup has many publications on the meaning of reading literature in education. In this book, she illustrates the meaning of reading literature beyond literacy skills. She provides her own thoughts and supports them with a solid theoretical background.

392

393

Chapter 19

East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images in Children’s Picturebooks Ngoc Tai Huynh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0264-4470 University of Tasmania, Australia Angela Thomas University of Tasmania, Australia Vinh Thi To https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2698-3207 University of Tasmania, Australia

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT In contemporary Western cultures, picturebooks are a mainstream means for young children to frst attend to print and start learning to read. The use of children’s picturebooks has been reported as supporting intercultural awareness in children. Multiliteracies researchers suggest that other theoretical frameworks should be applied in addition to the semiotic approach of interpreting picturebooks, especially picturebooks from non-Western cultures. This chapter theorizes how Eastern philosophical concepts infuence the meaning-making potential of illustrations in Eastern picturebooks. To do this, the authors frst discuss the cultural constraints when applying a contemporary semiotic framework in analyzing non-Western images. The authors introduce a framework developed based on philosophical concepts that have infuenced East-Asian art forms, particularly that of painting, to understand the Eastern artistic traditions. The chapter demonstrates how to apply this framework for interpretation of non-Western images to working with multicultural picturebooks. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch019

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

INTRODUCTION Global citizenship skills are recognized as one of the key features defining education of the future (World Economic Forum, 2020). In Australia, the increase in economic influences of Asian countries in the context of globalization has resulted in a growing concern for Australian policy-makers toward the knowledge of countries of Asia (Halse, 2015; Henderson, 2008; Salter, 2015). According to Salter (2015), “since 1969, over 60 Australian government and non-government policies, documents, committees, working parties and organizations” have made attempts to address the need to know better about Asia (p. 781). In educational context, the culmination of the need for Australian citizens to ‘know Asia’ is referred as Asia literacy (Salter, 2015). The implementation of the policy on Asia literacy in school contexts is the significant driver of this chapter. According to the Melbourne Declaration, Asia literacy is the ability “to relate to and communicate across cultures, especially the cultures and countries of Asia” (Barr et al., 2008, p. 9). Implementing Asia literacy in the Australian context means to develop citizens’ respect towards cultural diversity (Halse et al., 2013). Halse et al. (2013) analyzed data from 1,319 teachers’ survey responses about Asia literacy. The survey explored: teachers’ views on the features of an Asia literate teacher; definitions of Asia literacy; and teacher perceptions of the significance of Asia literacy in the classroom. The study concluded that “most teachers do not yet feel expert, with only a minority considering themselves “highly accomplished” or “lead’ teachers” (Halse et al., 2013, p. 5). A reflection from Asian Education Foundation (AEF) on two decades of implementing Asia literacy in schooling systems concludes that “there has been only small-scale progress towards Asia literacy becoming a universally attainable school education outcome” (Halse, 2015, p. 13). Altogether, there are problems in approaches and ideologies of the implementation of Asia literacy policy in the Australian education system. Findings from Halse et al. (2013) also raised questions of how various schools and teachers in Australia deal with the desired outcomes of the Asia literacy policy. According to Halse et al. (2013, p. 112), there are six features that distinguish the Asia literate teacher: •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• • • • •

Possesses expert knowledge of content, assessment strategies and pedagogy for teaching Asia related curriculum Demonstrates familiarity with a wide range of Asia related teaching resources Actively builds intercultural understanding Frequently, purposefully, and seamlessly integrates Asia into the curriculum Uses ICT to connect their students with students in Asia Leads Asia related learning within and beyond the school.

Among the above features, the level of understanding Asia-related teaching resources is the critical feature defining an Asia literate teacher (Halse et al., 2013). Also, Bullen and Lunt (2015) contended that it is essential for teachers to be familiar and critical when applying the Asia-related teaching material in the classrooms. This suggests that there is an urgent need for supporting teachers’ understanding and selecting suitable Asia-related texts for the teaching of Asia literacy and developing teachers’ competence in Asia literacy. In this chapter, we take for granted the imperative that all classrooms should include multicultural literature in their mainstream teachings, but we argue that intercultural understanding can only reach its full potential when teachers have an understanding of the literary and visual cultural tropes that work 394

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

to make meaning within non-Western cultures. What is urgently needed is a way of identifying and systemizing cultural interpretive frameworks that might enrich and interface with semiotic frameworks. A central focus of the present chapter is that one’s enculturation leads to particular interpretive positions of any text. We posit that for Asian picturebooks, such an interface would include a deeper understanding of Eastern religious and philosophical tropes in terms of how these manifest themselves through images to make narrative meaning.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Asia Literacy in the Australian Curriculum The position of Asia literacy policy in the Australian Curriculum is reflected in three strands of the Australian Curriculum: Asian languages, Asia and Australia’s Engagement with Asia, and Intercultural Understanding (Halse, 2015; Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, & Dally-Trim, 2016). In particular, the strand “Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia” requires students to develop intercultural understanding of the diversity of Asian cultures (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2016a). In the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2016a), intercultural understanding consists of three interrelated elements: recognizing culture and developing respect, interacting and empathizing with others, and reflecting on intercultural experiences and taking responsibility. According to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2016a), learners can develop intercultural understanding when they “learn to value their own cultures, languages and beliefs, and those of others” (para.1). Intercultural understanding helps students to “understand how personal, group and national identities are shaped, and the variable and changing nature of culture” (ACARA, 2016a, para.1). The Australian Curriculum for English, version 8.3 (referred to as curriculum hereafter), requires students

Table 1. Some teaching objectives relating to intercultural understanding and multimodal texts engagement from Foundation-Year 5 in the Australian Curriculum: English (ACARA, 2016b). Grade level

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Foundation

Teaching objectives • Explore the different contribution of words and images to meaning in stories and informative texts (ACARA, 2016, Foundation ACELA1786)

Year 1

• Discuss how authors create characters using language and images (ACARA, 2016, Year 1 ACELT1581)

Year 2

• Identifying examples and features of different kinds of spoken, non-verbal, written and visual communication from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and from several Asian cultures within Australia, and associating those features with particular communities (ACARA, 2016, Year 2 ACELA1460 elaboration)

Year 3

• Learning that a word or sign can carry different weight in different cultural contexts, for example that particular respect is due to some people and creatures and that stories can be passed on to teach us how to live appropriately (ACARA, 2016, Year 3 ACELA1475 elaboration) • Identify the effect on audiences of techniques, for example shot size, vertical camera angle and layout in picture books, advertisements and film segments (Year 3 ACELA1483)

Year 4

• Explore the effect of choices when framing an image, placement of elements in the image, and salience on composition of still and moving images in a range of types of texts (ACARA, 2016, Year 4 ACELA1496)

Year 5

• Identify aspects of literary texts that convey details or information about particular social, cultural and historical contexts (ACARA, 2016, Year 5 ACELT1608)

395

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

to read, interpret, and value a wide range of texts about Asian nations. In the curriculum, multimodal texts including picturebooks are among the materials that teachers and students are recommended to work with to develop intercultural understanding about Asian cultures. Table 1 contains some examples of teaching objectives stated in the curriculum relating students’ engagement with multimodal texts to enhance intercultural understanding from Foundation to Year 5. The teaching objectives listed above can be considered as specific reflections of the general aspects of Asia literacy, i.e., recognizing culture and developing respect toward the cultures of Asian countries (ACARA, 2016a). Therefore, theoretical frameworks for interpreting certain Asia related texts, i.e., children’s picturebooks can make a significant contribution to address the need of Australian teachers in response to one of the general aspects of Asia literacy. This chapter focuses on picturebooks about Vietnam as a particular type of Asian literature that can be employed to teach intercultural understanding about Asian countries.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Usefulness of Children’s Picturebooks in Teaching Intercultural Understanding Children’s picturebooks are one type of multimodal texts (Painter, Martin, & Unsworth, 2013; Serafini, 2010, 2014; Unsworth & Thomas, 2014). Picturebooks are among the texts that are most read by children at elementary level around the world (Serafini, 2014). In picturebooks, the textual and visual elements are interwoven “to communicate information and to tell stories in a unique ways” (Nodelman, 1988, p. ix; see also Tørnby in this volume). In this chapter, we use a compound word picturebook rather than two separate words picture and book (Chen & Browne, 2015; Serafini, 2014) to distinguish picturebooks from illustrated books. A picturebook is different from an illustrated story because in picturebooks, images have equal importance as the written text, so they are required to do much more of the storytelling work. An illustrated story does not necessarily need to use images to tell so much of the story –– often, they simply reflect the same meaning as the words, rather than adding additional details. In this chapter, we use the word opening to refer to a “two-page display in the story sequence” (Serafini, 2010, p. 93). The two pages where the text of the book begin are referred to as the first opening. We also use the term double-page opening to refer to pages in which one picture is illustrated across two pages of a picturebook. The use of children’s picturebooks in contemporary classrooms has been reported as beneficial to intercultural awareness and children’s cognitive development (Budd, 2016; Chen & Browne, 2015; Jetnikoff, 2013; Kim, 2015; Lee, Cameron, Xu, Fu, & Board, 1997; Levin, 2007; Macphee, 1997; Styles & Arizpe, 2001). For example, Macphee (1997) found that young children held positive attitudes toward black characters in the stories and disagreed with radical discrimination as a result of exposure to picturebooks. The researcher concluded that participants’ responses in this study “showed a sensitivity for the feelings and actions of groups they seldom interact with or even think about” (Macphee, 1997, p. 39). Moreover, the children were interested in issues of unfair treatments to black characters in the stories and “called them unjust” (Macphee, 1997, p. 8). In another study on young readers’ attitudes towards African- American characters, Kim (2015) examined children’s stance on the theme of racism in picturebooks. The researcher investigated the effects of incorporating picturebooks containing portrayals of African – American characters and observed the participants’ responses to the books at the beginning and the end of studying period of six months. The key findings were that the participants had negative attitudes toward black characters at the beginning of the study. However, at the end of the research period, it was reported that “all children displayed their positive attitudes towards having black friends” (Kim, 2015, p. 9). Results from these studies offer supporting evidence for the values of teaching 396

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

cultural aspects from other countries to foster children’s morality and cultural tolerance since exposure to multicultural picturebooks may change their beliefs and behaviors. In terms of cognitive development, some other studies found that young readers are interested in artistic elements, and they can also understand abstract concepts represented in picturebooks. For instance, Style and Arizpe (2001) reported that students aged 4-11 expressed their appreciation of dynamic artistic styles of the visual texts. Additionally, the participants of this study also expressed their moral judgments of illustrations of animals kept in the cage. In particular, in some of the children’s drawings, the participants reversed the positions of humans and animals, i.e., “humans in cages being laughed at by animals” (p. 8). Young readers of this study could also interpret abstract concepts such as captivity and freedom through their analysis of the visual metaphor. Similarly, Chen and Browne (2015) explored young readers’ (three to five years old) responses to multicultural picturebooks and found that most of the participants could comprehend the themes represented in picturebooks through their “oral responses and writing/ illustrations” (p. 6). Also, many of participants could even understand the aging process and the feelings of the characters. The researchers concluded that young readers in their study made meaning from very personal level of comprehension to higher level which goes beyond the self. Results from these studies indicate that picturebooks may support teachers in teaching intercultural understanding. In particular, picturebooks can help children gain comprehension in spite of the complexity of the cultural concepts (Budd, 2016). This directly addresses the objective of teaching Asia literacy as reflected in the curriculum. However, one of the issues relating to the application of picturebooks in the classroom is that teachers are often use multicultural picturebooks uncritically, without a focus on differences between Western and non-Western cultures (Bullen & Lunt, 2015; Rodriguez & Kim, 2018). This indicates an urgent need for teachers to take a critical approach when using Asian literature including text and images to teach intercultural understanding in classrooms (Bullen & Lunt, 2015). Since multicultural picturebooks are mainstream teaching resources for teaching multiculturalism (Day, 1996; Nodelman, Hamer & Reimer, 2017; Sipe, 2001; Styles & Arizpe, 2001), it follows that Asian picturebooks are an ideal resource to teach understanding about Asia. To do so effectively, it is essential for teachers to realize and understand differences in aesthetic practices of Western and East Asian cultures. The literature about East Asian aesthetic practices reveals that artwork of Vietnamese artists is heavily influenced by the philosophies of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism (Brown, 2013; Buchanan, 2002; Le, 2015; Phan, 2014). Le (2015) investigated the influences of Taoism in Vietnamese artists’ ways of presenting post-war trauma and found that communicative issues are caused due to cultural differences between the viewers and artists. Moreover, meanings of artwork containing Buddhism philosophies are difficult to be understood by the audiences of different cultures. This suggests two important things: 1. any attempt to understand Vietnamese artwork should make reference to influential philosophical concepts such as Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism; and 2. artists’ perspectives should be considered to avoid cultural difficulties and misunderstandings in the process of interpreting artwork. Therefore, in this chapter, we aim to introduce and discuss the usefulness of an analytical framework which is developed based on these philosophical concepts for interpreting non-Western images, particularly images in picturebooks about Vietnamese culture with respect to the teaching of Asia literacy in the Australian curriculum. Some suggestions on how to apply this new analytical framework in the classroom will be offered. However, before introducing such a framework, it is important to discuss contemporary Western frameworks for picturebook analysis.

397

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

A Western Semiotic Framework for Interpreting Picturebooks One of the contemporary Western theories used for the analysis of visual meaning, including in picturebooks, is the social semiotics developed in the early work of Kress and van Leeuwen’s on visual grammar (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006; Kress, 2010). Social semiotics stems from Halliday’s (1985) systemic functional grammar of English (Aiello, 2006; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006; Serafini, 2014). It is a structural approach for exploring potential meanings of multimodal texts with an emphasis on communicative context, text producers’ concern, and necessity (Serafini, 2014, p. 42). The social semiotic framework for analyzing meanings of multimodal texts is inspired by Halliday’s concept of metafunction, in which every semiotic mode has the capability of conveying three metafunctional meanings, i.e., the ideational meaning, the interpersonal meaning and the textual meaning (Halliday, 1985; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). The ideational metafunction denotes the semiotic mode’s ability to convey representational meaning of the world while the interpersonal meaning reveals the relations between sign producers and receivers (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Textual metafunction refers to meanings created through the way visual elements are arranged and distributed to produce an ordered, logical, and consistent whole (Painter et al., 2013). Drawing on Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) early work on grammar of visual design, Painter et al. (2013) developed a framework for picturebook analysis, which allows us to interpret three types metafunctional meanings, i.e., ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning, and textual meaning. This framework is summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1. Summary of framework for analyzing metafunctional meanings in picturebook. (Adapted from Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, and Painter et al. 2013.)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ideational Meaning Painter et al. (2013) proposed a framework for analysis of ideational meaning in picturebooks based on Kress and van Leeuwen’s discussions on representational meaning of images which includes the consideration of three narrative aspects, i.e., setting, character and action (see Figure 1). The first aspect of Ideational Meaning is setting, which is also referred to as the background context. In picturebooks, setting offers information about visual location of surrounding environment in which the characters perform the actions. Within a picturebook narrative, setting does not always remain unchanged, but it can be either similar or different between successive images. Any consistency or alteration in the depiction of circumstantial details can provide important information to readers (Painter et al., 2013).

398

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

The second aspect of Ideational Meaning in picturebooks is character. Characters in picturebooks refer to Kress and van Leeuwen’s represented participants (Painter et al., 2013). Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) asserted that every semiotic act involves two types of participants, i.e., interactive participants and represented participants. Interactive participants are the participants in the act of communication such as the producers and viewers of texts. Represented participants are who or what the communication is about. Painter and her colleagues noted that the ways in which a character’s physical appearance is depicted in picturebooks help readers understand other important information such as their age, ethnicity, family, and social status (Painter et al., 2013). The third aspect of Ideational Meaning is the system of Action in visual texts. The system of Action simply refers to the actions depicted by the characters in the visual texts (for example, walking, running, etc.). According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), actions, or narrative processes consists of participants who are linked together by means of vectors. Vectors linking participants in narrative processes can be realized either through the angles of a participants’ bodies, arms, physical actions or through mental actions such as the line of sight, also referred to as gaze (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Interpersonal Meaning In the semiotic approach to visual analysis, the interpersonal meaning carries information about the relations between sign producers and receivers of signs (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). The interpretation of interpersonal meaning in picturebooks includes analysis of relations between writers/illustrators and readers, relations between depicted characters, and relations between characters/readers. In their analytical framework for interpersonal meaning (Figure 1), Painter et al. (2013) proposed seven analytical systems. Each of them will be briefly explained below. The first analytical system of interpersonal meaning is social distance. According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), the variations in the ‘size of frame’ reveal the social distance or the relations between depicted participants and the viewer. Three common ways of presenting visual participants relate to three types of camera shots, i.e.close shot, medium shot, and long shot. A close shot indicates intimacy or close relation between depicted participants and the viewer. By contrast, the long shot suggests impersonal relation whereas the mid-shot reveal a moderate or social relation (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). The second analytical system of interpersonal meaning is the system of focalization. Drawing on Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) system of contact in visual grammar, Painter et al. (2013) proposed the term focalization to explore the interaction between depicted characters and readers in picturebooks. In Kress and van Leeuwen’s contact system, there are of two options, i.e., demand and offer. In this system, images with the demand option contain a depicted participant looking at the viewer to directly address the viewer and “demands that the viewer enter into some kind of imaginary relation with him or her” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 118). By contrast, with offer option, depicted participants do not gaze out at the viewer and no sense of connection between represented participants and the viewer is established (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006). In picturebooks, when the characters are depicted as looking at the readers, an effect of eye contact is created making the readers to engage into the world of the characters while the ‘observer’ choice suggests that readers should observe the story world (Painter et al., 2013). The third analytical system of interpersonal meaning is proximity. In their semiotic framework for picturebook analysis (Figure 1), Painter and her colleagues (2013) proposed the system of proximity based on Kress and van Leeuwen’s system of social distance. Proximity refers to the relationship between picturebook characters based on their depicted distance (Painter et al., 2013). In other words, placing 399

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

characters at a far distance from each other suggests some issues in their relationship such as a quarrel, whereas characters in close personal relationship are positioned in close distance such as touching each other (Painter et al., 2013). The fourth analytical system of interpersonal meaning is the system of power. In visual communication, exploring the system of power through the camera angles reveals power relations between depicted participants and the image producer. According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), three camera angles, i.e., high, low, eye- level, indicate three different power relations between the represented participants and the visual producer as well as the viewer. In particular, if the viewer looks up at the depicted participants (low angle), then the depicted participants are placed at the position of power in the narrative world. By contrast, if the viewer looks down on the depicted participants (high angle), represented participants are considered as being inferior without power. For images in which depicted participants are seen at eye level, there is no difference in terms of power between the represented participants and the viewer (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). According to Painter et al., (2013), many modern picturebooks successfully employ the system of power to represent young characters as vulnerable (high angle) and father characters at the position of superiority (low angle). The fifth analytical system of Interpersonal Meaning is the system of involvement, which refers to the viewer’s position based on the variations of horizontal angles (Painter et al., 2013). If represented participants are seen from an oblique angle, then the image producer and the viewer position themselves outside of the depicted participants’ world or as not involved with them. On the contrary, if the represented participants are put in the frontal angel, then the producers and the viewer position themselves as part of the world of the depicted participant or as involved with them (Kress & van Leeuwen: 2006). In picturebooks where young readers are encouraged to keep away from characters’ inappropriate behavior, the depicted characters are placed at oblique horizontal angle (Painter et al., 2013). The six analytical system of interpersonal meaning is the system of graduation, which serves as means to enhance readers’ emotional responses to the depicted characters or events in picturebooks. In picturebooks, the choice of graduation can be realized through the extent of repetition of depicted visual elements and the amount of space occupied by these elements on a picturebook’s spread (Painter et al., 2013). The seventh analytical element of interpersonal meaning in picturebooks is the system of Ambience. Painter and her colleagues replace Kress and van Leeuwen’s system of modality in interpersonal metafunction by the term Ambience to explore the ways color is used to create mood in depicting picturebooks’ setting (Painter et al., 2013). A picturebook with bright, light colors creates significantly different effects on readers’ emotions in comparison to one with depictions using dark colors (Painter et al., 2013). For example, characters in a state of happiness might be depicted in bright, warm reds and yellows, whereas characters facing turmoil might be depicted in dark blues and purples. This section provided explanations on analytical systems for exploring the first two types of metafunctional meanings in picturebooks proposed by Painter et al. (2013). The following section will briefly introduce analytical systems for interpreting the third type of metafunctional meaning in picturebooks, i.e., textual meaning.

Textual Meaning Textual or compositional meaning is “the way in which the representational and interactive elements are made to relate to each other, the way they are integrated into a meaningful whole” (Kress & van 400

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Leeuwen, 2006, p. 176). Textual meaning reveals the ways visual elements are arranged and distributed to produce an ordered, logical, and consistent whole (Painter et al., 2013). Compositional meaning can be explored through three integrated systems, i.e., information value, salience, and framing (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), the system of information value of depicted participants in images can be realized through three main zones in the images. In particular, elements placed on the left side carry less important information than those on the right side of the image. In the words of Kress and van Leeuwen, the information that “the viewer already knows” is put on the left side whereas “something which is not yet known” by the viewer is place on the right side of an image (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 181). Therefore, viewers of an image often pay much attention to depicted elements in the right side (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Similarly, the top and bottom choices of arranging visual elements also entail two opposing information values. The contrasting information value of the top and bottom choice is expressed in Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) terms of Ideal and Real. Visual elements at the highest position contain “idealized or generalize essence of the information” (p. 187) whereas elements at the lower part carry more practical and detailed information. For the choice of center and margin, the element placed in the middle carries the most important information (Center) and the surrounding elements (Margins) represent less salient information (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). The second system of textual meaning is salience. This system provides viewers with recognition of order of importance among depicted elements in spite of differences in the locations they occupy in an image. Viewers can identify the most important element of an image through their differences in positions (foreground vs. background), sizes, uses of contrasting, color, and so on (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). The third system of textual meaning is framing. Visual elements can be realized as being connected or disconnected together through the use of Framing. According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), “The more the elements of the spatial composition are connected, the more they are presented as belonging together, as a single unit of information” (pp. 203-204). In picturebooks, Painter and her colleagues proposed two basic types of framing, i.e., bound and unbound images or images with or without border (Painter et al., 2013). Unbound images suggest no difference between the young readers’ world and depicted world in picturebooks (Painter et al., 2013). By contrast, a sense of separation between the readers’ world and the story world is created with bound images. In the above section, we briefly introduced one contemporary framework for interpreting picturebooks developed by Painter et al., (2013). In Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, this is a common semiotic framework used for interpreting picturebooks (Jewitt, 2009; Painter et al., 2013; Serafini, 2014). Whilst contemporary semiotic framework is valuable for interpreting children’s picturebooks, Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) admitted that their semiotic framework is constrained within a Western cultural mindset. This indicates that there may be some points of contestation when applying this framework to interpret picturebooks of non-Western cultures. Therefore, multiliteracies researchers have called for additional analytical frameworks for interpreting literature of non-Western cultures to account for cultural diversity (Aiello, 2006; Serafini, 2014). Also, research in cross-cultural aesthetic practices has shown that there are significant differences between East-Asian and Western aesthetic practices. For instance, Jewitt and Oyama (2001) found that the Japanese perceive given information in the right and new information in the left of the examined photographs. This pattern of visual realization is contrast to contemporary Western framework for analyzing images in terms of information value (Figure 1), in which new information is recognized on the right while given information is realized on

401

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

the left (Jewitt & Oyama, 2001). Such a difference reflects one of the disadvantages of using a Western semiotic framework to interpret non-Western images. In addition to these limitations, there are some points of contestation when interpreting images in picturebooks about Vietnam with a Western semiotic framework (Huynh, Thomas, & To, 2018). One of the factors causing contestations when interpreting picturebooks about Vietnam with a Western semiotic framework is the differences between East-Asian and Western aesthetic expression. In the following sections, we will introduce some of these differences and points of contestations when interpreting images in picturebooks about Vietnam with the Western semiotic framework developed by Painter et al. (2013).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Some Basic Differences between East-Asian and Western Aesthetic Expressions Examining artistic traditions and their role in meaning making in picturebooks is not new. Day (1996) reported that artistic styles have an impact on young readers’ perceived meaning. In particular, when reading or listening to adults reading picutrebooks, “children can articulate many ideas about what they are hearing and seeing that relate to stylistic elements” (Day, 1996, p. 154). Also, young readers can understand the way perspective is used in the books (Day, 1996). Styles and Arizpe (2001) examined visual text understanding of 84 students aged 4-11 and found that the children expressed their appreciation of dynamic artistic styles used in Anthony Browne’s Zoo. In particular, the participants noticed “switches in artistic styles, analyzing colour imagery, noting changes in points of view” (Styles & Arizpe, 2001, p. 266). Sipe (2001) asserted increasing numbers of picturebooks are specifically used in school settings “to introduce children to specific artists of the past, particular artistic styles, or schools of art” (p.198). More recently, Nodelman, Hamer, and Reimer (2017) argued that understanding artistic traditions offers readers better insight into depicted visual elements in picturebooks. Similarly, Hateley (2017) provided an illustrative example from The Lost Thing by Shuan Tan (2010) to highlight how the illustrator adapted paintings of artists influenced by the Antipodeans’ philosophy to develop the daily activities of the main character. What is new, however, is extending the notion of artistic tradition to non-Western picturebooks and exploring non-Western artistic traditions. Firstly, the influential religious philosophies in East Asian countries are the main factors making East Asian artistic expressions strikingly different from that of Western arts (Chung, 2006; Munro, 1965; Pipa, 1968). One of the interesting differences between Eastern and Western artworks is the way of representing salient features. Bao et al. (2016) noted that Eastern landscape paintings require spectators to stand on the various perspectives to gain a full understanding of the work. In other words, the viewers have to continuously switch their viewpoints, which is “sometimes being located in the air (e.g., looking downward from above), sometimes being located on the ground (e.g., looking at scenes straight ahead), and sometimes being located at a lower land (e.g., looking upward at faraway mountains)” (Bao et al., 2016, p. 2). This means that important elements in Eastern paintings can be located variously within the frame which is quite different from those in Western paintings. In terms of distribution of salient features in East Asian art, Murray (2008) found that in Japanese Zen painting, both the visible and invisible elements are important. The researcher claimed that “this is in sharp contrast to traditional western aesthetics, which have historically privileged centrality and presence” (Murray, 2008, p. 23). This means that unlike viewers of Western artwork, viewers of Eastern paintings should be aware that important elements are not always visible to them. Therefore, the spectators of Eastern paintings should pay attention to both visible and invisible features to gain full understandings. As Mrázek (2011) noted:

402

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Any visual image is involved with the invisible, it grows from invisibility: it makes the invisible visible. In many cases, the visible images refer to another invisible – human desires or virtues, abstract notions such as purity, and so on – when images and the stories they tell are interpreted symbolically or allegorically, as they often are in Southeast Asia (p.109). The equality of both visible and invisible features of, for example, the Japanese Zen paintings may have the root in the Taoist’s notion of Yin–Yang, which requires artists to consider the balance of distribution of Yin-Yang elements in a painting. Pipa (1968) pointed out that the major difference in underlying metaphysical philosophies is that Western metaphysics tends to be “world-possessing” while Eastern counterparts “can be world-rejecting” (1968, p. 369). These contrasting ideologies affect creative activities, such as painting. Such contrasting viewpoints between Eastern and Western metaphysics and their influences in aesthetic practices are reflected through the way human elements are portrayed. In particular, the human element is usually portrayed as a relatively insignificant figure in comparison to the surrounding contextual elements in paintings (Bao et al., 2016; Masuda et al., 2008). This suggests that the important visual elements in Eastern paintings are not always outstanding from the background and natural elements can appear as more salient than human elements in Eastern paintings. With respect to the teaching of Asia literacy in Australian context, the above discussion in terms of distribution of salient features in images are highly significant to teachers, especially when they want to address one of the teaching objectives stated in the Australian Curriculum: “Explore the effect of choices when framing an image, placement of elements in the image, and salience on composition of still and moving images in a range of types of texts” (ACARA, 2016b, Year 4 ACELA1496). According to contemporary Western conventional methods of arranging visual features, specifically in the system of Information Value, elements placed in the middle of an image carry the most important information (center) and the surrounding elements (margins) represent less salient information (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). However, as mentioned above, in East-Asian aesthetic practices, important elements paintings can be located variously within the frame and salient features do not always stand out from the painting. Aiming to support teachers and students in understanding and resolving such issues, we proposed to examine how philosophical concepts can be used to interpret images in picturebooks about East-Asian cultures. In the following section, we will introduce an analytical framework that was developed based on philosophical concepts in East-Asian cultures (Huynh, Thomas, & To, 2019). Then, in the application section, we will discuss the advantages of this framework when using it in combination with a Western semiotic framework to interpret some aspects of meaning in images about Vietnamese culture with respect to selected objectives for teaching Asia literacy in classrooms.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Framework for Interpreting East-Asian Images in Picturebooks Drawing on influences of East-Asian philosophical concepts on artistic practices, Huynh et al. (2019) developed a framework for interpreting Cultural Meanings of Asian Images (CMAI) in picturebooks about Vietnam. This framework consists of influential philosophical concepts of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. More specifically, the framework consists two components, i.e., nature-human Relationship and cultural symbols (which are considered as relevant to the three philosophies Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism). Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism are also recognized by the term the Three Teachings and considered as the most influential schools of religions and philosophies in China and other East Asian countries (Adler, 2002; Brook, 1993; Cua, 2005; Fang, 1986; Hinnells, 403

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

2008). According to Fang (1986), the Three Teachings have three common features, i.e., 1. the doctrine of pervasive unity, 2. the doctrine of Tao (The path), and 3. the exaltation of the individual, along with an emphasis on a conception of the human individual ”in terms of observed actualities and idealized possibilities” (Cua, 2005, p. 63). In other words, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism can be understood both in terms of religions and philosophies. However, in this chapter, we use the term religious philosophies to refer to concepts of the Three Teachings that are found influential in aesthetic practices. The CMAI framework is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2. The framework for interpreting cultural meanings of Asian images (CMAI) in picturebooks about Vietnam. (Adapted from Huynh et al., 2019).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nature-Human Relationship The first component of the CMAI framework is nature-human relationship. This notion is found highly relevant to Taoism and Confucianism aesthetic practices. According to Rowley (1959), in East Asian artworks, the relationships between nature and humans are recognized in terms of “harmony and communication” (p. 20). In order to achieve harmony in relation to nature, natural elements are often portrayed as more powerful and more important than human beings (Le, 2015; McMahon, 2003). This means that harmony in the form of a balanced relationship between humans and nature can be achieved when nature is appreciated. The relationship between humans and nature is important in Taoist paintings. Like other Eastern philosophies and religions, Taoist art puts an emphasis on the superiority of nature over humans (McMahon, 2003; Pohl, 2009). In other words, an artistic work should “come into existence like a work of nature, by the workings of the inexplicable Dao (Tao) – the “Way” of the universe” (Pohl, 2009, p.89). In Chinese landscape painting, for example, human element is often portrayed as much more insignificant than surrounding environment (Paetzold, 2009). In other words, no matter how important it is, human being element should be a small part of the surrounding nature elements for the harmony to be achieved. Such a Taoist painting style can be found in a fan painting on paper of the sixteenth century

404

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

in which “a gentleman of high rank contemplating a waterfall; his position in the picture is central, but he seems to be no more than part of the majestic landscape surrounding him” (Pipa, 1968, p. 367). The fact that nature is often portrayed as more powerful and more important than human beings in Taoist art originates from a Taoism principle that being receptive and quiet will make one in the best harmony with the world (Le, 2015; McMahon, 2003). In other words, Taoist painters tend to emphasize the superior role of nature in landscape painting. Similar to Taoism, Confucianism puts an emphasis on not only the ideal relationship among human beings but also the relationship between human and the world around them. One of the favorite Confucian metaphors reflecting the relationship between human and nature is “Human beings are like the plants of the world” (Berthrong, 2003, p. 376) and humans are “rooted in the natural order” (p. 377). For Confucian artists, nature should receive priority over human elements in landscape painting. By doing this, the painters can feel the pleasure through their respect toward nature (Luo, 2015). In other words, Taoism and Confucianism seem to have a common principle, which emphasizes the superior role of nature in landscape painting. In a study that examined Vietnamese painters’ and illustrators’ views of nature-human Relationship (Huynh et al., 2019), most of the participants confirmed that they perceive setting especially the overall nature in picturebook as a specific character. For example, one illustrator asserted that “We should have both human and nature in illustrations because they will complement each other. For instance, if there are depictions of landscape, then there should have human elements to make it livelier” (Huynh et al., 2019, p.7). Similarly, another artist asserted that “there always exits the relationship between nature and humans. And even in paintings, sculptures, carvings that were created by artists in the past, they always connect to daily life through depictions of Nature-Human Relationship” (Huynh et al., 2019, p.7). The relationship between human characters and nature can be interpreted by considering the ways in which nature elements are presented in comparison with human characters. When human and nature elements are presented in their natural sizes, shapes, and activities, we have a harmonious or balanced relationship between humans and nature. In these illustrations, both humans and nature are presented as supporting each other. By contrast, if nature or human elements are depicted in unnatural size, shapes, or manners, activities such as humans are attacking or being attacked by nature, of the artist may be representing conflicts or inharmonious relations between nature and humans.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cultural Symbols The second component of the CMAI framework which is found relevant the three influential religions is cultural symbols in East Asian countries. In additional to Chinese landscape painting, symbolism can also be found in artistic works of other East Asian countries such as India (Holm, 2017; Srinivasan, 1997), Japan (Dower, 1990; Saunders, 1985), Korea (Kister, 2006; Vos, 2002), and Vietnam (Anh & Lee, 2008; Le, 2015). In Asian art, symbolism makes images more significant and powerful, which can generate a great network of meanings (Wilson, 1990). For instance, in Chinese art, the symbol of dragon, which has been used since the Bronze Age, represents a wide range of symbolic meanings, e.g., a mythical beast, the guardian, Buddhist’s vehicles for meditation leading to enlightenment, and the Chinese emperor (Wilson, 1990). Other popular symbols in East Asian culture are the fish, which symbolizes good luck and good fortune (Palmer, Sun & Leclere, 2012), and the wave, which is used as a symbol of power and resilience (McGurty, 2014). 405

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

In Vietnamese art, there are two main systems of symbolic meanings: 1. artworks of artists exploiting symbols relating to the Buddha’s teaching on methods to free humans from suffering; and 2. artworks using symbolic images of Taoism and Confucianism. One of using symbolic meanings in Buddhist art is reflected through the Buddha statues with a calm smile, in deep stage of meditation as a symbol of peace and pure joy (Le, 2015). In Vietnamese culture, the image of the dragon has symbolic meaning of fortune which is believed to originate from Taoism (Anh & Lee, 2008). The tiger and the lion are another two symbols of animal patterns which signify the symbolic meaning of protecting humans from sources of ghost and evil powers, i.e., apotropism (Anh & Lee, 2008). More detailed discussion of Vietnamese symbolic meaning can be found in Anh and Lee’s (2008) patterns of symbols in Vietnamese tradition. Figure 3 summarizes Anh and Lee’s (2008) findings on classifications and symbolic meanings of Vietnamese traditional patterns.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 3. Classification and symbolic meanings of Vietnamese traditional patterns. (Adapted from Anh & Lee, 2008).

With respect to the use of symbols in their artwork, the majority of Vietnamese artists in the study conducted by Huynh et al. (2019) confirmed that they use popular images relating to Vietnamese culture in their illustrations for example, the Turtle Temple Tower, the Ngoc Son Temple, the Temple of literature, lotus flowers, the basket boat, the dragon boats and so on . One of Vietnamese illustrators contended that he often uses symbols in his illustrations in terms of stylization to represent Vietnamese culture in the most visible and representative way. However, understanding of meanings of these symbols, “requires much knowledge about Vietnamese culture” (Huynh et al., 2019, p. 8). Therefore, to apply the cultural symbols component in the CMAI framework, we recommend that teachers and students should make reference to patterns of symbols in Vietnamese culture as illustrated in Figure 3 (Anh & Lee, 2008) and a good dictionary of symbols in Eastern Art such as the Illustrated dictionary of symbols in Eastern

406

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

and Western art (Hall, 2018) in combination with knowledge about Vietnamese culture. We argue that interpreting cultural symbols in images of picturebooks about Vietnam, especially those that carry both culturally specific and religious meanings, will enhance readers’ interest in the cultures other than their own. In the following sections, we demonstrated how to apply components of the CMAI framework and a Western framework to interpret two selected scenes of two picturebooks about Vietnam.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Interpersonal Meaning in East-Asian Images In this application section, we will make references to one of the intercultural teaching objectives stated in the Australian Curriculum to demonstrate the extent to which a Western semiotic framework (Painter et al., 2013) and the CMAI framework (Huynh et al., 2019) can be applied to address this objective. The selected objective is “identify the effect on audiences of techniques, for example shot size, vertical camera angle and layout in picture books, advertisements and film segments” (ACARA, 2016b, Year 3 ACELA1483.). Since our focus in this chapter is on picturebooks, the materials selected for this teaching objective are illustrations taken from two picturebooks titled The first journey (Phung & Huynh, 2017) and In the village by the sea (Muon & Chu, 2015). The first illustration is a double-page opening (Figure 4) extracted from The first journey. In this image, the protagonist is being attacked by a giant wave when he is travelling to school on a small boat.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 4. The 5th double-page opening of The first journey (Phung & Huynh, 2017).

407

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

The second illustration (Figure 5) is extracted from the 11th double-page opening of In the village by the sea. This scene depicts a fisherman encountering a big storm when travelling in the sea. In terms of teaching objectives, we focus on exploring the effect on audiences through the uses of shot size, vertical camera angles in the selected illustrations. Figure 5. The 11th double-page opening of In the village by the sea. (Muon & Chu, 2015).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Interpreting Power and Focalization with a Western Framework Based on the teaching objective, the aspects of Interpersonal Meaning including the systems of Power and focalization will be considered when using the Western framework. According to the framework for picturebook analysis developed by Painter et al. (2013), vertical camera angle can reveal power relations between depicted participants and the illustrator. In particular, if the viewer looks up at the depicted participants (low angle), then the depicted participants are considered as being powerful in the narrative world. By contrast, if the viewer looks down on the depicted participants from a high angle, the depicted characters are considered as being weak and vulnerable in the narrative world. As far as focalization is concerned, if the characters are depicted as looking at the readers with a close-shot, an effect of eye contact is created making the readers to engage into the world of the characters. By contrast, if the characters are presented in the choice Observe with a ‘long shot’, it will create the effect that readers will observe the story world (Painter et al., 2013). In Figure 4, there is an interesting power dynamic depicted through the use of the vertical angle. Painter et al. (2013) asserted that many modern picturebooks successfully employ the system of Power to represent young, supposedly naïve characters as vulnerable (high angle) and older, supposedly wiser characters at the position of superiority (low angle). Therefore, with respect to effect of vertical camera angle, the human character in Figure 4 is viewed from a low angle, which suggests that he is in a superior position in this scene. However, it is obvious that the young character in Figure 4 is not the one that has power as he is depicted as being attacked by a giant wave, and it looks like that has no control over the situation. Therefore, his safety is unknown in this scene. This also forces students to look at the turning page to confirm the safety of the man character. If such an interpretation is reasonable, it will pose a challenge to the indications of Power in the framework proposed by Painter et al., (2013). In particular, students may ask teachers such a question as: ‘Why is the protagonist viewed from a low angle, yet he

408

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

looks very vulnerable in this scene?’ Similarly, when working with the illustration in Figure 5, teachers and students also look at the protagonist (the fisherman) from a low angle. However, it does not seem that the man has an authority in these circumstances. It may be challenging for teachers to provide a convincing explanation in light of a Western framework since the depicted characters in these illustrations are seen from a low camera angle, but they are not the ones who possess power in the story world. Secondly, the focalization choice of observe and the use of long shot in Figure 4 invite readers to observe the narrative world to see what may happen to the protagonist (Painter et al., 2013). For Figure 5, the focalization choice observe and the use of medium shot invite the viewer to explore the character’s stage of mind through his facial expression, especially his eyes. He seems to be worried and hoping for a better weather condition. It appears that the system of focalization works accordingly to the framework developed by Painter et al. (2013). However, it also seems that other significant visual elements are uninterpreted, i.e. the wave in Figure 4 and the blanket of dark clouds in Figure 5. These elements also receive much of the viewer’s attention. Therefore, if the we interpret the focalization choice with a focus on depictions of human characters only, other layers of interpersonal meaning having effect on the viewer’s feeling may be left unexplored. In conclusion, for images like those in Figure 4 and Figure 5, it would be difficult for teachers and students to explore power relations between depicted characters in picture books if they rely on their Western understandings of semiotic framework for interpreting picturebooks. This is because these illustrations clearly presented a contrasting meaning in terms of the characters’ power. Therefore, to attain more accurate interpretations, in addition to applying contemporary Western frameworks for interpreting picturebooks, teachers and students should also employ a framework based in East-Asian world views and philosophies.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Interpreting Nature-Human Relationship with the CMAI Framework Based on the teaching objective above, we propose to interpret the images in Figure 4 and Figure 5 using one component of the CMAI framework, i.e., nature-human relationship. As mentioned in the literature review, in East-Asian philosophies, in order to achieve the harmony in the relations with nature, nature elements are often portrayed as more powerful and more important than humans. The balanced relationship between humans and nature can be achieved when nature is appreciated. Such a respect toward nature is reflected quite clearly in the illustrations of Figure 4 and Figure 5. The relationship between nature and humans is examined by the assumption that setting also acts as a character of picturebooks, especially in double-page spreads which contain images of landscapes. For instance, in Figure 5, the nature element, i.e., the wave, is depicted as attacking the human element. The boy is presented as vulnerable in comparison to the wave, which is used as a representation of the power of nature. Therefore, in terms of power relations, nature is superior over humans in this opening. Such an interpretation will help to resolve the question ‘Why is the protagonist viewed from a low angle, yet he looks very vulnerable in this scene?’ One possible answer is that in this scene, there is another character, i.e., the nature character (the giant wave), which is also viewed from a low angle. Since nature is always given priorty over humans in East-Asian aesthetic practices, nature elements are depicted as more powerful in comparsion to humans. Therefore, even when humans have power in a narrative world, they should not be more powerful than the nature character. Similarly, in Figure 5, the viewers can see a blanket of dark clouds covering the whole setting including the human character. Even though the man is seen from a low angle, it is the nature character that wields power and attacks the human character. 409

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

In conclusion, literature on the East Asian aesthetic expressions emphasizes the significant role of the relationship between humans and nature in landscape painting. Therefore, we posit that the concept of nature-human relationship is helpful to enhance students’ understanding of characters’ relations in picturebooks about East-Asian cultures. In particular, if teachers and students apply the nature-human relationship component using the CMAI framework with the assumption that nature can also act as a character, they can comprehend the reasons why human characters are perceived from a low camera angle, yet they are not in the position of power. This can help to resolve the point of contestation when teachers and students need to interpret the system of Power in images like Figure 4 and Figure 5. Therefore, if teachers and students apply a contemporary Western framework in combination with the CMAI framework, they can achieve the teaching objective stated in the Australian curriculum: “Identify the effect on audiences of techniques, for example shot size, vertical camera angle and layout in picture books, advertisements and film segments” (ACARA, 2016b, Year 3 ACELA1483). Such an application will also enhance students’ awareness of one of the important cultural aspects in East-Asian countries, i.e., no matter how powerful humans may be, nature should always be respected by humans. This will lead to students’ intercultural understanding about East-Asian cultures and directly address the educational target of Asia literacy, i.e., recognizing culture and developing respect toward the cultures of Asian countries (ACARA, 2016a)

Cultural Symbols in East-Asian Images In this application, we will take another teaching objective relating to the teaching of intercultural understanding stated in the Australian Curriculum “ Learning that a word or sign can carry different weight in different cultural contexts, for example that particular respect is due to some people and creatures and that stories can be passed on to teach us how to live appropriately” (ACARA, 2016b, Year 3 ACELA1475 elaboration). If teachers and students understand this objective as exploring meanings of symbols in various cultures, then they need a framework to do so. However, since the Western framework developed by Painter et al. (2013) does not explicitly propose a system for interpreting meanings of cultural symbols in picturebooks, a new framework is required.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Interpreting Cultural Symbols with the CMAI Framework Figure 4 contains several cultural symbols. The first symbol is the wave. Some readers may know that the depiction of the wave in Figure 4 is inspired from the Japanese influential work - The great wave off Kanagawa by Katsushika Hokusai. In Japanese visual culture, the wave is used as a symbol of power and resilience (McGurty, 2014). The wave in Honkusai’s painting is interpreted as representing nature’s power (Carpenter, 2014). In the Vietnamese tradition, the wave signifies longevity (Anh & Lee, 2008). In the illustration presented in Figure 4, in comparison with the wave, the boy (the human) is portrayed as vulnerable with no power. Such an interpretation goes along with our suggestion to consider nature as one type of character in this picturebook. In fact, in East Asian aesthetic practices, nature is perceived as one type of character in addition to human beings, which also has mind and spirit just as humans (Dyt, 2015; Park, 2009). Moreover, in the Vietnamese culture, waves are used as a symbol of human’s life challenges such as in Vietnamese popular phrase Sóng gió cuộc đời – Life waves (Mai, 2012). This suggests another inter410

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

pretation of the wave in Figure 4. The wave is a major challenge to the protagonist, and the protagonist is suffering from unpleasant circumstances. Therefore, although nature is appreciated in this spread, the human still faces unfavorable conditions which create a feeling of danger and concern for the safety of the protagonist. Both possible meanings of the wave in Figure 4 are aligned with the interpretation of the relationship between nature and humans in which nature is depicted as being more powerful. There is one common cultural symbol found in both Figure 4 and Figure 5, namely the boat. However, the boats are illustrated differently in the two images and they also carry different meanings. Generally, in the Vietnamese culture, a boat represents people’s means of travelling and making a living (Nguyễn, 2014; Yến, 2016). One interesting cultural aspect relating to illustration of the boat in Figure 5 is that the Vietnamese have a tradition of painting boats with two stylized eyes as can be seen from the protagonist’s boat in this book. Such a tradition is claimed to have the origin in the period of the Lac Long Quan, the first king of Vietnam (Võ, 2016; Nguyễn, 2014) when Vietnamese fishermen started painting eyes on their boats. This practice is claimed as having the origin from the legend of Dragon Father and Fairy Mother (Võ, 2016; Nguyễn, 2014). The legend tells that the ancestors of Vietnamese people consisted of 100 children of Dragon Father and Fairy Mother. According to the Lĩnh nam trích quái (Strange tales from south of the passes), after a period of living together, 50 children followed Fairy Mother to mountainous regions and 50 children followed Dragon Father to settle by the ocean. Because those who lived by the ocean experienced frequent attacks by sea monsters, dragon Father advised his children to use dark ink to tattoo his portrait on their bodies in form of sea monsters (Nguyễn, 2014; Tran, 2017). This would help to protect fishermen as sea monsters would think fishermen as belonging to the same species. Since then, Vietnamese fishermen also have a tradition of decorating boats with sea monsters’ features such as eyes (Võ, 2016; Nguyễn, 2014). If teachers and students use the CMAI framework and make reference to illustrations of the boats throughout the whole story of The first journey, they may arrive at an interesting symbolic meaning of the boat in Figure 4. The illustration of the boat represents the means of making living (Nguyễn, 2014; Yến, 2016). This interpretation is strengthened by the verbiage in the first opening of this book: “Papa goes fishing in the middle of the night with other village men, while Mama harvests Sesbania flowers in the paddy fields” (Phung & Huynh, 2017, p. 2). This indicates that the protagonist’s parents use the boat for fishing and picking flowers to earn their living, while he uses the boat to gain knowledge by going to school, ultimately with the intent of escaping poverty. The main character’s hope of a better future is presented by the brighter horizon. The ideology that getting to school to get a better future may be influenced from the Confucian thought on the respect for learning in Vietnamese culture. In conclusion, interpretations of various meanings of cultural symbols identified in Figure 4 and Figure 5 reveal very interesting cultural aspects about the Vietnamese culture. The symbols may look familiar to students of Vietnamese cultural backgrounds. However, for readers from other cultures, these cultural aspects can only be assessed if teachers and students deliberately seek explicit and implicit meanings of these signs with respect to the component cultural symbols as proposed in the CMAI framework. Moreover, through the above interpretations, various intercultural layers of meanings of signs are revealed. This directly corresponds the teaching objective selected for this section. There may be some other frameworks developed based on the Western mindset to explore different meanings of a sign in different cultural contexts. However, since philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism heavily influence the Vietnamese culture and ways of living, it would be wise to make references to these philosophical concepts if one wants to understand cultural meanings of signs in Vietnamese picturebooks. By doing this, students will gain more understanding about culturally specific meanings of images in 411

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

picturebooks about Vietnam which can enhance their knowledge about Vietnamese culture specifically and Asian cultures generally. This also addresses one aspect of Asia literacy reflected in the Australia Curriculum, i.e. exploring and comparing cultural knowledge, beliefs and practices (ACARA, 2016a). Teaching Tip In her classroom, Liza and her 3rd grade have students worked with picturebook titled The first journey to teach learn about Vietnamese culture. The guiding objective for developing intercultural understanding through engagement with multimodal texts about Asian culture stated in Australia curriculum (English) was: • Learning that a word or sign can carry different weight in different cultural contexts, for example that particular respect is due to some people and creatures and that stories can be passed on to teach us how to live appropriately (ACARA, 2016b, Year 3 ACELA1475 elaboration). Due to the age level of her students, Liza decided to apply one of the components of the CMAI framework, i.e. cultural symbols to guide her students to explore culturally specific meanings of some salient visual elements in The first journey through the following activities: Activity 1: Liza offered explanations of the concepts of cultural symbols and then gave the first assignment for students to work in groups. The materials for this assignment were 16 double-page openings in The first journey. The students were instructed to make a list of visual elements which are salient (based on their size, shape, and position in the scene) in each of the opening such as depictions of the wave, the boat, the snakes, warm clouds, cranes, the crocodile, school of fish, the buffalos, and so on. Then, the students shared their findings with other students and the teacher, which they discussed together to reach a mutual agreement on their decision. Next, Liza asked her students to express their feeling when looking at these visual elements. For instance, she asked: “What kind of feeling do you have when looking at illustrations of the wave in the 5th opening?” Some students reported a feeling of danger whereas others said they were excited about an adventure. Activity 2: The teaching material for this activity was a simplified version of the diagram presented in Figure 3. In this activity, the students were required to first identify different visual elements in the illustrations they discussed in Activity 1 and to make references to the symbolic meaning of visual elements listed in the diagram to compare and contrast their original These meanings can either be similar or different from the students’ perceived meanings of symbols found in Activity 1. For example, the illustration of the Wave may have generated negative feelings for some of the students, whereas according to the diagram, it belongs to the Natural Patterns and has a positive symbolic meaning (longevity). However, other elements such as the image of the cranes in the 14th opening of The first journey can generate a positive feeling of success and this symbol, which corresponds to its meaning in the diagram. Activity 3: Next, Liza asked the students to work in groups and generate their own diagrams for symbolic meanings of salient visual elements in The first journey. The outcome of this activity was various versions of cultural symbolic meanings that students generated based on their personal judgements when looking at illustrations in the books and their references to the diagram (Activity 2). When ready, the students presented their products to their classmates and the teacher. By engaging her students in these activities, Liza helped them to understand more about the East-Asian cultures including visual meanings and cultural beliefs. The activities’ outcomes address the teaching objective in terms of developing students’ awareness of various cultural meanings of signs (symbols) in the selected picturebooks about Vietnamese culture. These activities also enhanced students’ interest in exploring other possible meanings of these symbols by comparing and contrasting with their own cultures. This lesson plan could be expanded in terms of a mini-project for students to generate various patterns of symbols from different cultures. Such an activity would be very interesting and helpful for teachers and students to develop intercultural understandings in multicultural classroom settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In the context of multicultural societies, teaching intercultural understanding is one of the major challenges for teachers. In the context of Australia, for instance, the Australian Curriculum states that learners can develop intercultural understanding when they “learn to value their own cultures, languages and beliefs, and those of others” (ACARA, 2016a, para.1). Intercultural understanding can help students to “understand how personal, group and national identities are shaped, and the variable and changing nature of culture” (ACARA, 2016a, para.1). The use of children’s picture books in classrooms has been reported as being beneficial to children’s cognitive development and intercultural awareness (Chen & Browne, 2015; Kim, 2015; Macphee, 1997; McKenzie, 2014). However, teaching intercultural under-

412

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

standing is not always an easy task for teachers especially when using picturebooks to enhance students’ understanding about East-Asian cultures in multi-cultural classrooms. This chapter has aimed to assist teachers of Western cultural backgrounds in teaching intercultural understanding about East-Asian countries. To do so, we firstly discussed the usefulness and cultural constraints of a contemporary semiotic framework for interpreting picturebooks and proposed a supplementary framework for interpreting cultural meanings of East-Asian images using Vietnamese picturebooks as an example. East-Asian philosophical concepts that we proposed in this chapter include nature-human relationship and cultural symbols which have been applied pervasively in East-Asian aesthetic practices. In the practical section of this chapter, we demonstrated the extent to which a contemporary Western framework and a framework for interpreting cultural meaning can be applied to address some teaching objectives relating to Asia literacy as reflected in the Australian Curriculum. Our analysis showed that some points of contestations when using a Western framework to interpret non-Western images can be resolved with a framework that employs East-Asian philosophical concepts to explore cultural meanings in picturebooks. More importantly, more in-depth layers of meanings were also explored when using the framework for understanding cultural meanings. In the teaching tip, we proposed activities that focus on particular concepts from the Cultural Meanings of Asian Images (CMAI) framework as means to assist students in interpreting important, salient visual elements in a picturebook about Vietnamese culture. Students gain more understanding about the cultural aspects represented in images of picturebooks about East-Asian cultures when going through the suggested activities. Therefore, we posit that East-Asian philosophical concepts can be applied in addition to current semiotic framework for deeper understanding of cultural meanings in children’s picturebooks. Few studies have been conducted to explore the usefulness of these concepts in understanding visual texts from East-Asian cultures. Our chapter is limited by applying the framework of philosophical concepts to Vietnamese picturebooks. Research involving the use of a larger sample of picturebooks from other East-Asian cultures such as China, Japan, and Korea should be designed in order to develop an exhaustive analytical framework which would be appropriate for interpreting images in picturebooks across all East-Asian countries. Additionally, other philosophical and religious concepts which are influential in East-Asian nations should also be taken into consideration in future studies to develop a systematic analytical framework for interpreting images in picturebooks about Asian cultures. Discussion Questions 1. How can using the components of the Cultural Meanings of Asian Images (CMAI) framework introduced in this chapter enhance a broader interpretation and understanding of children’s picturebooks about East-Asian cultures?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

2. Can the CMAI framework be applied to a wide range of picturebooks from cultures of other non-Western countries, such as African countries? How? 3. Can components of the CMAI framework be applied to resolve other points of contestations that teachers and students may encounter when applying a Western framework for interpreting picturebooks from East-Asian cultures?

413

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

REFERENCES Adler, J. A. (2002). Chinese religions. London, UK: Routledge. Aiello, G. (2006). Theoretical advances in critical visual analysis: Perception, ideology, mythologies, and social semiotics. Journal of Visual Literacy, 26(2), 89–102. doi:10.1080/23796529.2006.11674635 Anh, P. H. M., & Lee, Y.-S. (2008). A study on the classifications and symbolic meanings of Vietnamese traditional patterns. International Journal of Human Ecology, 9(1), 29–40. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016a). The Australian curriculum: Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum. edu.au/f-10-curriculum/cross-curriculum-priorities/asia-and-australia-s-engagement-with-asia/ Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016b). The Australian curriculum: English. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/ Bao, Y., Yang, T., Lin, X., Fang, Y., Wang, Y., Pöppel, E., & Lei, Q. (2016). Aesthetic preferences for Eastern and Western traditional visual art: Identity matters. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01596/full Barr, A., Gillard, J., Firth, V., Scrymgour, M., Welford, R., Lomax-Smith, J., & Constable, E. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. South Victoria, Australia: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Berthrong, J. (2003). Confucian views of nature. In H. Selin (Ed.), Nature across cultures (pp. 373–392). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_19 Brook, T. (1993). Rethinking syncretism: The unity of the three teachings and their joint worship in late-imperial China. Journal of Chinese Religions, 21(1), 13–44. doi:10.1179/073776993805307448 Brown, F. B. (2013). The Oxford handbook of religion and the arts (F. B. Brown, Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Buchanan, S. (2002). Tran Trung Tin: Paintings and poems from Vietnam. London, UK: Asia Ink. Budd, Y. (2016). Using culturally diverse picture books in the classroom: Exploring culture, language and identity. Practically Primary, 21(2), 7–10.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bullen, E., & Lunt, T. (2015). Asia and the autobiographical picture book. In C. Halse (Ed.), Asia literate schooling in the Asian century (pp. 151–166). London, UK: Routledge. Carpenter, J. (2014). Hokusai’s iconic “Great Wave”. Retrieved from https://www.metmuseum.org/ blogs/now-at-the-met/2014/great-wave Chen, X., & Browne, S. (2015). Pearls of meaning: Preschool children respond to multicultural picturebooks. New Waves, 18(2), 16–28. Chung, S. K. (2006). Aesthetic practice and spirituality: Chi in traditional East Asian brushwork. Art Education, 59(4), 33–38. doi:10.1080/00043125.2006.11651601

414

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Clyne, M. G. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597084 Cua, A. S. (2005). Human nature, ritual, and history: Studies in Xunzi and Chinese philosophy. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Day, K. S. (1996). The challenge of style in reading picture books. Children’s Literature in Education, 27(3), 153–166. doi:10.1007/BF02355687 Dower, J. W. (1990). The elements of Japanese design: A handbook of family crests, heraldry, & symbolism. New York, NY: Weatherhill. Dyt, K. (2015). “Calling for wind and rain” rituals: Environment, emotion, and governance in Nguyễn Vietnam, 1802–1883. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 10(2), 1–42. doi:10.1525/vs.2015.10.2.1 Fang, T.-m. (1986). Chinese philosophy: Its spirit and its development. Taipei, Taiwan: Linking. Hall, J. (2018). Illustrated dictionary of symbols in Eastern and Western art. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429499937 Halliday, M. A. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halse, C. (2015). Asia literate schooling in the Asian century. In C. Halse (Ed.), Routledge series on schools and schooling in Asia. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315815121 Halse, C., Cloonan, A., Dyer, J., Kostogriz, A., Toe, D., & Weinmann, M. (2013). Asia literacy and the Australian teaching workforce. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30059952 Hateley, E. (2017). Art, adaptation, and the antipodean in Shaun Tan’s “The Lost Thing”. In P. Nodelman, N. Hamer, & M. Reimer (Eds.), More words about pictures: Current research on picturebooks and visual/verbal texts for young people. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315621814-4 Henderson, D. (2008). Politics and policy-making for Asia literacy: The Rudd report and a national strategy in Australian education. Asian Studies Review, 32(2), 171–195. doi:10.1080/10357820802064690 Hinnells, J. R. (2005). The Routledge companion to the study of religion. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203412695

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Holm, B. (2017). Northwest coast Indian art: An analysis of form. Washington, DC: University of Washington Press. Huynh, N. T., Thomas, A., & To, V. T. (2018). East meets west? Identifying points of contestation when mediating understandings about Eastern picturebooks with children. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Multimodality, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Huynh, N. T., Thomas, A., & To, V. T. (2019). Interpreting cultural meanings of non-western Images with East Asian philosophical concepts. Paper presented at the ASFLA 2019, The University of Sydney, Australia. Jetnikoff, A. (2013). Exploring intercultural and ethical understanding through “Ethical Intelligence” and drama in Asian texts for the “Australian Curriculum: English”. Engineers Australia, 48(2), 45–54.

415

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London, UK: Routledge. Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In T. van Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134–156). London, UK: Sage. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies (2nd ed.). Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316442821 Kim, S. J. (2015). Korean-origin kindergarten children’s response to African-American characters in race-themed picture books. Education Research International. Retrieved from https://new.hindawi.com/ journals/edri/2015/986342/ Kister, D. A. (2006). Korean shamanist ritual: Symbols and dramas of transformation. Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing Company. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203619728 Le, K. T. (2015). Tam-giao cultural expression and representations of post-war trauma in Vietnamese visual arts. (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University, Australia). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/20.500.11937/2192 Lee, K., Cameron, C. A., Xu, F., Fu, G., & Board, J. (1997). Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations of lying and truth telling: Similarities and differences in the context of pro‐and antisocial behaviors. Child Development, 68(5), 924–934. doi:10.2307/1132042 PMID:29106719 Levin, F. (2007). Encouraging ethical respect through multicultural literature. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 101–105. doi:10.1598/RT.61.1.13 Luo, J. (2015). Chinese painting and traditional Chinese culture. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 3(5), 176–181.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

MacPhee, J. S. (1997). “That’s not fair!”: A white teacher reports on white first graders’ responses to multicultural literature. Language Arts, 74(1), 33–40. Mai, B. A. (2012). Sự ám ảnh của văn hóa nông nghiệp và môi trường sông nước trong ngôn ngữ Việt Nam [The obsession of agricultural and water culture in Vietnamese language]. Retrieved from http:// www.vanhoahoc.vn/nghien-cuu/tai-lieu-pho-cap-vhh/van-hoa-viet-nam/2239-mai-ba-an-su-am-anhcua-van-hoa-nong-nghiep-va-moi-truong-song-nuoc-trong-ngon-ngu-viet-nam.html Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1260–1275. doi:10.1177/0146167208320555 PMID:18678860 McGurty, K. A. (2014). The Tokugawa samurai: Values & lifestyle transition. Retrieved from https:// cupola.gettysburg.edu/student_scholarship/283

416

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Mckenzie, J. (2014). National identity and the perspective of the other: New Zealand children responding to South African picture books. Mousaion, 32(4), 93–127. McMahon, C. G. (2003). The sign system in Chinese landscape paintings. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37(1), 64–76. doi:10.2307/3527422 Mrázek, J. (2011). The visible and the invisible in a Southeast Asian world. In R. M. Brown, & D. S. Hutton (Eds.), A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture (pp. 97–120). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9781444396355.ch5 Munro, T. (1965). Oriental traditions in aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24(1), 3–6. doi:10.2307/428241 Muon, T. V., & Chu, A. (2015). In the village by the sea. Berkeley, CA: Creston Books. Murray, P. (2008). The floating world: An investigation into illustrative and decorative art practices and theory in print media and animation (Master’s thesis, RMIT University, Australia). Retrieved from http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:9772/Murray.pdf Nguyễn, T. L. (2014). Một góc nhìn về văn hoá biển [A perspective on oceanian culture]. Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam: The Ho Chi Minh City General Publishing House. Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about pictures: The narrative art of children’s picture books. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Nodelman, P., Hamer, N., & Reimer, M. (2017). More words about pictures: Current research on picturebooks and visual/verbal texts for young people. New York, NY: Routledge. Paetzold, H. (2009). The origins of landscape painting: An intercultural perspective. In A. van den Braembussche, H. Kimmerle, & N. Note (Eds.), Intercultural aesthetics (pp. 55–67). Dordrecht, The Neitherlands: Springer. Painter, C., Martin, J. R., & Unsworth, L. (2013). Reading visual narratives: Image analysis of children’s picture books. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Pub.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Palmer, B. C., Sun, L., & Leclere, J. T. (2012). Students learn about Chinese culture through the folktale “Yeh-Shen”: Emphasizing figurative language interpretation. Multicultural Education, 19(2), 49–54. Park, S. (2009). East Asian and Western perception of nature in 20th century painting. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Brighton, UK). Retrieved from https://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/12377/1/East%20 Asian%20and%20Western%20Perception%20of%20Nature%20in%2020th%20Century%20Painting_Sungsil%20ParkPhD2009.pdf Phan, C. T. (2014). The daily arts (The arts and cultures of Viet Nam: A journey through history) (L. T. Nguyen, Trans.). Ha Noi, Viet Nam: The Gioi Publisher. Phung, N. Q., & Huynh, K. L. (2017). The first journey. Central Region, Singapore: Scholastic. Pipa, A. (1968). Some remarks about Western and Eastern aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 8(4), 365–372. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/8.4.365

417

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Pohl, K.-H. (2009). Identity and Hybridity–Chinese culture and aesthetics in the age of globalization. In A. van den Braembussche, H. Kimmerle, & N. Note (Eds.), Intercultural aesthetics (p. 87103). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5780-9_7 Rodriguez, N. N., & Kim, E. J. (2018). In search of mirrors: An Asian critical race theory content analysis of Asian American picturebooks from 2007 to 2017. Journal of Children’s Literature, 44(2), 17–30. Rowley, G. (1959). Principles of Chinese painting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Salter, P. (2015). A reconceptualisation of “Knowing Asia” in Australian education. Discourse (Abingdon), 36(6), 781–794. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.967178 Saunders, E. D. (1985). Mudra: A study of symbolic gestures in Japanese Buddhist sculpture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Serafini, F. (2010). Reading multimodal texts: Perceptual, structural and ideological perspectives. Children’s Literature in Education, 41(2), 85–104. doi:10.100710583-010-9100-5 Serafini, F. (2014). Reading the visual. [electronic resource]: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sipe, L. R. (2001). Picturebooks as aesthetic objects. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning, 6(1), 23–42. Srinivasan, D. (1997). Many heads, arms, and eyes: Origin, meaning, and form of multiplicity in Indian art. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers. Styles, M., & Arizpe, E. (2001). A gorilla with ‘Grandpa’s Eyes’: How children interpret visual texts: A case study of Anthony Browne’s Zoo. Children’s Literature in Education, 32(4), 261–281. doi:10.1023/A:1012760422501 Tran, T. P. (2017). Lĩnh Nam chích quái [Selected tales of extraordinary beings in Linh Nam]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Kim Dong. Unsworth, L., & Thomas, A. (2014). English teaching and new literacies pedagogy: Interpreting and authoring digital multimedia narratives. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1311-6

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Võ, T. D. L. (2016). Mắt thuyền [The eyes of boats]. Retrieved from http://vncvanhoa.vass.gov.vn/UserControls/News/pFormPrint.aspx?UrlListProcess=/noidung/doituongnghiencuu/vanhoadangian/Lists/ nghethuatdangian&ListId=846e5d9c-bc47-4365-bddd-0df24694e1cc&SiteId=99302971-c1c8-4193a7ce-2c46027c0c8e&ItemID=32&SiteRootID=57a3e21d-0995-4f92-8000-6cd7e78b2c85 Vos, K. (2002). Symbolism & simplicity: Korean art from the collection of Won-Kyung Cho. Leiden, The Netherlands: Hotei Publishing. Wilson, J. K. (1990). Powerful form and potent symbol: The dragon in Asia. The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 77(8), 286–323. World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Schools_of_the_Future_Report_2019.pdf

418

 East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

Yến, V. H. (2016). Hình tượng con thuyền trên trống đồng và thap đồng thời Đông Sơn [The depictions of boats on bronze drums and jars in Đong Son Culture]. Retrieved from http://www.vanhoahoc.vn/ nghien-cuu/van-hoa-viet-nam/van-hoa-nhan-thuc/3016-yen-van-hoa-hinh-tuong-con-thuyen-tren-trongdong-va-thap-dong-thoi-dong-son.html

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Asia Literacy: An education policy established by Australian government, which places an emphasis on developing student’s knowledge, skills, and understanding about Asian countries. Buddhism: An East-Asian religious and philosophical school found by Siddhartha Gautama – The Buddha (ca. 560 – 480 BCE) in northern India whose full title is Shakyamuni Buddha. Several centuries after the death of its founder, Buddhism spread across other Asian nations and has become one of the major religions in this region. Confucianism: A religious and philosophical school found by Confucius (551-479 BCE) which has been considered as one of the major religious and philosophical school in Chinese and other East-Asian cultures. Cultural Symbols (in Picturebooks): Images carrying culturally specific meanings especially in terms of religion. Other examples include images of lotus flowers, dragons, golden fish, and so on. Intercultural Understanding: Ability to comprehend and engage with communities of different cultures. In the Australian curriculum, the term intercultural understanding consists of three interrelated elements, i.e., recognizing culture and developing respect, interacting and empathizing with others; and reflecting on intercultural experiences and taking responsibility. Nature-Human Relationship: A religious concept which puts an emphasis on humans’ respect toward nature. Picturebooks: Books that tell stories by means of illustrations and written text in which images have equal importance to written text. Therefore, images are required to do much of the storytelling work. Taoism: An East-Asian religious and philosophical school founded by Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu. Tao is often translated as ‘the way’ which is then further understood as a method of conduct.

419

East-Asian Philosophical Concepts as Analytical Framework for Interpreting Non-Western Images

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Brown, F. B. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of religion and the arts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. This handbook provides readers with understandings about the connections between religious practices and arts. The book would be a helpful material to those who want to gain insights into religions in EastAsian cultures such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and aesthetic practices of these religions. 2. Tang Y. (2015) Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture. Beijing, China: Springer. This book contains 25 chapters about the major religions in East-Asian countries and the key concepts of these religions. This book is a useful resource for readers who are interested in understanding more about philosophical concepts proposed in this chapters, such as Nature – Human relations and other key concepts in these religions. 3. Hall, J. (2018).  Illustrated dictionary of symbols in Eastern and Western art. New York, NY: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This is an excellent source of information about cultural and religious meanings of various symbols found in Eastern and Western Art. The book can be of interest to both teachers and students who want to enhance their understanding of concepts and symbols in picture books.

420

Section 5

Heritage Language Use and Family Literacy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 5 discusses the challenges with which language instructors are faced when working with emergent literacy students in a language other than the dominant one and examines ways in which proficiency and literacy skills in heritage language can be strengthened. The chapters in this section use examples from specific linguistic and cultural backgrounds to illustrate concrete pedagogical applications in which educators can cultivate their students’ literacy skills through heritage language use.

422

Chapter 20

Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction: Challenges and Guidance for Teachers and Tutors Fernanda Minuz Independent Researcher, Italy Belma Haznedar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7025-0158 Boğaziçi University, Turkey Joy Kreeft Peyton Center for Applied Linguistics, USA Martha Young-Scholten Newcastle University, UK

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT There has been a shift in receiving countries and their education programs for adult immigrants around the world. A complete focus on immigrants’ cultural integration and learning of the language of the country has shifted to an understanding that supporting heritage language maintenance benefts adults with little or no formal schooling in that language, including a more nuanced sense of identity, stronger second language (L2) and literacy learning, and confdence in supporting the schooling of the younger members of their communities. Teachers and tutors need, but lack, professional development focused on implementing instructional approaches that incorporate this new focus and on using reading materials in learners’ languages. This chapter describes a new Online Heritage Language Resource Hub, which gives teachers, tutors, adult learners, and younger members of the community access to materials in hundreds of immigrants’ languages. It also provides teachers ways to use the reading materials in the Hub in their classes with adult learners. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch020

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the benefits–to individuals, families, and communities–of adults maintaining, and younger members of the community developing, full proficiency in their heritage languages at the same time as an additional language or languages (typically the majority or dominant language of a country) are being acquired. It then describes the challenges that this approach can present for teachers, tutors, and program administrators as they seek to integrate this understanding and associated approaches into their programs and instruction, particularly when working with adults with little or no formal schooling or literacy in their home or heritage language. Next, the chapter presents a new online Heritage Language Hub of links to reading resources, in hundreds of languages, that is available and easily accessible to educators and adult learners in their programs. The chapter also details specific instructional strategies that teachers and tutors working with adult learners can use. The goal of the chapter is for educators working with this learner population to understand the importance of valuing, sustaining, and developing learners’ heritage languages, and to be able to use the resources described (see also Durgunoglu & Nimer in this volume).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Focus on Immigrants Learning the Language and Culture of the New Country A considerable number of adults with limited formal education and literacy migrate to new countries where a language they do not know is spoken. UN global trends tracking showed that in 2018, 70.8 million people were displaced worldwide (UN Refugee Agency, 2019). In Europe, in 2017, 4.4 million refugees migrated to one of the 28 European Union Member States (Eurostat, 2019). That same year, 110,000 refugees were admitted to the United States (U.S. Department of State, 2019). Political restrictions in the United States have since led to much smaller numbers. In fiscal year 2019 (ending September 30, 2019), a cap of 30,000 was set, under a new refugee admissions ceiling. There are plans to admit a maximum of 18,000 refugees in 2020 (Pew Research Center, 2019). In the United States, eight of the top ten countries of origin of refugees and asylees are countries with low rates of literacy (Afghanistan, Bhutan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, and Somalia), whose inhabitants are included in the roughly 758 million non-literate 15- to 65-year-olds worldwide (Migration Policy Institute, 2019b). A high proportion of this population is female. Immigrants with limited experience with formal education and little or no literacy move to highly literate societies for a range of reasons, which can include forced displacement due to economic or political instability, marriage, and opportunities to work (Drinkwater, Eade, & Garapich, 2009; Palmer, 2016). Instructional programs in countries receiving adult immigrants who do not speak the language of the receiving country and have limited education and literacy in their heritage language usually focus on learners’ linguistic, social, and cultural integration. The purpose is to help them participate effectively in the social, educational, and economic life of the country in which they have resettled (Bigelow, 2009; Cummins, 2000a, b, 2005; Duff, 2001; Mallows, 2014; Simpson & Whiteside, 2015). The term “immigrant” is used in this chapter for migrants, refugees, and asylees. The term “heritage language” is used for adult immigrants’ home, native, first language (L1) and language of origin. Program staff often give scant attention to the heritage language(s) spoken by immigrants, especially to the languages spoken by those who have limited or no education and little social capital to maintain

423

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

the languages that they speak (Aberdeen, 2016; Peyton, 2012, 2013). Integration usually entails discouraging immigrants from maintaining their heritage language, focusing entirely on learning the majority language and supporting their children in mastering it, rather than on maintaining and expanding their own and their children’s heritage language(s) (e.g., Cummins, 2000a, b; Cummins & Danesi, 1990; Polinsky & Kagan, 2007; Ruiz, 1984; Shin, 2013, see also da Costa, Pereira, & Macedo in this volume). An exclusive focus on the majority language contradicts the notion of valuing linguistic diversity, which has long been promoted, for example, in Europe. The institutions of the European Union (EU) in Brussels and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg promote multilingualism, plurilingualism, and intercultural communication (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000, Art. 22; European Commission, 2005; Treaty on the European Union, 2008, Art. 3)1. However, in practice, multilingualism in the EU refers to national and indigenous minority languages, not to immigrants’ heritage languages (Minuz, 2017). This view of multilingualism is not in keeping with EU policy documents, which define integration as “a dynamic bilateral process of mutual accommodation of all immigrants and residents” (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 15). Dynamic integration is, in practice, overridden by the aim for immigrants to gain “basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions” (Council of the European Union, 2004, p. 18). This is expressly indicated as an “indispensable” factor for inclusion and effective participation (Council of the European Union, 2004) and has resulted in extensive majority language course provision in Europe. Knowledge of the majority or national language(s) of receiving countries is taken to be a sign of the immigrant’s willingness to participate in the host society. It is also a regulative device in immigration policies. Twenty-five of the 27 EU member states have set legal requirements for adult migrants, who must demonstrate linguistic competence to gain entry into the host country and/or permanent residence or citizenship (Extramina, Pulinx, & Van Avermaet, 2014). This situation is paralleled in the United States, with Title II of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (still in force), where the purposes of adult education are to: • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

Assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and self-sufciency; Assist adults who are parents to obtain the educational skills necessary to become full partners in the educational development of their children; and Assist adults in the completion of a secondary school education (National Skills Coalition, 2011).

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA, 2015), which facilitates the Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education program in the U.S., focuses on helping adults achieve linguistic competence in English and acquire the basic and more advanced language, literacy, and other skills needed to function effectively as parents, workers, and citizens. Services include instruction in literacy and English language acquisition and instruction on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship and civic participation, and they may include workforce training. Both Acts focus entirely on the majority language, English. A recent presentation at a U.S. meeting for adult educators restated the assumption that, “Achieving successful long-term civic, economic, and linguistic integration is critically important to ensure the well-being and economic mobility of immigrant and refugee families, as well as the strength of communities where they settle” (Migration Policy Institute, 2019b; italics added). While the Council of Europe supports the dynamic integration of immigrants, this idea is missing in the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals ([SDG]-https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment). The 424

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

SDGs call for a series of global actions to improve the lives of people everywhere, but even for those goals that refer to education and to language, immigrants from the developing world and their heritage languages are absent. For example, Goal 4, Quality Education, seeks to: • • •

Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning Increase access to education at all levels and enrollment rates in schools, particularly for women and girls Develop basic literacy skills; and achieve equality for girls and boys in primary education.

However, no mention is made of the role of the heritage language of immigrants in the implementation of these goals. Other goals, which might include mention of the language of origin of the individuals involved are Goal 10, Reduce Inequalities, and Goal 16, Peaceful and Inclusive Societies. These also make no mention of the situation of adults who are geographically removed from where their language is used.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A Shift to a Focus on Immigrants’ Heritage Languages and Cultures In the midst of these strong foci on immigrants learning the language of the new country and integrating into its culture and workforce, there is a growing worldwide movement focused on heritage language maintenance and/or development (Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011; Haznedar, Peyton, & Young-Scholten, 2018; Peyton, 2012, 2013; Vukovic, 2019). This includes the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), who have for over half a century advocated for a bilingual or multilingual approach (referred to in this chapter as “bilingual,” unless the authors cited use a different term) to literacy in linguistically and culturally diverse societies, stressing the importance of educating children in their mother tongue and not just the majority language (UNESCO, 1953). As described by Hanemann and McKay (2019, p. 352; UNESCO, 2003), UNESCO developed a normative framework, guidelines, and principles for languages and education, making a strong case for mother tongue instruction as a means of improving educational quality by building on the knowledge, skills, and experience of learners and teachers. UNESCO recommended that adult literacy learners “should make their first steps to literacy through their mother tongue, passing on to a second language if they desire and are able” (UNESCO, 1953, p. 69; quoted in UNESCO, 2003, p. 31). While this case does not refer specifically to immigrants, there is now a growing consensus among those who work with adult immigrants with little or no formal schooling or literacy in their heritage language that their instruction needs to reflect a vision “in which learners’ lives, oral culture, and other skills and knowledge are all part of the curriculum and classroom” (Bigelow & Schwarz, 2010, p. 14; see also Beacco, Little, & Hedges, 2014; Haznedar, Peyton, & Young-Scholten, 2018; Hornberger, 2004; Lambelet, et al., 2018; Peyton, 2012, 2013; see also Gonzalves in this volume). These shifts in perspective have inspired and guided recent inclusion of immigrants in the heritage language movement. For instance, the Council of Europe seeks to: Value migrants’ languages of origin and their unique plurilingual and pluricultural identities. Their languages of origin play an important role in the integration process. In a plurilingual and intercultural approach to language provision, it is important to show that these languages are valued and to encour-

425

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

age migrants to transmit them to their children in view of their importance as markers of identity and an asset for the whole of society. (Council of Europe, 2017a) Likewise, in the United States, the heritage language maintenance movement has been growing. In 1998, the Center for Applied Linguistics and the National Foreign Language Center collaborated on a Heritage Languages Initiative to “build an education system that is responsive to national language needs and the heritage language communities in this country” (Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001, p. 14). The National Heritage Language Resource Center (https://nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc), one of 16 Language Resource Centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education, is creating a research base focused on heritage language speakers/learners and developing curriculum design, materials development, and teacher education. The Coalition of Community-Based Heritage Language Schools (https://heritagelanguageschools.org/coalition) collaborates with and supports the work of thousands of community-based schools across the United States, teaching hundreds of languages.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Need for Support and Materials for Heritage Language Development The aim of the heritage language movement is to foster a sense of identity and language and cultural strength as well as social cohesion and integration with the majority language, in contexts in which only the majority language has been valued, sustained, and developed. Toward the start of this initiative, Fishman (2004) pointed out that lack of support for refugee and immigrant languages “is just as scandalous and injurious as it is to waste air, water, mineral, animal, and various non-linguistic human sources” (p. 417). This lack of support has largely remained the case for those immigrants with less social capital than others, for those who have experienced little or no formal schooling and hence have little or no literacy in their heritage or any other language upon immigration. They are usually not in a position to take action to maintain their heritage language for their own benefit or for that of the younger members of their community (Aberdeen, 2016). Providing heritage language support is not easy. There is a range of unresolved and complex issues related to language policy and support for these languages in community-based, public, and private schools (see discussions in Aberdeen, 2016; Kagan, Carreira, & Chik, 2017; Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001; Seals & Peyton, 2017; Wiley, Peyton, Christian, Moore, & Liu, 2014). A critical component of support for schools that provide educational support for heritage languages is materials and instructional strategies in the languages of the learners. In order to address one component of this issue, availability of and access to reading materials in learners’ languages, the authors (and other collaborators, mentioned in the Acknowledgments), have developed an Online Hub of Heritage Language Resources, with links to collections of books, audio files, and other materials that teachers and tutors can access, use in instruction, make available to learners, and encourage learners to use outside of class themselves and with their families (https://www.leslla.org/resources-in-mother-tongues). The goals of the Hub are to provide easy access to high-quality reading materials in learners’ languages; to make sure that individuals and communities can maintain, and younger members of the community can continue to develop, their heritage language; and to help both older and younger members of the community expand use of their heritage languages and become literate in them.

426

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Importance of the Heritage Language in Language and Literacy Development Research has shown repeatedly that heritage language education provides the best start for the children of immigrants (e.g., Baker & Wright, 2017; Cummins, 1979, 1992; Cummins & Swain, 1986), with the possibility of literacy development in the new language and full biliteracy over time (Carlo & SkiltonSylvester, 1996; Kenner, 2004; Leiken, Schwartz, & Share, 2010; Schwartz, Share, Leikin, & Kozminsky, 2007; Thomas & Collier, 1997; Wagner & Venezky, 1999). For example, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey results show that in Finland, first- and second-generation secondary school students with proficiency in their heritage languages demonstrated higher academic achievement in Finnish than students without such proficiency (Harju-Luukkainen, et al., 2014). Research in bilingual education programs has shown that a key factor in enabling speakers to succeed in a second language is to develop or maintain literacy in the heritage language in a supportive sociocultural environment (Carder, 2013; Collier & Thomas, 2007). Collier and Thomas (2007) argue that it is important for bilinguals to maintain their heritage language(s) while they also develop the majority language to an academic level during their school life. Research on reading and second language (L2) acquisition has also pointed out the importance of oral and reading proficiency in the first language for children learning to read in an additional language (August & Shanahan, 2010). A number of recent publications focused on education in developing countries argue strongly for use of the heritage language in instruction, at least in the early years of education. For example, in UNESCO (2017), in a review of literacy campaigns in countries with low rates of literacy, we find the claim that plurilingual approaches have been particularly successful. Ball (2014), after an overview of interest in and approaches to heritage language education in the past several decades in many countries around the world, concluded, “Children whose primary language is not the language of instruction in school are more likely to drop out of school or fail in early grades. Research has shown that children’s first language is the optimal language for literacy and learning throughout primary school” (p. 1) Bamgbose (2014), with a focus on African countries south of the Sahara, argued that the fact that an imported official language is used for teaching and learning throughout or from the fourth year of primary education is a major impediment to learning in schools, resulting in high dropout, failure, or repeat rates. Unless and until this policy is changed and every child is allowed to undertake basic mother tongue-based bilingual/ multilingual education, the goal of 100% completion of primary education for all pupils will continue to be a mirage. Likewise, Zafeirakou (2015) argued that “Teaching the foundational skills (early literacy and numeracy) and critical thinking in a language that the child speaks and understands is one of the most effective ways to reduce school failure and drop out in the early grades. More importantly, these foundational skills significantly increase learning later on,” (p. 1) as students transfer these skills to learning in another language. Some scholars and educators argue that, when possible, it is appropriate to develop proficiency in the heritage language not only in the elementary grades, but at high levels of schooling, at the same time as students learn the majority language of the country or an international language (e.g., Abbott et al., 2014). Abbott et al. (2014) argue that high levels of proficiency in multiple languages can facilitate effective participation in a global society as well as promote interaction and connection with families and communities (see also Costa, Pereira, & Macedo in this volume). As can be seen in the discussion 427

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

here, for many scholars and educators, there is no question about the importance of developing the bilingualism of students, in developed as well as in developing countries. It brings value to many areas of individual lives, of communities, and of the larger society. In addition to facilitating literacy development, there are important social benefits of heritage language oral proficiency and literacy within learners’ own language community and in the wider community. Benefits include reduction of marginalization and increase of empowerment and standing within the family and community (Bigelow, 2009; Burtoff, 1985; García & Wei, 2014; Gillespie, 1994; Ingersoll, 2001; Lukes, 2011; Minuz, 2017; Peyton, 2012; Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001; Robson, 1982). Focusing on linguistic and cognitive perspectives in bilingual populations, Haznedar (in press) notes that despite variations in context, such as the amount of exposure received in both languages and the role of literacy in the community, there is no evidence for biological limits to learning additional languages (Bialystok, 2001, 2007; Bialystok & Martin, 2004). Precisely because bilinguals regularly switch back and forth between the two languages, there is a constant need to manage attention during language processing, which requires an executive control mechanism to conduct reasoning, problem-solving, and planning. That bilinguals are adept at managing attention provides a strong foundation for the view that they perform better when they are required to inhibit irrelevant information and direct their attention to the target stimuli, because they need to manage two (or more) competing linguistic systems on a daily basis (e.g., Green, 1998). In this sense, bilingualism in a way “trains” executive functioning skills due to the involvement of language selection (Bialystok, 2015). As can be seen from the review above, the benefits of maintaining one’s language of origin and learning to read and write in it are well documented. While they focus primarily on children (Haznedar, 2020; Haznedar, Peyton, & Young-Scholten, 2018; Minuz, 2017), Marian and Shook (2012) argue that documented benefits of being bilingual (knowing two or more languages) can be seen at both ends of the age spectrum; bilingual children as young as seven months can better adjust to environmental changes, and bilingual seniors can experience fewer symptoms of cognitive decline. Other benefits, for both children and adults, include that individuals: • • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

Are often more creative and better at solving complex problems than monolinguals (Marian & Shook, 2012) Often have positive attitudes about other language groups and more knowledge of and respect for other cultures (Dewaele, 2012) Are able to learn additional languages better, because they have an understanding of how languages work (Barac & Bialystok, 2011, 2012; Bialystok, 2017) Children, despite having smaller vocabulary during the early stages of the language acquisition process, when vocabularies from both languages are combined, often have equal or similar competence in vocabulary compared to monolingual children (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Pearson, 1998).

Adults have better career opportunities and are able to work effectively with customers, clients, and businesses from a range of different countries and cultures (Damari, et al., 2017). In light of these arguments and research findings, for both children and adults, we now turn to how learners’ heritage languages can be used and developed effectively in instruction, focusing on adult immigrants with limited education and literacy.

428

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Uses of the Heritage Language in Instruction Aberdeen (2016) argues that enlightened second language pedagogy must be used to develop and expand maintenance and use of the heritage language. Instructional approaches should focus on engaging learners with their language and with content presented in their language, in both oral and written form, in collaborative and experiential-based activities. Approaches have been developed that place the fact that learners may be bilingual and the development of that bilingualism at the center of instruction. These include the pluralistic and intercultural approaches promoted by the Council of Europe and use of translanguaging as a pedagogy with bilingual learners (Beacco, 2005; Beacco, et al., 2016; Bigot, Bretegnier, & Vasseur, 2014; Candelier, et al., 2012; Creese & Blackedge, 2010; Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 1997, 2009; Cummins, 2005; García, 2009; García & Kleyn, 2016). These approaches mark a paradigm shift in language teaching, although they differ in their theoretical backgrounds and the educational and socio-political contexts within which they have developed. From a compartmentalized vision of language teaching and learning, in which each language is taught in isolation, progressive language education has moved to a vision that includes the “teaching and learning of all languages, in order to profit from their potential for synergy” (Candelier et al., 2012, p. 8) or that takes the learner’s perspective and leverages actual uses of their individual language system (García & Wei, 2014). At the heart of approaches that look at learners as bilinguals there is the notion that the linguistic repertoire of a person is individual, dynamic, malleable, evolving, and, above all, unitary. This repertoire can be described as “a single, inter-related repertoire” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4) or “one complex and dynamic linguistic system” (García & Kleyn, 2016, p. 25). Consequently, the Common European Framework describes the communicative competence, which an individual builds up through experience using the language in increasingly wider contexts, as competence “to which all knowledge and experience of language contribute and in which languages are interrelated and interact” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4). Such “plurilingual and pluricultural competence” “does not consist of the simple addition of monolingual competences” and is the result of individual biography, social trajectories, and life paths (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 2009, p. v). These conceptions of the linguistic behavior of bilingual individuals, of their linguistic repertoire and of their linguistic competence, invoke principles that inspire language teaching. The entire linguistic repertoire of the speakers (including regional varieties and registers) is included and contributes to the joint creation of meaning in a class group and in the communal construction of knowledge. The ways in which bilingual speakers draw on their language resources, alternating between languages (referred to by many as code switching), and the activity of mediation that a speaker carries out when “act(ing) as an intermediary between interlocutors who are unable to understand each other” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 87), come to the fore. Recently, on the assumption that the competence of heritage language speakers can differ from that of monolingual speakers of the same language in terms of lexicon, morphosyntax, phonology, and other linguistic features, studies endorse the view that these differences mean that instruction must be different (Rothman, Tsimpli, & Pascual y Cabo, 2016). The initial step in providing heritage language support is to focus on expanding oral proficiency in the heritage language, particularly for those who are not first-generation adult immigrants, and then on developing literacy in that language alongside the majority language. Instruction also needs to be specialized to reflect the diverse language, cultural, and life experience profiles of individuals in a given classroom. Bayram, Prada, Pascual y Cabo, and Rothman 429

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

(2018) describe how to make the link between traditional and formal approaches to heritage language support and provide engaging, effective heritage language pedagogy, where it is crucial to understand the mental reality of heritage speakers’ linguistic systems and the social reality of their life experiences. Understanding ways to implement these approaches is critical for the creation of teaching materials, assessment tools, and placement procedures. Initiatives underway in heritage language communities provide examples of approaches that can be taken (e.g., in the United States in the Elm Magazine’s theme issue on Adult Education and Cultural Heritage, 2018). In situations where use of the heritage language is not possible, teachers and tutors can support the adults in their classes by encouraging them, in their families and communities, to use the heritage language in various ways outside of class.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Challenges for Teachers in Using Learners’ Heritage Languages in Instruction As strong as the research and calls for changes in attitudes and approaches are, the shift from an assimilationist majority language focus to facilitate integration to a dynamic multi-language focus presents challenges for teachers, tutors, and programs overall. Pedagogical practices inspired by instructional approaches that seek to enhance the linguistic repertoire of learners are still experimental and not widespread (Coste, 2013; Garcia & Kleyn, 2016). This difficulty is particularly acute in adult education, due to the social, legal, and personal pressures to which immigrant adults are subjected when facing the challenge of learning the language of their new country. Research thus far has focused on teachers’ representations of bilingualism and their attitudes toward heritage languages and has documented these primarily in the context of primary and secondary school education. Findings show a persistent indifference to students’ bilingualism and adherence to a monolingual view of teaching. As a consequence, there is a need for information and training, although one can see the start of a shift in attitudes (Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Young, 2014). When it comes to helping teachers know how to use the online Hub of resources in immigrants’ heritage languages, described below, the need for guidance, information, and materials was clear in focus group discussions conducted in Italy in 2018-2019 with teachers and tutors working with adult migrants with limited or no literacy, which aimed at assessing actual and possible uses of the Language Hub (Minuz, in press). While there was consensus among the participants on the importance of maintaining heritage languages and recognizing learners’ linguistic repertoires as an essential part of their personal identities, diverging views emerged as to whether and to what extent it is appropriate and effective to use those languages in Italian language courses. The peer-to-peer discussions in the focus groups resulted in a more favorable vision of the use of heritage languages in language teaching. The teachers who had already adopted plurilingual teaching approaches highlighted positive results in terms of learners’ selfconfidence and improved language and literacy learning, including enhanced metalinguistic awareness. However, the doubts which some teachers expressed, and the difficulties which they mentioned, serve to underscore the challenges that plurilingual approaches present. One concern raised focused on how the plurality of languages in often diverse classes could be dealt with and whether instruction which allows the use of learners’ heritage languages fosters communicative competence and metalinguistic awareness, when learners have limited contact with the majority language of the host country. Another concern was how to work with learners with limited literacy who have a complex and stratified linguistic repertoire, which may include a European language as the language of schooling in their country (e.g., French in Mali). Participants also mentioned the challenge of finding good materials in learners’ heritage languages, especially for some of the languages that the learners in 430

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

their classes speak. In the next two sections we address the issue of the need for materials in learners’ heritage languages and then discuss ways that these can be used in instruction (Minuz, in press).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Need for Reading Materials in Learners’ Heritage Languages Materials in learners’ heritage languages can be difficult to find. Valdés, Fishman, Chávez, and Pérez (2006) described a shortage in certain heritage languages in 2006, and this is still the case (Peyton, Haznedar, & Young-Scholten, 2017). The Heritage Language Resource Hub (Peyton, Haznedar, & Young-Scholten, 2017; https://www.leslla.org/resources-in-mother-tongues) is one tool designed to make these materials available. The Hub provides links to online resources and will continue to be built as we become aware of more materials. It currently includes links to large collections of books in many languages -- the Global Book Alliance (https://www.globalbookalliance.org), the Bloom Book Library (https://bloomlibrary. org/browse), and All Children Reading (https://allchildrenreading.org); materials in the languages spoken in a specific country, such as African Storybook (https://africanstorybook.org); as well as ongoing projects that are underway, whose materials are or can be translated into immigrants’ languages, such as Digital Literacy Instructor (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/DigitalLiteracy/instructorresources.aspx), Simply Cracking Good Stories (http://simplystories.org), and an initiative that involves development of bilingual Karen-English and Nepali-English picture books (Yaffe, 2017). Given the use of English as a lingua franca around the world, most of these websites are in English. However, the long-term goal is to include websites which are not in English because some users may not have sufficient English skills to navigate the website. So far, the Hub includes portals in German and Italian, for example, https://www. bilingual-picturebooks.org/de/home, and http://www.natiperleggere.it/mamma-lingua-italiano.html. The vision for the Hub is threefold. With teachers having access to these materials and the ability to make them available to adult immigrants in their classes, immigrants themselves will be able to develop literacy in their heritage language to support the development of literacy in the majority language. Second, younger members of the family and community, who are already growing up bilingual in the heritage and majority languages, will have the chance to become biliterate in these languages. Third, the heritage language will be maintained at the community level and across generations, thus guaranteeing its value and its status. The links to resource collections in hundreds of heritage languages are complemented by practitioner guidelines for teachers, tutors, and administrators who work in both formal and informal settings. To ensure that the guidelines are accessible to and meet the needs of these practitioners, the focus group discussions described above included discussion of possible uses of materials in their students’ heritage languages and of the Online Resource Hub. The guidelines contain recommendations on how to use the Hub and suggestions for possible uses in different educational contexts, which are described in the next section.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS How can teachers and tutors include in their instruction the heritage languages of adult immigrants with no or limited education and literacy, and how can they use the resources that can be found in the Online Heritage Language Resource Hub? Some of the following applications were piloted in “Language Support for Adult Refugees,” a set of teaching resources made available in seven languages by the Council 431

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

of Europe to volunteers and teachers working with refugees (Council of Europe, 2017b). Others were suggested by the participants in the focus groups in Italy described above (Minuz, in press). The classroom applications presented below address in turn four of the instructional objectives that plurilingual approaches suggest.

Raising Self-Awareness of the Language Learner as a Multilingual Individual Making the language repertoire of adult immigrants visible has proved to be a powerful means of empowerment, especially, but not exclusively, in the case of learners with limited education or in a situation of personal and social vulnerability, such as that of refugees. The focus shifts from the languages that the learners do not know to their “linguistic capital,” the languages that they do know (Council of Europe, 2017b). An effective tool is the “Plurilingual Language Portrait” (based on Krumm & Jenkins, 2001, downloadable from https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/list-of-all-tools). The teacher/facilitator presents the silhouettes (Figure 1) and asks the students to draw a blank silhouette, decide where to locate in the body all the languages that they speak (including the dialects and the languages that they barely know), and paint the different parts of the body in different colors (Figure 2). Then the students discuss, in pairs or small groups, what languages they speak, how they learned them, with whom they speak each language, if they mix languages, and why they chose the color and the body part that they did. They can use the language that they prefer, then present the results of their discussion to the whole group in the target language (the majority language of the host country) or in a bridge language known by all participants (for example, English or French in an Italian refugee center). The activity brings out emotions and biographical experiences linked to the languages that learners speak. Moreover, it fosters socialization among students through simple narratives and allows them to use some basic structures of the target language.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Linguistic portrait – Silhouettes. From Council of Europe, 2017b

432

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Figure 2. Drawing linguistic portraits in an Italian refugee reception center. From Rocca, 2017

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Discovering the Pleasure of Reading The relevance of extensive, free voluntary reading in first and second language acquisition and in heritage language maintenance and literacy development has been pointed out by research (see Krashen, 2011, for a review). In particular, pleasure reading of books which are suitable for adults with limited literacy in terms of discourse and linguistic features is recommended, even if the availability of such books is reduced (Young-Scholten & Maguire, 2009). The graded easy books written for children that are accessible in the Heritage Language Hub can be used to foster adults’ literacy by involving adults as parents. For example, the teachers of Italian language courses for migrant women (Minuz, in press), of whom many had limited schooling, jointly organized a multilingual children’s book exhibition in the school facility as an awareness-raising initiative. Teachers’ objectives were to (a) inform immigrant women about the availability of children’s books in their languages to support the maintenance of their mother tongues; (b) promote family literacy and children’s early access to reading; and (c) enhance Italian language learning by creating an informal learning context. The teachers of the Italian courses, whom Minuz (in press) interviewed, made contact with the project Mamma Lingua (http://www.natiperleggere.it/mamma-lingua-italiano.html) via a multilingual website which is part of the national program Nati per Leggere ’Born to read’, (http://www.natiperleggere.it/). The project aims to provide opportunities to read for children up to the age of six. Books in different languages were brought to the school for students to explore. The students commented on the stories, told each other stories, and informally translated the books from the original language into Italian under the guidance of teachers and other students. The students found the task of mediating between their languages and Italian to be challenging but useful because it caused them to focus on the languages themselves.

433

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Using Languages to Build Knowledge Literacy includes the ability to access information, both print and digital (UNESCO, 2017). In formal educational settings, heritage languages can be a resource in retrieving, organizing, and interpreting information, as exemplified by the following activity reported during the focus group discussions. The students, both Italians and immigrants, in an adult education class carried out a geography project as part of the exam to complete their compulsory schooling. Under the guidance of their teacher, they prepared a dossier with profiles of the students’ seven countries of origin (including Italy) and a world map. Each student prepared a chapter. For the languages used, the teacher followed the suggestion from translanguaging pedagogy, as first proposed by Cen Williams (Garcia & Wei, 2014): the input of the tasks is in different languages, the output is in the school language. During the planning phase, students agreed on the main points to be addressed, using Italian. The teacher asked them to look for information in Italian, their heritage language, and any other languages that they could use (input), but to write the chapter in Italian as their individual contributions to the dossier (output). The class edited the dossier and copied short summaries of the country profiles on the world map, which was drawn by the students themselves and remained in the school as material for other classes. Summaries were written in Italian, but the teacher planned to improve the activity in the future by asking students to write them also in their heritage language or in one of the European languages offered by the national curriculum. Students acquired skills in searching for information and knowledge of disciplinary contents, regardless of the language in which the contents were conveyed. The Heritage Language Hub offered easily accessible sources, including short fictional narrations to add to the country portraits.

Discovering the Complexities of Languages (Metalinguistic Awareness)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Multilingual approaches give a central role to reflexivity, which can be defined as “the capacity and indeed the tendency of verbal interaction to presuppose, structure, represent, and characterize its own nature and functioning”(Lucy, 1999, p. 212). Guided reflective activities relating to the target language prompt metalinguistic awareness of grammatical, sociocultural, and pragmatic (including the awareness of the varieties of genres) features (Beacco et al., 2016). In multilingual classes, all students’ languages can be the object of reflection and, therefore, a collective resource for learning (Pugliese & Malavolta, 2017). Reflective activities foster the “cultural decentering” needed to get in touch with other languages and cultures (Beacco et al, 2016). Literary texts, which offer valuable authentic material, cultural enrichment, language enrichment, and personal involvement (Collie & Slater, 1987), are particularly suitable for both intercultural and metalinguistic reflection (Amer, 2012; Paran, 2008; Widdowson, 1997).

434

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Teaching Tip Alessandro is a full-time teacher in a public center for adult education in Italy. In classes for the completion of compulsory schooling, which include Italian and immigrant adults, he reads bilingual novels with parallel versions in Italian and the students’ languages as part of the curricular lessons. He started this practice with a class of three Italians with limited schooling (up to five years), who usually spoke a Sicilian dialect; two Albanians with an excellent command of Italian; and twelve Arabic speakers with diverse schooling backgrounds. Some of them had limited knowledge of Arabic script but had acquired basic print literacy skills in Italian by attending language and literacy courses. Alessandro proposed that the students read the biography of a young Moroccan immigrant who started his life in Italy as a factory worker and became a stage actor (Bekkar Ahmed, 2005, I muri di Casablanca. Roma: Sinnos Editrice). Alessandro’s objectives were to 1. introduce students to narrative texts, 2. strengthen students’ reading comprehension, 3. enhance their language awareness, 4. help them notice language features by comparing languages, and 5. support the bi-literacy of the students. Chapters of the book were read throughout the school year. The lesson was organized in three phases: text reading, language observation, discussion of the text. 1. Text reading As a first approach to the text, Alessandro read a passage aloud in Italian, while students followed in the book, to enhance global comprehension of the story. The Arabic-speaking students with the highest literacy in L1 read the same passage aloud in Arabic for the other Arabic-speaking students with lower literacy in their heritage language, and they followed the Arabic. Alessandro checked for text comprehension of the text with some usual instructional techniques (guided re-narration of the story, open oral questions). 2. Language observation This section of the lesson focused on linguistic structures in the Italian text, specifically the past tenses and the perfective and imperfective aspects of the verbs. The class together discussed use of past tense in the chapter, written texts and some examples. In groups, students observed the instances of past tense use, to discover the rule. The Italian-speaking students also observed uses of perfective and imperfective past, and thought about a rule for their use, based on the text and their own knowledge as speakers. The Arabic-speaking students worked out the forms and uses of the Italian past tense by comparing the two versions to detect similarities and differences. Groups reported to the class and worked out a rule of use of the perfective and imperfective past, with the guidance of the teacher. Arabic students explained to the Italian co-learners how the Arabic language marks aspect and tense. 3. Discussion of the text The comparison between the Italian and Arabic versions prompted a discussion about translating literature and reading novels. Alessandro highlighted as positive results of this practice that both Italian-speaking and students speaking other languages acquire stronger language awareness and deeper comprehension of the grammatical, lexical, and rhetorical features of a text – the notion of textuality. Students evaluated the practice very positively. Through the Language Hub, Alessandro found more books translated in more languages spoken by students in the Bloom Book Library, and he is now reading a bilingual novel in Italian and Somali with a different class of Italian speakers and Somali speakers.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Social trends, economic demands, and the need for integration into the life of a new country have an enormous impact on adult immigrants who arrive and will live in that country, and this has with good reasons been the primary focus of language and literacy education for these adult learners. However, we have overlooked an important portion of these learners’ lives: their proficiency in the language of their country of origin; their ability to use it, become literate in it, and support younger members of the community in fully learning it. It is through these activities that learners’ heritage languages gain in status and come to be valued for that generation and across generations. Teachers and tutors are an important force in the ultimate status in the diaspora of the heritage languages spoken by first-generation immigrant adults with little or no formal schooling. We are witnessing a shift among those working with these adult immigrants, from the long-dominant sole focus on learning the majority language of the new country for cultural, social, educational, and economic integration to a recognition of the value of their heritage languages and an active willingness to use these languages with the learners with whom they work. This shift depends on practitioners having concrete tools for

435

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

plurilingual teaching. While there are numerous challenges associated with this new way of thinking, meeting these challenges has exciting implications for adult education programs. Teachers and tutors need high-quality guidance and support – to use materials in learners’ languages to build bi/multilingual language and literacy skills and help adult learners use them in their own lives, with their families, and in their communities. The Heritage Language Resource Hub is one means of connecting practitioners to materials, and its use can also be a catalyst for development of much-needed additional materials. As practitioners use the materials available and share their experiences with others, the adult immigrants whom we work with, as well as future generations, will reap the many benefits of bi- and multilingualism. Future efforts might include continuing to develop and make available reading materials in many different languages and at many different reading levels and providing instructional ideas and strategies for teachers and tutors to use in the languages that learners speak, as described in the examples above. Research can document, at an international level, the ways that these materials are used, outcomes of their use, and additional materials that are needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We are grateful to Ian Cheffy (Literacy and Education Consultant, SIL International) and Katharine Miles (Newcastle University, UK) for their collaboration in development of the Online Heritage Language Resource Hub and collection of resources. Discussion Questions 1. What languages do the learners in your classes speak, and what materials and instructional strategies do you use to value, sustain, and develop their use of those languages? 2. What materials do you need in learners’ languages in order to be able to support them? 3. How might you use the Heritage Language Resource Hub to support and promote learners’ literacy development in their languages?

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Abbott, M., Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., Fenstermacher, H., Fischer, D., Rivers, W. P., . . . Wiley, T. (2014). The language enterprise: Languages for all? Retrieved from https://www.americancouncils.org/ sites/default/files/LFA2013_FinalReport.pdf Aberdeen, T. (2016). Understanding community heritage language schools in Alberta. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Canada. Amer, A. (2012). Using literature in reading English as second/foreign language. ERIC Collection (ED528593). Auernheimer, G. (2006). The German education system: Dysfunctional for an immigration society. European Education, 37(4), 75–89. doi:10.2753/EUE1056-4934370406 August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

436

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on developing literacy in secondlanguage learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(3), 341–348. doi:10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745 Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ball, J. (2014, February 21). Children learn better in their mother tongue: Advancing research on mother tongue-based multilingual education. Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/childrenlearn-better-their-mother-tongue Bamgbose, A. (2014). The language factor in development goals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(7), 646–657. doi:10.1080/01434632.2014.908888 Bangkok, U. N. E. S. C. O. (2008). Improving the quality of mother tongue-based literacy and learning: Case studies from Asia, Africa, and South America, Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from https://www. afrikaansetaalraad.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Inproving-the-quality-of-Mother-Tongue-basedLiteracy-and-Learning.pdf Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 36–54. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000339 Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2011.01707.x PMID:22313034 Bayram, F., Prada, J., Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2018). Why should formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition be linked to heritage language pedagogies? In P. P. Trifonas, & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 187–206). Norwell, MA: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44694-3_48 Beacco, J. C. (2005). Languages and language repertoires: Plurilingualism as a way of life in Europe. Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/languages-and-language-repertoires-plurilingualismas-a-way-of-life-in/16802fc1ba

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2016). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/t/DG4/linguistic/Source/Source2010_ForumGeneva/GuideEPI2010_EN.pdf Beacco, J.-C., Little, D., & Hedges, C. (2014). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Guide to policy development and implementation. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605963 Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210–223. doi:10.2167/ beb441.0

437

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Bialystok, E. (2015). Bilingualism and the development of executive function: The role of attention. Child Development Perspectives, 9(2), 117–121. doi:10.1111/cdep.12116 PMID:26019718 Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. American Psychological Association, 143(3), 233–262. Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sorting task. Developmental Science, 7(3), 325–339. doi:10.1111/j.14677687.2004.00351.x PMID:15595373 Bigelow, M. (2009). Social and cultural capital at school: The case of a Somali teenage girl. In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Research, policy, and practice: Proceedings of the second annual forum (pp. 7 ̶ 22). Richmond, VA: The Literacy Institute, Virginia Commonwealth University. Bigelow, M., & Schwarz, R. L. (2010). Adult English language learners with limited literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000109 Bigot, V., Bretegnier, A., & Vasseur, M. (Eds.). (2014). Vers le plurilinguisme? Vingt ans après. Paris, France: Editions des archives contemporaines. Burtoff, M. (1985). The Haitian Creole literacy education study. New York, NY: Ford Foundation. Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lőrincz, I., Meiẞner, F.-J., Nougerol, A., & Schröder-Sura, A. (2012). FREPA. A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures competences and resources. Retrieved from https://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/ documents/ECML-resources/CARAP-EN.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-120658-443 Candelier, M., de Pietro, J.-F., Facciol, R., Lőrincz, I., & Pascul, X. (2012). La CARAP - Une introduction à l’usage. Retrieved from https://carap.ecml.at/Components/tabid/2668/language/en-GB/Default.aspx Carder, M. (2013). English language teaching in International school: The change in students’ language from ‘English only’ to ‘linguistically diverse’. In R. Pearce (Ed.), International education and school: Moving beyond the first 40 years (pp. 85 ̶ 105). London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Carlo, M. S., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. E. (1996). A longitudinal investigation on the literacy development of Spanish-, Korean-, and Cambodian-speaking adults learning to read English as a second language (Unpublished manuscript). Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2000). Official Journal of the European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

438

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Collier, V., & Thomas, W. P. (2007). Predicting second language academic success in English using the prism model. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language education (pp. 333–348). Norwell, MA: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_24 Coste, D. (2013). Le(s) plurilinguisme(s) entre projet de diversification scolaire des langues et objets de discours dans le champ sociolinguistique et didactique [Plurilingualism(s) between a project for the linguistic diversification of languages and objects of discourse in the sociolinguistic and didactic field]. In V. Bigot, A. Bretegnier, & M. Vasseur (Eds.), Vers le plurilinguisme? Vingt ans après [Towards plurilingualism? Twenty years later] (pp. 9–17). Paris, France: Editions des archives contemporaines. Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (1997). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Strasbourg, France: Conseil de l’Europe. Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence. With a foreword and complementary bibliography. Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2017a). Linguistic integration of adult migrants. Retrieved from https://www.coe. int/en/web/lang-migrants/guiding-principles Council of Europe. (2017b). Language support for adult refugees: A Council of Europe toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees Council of the European Union. (2004). Immigrant integration policy in the European Union: Press release. Retrieved from www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222 Cummins, J. (1992). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(3), 281–286. doi:10.1080/0022027920240306

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cummins, J. (2000a). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596773 Cummins, J. (2000b). Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to critiques of the conversational /academic language distinction. In J. Cenoz, & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 54 ̶ 83). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585–592. Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada’s linguistic resources. Montreal, Canada: Our Selves Education Foundation.

439

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and practice. London, UK: Longman. Damari, R. R., Rivers, W. P., Brecht, R. D., Gardner, P., Pulupa, C., & Robinson, J. (2017). The demand for multilingual human capital in the U.S. labor market. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1), 13–37. doi:10.1111/flan.12241 Dewaele, J., & Wei, L. (2012). Multilingualism, empathy, and multicompetence. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 352–366. doi:10.1080/14790718.2012.714380 Drinkwater, S., Eade, J., & Garapich, M. (2009). Poles apart? EU enlargement and the labour market outcomes of immigrants in the United Kingdom. International Migration (Geneva, Switzerland), 47(1), 161–190. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2008.00500.x Duff, P. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students in mainstream courses. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne de Langue Vivantes, 58(1), 103–132. Elm Magazine. (2018). Theme issue: Adult education and cultural heritage. Retrieved from https://www. elmmagazine.eu/articles/theme-issue/adult-education-and-cultural-heritage European Commission. (2005). A new framework strategy for multilingualism. Commission of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM: 2005:0596:FIN:EN:PDF Eurostat. (2019). Migration and migrant population statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/1275.pdf Extramina, C., Pulinx, R., & Van Avermaet, P. (2014). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Policy and practice. Final report on the 3rd Council of Europe survey. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Fishman, J. A. (2004). Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift. In T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 406–436). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2017). Together in the EU: Promoting the participation of migrants and their descendants. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-together-in-the-eu_en.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Basil/ Blackwell. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315695242 García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. London, UK: Springer. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

440

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Germany policy brief. (2016). Migration: Integrating refugees and other migrants into education and training. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd. org/germany/germany-integrating-refugees-and-other-migrants-into-education-and-training.pdf Gillespie, M. K. (1994). Rationales for adult native language literacy and directions for research (NCAL Technical Report TR94-03). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. doi:10.1017/S1366728998000133 Hanemann, U., & McKay, V. (2019). Learning in the mother tongue: Examining the learning outcomes of the South African Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign. International Review of Education, 65(3), 351–387. doi:10.100711159-019-09782-5 Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Sulkunen, S., Suni, M., & Vettenranta, J. (2014). Avaimet osaamiseen ja tulevaisuuteen. Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisesta ja siihen liittyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012-tutkimuksessa [Keys to competence and a future. A Report on PISA 2012 results and related underlying factors for students with an immigrant background]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Haznedar, B. (2020). Bilingualism and multilingualism. In J. K. Peyton, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Teaching adults with limited literacy: Theory, research, and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Haznedar, B., Peyton, J. K., & Young-Scholten, M. (2018). Teaching adult migrants: A focus on the languages they speak. Critical Multilingualism Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 155–183. Hornberger, N. (2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2&3), 155–171. doi:10.1080/13670050408667806 Ingersoll, C. (2001). Meeting the language needs of low-literacy adult immigrants in Washington, DC and suburban northern Virginia (Report No. FL 801452; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 456 676).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kagan, O. E., Carreira, M., & Chik, C. H. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315727974 Kenner, C. (2004). Living in simultaneous worlds: Difference and integration in bilingual script-learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 43–61. doi:10.1080/13670050408667800 Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Krumm, H. J., & Jenkins, E. M. (Eds.). (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehrsprachigkeit [Children and their languages–lively multilingualism]. Vienna, Austria: Eviva.

441

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Lambelet, A., Berthele, R., Desgrippes, M., Pestana, C., & Vanhove, J. (2018). Testing interdependence in Portuguese heritage speakers in Switzerland: The HELASCOT project. In R. Berthele, & A. Lambelet (Eds.), Heritage and school language literacy development in migrant children (pp. 26–33). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It’s not my job”: K–12 teacher attitudes toward students’ heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453–477. doi:10.1080/15235882.2006.10162885 Leikin, M., Schwartz, M., & Share, D. L. (2010). General and specific benefits of bi-literate bilingualism: A Russian-Hebrew study of beginning literacy. Reading and Writing, 23(3-4), 269–272. doi:10.100711145-009-9210-x Lucy, J. A. (1999). Reflexivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1-2), 212–215. doi:10.1525/ jlin.1999.9.1-2.212 Lukes, M. (2011). “I understand English but can’t write it”: The power of native language for adult English learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(1), 19–38. doi:10.1080/19313152.2011.539488 Mallows, D. (Ed.). (2014). Language issues in migration and integration: Perspectives from teachers and learners. London, UK: The British Council. Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Cerebrum, 13. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583091 PMID:23447799 Migration Policy Institute. (2019a, April). It’s time: Beginning to shift the adult education instructional paradigm to value support for integration. Paper presented at the meeting of the Coalition of Adult Basic Education, New Orleans, LA. Migration Policy Institute. (2019b, June). Refugees and asylees in the United States. Washington, DC: Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states#Refugee_Arrivals_and_Countries_of_Origin Minuz, F. (2017, August). Changing routes, changing needs: Perspectives on migration and language teaching in Europe. Plenary address at the LESLLA 2017 Symposium. Portland, OR. Minuz, F. (in press). A heritage language hub: Connecting users to reading and teaching materials for LESLLA learners.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

National Skills Coalition. (2011). Training policy in brief. Workforce Investment Act, Title II. Washington, DC: Retrieved from https://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/resources/publications/file/NSC_TPIB_ WIA_TitleII.pdf Palmer, M. (2016). Are pride and vanity the fall of Britain? IPC mercator policy brief. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center-Sabancı University-Stiftung Mercator Initiative. Paran, A. (2008). The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An evidencebased survey. Language Teaching, 41(4), 465–496. doi:10.1017/S026144480800520X Pearson, B. (1998). Assessing lexical development in bilingual babies and toddlers. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2(3), 347–372. doi:10.1177/136700699800200305

442

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Pew Research Center. (2019, October 7). Key facts about refugees to the U.S. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/07/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/ Peyton, J. K. (2012). Understanding adult learners as multilingual/multicultural individuals: Practical and research implications. In M. Bigelow, & P. Vinogradov (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA (Low literate second language and literacy acquisition) symposium (pp. 135 ̶ 156). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Peyton, J. K. (2013, August). Recognizing, valuing, and building on heritage cultures and languages in English language programs. Bilingual Basics: Newsletter of the Bilingual Education Interest Section and Teachers of English to Deaf Students. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolbeis/issues/2013-08-28/2.html Peyton, J. K., Haznedar, B., & Young-Scholten, M. (2017). Teaching refugee and immigrant adults: A focus on the languages they speak. Presentation at the United Nations Symposium on Language, the Sustainable Development Goals, and Vulnerable Populations. New York City, NY. Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Charting a new course: Heritage language education in the United States. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 3 ̶ 26). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems & Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Peyton, J. K., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (in press). Understanding adults learning to read for the first time in a new language: Multiple perspectives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368–395. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x Pugliese, R., & Malavolta, S. (2017). La pluralità linguistica in classe come risorsa per le attività riflessive [Linguistic plurality in the classroom as a resource for reflective activities]. In M. Vedovelli (Ed.), L’italiano dei nuovi italiani [The Italian of the New Italians] (pp. 269–289). Roma, Italy: Aracne. Robson, B. (1982). Hmong literacy, formal education, and their effects on performance in an ESL class. In B. T. Downing, & D. P. Olney (Eds.), The Hmong in the west: Observations and reports (pp. 201–225). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Rocca, L. (2017). Language support for adult refugees: A council of Europe toolkit. Report on piloting carried out in Italy from February to April 2017. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/language-supportfor-adult-refugees-a-council-of-europe-toolkit-report/168073cf1d Rothman, J., Tsimpli, I., & Pascual y Cabo, D. (2016). Formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition: Bridges for pedagogically oriented research. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075ibil.49.02rot Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34.

443

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Schwartz, M., Share, D. L., Leikin, M., & Kozminsky, E. (2007). On the benefits of bi-literacy: Just a head start in reading or specific orthographic insights? Reading and Writing, 21(9), 905–927. doi:10.100711145-007-9097-3 Seals, C. A., & Peyton, J. K. (2017). Heritage language education: Valuing the languages, literacies, and cultural competencies of immigrant youth. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(1), 87–101. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2016.1168690 Shin, S. J. (2013). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Simpson, J. (2017). Translanguaging, superdiversity, and ESOL [TLang e-seminar]. Retrieved from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tlang/index.aspx]. The Summary (Indianapolis, Ind.), 2017. Simpson, J., & Whiteside, A. (Eds.). (2015). Adult language education and migration. Challenging agendas in policy and practice. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315718361 Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Treaty on the European Union (Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). (2008). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT U. S. Department of State. (2019, May 31). Refugee admissions report. Bureau of Populations, Refugees, and Migration. Retrieved from https://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals U.N. Refugee Agency. (2019, June 19). Worldwide displacement tops 70 million, UN Refugee Chief urges greater solidarity in response. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/6/5d03b22b4/ worldwide-displacement-tops-70-million-un-refugee-chief-urges-greater-solidarity.html UNESCO. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000002897 UNESCO. (2003). Education in a multilingual world. UNESCO Education Position Paper 2003, Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://resources.wycliffe.net/pdf/Education%20in%20a%20multilingual%20world.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

UNESCO. (2017). Reading the past, writing the future. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247563 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals Valdés, G., Fishman, J. A., Chávez, R., & Pérez, W. (2006). Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Vukovic, R. (2019, June 4). Valuing multilingual students’ skills. Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/valuing-multilingual-students-skills

444

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Wagner, D., & Venezky, R. L. (1999). Adult literacy: The next generation. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 21–29. doi:10.3102/0013189X028001021 Widdowson, H. (1977). Stylistics and the teaching of literature. London, UK: Longman. Wiley, T. C., Peyton, J. K., Christian, D., Moore, S. C. K., & Liu, N. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of heritage, community and Native American languages in the United States: Research, educational practice and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203122419 Yaffe, D. (2017, April 11). Breaking school language barriers: Teaching K-12 students content in native language shows promise, though translations beyond Spanish can be hard to find. District Administration. Retrieved from https://www.districtadministration.com/article/breaking-school-language-barriers Young, A. S. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ language ideologies: Attitudes, beliefs, and practiced language policies in schools in Alsace, France. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 157–171. doi:10.1080/09658416 .2013.863902 Young-Scholten, M., & Maguire, M. D. (2009). Stories for extensive reading for LESLLA. In J. Kurvers, & I. van de Craats (Eds.), Low educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Research, policy, and practice. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference (pp. 145–157). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Zafeirakou, A. (2015). The power of mother tongue and multilingual education: Students who learn to read in their mother tongue transfer these skills to a second language. Washington, DC: Global Partnership for Education; Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/power-mother-tongue-andmultilingual-education

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Bilingualism: The ability to understand and speak more than one language (also referred to as multilingualism). Biliteracy: The ability to read and write in more than one language (also referred to as multiliteracy). Focus Group Discussions: Discussions among education practitioners led by a moderator/researcher and focused on specific topics, for the purpose of determining their knowledge, attitudes, and needs. Heritage Language Maintenance: Continuing to use, and possibly develop and become literate in the language(s) spoken in one’s home or community – their first language (L1)/home language/native language/language of origin. Instructional Strategies: Specific strategies that teachers use to promote student engagement and learning. Limited Literacy: Limited ability to read and write due to limited access to schooling; it can include limited understanding of the use of paper, pencil, pen, or computer; of the left-to-right or right-to-left direction of print; and of the ways that sounds and symbols interact to represent meaning. Online Resource Hub: Collection of reading resources available through links. Plurilingual Instructional Approaches: Using the language of the country as well as the languages that students know in instruction.

445

 Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

Practitioner Guidelines: Instructions for teachers, tutors, and administrators on using the Online Heritage Language Resource Hub in different instructional contexts and with students at different level. Reading Materials: Stories and non-fiction works that students can read in class, alone, and with family and community members. Second Language/L2: Any language learned after the first or native language, L1. For the learners described in this chapter, this could mean multiple languages.

ENDNOTE

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

446

The European Union adopts the term multilingualism. The Council of Europe distinguishes between multilingualism and plurilingualism. Multilingualism refers to the co-existence of many languages in a territory, while plurilingualism refers to the individuals’ ability to use more than one language. In this chapter we use the term multilingualism in general, and plurilingualism when referring explicitly to educational policy statements, research papers, and pedagogical guidelines of the Council of Europe.

Using Materials in Refugee and Immigrant Adults’ Heritage Languages in Instruction

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Peyton, J. K., & Young-Scholten, M. (in press). Understanding adults learning to read for the first time in a new language: Multiple perspectives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Chapters are written by authors who work in the field of education for immigrant adults with limited education and literacy and who have offered online modules for practitioners on the topics covered in the volume -- including promoting bilingualism and biliteracy of adult learners and their children, learning to read, learning of morphosyntax, and vocabulary learning. 2. Minuz, F. (in press). A heritage language hub: Connecting users to reading and teaching materials for LESLLA learners. Needs analysis report. Provides specific guidelines, and instructional strategies, for adult educators using the Hub of Online Resources with learners in their classes; as well as guidance for parents using these resources with their children. 3. Haznedar, B. (2020). Bilingualism and multilingualism. In J. K. Peyton & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Teaching adults with limited literacy: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 105-124). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Describes the bilingual and multilingual skills that adults bring to instructional contexts and the ways that these skills can help them, and their children, learn and progress in their new country. 4. Young-Scholten, M., Peyton, J. K., Sosinski, M., & Manjón Cabeza, A. (2015). LESLLA teachers’ views of the knowledge and skills they need: An international study. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & R. van Hout (Eds.), Adult literacy, second language, and cognition (pp. 165–185). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Centre for Language Studies. Available at http://www.leslla.org/files/proceedings_2014/EU_Speak_TeachersViews.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter describes surveys and interviews with practitioners working with adult immigrants with limited language and literacy in their heritage language and their views on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that they have and need to develop in professional development opportunities.

447

448

Chapter 21

A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women:

The Case of Syrians in Turkey Aydın Yücesan Durgunoğlu University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA Maissam Nimer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9594-3463 Sabancı University, Turkey

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT As the number of displaced people who need to learn the oral and written language(s) of their host communities increases, educators are faced with serious challenges. This chapter discusses some of these issues and ways to improve the language education of refugees, using as an example the case of Syrian women in Turkey with limited formal education. Good practices both at the program level and within particular instructional settings are outlined. At the program level, the authors suggest adopting a holistic approach; addressing challenges such as trauma, poverty, and unwelcoming social environment; ofering lifelong education in local centers; and training teachers. Within the educational settings, teachers should get to know the learners in all their diversity; build on existing strengths; ofer systematic, integrated instruction grounded in real-world needs and uses of language; consider both cognitive and afective dimensions of literacy; use technology; and facilitate language development through social interactions.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch021

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Across the globe, there are almost 70 million forcibly displaced people, as a result of persecution, conflict and violence. The United Nations (UN) Refugee Agency (2017) reports that historically, it is the highest level of displacement on record. This global refugee crisis also has a serious educational dimension because in the majority of the cases, the displaced individuals move to a new setting and have to learn the language and the culture of their new home and develop literacy and numeracy skills in an unfamiliar language. There are several obvious reasons why learning the host community’s language is important for refugees. Job opportunities (even among the unskilled) are highly related to learning the language, as it enables communicating with colleagues and understanding the work duties and the cultural practices of the host society. In addition, language facilitates social contact, building friendships, and effectively handling daily routines like shopping or going to the doctor (Al Ajlan, 2019; Beiser & Hou, 2000; Tran, 2000). This chapter tries to shed light on this essential issue of language that highly influences the current and future lives of thousands of refugees. Despite the importance of language-learning for all refugees, existing policies for language education that address the diversity within the refugee population are very limited, as policy makers often perceive refugees as a homogeneous group (Al Ajlan, 2019). There has been much research regarding language education, mostly carried out among school students (Cirocki & Farrelly, 2019; Shapiro, Farrelly, & Curry, 2018) or looking at the intersections of language education and refugee resettlement and policies in general (Feuerherm & Ramanathan, 2016). Yet, some refugees may also have very low levels of literacy in their home language and thus may need to develop new language and literacy skills without a solid base in their home language (Malessa, 2018). Women are overrepresented in this category; hence the goal of this chapter is to focus on young refugee women with limited formal education, who are developing language and literacy skills in a new culture. We discuss factors that affect oral and written language development in this new environment and the educational implications. We use the term refugee to refer to people who have been forced to flee their homes because of war, violence, or persecution, regardless of their asylum status or legal classification. We use Turkey, where the population of Syrians did not receive the official status of refugee, but they are granted the status of Temporary Protection, as an example. Although our focus is on limited-literacy refugee women in general, we will discuss some research on immigrants as well because refugee literature on this particular refugee group is limited. In addition, we will provide specific examples from Syrian refugee women, especially in Turkey. According to the UN Refugee Agency (2017), over 6.3 million people have fled Syria since 2011, seeking safety mostly in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan. Currently Turkey is the top hosting country, with 4 million refugees, of which over 3.5 million are (registered) Syrians, but the actual numbers are likely to be higher. Contrast this figure with how many Syrian refugees have settled in Germany (500,000), Sweden (116,000) or the United States (13,000) and the scope of the challenge in Turkey becomes clear. Several studies show the difficulties the refugees face, for example, limited access to legal and educational systems (Hohberger, 2018; Watenpaugh, Fricke, & King, 2014), integration into the labor market (IYF, 2018), and access to healthcare services (Cloeters & Osseiran, 2019). More specifically, in Turkey, according to figures from 2018, around 48 percent of the Syrians in Turkey were unemployed (IYF, 2018), with the problems emerging already at the application stage, as application forms are available only in Turkish and English. Interviews conducted by the International Youth Foundation (IYF, 2018)

449

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

show that stakeholders, employers, and workers alike recognize that lack of language skills as the main barrier to employment for Syrians. Employers fear that Syrians without proficiency in Turkish will not be able to follow instructions and orders, while Syrians are also worried about not being able to express themselves when they have questions and complaints or to advocate for their rights in the workplace (Karakilic, Korukmez, & Soykan, 2019). All immigrants, regardless of their legal status, are likely to face difficulties in terms of economic integration but studies show that those with a better command of the host community’s language perform better economically. Those who lack language proficiency are pushed into a marginalized position in the labor market that already has high levels of unemployment (Karakilic et al., 2019). Access to health services is also hindered by the language barrier and the lack of professional translation services among refugees. The problems occur not only in the communication with the medical staff, but also in the health system bureaucracy, such as making appointments (Cloeters & Osseiran, 2019). Some interviews with women refugees in Turkey show that they prefer seeing Syrian doctors, but Syrian doctors are not able to serve in public health services, although some are working in private medical centers or clinics (Ozden & Ramadan, 2019). Language is also seen as one of the biggest obstacles for refugees’ ability to access higher education (Yavcan & El-Ghali, 2017). A total of 27,606 accessed higher education in the academic year 2018-2019, out of 443,244 Syrians between ages 18 and 24 (Yavcan & El-Ghali, 2017). In Turkey, Syrians face trouble navigating through a new academic system (Watenpaugh et al., 2014) as most of the academic programs at Turkish universities are in Turkish. Thus, without knowing the language, the Turkish university system remains largely inaccessible to refugees. Language is also a barrier to gain knowledge of and exercise one’s rights. The language barrier further makes it difficult to follow up with the ongoing changes of law and even to communicate with lawyers or organizations who provide legal support (Ozden & Ramadan, 2019). In short, becoming proficient in the language of the home country is crucial for the adaptation and resilience of refugees. Ability to speak the language of the country of settlement allows refugees to function well in their host country, to continue their education, to find employment, and to access health and legal services (Aydin & Kaya, 2019; Council of Europe, 2018b; Earnest, Mansi, Bayati, Earnest, & Thompson, 2015; Van Avermaet & Gysen, 2006; Weine et al., 2014). However, language is also an important factor at the most fundamental level, namely at protecting and improving the psychological well-being of the refugees. Recent studies show that psychological services which have the goal of reducing the effects of trauma (more below), can miss the mark if they do not include language and literacy instruction, and cultural sensitivities as part of the treatment (Mitschke, Praetorius, Kelly, Small & Kim, 2017). For women refugees, challenges are compounded by the sociocultural contexts and power relations, both in their home and host communities. A variety of structural barriers or systems of power (such as inequalities in families and communities) influence access to language education. These additional “gendered” barriers to accessing language and literacy classes include factors such as such conflicts with work hours, family and childcare responsibilities, or restrictions imposed by women’s families (Durgunoğlu, 2018; Hatoss, O’Neill, & Eacersall, 2012; Ozden & Ramadan, 2019). It has been well documented that granting women access to language and literacy programs is especially valuable. Across the globe, mothers’ education level (and the accompanying language skills and home literacy practices) are a strong predictor of children’s language and literacy skills (Mendive Lissi, Bakeman, & Reyes, 2017; Ozden & Ramadan, 2019; Short Eadie, Descallar, Comino & Kemp, 2017), and even of children’s literacy and numeracy achievement years later, during adolescence (Ahmed, Tang, Waters, & Davis-Kean, 2019). As they learn the language of their host community, women acquire social capital, 450

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

which they then can use to negotiate their place in the society and improve their standing as mothers, wives, and neighbors (Rottmann & Nimer, under review). For women, language learning is also a tool of empowerment (Ozden & Ramadan, 2019).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Developing Proficiency in a New Language Given the importance of oral and written language proficiency in the social integration and well-being of refugee women (and their children), it is important to identify teaching and learning approaches that are the most effective. Unfortunately, the literature specifically on the education of adult refugees and immigrants is relatively limited, though increasing. Existing research from the fields of second language acquisition, literacy development, adult literacy, and education can be used as a guide to identify promising approaches. We will also refer to the Council of Europe’s work on linguistic integration of adult immigrants (Council of Europe, 2018a) and their recent toolkit for individuals working with refugees (2018b) (see also Minuz, Haznedar, Peyton, & Young-Scholten in this volume). In the USA, the National Research Council provided a review of adult literacy research, policy, and instruction (National Research Council, 2012). The focus was on individuals 16 and older and not in formal education. The review included adult literacy development in both first and second languages (L1 and L2) and summarized the evidence for effective instructional practices (National Research Council, 2012). This review acknowledged that literacy is a multifaceted construct and includes much more than basic skills, such as letter and word recognition. The National Research Council (2012) defined literacy as the ability to read, write, and communicate using a symbol system and appropriate tools and technologies to meet the goals and demands of individuals and the society. Several points of this definition are noteworthy. There is definitely a symbol system that is learned and used, but the ultimate goal is communication, which involves processes such as understanding, analyzing, and criticizing, as well as expressing oneself in any modality (oral, written, or digital). This broader view of literacy also includes the need to be familiar with the new tools and technologies that are evolving (e.g., digital literacy). Finally, literacy can be seen as a moving target, with the demands placed on an individual constantly changing. For example, in Turkey, two decades ago, just knowing how to scribble a few letters was enough to count as a signature to perform some bureaucratic tasks. Nowadays, to accomplish the same tasks, one needs to get a password, access an electronic portal (e-devlet), and read and comprehend the given instructions on the screen. Of course, this new definition of literacy renders the static dichotomy of “literate versus illiterate” meaningless (Laloy & Marcelle, 2014), as the necessary literacy skills continuously evolve depending on the context. In other words, somebody who can decode words but has trouble comprehending an unfamiliar complex text is “literate” in the traditional sense of the term but is not actually able to perform the task at hand. The challenges of adult literacy development are compounded by another factor. Unlike the case of native speakers who are developing literacy skills in a language they already speak fluently, refugees (and immigrants) “have to learn to read in a language they have yet to master orally” (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003, p. 78). Hence, as they are developing oral and written language skills simultaneously, they cannot rely on existing oral language knowledge to bolster their written language comprehension. Other challenges, including heterogeneity issues and trauma and psychological problems that refugees face are examined in the sections that follow. 451

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Heterogeneity In any adult education program, including those for immigrants and refugees, a significant challenge is the diversity among the learners. One dimension to consider is the wide variety of educational levels and academic proficiencies among the participants. While some may have completed postgraduate degrees in their home countries, others, especially women, have limited or interrupted formal schooling. Individuals with low levels of formal education tend to have low levels of literacy in their home language (Council of Europe, 2018b). Even within the same neighborhoods and centers, we observed large variations in the profile of students, ranging from university graduates, doctors, and teachers to those with very low levels of literacy, who may not know how to hold a pencil (Durgunoglu & Nimer, fieldnotes). Other sources of diversity in refugee populations include dimensions such as age, gender, how well their basic needs are already met, familiarity with the host language, proficiency in different aspects of their home language(s), level of interest in learning the new language, time and resources available for learning, and the family and cultural challenges that limit their participation in educational programs. The level of education, and through it, the proficiency in the home language is one of the strongest predictors of successfully learning a second language (Elmeroth, 2003; National Research Council, 2012; Tarone & Bigelow, 2011). Individuals with higher levels of schooling and literacy in their home language(s) have already developed some foundational skills in their home language such as the interpretation of figures and pictures and linking oral or written input to its meaning. Those with limited schooling and literacy, in contrast, may not have had the opportunity to develop the prior subject knowledge, metacognitive skills, and learning strategies that non-refugee learners are assumed to have (Benseman, 2014; Windle & Miller, 2012). If the formal education of refugees has been disrupted because of war and displacement, some basics of literacy development may be weak in their home language, thus limiting what can be transferred from that first language to literacy development in the new language (Durgunoglu, 2017b; Gresswell & Simpson, 2012; Young-Scholten, 2013). Another concern for the educators is the impact of low literacy on learner motivation – the possibility of emotional barriers to participate in class such as feelings of inferiority, embarrassment, and self-doubt. Another source of heterogeneity is the level of similarity between the home language(s) and the host community’s language. For example, English and Spanish belong to the same language family and have many cognates. In addition, both languages use the Latin alphabet. In contrast, for Syrian refugees in Turkey, for example, there are significant dissimilarities between Arabic and Turkish in terms of the grammar, lexicon, and writing systems, which make literacy development more challenging.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Trauma and Psychological Problems Refugees have experienced war, conflict, death, forced displacement from their homes and familiar cultural settings and thus, compared to other immigrant groups, have a higher risk of psychiatric challenges, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Clayton, 2015; Çeri, Nasıroğlu, Ceri, & Çetin, 2018; Dybdahl, 2001). Trauma has three major consequences on the learning process. First, the deprivation of basic needs prior to and during the settlement in camps dramatically undermines the motivation of refugees to learn their host country’s language. Indeed, basic needs such as water, food, and health should be satisfied first in order to increase refugees’ motivation to learn a new language, because education can appear to be more of a luxury than necessity when their basic needs are not met, or trauma is not addressed. Second, symptoms of trauma such as memory loss and anxiety create social isolation for 452

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

refugees, and social interaction is known to be a very important tool in language learning. Refugees suffering from trauma, including PTSD, may find it difficult to interact with others because of the fact that they may not be used to the new culture, may feel lonely, nostalgic, and humiliated. These barriers directly impact refugees’ motivation and consequently their ability to learn a second language through social interaction. Finally, the most common symptoms of trauma and PTSD are lack of concentration, memory loss, anxiety, reluctance to participate verbally, depression, and dissociation. These symptoms naturally hinder the cognitive processes of language learning (Keyes & Kane, 2004). Therefore, refugees must be given the opportunity to deal with their traumatic past while initiating the acquisition of a new language through a more relevant language learning process (Dooley & Thangaperumal, 2011; Hope, 2011). For example, Montero (2018) suggests adopting a storytelling approach as a venue for healing and acknowledging trauma when working with students who may have experienced trauma (see also Minuz, Haznedar, Peyton, & Young-Scholten in this volume). Any educational program with refugees has to include an understanding of risks faced by the refugees, but also focus on the facilitation of resilience. Resilience can be defined broadly as “the capacity of a dynamic system to withstand or recover from significant challenges that threaten its stability, viability or development” (Narayan & Masten, 2012, p. 231). Understanding both personal, interpersonal, as well as sociocultural factors that help promote resilience are of interest to all stakeholders in the refugee crises. Such a perspective also highlights the positive aspects of healing that are sometimes overlooked when only the risks and negative outcomes are discussed in refugee literature (Cobb et al., 2019). In the last two decades, several factors have been shown to predict resilience (Masten, 2018; Pieloch, McCullough, & Marks, 2016). At the personal level, they include acculturation and language proficiency (Sheikh & Anderson, 2018), sense of belonging (including positive ethnic identities), self-control, self-efficacy, problem-solving skills, hope, and belief that life has meaning. Close relationships, competent caregivers, good schools, and safe neighborhoods are also important (Aber et al., 2017; Narayan & Masten, 2012). In addition, adult refugee-background students possess various forms of social and cultural capital (e.g., aspirational, linguistic, familial) which help facilitate civic integration and language learning (Liscio & Farrelly, 2019). In an overview of the literature, Hobfoll, Watson, Bell, and Brymer (2007) suggest five principles to guide interventions helping those who have experienced mass trauma such as wars or disasters: 1. Foster a sense of safety both psychologically as well as in the actual surroundings; 2. Reduce anxiety and induce calmness; 3. Promote the sense of self efficacy (“can do”) and community efficacy by providing both psychological support but more importantly, access to actual community resources; 4. Facilitate connections with others through social support; and 5. instill hope and optimism. A more recent meta-analysis replicated and expanded these principles by revealing the following eight enablers of psychological wellbeing: social support; faith, religion and spirituality; use of certain cognitive strategies; education and training opportunities; employment and economic activities; behavioral strategies; political advocacy; and environmental conditions (Posselt et al., 2019). In sum, these findings indicate that language and literacy development include not only cognitive processes, but also affective (emotional) components (Durgunoglu & IYOP Team, 2012; Lloyd, 2012). In recent interviews with Syrian refugees in Turkey, several stakeholders mentioned that it is important for teachers who will work with the particular population of refugees to learn how to interact with this psychologically vulnerable group who has undergone traumatic experiences (Nimer, 2019). Safe and high-quality schooling has been shown to be one of the protective factors to build resilience in youth affected by war and political violence (Aber et al., 2017; Pieloch et al., 2016), thus reducing the effects 453

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

of such trauma and preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty and violence. Providing safe schools and high-quality instruction have been shown to be a transformative experience for refugee children, as schools bring a degree of normalcy to their lives and also foster skills that help their psychological well-being (Aber et al., 2017). This is also true for adult immigrants (Cobb et al., 2019). Though the case of refugee women who remain outside of formal education has not been particularly studied, it can safely be assumed that safe, supportive, and high-quality learning environments would also be extremely useful for adult refugees, especially women. For some refugees, particularly young, low socioeconomic status (SES) women, leaving home to access formal education in distant centers is very difficult, especially in large cities, such as Istanbul. Previous research found that for Syrian refugee women, proximity to public education centers where classes are held facilitates their attendance and access to language learning. For women who have children, childcare is another dimension that impacts attendance (Durgunoğlu, 2018). Overall, dealing with traumatic experiences appears to be a prerequisite to language instruction. This includes providing a safe physical and psychological environment for classes and high-quality instruction, combined with strategies such as promoting social connections within the group of students through interactions inside and outside the classroom. This will ultimately lead to reducing anxiety, promoting self-confidence, and creating a general sense of well-being.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS This section provides practical examples of good practices when working with refugee women for policymakers, program administrators, and teachers. It first outlines good practices at the general program level and then illustrates good practices within the instructional setting (classroom).

Good Practices at the General Program Level Program level recommendations include adopting a holistic approach; addressing trauma, extreme poverty, unwelcoming social environment, and political forces; offering lifelong education in local centers; and training teachers well.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adopting a Holistic Approach It is important to have seamless, organic links among all the services supporting refugees in areas such as education, housing, physical and mental health, and employment (Fegert, Diehl, Leyendecker, Hahlweg, & Prayon-Blum, 2018; Marlowe, Bartley, & Hibtit, 2014). Language and literacy programs need to be informed about other available services nearby, understand the immediate needs of the refugees, and have a clear process to guide the refugees to other resources and services that they may need (Pieloch et al., 2016). More specifically, traumatized refugees need to be identified at an early stage and referred to specialized medical support within the community (Benseman, 2014).

454

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Addressing Trauma, Extreme Poverty, Unwelcoming Social Environment, and Political Forces Trauma, extreme poverty, unwelcoming social environment, and political forces are factors that can affect language and literacy education for refugees in a number of ways. Although educational programs may not be able to address these obstacles directly, they should be safe spaces enabling participants to feel comfortable in expressing the societal challenges they face and considering possible resolutions. As summarized in a recent study with a large sample of Australian children (O’Connor, Cloney, Kvalsvig, & Goldfeld, 2019), positive mental health is a predictor of academic achievement, including literacy and numeracy, prompting many recent classroom interventions to develop these psychosocial strengths of children. Children’s positive mental health is not a random occurrence, and parental (especially maternal) education and maternal mental health are the two strong predictors of positive psychosocial functioning of the children (Goldfeld, Kvalsvig, Incledon, O’Connor, & Mensah, 2014). Considering the physical and psychological well-being of young refugee women is important not only for themselves but also for their children. Instead of just noting the absence of mental problems such as depression, positive psychosocial functioning notes the presence of strengths such as social competence (e.g., cooperating well with others); responsibility and respect (e.g., self-control); effective approaches to learning (e.g., solving problems independently); readiness to explore new things; and prosocial and helping behaviors. In addition to academic skills, it is important to cultivate coping skills and a sense of self efficacy among refugees. In the classroom, teachers can model and reinforce positive behaviors such as cooperation and self-control. Teachers can also provide opportunities for learners to work together to accomplish common goals.

Offering Lifelong Education in Local Centers

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

For young women, it is not always possible to attend formal education classes, especially if they have family responsibilities. Others may not attend because their proficiency level would place them in early elementary grades in which they would be the oldest learners. Lifelong learning classes in nearby neighborhood centers, especially if childcare is provided, can enable access for women who would not be able to leave their homes and attend formal schooling otherwise. For example, in some of the public education centers in Turkey, managed by the Department of Lifelong Learning within the Ministry of Education, language courses are offered for Syrian women, free of charge and open to enrollment for all registered foreigners living in Turkey (Nimer, 2019). These courses are accompanied by childcare, allowing women to gather in one classroom for language instruction, while their children play games, listen to stories, have snacks, and develop their Turkish skills in a nearby classroom.

Training Teachers Well Teacher quality is essential not only for student achievement but also for resilience (Wolf et al., 2015). Working with immigrants and refugees is a relatively new discipline within education. Teacher training programs should include skills on how to work with adults with limited literacy skills and an awareness of trauma and its consequences. Teachers also need training on how to interact with heterogeneous classes and to tailor instruction according to the backgrounds and needs of students. The more educated learners can benefit from the already familiar academic style, building on what they already know, 455

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

whereas learners with limited literacy need a more personalized approach. On the affective side, it is quite important that teachers are aware of approaches that can provide the learners with opportunities to succeed in order to build their self-confidence and motivation. An intervention including these multiple dimensions was implemented in the Democratic Republic of Congo, ravaged by years of armed conflict. In the program called “Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom”, teachers received professional development on reading instruction, along with principles of social-emotional learning, in order to create safe and supportive classrooms and to respond to children’s social and emotional needs (Aber et al., 2017). Teachers also had peer support in addressing classroom challenges. Some practices that were discussed in this program included establishing and following a regular class schedule, encouraging students to express themselves in their language(s), using small group activities to increase peer interactions, encouraging student participation through various methods, and making connections between academic content and students’ lives. These principles have yet to be systematically implemented and evaluated in adult refugee education programs, though many promising approaches are being developed and documented the field of refugee education. In addition to the psychological factors, teachers, especially those working with multilingual groups, need a good understanding of the structure of the new language they are teaching to the refugees as well as the characteristics of the home languages represented in the classroom (Fillmore & Snow, 2002). For example, those who are teaching Turkish to Arabic speakers need to be aware of the structural differences between the two languages that can constitute a barrier to learning. In Turkish, long words are very common because of agglutination, which makes both word recognition and spelling difficult. In addition, vowel harmony that requires vowels to match between the root and the suffixes complicates both speaking and writing (Durgunoglu, 2006, 2017b). In contrast, Arabic has root morphemes that yield different word types and meanings depending on which vowels are inserted into the root (Wofford & Tibi, 2018). Finally, Turkish uses Latin rather than the Arabic alphabet. On the other hand, Turkish has many borrowed words from Arabic which provide some vocabulary support. Knowing features of target and home languages can help teachers build on shared linguistic features and to help learners recognize differences to promote learning. In short, teachers need to be knowledgeable about structural characteristics of languages in order to teach effectively. For the learners, having a teacher who knows some Arabic can have a positive influence on learning (Nimer, 2019). Data from classroom observations indicate that L1 use in the classroom can help make the lessons more engaging, drawing links with what is familiar to the students by giving examples of Arabic grammar and demonstrating how it was different or similar from the target language. The Arabic-speaking students are more comfortable when the teacher knows Arabic, as it helps them to ask questions and engage with the teacher (Nimer, 2019). Teachers may not have the time or resources to learn the language(s) of their students, especially in multilingual settings where students speak different L1s. In these cases, engaging the students by asking them to provide the equivalent in their own language may be a good practice and may engage students to reflect across languages and thus better grasp concepts. A teacher training program that highlights the ways in which teachers can work with adults with limited literacy skills and an awareness of trauma and its consequences proves beneficial. Further, training should encompass skill building on how to interact with heterogeneous classes and to tailor instruction according to the backgrounds and needs of students.

456

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Good Practices within the Instructional Setting This section identifies good practices within the classroom, such as getting to know the learners in all their diversity, building on existing strengths, adopting systematic, integrated instruction grounded in real-world needs and uses of language, considering both cognitive and affective dimensions, using technology, and highlighting social interactions.

Getting to Know the Learners in all Their Diversity One of the first tasks for the teachers of refugees is to get to know the learners in all their diversity (Council of Europe, 2018b). This includes background variables such as age, gender, existing language proficiencies (including home language(s)), level and nature of previously completed formal education, domains for the new language use, barriers and facilitators to language learning, future goals, and perceived needs. Also important to understand are psychological dimensions such as motivation, self-efficacy, health, and well-being. Another key dimension to analyze is the circumstances, such as time constraints, family, and work responsibilities, level and amount of social interaction in the host community, and financial concerns. Although much of this information can be gleaned from personal interactions with the learners, reliable assessments of proficiencies in their native and new languages are difficult to locate and administer. Some resources are available for home language literacy screening (see for example, Native Language Literacy Assessment1). Understanding the trauma of the refugees and providing support to build resilience is also challenging. Establishing functional links with qualified social services is useful. Once teachers get to know their refugee learners, it is possible to incorporate their pre-migratory histories into learning (Hope, 2011). Such practices provide a welcoming and safe space for refugees and facilitate their self-expression.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Building on Existing Strengths Because adults have lifelong experiences and academic foundations that are relevant for new learning, it makes sense to leverage these resources. Therefore, teachers can evaluate and build on existing strengths from schooling in home language(s) and rely on cross-language transfer of some metacognitive proficiencies (Adami, 2008; Condelli, Wrigley, & Yoon, 2009; Goldenberg, 2008). Despite the variability in school practices and quality across the globe, the level of schooling completed in one’s home language is still a quick and reliable indicator of the existing academic proficiencies of the learners. There is now a growing body of evidence that certain proficiencies are related across the two languages of bilingual individuals (Cummins, 2000; Durgunoglu, 2017a). Representational analysis and manipulation proficiencies such as phonological awareness and morphological analysis can transfer across the two languages. Some metacognitive strategies available in one language are used in the second language as well. These include knowledge of writing conventions, genre knowledge, comprehension monitoring, strategies for making sense of the text, use of formal definitions, and understanding and production of academic language (see Gonzalves in this volume). However, vocabulary in one language is usually independent of the vocabulary in the other language. For refugees, home languages can provide a way to ease into the new language and also to communicate more efficiently (see Minuz et al. in this volume). However, unlike migrants in English-speaking countries who have had more chances of being exposed to English, Syrian refugees in Turkey may not have been exposed to Turkish before. This being the case, it seems obvious that, if at all possible, their home 457

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

language should be used – if not as the target for the coding and decoding process, then at least as a source of linguistic scaffolding and clarification (see Neokleous et al. in this volume).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adopting a Systematic, Integrated Instruction Grounded in Real-world Needs and Uses of Language The heterogeneity of the refugee population means that individuals can differ considerably in terms of their personal situation, their needs and capacities, prior educational and language learning experience, and time needed or available for learning (Council of Europe, 2018b). Therefore, as a first step in developing the literacy skills of refugee learners, it is absolutely essential for the teachers to become familiar with the backgrounds of their students (Aber et al., 2017; Burt, Peyton & Schaetzel, 2008; Council of Europe, 2018b; Van Avermaet & Gysen, 2006; Vinogradov & Bigelow, 2010; Windle & Miller, 2012). For those with limited formal education, instruction can start with some basics such as letters, sounds, text-based metacognition, and print conventions, with the goal of reducing reliance solely on oral rather than written information, and on memorization of words rather than decoding the components. As is true in any effective second language literacy program, beginners need integrated instruction in different areas: phonological awareness (see Kkese in this volume), letter-sound correspondences, oral fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and expressing oneself in writing (National Research Council, 2012). However, instruction should also allow for ways to communicate and resolve problems in the new language. For example, a significant need is to learn basic phrases to communicate in everyday life and to understand the spoken language in announcements and public notices. Explicit practice with the linguistic content needed for everyday functioning in the host society is desired by the learners (Hauber-Ozer, 2019). Integrated instruction also means that both oral and written language skills are simultaneously taught and practiced. It does not make sense to delay literacy instruction until some basic oral proficiency is established. Another aspect of integration is to use multimodal approaches, including visual (see Tørnby in this volume), auditory, written, and digital content, including art and music (Windle & Miller, 2012). Finally, integration also includes combining language and content instruction. In other words, language is not taught as a separate, decontextualized entity, but rather, specific content (e.g., civics, health, or cultural practices of the host country) is used in language instruction (Durgunoglu, Sagar, Fagan, & Brueck, 2015). Academic content that is not applied and used remains compartmentalized and withers. To prevent this, first, academic content has to be made relevant to the learners’ current needs and goals. In other words, learners have to have the opportunities to use their new language skills outside of the classroom, in real world contexts, and to address real needs. The content also has to be integrated with the learners’ existing knowledge and proficiencies. For example, what they already know about employment interviews can be enriched by augmenting that knowledge with the language and cultural practices of the host country.

Considering Cognitive and Affective Dimensions In addition to cognitive skills, language and literacy development thrive when accompanied with affective strengths and building a sense of community and safety in the classroom. At the level of the learner, these include a sense of self efficacy, self-confidence, comfort in making errors, and high levels of interest and motivation. Supporting learners emotionally involves practices such as respect for culture and identity of the learners and providing them with various opportunities to experience success and encouraging 458

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

the use of their own cultural capital in the classroom. Learners’ cultural capital can serve as a resource that facilitates comprehension or serves as a ground for discussions (Council of Europe, 2018b). Strong family and cultural ties also provide a way for immigrants to cope with adversity. Research suggests that positive identification with one’s cultural group is a factor in the well-being of immigrants, as it is positively correlated with self-esteem and protects against discrimination by providing a shared sense of meaning (Cobb et al., 2019). Positive identification is also predictive of acculturation (Cobb et al., 2019). As Windle & Miller (2012) asserted, “Creating a classroom context in which students’ cultural knowledge is expressed, shared and affirmed is motivating, but also helps to make language and concepts more meaningful to students. It is also an important way for teachers to learn more about their students, including language needs” (p. 320). It is helpful if prior knowledge and personal experiences are deliberately elicited at every opportunity, before any new topic is introduced. This will not only send the message that learners’ funds of knowledge are valued (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992), but also activate the cognitive framework that will be used to integrate the new information into the learners’ mental network. Research in cognitive and educational psychology has shown that comprehension requires individuals to interpret and integrate information from various sources: the current content on hand, its context, and the individual’s existing knowledge about the topic (Nimer, 2019). Knowledge acquisition is most effective when new information is integrated with the learners’ existing funds of knowledge (linguistic, cultural, and practical) and can eventually be used effortlessly in new contexts. These basic ideas of comprehension apply to learners with low levels of literacy as well. Before introducing new content, one powerful technique that can be used is to activate prior knowledge of learners. Prior knowledge can be activated through classroom discussions, writing assignments or through the use of music, arts and other media. Second language classrooms (with all kinds of learner backgrounds) have been using prior knowledge activation to some degree. Activating prior knowledge has several advantages: it establishes a foundation upon which new knowledge can be built; it provides opportunities for comparison which makes it easier to comprehend new concepts; it sends a clear message that the existing knowledge and cultural resources that the learners have are acknowledged and valued; and it enables learners to hear about the varied and rich experiences of the other learners in the classroom (Broek, Rapp, & Kendeou, 2005; Kintsch, 1998; McNamara, de Vega & O’Reilly, 2007). When working with low literacy adult women it is especially effective to cover the linguistic content by linking it to familiar and relatable everyday topics such as the grocery store, library, and schools (see teaching tip below). Activating prior knowledge is certainly not a novel topic. However, when it comes to refugees with low literacy, two new challenges need to be considered while using this strategy: 1. In some cases, the prior beliefs shared in the classroom may be incorrect. In an actual case from one of our classrooms, while discussing the topic of infant health, a learner stated that when a baby has diarrhea, one should not give them water as that makes the stools even runnier. In such a case, it is important to refute such an incorrect and potentially dangerous belief, but gently and respectfully. If others in the classroom do not speak up, the instructor has to explain how babies can get dehydrated, as well as discuss the importance of giving water that has been boiled. This latter point validates the cultural experiences of the learner who may have suggested withholding water because it may have been contaminated and could have been the source of diarrhea in the first place. For more advanced classes, an assignment to comb certain medical sites on the internet to refute an incorrect belief is an alternative. 459

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

2. In some cases, activating the prior knowledge may be accompanied by the activation of traumatic memories or a deep sense of loss. Even with a seemingly innocuous question as to how holidays are celebrated, refugees may experience a deep sense of loss for the happier times in their home countries that may never be experienced again. This challenge does not have any easy solutions. One possibility is to ask the learners to think about these questions on their own before coming to class and then sharing what they have prepared. Another solution is to get to know the learners well through activities such as storytelling and pictures about their home countries and knowing in which areas they have experienced serious losses. Teaching Tip In Sibel’s Turkish language class for Syrian refugees in Turkey, there are around 15 learners with different educational backgrounds, ranging from university graduates to those who have completed a few years of schooling, mostly women, with a few men. They have varying reasons for why they want to learn Turkish. Notably absent in the class are young women from rural and more conservative backgrounds. One of the learners, Farida, is 18 years old. She is from Aleppo and had to leave school when she was in 5th grade because of war. Farida witnessed how her older sister, Hida, got shot in the leg before coming to Turkey, and that is the first information she shared when Sibel met her. She also told her teacher that she admired her sister, who decided to pursue her studies despite the traumatic experiences she went through. When Farida came to Turkey, she started attending a Syrian school, then moved to a Turkish school. She did not even know the letters, so she failed the class. Now she is enrolled in Sibel’s Turkish class offered through the local municipality. She can speak Turkish to some extent, but she also wants to develop her reading and writing skills. She said: “I can read. But when I go to the teacher, I get anxious”. She had dreamed of becoming a journalist when she was in Syria, but now she hates everything about studying, because she is finding it very difficult to study in Turkish. “Whenever I start getting a book in my hand to study it, without my control I start crying just to force myself to study.” In the Classroom Farida’s teacher, Sibel, provides language instruction that is integrated with content. To accomplish this integration, she uses short texts such as newspaper articles as the starting point for language instruction. In this example, she uses a short text about accessing healthcare and integrates language instruction within that content. 1. Prior knowledge activation (prepare): Sibel prepared questions about some basic healthcare issues. Because this topic may cause some learners to relive the traumas in their lives, she gave the questions ahead of time as homework and asked individuals to choose the questions they wanted to answer. The learners were encouraged to prepare and write in Arabic and/or Turkish what they wanted to say in class. Prior knowledge questions included some basic health information such as when to go to an emergency room, as well as questions about how they (or their family and friends) make appointments to see doctors in the hospitals as well as the family physicians in their neighborhoods. 2. Prior knowledge activation (discuss): Sibel first gave the class a few minutes to think about their answers to the prior knowledge questions, check their notes, and get ready. Then each learner provided the answer to a question of their choice. If an individual struggled to explain their answer in Turkish, their classmates were encouraged to ask the student to restate the question in Arabic and then translate it for the class. In most cases, individuals helped each other by providing a specific word the student was looking for. If the student gave an inaccurate information on how to reach the neighborhood family physicians, Sibel repeated, stopped, and waited for a few seconds. At that time, another learner provided a correction. (If a correction was not made, Sibel provided a correction, gently but firmly). 3. Working on the text: Sibel read the text out loud as the learners followed (for those who struggle with the Latin alphabet, she gave them individualized tasks to complete at home, such as videoclips to watch and additional homework to practice the letters).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Working in pairs: Learners read the text in pairs. Sibel tried to pair learners with different partners each time so as cliques were not formed and ensured that each pair had at least one learner familiar with the Latin alphabet. Bearing in mind that some students may not be comfortable with individuals from opposite sex, Sibel tried to suggest pairs without enforcing it in case of resistance. 5. Comprehension: Sibel then asked individuals to summarize what the text says in pairs, and when they were ready, one group summarized the text to the whole class. This was done to ensure that the text was comprehended by the class. 6. Vocabulary: Sibel pointed to certain words in the text and asked for their meaning, also pointing out cognates (e.g., doktor [Turkish]=doctor) 7. Grammar: Using the text as the starting point, Sibel provided instruction on Turkish verb conjugation. Using the same verb and tense, she explained how the subject was marked at the end of the verb.Hastaneye gittim (I went to the hospital), gittin (You went) gitti (S/he went) gittik (we went) etc. She asked class to compare this with how Arabic verbs mark person. 8. Formulaic phrases: The last activity was practicing common phrases to use when talking with a doctor.________ ağrıyor (I have pain in my _______) This was accompanied by reviewing the Turkish names of the body parts that the class volunteered in Arabic baş/ras/ head [in Turkish/Arabic/English], el/iyd/hand, bacak/ejer/leg, mide/baten/stomach 9. Homework: The class ended with an assignment on conjugating verbs and prior knowledge activation for the next topic.

460

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Using Technology Technology creates opportunities to provide learners with access to relevant information and to tailor instruction according to existing levels and perceived needs of learners (Gresswell & Simpson, 2012). These days, almost all students have smart phones and can already use them skillfully to communicate. Technology can be used to provide extra practice to those who need more support and extra work for those who are advanced and need more challenging materials. Technology also provides opportunities to tailor instruction according to the perceived needs of the refugees, or as Van Avemaert & Gysen (2006) stated, “why they want to learn the language.” Little (2006) acknowledged that language learning first and foremost stems from a need to communicate, whether used in personal, public, educational, or occupational domains. Technology can be used to build “virtual connections” (Dryden-Peterson, Dahya, & Adelman, 2017, p. 1022) to communicate with others and thus both fulfill a communication need and enable language practice in a relatively non-threatening manner (Bigelow Vanek, King, & Abdi, 2017). These include but are not limited to using WhatsApp as a group communication space, building a class website, using Quizlet for vocab learning, watching videos in class, sending one another voice texts to practice speaking, using the smartphone to work with calculator, calendar, or email, and using typing programs. In some adult literacy classrooms, teachers create WhatsApp groups for their students. The groups share relevant texts and other media that are tied to the academic content. However, and maybe even more importantly, all learners touch base with each other at some point in the lesson, for example while inquiring when one misses a class to see if they need help. In this way, technology can provide social support.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Highlighting Social Interactions Because oral and written language are social events, stemming from a need to communicate and to express oneself, if opportunities to get out of the house and to use language in social contexts with members of the host community are limited, refugees’ language development is stymied. This is especially true for women who face safety concerns and patriarchal pressures. One technique is to recruit advanced adult learners (i.e., with more years of schooling and advanced proficiency in host community language) as assistants in beginner literacy classes (Benseman, 2014). Teachers can also build into curriculum group activities for participants to communicate and support each other. Other group activities can include the participation of local native speakers. The native speakers can be volunteers, family members, or neighbors acting as language coaches. Group outing activities and opportunities to practice language in real world contexts are also helpful. Syrian refugee women feel that their interactions with Turkish people are often limited to interactions with their teacher or with the center administrators (Nimer, 2019). In a study with focus groups, participants said that they use Turkish they learn in the park and in the market; however, they feel like they are unable to participate in real dialogues as they do not socialize with Turkish speakers. Instead, they mainly interact with other Syrians, especially in the areas with a high concentration of refugees. Without practice, students feel like they cannot progress regardless of the attained proficiency in the target language. According to the results of an online survey in three different language centers, the respondents rated their own speaking and writing skills the lowest (Nimer, 2019). They reported needing more opportunities to interact with Turkish speakers. The majority of respondents also indicated that the most significant barrier they faced related to learning the language is the lack of practice. Here real 461

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

or perceived discrimination caused a lack of progress in language as it reduced the chances of interaction. In Turkey, some possible platforms for communication include literacy classes for refugees that also include Turkish speakers with low literacy; conversation classes with students who are studying to become teachers of Turkish as a foreign language and want to gain experience through volunteering; or exchange classes with Turkish people who want to learn Arabic. In sum, teachers should plan for social interactions by integrating them into their lesson plans and curriculum to promote language learning.

CONCLUSION

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

As the world sees a growing number of displaced people who desperately need to learn the oral and written language(s) of their host communities, educators are faced with serious challenges. Our goal in this chapter has been to display some of the challenges and ways to improve the psychological wellbeing and education of millions of refugees worldwide, in particular refugee-background women. We offered a list of good practices both at a general program level and within the instructional setting. We outlined the importance of ways in which teachers can adopt a holistic approach; address challenges such as trauma, extreme poverty, unwelcoming social environment, political forces; and offer lifelong education in local centers especially for women. Additionally, we provided some insights into teacher education programs. In terms of practices within the classroom, we outlined the tasks of teachers such as getting to know the learners in all their diversity; building on existing strengths; offering systematic, integrated instruction grounded in real-world needs and uses of language; and considering both cognitive and affective dimensions, using technology and language development through social interactions. Around the world, women represent an untapped potential (Kristof & WuDunn, 2010). Educated women not only lift their communities, but also pave the way for a promising future as the first teachers of the children—as mothers, aunts, older sisters. Therefore, ensuring that women, especially refugee women, have access to education to develop their language and literacy skills in their host country is one of the best investments one can make in the times of turmoil and uncertainty. This calls for further research in terms of exploring the ways in which language instruction can be carried out holistically considering the diversity of refugees while activating prior knowledge, incorporating social interactions, and including affective dimensions for better learning results.

462

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Discussion Questions 1. What are some challenges that refugees face that distinguish them from immigrants and other second language learners and how does that shape the effectiveness of educational approaches? 2. What can a teacher do to foster literacy development when working with refugees? What are some cognitive aspects of literacy instruction for refugees in a new culture? 3. There are many backstories that refugees bring with them to their new host countries. For the most part, educators will never know the depths of their stories. Consider the impact of knowing these stories on your instructional design and practice. Take for example this adapted story of an actual woman, whom we will call Fatma. Fatma is 18 and has 8 siblings. She completed fifth grade in Syria. She says she loved history classes. Two years ago, she married a Syrian man, who has been living in Turkey for 6 years, and moved to Turkey. Because of war, her family is completely displaced; some are in Syria, some in Iraq, Germany, and Dubai. Her biggest challenge is language. One day she left the house to buy some groceries and got lost. She had to call her husband to come and get her. Since then, her husband does not allow her to leave the house. He believes that she does not need to learn the language since she does not have to leave the house anyway. She does not have any family or friends in Turkey and is grateful to Skype with her sisters. She wants to learn Turkish to be able to talk with her neighbors, be able to find her way if she gets lost, go shopping, and eventually open a beauty salon. a. What can the teacher do to address socio-affective needs and affective aspects of literacy instruction for refugees in a new culture? In the case of Fatma, there are some sociocultural barriers that are especially challenging. How can teachers reach out to her and encourage her to attend classes? b. Imagine that Fatma has the opportunity to attend classes. How will knowing her story impact her teacher’s interpersonal relationship with Fatma in and out of class? c. What content is appropriate given Fatma’s situation? Consider the emotional toll of particular commonly explored topics in language classrooms: family, daily routines, health. In what ways can these topics potentially activate trauma backgrounds? What approaches to these topics allow for language development while attending to the student’s needs?

REFERENCES Aber, J. L., Tubbs, C., Torrente, C., Halpin, P. F., Johnston, B., Starkey, L., ... Wolf, S. (2017). Promoting children’s learning and development in conflict-affected countries: Testing change process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Development and Psychopathology, 29(1), 53–67. doi:10.1017/ S0954579416001139 PMID:27866501 Adami, H. (2008). The role of literacy in the acculturation process of migrants. Retrieved from https:// rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680 2fc1b7 Ahmed, S. F., Tang, S., Waters, N. E., & Davis-Kean, P. (2019). Executive function and academic achievement: Longitudinal relations from early childhood to adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 446–458. doi:10.1037/edu0000296

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Al Ajlan, A. (2019). Older refugees in Germany: What are the reasons for the difficulties in languagelearning? Journal of Refugee Studies. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jrs/advance-article/ doi/10.1093/jrs/fez056/5532152 Aydin, H., & Kaya, Y. (2019). Education for Syrian refugees: The new global issue facing teachers and principals in Turkey. Educational Studies, 55(1), 46–71. doi:10.1080/00131946.2018.1561454 Beiser, M., & Hou, F. (2000). Acquisition and employment consequences among southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(3), 311–330. doi:10.2307/3552403 Benseman, J. (2014). Adult refugee learners with limited literacy: Needs and effective responses. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 30(1), 93–103.

463

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Bigelow, M., Vanek, J., King, K., & Abdi, N. (2017). Literacy as social (media) practice: Refugee youth and native language literacy at school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 183–197. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.002 Broek, P. V. D., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 299–316. doi:10.1080 /0163853X.2005.9651685 Burt, M., Peyton, J. K., & Schaetzel, K. (2008). Working with adult English language learners with limited literacy: Research, practice, and professional development [CAELA Network Briefs]. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/resources/limitedliteracy.html Çeri, V., Nasıroğlu, S., Çeri, M., & Çetin, F. Ç. (2018). Psychiatric morbidity among a school sample of Syrian refugee children in Turkey: A cross-sectional, semistructured, standardized interview-based study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(9), 696–698. doi:10.1016/j. jaac.2018.05.019 PMID:30196873 Cirocki, A., & Farrelly, R. (Eds.). (2019). The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1). Clayton, M. (2015). The impact of PTSD on refugee language learners. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/299467247_The_Impact_of_PTSD_on_Refugee_Language_Learners Cloeters, G., & Osseiran, S. (2019). Healthcare access for Syrian refugees in Istanbul: A gender-sensitive perspective. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center. Cobb, C. L., Branscombe, N. R., Meca, A., Schwartz, S. J., Xie, D., Zea, M. C., & Martinez, C. R. (2019). Toward a positive psychology of immigrants. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 619–632. doi:10.1177/1745691619825848 PMID:30998855 Condelli, L., Wrigley, H., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder, & J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132–160). New York, NY: Routledge. Council of Europe. (2018a). Linguistic integration of adult migrants. Retrieved from https://www.coe. int/en/web/lang-migrants Council of Europe. (2018b). List of all tools. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/languagesupport-for-adult-refugees/list-of-all-tools

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596773 Dooley, K. T., & Thangaperumal, P. (2011). Pedagogy and participation: Literacy education for lowliterate refugee students of African origin in a western school system. Language and Education, 25(5), 385–397. doi:10.1080/09500782.2011.573075 Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and secondlanguage learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78–103. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4

464

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Dryden-Peterson, S., Dahya, N., & Adelman, E. (2017). Pathways to educational success among refugees: Connecting locally and globally situated resources. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1011–1047. doi:10.3102/0002831217714321 Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2006). How the language’s characteristics influence Turkish literacy development. In R. M. Joshi, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 219–230). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & IYOP Team. (2012). Adult literacy and empowerment: Description and evaluation of a program in Turkey. In P. Vinogradov, & M. Bigelow (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA (Low Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition) symposium (pp. 27–46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2017a). An updated review of cross-language transfer and its educational implications. In E. Segers, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy (pp. 167–182). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/z.206.11dur Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2017b). Learning to read in Turkish. In L. Verhoeven, & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 437–454). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752.018 Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2018). The multidimensional effects of AÇEV Hayat Dolu Buluşmalar Program on women. Unpublished manuscript. Durgunoglu, A. Y., Sagar, A., Fagan, K., & Brueck, A. (2015). Developing language skills and content knowledge of adult learners: CILIA (Content Integrated Language Instruction for Adults). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meetings, Chicago, IL. Dybdahl, R. (2001). Children and mothers in war: An outcome study of a psychosocial intervention program. Child Development, 72(4), 1214–1230. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00343 PMID:11480943 Earnest, J., Mansi, R., Bayati, S., Earnest, J. A., & Thompson, S. C. (2015). Resettlement experiences and resilience in refugee youth in Perth, Western Australia. BMC Research Notes, 10(8), 236–246. doi:10.118613104-015-1208-7 PMID:26054946

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Elmeroth, E. (2003). From refugee camp to solitary confinement: Illiterate adults learn Swedish as a second language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 431–449. doi:10.1080/00313830308593 Fegert, J. M., Diehl, C., Leyendecker, B., Hahlweg, K., & Prayon-Blum, V. (2018). Psychosocial problems in traumatized refugee families: Overview of risks and some recommendations for support services. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12(1), 5–13. doi:10.118613034-017-0210-3 PMID:29344083 Feuerherm, E. M., & Ramanathan, V. (Eds.). (2016). Refugee resettlement in the United States: Language, policy, pedagogy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

465

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf Goldfeld, S., Kvalsvig, A., Incledon, E., O’Connor, M., & Mensah, F. (2014). Predictors of mental health competence in a population cohort of Australian children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68(5), 431–437. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-203007 PMID:24407594 Gresswell, R., & Simpson, J. (2012). Class blogging in ESOL. In D. Mallows (Ed.), Innovations in English language teaching for migrants and refugees (pp. 105–116). London, UK: British Council. Hatoss, A., O’Neill, S., & Eacersall, D. (2012). Career choices: Linguistic and educational socialization of Sudanese-background high-school students in Australia. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 16–30. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.10.003 Hauber-Ozer, M. (2019). Culturally sensitive language and literacy instruction for Afghan refugee women in the US. Paper presented at the Language Education for Adult Refugees Experts Panel, Istanbul, Turkey. Hobfoll, S. E., Watson, P., Bell, C. C., Bryant, R. A., Brymer, M. J., Friedman, M. J., ... Ursano, R. J. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4), 283–369. doi:10.1521/psyc.2007.70.4.283 PMID:18181708 Hohberger, W. (2018). Opportunities in higher education for Syrians in Turkey: The perspective of Syrian university students on the educational conditions, needs and possible solutions for improvement. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center. Hope, J. (2011). New insights into family learning for refugees: Bonding, bridging and building transcultural capital. Literacy, 45(2), 91–97. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00581.x International Youth Foundation. (2018). Opportunities for Syrian youth in Istanbul: A labor market assessment. Istanbul, Turkey: International Youth Foundation (IYF). Karakilic, I. Z., Korukmez, L., & Soykan, C. (2019). Resilience, work and gender in the Turkish migratory context: Literature review. Istanbul, Turkey: Gar and Heinrich Boll Stiftung. Keyes, E. F., & Kane, C. F. (2004). Belonging and adapting: Mental health of Bosnian refugees living in the United States. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(8), 809–831. doi:10.1080/01612840490506392 PMID:15545245

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kristof, N. D., & Wu Dunn, S. (2010). Half the sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide. New York, NY: Vintage. Laloy, D., & Marcelle, H. (2014). Alphabétisation et littératie: Politiques, pratiques et publics [Alphabetization and literacy: Politics, practices and publics]. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/263073894_LALOY_D_MARCELLE_H_2014_Alphabetisation_et_litteratie_Politiques_ pratiques_et_publics_Les_politiques_sociales_1_2_2014

466

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Liscio, J., & Farrelly, R. (2019). Exploring notions of success through the social and cultural capital of adult refugee-background students. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 131–152. Little, D. (2006). The common European framework of reference for languages and the development of policies for the integration of adult migrants. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fc0b1 Lloyd, T. L. (2012). Class blogging in ESOL. In D. Mallows (Ed.), Innovations in English language teaching for migrants and refugees (pp. 105–116). London, UK: British Council. Malessa, E. (2018). Learning to read for the first time as adult immigrants in Finland: Reviewing pertinent research of low-literate or non-literate learners’ literacy acquisition and computer-assisted literacy training. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(1), 25–54. doi:10.17011/apples/urn.201804051932 Marlowe, J., Bartley, A., & Hibtit, A. (2014). The New Zealand refugee resettlement strategy: Implications for identity, acculturation, and civic participation. Kotuitui, 9(2), 60–69. doi:10.1080/117708 3X.2014.934847 Masten, A. S. (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 12–31. doi:10.1111/jftr.12255 McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O’Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. In F. Schmalhofer, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233–251). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Mendive, S., Lissi, M. R., Bakeman, R., & Reyes, A. (2017). Beyond mother education: Maternal practices as predictors of early literacy development in Chilean children from low-SES households. Early Education and Development, 28(2), 167–181. doi:10.1080/10409289.2016.1197014 Mitschke, D. B., Praetorius, R. T., Kelly, D. R., Small, E., & Kim, Y. K. (2017). Listening to refugees: How traditional mental health interventions may miss the mark. International Social Work, 60(3), 588–600. doi:10.1177/0020872816648256

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 Narayan, A. J., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Children and adolescents in disasters, war, and terrorism: Developmental pathways to psychopathology and resilience. In C. Widom (Ed.), Trauma, psychopathology, and violence (pp. 131–158). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nimer, M. (2019). Learning Turkish as a foreign language: Institutional structures and Syrian refugees’ experiences in Turkey. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center.

467

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

O’Connor, M., Cloney, D., Kvalsvig, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Positive mental health and academic achievement in elementary school: New evidence from a matching analysis. Educational Researcher, 48(4), 205–216. doi:10.3102/0013189X19848724 Ozden, S., & Ramadan, O. (2019). Syrian women’s perspectives on life in Turkey: Rights, relations and civil society. Istanbul, Turkey: Badael Foundation. Pieloch, K. A., McCullough, M. B., & Marks, A. K. (2016). Resilience of children with refugee statuses: A research review. Canadian Psychology, 57(4), 330–339. doi:10.1037/cap0000073 Posselt, M., Eaton, H., Ferguson, M., Keegan, D., & Procter, N. (2019). Enablers of psychological wellbeing for refugees and asylum seekers living in transitional countries: A systematic review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(4), 808–823. doi:10.1111/hsc.12680 PMID:30417476 Rottmann, S., & Nimer, M. (under review). Negotiating power dynamics in the classroom and beyond: Language learning as a woman refugee in Turkey. Manuscript submitted for publication. Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Curry, M. J. (Eds.). (2018). Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sheikh, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Acculturation patterns and education of refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic literature review. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 22–32. doi:10.1016/j. lindif.2018.07.003 Short, K., Eadie, P., Descallar, J., Comino, E., & Kemp, L. (2017). Longitudinal vocabulary development in Australian urban Aboriginal children: Protective and risk factors. Child Care, Health, and Development, 43(6), 906–917. doi:10.1111/cch.12492 PMID:28776756 Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2011). A research agenda for second language acquisition of pre-literate and low-literate adult and adolescent learners. In P. Vinogradov, & M. Bigelow (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA (Low Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition) symposium (pp. 27–46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Tran, T. (2000). The Vietnamese elderly refugees’ experience in America (Unpublished master’s thesis). San Jose State University, CA. UN Refugee Agency. (2017). Global trends. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/5b27be547.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Van Avermaet, P., & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based perspective. In K. van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 17–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667282.003 Vinogradov, P., & Bigelow, M. (2010). Using oral language skills to build on the emerging literacy of adult English learners. Retrieved from www.cal.org/caelanetwork Watenpaugh, K. D., Fricke, A. L., & King, J. R. (2014). We will stop here and go no further: Syrian university students and scholars in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.alnap.org/resource/20518

468

 A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Weine, S., Ware, N., Hakizimana, L., Tugenberg, T., Currie, M., Dahnweih, G., ... Wulu, J. (2014). Fostering resilience: Protective agents, resources, and mechanisms for adolescent refugees’ psychosocial well-being. Adolescent Psychiatry, 4(3), 164–176. doi:10.2174/221067660403140912162410 Windle, J., & Miller, J. (2012). Approaches to teaching low literacy refugee-background students. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(3), 317–333. Wofford, M. C., & Tibi, S. (2018). A human right to literacy education: Implications for serving Syrian refugee children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(1), 182–190. doi:10.1080/1 7549507.2017.1397746 PMID:29171285 Wolf, S., Torrente, C., Frisoli, P., Weisenhorn, N., Shivshanker, A., Annan, J., & Aber, J. L. (2015). Preliminary impacts of the “Learning to read in a healing classroom” intervention on teacher well-being in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 24–36. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2015.08.002 Yavcan, B., & El-Ghali, H. (2017). Higher education and Syrian refugee students: The case of Turkey (policies, practices, and perspectives). Beirut, Lebanon: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in the Arab States. Young-Scholten, M. (2013). Low-educated immigrants and the social relevance of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 29(4), 441–454. doi:10.1177/0267658313491266

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Affective Factors: Emotional influences on language learning, which in case of refugees include trauma and psychological problems resulting from experiences of war, conflict, death, and forced displacement from homes and familiar cultural settings. Heterogeneity: Diversity among language learners that needs to be considered by teachers when designing curricula, preparing activities, and selecting appropriate course materials. Home Language: A language learned in childhood in the home environment, also referred to as mother tongue, first language (L1), or native language. In this chapter we use the term home country and home language to emphasize the involuntary physical displacement and being away from home. Host Country and Language: Instead of second language (L2), foreign language or additional language, the term host country and language emphasizes that there is a displacement to a new country and need to learn its language(s). Immigrant: A person who made a conscious decision to leave their home and move to a new country with the intention of settling there. The voluntary nature of the move distinguishes such persons from refugees, although this is not a clear-cut boundary as people may be forced to leave their homes, presumably voluntarily, but because of economic and sociocultural adversities. Lifelong Learning: Opportunities to access meaningful education related to life goals across the life span. Many countries offer lifelong learning classes that target a range of educational purposes from exploring creativity and technology to developing literacy and workforce skills.

469

A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

Limited Literacy: Limited ability to read and write. It is common among individuals who had their formal schooling interrupted at an early age because of cultural or economic reasons or displacement due to conflict and violence. Refugees: People who have been forced to flee their homes because of war, violence, or persecution. The formal definition refers to people who have been granted asylum, but the term can be used more broadly regardless of asylum status, technically including those who are asylum-seekers, and whose requests have not yet been processed.

ENDNOTES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

470

Visit the assessment tab of the LESLLA website: www.leslla.org/assessments

A Holistic Approach to New Language and Literacy Development of Refugee Women

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2017a). An updated review of cross-language transfer and its educational implications. In E. Segers, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy (pp. 167–182). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company This chapter reviews the research on how proficiencies across two languages of bilinguals are related (cross-language transfer). It emphasizes that the L1 proficiencies refugees bring to the classroom are valuable and constitute a foundation for learning a new language. For example, certain higher-order skills (noticing argument structures in texts, expressing oneself coherently) are metacognitive proficiencies that can be used across all languages of multilinguals. 2. Hobfoll, S. E., Watson, P., Bell, C. C., Bryant, R. A., Brymer, M. J., Friedman, M. J., Ursano, R. J. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4), 283–369. This paper presents a worldwide panel of experts on the study and treatment of those exposed to disaster and mass violence to extrapolate from related fields of research and to gain consensus on intervention principles. It identifies five empirically supported intervention principles that should be used to guide and inform intervention namely: 1. a sense of safety, 2. calming, 3. a sense of self- and community efficacy, 4. connectedness, and 5. hope. These principles can guide teachers of language in terms of working with students exposed to violence. 3. Sheikh, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Acculturation patterns and education of refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic literature review. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 22–32. This paper provides a systematic literature review presenting the patterns in the relationships between the acculturation strategies of refugees and asylum seekers and education-relevant outcomes. It shows that there is strong evidence that psychological acculturation (increasing identification with the host culture, independent of identification with the home culture) is related to the level of education, school adaption, school attachment, academic achievement, and social/school support. 

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Windle, J., & Miller, J. (2012). Approaches to teaching low literacy refugee-background students. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(3), 317–333. This paper presents an investigation of the approaches to teaching low-literacy refugee-background students from the perspective of teachers. It highlights the importance of autonomous learning and can be a useful resource of strategies for teachers to develop language and literacy proficiencies.

471

472

Chapter 22

Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children:

Designing Pedagogy for Urban Schools Mayara Priscila Reis da Costa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1561-0269 Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Amapá, Brazil & University of Minho, Portugal Íris Susana Pires Pereira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0647-2319 Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal Silvia Lopes da Silva Macedo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5583-9792 French Guiana University, French Guiana

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT This chapter presents a pedagogical design for the language and literacy learning of indigenous children within mainstream non-indigenous schools in the municipality of Oiapoque, located in the Federal State of Amapá, Brazil. It describes the linguistic and cultural diversity that characterizes the area followed by the outline of the key tenets underpinning the educational policy that frames language and initial literacy education in indigenous communities. The chapter then problematizes the case of migrant indigenous children in urban schools, where there is no specifc legal protection for their linguistic and literacy education. In response to this shortcoming, authors present a culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogy based on the Linguistically Appropriate Practice method, aimed at guiding teachers to educate these children to become bilingual and proud of their cultural heritage. The design is innovative in the context of its application in Brazil and of potential relevance for similar contexts worldwide.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch022

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

INTRODUCTION As it is the case in several contexts worldwide, Brazilian Amazonia is the home of thousands of indigenous children. The literacy education of such children has been the subject of intense theoretical and practical elaborations in different countries. A central premise in these advances has certainly been Article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which states that a child “who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language” (p. 21). As it is the case in several contexts in our super-diverse world (Vertovec, 2010), rising numbers of indigenous children have moved into urban places near the Brazilian Amazonia and enter mainstream classrooms. However, the initial literacy learning among these indigenous children has been the focus of much less attention. In this chapter, we discuss this situation and put forward a pedagogical design for those teachers who experience multiculturalism and language diversity due to the presence of indigenous children in their urban classrooms. The chapter is organized as follows. It begins by discussing key issues in current understanding of literacy education of indigenous children, namely multilingualism, cultural diversity, identity, culturally sustaining, and multimodal pedagogy. We illustrate these by reference to Brazilian indigenous communities, discussing some dimensions of the educational policy that frame their present literacy education. The chapter then problematizes the case of indigenous children who enter mainstream schools, where there is no specific legal protection for their linguistic and literacy education. In response to this shortcoming, the chapter presents a culturally sustaining and multimodal pedagogy based on the Linguistically Appropriate Practice approach (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, 2019), aimed at guiding teachers to educate (urban) indigenous children to become bilingual and proud of their cultural heritage.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Language(s), cultural identities, and pedagogy stand out as cornerstone themes in the scholarship of literacy education for indigenous children. In our opinion, these are also inescapable dimensions when envisioning the education of the indigenous children who move to urban, mainstream classrooms. In the sections below, we discuss these themes in order to frame the presentation of the design for a culturally sustaining and multimodal literacy pedagogy for indigenous children in non-indigenous schools.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Language and Cultural Identity in Indigenous Children’s Literacy Learning Oral languages are key to any discussion of print literacy learning. The most fundamental reason for this is that alphabetic written systems are visual symbols of the phonemes of oral languages (Morais, 1996). The value of this premise is unquestionable in the understanding of the literacy learning of indigenous children, although it is clearly insufficient for two major reasons. One is the linguistic and cultural diversity that singularizes these literacy learners; the other is the fact that oral language is but one among the literate semiotic repertoires that are used in indigenous communities. Language is a human endowment. Every human society makes use of at least a mother tongue (MT/ L1), that is, a grammar system by which children have fulfilled their biological base for linguistic learning

473

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

(Chomsky, 1965). In the process of intuitively reconstructing in their minds the language of the community to which they belong, other speakers in their community are scaffolders, providing children the necessary language (inter)action (Bruner, 1983). Many children acquire a second (or additional) language(s) (SL/ L2) after the beginning of their MT acquisition, thus becoming bi/multilingual (Cummins, 1979, 1983; García, 2014). Since increasing numbers of children grow up in homes where different languages are used or move into multilingual social contexts, bi/multilingual children are becoming the norm (García, 2014). Yet, besides MT and L2, a number of other important notions are required to understand the complex linguistic reality of indigenous children. These concepts include heritage language (HL), that is, “the community ethnocultural language which is not necessarily the child’s first-learned language (or even used in the home)” (Cummins, 1983, p. 7); pidgin, that is, a shared vocabulary spontaneously emerging from the confluence of different vocabularies of co-present languages (Bickerton, 2009); lingua franca (LF), which designates any lingual medium of communication between people of different mother tongues (Samarin, 1987), and the official language (OL) of the country (McArthur, 1998), which often is also labeled the language of schooling. Culture is another key dimension relevant to discussing the literacy education of indigenous children. The constructivist tradition has long established the role of individual knowledge and experiences in the construction of any learning (Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1972). When discussing literacy education of indigenous children, cultural identity is a fundamental idea, bringing concepts such as difference and diversity into the discussion. For Hall (2006), cultural identity is formed and transformed by social actors within social communities. Silva (2000) interestingly defines identity as “that which one is” (p. 74), while defining difference as “that which one is not, that which the other is” (p. 74), both of which are connected with linguistic and cultural representations as well as power relations. In the same line of thinking, Pardo (1996) argues that to respect and admit difference is “to allow the other to be what I am not, to allow the other to be that self that cannot be me, that I myself cannot be, that self cannot be another I” (p. 154, our translation). From this point of view, to be indigenous is to identify with a certain ethnic group with linguistic, social, historic, cultural, economic, political, and epistemic attributes that are different from the prevailing national identity. A common trait uniting indigenous peoples around the world seems to be the cultural and linguistic prejudice they may suffer from the dominant groups. By having been considered “savage [emphasis added] and of no value in the modern world” (Reyhner, 2009, p. 6), indigenous people have been highly vulnerable to poverty, school failure, and social exclusion (Singh & Reyhner, 2013; United Nations Educations Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2003) and even to identity abnegation (Molina Cruz, 2000).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Brazilian Amazonia: A Melting Pot of Languages and Cultural Identities We use the Brazilian Amazonia to illustrate the points introduced so far. According to Indian National Foundation/FUNAI (http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/indios-no-brasil/quem-sao, retrieved from April 23, 2019), in 2010, there were 817,963 self-declared indigenous people in Brazil distributed across 305 ethnic groups, speaking 274 indigenous MT languages. Brazilian Amazonia is therefore a diverse multilingual society (Council of Europe, 2001). This is what occurs in the city of Oiapoque, located on the border with French Guiana in the Northeastern Brazil, where there are four ethnic groups, namely Karipuna do Amapá, Galibi-Marworno, Palikur and Galibi Kali’nã, and four different indigenous languages. Table 1 details this information, specifying the original languages that they derive from.

474

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Table 1. Ethnic groups in Oiapoque and their respective indigenous languages Ethnic Group

Indigenous Language

Linguistic Family

Karipuna do Amapá

Kheuól, variety Karipuna

Creole

Galibi-Marworno (Galibi do Uaçá)

Kheuól, variety Galibi-Marworno

Creole

Palikur

Palikur

Arawak

Galibi Kali’nã (Galibi do Oiapoque)

Galibi Kali’nã

Karib

Note. Data adapted from Santos (2018)

As can be inferred from the table, indigenous children’s Oiapoque speak diverse MTs, including indigenous languages and Brazilian Portuguese, the country’s official language. Besides, children may also learn Brazilian Portuguese and an indigenous language as L2. In these ethnic groups, both Kheuól varieties and Brazilian Portuguese are often used as lingua franca (Anonby, 2007). In addition, cases can be found in which monolingual communities use their HL as a cultural sign of power. Despite sharing the same geography, each ethnic group has its own particular history and cultural identity (Capiberibe, 2009; Tassinari, 2001, 2003; Vidal, 2007), which now includes an adaptation of the alphabetic written system (Santos, 2018). It is therefore indisputable that indigenous children bring with them a very complex linguistic potential when they begin their literacy learning at school, being also influenced by their own specific cultural identity, which is quite distinct from non-indigenous Brazilian people (Gomes, 2012).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Literacy Pedagogy for Indigenous Children: Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy and Multiliteracy Contexts of difference such as those exemplified by indigenous peoples demand from schools an active production of identity and difference (Silva, 2000), that is, an education for the acknowledgement of, respect for, and enactment of social difference. As we see it, two general pedagogical trends have answered to this call, namely culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) and multiliteracies. Being situated in the resource pedagogies, developed either as culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995) or culturally responsive (Gay, 2002; Samuels, 2018; Villegas & Lucas, 2014; Weschenfelder, 2019), culturally sustaining pedagogy acknowledges the importance of students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds and experiences “as resources to honor, explore and extend” (Paris, 2012, p. 94) in all aspects of school learning (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014). Kozlowski (2019) states that selecting teaching approaches that are relevant or responsive to students’ cultural backgrounds “allows educators to discontinue prejudicial or inappropriate practices in the classroom and correct the inadequacies that occur with diverse students in schools” (p. 42). By assuming these tenets, CSP aims to promote engagement, enrichment, and achievement of every student by welcoming diversity, nurturing students’ cultural strengths, and affirming their lived experiences as a way of promoting their academic learning and social inclusion. Yet, CSP moves the resource theory beyond by acknowledging the need for: our pedagogies [to] be more than responsive of or relevant to the cultural experiences and practices of young people – it requires that they support young people in sustaining the cultural and linguistic competence of their communities while simultaneously offering access to dominant cultural competence (Paris, 2012, p. 95).

475

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

The goal of CSP is therefore to “perpetuate and foster – to sustain – linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling” (Paris, 2012, p. 95). Internationally, there have been well known instances of pedagogies developed in indigenous communities that align with these tenets. This is, for instance, the case in New Zealand, where indigenous MTs and HLs are scaffolded in school contexts as platforms for multilingual learning. Franken, May, and McCornish (2005) highlight the support that is provided to New Zealand teachers and emphasize the benefits such as tolerance, increased self-esteem, and identity affirmation among students. In Latin America, there have also been successful culturally sustaining initiatives targeting indigenous literacy learning in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru (López & Hanemann, 2009). As reported in López and Hanemann (2009), cultural valuation and bi/multilingualism have been developed among indigenous populations as an answer to rising school dropout rates, which were attributed to difficulties in learning official schooling languages. Current pedagogical discussions of initial literacy pedagogy in indigenous contexts are also beginning to be informed by key tenets coming from the theory of multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996). Multiliteracies developed in the context of The New Literacy Studies, which came up against the exclusive focus on literacy and literacy learning as a psychological endeavor and for a sociocultural understanding and education of literacies as a set of situated communication practices (Gee, 2015). The New London Group further developed these ideas by arguing that literacies are indeed specialized multimodal meaning making practices (New London Group, 1996). A central assumption sustaining the focus put on multimodality is that modes are culturally shaped and socially available resources of meaning representation for members of human communities that go well beyond the written mode of verbal language; another is the central role played by such multiple modes in digital communication (Kress, 2010). Accordingly, the theory of multiliteracies defends the need of a new literacy pedagogy, one which puts multimodal communication at the center of the curriculum (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Although not developed with early childhood education in mind, multiliteracies has been influencing the conceptualization, research, and practice regarding initial literacy learning, thus elucidating the second factor that influences initial literacy learning. Indeed, there is a growing demand for new discussions of central concepts to autonomous literacy models, such as emergent literacy (Clay, 1998; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). Early childhood education has to expand children’s meaning making repertoires and practices though the use of visual, spatial, and aural modes and acknowledge children’s emergent multimodal meaning making capacity (Flewitt, 2013; Lotherington, 2017, 2019; Pereira, Silva, Borges, & Araújo, 2019; Yelland, Lee, O’Rourke, & Harrison, 2008). Multiliteracies also has an important impact upon theory and research of indigenous literacy learning. Lopéz-Gopar (2007) argues that exclusive educational focus on alphabetic literacy has alienated indigenous peoples in Mexico and led to increased school drop-out rates among indigenous students. He argues for the potentially democratizing role of acknowledging indigenous people as multiliterate and their children’s specialized, multimodal funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) in literacy education. More recently, Mills and Doley (2019) report research that shows how indigenous children are socialized in multimodal representation, communication, and learning processes in Australia, and they also defend the enhancement of literacy learning at school by acknowledging children’s communicative funds of knowledge. In Brazil, Menezes de Souza (2003) also calls attention to the forms of representation of indigenous knowledge on the basis of his analysis of multimodal texts from an indigenous community in Amazonia. His research revealed that indigenous people gave drawings a differentiated and very particular status according to the support (or media) on which they were made: 476

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

they meant a legitimation of indigenous culture when made in fabrics, body and handicrafts; and, if otherwise done on paper, they were taken as illustrations of verbal messages. On the whole, multiliteracies enhances our understanding of indigenous cultural heritage as including culturally specific modes of communication, therefore expanding the conceptualization of initial literacy education of indigenous children as involving the enactment of linguistically sustaining multimodal pedagogy (Mills & Doley, 2019).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Culturally Sustaining/Intercultural Literacy Pedagogy in Brazilian Policy for Indigenous Communities1 The political circumstances in Brazil in the last decades of the 20th century (Freire, 2011) favored the emergence of a popular pedagogy, conceived as “an education of the people, by the people, for the people and with the people, against the dominant education that was of the elite, by the elite, for the people but against the people” (Saviani, 2013, p. 415, our translation). The specific concern for the education of indigenous people gained prominence in this context of explicit dismissal of the authoritarian paternalism of the (then) political framework (Grupioni, 2001, 2008; Macedo, 2006), leading to the proclamation, in 1988, of Indigenous school education in the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (Government of Brazil, 2013). In paragraph 2, Article 210, one can read that “regular elementary education shall be given in the Portuguese language and Indian communities shall also be ensured the use of their native tongues and their own learning methods” (p. 114). This right was reinforced through the statement, found in Articles 78 and 79 of the Basis for national education (Government of Brazil, 1996), that it is the duty of the State to offer bilingual and intercultural school education to the indigenous peoples in order to recover memories and cultures; to reaffirm ethnic identities; to uphold their languages and cultures; and to guarantee to indigenous peoples access to scientific and technical knowledge of the national and other indigenous and non-indigenous societies. The same law also determines the provision of specialized teacher training, clearly defined curricula, and specific pedagogic materials. This legal guarantee, which targets schools located in indigenous villages, was subsequently incorporated in the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998). This key document establishes that an indigenous school is communitarian (involving the active participation of the indigenous community in administration and pedagogy); intercultural (promoting respect towards cultural and linguistic diversity of other cultures); bilingual/multilingual (stimulating the use of more than one language, including among those peoples who have Portuguese as MT); and specific and differentiated (planned according to the particularities of the community it serves) (Grupioni, 2001). One of the most significant aspects of THE National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998) is how it frames the literacy education of indigenous children. The National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998) determines that indigenous schools should actively reinforce or revitalize indigenous languages by: • • •

Adopting the indigenous language as the language of schooling whether orally or in written modes so that teachers use it to teach and discuss all subjects, thus creating communicative conditions for students to become linguistically competent; Delivering literacy instruction in the (most representative) indigenous MT; and Teaching the indigenous language as L2 in cases where children are monolingual in Portuguese.

477

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

On the whole, the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998) thus provides the framework for a culturally sustaining learning process in indigenous schools. This legal framework was enacted by the Fundamental Curriculum of the Indigenous schools in Oiapoque (Government of Amapá, 2003), which defines that in the first period of schooling – including the optional early childhood education (beginning at the age of 4 or 5 at families’ request) and the first year of formal learning – literacy learning takes place in MT (indigenous language or Portuguese), with literacy learning in L2 (indigenous language or Portuguese) being introduced in subsequent years. A general communicative approach (Richards, 2006) is advocated as children are expected to develop their oral bilingual competences through active communication before learning to write. In addition, raising language awareness, and specifically, comparative phonemic language awareness (see Kkese in this volume), is advised in the early stages of L2 learning. After completing this first cycle of education, children are expected to have bilingual and biliterate linguistic competence allowing them to respond to the demands of their community’s daily life. Yet, despite being a progressive educational policy developed with the aim of enabling bilingual literacy education rooted in indigenous cultures, languages, and identities (Guedes, 2005), the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998) did not include a focus on multiliteracies and multimodality when it was originally conceived. On the other hand, body language, artistic languages, and mathematical languages are acknowledged in the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998), but they are discussed separately and not acknowledged as part of indigenous peoples’ specialized literacies. It is evident then, that a restrictive assumption of literacy as strictly related to the written code underpins the pedagogical orientations regarding initial literacy learning in indigenous education in Brazil.

Indigenous Children in Mainstream Classrooms The substantive legal stipulations regarding the education of indigenous children referred to above do not apply when children move from indigenous villages with their parents and enter regular non-indigenous education in mainstream urban classrooms. As already stated, the culturally sustaining educational policy that has been described exclusively targets the education given in indigenous villages and communities in Brazil. There are no specific curriculum guidelines targeting the education of these children, and urban teachers:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

do not feel prepared to dialogue with difference and to develop the necessary pluralist, humanist and ethnic relationships for a coherent and proficient work. The state does not provide them with courses or training specifically targeting ethnic diversity in the classroom (Both, 2006, p. 83, our translation). The recent past in Brazil has taught us to expect that, in circumstances such as those experienced in urban schools, teachers may aim to assimilate children into mainstream discourse and culture (Kozlowski, 2019). Lacking awareness or training, they may inadvertently develop and apply assimilationist ideas like those that prevailed in the past (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998), considering indigenous people to be all alike, thus devaluing their unique sociocultural and linguistic diversity; seeing them as coming from the past but possessing no history, thus ignoring their heritage of long and painful struggles for

478

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

human rights and against alienation (Candau, 2012; Freire, 2011); considering them to be primitive and uncivilized, thus excluding them from the future of Brazil’s people; and as having no right of access to both information and communication technologies as well as other sociocultural capitalist benefits on account of being acculturated. Alternatively, teachers’ practice may simply be “oriented by good will and intuition, not always in agreement with pluralism” (Both, 2006, p. 83, our translation). It is therefore imperative that teachers develop the necessary professional knowledge to be able to commit to CSP, thus actively producing linguistic and cultural diversity (Silva, 2000) with indigenous students who move into urban contexts, a need that becomes especially evident if one considers these children as showing a postmodern identity (Hall, 2006), that is, as “having no fixed, essential or permanent identity” (Hall, 2006, p. 12). In contrast with those learners who remain and are educated in the indigenous communities and develop a unified coherent self, those who move out become different, developing specific educational needs configured by the reconciliation of a diverse indigenous cultural identity and language competence within the culture of academic success and urban social integration. The next section introduces a pedagogical design to help teachers to navigate their professional needs regarding the initial stages of literacy education of these children in mainstream classrooms.

A Design for a Culturally Sustaining and Multimodal Pedagogy for Indigenous Children in Non-Indigenous Schools The pedagogical design articulates the central tenets of the linguistically and culturally sustaining principles of literacy education of indigenous children in mainstream classrooms. The approach is based on the method called Linguistically Appropriate Practice (LAP) (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, 2019). LAP is defined as an inclusive approach to working with young children of minority languages, which assumes that children “have two language environments, the home and the classroom. As a result, they have dual language and literacy needs” (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, p. 51). Therefore, one of LAP’s key tenets is acknowledgment of the teacher’s need to support development of both the language and literacy knowledge that children gain from home and the linguistic and literacy competencies they are expected to learn at school. As such, we take LAP is an accomplished enactment of a CSP for language and literacy learning in mainstream classrooms, its major singularity being its specific focus on early childhood education. Although LAP was not developed for indigenous learners, we believe that it holds a strong potential to help urban teachers develop the necessary pedagogical knowledge to teach their indigenous students in the Brazilian Amazonia and similar contexts2. The arguments sustaining our point will be made clear below.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Key Tenets (or Preparatory Understanding of LAP) As Chumak-Horbatsch (2019) explains, LAP is underpinned by fundamental ideas arising from current theories concerning culturally relevant/responsive pedagogies, bilingualism and multiliteracies, and early childhood education (cf. Figure 1). We argue that it is crucial for teachers to first become acquainted with these ideas before LAP’s pedagogical design is presented and developed. The key ideas behind the preparatory understanding of LAP are as follows (adapted from Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, 2019):

479

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. LAP values for teachers, adapted from Chumak-Horbatsch (2012, 2019)

1. Social justice: LAP teachers enact social justice by promoting equal opportunities, scaffolding children’s learning, welcoming their knowledge, developing language awareness, appraising diversity, and stimulating tolerance. It is our conviction that, in the context of Brazilian Amazonia, this discussion might be best achieved by introducing teachers to the pedagogical principles and aims that are established in the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998) for indigenous school education. 2. Social constructivism: The idea that children construct their knowledge upon experience (Piaget, 1972) with more capable others (Bruner, 1983; Vygotsky, 1978) is essential in LAP. These are fundamental tenets when thinking about the language and literacy skills of indigenous children, which are learned through interaction and by active participation in playful and motivating literacy events at any time and place. For this learning experience to be fully enriching, teachers are expected

480

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

3.

4.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

5.

6.

to actively scaffold children’s learning by planning relevant, challenging, and involving learning moments and by providing necessary constructive feedback. Multiliteracies and multimodality: LAP also takes into close consideration recent developments in early childhood education which acknowledge the inherent potential in the use of multimodality in literacy learning (Kress, 1997; Malaguzzi, 1998) as also supported by digital technologies (Lotherington, 2019). As Chumak-Horbatsch (2019) puts it, “this rich and engaging approach to literacy allows children to take control of their learning and express their perspectives in their own ways” (p. 13). As initially discussed in this chapter, advocating that multimodality, manipulatives, and digital supports be used by children in their literacy learning ensures an added relevance and meaning among indigenous learners. Children’s strengths: LAP is openly based upon children’s linguistic and literacy knowledge. In LAP, families play an essential role in assisting teachers in developing a sociolinguistic mapping of children’s competences. This will be key in pedagogical planning and action for learning that which is new, as it needs to be situated in known languages and cultures. Indigenous children’s funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) are therefore expected to sustain their learning as well. Dynamic bilingualism: Bilingual children possess multiple and interacting language repertoires, which they spontaneously enact as they adjust to multilingual contexts of communication (Cummings, 2007, 2019; García, 2014). Following Chumak-Horbatsch (2012), we also assume that there must be room for bilingual communication in the urban classrooms that welcome indigenous children, acknowledging that it is necessary for teachers to understand key research-based principles underpinning the active promotion of bilingualism from early stages in educational settings, namely: • Second language (L2) learning is not a simple soaking-up process; rather, it demands meaningful, supportive, and stimulating language practice. We believe that it is important that teachers understand for the role of emotional belonging in dual language learning among their indigenous children; • Young children learn their second language in many different ways due to non-linguistic individual factors (such as age, motivation, and learning styles) and external or circumstantial factors (such as the level of exposure to the new language, adults’ attitudes, and extent of linguistic similarities). This means that the learning of a second language that is targeted at urban schools is differently felt and thought and that teachers need to be aware of this; • Learning a new language involves acquiring skills on two levels: social (which is generally acquired within the first two years of exposition) and academic (which might need from 5 up to 7 years of exposure); • When properly fostered, the two languages of a bilingual interact and actively contribute for communication and learning; • The home language affects children’s personal, social, linguistic, and cognitive development, meaning that children with a strong MT competence may end up developing a strong L2 at school; and • There are cognitive and language processing advantages to bilingualism, especially regarding flexibility in thinking, working memory, and concentration. Translanguaging practice: Translanguaging is an essential learning practice for bi/multilingual learners (e.g., García & Wei, 2014). As Chumak-Horbatsch (2012) explains:

481

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

as they translanguage, bilinguals make use of multiple communicative possibilities, practices, and choices. They use their languages flexibly, shifting, mixing, and blending linguistic features. They go back and forth from one language to the other, combining elements from each language to convey their language and social skills and their cultural knowledge and understanding (p. 56). LAP explicitly adopts translanguaging as a new means of responding pedagogically to children’s linguistic demands, which can be adapted to different pedagogical contexts and be actively promoted by teachers who do not share their students’ languages. As Chumak-Horbatsch (2019) acknowledges, such practice is necessary so that teachers “build on, extend and sustain the language and literacy practices of all children, help them engage with the curriculum and develop new and meaningful understandings” (p. 14), which is the case when working with multilingual and multicultural indigenous children in urban schools.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Having discussed and understood the fundamental tenets underpinning LAP, it is essential that teachers are helped to explore how they can implement LAP to enact a culturally sustaining and multimodal initial literacy education of indigenous children in mainstream classrooms.

Structure LAP is divided into three parts, namely: 1. Background; 2. Setting the stage for LAP; and 3. LAP activities: Themes and sample activities (Chumak-Horbatsch 2019, p. 8). We offer some practical tips when describing each of these in turn.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Background As a qualitative pedagogical tool, LAP requires teachers to begin preparing their pedagogical work by formulating a sociolinguistic profile, or a precise preview based on the children’s language portrait (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, p. 21) and their bilingual potential in order to provide indicators for LAP to be established as an inclusive literacy methodology. For this purpose, it is essential that teachers devise an adequate data collection tool (e.g., see Figure 2 for an adapted sample for the Brazilian context) and that they know how to interpret the data using their own sociolinguistic knowledge of the multilingual and multicultural indigenous region, most notably regarding the ethnic groups to which the indigenous children in the classroom belong. This data helps teachers recognize the children’s bilingual potential

482

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 2. Sociolinguistic data collection tool, adapted from Chumak-Horbatsch (2012)

483

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

which might not be otherwise evident. In cases where families or caregivers do not understand the or are not literate in the official language, multilingual interpreters should be invited to assist. Teachers can use the data to build a chart of the languages that are spoken in the classroom. Children should be directly involved in the process, which is a rich, situated practice to build important curricular knowledge, e.g., numbers. The profile can be exhibited in the Language Centre in the classroom (see Teaching Tip below).

Setting the Stage for LAP LAP provides a description of how early childhood teachers can physically prepare their classrooms to carry out the method (see Teaching Tip below), especially concerning what actions to be taken prior to its inception, specifically, by helping teachers to: • • • • • • •

Promote inclusion, justice, acceptance, tolerance, and linguistic diversity; Understand how they can promote bilingualism even if they themselves are monolingual; Enact a linguistic policy in the classroom by negotiating rules and expectations that orient the language behavior of both children and teachers; Develop school-family communication, for instance by constructing mother tongue visual representations in order to help every child in the classroom to become aware of its linguistic diversity; Make use of information about children’s linguistic and literacy practices to plan language and literacy pedagogy; Create the Language Center (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012) in the classroom in order to further empower the mother tongues of indigenous children, which are thus present as additional languages of schooling; and Plan the physical confguration of the room, stimulating the use of multimodal supports, including photos, drawing exhibitions, drama tools, books, music, and so on.

When preparing the stage for LAP, teachers are advised to conduct some research about the cultures of the children and their languages. Also, teachers must be aware of key assumptions regarding translanguaging practice so that encourage children to use their own MTs during the activities.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LAP Activities: Themes and Sample Activities Three major questions frame these activities, namely “Who am I?”, “Who are you?” and “Who are we?” (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, p. 100) and themes are intentionally suggested by the author to support the children in the classroom in building and defining personal and collective identities by answering these questions. In the Teaching Tip below, we offer some examples of activities that have been developed to address some of these major questions.

484

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Teaching Tip Ms. Ana is a teacher in an early childhood program in Brazilian Amazonia. Multilingualism and multiculturalism figure among her learning priorities, and she decided to provide a fundamental physical scaffold for the construction of such learning through a Language Center in her classroom. She took the following steps. • First, Ms. Ana designated an area where children’s work could be displayed – a wall in the classroom above a table designated for the children to work on projects that incorporated their identities. • She introduced the space to the children and explained its role, assuring them that they would be welcome to use it during their free time as well as during classroom work times. She explained that the center was for specific projects, such as reading books in different languages, exploring maps of regions throughout the country, writing stories in multiple languages, and exploring other multimodal and multilingual resources. • Finally, Ms. Ana invited the children to name the language center and together they created a multimodal sign to post. The sign reads, Our Language Center. Ms. Ana has developed several activities within the language center. The following two examples show how she involved parents through multimodal projects that celebrate the language diversity among class members. Class Language Tree To launch the center, Ms. Ana started with an activity to develop a collective Language Tree. Together, the children and Ms. Ana, with the help of parents, created a large cardboard tree to display on a wall near the entrance to the classroom. They made white leaves for the tree and on each leaf, the children wrote greetings in their MTs. Visitors to the classroom, as well as other students and teachers at the school saw this celebration of the languages when they came in, which raised all students’ sociolinguistic awareness about their own identities. Multimodal Story Time Ms. Ana began by inviting families to come to the classroom and share important stories from their cultures. Sometimes she invited one family at a time and on other occasions, she invited the families of all children to learn from one another. Prior to each story time event, Ms. Ana found out about the story from the parents so that she could prepare students through activities that activate background knowledge. Ms. Ana asked the families to tell the stories the way they would in a non-formal education setting and she encouraged them to utilize the tools, accessories, sounds, songs, and dances just as they would in their communities. She always got permission from the parents to take photos during story time and while everyone was engaged in the activities. On some occasions, Ms. Ana scaffolded children to recreate the oral indigenous stories in visual modes, asking parents to write the stories in their MTs. Drama representations of such stories were also prepared with the help of the parents and digitally recorded (Lotherington, 2019). Invariably, Ms. Ana thanked the parents for their participation, letting them know how important their involvement was in promoting a wider appreciation and use of the various linguistic and cultural strengths the children bring to class. Ms. Ana always built on this story time by having students share their opinions about contents and the way stories were told. The students then worked together to create or select photos that best reflected the story and the lessons they learned from the shared narrative experience. Celebrating Special Days The Language Center was used to celebrate the International Mother Tongue Day (21st of February) and the World Environment Day (5th of June). In each case, the whole group was involved in collaborative project work and collective, multimodal displays and discussions. Sharing Books with Children

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Picture books, whether indigenous or not, were available in the Language Center for children to use. Children can read the books individually or in pairs during their quiet activity time each week. When reading books to the whole class, Ms. Ana invites indigenous children to use MT words when referring to key ideas in the story or to translate them for their classmates. So, what did Ms. Ana accomplish by engaging her students in the development of the Language Center? Besides providing a space for multilingual and multimodal (inter)action (speak, listen, write, read, question, paint, sing, construct, etc.), “where languages are explored, discovered, compared and shared” (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2019, p. 8), the Language Center became the stage for multimodal story comprehension and production and for active family participation. By developing this space, Ms. Ana created relevant occasions for the indigenous children to translanguage as well as for the whole class to develop their sociolinguistic and cultural awareness. The Language Center was very important for Ms. Ana to build her culturally sustaining and multimodal pedagogy throughout the school year.

485

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Practical Challenges In her most recent version of LAP, Chumak-Horbatsch (2019) calls attention to four major practical challenges reported by teachers who have implemented the approach. The first is involvement between monolingual and bilingual children. In order to circumvent this challenge, teachers need to ensure that the language of schooling is used to promote collaborative and self-selected working groups. Besides, they can involve all children in school events that raise awareness of relevant indigenous languages and cultures. The second challenge is lack of interest in using the MT/ HL at school. It is the teacher’s role to scaffold bilinguals to use of their MT and encourage monolingual children to learn words from the languages spoken by other students. Special activities such as vocabulary games might be designed to involve children. The third challenge is the presence of a single bilingual student in the classroom. In this case, teachers may investigate the presence of other students in the school or in other schools in the community and invite them in. Another possibility is the establishment of online networks with indigenous children from indigenous communities. In no event should single indigenous children be left isolated and alone among their classmates. Finally, the fourth challenge that was identified concerns partnerships with parents. Parents, in particular mothers from certain ethnic groups, may be reluctant to be involved with the school. Teachers need to patiently explain and encourage parents’ active participation in the development of their children’s sense of belonging and appreciation for school and the wider community, as well as to implement activities that encourage family involvement.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have looked into literacy education of indigenous children who leave their communities and begin their educational journey in mainstream, urban schools. In order to frame our discussion of this specific situation, we introduced some key concepts and tenets underpinning current theoretical approaches to literacy education of indigenous children worldwide, such as multi/bilingualism, cultural identity, and sustaining and multimodal pedagogical approaches. We deliberately illustrated these by extensive reference to the case of indigenous children in a municipality in Brazilian Amazonia due to its less known complexity. We further showed that this multilingual scenario is upheld by the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (Government of Brazil, 2013) and legally regulated by the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998), which guarantee the enactment of a differentiated, intercultural, bilingual and communitarian education to indigenous schools at indigenous communities. By centering our discussion on the specific situation of indigenous children who leave their original communities and enter urban schools and mainstream education, our intention was to bring to the academic arena a less pedagogically explored and yet challenging situation of these learners as well as to fill the gap created by the lack of provision of specific linguistic programs for the education of indigenous children in non-indigenous schools. As some research has begun to show, quite often teachers lack the necessary knowledge to enact a differentiated pedagogy that meets the needs of these students. The practical guidelines that we suggested in the chapter, based on the principles of LAP (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012, 2019), are meant to illuminate urban teachers’ actions aimed at promoting a culturally sustaining and multimodal initial literacy education of indigenous children. The guidelines target the development of the bilingual potential of indigenous students at the initial stages of early childhood education, awhile 486

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

at the same time offering a multimodal, situated practice aimed to enhance initial literacy development. Building on the development of social bilingual skills in general, LAP offers an approach that scaffolds the development of the language of schooling, while at the same time fostering children’s MT(s)/HL(s) and cultural knowledge. It involves families’ active participation and aims to develop indigenous children who are proud of who they are and establishing a strong basis for formal literacy learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work is funded by CIEd—Research Centre on Education, project UID/CED/01661/2019, Institute of Education, University of Minho, through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT. Discussion Questions 1. Why can the indigenous school education as established by the National curriculum standard for indigenous schools (Ministry of Education & Sport, 1998) be considered as enacting a culturally sustaining pedagogy? State your opinion. Do similar legal guidelines exist in your context? 2. Revise the theoretical tenets underpinning LAP and identify those that you understand. Illustrate them with evidence drawn from your practice. Then identify those you do not understand and discuss them with your colleagues. 3. Consider how you might further enrich the practical activities suggested to enact LAP’s culturally and pedagogically responsive pedagogy for the learning of indigenous students in urban schools. If possible, use your own context as an example.

REFERENCES Anonby, S. (2007). A report on the creoles of Amapá. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.486.9617&rep=rep1&type=pdf Bickerton, D. (2009). Bastard tongues: A trailblazing linguist finds clues to our common humanity in the world’s lowliest languages. New York, NY: Hill & Wang. Both, S. J. (2006). Da aldeia à cidade: O cotidiano de estudantes Paresi em escolas urbanas de Tangará da Serra [From village to town. The daily lives of Paresi’s students in urban schools at Tangará da Serra] (Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Brazil.) Retrieved from http://www.bdae.org. br/handle/123456789/1615

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Candau, V. M. (2012). Sociedade multicultural e educação: Tensões e desafios [Multicultural society and education: Tensions and challenges]. In V. M. Candau (Ed.), Didática crítica intercultural: Aproximações [Critical intercultural didactics: Approaches]. (pp. 19–54). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes. Capiberibe, A. (2009). Nas duas margens do rio: Alteridade e transformações entre os Palikur na fronteira do Brasil – Guiana Francesa [On both banks of the river: alterity and transformation among the Palikur on the Brazil-French Guiana border] (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.) Retrieved from http://objdig.ufrj.br/72/teses/ArtionkaCapiberibe.pdf Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

487

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2012). Linguistically appropriate practice: A guide for working with young immigrant children. North York, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2019). Using linguistically appropriate practice: A guide for teaching in multilingual classrooms. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters. Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new Learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044 Council of Europe. (2001). Quadro europeu comum de referência para as línguas. Aprendizagem, ensino, avaliação [Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment]. Porto, Portugal: Edições ASA. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222 Cummins, J. (1983). Heritage language education: A literature review. Toronto, Canada: Publication Sales, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Cummins, J. (2019). Should Schools Undermine or Sustain Multilingualism? an Analysis of Theory, Research, and Pedagogical Practice. Sustainable Multilingualism, 15(1), 1–26. doi:10.2478m-2019-0011 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Flewitt, R. (2013). Multimodal perspectives on early childhood literacies. In J. Larson, & J. Marshall (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed., pp. 295–310). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446247518.n17 Franken, M., May, S., & McComish, J. (2005). Pasifika languages research and guidelines project: Literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogia do oprimido [Pedagogy of the oppressed]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Paz e Terra. García, O. (2014). Educação, multilinguismo e translanguaging no século XXI. [Education, multilingualism and tanslanguaging in the 21st century] In M. Moreira, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Filhos de um Deus menor: Diversidade linguística e justiça social na formação de professores [Children of a lesser God: Linguistic variety and social justice in teacher education]. (pp. 53–76). Ramada, Portugal: Edições Pedago. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003

488

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Gee, J. P. (2015). The new literacy studies. In J. Rowsell, & K. Pahl (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of literacy studies (pp. 35–48). London, UK: Routledge. Gomes, A. A. S. (2012). Português brasileiro em uso por professores indígenas do estado do Amapá [Brazilian Portuguese used by indigenous teachers in the state of Amapá]. Retrieved from http://www. ileel.ufu.br/anaisdosielp/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/volume_2_artigo_037.pdf Government of Amapá. (2003). Resolution n. 06 of January 5, 2003 of Education State of Amapá. Approves the Fundamental Curriculum of the Indigenous Schools in Oiapoque. Amapá, Brazil: Education State of Amapá. Government of Brazil. (1996). Law n. 9.394 of 20 December 1996: Establishes the guidelines and basis for national education. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L9394.htm Government of Brazil. (2013). Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil: Constitutional text of October 5, 1988 with the alterations introduced by Constitutional Amendments no. 1/92 through 72/2013 and by Revision Constitutional Amendments no. 1/94 through 6/94 (6th rev. ed.). (I. Vajda, P. Q. C. Zimbres, & V. T. Souza, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: The Federal Senate, Undersecretariat of Technical Publications. Grupioni, L. D. B. (Ed.). (2001). As leis e a educação indígena: Programa parâmetros em ação de educação escolar indígena [The laws and the indigenous education: Program parameters in action in indigenous school education]. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Grupioni, L. D. B. (2008). Olhar longe, porque o futuro é longe. Cultura, escola e professores indígenas no Brasil [To look forward, since the future is far away culture, school, and indigenous teachers in Brazil] (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil). Retrieved from http://www.teses.usp. br/teses/disponiveis/8/8134/tde-24082009-170851/en.php Guedes, W. M. M. (2005). Línguas em contato no Oiapoque: As comunidades indígenas Karipuna [Languages in contact at Oiapoque: The Karipuna indigenous communities] (Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal do Pará, Brazil). Retrieved from http://repositorio.ufpa.br/jspui/handle/2011/2110 Hall, S. (2006). A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade [The question of cultural identity]. (11th ed.). (T. T. Silva, & G. L. Louro, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: DP&A.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kozlowski, C. T. (2019). Professional development for teachers of English learners (ELs): How constructivist thinking and culturally responsive pedagogy can support best practice for ELs. In J. Keengwen, & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of research on assessment practices and pedagogical models for immigrant students (pp. 41–62). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9348-5.ch003 Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. New York, NY: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465

489

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

López, L. E., & Hanemann, U. (Eds.). (2009). Alfabetización y multiculturalidad: Miradas desde América Latina [Literacy and multiculturalism: Views from Latin America]. Guatemala City, Guatemala: UNESCO-UIL, GTZ-PACE. López-Gopar, M. (2007) Beyond the alienating alphabetic literacy: Multiliteracies in indigenous education in Mexico. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education Studies of Migration, Integration, Equity, and Cultural Survival, 1(3), 159–174. Lotherington, H. (2017). Elementary language education in digital multimodal and multiliteracy contexts. In S. Thorne, & S. May (Eds.), Language education and technology. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. (3rd ed., pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_7 Lotherington, H. (2019). Remixing emergent literacy education: Cross-age, plurilingual, multimedia adventures in narrative teaching and learning. In O. Erstad, R. S. Flewit, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, & Í. S. P. Pereira (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 227–241). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203730638-17 Macedo, S. L. S. (2006). Ekolya et karetajar, maître de l’école, maître de l’écriture: L’incorporation de l’écriture et de l’écolep par les amérindiens Wayãpi de l’Amapari (Brésil) et de l’Oyapock (Guyane française) [Ekolya and Karetajar, master of the school, master of the writing: The incorporation of the writing and of the school by the Wayãpi indiens of the Amapari (Brazil) and of the Oyapock (French Guyana)] (Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne, France). Retrieved from http://www.theses. fr/2006EHES0239 Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas and basic philosophy: An interview with Lelli Gandini by Loris Malaguzzi. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach: Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 49–98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McArthur, T. B. (1998). The English languages. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9780511621048 Menezes De Souza, L. M. T. M. (2003). Voices on paper: Multimodal texts and indigenous literacy in Brazil. Journal Social Semiotics, 13(1), 29–42. doi:10.1080/1035033032000133508 Mills, K. A., & Doyle, K. (2019). Visual arts: A multimodal language for Indigenous education. Language and Education, 33(6), 521–543. doi:10.1080/09500782.2019.1635618

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ministry of Education and Sport. (1998). Referencial curricular nacional para as escolas indígenas [National curricular referential for indigenous schools]. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Educação e do Desporto, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Molina Cruz, M. (2000). Lengua y resistencia indígena frente a los contenidos formalmente impuestos: Una experiencia de lecto-escritura Zapoteca-Español en la Sierra Juárez [Language and indigenous resistance before the contents formally imposed: An experience of Zapotec-Spanish literacy in the Sierra Juarez]. In Instituto Estatal de Educación Pública de Oaxaca (Ed.), Inclusión y diversidad: Discusiones recientes sobre la educación indígena en México [Inclusion and diversity: Recent discussions about indigenous education in Mexico] (pp. 402–420). Oaxaca, Mexico: Instituto Estatal de Educación Pública de Oaxaca.

490

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 Morais, J. (1996). A arte de ler [The art of reading]. São Paulo, Brazil: Unesp. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Pardo, J. L. (1996). El sujeto inevitable. [The inevitable subject] In M. L. Cruz (Ed.), Tiempo de subjetividad [Subjectivity time]. (pp. 133–154). Barcelona, Spain: Paidós. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244 Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/ haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77 Pereira, Í. S. P., Silva, C. V., Borges, M. M., & Araújo, M. D. (2019). Digital reading in the early years. In O. Erstad, R. S. Flewit, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, & Í. S. P. Pereira (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 270–281). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203730638-20 Piaget, J. (1972). Development and learning. In C. S. Lavatelly, & F. Stendler (Eds.), Reading in child behavior and development (pp. 7–20). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Reyhner, J. (2009). Indigenous education in global contexts. International Studies in Education, 10(1), 6–9. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Samarin, W. (1987). Lingua franca. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 371–374). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Samuels, A. J. (2018). Exploring culturally responsive pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives on fostering equitable and inclusive classrooms. SRATE Journal, 27(1), 22–30. Santos, M. (2018). Metodologia de documentação linguística como subsídio para ensino de língua [Methodology of language documentation as a tool for language teaching]. Revista Brasileira de Línguas Indígenas [Brazilian Journal of Indigenous Languages], 1(1), 117–130. doi:10.18468/rbli.2018v1n1. p117-130 Saviani, D. (2013). História das ideias pedagógicas no Brasil [The history of pedagogical ideas in Brazil]. Campinas, Brazil: Autores Associados. Silva, T. T. (2000). A produção social da identidade e da diferença. [The social production of identity and difference] In T. T. Silva (Ed.), Identidade e diferença: A perspectiva dos estudos culturais [Identity and difference: The perspective from cultural studies]. (pp. 73–102). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes.

491

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

Singh, N. K., & Reyhner, J. (2013). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy for indigenous children. In J. Reyhner, J. Martin, L. Lockard, & W. S. Gilbert (Eds.), Honoring our children: Culturally appropriate approaches for teaching indigenous students (pp. 37–52). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Tassinari, A. M. I. (2001). Da civilização à tradição: Os projetos de escola entre os índios do Uaçá. [From civilization to tradition: The school projects among the indians from Uaçá] In A. Silva, & M. Ferreira (Eds.), Antropologia, história e educação: A questão indígena e a escola [Anthropology, history and education: The indigenous question and the school]. (pp. 157–195). São Paulo, Brazil: Global. Tassinari, A. M. I. (2003). No bom da festa: O processo de construção cultural das famílias Karipuna do Amapá [In the best of the party: The process of cultural construction of the Karipuna’s families from Amapá]. São Paulo, Brazil: EDUSP. United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.pt/media/2766/unicef_convenc-a-o_dos_direitos_da_crianca.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization. (2003). Education in a multilingual world: UNESCO education position paper. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000129728 Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 83–95. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01749.x Vidal, L. B. (2007). Povos indígenas do baixo Oiapoque: O encontro das águas, o encruzo dos saberes e a arte de viver [Indigenous peoples from the Low Oiapoque: The encounter of waters, the mixing of knowledges and the art of living]. Retrieved from https://www.institutoiepe.org.br/media/livros/livro_povos_indigenas_do_oiapoque-baixa_resolucao.pdf Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2014). Quadro de referência para a formação linguística de professores. [Common framework for teachers’ linguistic education] In M. Moreira, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Filhos de um Deus menor: Diversidade linguística e justiça social na formação de professores [Children of a lesser God: Linguistic variety and social justice in teacher education]. (pp. 153–174). Ramada, Portugal: Edições Pedago.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Lopez-MorillasM., Trans.). (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weschenfelder, V. I. (2019). Teacher education in a racialized society: An interview with Gloria Ladson-Billings. Revista Brasileira de Educação [Brazilian Journal of Education], 24. doi:10.1590141324782019240044 Yelland, N., Lee, L., O’Rourke, M., & Harrison, C. (2008). Rethinking learning in early childhood education. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

492

 Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP): Student-centered pedagogy aimed at fostering flexible, fluid and critical multicultural and multilingual identities of diverse students. Dynamic Bilingualism: Linguistic practice that reflects the continuously changing role of languages within multilingual contexts and multimodal communication. Heritage Language (HL): The community’s ethnocultural language, which may not be the child’s MT. Language of Schooling: The language system used as the vehicle in the educative process, the one taught as dominant, and the one in charge of facilitating progression across the curriculum. Linguistically Appropriate Practice (LAP): An inclusive approach to the special educational needs of immigrant and displaced children, sensitive to the needs of both home and school. It envisions children as bilinguals who require a dual approach to language and literacy education. Mother Tongue (MT): (also referred to as First Language (L1)): The language system that the speaker is exposed to early in life and the one which triggered their language acquisition process. It is the language routinely used in most non-formal situations and the one from which an ethnolinguistic identity develops. Multilingualism: Individual knowledge of two or more languages; coexistence of more than one linguistic tradition within the same social context. Multimodal Communication: Communication that employs multiple semiotic modes, such as oral and written verbal language, static and moving image, sound, music, gesture, and sculpture, to represent meanings. Second Language (L2): The language system acquired/learned with a certain delay relative to the MT, irrespective of other contextual factors. Second language offers non-native speakers the means for communication and socialization in contexts where some other language is dominant.

ENDNOTES

2



Here, we refer indistinctly to culturally sustaining and intercultural pedagogy, though the concepts come from different epistemic traditions. In Brazil, intercultural pedagogy has been highly influenced by Paulo Freire (2011), whereas in the Anglophone world sustaining pedagogies have been more directly influenced by Paris (2012) and Paris and Alim (2014) and, indirectly, by Ladson-Billings’s (1995) theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. An ongoing professional learning initiative for early education teachers is currently being developed by the first author in the municipality of Oiapoque, in the Federal State of Amapá, Brazil.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

493

Initial Literacy Teaching of Indigenous Children

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2019). Using linguistically appropriate practice: A guide for teaching in multilingual classrooms. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters. This book is an excellent educational resource that invites teachers to reflect on their own practices and also to understand the educational demands of multilingual and multicultural learners in mainstream classrooms. It presents the theories that support the LAP approach and, in addition, provides several examples of its practical enactment in classrooms around the world. 2. Paris, D. & Alim, S. (Eds.) (2017). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. New York: Teachers College Press. The book brings together a group of prominent educators and researchers in the discussion and expansion of CSP. As the editors themselves state, the book offers readers a “dialogic interweaving of research, theory and practice necessary to fully understand and move forward with CSP for educational and cultural justice with students and communities in a changing world” (Paris & Alim, 2017, p. 15). 3. Ministry of Education and Sport (1998). Referencial curricular nacional para as escolas indígenas [National curricular referential for indigenous schools]. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Educação e do Desporto, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This document exemplifies the enactment of a culturally sustaining policy for the curriculum development of indigenous schools in Brazil. It addresses key issues such as bilingualism/multilingualism, multiculturalism, and inclusive and differentiated education in the following curriculum areas: Language and Literacy, Mathematics, History, Geography, Sciences, Arts, and Physical Education.

494

Section 6

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogies

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Section 6 emphasizes the importance of fostering culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies when working with students from diverse backgrounds. The chapters in this section discuss practical approaches that make use of students’ entire linguistic repertoires to illustrate how literacy skills can be fostered in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.

496

Chapter 23

Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms Earl Aguilera https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3694-1406 California State University, Fresno, USA Ilana Greenstein California State University, Fresno, USA Linda A. Shannon California State University, Fresno, USA

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT In this chapter, three educators outline a pedagogical framework for enacting Linguistically Responsive Literacy Pedagogies (LRLP), founded on the sociocultural dimensions of literacy, the multilingual realities of many contemporary educational settings, and the institutional expectations of the teaching profession. The chapter overviews how the LRLP framework has been enacted across three diferent developmental groups across multiple school sites. The authors bring experiences as classroom teachers, teacher-educators, and school leaders working to understand and support the diverse literacy and language practices of learners in the 21st century. The chapter illustrates how pedagogical approaches that share a commitment to sustaining sociolinguistic diversity and promoting educational equity can be enacted across primary and secondary classrooms to beneft all learners.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch023

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Over the course of the past several decades, a growing body of research has demonstrated the value of contextually sensitive, culturally responsive approaches to classroom teaching, particularly in the diverse and multilingual contexts that are coming to characterize classrooms around the world (Banks & Banks, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2008; Nieto, 1994; Paris & Alim, 2017). Classrooms in the United States constitute an important example of how these approaches are becoming more essential than ever, as recent research estimates that over 50% of the public-school enrollment are composed of students of color (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). In contrast to this, the U.S. has had a history of emphasizing curricular models that center on the cultural legacies, values, and linguistic practices of its predominantly white1 demographic groups. This often occurs at the cost of marginalizing the histories and social language practices of groups labeled as “diverse,” including Black students, Hispanic students, and students of indigenous origin (Emdin, 2016). While many of these students are considered monolingual English speakers, the varied social language practices they bring to the classroom, often influenced by deep cultural histories and everyday experiences, are typically labeled and treated as non-standard, limited, or otherwise deviating from so-called ‘proper’ dominant forms of English. In this chapter, three educators from the United States offer their approaches for responding to these realities, with a particular focus on classroom literacy instruction across multiple grade-level contexts. While the particular labels have changed over time, pedagogical approaches grounded in a meaningful responsiveness to the realities of cultural difference have been supported by research in linguistics (Gee, 1996), neuroscience (Hammond, 2014), and numerous classroom-, school-, and communitybased studies of education over time (Paris & Alim, 2017). Educators, scholars, and researchers alike have developed various pedagogical approaches informed by principles of multicultural, critical, and equity-based perspectives on education (Adams & Bell, 2016). And while structural inequities, such as de-facto segregated community schools, remain a challenge for students of historically marginalized backgrounds, these approaches have yielded powerful insights into student engagement, school culture, and academic achievement (Gay, 2010). Despite these promising findings, classroom approaches to literacy instruction have been typically informed by pedagogical models that narrowly reduce literacy to purely cognitive, often de-contextualized components. In the United States, for example, standardized assessments, public school curricula, and commercial materials draw largely on a five-component model of reading endorsed by a report by the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). The NRP model emphasizes phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension as the five essential elements of reading, and has influenced almost two decades of policy, teacher education, and curricular design. The latest Common Core State Writing Standards’ emphasis on vocabulary, syntax, and normative grade-specific evaluation reflects a similar ethos (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). Despite the widespread adoption of these models, gaps in standardized test performance between white students and students of historically marginalized linguistic backgrounds have persisted over time (Rothstein, 2015). In the same two decades, however, a growing body of researchers, educators, and community leaders have been developing models of literacy that are more sensitive to the diversity of historical, cultural, and social realities of individuals, groups, and communities around the world. This framing requires a more complex and situated definition of literacies as an expanding range of socially-situated representational practices, which continue to proliferate with the expansion of digital information and communication technologies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). In line with the focus of this volume, this chapter will explore 497

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

some of the pedagogical implications of this expanded definition of literacies, drawing on the work of educators teaching in diverse and multicultural settings. While this chapter does reflect a focus on classrooms that are institutionally mandated to take a more monolingual stance on literacy, the authors ground their approaches in a recognition of the cultural and sociolinguistic diversity that students bring to the classroom through their varied social and communicative practices. In the remainder of chapter, the authors outline a pedagogical framework for enacting Linguistically Responsive Literacy Pedagogies (LRLP), addressing the sociocultural dimensions of literacy (e.g., Street, 2006), the multilingual realities of many contemporary educational settings (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2014), and the institutional expectations of the teaching profession (e.g., Luke & Freebody, 1999). The chapter then overviews how the LRLP framework has been enacted across three different developmental groups across multiple school sites. The authors bring experiences as classroom teachers, teacher-educators, and school leaders working to understand and support the diverse literacy and language practices of learners in the 21st century. The goal of this chapter is to illustrate how pedagogical approaches that share a commitment to sustaining sociolinguistic diversity and promoting educational equity can be enacted across the lifespan to benefit all learners.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND This chapter is grounded in a view of literacy as both situated and sociocultural in nature (Gee, 1996; Rowsell, Kress, Pahl, & Street, 2013). A situated view recognizes that literacy involves cognitive capacities, social practices, and material representations, but always within a specific context or situation (Mahiri, 2004). A sociocultural view of literacy suggests that beyond this immediate situation, literacy is also shaped by broader social, historical, cultural, economic, and ideological realities (Street, 2006). Building on this definition, the examples presented in this chapter draw on a sociolinguistic perspective, which frames language and literacy learning as social and cultural processes, rather than a set of prescribed rules or decontextualized skills to be memorized (Gee, 1996). As literacy educators and researchers, the authors also frame this chapter’s discussions of pedagogy through a lens of cultural responsiveness, which recognizes the ways all people experience learning, language, and literacy from a particular cultural viewpoint, rather than from some imagined place of “objectivity” or “neutrality” (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris & Alim, 2017; San Pedro, 2018). Different literacies are often linked to social status markers like academic performance, and thus, this chapter draws on Luke and Freebody’s (1999) argument for developing students’ capacities to draw on multiple literacy practices - learning to “break the code” (p. 5) of text, make meaning from it, participate in intertextual conversations, and analyze and critique texts as cultural artifacts. To support students’ literacy development across these practices, the authors draw on principles grounded in a pedagogy of multiliteracies (The New London Group, 1996). These principles include a critical framing of literacy as embedded in sociocultural contexts; a focus on developing literacy practices within these contexts; overt instruction highlighting different elements of the knowledge construction process; and transformed practice, drawing on the social and cultural resources of a particular context (students, families, communities, etc.). These complementary theoretical positions can be brought together under a unified approach the authors call Linguistically Responsive Literacy Pedagogies (LRLP), consisting of four fundamental elements:

498

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

• • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

Sociolinguistic Foundations: An understanding of language and literacies as meaning-making practices informed by social contexts Cultural Responsiveness: A disposition that recognizes how teachers and students enact literacy from particular cultural viewpoints Essential Literacy Practices: Supporting students to develop capacities as code-breakers, meaning-makers, textual participants, and cultural analysts, and Multiliteracies Pedagogy: Applying principles of critical framing, situated practice, overt instruction, and transformed practice to guide teaching and learning.

While scholarship has developed important insights into each of these areas, the purpose of this particular framing is to illustrate how they can be drawn together and enacted in everyday literacy contexts. In the following sections, we review key aspects of this scholarship that inform the authors’ own thinking on these issues. The first core principle of the LRLP framework is a foundation in a sociolinguistic conception of language and literacy. Such a perspective represents an important contrast to a view of language and literacy that defines a particular style of speaking, reading, and writing as “correct,” “standard,” or “proper” that can often characterize curricular approaches to language instruction in schools (Bauer & Trudgill, 1998). Instead, the view of sociolinguistics adopted in this chapter views dominant and non-dominant languages within a broader sociocultural context, and it acknowledges that engaging in different language practices across contexts can have important social and material consequences. Core to this perspective is the concept of social languages and literacies (Gee, 1996), which recognizes the multitude of language practices that exist beyond geopolitical categories of national languages such as English and French. For example, within the U.S. alone, a great variety of Englishes can be found across sociocultural affiliations, affinity spaces, regions, and other contextual categories. This concept is further expanded when one examines the Englishes spoken across the globe, within and across geopolitical boundaries. Thus, as students move through childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, taking such a sociolinguistic perspective invites teachers to explore the ways in which youth appropriate, resist, or even transform language practices for their own purposes (Alvermann, Young, Green, & Wisenbaker, 1999). A second key principle of LRLP is the idea that people experience literacy from a certain cultural viewpoint, rather than experiencing it objectively (Lankshear & Knoebel, 2011). Harkening back to our definition of language, the authors of this chapter define culture not as solely bounded by geopolitical or ethnic affiliations, but as the constantly evolving “webs of significance” that groups weave into their everyday social practices (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). From this perspective, culture (like language) can also be developed through social affiliations, affinity spaces, regional proximity, and other contextual dimensions. Within the field of education, Ladson-Billings (1995) coined the term “culturally relevant pedagogy,” to explain the critical connection between learning and culture. Her approach recognizes that good teaching results from the ability to link principles of learning with students’ cultures. This perspective suggests that students do not enact literacy in a vacuum; rather, their cultural experiences and viewpoints shape the way they engage and interact with literacy (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Thirdly, the authors’ framing of LRLP emphasizes that rather than simply engaging in literacy as a singular, cognitively-focused activity, readers and writers engage in at least four essential literacy practices that reflect their participation in broader social and cultural discourses (Luke & Freebody, 1999). In line with more institutionalized definitions of literacy, the first of these is the practice of “code breaking” (Luke & Freebody, p. 5) in understanding and composing written language. Secondly, in a departure 499

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

from traditional models of emphasizing comprehension, Luke and Freebody’s (1999) Four Resources Model recognizes the importance of textual participation through meaning making – rather than simply an extraction of inert content (Rosenblatt, 1978). Thirdly, considering that texts (of all kinds) serve many social and communicative functions in everyday life, the Four Resources Model recognizes the practice of using texts, selectively engaging with aspects of text to accomplish real-world goals (e.g., reading and using a bus schedule). Finally, the Four Resources Model recognizes the importance of textual analysis, examining issues of power, authority, and representation in written text. Subsequent scholarship has extended this work to address multimodal and digital texts offering new ways of understanding the interpretive and communicative repertoires developing in the 21st century (Serafini, 2012). Finally, the LRLP framework is a pedagogy grounded in the principles of multiliteracies. These principles were initially introduced by a group of literacy educators, scholars, and researchers known collectively as the “New London Group,” (NLG, 1996) and built on two aspects of the changing nature of literacy in society. The first of these was a recognition that linguistic diversity was becoming much more pronounced in contemporary societies, and thus an understanding of literacy itself needed to be pluralized to account for these many different ways of being and becoming literate. The second reality the NLG recognized was that people use information and communication technologies to expand the range of ways that they engaged in literacy practices across virtual and physical contexts. Thus, the multi- of multiliteracies can be understood both at the dimension of multilingualism and new, technologicallymediated literacies (Serafini & Gee, 2017). In their seminal manifesto, the NLG identified four key dimensions of a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Firstly, the idea of critical framing refers to the examination of issues of power, access, agency, and representation – ultimately situating language and literacy within a broader sociocultural context (Luke, 2012). Secondly, the idea of situated practice suggests that literacy practices are enacted by different social, professional, and affinity-based groups in the real world all the time – and when students are invited to participate in these situated practices in schools, they can be better prepared to become a part of these practices and communities beyond their schooling years (Bartlett, 2007; see also Lopez & Newman in this volume). Overt instruction is the third element originally described in the multiliteracies pedagogy; it describes the different ways that literacy educators can render visible the underlying thinking and decision-making processes that experts (or at least practiced members) of different discourses make (Biswas, 2014). Finally, the multiliteracies element of transformed practice involves the application of understandings gained through critical framing, situated practice, and overt instruction in new contexts – including literacy practices and genres that might be drawn from the lifeworlds and experiences of students themselves (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Drawing on practical applications from classrooms across multiple developmental ranges, the chapter now outlines how these elements can be incorporated into everyday pedagogical practice.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS In each of the sections that follow, the authors draw on their classroom experiences at three different urban school sites in the United States. The authors use vignettes and case studies from their experience as classroom teachers, combined with insights from the field of literacy education research to highlight how principles of LRLP can be enacted in everyday classroom practice.

500

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LRLP in Early Childhood Education: Sociolinguistic Foundations for Essential Literacy Practices Sociolinguistic foundations can inform the work of early childhood literacy education, particularly with regard to developing essential literacy practices. As research in sociolinguistics has helped to reveal, in the first five years of a child’s development, language capacity and usage is mediated by the way a child is socialized in and outside of their home and community environment (Fillmore, 1991; Gee, 1996). Drawing on one the work of one of the authors (Linda) as the founder of a constructivist pre-school, this section focuses on vignettes illustrating how early childhood literacy experiences can be nurtured by building on all learners’ language backgrounds. Each vignette is presented in turn together with its broader implications for literacy practices. Linda’s perspectives in this piece are largely informed by her experience as a credentialed early childhood educator and the founder of a constructivist preschool based on play in nature, nonviolence, and principles of bias reduction. Living and working at the intersection of a range of dominant and marginalized identities, Linda has been building a deeper awareness of her own positionality as it impacts her in work and everyday life. She also draws on her daily life and work as a parent to inform her stances on educational theory and pedagogy. To expand their own repertoire of literacy practices, teachers might then take the time to explore some of the ways of making and sharing meaning that are valued among the communities in which they teach. Some of these practices may have deep cultural roots, including roots in indigenous communities that developed ways of knowing and meaning-making long before the arrival of European colonizers (e.g. Haas, 2007; see also Lopez & Newman in this volume), while others may reflect changes in language practices that have evolved alongside new technologies (e.g., Garcia, 2017). From a sociolinguistic perspective, however, school-sanctioned literacies are not necessarily more “correct” than everyday literacy practices – though they can be valued differently across contexts. Thus, by engaging even young children in conversations about what counts as literacy, we can begin to create learning environments where many ways of being and becoming literate are valued. Linda’s own work as a teacher and school leader demonstrates how educators might help expand young learners’ understanding of their own literacy practices. By the time they come to school, even very young learners can be socialized into particular understandings of what “counts” as reading and writing (Gee, 1996). Teachers of these young learners have the opportunity to help expand these definitions and invite young children to value their own meaning-making and meaning-sharing practices. In order to do this, teachers must first recognize that the reading and writing practices that are sanctioned and promoted in schools only represent a limited range of approaches to meaning-making (New London Group, 1996). To illustrate this sociolinguistic framing of early literacy, we present an example of one emergent bilingual student in Linda’s classroom. The student, named Rani2, had come to Linda’s classroom believing she was not ready to begin to read, and had labeled herself a non-reader. Taking note of some of the possible ways in which Rani might be conceptualizing reading and what it meant to be a reader, Linda turned her own attention to revising this self-concept and moving toward building a new identity as a reader. One day, when Linda was engaging in the common pre-literacy practice of scribing a student’s oral storytelling, she found an opportunity to engage Rani in a discussion of her own literate identity. Linda noted the following exchange in one of her practitioner research memos:

501

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

“Rani, I will write it. But why don’t you?” “Linda!” Rani puffed out in exasperation “I CAN’T write! I’m just four!!” I looked at her: “Rani, do you know what writing is?” “No” she said, eyes wide in wonder. “Writing is just some marks that you make to remind yourself of what you wanted to say. It’s a kind of code.” “Really?!” Exclaimed Rani, in delight. “Yes!” I said “And someday, you’ll learn to write a set of marks that everyone else can read. But right now, you can just make your own and that will work.” “Ok!” she said. And she excitedly began putting her story down on paper, shielding her paper from my eyes as she wrote. Later, at her home, she read it to her mother. That day, Rani gained the power to scribe her own story, and became a writer. Linda’s reflections on this discussion illustrate her own emotional engagement in this exchange with Rani, as well as an important moment in an ongoing trajectory of Rani’s own literacy development throughout that school term. Linda’s grounding in a sociolinguistic perspective on language and literacy thus helped open up this and similar opportunities to help students expand their own understandings of literacy practices – even at an age typically considered to be ‘pre-literate.’ On the other hand, an important reality that early literacy teachers much reckon with is the idea that students often have to learn institutionally-sanctioned literacies to achieve success in schooling. Understanding how to engage students in practices of code-breaking can be just as essential for early literacy teachers as adopting the sociolinguistic perspective we discussed above. If we look at written text as a kind of code to be broken so that students can participate in meaning-making, then teachers can position elements such as phonics, phonemic awareness, and decoding in the service of students’ roles as textual participants (Luke & Freebody, 1999). In her own teaching, Linda has found that games can be a powerful tool toward this end. Games can aid learning in an almost subconscious way, change the context for routine or repetitive tasks, and even help nurture dispositions of continuous improvement (Bogost, 2011). One year, as a classroom teacher, Linda identified a first grader named Kavon who believed he could not read, requiring consistent encouragement, confidence building, and a certain amount of pushing to get him past his self-image as a non-reader. To address some of these challenges, Linda often turned to language games. In addition to reading playful rhyming book, the class played a verbal game: “If A-T is ‘AT,’” Linda would begin, “then what is B-A-T?” As students responded, the game went on: “If B-A-T is BAT, then what is R-AT?” And so on. The game was played without any written props, and only for five minutes at a time, throughout the day. Within three weeks, Kavon – along with many of his classmates - understood that “at” could become “cat” and then “hat” with a different sound manipulation. He was able to make the association that every discrete letter corresponded to a sound, and that the combination of letters had a distinct meaning. A few weeks later, the student reported that he was not ‘reading’ words in his world, but he was ‘guessing’ them. He had made the invisible leap in his head, from sounding words out to automatic reading. When this was explained to him, his excitement was clear. Within a year, Kavon was at his state-standardized reading level, and eight years later, he continues to be a voracious reader and sophisticated writer with an expansive vocabulary, unafraid of using new words. While it may be tempting, especially with younger

502

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

learners, to rely on drill-based and scripted methodologies for teaching reading, teachers can also learn to position early reading as code-breaking through participatory, responsive, and even playful approaches. As the vignettes above suggest, a sociolinguistic framing of literacy instruction can be applied when working with even the youngest of learners to encourage a growing awareness of the socially constructed (and sometimes contested) nature of literacy. At the same time, this framing can be combined with a focus on essential literacy practices that encourage early learners to develop simultaneously as code-breakers, textual participants, text users, and textual analysts. As the role of culture continues to impact both the in- and out-of-school experiences of young literacy learners, a focus on cultural responsiveness can help to ensure that literacy instruction remains responsive to these realities. In Teaching Tip 1, we explore how this approach might impact the daily literacy pedagogy routines of an early childhood classroom. Teaching Tip 1 In Pat’s early childhood classroom, opportunities to experience multiple literacies are interwoven throughout the day. At the same time, “literacy time” seldom focuses purely on letters and sounds, but on the many ways people express meaning through image, gesture, sound design, animation, and more. To prepare for one such block blending literacy and science, Pat has set up stations around the classroom. At one station, Pat gathered a number of wordless picture books and short texts on the subject of rocketry. Pat had learned through observation that several students were interested in the topic, though not all the students were as vocal about it in front of their peers. At another station, the students were presented with illustrated instructions and materials for building simplified rocket models. The students were also provided materials to draw illustrations on their model rockets, and to give the rockets names (not necessarily in writing) that they can later share with Pat. The third station was equipped with a few iPads and an app that invited students to play with different elements to modify a rocket launch, including height, speed, distance, and other variables. In the app, feedback is mostly visual, though Pat also pre-recorded a brief video presenting the students with different “challenges” to try and solve. Finally, the fourth station centered on a read-aloud with a volunteer student from a higher grade who had participated in that year’s science fair. Pat invited a group of older students to participate in the literacy block that day, and each student was responsible for supporting young learners through talk and questioning. As Pat circulated around the room during station time, she asked the students questions about the different kinds of reading and writing they had to do to fully engage in the activities. She prompted them to talk about their own interests, taking notes for future literacy stations in the school year. At the end of class, the students were asked to share one thing they learned with Pat or a volunteer as they left the room. And later in the month, when a letter-sound lesson focused on the consonant “r” or sounds within the word “rocket,” Pat reminded the students of their experiences at the science-literacy stations. Throughout this experience, the students were encouraged to engage in literacy practices for the purpose of accomplishing meaningful goals. Rather than beginning with a focus on phonics or phonemic awareness, Pat chose to ground students’ literacy experiences in situated practice (Gee, 2015). Expanding her own framing of literacy for students, she drew in members of a community of practice (the older students) and developed a more community-oriented context for literacy learning.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LRLP for Elementary Literacy Learners: The Role of Cultural Responsiveness Let us now take a closer look at the practical illustration of LRLP in the world of elementary classrooms with examples of how incorporating cultural responsiveness informed the literacy experiences of students in the second author’s linguistically-diverse 3rd grade classroom. A common claim that characterizes comprehensive educational systems worldwide is that literacy instruction should look the same for all students, and that incorporating students’ culture into literacy instruction is not an effective practice (De Pry & Cheesman, 2010). In line with the work of Ladson-Billings (2014), we instead argue that literacy and culture cannot be separated because they are interconnected at their core. If teachers attempt to ap-

503

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

proach literacy instruction in the same way for all students, they deny the authentic cultural contexts in which literacy is situated. In this section, based on observations of Ilana, our second author, we present specific examples of how elementary literacy can be framed through the lens of LRLP, and how creating culturally responsive pedagogical practices can serve the needs of diverse learners. Ilana’s perspectives in this chapter are informed by her growing self-awareness of her own social position as a white American teacher with some curricular autonomy over the content she teachers. She grew up in a mostly white, middle-class neighborhood, where the people she was exposed to and the curricula she learned from in school for the most part upheld ethnocentric ideals and perspectives reflected in many U.S. textbooks. The unlearning process did not begin for her until college, when she finally arrived at a school that was diverse and committed to challenging and reversing common cultural biases. She continues to study and reflect on how these experiences can shape her perspectives, as well as those of her colleagues, in her continuing journey to become a better teacher and improve the teaching profession overall. Drawing on her own developing understandings as a graduate student exploring culturally responsive pedagogy, Ilana realized that the English/Language Arts (ELA) curriculum she uses in her classroom was lacking in its connections to her students’ actual backgrounds and cultures. She has the privilege of teaching in a district widely recognized for its cultural and linguistic diversity. One thing Ilana began to realize about halfway through the school year is that the intellectuals depicted in the ELA curriculum (inventors, scientists, etc.) were almost always white. She also noticed that when a story in the curriculum was about people of color, the language centered on the characters’ race and culture, but when the characters were white, their race was not mentioned. This framing of different kinds of characters in different ways is a practical example of what Burgard and Boucher (2018) refer to as the additive model, which museums and literature often implement when including the experiences of people of color. Rather than reframing history and rewriting our perceptions of who has contributed to our society, curricula and museums simply “add on” stories about people of color that do not actually challenge the white supremacist views of history subconsciously supported by these institutions. By only including stories about people of color as an addition to the “mainstream” stories about white individuals, and then making these stories highlight the people of color’s race and/or culture, we have not truly engaged in the “work of dismantling White supremacist narratives in our museums and public spaces … with enough intentionality” (Burgard & Boucher, 2018, p. 240). Ilana realized that she had to make this apparent to her students in a way that was digestible for eight- and nine-year-olds. To address this issue, Ilana decided to talk to her students about how the majority of intellectuals they read about in the ELA textbook were white. They picked up on this idea quickly, and began pointing it out in various stories throughout their curriculum. Upon discussing this further, Ilana pointed out that when a story was mostly about characters of color, the language of the story often centered on the characters’ race, while in stories that were mostly about white characters, race was not mentioned. Further, through a guided discussion, students began investigating how this practice of always explicitly mentioning characters of color’s cultural experiences served to “other” them, while reinforcing white characters’ dominance and normalcy within the curriculum. This initial noticing ultimately led to opportunities for Ilana to engage students in more critical literacy practices, in part because she had chosen to adopt Ladson-Billings’ lens of cultural responsiveness to inform her teaching. Teaching tip 2 illustrates how critical literacy practices can be applied in ways that allow students to identify common cultural stereotypes, debunk these stereotypes, and build more accurate understandings of diverse topics.

504

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Teaching Tip 2 Keeping in mind his own students’ prior experiences, Mr. Jean designed a week-long series of ELA lessons for his 3rd grade students that centered on studying areas of the world that Americans tend to hold stereotyped views of. The week of lessons centered on Latin America and common misconceptions about it. On Monday, the strand of LRLP that was most emphasized was cultural responsiveness, which recognizes how teachers and students alike enact literacy from a certain cultural viewpoint. From what Mr. Jean had overheard the students say over the course of the school year, he knew they had often been exposed to stereotyped and reductionist views about Latin America and its varied peoples. In order to teach in a culturally responsive way, Mr. Jean decided to guide the students on a journey into literacy that would dismantle some of these stereotypes and promote new language around the varying nations and cultures of Latin America. First, the students came up with a list of everything that came to mind when they heard the phrase “Latin America.” The practice of creating the list of ideas about Latin America allowed students to express their understanding of this region from their current cultural viewpoint, which set the stage for this viewpoint to be challenged the next day. On Tuesday, Mr. Jean invited the students to read a series of picture books depicting the many diverse countries and cultures of Latin America. The students then engaged in a comparison between these books, including Living in Brazil and My Name Is Gabito/Me Llamo Gabito, and two texts they read earlier in the year as part of their ELA curriculum (Empanada Day and Bravo, Tavo!), which reduced Latin Americans to the stereotype of poor, uneducated people and centered on trivial “cultural” things such as making empanadas. This allowed students to situate their literacy learning in their prior knowledge while also stepping away from it and building a new, more accurate language to use instead. On Wednesday, the students selected a Latin American country to research. They were required to research several different things about the country (its food, traditions, languages spoken, etc.) and work with a partner to create a Google Slides presentation about it. This work continued through Thursday, and once all students were done with their presentations, they shared them with their classmates. On Friday, they were asked about what they had learned this week, and all students were able to write a paragraph describing how their understanding of Latin America and Latin Americans had shifted over the course of the week.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

As a result of participating in this series of lessons, not only did the students have a chance to examine their own perspectives on culture, but they did so by engaging in academic language practices, research skills, and critical conversations about the world around them – all connected practices of literacy learning.

In a project similar to that conducted by Mr. Jean, Ilana attempted to weave cultural responsiveness throughout a week of lessons centered on the diverse countries and cultures across the continent of Africa. She recognized that like Mr. Jean’s students, her students had biased perceptions of Africa, in part because of messages they had internalized from the media and books. Her school curriculum depicted Africa in a stereotyped way, and since many of her students are African American, she felt it was especially important to dismantle these stereotyped ideas and replace them with a more accurate understanding of the diverse continent of Africa. She was inspired by the work of Bigelow (2006), who used the Mexican border in his 11th grade global studies class as a jumping off point for a six-week long unit on stereotypes and perceptions of immigration and commonly held beliefs about Mexican immigrants. Ilana’s aim was for students to build literacy by deconstructing the context in which they had previously understood Africa, and then allowing them to rebuild this understanding through a self-guided exploration into the real culture of African countries. As Ladson-Billings writes, the secret behind culturally relevant pedagogy is “the ability to link principles of learning with deep understanding of (and appreciation for) culture” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 77). Beginning one week of the school year with a game of “Two Truths and a Lie” about the continent of Africa, Ilana was unsurprised to hear negative stereotypes such as “poor,” “no food,” “animals,” and other things indicative of the common U.S. portrayals of Africa. Students were completely unsuccessful in recognizing any “truths” about Africa, such as the fact that African countries have complex highway systems like the United States, and that many Africans live in cities rather than remote villages. Instead, students believed “lies” such as “All Africans are poor” and “People in Africa don’t wear shoes.” The next day, she used a slideshow game in which students had to guess whether an image was taken from an African or North American country to get students to question their prior conceptions. Throughout the

505

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

week, they compared books such as Africa is Not a Country, which represented the linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the continent, with school-sanctioned materials such as Gary the Dreamer, which depicted a more stereotyped, monolithic vision of the continent. As students reflected with the whole class on Friday about their learning that week, Ilana could see that they not only had a new understanding of the continent of Africa, but also a new appreciation and respect for its varied cultures. Since literacy and culture are intertwined, her literacy goals for the week would not have been accomplished if students had not also developed this new cultural understanding. In his own work with students exploring stereotypical representations of Mexico, Bigelow (2006) recognized that six weeks of lessons was “not enough time to counter a lifetime of media stereotypes … that have influenced most students’ thinking” (p. 10). Similarly, Ilana was well aware that one week of lessons would not be enough to completely shift students’ perceptions. However, she was hopeful that it would get students to begin questioning their previously held beliefs, and equip them with some tools to challenge biased ideas they heard moving forward beyond her classroom. As San Pedro (2018) writes, it is crucial for educators to “disrupt dominant cultural practices that continue to make Whiteness invisible and, thus, unquestioned” (p. 1197). As students recognized in their previous discussions about the textbook and its shortcomings, Whiteness is often rendered invisible in their curriculum, thus marking it as the “norm,” while other cultures and racial groups are marked as “other.” Additionally, Ilana recognized that her positionality limits the ways she teaches this kind of content. She wondered how she could teach about African cultures in a way that was genuine, meaningful, and not evocative of the traditional relationship between white descendants of the European continent with African cultures. How was it her place to teach about these cultures? She had only ever been to Morocco, the very outskirts of the enormous continent; who was she to educate children whose families originated from several countries in Africa about their own cultures? Adding to this is the challenge of teaching such complex ideas and histories to eight-year-olds, many of whom are still learning to tie their shoe laces. These are not simple questions with simple answers, but Ilana’s goal was to teach these issues in the most respectful, engaging, and memorable way possible, and to peak students’ interest in a way that would give them a thirst for the truth and inspire further inquiry. As the above vignettes and teaching tips in this section illustrate, engaging in LRLP requires educators to reflect on their own culturally-imbued conceptions of language and culture – rather than solely those of the students in their care. In doing so, teachers can model for students what the process of questioning one’s own worldviews might look like, as well as how the tools of literacy can be mobilized – the written word, digital media, and literature – in the service of building more culturally-responsive understandings of the world and its people.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LRLP for Adolescents and Beyond: Multiliteracies Pedagogy in Action The last set of practical examples focuses on LRLP throughout adolescence and beyond for students of diverse linguistic backgrounds. These examples are drawn from the teaching experiences of the chapter’s first author (Earl), who works with adolescent students in high schools, summer enrichment programs, and college access programs across urban contexts in the United States. While the word “diverse” is sometimes used to refer to individuals from historically marginalized backgrounds, many of the students in these programs share similar backgrounds with particular regard to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. From the perspective of language and literacy instruction, however, these students bring a wide range of social language and literacy practices to the classroom, which seems to strike many teachers and 506

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

administrators as quite different from culturally dominant language and literacy practices standardized through institutions such as high schools and universities, as well as high-stakes assessments considered gatekeepers to these institutions. Earl’s perspectives in this chapter informed by his own experiences growing up in similar neighborhoods in which he later taught. His background as a son of parents who had immigrated from the Philippines provided additional insights and points of connection to students who might have shared similar experiences with what Calgar (1997) referred to as hyphenated identities – that is, identities which transcend fixed ideas of cultural belonging. Nevertheless, his own undergraduate training in critical pedagogies (; Darder, 2003; Freire, 1968) served as the foundation for his teaching philosophies and evolving perspectives on developing culturally and linguistically responsive classroom literacy instruction. The four components of multiliteracies pedagogy: critical framing, situated practice, overt instruction, and transformed practice can be seen woven throughout various aspects of literacy instruction in Earl’s high school classroom. While these four areas underpin his formal lesson design, it is important to recognize that these elements can also be enacted through everyday interactions with students. The “critical” aspect of critical framing refers to the examination of issues of power, access, agency, and representation, ultimately situating language and literacy within a broader sociocultural context (Luke, 2012). While often engaging students in discussions of these issues in his English/Language Arts classes, Earl also works to frame every lesson from this critical perspective. When engaging students in literacy instruction, this often involves asking questions about the assumptions underlying a piece of text under study, the perspectives of a book’s author, potential biases, and the broader context into which that text might be a part. In this way, Earl’s students, even those who have been labeled as “struggling readers,” have the opportunity to engage with the essential literacy practices of code-breaking and meaning-making, while also working toward becoming textual analysts and participants in varied academic, professional, and social discourses. In day-to-day practice, Earl has found Kelly Gallagher’s (2009) Article of the Week activity to be helpful in building these critical literacy practices with students. In Earl’s version activity, he selects a current events news article – often about a controversial topic (e.g., media portrayals of stereotypes) or local issue (e.g., gang violence) – for the class to read together, distributing the article and soliciting students’ initial responses at the beginning of each school week. After these introductory meaningmaking activities, students are asked to annotate the article – and Earl introduces a variety of annotation strategies throughout the school year. Among these are asking questions about an author’s (or editorial board’s) assumptions and perspectives in order to help the learners contest the common idea that news agencies are meant to be “impartial” reporters of a common experience. By regularly engaging students in these practices throughout the year, Earl’s goal is to encourage a habit of criticality in students that they can apply to any literacy experience or practice they might take part in. Even with such critical framings, however, Earl’s students, as many teenagers, have been quick to realize that if such activities are only limited to the classroom, there is little use for criticality in the world beyond. Multiliteracies’ emphasis of situated practice has helped Earl in this regard. The idea of situated practice suggests that literacy practices are enacted by different social, professional, and affinity-based groups in the real world all the time, and when students are invited to participate in these situated practices in schools, they can be better prepared to become a part of these practices and communities beyond their schooling years. While on its face, the idea may seem easy to take for granted, consider all of the literacy practices students are made to engage with – round robin reading, writing

507

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

the five-paragraph essay, comprehension tests, etc. – that are never again seen in the world beyond the classroom. In fact, now a university professor, Earl has heard his colleagues lament the fact that students have been so engrained in school-only literacy practices that they struggle in discipline-based writing in the sciences, humanities, and other areas. And while students can get quite practiced at satisfying the requirements of a rubric or parroting the rhetorical structures valued on standardized tests, these often represent only a limited range of the varied literacies engaged in different communities. To prepare his students for real-world literacy needs, when designing writing assignments, Earl begins with a survey of different situated literacy practices that students might engage with. Often times, this includes drawing on published texts (print and digital) as models to share, analyze, and even critique with students. Within the context of the Article of the Week activity described above, this has included searching for articles from a variety of publications, with different kinds of intended audiences for students to read, discuss, and write about. In other cases, it has meant basing entire assignments and lessons on real-world texts, such as the Six-Word Memoir activity, in which students create a personal narrative in just six words, initially popularized by Smith magazine, and ultimately inspiring a variety of published books – with contributions from novice and professional writers alike (Smith & Fershleiser, 2009). Other situated practices that Earl has drawn inspiration from include microblogging as done through the social media site Twitter. By inviting students to compose responses, summaries, or reactions in blocks of 140 or 280 characters, teachers can engage students in focused conversations around authorship, audiencing, and even contemporary communication technologies. Overt instruction is the third element originally described in the multiliteracies pedagogy and describes the different ways that literacy educators can render visible the underlying thinking and decisionmaking processes that experts (or at least practiced members) of different discourses make. As opposed to teaching students to follow the structure of a five-paragraph essay, overt instruction instead involves a teacher providing models, thinking out loud, and soliciting student responses about the decision-making processes involved in crafting an argumentative, informative, or narrative piece of writing. What might be particularly challenging here is that in some cases, this may involve a teacher taking on the persona of being a writer themselves, and then facing the decision-making, challenges, and even failures associated with enacting the practice of writing for real-world audiences. But even this can be encouraging for students, as being transparent about the challenges of reading outside school-related genres, addressing writing challenges, and discussing ideas with other writers can often be hidden from students if they are only expected to produce a polished “final product” of academic writing. In Earl’s classroom, lessons about grammar and syntax are often approached through the lens of overt instruction. Though Jeff Anderson’s Mechanically Inclined (2005), which was written for an audience of middle and elementary grade teachers, Earl has adapted this approach for deconstructing grammatical constructions and standardized forms of English together with his students. When teaching about a particular grammatical construct in what some have labeled as “academic English” (Gee, 1996), Earl seeks out example sentences or uses of that grammatical construction from published young adult fiction, poetry, popular magazines, or even social media posts. He shares these examples with students even before explicitly naming the focus of the lesson, asking students to discuss their understanding of the meaning being expressed in the writing, and exploring other ways to express the same idea using alternative constructions. In doing so, he invites students to overtly participate in the process of making meaning through grammatical and syntactic choices, ideally encouraging a similar kind of thought process for them to apply in their own writing.

508

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Finally, the multiliteracies element of transformed practice involves the application of understandings gained through critical framing, situated practice, and overt instruction in new contexts – including literacy practices and genres that might be drawn from the lifeworlds and experiences of students themselves. Rather than something to be done to students, however, the authors of this chapter interpret this pedagogical practice instead as a lens for examining, understanding, and valuing the linguistic and literacies expertise demonstrated by all students as they learn and grow over time. For teachers, this involves learning about the different linguistic features of students’ everyday language practices, understanding the ways that cultural histories and perspectives might shape one’s own views on language, and highlighting particularly novel or sophisticated uses of language by students that might not always be valued by academic institutions. For Earl, this has meant deconstructing his own perspectives on so-called “standard academic English” and learning about the ways that language is racialized, cultured, and fundamentally inseparable from issues of power and privilege (Rosa & Flores, 2017). It has involved purposefully choosing to see students’ marginalized language practices, such as African-American English, from a position of strength, and a place from which to identify linguistic patterns that exist across all social languages – institutionally valued or not (Lanehart, 2015). It has also meant encouraging, reading, and responding to student writing outside the classroom – be it poetry, lyrical music, video game blogs, or even handwritten notes. All of these and more can certainly be evidence of transformed practice – if educators and researchers could just learn where and how to look. This approach, of course is not without its challenges. As Earl reflects back on his pedagogy, he recalls times when critical framings of his subject matter put him at odds with the administration and structural organization of his school. Teachers and academic instructors also need to be mindful and selective of the kinds of situated practices they invite their students into, as many communities beyond school may be connected by ideologies or affinities that a teacher might not want to encourage. Even overt instruction may require time to develop a strong pedagogical approach toward, as the right mix of explicit and implicit teaching may vary from class to class, and even from student to student. Finally, because the idea of transformed practice is being framed in this chapter more as a lens of understanding than a teaching strategy, the authors would remind future teachers that such dispositions are best developed over time, through reflexive practice, and perhaps with a community of like-minded individuals also seeking to improve the linguistic responsiveness of their literacy pedagogies.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter overviewed a pedagogical framework of Linguistically Responsive Literacy Pedagogies (LRLP) as a way to unify several theories of language and literacy as applied to diverse and multicultural learning contexts. The examples of these pedagogical principles in action were discussed across childhood, elementary, and secondary schooling contexts. As the chapter comes to a close, the authors would like to emphasize several points that may further clarify these ideas and how they might be applied across other learning contexts. First, it is important to recognize that LRLP, like any critical and socioculturally-situated approach, should not be taken as a kind of “checklist” to evaluate whether one’s teaching is linguistically-responsive enough or not. As Adams and Bell (2016) remind us, teaching for diversity and social justice is both a goal and a process, and the authors argue that this perspective applies to literacy pedagogies as well. 509

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Second, while the authors have presented examples of literacy, elementary, and secondary classrooms applying aspects of LRLP, they also recognize that these divisions can vary across cultural and political contexts and should not be taken necessarily as direct development progressions of literacy pedagogy. Communities, classes, and individual students can vary greatly, and the authors encourage readers to consider blurring the established lines of developmental literacy models to see what might be possible to accomplish across their own learning contexts. Finally, while the authors have presented a framework that they believe cuts across their own classroom practices, they by no means advocate LRLP as a panacea for all of the challenges that literacy instruction in diverse and multicultural settings might involve. While the framework has helped the authors understand and express their own perspectives, philosophies, and pedagogical practices, others may interpret and apply these principles in different ways, and with very different results. Therefore, the authors invite further refinement, application, and transformation of the framework to better fit the needs, aspirations, and interests of students and teachers in local contexts. Beyond pedagogy, the authors recognize that a great many issues, including structural inequality, institutional ethnocentrism, and the simple, yet powerful resilience of the status quo can complicate teachers’ own literacy pedagogies and relationships with students. However, through a framing of LRLP, the authors have found a way to give voice to their shared understandings, challenges, and aspirations for the future of language and literacy in increasingly diverse societies. They sincerely hope that this chapter will help other teachers, parents, and educational leaders do the same. Discussion Questions 1. In what ways do your current classroom practices support the perspectives on language and literacy discussed in the chapter? In what ways are your current classroom practices already aligned with principles of LRLP? 2. How does your current curriculum support or not support cultural responsiveness? In what ways can you incorporate culturally responsive pedagogy to supplement the preexisting curriculum and make it more relevant to your students’ backgrounds? 3. What aspects of your students’ language and literacy practices do you tend to focus more on? Are there aspects of literacy and language from a sociocultural perspective you would like to have a better understanding of?

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adams, M., & Bell, L. A. (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315775852 Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1999). Adolescents’ perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in after-school read and talk clubs. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 221–264. doi:10.3102/00028312036002221 Anderson, J. (2005). Mechanically inclined: Building grammar, usage, and style into writer’s workshop. New York, NY: Stenhouse Publishers. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. Hoboken, NJ: John R. Wiley & Sons. Bartlett, L. (2007). To seem and to feel: Situated identities and literacy practices. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 51–69.

510

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Bauer, L., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (1998). Language myths. London, UK: Penguin. Bigelow, B. (2006). The line between us: Teaching about the border and Mexican immigration. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Biswas, S. (2014). How to teach multiliteracies? The Canadian Journal for Teacher Research, 1(1), 40 ̶ 47. Bogost, I. (2011). How to do things with videogames. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816676460.001.0001 Burgard, K. L., & Boucher, M. L. (2018). The special responsibility of public spaces to dismantle white supremacist historical narratives. In A. M. Labrador, & N. A. Silberman, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public heritage theory and practice (pp. 239 ̶ 257). London, UK: Oxford University Press. Caglar, A. S. (1997). Hyphenated identities and the limits of “culture.”. In T. Modood, & P. Werbner (Eds.), The politics of multiculturalism in the new Europe: Racism, identity, and community (pp. 169–185). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044 Darder, A. (2003). The critical pedagogy reader. London, UK: Psychology Press. De Pry, R., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Reflections on culturally responsive teaching: Embedding theory into practices of instructional and behavioral support. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5(1), 36–51. doi:10.9741/2161-2978.1031 Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood... and the rest of y’all too: Reality pedagogy and urban education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(3), 323–346. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80059-6 Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it. New York, NY: Stenhouse Publishers.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Garcia, A. (2017). Good reception: Teens, teachers, and mobile media in a Los Angeles high school. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/10215.001.0001 Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Milton Park, UK: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J. P. (2015). The essential James Gee: An introduction to discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

511

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Haas, A. M. (2007). Wampum as hypertext: An American-Indian intellectual tradition of multimedia theory and practice. Studies in American Indian Literatures, 19(4), 77–100. doi:10.1353/ail.2008.0005 Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In W. Ayres, G. Ladson-Billings, & G. Michie (Eds.), City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row (pp. 162–177). New York, NY: The New Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751 Lanehart, S. (Ed.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of African American language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). Literacies: Social, cultural, and historical perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. doi:10.1080/ 00405841.2012.636324 Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5–8. Mahiri, J. (2004). What they don’t learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards (English language arts). Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Nieto, S. (1994). Moving beyond tolerance in multicultural education. Multicultural Education, 1(4), 9–12, 35–38.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Paris, D., & Alim, S. H. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and Learning For justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Do you hear what I hear? Raciolinguistic ideologies and culturally sustaining pedagogies. In D. Paris, & S. H. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 175–190). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 21–30. doi:10.100712552-014-9134-1

512

 Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Rowsell, J., Kress, G., Pahl, K., & Street, B. (2013). The social practice of multimodal reading: A new literacy studies–Multimodal perspective on reading. In D. E. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1182–1207). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0710.43 San Pedro, T. (2018). Abby as ally: An argument for culturally disruptive pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1193 ̶ 1232. Serafini, F. (2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies, 7(2), 150–164. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2012.656347 Serafini, F., & Gee, E. (2017). Remixing multiliteracies: Theory and practice from New London to new times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Smith, L., & Fershleiser, R. (2009). Not quite what I was planning and other six-word memoirs by writers. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Street, B. V. (2006). Autonomous and ideological models of literacy: Approaches from new literacy studies. Media Anthropology Network, 17, 1–15. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: An approach to teaching and learning that recognizes the varied cultural perspectives present in any learning context and teaches according to these realities. Literacy Practices: Socially-situated ways of exchanging meaning that vary across cultures and contexts, involve artifacts such as words composed on a page or digital screen, and are constantly evolving and changing. Multiliteracies: A term coined in the late 1990s that refers to both the linguistic diversity of literacy practices as well as the ways literacies are communicated across modes beyond just language. Multimodality: A field of study that examines meaning-making through signs beyond just written language, including image, composition, gesture, and sound. New Literacies: Literacy practices enabled by emerging technologies such as social media and mobile applications. New Literacy Studies (NLS): An approach to studying literacy as it is tied specifically to social and cultural contexts (see also: Literacy Practices). Social Languages: Varieties of language that exist beyond geopolitically-defined categories such as English or French. In the U.S., for example, a great variety of Englishes can be found spoken across sociocultural affiliations, affinity spaces, regions, and many other areas. Sociolinguistics: A branch of linguistics that studies the relationship of language to social factors, including region, class, and occupational dialects, gender differences, and multilingualism.

513

Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

ENDNOTES

2



Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

514

In this chapter, the idea of “whiteness” is used to describe a social construct, rather than the pigmentation of one’s skin or a unified cultural experience. All student names used in the chapter are pseudonyms.

Linguistically-Responsive Literacy Pedagogies Across Primary and Secondary Classrooms

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2016). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. John Wiley & Sons. This edited volume outlines a variety of perspectives on multicultural education and offers range of theoretical and practical classroom applications of the ideas discussed. Issues addressed include gender equity, inclusive education, and mwulticultural curriculum reform. 2. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. This volume explores the theory and practice of culturally sustaining pedagogies and centers the views and experiences of communities and individuals from historically marginalized perspectives. The concept of culturally sustaining pedagogies builds on and extends the conception of culturally responsive pedagogy to consider how minoritized ways of knowing, doing, and being can be sustained in an era of resurging ethnocentrism. 3. Gee, J. P. (2014). Literacy and education. New York, NY: Routledge. This text serves as a helpful overview of a sociolinguistic view of literacy in education and is accessible for a wide range of audiences. Each chapter draws contributions from Gee’s other published works, and address topics such as discourse theory, social languages and literacies, and multimodal literacies in video games and related media. 4. The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (2002). The diversity kit: An introductory resource for social change in education. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Though somewhat dated, this text contains a plethora of practical activities for developing pedagogies more responsive to the culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms that define contemporary society. The text is divided into three broad areas which address three core areas from a sociocultural perspective: human development, language, and culture.

515

516

Chapter 24

Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy Evghenia Goltsev University of Cologne, Germany Stefanie Bredthauer University of Cologne, Germany

ABSTRACT Having been overlooked for a long time, the importance of literacy competence for successful participation in education is currently gaining attention and practical implementation in many countries. However, despite the linguistic diversity of the classrooms and the so-called multilingual turn in research, the fostering of literacy skills often continues to focus on the monolingual perspective of the majority language, thus overlooking vast multilingual potential. This approach is rooted at diferent levels of the educational systems. For teachers, who play a key role in promoting literacy development, this is partially due to respective monolingual orientation in teacher education and a lack of (systematic) implementation of applicable methods and examples. This chapter addresses this issue by presenting a synopsis of possible approaches of preparing teachers to foster multilingual literacy. Although all this is done using Germany as an example, the elements can be transferred to other contexts and formats of teacher training courses.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Language skills and academic language, particularly the literacy competence, have long been taken for granted within many school systems. In Germany, literacy skills are taught explicitly within the German subject during the first years of schooling and in foreign language classes. As a reaction to the results of large-scale studies, e.g., PISA, which show a strong link between literacy and other achievements, a turn has taken place (Becker-Mrotzek & Roth, 2017). Actors at different levels, such as policy makers, researchers, as well as practitioners are now concerned with the question of and language sensitive teaching across all school subjects. Their initiatives resulted in various outputs e.g., an obligatory module for all pre-service teachers and professional development training for in-service teachers (Witte, 2017). DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch024

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

However, most of these efforts are focused on providing the knowledge and competences exclusively in the state language, thus not taking into account and drawing upon the vast multilingual potential of the students (Gogolin, 2008, 2017). This can be viewed as a shortcoming since, apart from such cornerstones of successful education as identity formation and motivation, multilingual practices and systematically developed multilingual competence and literacy skills have been shown to be an important resource in different learning processes (Cummins, 2010; Marx, 2005). It is therefore highly beneficial to not only view multilingualism as a great resource on its own, but also to set fostering of multilingual literacy skills as one of the main objectives of language education. Teachers take thereby a key role: they not only operate and direct learning processes through their teaching practices, but they also serve as models of linguistic behavior to the students. Thus, one of the first steps towards the objective multilingual literacy is to equip teachers with the means to achieve this goal (Doğmuş, Karakaşoğlu-Aydın & Mecheril, 2016). Even though the focus of many teacher preparation programs is still predominantly exclusively on the respective state language, there are approaches in some seminars1 to include multilingualism. This chapter uses examples from courses at the University of Cologne to outline w possible ways in which (prospective) teachers can be prepared to actively integrate the multilingual resources of the students in their lessons, aiming at promoting multilingual literacy. The academic didactic elements are then systematized, and potential further developments are discussed. Although all this is done using courses at the University of Cologne as an example, due to universality of the approaches, they can easily be transferred to other teacher training programs in different countries.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND As a basis for the presentation of the field-tested approaches from seminars at the University of Cologne, the questions of why multilingual literacy should be promoted in the classroom and to what extent (prospective) teachers in Germany have been prepared for it so far is now addressed.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Why Promote Multilingual Literacy As a result of migration, bilingual parental homes and foreign language teaching in schools (García & Flores, 2010), the majority of students at German schools today are multilingual. In this chapter, all people who have the ability to use two or more languages for the purpose of communication are regarded as multilingual (Council of Europe, 2001). The competences in the different languages of a person can vary. For example, basic, strictly oral or domain-specific skills in one language contribute to a multilingual profile. In addition, we assume that a person’s abilities in different languages cannot be viewed as separate but interact with each other. Thus, students possess heterogeneous types of multilingual literacy skills. In this chapter, we do not restrict the understanding of literacy to reading and writing and, use the term “multilingual literacy” for the broader scope of abilities referring to practical and theoretical language skills that are highly dependent on the respective individual circumstances of usage (Helmchen & Melo-Pfeifer, 2018). Hence, multilingual literacy refers to all linguistic and cognitive resources of a multilingual individual. In the following, we use the terms multilingual literacy, multilingualism, and multilingual competence interchangeably. Over the past 20-30 years, various concepts have been developed with the aim of integrating these multilingual resources of learners into the classroom and using them to the learner’s advantage (Hu, 2010; Reich & Krumm, 2013). These include language awareness, 517

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

language comparison, translanguaging, and intercomprehension. These concepts have different core areas and focus partly on language teaching and partly on content area teaching, but all of them are based on the insight that multilingual individuals can develop increased (meta)linguistic and (meta-)cognitive abilities if they are supported appropriately. Earlier studies report, among other things, increases in a number of areas. First, the language awareness of the learners is promoted (e.g., Bär, 2009; Behr, 2007; Bredthauer, 2016; Cenoz & Jessner, 2009; Marx, 2005; Meißner, 2010). This refers to explicit knowledge of language and awareness and sensitivity in language learning, teaching and use. Furthermore, the interlingual ability of learners to transfer, i.e. their competence to discover transfer bases between different languages, increases (e.g., Behr, 2007; Marx, 2005; Meißner, 1997, 2010; Zeevaert & Möller, 2011). A facilitation of learning and an improvement of targeted learning outcomes is assumed (e.g., Bär, 2009; Bredthauer, 2016; Cenoz & Gorter, 2019; Marx, 2005, 2010). In addition, language learning awareness and language learning competence of the learners (e.g., use of strategies) are promoted (e.g., Bär, 2009; Behr, 2007; Bredthauer, 2016; Meißner, 2010; Morkötter, 2016), which supports the development of learner autonomy. Combined with the previously mentioned effects, the learning motivation of the learners is increased (e.g., Bär, 2009, 2010; Baker, 2011; Behr, 2007; Bredthauer, 2016; Meißner, 2010). The increased motivation to learn also increases the participation and pleasure of the learners in the lessons (e.g., Bär, 2009; Baker, 2011; Behr, 2007). Finally, synergy potentials become clear to the learners, while the awareness of the teachers regarding synergy effects between the languages is also promoted (e.g., Behr, 2007). These results suggest that multilingual teaching concepts can be assumed to work on at least three levels (Bredthauer, 2018): 1. effects on learners (language awareness, interlingual transfer skills, language competences, language learning competence, motivation to learn) 2. effects on teachers (teachers’ awareness of synergy effects) and 3. effects on teaching (participation and pleasure of learners in teaching). According to the studies mentioned above, the following three factors have an impact on multilingual teaching practices: 1. Learner-related factors such as the level of competence of the learners in the languages involved and the associated degree of mental availability of the respective languages, the age of the learners and the corresponding general cognitive abilities, the number of languages learnt by students and the duration of language learning, learners’ experience of multilingual learning activities, and the intrinsic learning motivation of students (e.g., Bär, 2009; Baker, 2011; Behr, 2007; Meißner, 1997; Rolstad, Mahoney & Glass, 2005; Tabatadze, 2015). 2. Linguistic factors such as the degree of typological similarity between the languages involved or the subjectively perceived proximity of the languages by the learners and the linguistic domain, since the different linguistic domains vary in consciousness (e.g. Bär, 2009, Behr, 2007, Marx, 2005, Meißner, 2010). 3. Didactic factors such as teacher’s ability to motivate learners for multilingualism, the competence of the teacher in moderation and mentoring, the intensity of exercising (e.g., reflecting, comparing or transferring) during the lessons and stimulating interest among learners through the use of the method of discovering learning (e.g., Bär, 2009; Behr, 2007; Varghese, 2004). Meanwhile, numerous educational policy documents (e.g., various core curricula) in Europe also include a call for multilingual pedagogical approaches to be taken into account in the classroom practice – for example, via the method of language comparison, which represents a central didactic element of 518

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

various multilingual teaching approaches (e.g., of translanguaging) (e.g., García & Flores, 2010; Reich & Krumm, 2013). This demand is also integrated in the Framework of Reference for Plural Approaches to Languages and Cultures (RePA, 2009), an instrument published by the European Centre for Foreign Languages of the Council of Europe for the description of intercultural and multilingual competences. The “skills and procedural knowledge” area includes the “ability to compare” category, which includes the following subcategories: “proficiency in methods of comparison,” “ability to perceive phonetic proximity and distance (to distinguish when listening),” “ability to perceive lexical proximity,” and “ability to compare the functioning of grammar of different languages” (Candelier, Camilleri Grima, Castelotti, de Pietro, Lörincz, Meißner, & Schröder-Sura., 2009, pp. 93-96). In sum, it can be stated that the use of multilingual teaching approaches is demanded by education policies in many countries, that appropriate teaching concepts are available, and that there are first positive empirical findings. On the other hand, one major desideratum is the implementation in broad teaching practice, which results, among other things, from the fact that prospective teachers have so far not been prepared at all, or only inadequately, to include the multilingual competences of their students into their lessons (Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016). The following section explores this issue in more detail using teacher training programs in Germany as an example.

Multilingual Literacy in Teacher Education A review of the current literature shows that, despite the benefits and the demands by the education policies mentioned above, the majority of the teacher training programs in different countries still lack elements that view multilingualism as a resource (see also Lypka & DeFelice in this volume). Even though isolated projects address this issue, most structured pre-service education does not include obligatory components that provide necessary knowledge and skills (Winters-Ohle, Seipp, & Ralle,2012). Regarding the multilingual potential, an orientation towards monolingualism and deficits prevails, especially in the case of students belonging to a minority or with a migration background (Meier 2017; Young, 2017). However, even the pre- and in-service teachers who show positive attitudes towards multilingualism are often not adequately prepared and equipped to foster and develop multilingual literacy (Angelovska, Krulatz, & Šurkalović, in press; Meier 2017).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Status Quo of Teacher-Training in Germany At universities providing teacher training in Germany, three approaches can be distinguished to structurally locate language education in pre-service programs as a subject area: as a separate module, as a component integrated into other courses as a cross-sectional topic, or as an independent degree program (Baumann & Terrasi-Haufe, 2015). The examples presented in this chapter come from courses at the University of Cologne, which belongs to the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. At this university, the subject area of language education is covered in a separate module called Deutsch für Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte (German for students with migration background) - also called DSSZ-module or DaZ-Module. Since the amendment of the teacher training act in 2009, this module has been obligatory for all teacher training students in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia, yet it is implemented differently by each university that offers degrees in teaching (Witte, 2017). At the University of Cologne, the module is a part of the Master of Education and consists of three parts: a lecture, a semester-long teaching practicum in schools, and a seminar. Students are required to submit 519

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

an assessment portfolio which contains elements that correspond to the three components of the module (the lecture, the practicum, and the seminar). The lecture is interdisciplinary, while the seminar is as subject-specific as possible. The focus of the module is language teaching in general but working with learners with immigrant background as well language teaching in vocational schools are also covered (Gantefort & Michalak, 2017). Corresponding to the general status quo in the country, the courses in this module are mostly focused on German as the language of education. The inclusion of future K-12 students’ multilingual resources in lessons is rarely taken into account (Putjata, Olfert, & Romano, 2016), but increasingly more lecturers are trying to integrate this aspect of language education into their courses. The Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia also funds a structured program that offers language-focused training also for in-service teachers. The program at the University of Cologne allows participants to choose between the two focal points: K-12 and adult (continuing) education. There are also two versions of the program, the compact and the intensive version. The compact version lasts six months and consists of a lecture and a seminar. The lecture included is the same as in the DaZ-Module. The seminar focuses on either the topic of working in classes with newly arrived students or on language sensitive teaching. In order to receive the certificate, students are required to submit an assessment portfolio consisting of assignments from the seminar and the lecture. The intensive version lasts a year and contains two lectures and four seminars. After the first semester, students can choose one of the two focal points - K-12 or adult education. The addressed topics partially correspond to the ones in the DaZ-Module and the compact version – for instance, the programs share the same lecture. Other topics such as intercultural education as well as more advanced and in-depth work with such topics as diagnostics and linguistic analysis of learner texts are also included. Here the students are required to complete assignments for the lecture, seminar-dependent tasks, an applied project, as well as an oral examination (Veiga-Pfeifer, Maahs, Triulzi, Hacisalihoglu, & Steinborn, in press; Maahs, 2017). Systematic empirical research on the effectiveness of these programs is still in progress, and publications on cross-university comparisons of (further) education are still pending. However, unsystematic views of the course and program descriptions available on various university websites suggest that in the inservice program, as in the DaZ-Module, the main focus is on German, although the multilingualism is given more consideration than previously.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS In this section, we focus on pre-service teacher programs as well as possible ways to sensitize future teachers to and equip them with knowledge and means to foster multilingual literacy. Therefore, insights from the educational practice of several lecturers in the Cologne DaZ-Module are reported. For this purpose, the contents of their seminars regarding the inclusion of multilingualism is first systematized and the corresponding objectives presented. Afterwards, the shift in perspective is worked out as a core element of the didactic approaches of all the seminar examples included and illustrated by means of several field-tested, practical examples.

520

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Multilingual Literacy in Teacher-Training: Contents of the Seminars The contents of the seminars on multilingualism of the various teachers in the DaZ-Module at the University of Cologne can be categorized into four topics:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Individual and community multilingualism Language education policy Multilingual pedagogy Transfer of multilingual pedagogy into the own teaching practice.

The contents of the first topic area create a basis for the subject of multilingualism and multilingual literacy in general. Using the linguistic biographies of the participants as a starting point, the course discusses how individual multilingual profiles emerge and how they can vary. This means that the linguistic foundations of multilingual language acquisition are also examined. In this context, definitions of terms are clarified, for example the difference between a language and a dialect and the concepts behind supposed synonyms such as mother tongue and heritage language. Then the view is broadened from the individual to the society. International examples of different countries and their state languages as well as minority languages are discussed. Also, the discourses on national languages and presumably monolingual societies are addressed. For this purpose, among other things, the multilingualism of the city of Cologne is captured by the course participants, who undertake an assignment on linguistic landscaping. An examination of the varying prestige ascribed to different languages and the factors that affect it concludes the topic of individual and community multilingualism. The second topic area picks up on the political dimension of social multilingualism by focusing specifically on language education policy. Thereby, official school languages and the related power aspect are discussed. This leads to an overview of language policy decisions – for example, the question why there are Sorbian schools in Germany but no Turkish schools, although Turkish is spoken by more people in Germany than Sorbian. Educational policy documents on various language and multilingual aspects are considered, such as EU framework papers and core syllabi for different school types and subjects. Last but not least, the importance of educational success for social participation and the importance of the acquisition of literacy are discussed. While the first two topic areas provide the basics of multilingual literacy for teachers, in the third topic area, the lecturers focus on concrete concepts of multilingual pedagogy. First of all, concepts are dealt with which relate to everyday school life in general, i.e., the appreciation of languages and multilingualism in schools as well as anti-racist work in schools. After that, approaches that are specifically related to teaching in multilingual contexts such as translanguanging, intercomprehension, and eveil aux langues and their corresponding teaching methods (e.g., multilingual reciprocal reading) are introduced. Assessment for multilingual classrooms is also discussed. In this context, also linguistic topics are presented, for example how to distinguish the linguistically describable phenomenon of code switching from the didactic model of translanguaging. Furthermore, the varying purposes of the different teaching concepts are addressed, e.g., the question of whether multilingualism is understood just as a resource for teaching and learning (as an instrument) or also as a goal (an object on its own) of these processes. Moreover, concepts related to curriculum development, such as cross-curricular approaches to language education that create synergies among various languages taught in schools, are discussed.

521

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

This topic area concludes with an overview of practical teaching and learning materials corresponding to the different concepts and approaches presented in the course. The lecturers that follow use the teaching materials to move on to the fourth and last topic area, the application of the seminar topics to own teaching practice. The course covers lesson planning for multilingual contexts, and the participants examine potential hurdles for implementation, such as considering learners’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds when planning different grouping configurations.

Multilingual Literacy in Teacher-Training: Objectives of the Seminars In the seminars, the lecturers in the DaZ-Module at the University of Cologne address the contents described above in order to achieve specific learning outcomes. To describe learning outcomes, a whole series of classifications for the classification of learning processes into cognitive levels have been developed over the past decades. The best-known taxonomy was developed by Bloom and distinguishes four levels of cognition (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956):

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. Remember and comprehend: In this first level, learners access relevant knowledge in their long-term memory, thus remembering their knowledge base. On this basis, they perceive the information of the learning unit and thus acquire new knowledge. 2. Apply: The second level consists of the learners performing an activity (e.g., a method or scheme) in a particular situation. This means that they apply the newly acquired knowledge. 3. Analyze and rate: At the third level, the acquired knowledge is transformed and transferred. This is realized by decomposing the learning content into its elements and identifying the connections between them. Based on this, the learners can generate criteria-based ratings. 4. Extend and create: The final level involves the learners extending and reflecting their knowledge. Therefore, they combine the elements of the learning content to a new structure. The objectives of the seminars in the DaZ-Module at the University of Cologne align with these four levels of cognition. In line with the first level, participants are sensitized to and explore new concepts. For example, participants are sensitized to the topic of multilingualism by discussing how different individual multilingual profiles emerge and can vary. They also learn about different multilingual pedagogical concepts by reading relevant, up-to-date research papers on the topic. Learning outcomes that correspond to the second level include self-experience as a special way of application. The lecturers not only prompt the participants work out similarities and differences between the multilingual pedagogical concepts they have been introduced to, but also guide them to experience and reflect on the use of chosen concepts within the scope of seminar sessions from the participant’s perspective. The learning objectives that correspond to the third level of the taxonomy require the participants to classify and evaluate information. This includes, for example, selecting appropriate multilingual teaching methods for a specific classroom scenario. The fourth level includes all learning objectives that deal with the practical implementation of multilingual pedagogical concepts (e.g., discussing potential hurdles when using the various didactic methods and how these could be met in student teachers’ own classrooms).

522

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Self-Experiencing as a Core Didactic Element Schöpp (2013) presents the monolingual training of teachers as a decisive factor that hinders the application of multilingual methods and the promotion of multilingualism in teaching. This monolingual orientation leads to the anchoring of the corresponding monolingual perspective and the lack of important knowledge and practical experience for the inclusion of multilingualism in the classroom, which in turn is reflected in the monolingually-oriented actions of the teachers. Even though an increasing number of teacher education seminars focus on multilingual approaches to education, this does not automatically include practical experience with methods that promote multilingualism. In many seminars, students mostly read and talk about these methods without trying out and experiencing them firsthand. But it is precisely such self-experiencing that is seen as extremely important for the implementation of theoretical foundations (Bartels, 2009; Kostiainen Ukskoski, Ruohotie-Lyhty, Kauppinen, Kainulainen, Mäkinen, 2018). Thus, self-experiencing as an element of teacher professionalization for the promotion of multilingualism and multilingual literacy is examined in more detail below. It is therefore relevant to take into account both specialist knowledge and personal attitudes and experiences, and to consider the premises mentioned below. The contents gain in importance especially when learners (in this case prospective teachers) ascribe importance to them based on personal experience (Merriam & Clark, 1993). Self-experiencing can relate both to the what – the content or what is taught – and the how – the type or method of teaching. This process of incorporating self-experiencing, which is related to the personality and values of the students, can be supported by two didactic approaches which do not exclude each other, but rather build on and condition each other, namely transforming past experiences into self-experiences through reflection and lining of new concepts, and initiating a change of perspective within the framework of a new self-experience. These two approaches are briefly discussed below.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transforming Past Experiences into Self-Experiences Through Reflection and Linking of New Contents to Them This approach, based on the first-order understanding described by Rißmann, Feine, and Schramm (2013), assumes that by reflecting on previously un-reflected experiences with the help of various methods and instruments that focus on biographical issues, students’ awareness of those experiences can be raised. In this way, previously un-reflected experiences and knowledge become conscious self-experiences that enable inclusion and expansion of new content. An example of this approach is (language) biographical work with students, e.g., focusing on their own language learning experience at school in order to identify certain teaching concepts and principles which are introduced inductively. Thus, they reflect on the how (seminar methods of reflecting their experiences) and against this background also the what (previously un-reflected experienced situations in own school time) of their experience.

Initiating a Change of Perspective Within the Framework of a New Self-Experience This approach is based on Rißmann, Feine, and Schramm’s (2013) concept of second order understanding. It can be done by changing roles, for example asking pre-service teachers to play the role of their future learners within role plays. The students than complete tasks the way their future learners would and then reflect on this experience (Liou, 2001). This process is attributed an important or even key role 523

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

in the construction of meaning (Jarvis, 1987; Merriam & Clark, 1993). Encountering new content and anticipating that it is inconsistent with already existing ones gives rise to the processes of challenging old views and stating new questions. The work with new concepts follows or accompanies the clarification of the discrepancy and possibly associated changes. Within this approach, procedures can be located that put students in a completely new situation, such as role plays or authentic role changes. Depending on what is new (the content or the methods), changes of perspective can take place regarding the content and/or the methods. However, in most cases, it can be assumed that the change of perspective, at least at the conscious level, is not possible without prior raising of awareness of one’s past un-reflected experience. This reflection – as mentioned above – makes the previous perspective conscious, so that the differences between the new and previous perspective can be recognized and understood. Thus, it can be stated that no sharp dividing line can be drawn between the mentioned procedures. However, it is often possible to define a primary objective – reflected experience in the first case and a change of perspective in the second. A model for working with self-experiencing is presented in Figure 1. Some examples of self-experience are provided in the section that follows. Figure 1. Model of self-experiencing (own illustration)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Self-Experience in Practice Given the theoretical background, concrete examples from the seminars of the DaZ-Module and further education studies are now considered. With regard to multilingualism, there are some examples within the seminars that primarily pick up and reflect on previous experiences. Such procedures include, for instance, the bundling and reflection of one’s own experiences with language and power as well as observations on the inclusion of multilingualism in school lessons from one’s own school days, observations with other teachers and one’s own previous teaching activities. These approaches can lead not only to reflection of experiences, but also to a change of perspective through evaluations by the group and, in particular, through considerations of didactic consequences at the methodological level (Farrell, 2017). There are also examples within the seminars that primarily focus on changes in perspective. These are, for instance, work on linguistic landscaping, which can change views regarding the monolingualism of one’s own environment, or the use of multilingual procedures in seminar groups such as translanguaging. These experiences are followed by the discussion of implementation possibilities. However, it must be taken into account that the change of perspective goes hand in hand with the reflection of previous

524

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

experiences and views. The following seven examples from the seminars are intended to give an idea on the possible approaches: 1. Participants are encouraged to use translanguaging in group work in the seminar so that they can experience for themselves what it is like to use their multilingualism for communication in working groups. Afterwards, the translanguaging approach is addressed from a didactic point of view and possibilities for its implementation in their own school practice are discussed. As not all languages represented in the group are mastered equally by all group members, it is an important experience for the participants to gain an understanding of what it feels like to not fully understand all contributions in the group. This gives the opportunity to discuss with (prospective) teachers such aspects of the use of translanguaging as variants of group composition. 2. Participants read text excerpts on the current seminar topic from sources in different languages. By doing this, students can perceive which different focal points are set in the discourse of the different language communities. The students then discuss with each other when and how it would be appropriate to have learners read sources (e.g., newspaper articles) in different languages in their own lessons. 3. Participants jointly undertake linguistic landscaping in the city in which they live. In this way, the multilingualism profile of their own city becomes clear to them and they also find out with which languages and multilingual practices their own students can come into contact. Building on this, they discuss how everyday experiences of their students can be included and reflected on in the classroom, for example in the form of guided language comparisons or linguistic landscaping projects similar to those conducted in the seminar. 4. Students receive a text that fits the current seminar topic and is written in a language that is unknown to all of them. Participants learn the content of the text and work out selected grammatical features of the language using intercomprehension techniques. This refers to the ability to understand an unknown language on the basis of knowledge of another. Afterwards, students how those of them who will teach language subjects can use elements of intercomprehension didactics meaningfully in their own teaching. 5. A seminar session compares German and Chinese language systems. This allows students to experience that language comparisons can be made not only between related languages but also between languages of very different language families. As a result, their willingness to include unknown languages in their learning groups can be encouraged. Participants then discuss how they can successfully implement similar activities in their own teaching. 6. Students are invited to talk about attitudes they experienced as young learners towards their native language or dialect. It is expected that examples of both positive and negative attitudes emerge during the discussion, and then jointly the whole class considers which attitudes should be promoted in their own teaching and how this can be done. 7. Students who speak a minority language or dialect report their experiences during their school days to the seminar group. Since as a rule they did not experience a particularly appreciative way of dealing with each other, they then jointly consider which attitudes they would like to see in their future educational settings with regard to languages of origin and dialects. Two further examples are presented in more detail in the teaching tip below.

525

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Teaching Tip The seminars of the lecturers Luke and Ross are concerned with the preparation of (prospective) teachers for a constructive approach to address multilingual students and linguistic diversity. Luke works primarily with teacher attitudes and beliefs as well with the central concepts related to fostering multilingualism, while Ross focusses on topics related to pedagogical linguistics. A recent session in Luke’s seminar, called “The multilingual individual” dealt with various methods that can be used by teachers to assess the multilingual skills of their students. One of the methods Luke introduced to his student teachers was the language portrait (Daase, 2018; Gogolin & Neumann, 1991; Krumm & Jenkins, 2001), where learners mark the languages they know and use with different colors on a human silhouette. After completing their drawings, the future teachers were then asked to work in small groups and to explain and reflect on their figures. As a homework assignment, the students were asked to describe and justify the selection and arrangement of the languages in a short, written text. They were also asked to write down some application possibilities for this method in their further work in the classroom. The seminar taught by Ross is divided into thematic blocks. In connection with the block “Contrastive work on the example of frequent minority languages,” a seminar session on alphabetization with language-contrastive methods and inclusion of elements from heritage languages was held under the leadership of two representatives of an external invited project that addresses alphabetization of second language learners. The focus was on Arabic. After a brief presentation of the project and the basic linguistic properties of this language, e.g., the alphabet, some simple expressions in Arabic were taught. This part was carried out by a project member who spoke Arabic as his first language. He used exclusively Arabic and responded to expressions of uncertainty or incomprehension from the seminar participants only by speaking louder or slower. Gradually, however, he incorporated some German elements into his remarks. Following this experiment, the students reflected on their experiences as language learners. What are the effects of these two approaches? On the one hand, the work with the language portraits in Luke’s seminar made the prospective teachers aware of their own language repertoires and empowered them to reflect on the value and experiences associated with the different languages they know. Such language awareness and ability to reflect, especially in the context of state-language varieties, can by no means be taken for granted. Hence, the reflected awareness represents a clear expansion of consciousness. On the other hand, the linguistic diversity of the seminar can be perceived through the presentations of fellow students who have different languages and experiences. This can also lead to the perception of this diversity as normality and even enrichment (Galling, 2011; Liou, 2001). This turns experiences into reflected experiences that expand the existing knowledge to the WHAT level. By considering how to implement the method in schools – including working on such questions as Which implementation difficulties could occur? or What could be the benefits of such an assessment of linguistic diversity? – a change of perspective takes place at the HOW level. Hereby a person who completes a task as a student turns into someone who uses this method as a teacher and has to create an adequate framework for it. This change is in turn supported by self-experience in the seminar Farrell, 2017). The approach of using a minority language as a teaching medium enables (prospective) teachers to adopt the perspective of the linguistic minority in a monolingually taught classroom and a monolingual school. This results in a clear and radical change of perspective at the WHAT level and allows student teachers to gain insight into the reality of language learners who are not yet proficient in the language of instruction. They also learn the frequent misjudgments that speaking loudly or slowly can be understood better by speakers of minority languages. At the same time, they experience how helpful it is to integrate elements of the heritage language into the linguistic input2. The subsequent reflection makes the change of perspective even clearer, and the previous experiences and views become conscious as well. In addition, by means of the joint discussion, the seminar participants get to know the perceptions and views of others. On the HOW level, this approach can trigger the consideration as to how contrastive work and the general inclusion of elements from other languages can be implemented in the school framework. Furthermore, such approaches might even raise more global issues – for example, the monolingual teaching could be questioned and modified.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In sum, the current teaching practices in many countries continue to exhibit a monolingual state-language orientation and strong tendencies towards reduction of linguistic heterogeneity Cenoz & Gorter, 2019). However, several advantages of taking into account and promoting the multilingual repertoires and literacy skills of learners have been supported through empirical research, and didactic concepts and materials focusing on this topic are already available (Hu, 2010; Reich & Krumm, 2013). Nevertheless, fostering of multilingual skills is not commonly implemented (Bredthauer & Engfer, 2016). This is due to different approaches to language perception and instrumentalization within the society (Gogolin, 2017) as well as to the monolingual orientation of many teacher training programs (Schöpp, 2013). As teachers play an important role in shaping the future generations of language users and serve as an example of language practices in the classroom, it is of a paramount importance to enable, empower, and

526

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

equip them to perform this task in a way that fosters multilingual development of learners. Although a shift towards the so-called “Sprachliche Bildung” (language education) for all school subjects has recently taken place and resulted in the establishment of special programs like the DaZ-Module, the promotion of the state language is still the primary objective within the most programs (Putjata, Olfert, & Romano, 2016). Nevertheless, alongside with the seminars and lectures presented above, we consider such programs to provide an excellent framework for preparing teachers to foster multilingualism and literacy. In this chapter, we provided a synopsis of a few pioneering seminars, presenting their topics, goals and approaches. Within the seminars, individual as well as social multilingualism, language policies, multilingual pedagogies, and the practical implication possibilities are considered as umbrella topics. The goals that are pursued consist of such elements as raising awareness, getting acquainted with, self-experiencing, integrating, evaluating and applying of these topics. One of the key elements that every lecturer implements and pays a lot attention to is the self-experiencing. Since teachers are not only content providers, but also emotional and ethical actors of the educational process, it is of a foremost importance to consider their attitudes, beliefs, and experiences (Bartels, 2009; Kostiainen et al., 2018). In particular, experiencing the perspective of their future students on contents and on the methods can be beneficial to the development of their teacher identity. The self-experiencing can be achieved by reflecting on the already existing experiences and by making new ones that contradict and alter the former. Some of the teaching practices that pursue this goal – e.g., working with language portraits – were presented above. Initial experiences with these approaches as well as unsystematic feedback of the students suggest that the approaches presented above can be fruitful. However, to date, the applications described above have only taken place in Cologne and have yet to be evaluated systematically. Nevertheless, we conclude that within the paradigm of promoting multilingual literacy more attention should be paid to the teacher training.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank our colleagues Lesya Skintey, Henrike Terhart, Marco Triulzi, Rode Vega-Pfeiffer and Christina Winter for participating in interviews and providing us with important information about their seminars. Discussion Questions

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. What experiences of multilingualism did you have during your school years? How do you consider your experiences looking back on them? And how would they differ if you were a student today? 2. Which of the opportunities presented for including multilingual competences into teaching in this chapter do you consider useful for your own teaching context? Illustrate with specific examples. 3. What are the official (school or government) policies regarding multilingualism and multilingual literacy in the context where you work?

527

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

REFERENCES Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Longman. Angelovska, T., Krulatz, A., & Šurkalović, D. (in press). Predicting EFL teacher candidates’ preparedness to work with multilingual learners: Snapshots from three European Universities. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingualism Matters. Bär, M. (2009). Förderung von Mehrsprachigkeit und Lernkompetenz – Fallstudien zu Interkomprehensionsunterricht mit Schülern der Klassen 8 bis 10 [Promoting multilingualism and learning competence –Case studies on intercomprehension teaching with pupils in grades 8 to 10]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Bartels, N. (2009). Knowledge about language. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 125–134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baumann, B., & Terrasi-Haufe, E. (2015). Umbrüche und Chancen mit der Bildungssprache Deutsch – drei Projekte, drei Modelle [Upheavals and opportunities with German as the language of instruction: Three projects, three models]. Retrieved from https://www.mercator-institut-sprachfoerderung.de/themenportal/thema/umbrueche-und-chancen-mit-der-bildungssprache-deutsch-drei-projekte-drei-modelle/ Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Roth, H.-J. (2017). Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlegende Begriffe und Konzepte. [Linguistic education - Basic terms and concepts] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, & H.-J. Roth (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder [Linguistic education – basics and fields of action]. (pp. 11–36). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Behr, U. (2007). Sprachenübergreifendes Lernen und Lehren in der Sekundarstufe I [Cross-lingual learning and teaching in lower secondary education]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bredthauer, S. (2016). Gestaltung, Einsatz und Lernerwahrnehmung mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktischer Elemente im Fremdsprachenunterricht – eine exemplarische Untersuchung in einem universitären Niederländischmodul [Design, use and learner perception of multilingual didactic elements in foreign language teaching: An exemplary study in a university Dutch module]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik [Journal of Applied Linguistics], 65(1), 129–157. doi:10.1515/zfal-2016-0020 Bredthauer, S. (2018). Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik an deutschen Schulen – eine Zwischenbilanz [Multilingualism didactics in German schools: An interim result]. Die deutsche Schule (DDS) [The German School], 3, 262–273. Candelier, M., Camilleri Grima, A., Castelotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., & SchröderSura, A. (2009). RePA – Referenzrahmen für Plurale Ansätze zu Sprachen und Kulturen [FREPA/CARAP framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures]. Graz, Austria: Europäisches Fremdsprachenzentrum ECML. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2019). Educational policy and multilingualism. In D. Singleton, & L. Aronin (Eds.), Twelve lectures on multilingualism (pp. 101–132). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

528

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2009). The study of multilingualism in educational contexts. In L. Aronin, & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The development of research on multilingualism (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/aals.6.07ch7 Cummins, J. (2010). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Daase, A. (2018). Zweitsprachsozialisation in den Beruf. Narrative Rekonstruktionen erwachsener Migrant*innen mit dem Ziel einer qualifizierten Arbeitsaufnahme [Second language socialization in the profession. Narrative reconstructions by adult migrants with the aim of a qualified start to work]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Doğmuş, A., Karakaşoğlu-Aydın, Y., & Mecheril, P. (Eds.). (2016). Pädagogisches Können in der Migrationsgesellschaft [Pedagogical skills in the migration society]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-07296-4 Europarat. (2001). Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen [Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment]. Berlin, Germany: Langenscheidt. Farrell, T. S. C. (2017). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315206332 Galling, I. (2011). Sprachenporträts im Unterricht. Eine Unterrichtseinheit über Mehrsprachigkeit. [Language portraits in class. A teaching unit on multilingualism] In S. Fürstenau, & M. Gomolla (Eds.), Migration und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit [Migration and school change: Multilingualism]. (pp. 1–27). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Gantefort, C., & Michalak, M. (2017). Zwischen Sprache und Fach – Deutsch als Zweitsprache im Lehramtsstudium an der Universität zu Köln. [Between language and subject – German as a second language in teacher-training at the university of Cologne] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, P. Rosenberg, C. Schroeder, & A. Witte (Eds.), Deutsch als Zweitsprache in der Lehrerbildung [German as a second language in teacher-training]. (pp. 61–73). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. García, O., & Flores, N. (2010). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

GIZ. (n.d.). ABCami – Alphabethisierung und Grundbildung in den Moscheen [ABCami – Alphabetisation and basic education in the mosques]. Retrieved from https://giz.berlin/projects/abgeschlosseneprojekte.html. Gogolin, I. (2008). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule, 2. unveränderte Auflage [The monolingual habitus of the multilingual school, 2nd ed.]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Gogolin, I. (2017). Sprachliche Bildung als Feld von sprachdidaktischer und erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung. [Linguistic education as a field of linguistic didactic and educational research] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, & H.-J. Roth (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder [Linguistic education – basics and fields of action]. (pp. 37–54). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

529

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Gogolin, I., & Neumann, U. (1991). Sprachliches Handeln in der Grundschule [Linguistic activities in primary school]. Die Grundschulzeitschrift [The Primary School Journal], 43, 6–13. Helmchen, Ch., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2018). Introduction: Multilingual literacy practices at school and teacher education. In C. Helmchen, & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Plurilingual literacy practices at school and teacher education (pp. 9–15). Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang. Hu, A. (2010). Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. [Multilingual pedagogy] In C. Surkamp (Ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremd- sprachendidaktik [Metzler encyclopedia foreign language didactics]. (pp. 215–217). Stuttgart, Germany: J. B. Metzler. Jarvis, P. (1987). Meaningful and meaningless experience: Towards an analysis of learning from life. Adult Education Quarterly, 37(3), 164–172. doi:10.1177/0001848187037003004 Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Hensley, L. (2014). Exploring teacher emotions: A literature review and an experience sampling study. In P. W. Richardson, S. Karabenick, & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 69–82). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203119273-5 Kostiainen, E., Ukskoski, T., Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., Kauppinen, M., Kainulainen, J., & Mäkinen, T. (2018). Meaningful learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 66–77. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2017.12.009 Krumm, H.-J., & Jenkins, E.-M. (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehrsprachigkeit [Children and their languages: Vital multilingualism]. Wien, Austria: Eviva Verlag. Kubanyiova, M., & Crookes, G. (2016). Re-envisioning the roles, tasks, and contributions of language teachers in the multilingual era of language education research and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 117–132. doi:10.1111/modl.12304 Liou, H. C. (2001). Reflective practice in a pre-service teacher education program for high school English teachers in Taiwan. System, 29(2), 197–208. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00011-2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Maahs, I.-M. (2017). Türöffner Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Ein Jahr Weiterbildungsstudium DaZ intensiv: Interview mit zwei Teilnehmerinnen [Door opener German as a second language. One year of further education DaZ intensive: Interview with two participants]. ZMI-Magazin [ZMI Journal], 30–31. Retrieved from https://zmi-koeln.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/zmi-mag-2017web.pdf Marx, N. (2005). Hörverstehensleistungen im Deutschen als Tertiärsprache. Zum Nutzen eines Sensibilisierungsunterrichts im „DaFnE [Listening comprehension in German as a tertiary language. On the benefits of a sensitisation training in “DaFnE”]. Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Marx, N. (2010). Eag and multilingualism pedagogy. An empirical study on students’ learning processes on the internet platform English after German. In P. Doyé, & F.-J. Meißner (Eds.), Lernerautonomie durch Interkomprehension: Projekte und Perspektiven [Learner autonomy through intercomprehension: Projects and perspectives] (pp. 225–236). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.

530

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Meier, G. S. (2017). The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education. Assumptions, challenges and a need for reflection. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 131–161. doi:10.1515/applirev-2016-2010 Meißner, F.-J. (1997). Philologiestudenten lesen in fremden romanischen Sprachen. Konsequenzen für die Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik aus einem empirischen Vergleich. [Philology students read in foreign Romance languages. Consequences for multilingual pedagogy from an empirical comparison] In F.J. Meißner (Ed.), Interaktiver Fremdsprachenunterricht [Interactive foreign language teaching]. (pp. 25–43). Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Meißner, F.-J. (2010). Interkomprehension empirisch geprüft: Kompetenzprofile, Mehr- sprachenerlebnis, Lernerautonomisierung. [Intercomprehension empirically tested: Competence profiles, multilingual experience, learner autonomisation] In P. Doyé, & F.-J. Meißner (Eds.), Lernerautonomie durch Interkomprehension: Projekte und Perspektiven [Learner autonomy through intercomprehension: Projects and perspectives]. (pp. 193–225). Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Mercator-Institut. (n.d.). Weiterbildungsstudium Deutsch als Zweitsprache [Further education in German as a second language]. Retrieved from https://www.mercator-institut-sprachfoerderung.de/fileadmin/ Redaktion/PDF/Lehre/Fyler_Weiterbildungsstudium_Mercator-Institut_Web.pdf Merriam, S. B., & Clark, M. C. (1993). Learning from life experience: What makes it significant? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 12(2), 129–138. doi:10.1080/0260137930120205 Morkötter, S. (2016). Förderung von Sprachlernkompetenz zu Beginn der Sekundarstufe. Untersuchungen zu früher Interkomprehension [Promotion of language learning skills at the beginning of secondary education. Studies on early intercomprehension]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Putjata, G., Olfert, H., & Romano, S. (2016). Mehrsprachigkeit als Kapital: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Moduls “Deutsch für Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte” in Nordrhein-Westfalen [Multilingualism as a capital: Possibilities and limits of the module “German for students with a migration background” in North Rhine-Westphalia]. ÖDaF-Mitteilungen [Austrian Association for German as a Foreign and Second Language Messages], 32(1), 34–44.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reich, H., & Krumm, H.-J. (2013). Sprachbildung und Mehrsprachigkeit: Ein Curriculum zur Wahrnehmung und Bewältigung sprachlicher Vielfalt im Unterricht [Language education and multilingualism: A curriculum for the perception and management of linguistic diversity in the classroom]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Rißmann, J., Feine, U., & Schramm, U. (2013). Vom Schüler zum Lehrer – Biografische Selbstreflexion in der Lehramtsausbildung. [Language education and multilingualism: A curriculum for the perception and management of linguistic diversity in the classroom] In B. Jürgens, & G. Krause (Eds.), Professionalisierung durch Trainings [Professionalization through training]. (pp. 125–136). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. S., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 43–67. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162823

531

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Schöp, F. (2013). Mehrsprachigkeit als Zeitfresser? – Was Lehramsstudierende über interkomprehensives Arbeiten im Unterricht der romanischen Sprachen denken. [Multilingualism as a time waster? – What prospective teachers think about working intercomprehensively in the teaching of Romance languages]. In E. Vetter (Ed.), Professionalisierung für sprachliche Vielfalt. Perspektiven für neue LehrerInnenbildung [Professionalization for linguistic diversity. Perspectives for new teacher education] (pp. 148–176). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Tabatadze, S. (2015). Factors influencing the effectiveness of bilingual educational programs: The prospects of pilot programs in Georgia. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(2), 93–109. Varghese, M. M. (2004). Professional development for bilingual teachers in the United States: A site for articulating and contesting professional roles. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2&3), 222–238. doi:10.1080/13670050408667810 Veiga-Pfeifer, R., Maahs, I.-M., Triulzi, M., Hacisalihoglu, E., & Steinborn, W. (in press). Linguistische Lernertextanalyse als Weiterbildungsbaustein. [Linguistic learner text analysis as a component of further training] In J. Asmacher, C. Serrand, & H. Roll (Eds.), Universitäre Weiterbildungen im Handlungsfeld von Deutsch als Zweitsprache [University further education in the field of German as a second language]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Winters-Ohle, E., Seipp, B., & Ralle, B. (2012). Zur Vermittlung sprachlicher Kompetenzen an Schüler mit Migrationsgeschichte. [On mediating language skills to pupils with a migration background] In E. Winters-Ohle, B. Seipp, & B. Ralle (Eds.), Lehrer für Schüler mit Migrationsgeschichte. Sprachliche Kompetenz im Kontext internationaler Konzepte der Lehrerbildung [Teachers for pupils with a migration background. Language competence in the context of international concepts of teacher education]. (pp. 27–32). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Witte, A. (2017). Sprachbildung in der Lehrerausbildung. [Language training in teacher training] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, & H.-J. Roth (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder [Linguistic education – Basics and fields of action]. (pp. 351–363). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Young, A. S. (2017). “Non, moi je lui dis pas en turc, ou en portugais, ou en, j’sais pas moi en arabe”: Exploring teacher ideologies in multilingual/cultural preschool contexts in France. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 10(2), 11–24. doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.729 Zeevaert, L., & Möller, R. (2011). Wege, Irrwege, Holzwege bei der Texterschließung – Empirische Untersuchungen zur germanistischen Interkomprehension. [Paths, wrong paths, wooden paths in text interpretation – Empirical studies on germanic intercomprehension] In F.-J. Meißner, F. Capucho, C. Degache, A. Martins, D. Spita, & M. Tost (Eds.), Intercomprehension: Learning, teaching, research (pp. 146–163). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Eveil aux Langues: An approach that develops attitudes of tolerance and openness to linguistic and cultural diversity.

532

 Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

Intercomprehension: An approach that focuses on the use of competences in already learned languages in order to understand other languages. Language Education as a Subject Area of Teacher Training: A special approach at German universities to focus on language in teacher training. It can be represented as a separate module, integrated into other courses as a cross-sectional topic, or taught as an independent subject. Language-Portrait Method: A method that allows capturing of one’s linguistic repertoire. It is implemented by marking one’s own languages on a human silhouette with different colors. Linguistic Landscaping: Tracking different language representations – for example, on street signs or graffiti in the city. By documenting language use in public spaces, the multilingualism profile of a city becomes clear. Multilingual Individuals: People who have the ability to use two or more languages for the purpose of communication. Multilingual Pedagogy: A didactic approach or a scope of approaches that focuses on the development of the whole linguistic repertoire of multilingual individuals. Self-Experience: An experience that has been reflected upon and thus becomes conscious. An encounter with new perspectives in this context can even lead to changes of one’s own reflected experience. Translanguaging: An approach that allows and incorporates written and oral usage of different languages in the classroom.

ENDNOTES

2



Since in the chapter refers to K-12 as well as to university education, in order to avoid confusion, we use the term class for the former context and seminars for the latter. It should be stressed here that this advantage is only one of many reasons why the language of origin should also be included in situations, in which understanding is not necessarily at risk.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

533

Preparing Teachers to Foster Multilingual Literacy

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Bredthauer, S. & Engfer, H. (2016). Multilingualism is great – But is it really my business? – Teachers’ approaches to multilingual didactics in Austria and Germany. Sustainable Multilingualism, 9, 104–121. This article presents a review of how language teachers feel about multilingual didactics, the effectiveness of their training, and how they implement it in their teaching. Based on the findings, recommendations with regard to the professional development of language teachers, teaching, and learning resources are derived. 2. Kostiainen, E., Ukskoski, T., Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., Kauppinen, M., Kainulainen, J., & Mäkinen, T. (2018). Meaningful learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 66– 77. This article provides a great introduction into the state-of-the-art approaches to meaningful learning in teacher education. The authors do not only make clear why meaningful learning is of importance for future teachers, but they also go into more detail about what it means to achieve this goal. 3. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives – The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company Inc.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This monograph presents Bloom´s taxonomy, which is a set of three hierarchical models used to classify educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. It is the best-known classification of educational goals.

534

535

Chapter 25

Walk With Me:

Caminatas as a Way for Developing Culturally Sustaining Literacy Pedagogies With Preservice Teachers Minda Morren López https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5973-3466 Texas State University, USA Tara A. Newman Texas State University, USA

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Efectively preparing teachers to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students has been a persistent issue in literacy teacher education in the United States for the past several decades. To prepare preservice teachers to work efectively with all students, including emerging bilinguals, and to engage in culturally sustaining pedagogies, this chapter presents a form of community mapping authors call “caminatas,” which was implemented in a short-term study abroad program for preservice teachers. Examples are provided of ways in which the caminatas promote culturally sustaining pedagogies for preservice teachers as well as increased understandings of teaching multilingual students through the fve elements of revised indigenous framework. It is crucial to provide preservice teachers spaces for working with and alongside their students in local communities to build relationships and knowledge of how to develop culturally sustaining pedagogies with and for their students.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch025

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Walk With Me

INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Effectively preparing teachers to work with a culturally and linguistically diverse student population has been a persistent issue in literacy teacher education for the past several decades. It is a challenging endeavor not only because of the complexities of learning to teach and the changing demographics of students but also because of the complex andchanging nature of literacies (Leu et. al., 2017). To be literate today does not necessarily mean one will be literate tomorrow, as technologies and social practices are constantly evolving. While literacies are constantly changing, rather than resist the dynamic nature of the teaching profession, successful teachers embrace and evolve with it. To prepare teachers for this dynamism, there is a need for increased attention to multiple ways of knowing and doing (Haberman, 2011), including utilizing students’ communities as vital resources for teaching and learning (López, 2020). By building relationships with students and honoring the resources and life experiences they bring, teachers may develop culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012) that connect academic instruction with languages, literacies, and knowledges of students and their communities (Au & Kawakami, 2012; Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Ladson Billings, 1994). In order to prepare preservice teachers (PTs) to work effectively with all students, including emerging bilinguals, and to engage in culturally sustaining pedagogies for literacy instruction, the present chapter presents a form of community mapping called caminatas. Community mapping is an inquiry-based data collection method used internationally in education and social sciences to identify community assets and resources (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2011; Tredway, 2003). Caminatas are a version of community mapping where educators walk through the area together with local residents who assist in the documentation and learning process by identifying, describing, and explaining features of their community. The term caminatas comes from the Spanish word “to walk” and was chosen specifically because of what the term evokes culturally, namely that the teacher and the student walk together on a path towards learning. This chapter focuses on how teacher educators can engage PTs in caminatas. The theoretical background and practical applications are grounded in an extended example of how caminatas can be implemented with PTs. The ways in which the caminatas promote culturally sustaining pedagogies is presented through the five elements of Au’s (1998) revised indigenous framework (Keehne, Sarsona, Kawakami, & Au, 2018) and provide support for increased understandings of teaching multilingual students. It is crucial to provide PTs spaces for working with and alongside their students in local communities (Villenas, 2019) to build relationships and knowledge of how to develop culturally sustaining pedagogies with and for their students. Additionally, the chapter discusses how to engage with PTs before and after the caminatas to deepen their own understandings of the ideologies that may influence their views on teaching and learning.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Teacher Education and Emerging Bilinguals Many educators have been successfully working with culturally and linguistically diverse students for decades, and there are many compelling reasons to do so beyond the demographic imperative. For example, educators should provide effective, engaging instruction for all students. The number of students who are not proficient in the majority language does not determine the moral or ethical criticality to serve them. 536

 Walk With Me

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Thus, regardless of the number of students who come from a particular background or language group, educators are to find ways to teach their diverse students. Yet, as the population of PK-12 students who are proficient in languages other than the majority language steadily rises, the sense of urgency to effectively prepare teachers to work with multilingual students has also increased. For instance, in the past thirty years, the number of emerging bilinguals in public schools in the United States has more than doubled (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015), and other Western countries have experienced similar changes. The term emerging bilinguals has been used by Escamilla (2006) and others who advocate for the use of the term to describe students in PK-12 schools who are learning English in addition to other languages they use at home. The term is distinguished from “English Learner” or “ESL student” to shift paradigms to focus on assets rather than a deficit of what students do not have. We acknowledge some of the students described as emerging bilinguals may in fact be multilingual. Decades of research suggests that effective teachers of multilingual students view linguistic and cultural diversity as assets and resources for learning, rather than deficits (Gutierrez & Orellana, 2006; Quiocho & Rios, 2000). In addition, effective teachers create classroom communities based on theory and knowledge of language acquisition (Bialystok, 2011; Cummins, 2000), with strategies adapted to the local context and student needs (López & Fránquiz, 2009; Slavin & Cheung, 2005) that are connected to students’ homes and communities (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Zacarian & Silverstone, 2015), as well as the larger sociohistorical and political realities of emerging bilinguals and their families in the United States (DeJong, Harper, & Coady, 2013; Long, Volk, López-Robertson & Haney, 2014). Research confirms that having policies, standards, and coursework related to the education of emerging bilinguals is critical to student success (López, Scanlan, & Gundrum, 2013). Thus, in order for PTs to learn to become responsive educators, studies recommend field experiences and methods courses combined with opportunities for novice teachers to think, choose, and reflect on instructional practices (Assaf & López 2012; Dozier & Rutton, 2005). Moreover, various studies underscore the importance of reflection and collaborative conversations where PTs are able to formulate, exchange, and revise their ideas about teaching language and literacy in supportive environments that also take into account sociohistorical and local contexts of teaching (Hollingsworth, 1994; Mallette, et.al., 2000). The work in teacher education presented in this chapter is situated within a theoretical framework of social constructivism containing several threads, including Au’s (1998) recently updated and revised indigenous framework for culturally responsive instruction (Keehne, Sarsona, Kawakami, & Au, 2018) and multiliteracies (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014) along with the notion of public pedagogies (Burdick, Sandlin, & O’Malley, 2014; Villenas, 2019), including a version of community mapping (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2011) that we call caminatas. In the following section, these theoretical threads are presented in three sections: the indigenous framework, multiliteracies, and public pedagogies including community mapping and caminatas.

Indigenous Framework Au’s (1998) study on improving literacy instruction extended Cummins’ social constructivist ideas (1996) and has recently been expanded into an indigenous framework to reflect the beliefs and practices of the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program (KEEP) in Hawai’i (Keehne, et. al, 2018). Congruent with the deictic nature of literacies and literacy instruction, in 2018, Au and her colleagues revisited her original indigenous framework (Au, 1998) to revise and restructure it into the following five elements that evolved with culturally responsive or culturally sustaining (Paris, 2012) scholarship (Keehne, et. al. 2018): 537

 Walk With Me

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Role of the indigenous language Connections to the community Goal of instruction Authentic assessment Instructional content and context

The first element of the framework, the role of indigenous language, rests on the intention to revitalize an indigenous language in Hawai’i that has nearly been lost; it has not been the common language of communication for several generations due to colonization. The use and revitalization of the Hawaiian language is supported in the KEEP schools even when English is the language of instruction, as all schools incorporate cultural and linguistic traditions, ways of knowing, and practices that can be traced back to the Hawaiian language and culture. This concept is first in the framework, as it is supremely important. In Au’s (1998) indigenous framework and its revised version (Keehne, et.al, 2018), primary languages of students, their families, and the community are recognized as a foundation for culturally sustaining pedagogies. In their work, Keehne et al (2018) describe the importance of the indigenous Hawaiian language for strengthening the cultural identity of Hawaiians and the practices of teachers, who integrated words and phrases into classroom discourse, even when English was the language of instruction. While program models of education (bilingual education, two-way immersion, dual language, ESL, EFL) have varying linguistic goals and outcomes, recent scholarship in multilingual education strongly orients teachers toward recognizing and utilizing all of students’ linguistic repertoires rather than forcing artificial boundaries between languages (Garcia & Wei, 2014; López & Fránquiz, 2013; Pacheco, et. al, 2019; see also Minuz, Hazendar, Peyton, & Young-Scholten, and Neokleous, Park, & Krulatz in this volume). The second element of the framework includes connections to the community. This is exemplified through connections between the school and the larger community as well as the Hawaiian notion of ohana or family (Keene, et al, 2018). By engaging in the process of learning languages and literacies by walking through the communities, side by side with the learners in our classes, language and literacy instruction are connected to the larger community and community members. The third element is a focus on literacy as a process and as a means for students to further their own learning. Through literacy practices, students learn more about their identities, their histories, and their culture, while also working to improve the communities in which they live and society overall. Authentic assessment is utilized in the framework alongside other forms of required assessments as the fourth element. However, authentic assessment is utilized as a means to demonstrate what students have learned in meaningful ways that are connected to the community, rejecting disconnected assessments such as multiple choice tests. Examples from the framework include projects, presentations, and self-selected research. The fifth and final element is that of the instructional content and context, of teaching that is culturally responsive, grounded in culture, and infused with higher order thinking and advocacy. These elements are described more in depth in the sections below.

Multiliteracies Near the time Au (1998) developed her indigenous framework, a group of international literacy scholars met to examine the state of literacy pedagogy and used the term multiliteracies to describe their approach (New London Group, 1996). The approach they outlined rejects the focus on a “singular, canonical” lan538

 Walk With Me

guage form (p. 63), such as written, standard English, along with one set of standards or skills. Instead, a multiliteracies approach acknowledges and encourages multiple modes of communication along with variation in languages and literacies. These variations include local, out of school and in-school languages and literacies; institutionalized literacies; vernacular, minority, and standard or official languages; and oral and visual literacies, along with written communication. The New London Group and others (Rowsell, Kosnik, & Beck, 2008) assert that promoting multiliteracies pedagogies should be a central goal of teacher education programs. Multiliteracies aligns with caminatas in cultivating multlingual literacies approaches. The use of language varieties from standard to vernacular, including code switching and translanguaging, to standard English in literacy practices and pedagogies, is embraced in this approach. Moreover, the inclusive nature of multiliteracies that recognizes often marginalized and subordinated voices also connects to the critical analytical nature of the work described in this chapter, making the sociohistorical and ideological nature of literacy and literacies pedagogy visible.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Public Pedagogies, Community Mapping, and Caminatas Just as multiliteracies acknowledges and encourages multiple modes of communication and varieties of languages and literacies, public pedagogies broadens the scope of teaching and learning to include many forms of education beyond and/or outside of formal schooling (Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010). Public pedagogies have been described as learning that takes place in various institutions external to schools, such as zoos or museums, as well as through informal sites such as public outdoor spaces (plazas, parks, neighborhoods) and community organizations, as well as the internet, and social media (Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010). While public pedagogies occur outside of schools and in public spaces, they are by no means disassociated with students. In fact, public pedagogies may be more authentic for diverse and emerging bilingual students, whose languages have historically been shut out of formal institutions and pushed out of schools. One of the most salient aspects of public pedagogy related to this chapter is the notion that schools do not hold exclusive rights to teaching, learning, or curricula, and in many communities around the world, schools are not necessarily the most influential places of learning. When teachers learn to build multiliteracies curricula around the community and the resources therein, they acknowledge learning outside of schools and in the public domain. By doing this, bridges may be built and culturally sustaining pedagogies are created with the resources and knowledge residing in families and communities. Community mapping is a method for uncovering the resources in a given area or community that the potential to change teacher perspectives of the communities in which they teach (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2011; Tredway, 2003). It is an inquiry-based data collection and communication tool, used internationally in various fields to identify community assets and resources, including languages, art, literacies, networks, and opportunities (Amsden & VanWynsberghe, 2005; Jackson & Bryson, 2018). Typically, community mapping is carried out by individuals who examine a particular geographical area looking for specific features of a community that has been defined in various ways (i.e. city limits, voting area, school district, etc). In education, community mapping has been used to uncover deficit thinking and bias about students and communities (Jackson & Bryson, 2018), to contextualize learning in a particular school and community (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2011), and to broaden teachers’ views of pedagogy and instruction (Dunsmore, Ordoñez-Jasis, & Herrera, 2013). In caminatas, we utilize community mapping techniques such as collecting data and focusing on assets, but the process differs from community mapping in several important ways. First, the local learners 539

 Walk With Me

select the routes and resources in their own neighborhoods that they want to showcase and share with us. As teacher educators and PTs, we do not select the community boundary or identify resources as outsiders coming into a particular community. Rather than imposing ideas on what is important and/ or what to document, we ask the local learners to make these decisions, to guide us and walk with us. The learners identify assets in their own communities. In addition, we engage in the caminatas together for several days, revisiting and redocumenting the sites over time. Thus, the data collection process is collaborative; the lens of the cameras are shared, the notebooks and pens are shared, as we engage in collecting data and documenting resources together. The products are also negotiated together, based on identified needs in the community. Books and collages may be created with data gathered from the caminatas to map learners’ identities and to develop their multiliteracies, both in print and online. The final step is a move to action; this action is decided upon by local learners depending on what their priorities and needs are. The action that is created contributes to public pedagogies and multiple ways of knowing and doing by sharing the processes and products with others through public means. Thus, engaging in caminatas is an example of how a multiliteracies curriculum can be built around community mapping in order to learn from students about their lives, cultures, languages, and community resources while also providing them a forum to teach others about their unique histories, life experiences, and aspirations. For this chapter, we applied the Indigenous Framework outlined by Keene, et. al (2018), which is built on a sociohistorical foundation of strong educational and literacy traditions in native Hawaiian languages along with current culturally responsive instruction curricula in Hawaiian network schools. We utilize the caminatas in preparing PTs to work with emerging bilinguals in a different context, however, the framework is relevant and meaningful across contexts. We agree that honoring, revitalizing, and teaching indigenous and primary language(s), even when English of a majority language is the language of instruction, is vital to working with emerging bilinguals, whether they are participating in bilingual/multilingual or ESL/EFL settings.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Issues, Controversies, and Problems When implementing caminatas, it is necessary to examine issues of linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) and tendencies towards English-only instruction in preservice teacher education, particularly in English as a second language (ESL) materials and perspectives. Moreover, there may be some local personnel (i.e., Non-Governmental Organizations, administrators, non-profit leaders, and educators) who adhere to English-only and monolingual ideological approaches to education. There are various factors that contribute to an English-only stance including underlying language ideologies (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994); socialization and sociohistoric experiences; and perceptions of what and how to teach multilingual students. As part of our months-long preparation for teaching and engaging in the caminatas, we asked PTs to reflect on their own lived experiences (many were bilingual) through journaling, timelines, and narratives; to read and discuss scholarship on language teaching; and to engage in methods that build on students’ full linguistic repertoires through transliterate practices. We discussed the literature and our own experiences regarding multlingual instruction in both ESL (in the United States) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language, outside the United States) and asked students to peel back the layers of complexity regarding language of instruction in various contexts. Depending on the context, educators engaging in caminatas may need to address issues of linguicism in the community they are working in and prepare PTs for potential conflict around the language of instruction.

540

 Walk With Me

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Teacher educators working with preservice and inservice teachers can incorporate variations of community walks, community language and literacy mapping, scavenger hunts, and similar ethnographic-based methods of uncovering resources in local communities into their curriculum. Caminatas are unique in that they integrate the learners into the observations and knowledge-building process by centering the learners’ knowledge and their communities. The learners are positioned as experts on the local information and guides to the educators, who affirm they are interested in and open to learning from the local community. This unique dynamic positions leaners and community members in important and powerful ways. To facilitate educators’ abilities to implement culturally sustaining pedagogies in their own classrooms, teacher educators can incorporate a variation of caminatas by embedding PTs into a particular community to provide them with experiences with learners from diverse backgrounds (i.e. multilingual, immigrants and/or refugees). Caminatas may also be used with practicing teachers who wish to learn more about the communities in which they are working. Caminatas were first conceptualized and carried out in a short term study abroad program for PTs in the Dominican Republic. One of the main objectives of the study abroad program was to provide opportunities for PTs to learn about language and literacy pedagogy through several teaching and service learning opportunities. One such opportunity consisted of a week-long English language and literacy camp. The camp took place in a community center or school and a local non-governmental agency assisted finding participants for the camp, who ranged in age from ten years old to sixty or older. In this chapter the local camp participants are called “learners” to distinguish them from the PTs who are university students preparing to become teachers. The caminatas were an integral part of the camp and provide an opportunity for the PTs to learn more about the local community while also engaging in culturally sustaining pedagogies. During the study abroad program PTs enroll in two classes on language acquisition, theories, and methods and spent three weeks in the Dominican Republic engaged in various teaching and service learning projects. The sociohistorical context, rich cultural milieus, and linguistic landscapes of both Texas and the Dominican Republic were part of the study abroad coursework. In Texas, many indigenous languages have been eradicated due to colonialization, and there are some revitalization efforts across the state for Kickapoo and other languages. There is also the current reality that 90 percent of emerging bilinguals in Texas public schools are from Spanish-speaking households and approximately half of them participate in bilingual programs, the other half take part in ESL (Texas Education Agency, 2019). In the Dominican Republic, Spanish is the majority language and indigenous languages were wiped out due to colonization as well. However, federal education policy in the Dominican Republic requires that all school children learn English as a Foreign Language (“Association of English Teachers of the Dominican Republic”, 2019). The complex history of the shared island of Hispaniola and the indigenous peoples who thrived there before colonization, along with the current use of Kreyol, Spanish, and English that represent various cultural, racial, and ethnic groups on the island are also studied. In utilizing caminatas in the week-long camp, resources about and from the community were incorporated along with participants’ input and various perspectives about their communities. Instructional goals were also designed around community resources, strengths, and themes. Embedded in these units of study were authentic assessments of students’ language and literacy learning in the context of the community. To guide instruction, PTs explored ideas with the learners and asked them to describe important aspects of their lives and of their communities. As learners shared significant information, PTs gained a deeper understanding of the community and their students. Once relationships were established (usually after a 541

 Walk With Me

day or two), the PTs participated in caminatas with small groups of 3-4 learners to experience the places discussed and learn more about them. Learners explained culturally significant locations and activities along the walks, serving as local guides and teachers. Learners were able to direct the caminatas toward significant elements they chose and were able to practice all modes of language – listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As a matter of classroom policy, learners were encouraged to use all of their linguistic repertoire for learning, and PTs utilized translingual practices to build on the strengths and ways of knowing of all learenrs. In the Dominican Republic, the learners who attended the week long English language and literacy camp were primarily of Dominican and Haitian descent. Some Venezuelan refugees also took part in the camp. Thus, languages represented at the camp included Kreyol, Spanish, French, and English.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Incorporating Young Adult and Nonfiction Texts In addition to studying language acquisition methods, theories, and translingual practices, young adult and nonfiction texts were used with the PTs to prepare for the caminatas (see Appendix for a list of texts that can be used for this purpose). As a precursor to engaging with the local community, PTs were asked to read a minimum of two texts. The first reading was a young adult novel wherein the story incorporated the lived experiences of a particular community or cultural group. This novel, while fictional, painted a picture of the joys and/or struggles of the culture in which the caminata occurred and allowed PTs to gain additional insights into the experiences of individuals from a particular cultural group. Preservice teachers then shared insights gained about the culture in the novels through class presentations such as book trailers (this term is taken from the film industry and is a form of marketing or promotion; in education, book trailers are usually short videos meant to provide a synopsis or description of a book). The second reading can be another fiction text or non-fiction literature outlining significant sociohistorical experiences of the population, told from the perspectives of members of the cultural group. The combination of these personalized readings helps lay a foundation for educators’ cultural understanding and enables them to enter a community with some background knowledge. In addition, the reading of both texts can be conducted in small groups or book clubs, where PTs engage in reading and writing strategies they could use in their own classrooms. After reading some literature relevant to the community, PTs engaged in research regarding the community context, including the history of indigenous groups, colonization, and immigration patterns, as well as current demographics and events. As a complement to the published primary sources, the teacher educators invited community members and leaders to lead the group in interactive presentations and discussions on various aspects of their community from a resource and assets perspective. The presentations added context and positioned community members as experts on their own communities which allowed the PTs to gain multiple perspectives and further insight. Complementary activities included readings on the language(s) spoken in the community, language ideologies in general, refugees and refugee resettlement, statelessness, and universal human rights.

Preparing for Caminatas Upon completion of these preliminary educational activities around the cultures represented in the community, PTs planned for flexible goals for the caminatas that could be altered somewhat depending on the needs of the members of the community themselves. For example, in the Dominican Republic, 542

 Walk With Me

we taught ESL at a community center where the learners represented a wide range of ages, educational levels, and occupations. In addition, they represented various local and immigrant communities as well as a variety of levels of English language proficiency. Thus, instruction and the goals for each group was differentiated accordingly. Negotiated goals and products included: • •

•

Beginner: Students will identify colors, activities, and locations of importance in their community. They will create a book with 4-5 pages describing themselves and key elements of their community using sentence stems provided by the teacher. Intermediate: Students will identify words that describe aspects of their community, such as foods, music, traditions, places, and people. They will engage in a group project resulting in an ABC book that represents various aspects of their community presented in alphabetical order. This book is modeled after published alphabet books. Advanced: Students will identify and describe traditions from their culture. They will create individual or group projects that present a tradition of their choice in a text form. They will present their tradition to the group using an interview talk show format.

While the primary purpose of the caminatas was for PTs to understand and interact with the community on a deeper level and to learn important language and literacies pedagogies and strategies, the hegemony of English was acknowledged. Rather than replicate monolingual ideologies, a translanguaging approach was utilized where all languages were invited and encouraged as important elements of learning. The indigenous and home languages of each student were valued and encouraged and multilingual students were invited to translate for others, as needed.

Caminatas and the Indigenous Framework

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Depending on what they discovered in their caminatas, PTs may be exposed to indigenous ways of knowing through religious rites (i.e., local curanderos or healers) or ecological sites (sacred grounds or important ecological sites such as caves). Before, during, and after the caminatas, PTs and learners were encouraged to interact and teach each other phrases, words, and important aspects of each other’s cultures and languages. After the caminatas, learners worked in groups to write and illustrate books about specific topics and events in their communities. Figure 1 depicts the covers of two books made from a caminata. On the left is the one created by Jeantilus, who is Haitian and chose to use four languages (Kreyol, English, French, and Spanish) for his book cover. On the right is the one created by Rachell, who is Dominican and chose to utilize two languages (Spanish and English).

543

 Walk With Me

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Book cover examples of books created from the caminatas

The second element of the framework includes connections to the community, exemplified through connections between the school and the larger community, as well as the Hawaiian notion of ohana or family (Keene, et al, 2018). By engaging PTs with the community through the process of learning from students in walking with them in their communities, English teaching was connected with the larger community and the families that made up that community. By beginning language and literacy instruction through walks in the community and learning about students’ lives, cultures, languages, and literacies, PTs embodied a teacher-as-learner stance and demonstrated the interconnectedness of learners’ lives to their classroom experiences. The deficit perspectives of emerging bilinguals and other minoritized communities were rejected by utilizing the communitiy as resources. Instead, PTs learned how to build on the strengths and assets in a community for specific language and literacy pedagogies, which is related to the third element in the framework: goal of instruction (literacy) (Keene, et al, 2018). The third element is a focus on literacy as a process and as a means for students to further their own learning. Through literacy practices, students learned more about who they are, their histories, and their culture, while they also work to improve the communities in which they live and society overall. This view of literacy is consistent with Street’s (1995) ideological literacy, where literacy practices are embedded in cultural contexts and shaped by power relations. This process is exemplified in the documentation, writing practice, and book-making aspect of the caminatas. Each student identified places in the community that exemplify who they are, taking photos of those places, and describing them in their book. PTs assisted them with language in English to include, layout, and design. At the end of the week, students shared with others what they made, and students were gifted their books. It is possible for each student to make his/her own individual book, or the decision can be made to create a class book, such as an ABC book. Figure 2 is an example from an ABC book created by small groups on caminatas. This page was for “E”, where learners selected “E is for empanada,” because empanadas are a typical street food in the Dominican Republic.

544

 Walk With Me

Figure 2. Example page from an ABC book created from the caminatas

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

While the third element is literacy learning as a process, the fourth element of the framework and of caminatas is authentic assessment. Authentic assessment is utilized in the framework alongside other forms of required assessments; however, authentic assessment is a means to demonstrate what students have learned in a meaningful way that is also connected to the community. Many of the examples from the framework include projects, presentations, and self-selected research. In the caminatas, authentic assessment is made visible throughout the week as students engaged in the walks with PTs and explained their culture and community. Authentic assessment is also represented in the final-day celebration, when students are presented with their books and are invited to share these books with each other. The final element of the framework is that of the instructional content and context, of teaching that is culturally responsive, grounded in culture, and infused with higher order thinking and advocacy. By engaging in caminatas with local students, PTs learned from them about their lives, their communities, and their needs. Through these exchanges, PTs were able to modify the English and literacy lessons to meet learners’ needs, and improve PTs ability to advocate for them. The week-long caminatas project is based on the learners’ lives and community, working to understand their culture and learn from them, all while challenging them linguistically and also providing opportunities to increase their language and literacy abilities. The teaching tip below illustrates how Claudia, a teacher educator in the United States, implemented caminatas with her PTs in a short term study abroad program in the Dominican Republic.

545

 Walk With Me

Teaching Tip Claudia, a teacher educator in a university-based educator preparation program in the United States, implements the caminatas approach in a course focusing on English language and literacy acquisition. Caminatas and related activities create a mutually beneficial learning experience that positions community members as experts and allows educators to learn about the assets in their communities, while also building English language and literacies skills and moving educators to action. The preservice teachers (PTs) that Claudia works with live in Texas and are teaching in programs situated in the Dominican Republic, with learners of Haitian and Dominican backgrounds. Each of the PTs is enrolled in upper-level university courses and anticipate receiving their teaching certification within the next year. The PTs are from diverse backgrounds and use their educational and personal backgrounds to enhance their work in the Dominican Republic. During their time teaching, the PTs reside in local accommodations near the teaching site. The learners in the program are community members who opt-in for an intensive English class designed to enhance their English-speaking skills. Claudia structures the caminatas into a three-step process with specific learning tasks for each phase – before, during, and after walking through the community. Before the Walk 1. Examine the sociocultural context of the selected community. The goal of this step is to prepare for the community experience and to investigate the histories and present-day demographics of the area by selecting key texts and primary sources, including histories and demographics. Relevant questions to consider include: Are there indigenous groups who were here before colonization? If so, who were they? Did these indigenous groups impact the traditions and languages we see and hear in the area now? What groups came here later, either through colonization or immigration? Are there refugee groups that have changed the demographics over time? In what ways? To facilitate this examination prior to the on-site experience, PTs begin with readings and texts that consist of young adult fiction novels, historical accounts, primary sources, and biographies related to the particular area they will be working in. Preservice teachers read in small personal-choice book clubs and share their findings with the whole class. It is also valuable to engage with multilmedia (e.g., watch videos about the area). Upon arrival to the community, Claudia invites key community members as guest speakers to share their experiences with the class. These are all critical front-loading actions to prepare PTs for engaging with the community in respectful and informed ways. 2. Understand the community. Claudia brings the PTs together without the local learners for this first phase of the caminata. The PTs write their impressions and understandings of the area but do not share them publicly. The aim is to write these in a journal and save them for private examination and reflection later. This builds trust and allows for a more honest and individual examination of PTs’ own perspectives of the community and the people in it. Claudia is careful not to shame anyone, and thus does not think these need to be shared publicly unless it becomes the PT’s choice to do so at a later time. 3. Define the community. Claudia and the local hosts decide together what parameters to use in defining the community. There are many choices. It may be a particular geographical area understood by participants as a neighborhood, or it could be a school attendance area. Claudia discussed the goal of the caminatas with the local hosts in the Dominican Republic, and they chose a particular geographical neighborhood, el Callejón, that encompasses approximately 15 blocks and includes schools, churches, stores, nature parks, and community organizations.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Set goals for the walk. It is important to plan for what Claudia (a teacher educator) and the PTs want to accomplish on these walks. For traditional community mapping, educators document the resources they find in the community (see López, 2020), but with caminatas, they go out into the community with learners, who are local insiders, and work together to learn more about the language and literacy resources in the community, with the goal of teaching language and literacy skills and creating a product to share based on local priorities and knowledge. Prior to a walk, participants work together to decide what the products will be. In the Dominican Republic, the learners do not have access to many books and especially books that are relevant to their lives and in English. Thus, one of the main goals is to create individual books that learners can keep and use to practice their English. In other contexts, the goal may be a coloring book of important resources for refugees and recent immigrants or informational packets for educators and community members to share with various stakeholders. Caminatas are meant to move participants to action and to create products together to benefit the local community while also providing opportunities for learning. 5. Differentiate and support learners as they prepare. Before leaving for their caminatas, PTs ask learners to describe what they expect to find that represents the ideas they want to cover in their book. Goal setting may include determining a set number of pages in the book or whether to include photos of representative places. PTs and learners discuss options using bilingual word banks, create mockups or storyboards with potential ideas, and map out where they might find representative places and resources in the community. To scaffold the experience for beginners prior to the walk, learners can be given sentence frames, such as, “My favorite color is ____.” And “I like to ___ with my friends [or family].” Moreover, learners can share information about their community with the support of sentence stems, such as, “My favorite place is ____.” Or “A place I go to relax is ____”. Or “An important historical landmark is [the]______ because _______.” Using these sentence frames provides a structure to the conversational nature of the caminatas and promotes learners’ use of targeted English skills. With learners who demonstrate a higher proficiency level of English, a goal may be the creation of an ABC book documenting important places in the community (i.e.. El Callejón ABC Book) or a book compiling local traditions. This pre-walk experience serves as a guide for the purposes of each caminata, and reference to the ideas discussed is woven throughout the conversation to help PTs and learners remain focused on the task at hand.

546

 Walk With Me

Teaching Tip During the Walk The next phase of the caminatas approach is to spend time walking thorough the community in phases and to gain insights about the local community from the local learners who serve as guides and experts. Claudia has structured the caminatas through the following steps. 1. Walk the community in small segments. The time spent walking through the community should be implemented incrementally. In small groups of about 4-5 participants, PTs and learners go out for a short walk together for approximately 15 minutes and reconvene in a learning space for discussion of findings and to share with classmates. In these small groups, community members, who are the learners, lead participants through the community, while explaining the importance of various aspects of their surroundings. During the openended conversation that occurs throughout these brief walks, the participants take photos and notes so they can capture the elements of the community effectively. While the PTs set overall goals for the outcomes of the walks (i.e., the aforementioned books), it is essential to gather local language learner input and jointly set goals for each walk as it relates to the creation of the books. These goals are heavily influenced by the language proficiency and personal experiences of the learners. 2. Remain focused on goals during the walk. Learner-led goals for a portion of the walk might target development of a page for their personal book or a few pages for the group book. While walking, they discuss what they see and experience along the way, and PTs ask questions about local landmarks or practices. The PTs and learners walk together, talking and sharing perspectives as they go. They share the camera, capturing images and words from the local environment. PTs may also take notes on what they see and stories that the learners share. The learners are experts on their own communities and are generally willing to share their knowledge with the PTs. In addition, their position as local experts often lowers their anxiety about speaking English. After the Walk 1. Share findings in the classroom – Listening and speaking. As a way to practice oral language skills (listening and speaking), learners share findings using the previously generated storyboard or rough draft to guide the conversation. Groups may share with the whole class what they chose to document on a particular day’s walk in a traditional presentation format. Alternatively, a jigsaw approach can be used, wherein individual language learners share with mixed groups the local resources that were highlighted on their walk. Another popular strategy for sharing that works well with learners who have advanced proficiency in English is a talk show format – where English learners take on different roles (e.g., talk show host and guest) and interview each other about their walks. Each of these sharing options gives the language learners and PTs ideas for goals of future walks and provides authentic practice in listening and speaking. Moreover, chunking the caminatas into various stages across multiple days allows for flexibility, i.e., for mistakes to be made, for language learner absences, and for sufficient time to collect the photos and data needed for the projects decided upon before going on the walks.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

2. Share findings in the classroom – Reading and Writing. A highlight of the caminatas experience involves the creation of a final product. In Claudia’s case, the PTs and learners compile the photos and texts that were generated together during the multiple stages of the caminatas to create a book or document to share. PTs bring laptops and portable printers to the classroom.. After downloading the pictures on the laptops, small groups of PTs and learners work together to identify the photos and wording desired for each book or document. As the groups discuss and create electronic versions of their final products, learners engage in the authentic use of reading and writing to communicate their intended meanings to one another. Learners serve as editors for one another’s work, with PTs facilitating that process by questioning. After each product is finalized in its electronic format, PTs print and bind the books to present the next day in class. Learners are invited to share the printed versions of their products with one another and other community members by reading them aloud or silently. The learners are positioned as the experts and the generators of knowledge about their community; they decide what is important and what warrants sharing. They also have power over which products are disseminated and shared. In this way, local knowledges are honored. This learner-led process of identifying significant community knowledge, producing a tangible representation of this knowledge, and choosing what and how it is shared sets the caminatas apart from various other community mapping projects and is critical to the community engagement and social justice aspects of the caminatas. 3. Disseminate community knowledge. Claudia wants to not only provide products to the learners for their own personal use, but also promote literacy and the local knowledge existent in the community of El Callejón. She met with several community leaders, and they decided to disseminate the products in two ways. First, they printed additional copies of each book and put them on display at the local public library, which is housed in the school run by a local non-government organization. This library is one of the few libraries open to the public in the Dominican Republic. These additional copies of the books will be permanently housed at the library for check out and perusal by the wider community. Second, the donation of the books to the public library provided an opportunity to hold a celebratory event where everyone was invited to learn about the project and to commemorate accomplishments. This event served as an opportunity for community members to understand more about the efforts of the non-profit organization and the English classes as well as an invitation to participate in future classes. What did Claudia accomplish by engaging her preservice teachersin these tasks? The caminatas facilitate open discussions and sharing, both in the classroom and in the community. All four modes of language (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) are used throughout the learning experience in authentic and low-stake ways, providing opportunities for learners to enhance their English development. The use of a reciprocal learning lens contributes to an enhanced understanding of language and culture for both the PTs and the local learners. PTs are immersed in an unfamiliar culture with minimal skills in the local language, and thus briefly gain a new understanding of some of the potential experiences of their future students in the United States. At the same time, PTs are able to experience the teaching and learning process using a variety of intentional and meaningful strategies for language learning. This hands-on practice lays a foundation for the PTs’ future work in their own classes. Furthermore, the explicit value placed on local knowledge and expertise contributes to increased comfort with cross-cultural interactions for both PTs and learners.

547

 Walk With Me

Caminatas to Foster Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies While the goal of English-language acquisition is typically the community students’ motivation for their voluntary participation in the language and literacy project, the objectives for teachers are multi-faceted. The experiences described above are intentionally designed to prepare PTs to practice culturally sustaining pedagogies and incorporate the sociohistorical context of the languages and literacies of a community into instruction. In addition, activities are designed to build on one another and to provide experiential learning in the community. At each step, PTs are experiencing the community and are guided in writing their experiences into lesson plans. They reflect in their journals and discuss with their colleagues what they have learned and how their experiences in the community may translate into language and literacy teaching in the future. Their immersion into the communities provides a deeper, personal appreciation of cultural aspects that cannot be acquired from a textbook. It furthermore extends abstract knowledge of cultural competence by humanizing their students and laying the foundation for the teachers to participate in culturally sustaining pedagogies in their own classrooms.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, caminatas have been presented as an approach to culturally sustainable pedagogy that can be used to the mutual learning of both preservice teachers and learners. Caminatas, or walks through the learners’ neighborhoods with learners as the experts and guides, lead to an increased understanding of language learners’ communities and the linguistic, literate, and cultural resources they bring to the classroom. Educators can build upon these assets in culturally responsive teaching of languages and literacies. The examples presented in this chapter focused on ESL contexts, but the caminatas approach can also be implemented in other educational settings. The community mapping and related classroom activities foster language and literacy development and practice in all four domains of language (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), including vocabulary acquisition, text creation, and multiliteracies (text, photos, drawings, maps) production in both print and online forms. In the case of the project described in this chapter, PTs and teacher educators learned about the language learners’ cultural, linguistic, and literate lives and practices, as well as formed relationships with them. In addition, the PTs honed their teaching skills through relationship building, curriculum design, and enacting lessons with students. At a time when increasing numbers of multilingual students enter public schools and few teachers feel equipped to work effectively with emerging bilinguals (Hutchinson, 2013), it is critical that the field incorporates effective ways to build the capacity of educators to teach languages and literacies in culturally responsive and sustaining ways. Engaging in caminatas is one powerful way for educators to understand their students’ lives and communities and to build on the strengths and assets in each and every community while engaging in speaking, listening, reading, and writing in authentic and meaningful ways. Discussion Questions 1. What challenges might educators encounter as they engage in caminatas with students in their communities? How might these challenges be overcome? 2. Are there ways to engage with communities beyond the physical space of a neighborhood, such as online and through technology? In what ways does technology facilitate our ability to understand and build on the linguistic, literate, and cultural resources of our communities? In what ways might the use of technologies impede these understandings? 3. Why is connecting classroom instruction to students’ communities important? What can teachers accomplish by including experiences and multiliteracies from outside the classroom space? How can they engage in connecting to their students’ communities in other ways?

548

 Walk With Me

REFERENCES Amsden, J., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2005). Community mapping as a research tool with youth. Action Research, 3(4), 357–381. doi:10.1177/1476750305058487 Assaf, L. C., & López, M. M. (2012). Reading rocks: Creating a space for preservice teachers to become responsive teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(4), 365–381. doi:10.1080/109 01027.2012.732667 Association of English teachers of the Dominican Republic (RD-TESOL) affirms the greatest educational failure in DR is not learning English (2019, September 14). Dominican Today. Retrieved from https://dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2019/09/14/affirms-the-greatest-educational-failure-in-dr-is-notlearning-english/ Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297–319. doi:10.1080/10862969809548000 Au, K., & Kawakami, J. (2012). Culture and ownership: Schooling of minority students. Childhood Education, 67(5), 280–284. doi:10.1080/00094056.1991.10520812 Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 65(4), 229–235. Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Burdick, J., Sandlin, J., & O’Malley, M. P. (2013). Problematizing public pedagogy. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203113059 Burdick, J., & Sandlin, J. A. (2013). Learning, becoming, and the unknowable: Conceptualizations, mechanisms, and process in public pedagogy literature. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 142–177. doi:10.1111/ curi.12001 Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596773 De Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 89–97. doi:10.1080/00 405841.2013.770326 Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s education. London, UK: Falmer Press. Dozier, C. L., & Rutten, I. (2005). Responsive teaching toward responsive teachers: Mediating transfer through intentionality, enactment, and articulation. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 459–492. doi:10.120715548430jlr3704_3

549

 Walk With Me

Dunsmore, K., Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Herrera, G. (2013). Welcoming their worlds: Rethinking literacy instruction through community mapping. Language Arts, 90(5), 327–338. Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism Applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-speaking emerging bilinguals: Bi-illiteracy or emerging biliteracy? Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2329–2353. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00784.x Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 González, N., Moll, L., & Amantí, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gutiérrez, K., & Orellaña, M. F. (2006). The “problem” of English learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 502–507. Haberman, M. (2011). The beliefs and behaviors of star teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hutchinson, M. (2013). Bridging the gap: Preservice teachers and their knowledge of working with English language learners. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 25–54. doi:10.1002/tesj.51 Jackson, T., & Bryson, B. (2018). Community mapping as a tool for developing culturally relevant pedagogy. New Educator, 14(2), 109–128. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2018.1426323 Keehne, C. N. K., Wai’ale’ale Sarsona, M., Kawakami, A. J., & Au, K. (2018). Culturally responsive instruction and literacy learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(2), 141–166. doi:10.1177/1086296X18767226 Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101. doi:10.1002/jaal.314 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18. doi:10.1177/002205741719700202 Long, S., Volk, D., López-Robertson, J., & Haney, M. J. (2014). ‘Diversity as a verb’ in preservice teacher education: Creating spaces to challenge the profiling of young children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 152–164. doi:10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.152 López, F., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(20), 1–31. doi:10.14507/ epaa.v21n20.2013 López, M. M. (2020). Linking community literacies to critical literacies through community language and literacy mapping. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87; Advanced online publication. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2019.102932

550

 Walk With Me

López, M. M., & Fránquiz, M. (2009). “We teach this way because it is the model we’ve adopted”: Asymmetries in language and literacy policies and implementation in two way Immersion Programs. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 175–200. doi:10.1080/02671520902867176 Mallette, M. H., Kile, R. S., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. E. (2000). Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Pre-service teachers beginning to think about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 593–612. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00009-3 National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of mulitliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Jasis, P. (2011). Mapping literacy, mapping lives: Teachers exploring the sociopolitical context of literacy and learning. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(4), 189–196. doi:10.1080/152 10960.2011.616824 Pacheco, M. B., Daniel, S. M., Pray, L. C., & Jiménez, R. T. (2019). Translingual practice, strategic participation, and meaning-making. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(1), 75–99. doi:10.1177/1086296X18820642 Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244 Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 485–528. doi:10.3102/00346543070004485 Rowsell, J., Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). Fostering multiliteracies pedagogy through preservice teacher education. Teaching Education, 19(2), 109–122. doi:10.1080/10476210802040799 Sandlin, J., O’Malley, M. P., & Burdick, J. (2011). Mapping the complexity of public pedagogy scholarship: 1894-2010. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 338–375. doi:10.3102/0034654311413395 Sandlin, J. A., Schultz, B. D., & Burdick, J. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of public pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203863688 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247–284. doi:10.3102/00346543075002247 Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. London, UK: Longman. Texas Education Agency. (2019). 2018-2019 ELL student reports by category and grade. Retrieved from https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker Tredway, L. (2003). Community mapping: A rationale. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the Principal Leadership Institute, University of California, Berkeley.

551

 Walk With Me

Villenas, S. (2019). Pedagogies of being with: Witnessing, testimonio, and critical love in everyday social movement. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 32(2), 151–166. do i:10.1080/09518398.2018.1533148 Woolard, K., & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415 Zacarian, D., & Silverstone, M. (2015). In it together: How student, family, and community partnerships advance engagement and achievement in diverse classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483388205

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Community Mapping: An inquiry-based data collection and communication tool used internationally in various fields to identify community assets and resources, including languages, arts, literacies, networks, and social, educational or economic opportunities. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: An instructional method that prompts students to assume an active role in the classroom and have a catalyst role in unfolding lesson objectives. Emerging Bilinguals: A term or label used in the United States to describe students who have home languages other than English and are learning English in school. The term attempts to move educators to focus on students’ assets (i.e., their home languages) rather than deficits i.e., English). As with all terms, this term also has limiatations, i.e., some students described as emerging bilinguals may in fact be multilingual. Ethnic Groups: Communities or populations made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent. Indigenous Framework: A framework first proposed by Au (1998) and later revised by Keehne, Sarsona, Kawakami, and Au (2018). It promotes culturally sustaining pedagogies and provides support for increased understandings of teaching multilingual students. Indigenous Language: A languages that is spoken regionally by a group of indigenous peoples. Linguicism: A term to describe discrimination akin to racism based on a person’s language, perceived language ability, or variety of language. Multiliteracies: An approach to literacy learning and practice that acknowledges and encourages multiple modes of communication (various texts, semiotics, technologies) along with variation in languages and literacies. Public Pedagogies: Learning that takes place outside of schools; it can be in formal institutions such as zoos or museums as well as through informal sites such as public outdoor spaces (plazas, parks, neighborhoods), the internet, and social media.

552

Walk With Me

APPENDIX 1: YOUNG ADULT LITERATURE, MEMOIRS, AND NON-FICTION TEXTS USED TO PREPARE FOR CAMINATAS IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Alvarez, J. (1991). How the García girls lost their accents. New York, NY: Plume. Alvarez, J. (1995). In the time of butterflies. New York, NY: Plume. Alvarez, J. (2002). Before we were free. New York, NY: Knopf. Cepeda, R. (2014). Bird of paradise: How I became Latina. New York, NY: Atria Books. Danticat, E. (1998). The farming of bones: A novel. New York, NY: Soho Press Díaz, J. (2007). The brief wondrous life of Oscar Wao. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. García-Peña, L. (2016). The borders of Dominicanidad: Race, nation, and archives of contradiction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Joseph, L. (2000). The color of my words. New York, NY: Harper Collins. San Miguel, P. L. (2005). The imagined island: History, identity, & utopia in Hispaniola. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Vargas, L. M., & Grossman, E. (2001). The feast of the goat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Wucker, M. (1999). Why the cocks fight: Dominicans, Haitians, and the struggle for Hispaniola. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

APPENDIX 2: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. Dunsmore, K., Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Herrera, G. (2013). Welcoming their worlds: Rethinking literacy instruction through community mapping, Language Arts, 90(5), 327–338. This action teacher research project centers on the experiences of George Herrera, a veteran teacher of emerging bilinguals who mapped the cultural, linguistic, and literacy geographies of his students’ communities to better understand their lives. During the data collection process, George mapped out the area by drawing and documenting various resources, languages, and literacies he saw and by interviewing parents and community members to identify and understand typical literacy practices of families and individuals in the community. Although at times uncomfortable outside of the familiar school context,

553

Walk With Me

George recognized the importance of understanding the community, and he describes the mapping and research process as vital to reinventing and improving his teaching of emerging bilinguals. 2. Marin, A. & Bang, M. (2018) “Look it, this is how you know:” Family forest walks as a context for knowledge-building about the natural world. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 89–118. This case study examines a Native American family’s experience “walking, reading, and storying” (p. 89), a methodology embedded within indigenous ways of knowing for generations. The authors view humans as part of nature, rather than separate from it. As the intergenerational family walks through the nature preserve in an urban center, they are video recorded making sense of semiotic resources, material artifacts, ideas, and actions and “reading the land.” Through their careful analysis, the authors argue for walking, reading, and storying as a methodology for learning about and making relationships with the natural world. In addition, they build on indigenous scholarship and contribute to our understandings of knowledge, epistemologies, and the design of learning activities across various pedagogical spaces related to public pedagogies. 3. Pratt, S.& Johnson, K (2019). Speculative harbouring: Wading into critical pedagogy and practices of care. Journal of Public Pedagogies. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10453/132064 In this article, Pratt and Johnson describe a multi-disciplinary postgraduate workshop wherein students explored ways to increase human care for and with urban harbors in a community mapping excercise. The authors used a “walkshop” approach to both apply a variety of research strategies and create a field guide to address the complex ecological and social demands of Blackwattle Bay, in Sydney, Australia. The walkshop is similar to the caminatas, applying many of the same principles and philosophies with a multi-displanary group of postgraduate learners, and provides an alternate example of incorporating public pedagogy practices into higher education coursework. 4. Thurber, A. (2019). The neighborhood story project: Co‐creating learning, caring, and empowering environments. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(7), 1–18.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Thurber describes an action research project that takes place across three neighborhoods. The constructivist, multi-case study used co-creation of a learning, caring, and empowering environment to enhance community members’ civic action in their gentrifying neighborhoods. This approach could be applied in work with students with a service-learning emphasis.

554

555

Chapter 26

Bridging the Gap:

The Use of Translanguaging in Shared Readings Stephanie Michelle Moody https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7796-130X Texas A&M University, USA Sharon D. Matthews https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7233-4451 Texas A&M University, USA Zohreh R. Eslami Texas A&M University, USA

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Shared readings have long been recognized as one of the most signifcant contributors to the development of literacy skills in young children. Shared readings are frequently found in both the home and at school, but discrepancies in how they are enacted can contribute to low student achievement. This may be particularly true for bilingual students, whose home literacy practices often involve heritage language use and/or translanguaging. This chapter provides recommendations for teachers interested in incorporating family literacy practices into their classroom shared readings. Recommendations include guidelines for building a multicultural library, tips on how to evaluate children’s books for quality, steps to enacting translanguaging in shared readings, and suggestions for increasing parental involvement in the classroom.

INTRODUCTION “They thought it was cool that we were connecting with their culture, and tapping into that part of their lives that we don’t get to see as much since we’re always in English mode in class” (Kathleen, Interview Transcript). DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch026

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Bridging the Gap

In this quote, Kathleen, a preservice teacher, is discussing the reactions of her Spanish-English bilingual students to the use of translanguaging within a shared reading event. Translanguaging is both a natural and common practice amongst bilinguals, and it can be defined as the flexible use of an entire linguistic repertoire (García, 2009). As a monolingual English speaker, Kathleen was nervous to read in Spanish, but later realized that her use of translanguaging ignited a new excitement within the students. She also discovered hidden depths in some otherwise quiet students who could only comfortably express themselves in Spanish. She came to realize that, regardless of her proficiency level in Spanish, she could use translanguaging to facilitate a connection between herself and her students, to motivate them to engage in reading, and to scaffold their acquisition of literacy (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Hornberger, 2003). Kathleen’s experience aligns with research on culturally responsive teaching practices and second language acquisition, which contend that children learn better from teachers and activities that value their home languages and cultures (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2014). Teachers should carefully and critically select high-quality books in which children can see themselves reflected in the characters, setting, or language, so they understand themselves as part of a larger human experience (Bishop, 1990; Johnson, Koss, & Martinez, 2018; see also Curtin and Aguilera, Greenstein, & Shannon in this volume). Teachers should also seek to understand and appreciate students’ home literacy practices, which includes the frequency of reading and writing activities in the home, the number of books available at home, library visits, parent-child interactions around print, and shared readings (e.g., Farver, Xu, Lonigan, & Epp, 2013; Mol & Bus, 2011). Research has consistently indicated that alignment between home and school leads to higher literacy achievement (Pellegrini, 2001; Pianta, LaParo, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002). For bilingual students, this can be accomplished in many ways, such as through reading bilingual books, and/or integrating translanguaging into shared reading events (Davis et al., 2016; García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017; Wessels, 2014). The purpose of this chapter is threefold. First, we discuss the theoretical background and literature on school and home literacy, translanguaging, and bilingual books. Second, we provide recommendations that will enable teachers to align their practices with those found in the home. Finally, we make suggestions for how all teachers, monolingual and bilingual alike, can incorporate translanguaging and bilingual books into their classrooms.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Home Literacy Home literacy is constructed around the idea of parental involvement in literacy activities (e.g., Farver et al., 2013; Mol & Bus, 2011), which then influences children’s acquisition of literacy (Carroll, Holliman, Weir, & Baroody, 2019). Numerous studies have found evidence that high parental involvement in home literacy activities predicts children’s early literacy skills (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2017; Niklas & Schneider, 2013; Phillips & Lonigan, 2009; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002), language development (Cunningham & Zibulsky, 2011; Mol & Bus, 2011), and later reading success (Baker, 2014; Raikes et al., 2006; Roberts, Jurgens, & Burchinal, 2005). However, home literacy activities are not uniform, meaning that they are uniquely situated within the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the family (Wood, Fitton, & Rodriguez, 2018), and are often 556

 Bridging the Gap

connected to the family use of their heritage language and access to formal schooling in that language (Buac, Gross, & Kaushanskaya, 2014; Hammer, Komaroff, Rodríguez, López, Scarpino, & Goldstein, 2012; Hoff, Welsh, Place, & Ribot, 2014). Recently, there has been an effort to further understand the home literacy practices of ethnically diverse families, particularly those from Spanish-speaking, or Hispanic, backgrounds (e.g., Zambrana, Hart, Maharaj, Cheatham-Johnson, & Waguespack, 2019). Findings have shown that many Hispanic parents have a high desire to be involved (e.g., Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001), but may limit their involvement due to a concern of undermining the teachers’ role (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Barton, 2005) or a limited understanding of the requirements of the education system (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Thus, they are more likely to foster a strong literacy environment when they are explicitly invited to do so by teachers (Walker, Ice, HooverDempsey, & Sandler, 2011; Anderson & Minke, 2007). Zambrana et al. (2019) found that Hispanic parental involvement was strongly correlated with their self-efficacy for reading; when parents believe that they are successful readers who can positively contribute to their child’s education, they are more likely to have rich home literacy environments. Taken as a whole, it becomes clear that home literacy practices vary between families from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and that parents are more likely to be involved when their strengths and knowledge are valued and supported by school personnel. Below, the gap between home and school literacy is discussed further.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Gap Between Home and School Literacy Shared readings are common in both school and at home and are defined as storybook interactions between parents and children, or teachers and students, to demonstrate the connection between spoken words and text (Bergman Deitcher, Aram, & Adar, 2017; Gámez, Gonzláez, & Urbin, 2017; Hall & Williams, 2000; Neuman & Dickinson, 2011). Despite the prevalence of shared readings, most researchers and educators acknowledge that there is a large gap between how they are conducted at home and in school (Mol, Bus, de Jong, & Smeets, 2008; Zentella, 2005). Part of this can be attributed to the fact that schools and teachers often fail to recognize that children’s first sources of knowledge are derived from homebased interactions, and influenced by cultural understandings (Rogoff et al., 2007). This is particularly true for bilingual children, many of whom are raised with shared readings in their home language or in multiple languages but are confined to only one while at school (Perry, Kay, & Brown, 2008). Aside from language use, the manner in which shared readings are enacted differs between home and school; bilingual parents often use techniques situated in cultural values and norms, such as parent-dominated talk (Reese & Gallimore, 2000; Schick & Melzi, 2016), whereas teachers subscribe to more traditional questioning and clarifying (McCaffrey & Hirsch, 2017). These differences must be acknowledged because they result in varying outcomes. Bilingual children raised in homes where literature is shared in multiple languages and meaning is negotiated between family members do not necessarily benefit from the types of shared reading activities that have been found to be effective for white, monolingual English speakers (Mol et al., 2008). As evidenced by the literature, teachers of language learners must develop their shared reading practices to better reflect what occurs in bilingual homes. Instead of subscribing to restrictive and rigid shared reading techniques, teachers need to acknowledge students’ cultural fluidity and recognize that there is not one correct way to conduct shared readings. Instead, their practice should take into consideration the needs, values, and rich background of all students in their care. 557

 Bridging the Gap

Shared Reading Practices of Bilingual Families

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

To understand the cultural nuances of shared readings, it is important to examine the prior research on how they are conducted in bilingual families. Several studies have shown that bilingual families are more likely to read with their children if they have access to books with text in their home language, or if the books have a mixture of their first and second languages (Brown, 2016; Davis et al., 2016; Kabuto, 2012; Roberts, 2008; Schick & Melzi, 2016; Wessels & Trainin, 2014). How bilingual families use language when reading has also been investigated; translanguaging was identified by a handful of researchers as a tool used by parents to facilitate comprehension (Brown, 2016; Kabuto, 2010; Perry et al., 2008; Song, 2015). Specific information about these studies is discussed in the following paragraphs. Language use during shared readings was investigated by Davis et al. (2016), who surveyed 193 Hispanic bilingual families. Results showed that 52% of families read exclusively in Spanish, 37% in both English and Spanish, and 12% in English only. This finding is supported by Perry et al. (2008), who found that 69% of families in their study would alternate between English and Spanish during shared readings to develop biliteracy and build comprehension. Likewise, Brown (2016) found that one mother would intentionally use translanguaging to support linguistic development in the first language, to build self confidence in the second language, and to reduce the anxiety associated with school-based literacy events. Overall, the findings from these studies indicate that reading exclusively in English is rare, and the home language is used whenever possible. Translanguaging is a tool used purposefully and strategically by Spanish-English bilingual families to scaffold shared reading events. This is in direct contrast to most classrooms, where one language is privileged and translanguaging is frowned upon (Worthy et al., 2013). However, translanguaging during shared readings is not exclusive to Spanish-English bilinguals. Song (2015) studied the shared reading practices of Korean-English bilinguals and found that translanguaging was used to support first language development, to translate, to make inferences and predictions, and to foster connections between meanings in each language. The findings from the studies described above help to explain the experiences of Kathleen, the monolingual preservice teacher mentioned in the introduction. Bilingual students are accustomed to using their first language within at-home shared reading events, so that they feel validated and ‘seen’ when a similar practice is enacted in school (García et al., 2017). They are used to employing their entire linguistic repertoires to understand unfamiliar words and comprehend story events, and their academic progress is often stifled by the restrictive language policies in schools. Thus, when Kathleen used translanguaging during her shared reading, she was reinforcing her students’ cultural knowledge, affirming their home practices, and allowing them the freedom to use their entire linguistic repertoire to express their textual understandings (Pellegrini, 2001; Pianta et al., 2002).

The Case for Translanguaging and Bilingual Books While it is evident that bilingual families share books in their home languages and use translanguaging as a teaching tool, understanding the principles of translanguaging prior to classroom implementation is critical. By the same token, teachers need to understand the benefits of incorporating books that include their students’ home languages, such as bilingual books, into their instruction.

558

 Bridging the Gap

Translanguaging Translanguaging is a linguistic practice used by many bilinguals that involves moving between, and going beyond, their known language structures and systems, i.e., their linguistic repertoires (Wei, 2011). To put it simply, a Spanish-English bilingual engages in translanguaging when they alternate between Spanish and English when communicating with another bilingual. An example of this would be “go ask your abuela si necesita ayuda”, which begins in English, but ends in Spanish. Thus, when an individual is translanguaging, they are using their entire linguistic repertoires to create meaning (Wei, 2011). Translanguaging is a part of the linguistic and cultural identity of most bilinguals (Reynolds & Orellana, 2015) and is done without conscious thought or ulterior motives. Unlike code-switching, the theory of translanguaging does not view languages as two separate codes, but as part of a single linguistic repertoire (García & Li, 2014) without static boundaries (Creese & Blackledge, 2015). Bilinguals use translanguaging to communicate with others, construct deeper meanings, and make sense of their worlds (García, 2009). Several cognitive, emotional, social, and cultural benefits of translanguaging have been identified, many of which apply to shared reading events. First, translanguaging can be used by teachers to introduce words, translate content, check for understanding, provide clarification, introduce information, and emphasize important plotlines (Pontier & Gort, 2016). It enables teachers to share books with students at a variety of proficiency levels because it guarantees deep comprehension for all (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García & Kano, 2014; García, Sylvan, & Witt, 2010; Palmer, Martinez, Matteus, & Henderson, 2014). Emotionally, translanguaging reduces the stigmatization of first language use by allowing students the freedom to make any necessary textual clarifications without having to observe the typical language boundaries (Bean et al., 2003). Translanguaging positions all students as experts within a shared reading event, as both monolinguals and bilinguals can demonstrate strengths across different areas (de Oliveira, Gilmetdinvoa, & Peleaz-Morales, 2016). Socially, translanguaging helps learners understand cultural differences (de Oliveira et al., 2016), which may be particularly critical in classrooms with learners of various linguistic backgrounds.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bilingual Books as Mirrors and Windows The popularity of bilingual books has spiked in recent decades (Daly, 2018). Bilingual books encompass a variety of genres, presenting traditional folktales or new fiction through the use of more than one language. Common in bilingual books is the use of side-by-side text, where the entire story is translated into two or more languages. Other times, however, the books interchangeably use two or more languages without providing a direct translation of the words within the text. Most of these books include a glossary at the beginning or end to assist readers with pronunciation and meaning of the words that are not written in the dominant language. It is critically important for all children to be exposed to bilingual books. For bilingual students, these books are a reflection of their identities as language users (García et al., 2017), and become mirrors in which their own lives are seen as part of a larger human experience (Bishop, 1990). When children do not see themselves, or their languages, reflected within literature, “they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which they are a part” (Bishop, 1990, p. 1). By positioning two or more languages side-by-side, bilingual books show bilingual children that their home languages are valued and respected. For students who are not bilingual, these books exist as windows into the multicultural 559

 Bridging the Gap

world, where children can understand themselves as part of a larger human experience (Bishop, 1990). Ultimately, bilingual books are strong tools for building cultural awareness and empathy and validating heritage languages and home literacy practices (Alamillo & Arenas, 2012).

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS While understanding the theoretical underpinnings of home literacy practices, translanguaging, and bilingual books is critically important, readers also need to know how these can be applied to their own teaching practices. So, what exactly do these practices look like in the classroom? How can teachers incorporate home literacy with all the other things they have to worry about? What about teachers who are not familiar with the language of their students? In the following sections, we provide recommendations for how all teachers, monolingual and bilingual alike, can create a rich classroom literacy environment that bridges the gap between home and school. Additionally, the “teaching tip” section provides teachers with an example of how translanguaging and bilingual book activities can look in an actual classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Build a Library of Books that Reflect Student’s Cultural and Linguistic Realities To begin connecting home and school literacy, it is important for teachers to build a library of books that reflect the cultural and linguistic realities of students around the world (Brown, 2016; Wessels & Trainin, 2014). Books should include both visual and linguistic representations of children from a variety of social and cultural groups, so that all students have the opportunity to see themselves reflected as part of a larger human experience (Bishop, 1990). One example of authentic Spanish-English language use can be found in the book Little Roja Riding Hood by Susan Middleton Elya, in which the main character, Roja, is a Spanish-English speaking child. A reboot of a classic folktale, this book uses translanguaging to make a traditionally Eurocentric story accessible to Spanish-English bilinguals, so they are able to see themselves reflected in popular literature. The book Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves by Enebord Attard is another example of a bilingual folktale, however this one uses side-by-side Arabic and English to tell the classic tale. Both Roja and Ali Baba have the potential to be self-affirming mirrors (Bishop, 1990) to students who speak Spanish and Arabic, in a way that English-only books could never be. In Appendix A, a list of notable bilingual books is presented to help teachers get started creating a diverse, multilingual classroom library. Some teachers may be inclined to only include books in their libraries that reflect the language(s) of their own students; however, there are many reasons why we would like to encourage teachers to include books in a wide range of languages. Most importantly, students need to be able to use books as both mirrors into their own world, and windows into the worlds of others (Bishop, 1990). Seeing languages other than their own reflected in books prevents a dangerous ethnocentrism from forming, in which they believe that their language(s) are the most valued or important in the world. It fosters an appreciation for the languages used by others and can ignite interest in both learning different languages, appreciating other cultures, and traveling to other countries. Thus, teachers should seek to build a library filled with books that are both mirrors, or reflections of their own students, and windows, or images of those outside the classroom. Teachers can use the checklist in Figure 1 as a guide to the creation of their libraries to ensure that a diverse range of books are represented.

560

 Bridging the Gap

Figure 1. Sample checklist for creating a multilingual classroom library

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Evaluating Children’s Literature Building a classroom library is a monumental task. While the checklist above can help ensure that the breadth of diverse books in a library is sufficient, it cannot help with the issue of quality. As most teachers know, the quality of children’s literature varies dramatically from book to book. Teachers who seek to build a multicultural, inclusive library can and should become experts in evaluating children’s literature for quality and the use of negative cultural or linguistic representations (Schultz, 2010). By the same token, teachers should be knowledgeable about the books that will be the most appealing and conversation-inducing for their students (Horning, 2010). One way to do this is through using an evaluation protocol, which can assist teachers in choosing high-quality, interesting books. The Protocol for Evaluating Children’s Literature (PECL), which can be found in Appendix B, was developed by the authors for the following purposes: 1. to evaluate the authors’ cultural and linguistic authority and perspective (Cavanaugh, 1995; Horning, 2010; Schultz, 2010), 2. to assess the development and portrayal of characters and setting (Schultz, 2010), 3. to reflect on the narrative style of the text (Horning, 2010; Pirnajmuddin & Ramezani, 2011), 4. to evaluate the use of authentic language (Asghari & Salmani, 2016; Biria & Abadi, 2016; Cavanaugh, 1995; Kruger, 2013), and 5. to assess its appeal to children (Horning, 2010; Tomlinson, 2018). The first two elements are important because much literature purports to be multicultural but is actually created by cultural outsiders and contains stereotypes that are hurtful and inauthentic (Schultz, 2010). Thus, teachers must be careful to both evaluate an author’s credentials and closely examine the way the characters and setting are portrayed to ensure that no harmful stereotypes are reinforced. The narrative style is important because elements like patterned language and tone play a significant role in the way children and parents interact with a text (Horning, 2010). An evaluation of this can help teachers determine if the language used (i.e., the idiomatic expressions and/ or dialogue) is culturally appropriate, and if it would be confusing to children. The appeal of the book to children is also crucial; teachers must be cognizant of their students’ opinions if they hope to ignite curiosity and create meaningful learning environments. To use PECL, teachers select a book and rank it across the five categories listed above as a 3 (Yes), 2 (Somewhat), or 1 (No). Four of the categories are designed to be completed independently by teachers

561

 Bridging the Gap

before sharing the book with the class. Some of the categories may require teachers to look outside of the book to make a judgement, particularly those focusing on the background of the author. A book is considered to be of high quality if the first four categories have an average score of no lower than 2.5. If this score is achieved, teachers can feel then feel confident that the book is appropriate to share with their class. During the shared reading, teachers should pay close attention to the reactions of their students; Are they reacting positively? Do they seem engaged? Do they understand its contents? Then, teachers should complete the final section of PECL about student interest and find the new average. If the book still receives a score no lower than 2.5, it can safely be categorized as acceptable for shared readings.

Bilingual Books and Translanguaging During Shared Readings As many teachers who work with bilingual students are not bilingual themselves, how can they make use of the bilingual books in their classroom libraries? It is likely that some simply ignore the translation and read only the part that they understand. However, there is an alternative: translanguaging. Translanguaging may sound daunting to many teachers who are not bilingual, or who do not speak the home languages of their students; questions such as “What if I only speak English?”, “How will my first language Mandarin speakers understand a book written partially in Spanish?”, and “What if the language is written in characters or a script that I cannot decode?” are likely to arise. For many teachers, these questions about language are often compounded by a fear of mockery from the students or concerns about a loss of authority. This was a huge worry for Laura, an English-speaking preservice teacher who was tasked with using translanguaging to read a bilingual English-Spanish book. Before the shared reading, Laura was concerned that the students would jeer at her pronunciation or feel that she was being disrespectful to their home language. She stated, “I was pretty intimidated going into the read aloud because I am not confident in my Spanish-speaking skills and struggled pronouncing some of the Spanish words.” However, Laura’s concerns were alleviated through careful preparation and upon seeing how the shared reading benefitted her students. In the following paragraphs, details about how Laura prepared for translanguaging and her positioning as a teacher within the shared reading are discussed.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preparing for Translanguaging in Shared Readings Most teachers agree that books should not be shared without the teacher reading them themselves first. When attempting to use translanguaging, even more preparation may be necessary. First, teachers should take care to ensure that the natural rhythm and flow of the book is not interrupted by their own hesitation or lack of linguistic confidence. Additionally, teachers need to know the meaning of any words written in an unfamiliar language before sharing the book with the entire class. To prepare to use translanguaging within a shared reading, teachers can follow these simple steps: • • •

562

Read through the book at least two times to become familiar with the story and comfortable with its fow. If a glossary is provided by the author of the book, reference this to translate any unfamiliar words. If not, consult a dictionary, a translation website, or a friend profcient in the language. Practice reading the book aloud with friends, colleagues, or community members who are knowledgeable about the language you are unfamiliar with.

 Bridging the Gap

•

Identify any words that may have English cognates, as well as those (in either language) for which direct instruction is necessary for comprehension of the plot.

These steps are good practice for any shared reading but are particularly relevant for one in which a teacher may be stepping outside their comfort zone. As Laura, the aforementioned preservice teacher, stated “I was definitely way more uncomfortable going into it, more intimidated than a normal read aloud … So I definitely prepared way more than normal.” This preparation was key to building Laura’s comfort, as were the reactions she garnered from students during the shared reading. This will be discussed in the following section.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Students as Teachers, Teachers as Students Central to culturally responsive teaching is the need to build a fluid relationship between teachers and students. In such a relationship, both students and teachers are alternately positioned as learners. Students collaborate and take responsibility for each other’s learning to create a community of learners (LadsonBillings, 1995). Translanguaging is a great way to create such a community, particularly when done within a shared reading event. In traditional shared readings, teachers are in charge of reading, asking questions, and providing definitions of unknown words. The power dynamics change when bilingual books are used, particularly if the teacher is unfamiliar with one of the languages, as teachers can release some control of the book to their more linguistically proficient students. Thus, instead of the teacher being positioned as an all-knowing being, they become a learner alongside their students. It is the students themselves who are the experts about the various terms and colloquialisms used in the text. Such positioning may be particularly salient in a classroom where bilinguals exist alongside monolinguals, or those that contain bilinguals from a variety of linguistic backgrounds. Teachers can foster this fluidity by allowing students to help them with the shared reading. To do so, the teacher should start the read aloud by asking the students for assistance with pronunciation and/ or translation of any words not in English. Laura did this during her shared reading and witnessed an immediate change in student interested and enjoyment. She stated, “When I asked them [the students] to help me throughout the story, a lot of them sat up straighter and seemed to get more engaged because they understood that their role in the classroom was changing.” Laura attributed this change to an excitement over their new roles as experts in the classroom. During the shared reading, Laura also made sure to ask questions about cultural representations and colloquialisms that may have been unfamiliar to the monolingual English speakers in her class. She used a common strategy of ‘turn-and-talk’, where students turn to a peer next to them and engage in a brief discussion, to allow her home Spanish speakers to share information about their culture with their peers. Afterwards, Laura expounded on the joy that being the ‘experts’ gave her Spanish-speaking students. This experience was incredibly important for her Spanish-speakers, who are often viewed as struggling readers by other teachers and students because of their limited knowledge of English (e.g., Martinez, Hikida, & Duran, 2015). As mentioned earlier, students who are part of the dominant culture must be exposed to representations of other cultures and languages (Bishop, 1990). When this is done through translanguaging or sharing a bilingual book, some students may be initially hesitant or resistant. Kathleen, another preservice teacher who conducted a shared reading through translanguaging, noted the challenge that the event presented for a monolingual English student named Marquita. When speaking about the experience, Kathleen stated “Probably the worst part was watching Marquita … she does not know Spanish, and 563

 Bridging the Gap

she seemed annoyed by the whole experience … I think she felt isolated.” To counteract this isolation, Kathleen made sure Marquita knew that they were learning Spanish together, and tasked her with assisting with reading and translation of the tricky English words. Kathleen believed that this helped to reduce Marquita’s feelings of isolation, yet noted that Marquita retained negative perceptions about the use of Spanish. Teachers must be cognizant that translanguaging may be uncomfortable for some learners and should take extra precautions to ensure that the classroom is seen as a safe community in which experimentation is encouraged before attempting to use translanguaging. One way to do this is to assign roles for all students during the shared reading and to encourage mutual sharing about cultural norms during turn-and-talk interactions. Overall, both Kathleen and Laura believed that translanguaging had a positive impact on the students in their class, as well as on themselves. They thought that the use of Spanish made the students feel as if their home language and cultural identity were valued and celebrated, perhaps for the first time in their predominantly monolingual classroom. Kathleen said, “I think the students felt more known, and interpreted this read-aloud as a celebration and appreciation of their language and culture.” To summarize, a successful shared reading using translanguaging includes: • • • •

A book with text in two or more languages, OR two versions of the same book in diferent languages. Student involvement during and after the reading; teachers should explicitly dictate the role of all students during the shared reading to reduce feelings of isolation and/or resentment. A release of control by the teacher. A classroom environment that is safe and encourages experimentation.

The teaching tip below illustrates how translanguaging can be implemented through shared reading in a multilingual classroom. Teaching Tip Sheila and her students have worked all year to build a safe space for all languages in their classroom. They have located books with text in multiple languages that celebrate a variety of cultures, many of which are traditional folktales. In their classroom library, these folktales are presented alongside their American counterparts, such as Cinderella and Yeh-Shen, A Chinese Cinderella. They are accompanied by various word translation dictionaries and an iPad, and the students are well-versed in using Google Translate to look up and define unfamiliar words. Through their classroom library, Sheila’s students are learning about words in other languages. Many of these words get added to their classroom word wall; if a student finds a word in another language that corresponds to one already on the word wall, it gets added in a different color. Over the past few weeks, Sheila has been using translanguaging to share folktales. Her lessons are guided by the following objective from the Common Core State Standards, a national curriculum used in many parts of the United States:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• Compare and contrast two or more versions of the same story by different authors or from different cultures. As a teacher of many Spanish-speaking students, Sheila attempts to provide her students with myriad opportunities to share their identity. However, she also knows that it is important to provide her students with a window into the cultures of others, so that they do not gain an ethnocentric view of the world. For this unit, she has included three Cinderella stories: 1. Domitila, A Cinderella Story from the Mexican Tradition by Jewell Reinhart Coburn, 2. The Persian Cinderella by Shirley Climo, and 3. Kongi and Potgi, a Cinderella Story from Korea by Oki S. Han. To begin the unit, Sheila knew she had to build student interest and make connections to prior knowledge, so they created a KWL chart about the famous Disney version of Cinderella with which they were all familiar. Additionally, during their social studies time, groups of students used their class iPads to research Mexican, Persian, and Korean cultures, creating posters that were presented and displayed around the classroom. In this particular lesson, Sheila read the book Domitila. She used two versions of the book, one with English text and one with Spanish text. While Sheila does not speak Spanish, many of her students do, and she wanted to demonstrate that their language is valued. Thus, she went through both books and selected certain words and phrases that she would read in Spanish, and those that she would read in English. To prepare, Sheila:

564

 Bridging the Gap

Teaching Tip • Read both versions of Domitila several times. • Consulted with a Spanish-speaking friend about the words or phrases that would be the most valuable and culturally affirming if read in Spanish, or that were English cognates. • Used highlighter tape to mark the words or phrases that she would read in Spanish, and those that she would read in English. • Practiced using translanguaging to read several times, both to ensure that the rhythm of the story was not interrupted, and to make sure her pronunciation was clear. She also read the story to her Spanish-speaking friend for additional feedback. • Prepared a KWL chart. Thanks to this thorough preparation process, Sheila was ready to begin the read-aloud with her students. She knew that many, but not all, of her students were Spanish-speakers, and so she did the following to ensure comprehension for all students: • Introduced the title of the book and told them that they would read some in Spanish, and some in English. • Told her Spanish-speaking students that they would help her translate the parts that were read in Spanish. She told the English-speaking students that they would help with any difficult English words. She put the students into groups of 3 or 4, ensuring that each group had a mixture of students whose home language was English, and those who home language was Spanish. • Informed the students that the words or phrases that they successfully defined would go under “K” (know), and those they could not figure out would go under “W” (want to know). • Read the story, alternating between reading words in Spanish and reading words in English. • Every few minutes, or after each page of the book, Sheila would pause and allow the students to discuss unfamiliar words. New phrases and words in both Spanish and English were discussed, negotiated, and added to a KWL chart. • After the story had concluded, Sheila tasked each group of students with determining the meaning of all the words in the “W” column. Students used their class set of iPads and the translation dictionaries to come up with definitions. • Definitions were shared with the class, and students were asked to specifically talk about any words or phrases that sounded similar in both languages. • As an extension, Sheila asked each group to write a short summary of Domitila, using words in both Spanish and English (a practice referred to as translingual writing). So, what exactly did Sheila accomplish with this translanguaging read aloud? First, she affirmed the cultural and linguistic identities of her students by positioning them all as experts. The speakers whose home language was English speakers provided assistance with higher-level English vocabulary words, and the speakers whose home language was Spanish speakers gave translations of the Spanish words and phrases. In this read aloud event, the students and the teacher became collaborators, building a story together and becoming responsible for one another’s learning. Additionally, Sheila normalized the practice of translanguaging, which is common in most bilingual homes but often villainized in schools. Finally, Sheila worked to develop the students’ vocabularies by building connections between Spanish and English words. The students identified cognates and determined similarities between languages that can be used to foster their overall retention of the words, and even used these words within translingual writing to further strengthen the connections between English and Spanish.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Parents as Teachers A critical component of creating a classroom learning community that values diversity is to purposefully and consistently include families in class events (Brown et al., 2016; Perry et al., 2008). In the case of translanguaging and shared readings, teachers can invite families into the classroom to share their favorite books or read in their home language. When parents take part in classroom activities, cultural competence is developed and affirmed (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers who desire involvement can begin the school year by inviting families to come to volunteer during teacher-led shared readings. This is a preliminary step, where the parents witness the strategies that the teacher uses during reading, and where they become comfortable with the students before being asked to take a larger role. Research has stressed the importance of direct teaching and modeling of shared reading strategies for parents who may otherwise be unfamiliar with school practices (e.g., Billings, 2009;

565

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Bridging the Gap

Brown, Schell, Denton, & Knode, 2019). This step also gives parents a chance to develop a relationship of mutual respect and collaboration with the teacher, and to create shared understandings of cultural values and ideals (Brown, 2016). The second step is for the teacher to create a sign-up list for parents who are interested in reading to the class. The sign-up list should include: parent name, student name, date of preference, time of preference, and book selection. The trickiest part of this process is the book selection, which will be discussed in the following paragraph. Once parents have signed up, teachers must provide them with a copy of the book they will be reading at least one week prior to coming to class, so they have ample time to review the book and prepare any activities or questions. It should be noted that giving parents a copy of the book does not mean the teacher should direct their actions surrounding the reading; each parent will approach the shared reading in a different, often culturally-situated, manner that should not be stifled by the teacher (Britto, 2006; Brown et al., 2019; Lareau, 2011). Incorporating these varying reading styles into the classroom will help to bridge the gap between home and school literacy practices. The final step in this process is for the parents to come into the classroom and share the story. Students should be told ahead of time who will be coming in, what they will be sharing, and the level of participation that will be expected of the students. When the parent begins reading, the teacher should take a backseat role as a learner alongside the other students. As mentioned above, choosing the appropriate book for parents to read is often the trickiest part of the process. School curriculum may require teachers to read particular books or focus on certain genres, or teachers may want to ensure that the books correspond with a specific unit of study. However, when attempting to affirm cultural knowledge and build a barrier between home and school, teachers should be cautious about being overly controlling of book selection. Shared readings by parents should be viewed as a time to develop diverse learning communities, so it is essential that parents be given the freedom to bring books of their own choosing, if they so desire (Brown et al., 2019). One way to both provide parent choice and ensure alignment with the curriculum is to give parents genre or theme-based parameters. It should not be forgotten, however, that the goal of these readings is for parents to share their cultural knowledge, so teachers should encourage parents to bring books that are written in their home languages or that contain representations of their cultures (Billings, 2009; Brown et al., 2019). It is likely that some parents will be unable to select their own books or intimidated by the prospect (Cummins, 2000; Roberts, 2008). Many do not have access to the necessary resources or lack the time required to select books (Dixon & Wu, 2014). By the same token, teachers may have little flexibility in the books that they read to their class but still desire for parents to be involved. If this is the case, the initial signup sheet should provide a list of books chosen by the teacher and allow the parents to select the one they would be most interested in sharing. Next to the book title should be the language(s) the book is written in and a brief summary of the plot. Teachers should remember that and should not be discouraged if they are restricted in their book selection. Regardless of the chosen book, students will benefit from their parents’ cultural knowledge and interpretation.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have discussed the gap between school literacy practices and those found in bilingual homes. The manner in which bilingual families engage in shared readings often differs dramatically from what is found in schools (e.g., Wood et al., 2018), which can contribute to the low literacy achievement of many bilingual students. Research indicates that the home literacy practices of bilingual families often 566

 Bridging the Gap

include the use of books written in their home language and/or bilingual books (Brown, 2016), or the use of translanguaging to facilitate comprehension (Kabuto, 2010; Song, 2015). Teachers of bilingual students must be aware of the home literacy practices of their students and seek to align them with classroom practices, as research has shown that when school and home practices complement each other, student achievement increases (McConnochie & Figueroa, 2017). To do so, we recommended that teachers do the following: 1. build a library of linguistically and culturally diverse books, 2. learn to carefully evaluate all books for stereotypes and accuracy, 3. read bilingual books and/or use translanguaging during shared reading events, and 4. invite families to read to their class. While the above suggestions are a helpful starting point, more research is needed on the extent to which bilingual home literacy practices differ from those found in schools. Similarly, translanguaging is just beginning to be recognized as a legitimate strategy for shared readings. Future research should seek to determine how translanguaging can be used within shared readings to affirm the knowledge of students from a variety of linguistic backgrounds (Garrity, Aquino-Sterling, & Day, 2015). Also, research should aim to better understand how to bring family literacy practices to school settings, including ways to strengthen and draw upon family literacy practices (e.g., Zambrana et al., 2019). This would include a focus on language use during shared readings, for example the types of questions asked (e.g., Kabuto, 2010; Song, 2015). Research should use random sampling, large sample sizes, longitudinal designs, and data triangulation with families from a variety of linguistic backgrounds to increase our understanding of how bilingual families engage in shared readings and to investigate translanguaging integration in classrooms (Dixon & Wu, 2014). It is our hope that this chapter will contribute to fostering students’ dynamic linguistic practices in classrooms while minimizing stigmatization of those practices and inspire all teachers to incorporate translanguaging into their shared reading practices. Only when teachers illustrate acceptance of all languages will all students feel appreciated and recognized. Discussion Questions 1. Why is it important for teachers to critically evaluate the books they include their libraries, and why are high-quality, diverse books a necessity for any classroom? 2. What is the rationale for incorporating translanguaging into shared readings? How could you implement translanguaging in your own teaching? 3. In a linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, how can teachers ensure that they are including all students during a shared reading?

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Alamillo, L. A., & Arenas, R. (2012). Chicano children’s literature: Using bilingual children’s books to promote equity in the classroom. Multicultural Education, 19(4), 53–62. Asghari, M., & Salmani, B. (2016). Cultural-context adaptation in translation of children’s short stories from English to Persian. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 965–971. Askew, A. (2018). Cinderella. London, UK: Quarto Publishing PLC. Attard, E. (2005). Ali Baba and the forty thieves. London, UK: Mantra Lingua.

567

 Bridging the Gap

Bean, J., Eddy, R., Grego, R., Irvine, P., Kutz, E., Matsuda, P. K., & Lehner, A. (2003). Should we invite students to write in home languages? Complicating the yes/no debate. Composition Studies, 31(1), 25–42. Bergman Deitcher, D., Aram, D., & Adar, G. (2017). Book selection for shared reading: Parents’ considerations and researchers’ views. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 19(3), 291–315. Billings, E. (2009). Prescriptions to read: Early literacy promotion outside the classroom. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning, 13(1–2), 81–101. Biria, R., & Abadi, M. A. N. (2016). A generic assessment of Persian translations of English fairy tales and fairy tales written in Persian: From a cultural perspective. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 176–183. Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives - Gerontological Nursing Association, 6(3), 9–11. Britto, P. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Griffin, T. M. (2006). Maternal reading and teaching patterns: Associations with school readiness in low-income African American families. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 68–89. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.3 Brown, C. L., Schell, R., Denton, R., & Knode, E. (2019). Family literacy coaching: Partnering with parents for reading success. School Community, 29(1), 63–86. Brown, S. (2016). Story nights: An apprenticeship into literacy through bilingual story reading. Teaching Education, 27(3), 286–304. Cavanaugh, L. M. (1995). Multicultural education: A checklist for selecting children’s literature in the classroom. Insights into Open Education, 3–12. Climo, S. (2001). The Persian Cinderella. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishing. Coburn, J. R. (2000). Domitila: A Cinderella tale from the Mexican tradition. New York, NY: Lee & Low Books. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35. Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537–548. doi:10.2307/3587742

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Daly, N. (2018). The linguistic landscape of English–Spanish dual language picturebooks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(6), 556–566. doi:10.1080/01434632.2017.1410163 Davis, H. S., Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L. M., Soares, D. A., Resendez, N., ... HaganBurke, S. (2016). Home literacy beliefs and practices among low-income Latino families. Early Child Development and Care, 186(7), 1152–1172. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1081184 de Oliveira, L. C., Gilmetdinova, A., & Pelaez-Morales, C. (2016). The use of Spanish by a monolingual kindergarten teacher to support English language learners. Language and Education, 30(1), 22–42. do i:10.1080/09500782.2015.1070860

568

 Bridging the Gap

Dixon, L. Q., & Wu, S. (2014). Home language and literacy practices among immigrant second language learners. Language Teaching, 47(4), 414–449. doi:10.1017/S0261444814000160 Elya, S. M. (2014). Little roja riding hood. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons Book for Young Readers. Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Lonigan, C. J., & Eppe, S. (2013). The home literacy environment and Latino Head Start children’s emergent literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 775–791. doi:10.1037/ a0028766 PMID:22662767 Gámez, P. B., González, D., & Urbin, L. M. (2017). Shared book reading and English learners’ narrative production and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3), 275–290. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. García, O., Johnson, J., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. García, O., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the U.S. In J. Conteh, & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 258–277). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092246-018 García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 García, O., Sylvan, C., & Witt, D. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01208.x Garrity, S., Aquino-Sterling, C. R., & Day, A. (2015). Translanguaging in an infant classroom: Using multiple languages to make meaning. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(3), 177–196. doi :10.1080/19313152.2015.1048542 Gonzalez, J. E., Acosta, S., Davis, H., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L., Soares, D., Resendez, N., & Zhu, L. (2017). Latino maternal literacy beliefs and practices mediating socioeconomic status and maternal education effects in predicting child receptive vocabulary. Early Education and Development, 28(1), 78–95.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hall, D., & Williams, E. (2000). The teacher’s guide to building blocks. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa. Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596568 Horning, K. T. (2010). From cover to cover: Evaluating and reviewing children’s books. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Johnson, N. J., Koss, M. D., & Martinez, M. (2018). Through the sliding glass door: #EmpowerTheReader. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 569–577. doi:10.1002/trtr.1659 Kabuto, B. (2010). Code-switching during parent-child reading interactions: Taking multiple theoretical perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(2), 131–157. doi:10.1177/1468798409345109

569

 Bridging the Gap

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465 Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751 Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Louie, A. L. (1996). Yeh-shen: A Cinderella story from China. London, UK: Penguin Publishing. Martinez, R. A., Hikida, M., & Duran, L. (2015). Unpacking ideologies of linguistic purism: How dual language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(1), 26–42. doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.977712 McCaffrey, M., & Hisrich, K. E. (2017). Read-alouds in the classroom: A pilot study of teachers’ selfreporting strategies. Reading Improvement, 54(3), 93–100. McConnochie, M., & Mangual Figueroa, A. (2017). “Dice que es bajo” (“She says he’s low”): Negotiating breaches of learner identity in two Mexican families. Linguistics and Education, 38, 68–78. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2017.02.005 Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A metaanalysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890 PMID:21219054 Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/10409280701838603 Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2011). Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Guilford. Palmer, D., Martínez, R. A., Matteus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757–772. doi:10.1111/modl.12121

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Some theoretical and methodological considerations in studying literacy in social context. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 54 ̶ 65). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Perry, N. J., Kay, S. M., & Brown, A. (2008). Continuity and change in home literacy practices of Hispanic families with preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 178(1), 99–113. Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K., Payne, C., Cox, M., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225–238. doi:10.1086/499701 Pirnajmuddin, H., & Ramezani, Z. (2011). Idioms in translation of children’s literature: The big clay jar by Moradi Kermani. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1861–1864.

570

 Bridging the Gap

Plunkett, S. (1996). Kongi and Potgi: A Cinderella story from Korea. New York, NY: Dial Press. Pontier, R., & Gort, M. (2016). Coordinated translanguaging pedagogy as distributed cognition: A case study of two dual language bilingual education preschool coteachers’ languaging practices during shared book readings. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(2), 89–106. doi:10.1080/1931 3152.2016.1150732 Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Immigrant Latinos’ cultural model of literacy development: An evolving perspective on home-school discontinuities. American Journal of Education, 108(2), 103–134. Reynolds, J. F., & Orellana, M. F. (2014). Translanguaging within enactments of quotidian interpretermediated interactions. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 24(3), 315–338. Roberts, T. A. (2008). Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 103–130. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.1 Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children’s development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 490–515). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Schick, A. R., & Melzi, G. (2016). Print-related practices in low-income Latino homes and preschoolers’ school-readiness outcomes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(2), 171–198. doi:10.1177/1468798415592009 Schultz, S. (2010). Judging a book by its cover: An evaluation tool for the evaluation, selection and inclusion of multicultural children’s literature in the elementary classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dominican University of California, California. Song, K. (2015). “Okay I will say in Korean and then in American”: Translanguaging practices in bilingual homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(1), 84–106. Tomlinson, C. M. (1998). Children’s books from other countries. Lanford, MD: Scarecrow Press. Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. doi:10.1016/j. pragma.2010.07.035

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Wessels, S. (2014). Supporting English and Spanish literacy through a family literacy program. School Community Journal, 24(2), 147–164. Wessels, S., & Trainin, G. (2014). Bringing literacy home: Latino families supporting children’s literacy learning. Young Children, 69(3), 40–46. Zentella, A. C. (2005). Premises, promises, and pitfalls of language socialization research in Latino families. In A. C. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 13–30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

571

Bridging the Gap

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bilingual Books: Children’s books written in more than one language. Sometimes these books have the same text translated side-by-side into two or more languages, whereas other books are written in a mixture of languages without side-by-side translation. Culturally Responsive Teaching: A method of teaching that requires teachers to demonstrate cultural competence and encourages students to use their cultural context to relate to course material. Ethnocentrism: When individuals evaluate other cultures based on the standards and customs of their own culture. Heritage Language: A persons’ first language, learned in the home, that differs from the dominant social language. Home Literacy Environment: Literacy-based interactions between parents and children that occur in the home, including the use of available literacy resources and materials. Linguistic Repertoire: All of the linguistic varieties, including registers, dialects, styles, and accents, that exist in a community or within an individual. Multicultural: When a variety of cultural or ethnic groups are mixed. Considering and including the perspectives and beliefs of people from different cultures and backgrounds. Shared Reading: Parent and child or teacher and student interactions when reading a storybook. Translanguaging: When individuals shuttle between languages, treating them as part of an integrated system.

572

Bridging the Gap

APPENDIX 1: BILINGUAL CHILDREN’S BOOKS Spanish-English Bilingual Books Abuela by Arthur Dorros Borreguita and the Coyote by Verna Aardema Dear Primo: A Letter to My Cousin by Duncan Tonatiuh I Love Saturdays y Domingos by Alma Flor Ada Juana and Lucas by Juana Medina La Princesa and the Pea by Susan Middleton Elya Little Roja Riding Hood by Susan Middleton Elya Manana, Iguana by Ann Whitford Paul Mango, Abuela, and Me by Meg Medina Maria Had a Little Llama by Angela Dominguez Marisol McDonald Doesn’t Match by Monica Brown Martina the Beautiful Cockroach by Carmen Agra Deedy Oh no, Gotta Go by Susan Middleton Elya Pancho Rabbit and the Coyote by Duncan Tonatiuh Rubia and the Three Osos by Susan Middleton Elya The Cazuela That The Farm Maiden Stirred by Samantha R. Vamos The Princess and the Warrior: A Tale of Two Volcanoes by Duncan Tonatiuh Too Many Tamales by Gary Soto Waiting for the Biblioburro by Monica Brown What Can You Do With a Paleta? by Carmen Tafolla

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chinese-English Bilingual Books Alakazam by Chao Wang Borrowing a Tail by Songying Lin CeeCee by Mao Xiao Lilly’s Surprise by Madhumita Mocharla Picking Turnips by Xu Zhou Rory the Rabbit by Yimei Wang The Frog and the Boy by Mao Xiao Who Ate My Chesnut? by Lei Xia You Can’t See Me by Simon Golding

Bilingual Books in Other Languages Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves by Ebenor Attard (Arabic-English) Am I Small? by Phillip Winterberg (Farsi-English) Arthur and Anthony/Arthur und Anton by Sibylle Hammer (German-English)

573

Bridging the Gap

Buri and the Marrow by Henriette Barkow (Arabic-English) Deepak’s Diwali by Divya Karwal (Hindi-English) Italian Nursery Rhymes Volume 2/Filastrocche Italiane Volume 2 by Claudia Cerulli and Julie Weaver (Italian-English) Vincent’s Rainbow/L’Arc-en-ciel de Vincent by Oui Love Books (French-English)

APPENDIX 2: PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATING CHILDREN’S LITERATURE (PECL) Title of Book: ________________________________________________________________________ Author: ______________________________ Illustrator: ______________________________

Section I Table 1. Author Yes

Somewhat

Is the author a cultural insider? (Cavanaugh, 1998)

3

2

1

Does the author have cultural authority? (Schultz, 2010)

3

2

1

Did the author consult any experts when writing? (Horning, 2010)

3

2

1

No

Notes

No

Notes

Total Score: ___/9

Section II Table 2. Character and Setting Development

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yes

Somewhat

Does the book avoid portraying the characters along stereotypical lines (e.g., all characters looking alike, stereotypical dress and/or hairstyles, skin tone unrealistic and unvarying)? (Schultz, 2010)

3

2

1

Does the setting avoid relying on stereotypical symbols? (Schultz, 2010)

3

2

1

Does the description of the setting build authentic and accurate knowledge of the location?

3

2

1

Total Score: ___/9

574

Bridging the Gap

Section III Table 3. Narrative Style Yes

Somewhat

Does the book use patterned language (repetition, rhythm, rhyme)? (Horning, 2010)

3

2

1

Is the story engaging and easy to listen to? (Horning, 2010)

3

2

1

No

Notes

No

Notes

No

Notes

Total Score: ___/6

Section IV Table 4. Language Use Yes

Somewhat

Does the book contain text written in two or more languages?

3

2

1

Is the text written in a way that is comprehensible for children who don’t speak one or more of the languages? (Biria & Abadi, 2016)

3

2

1

Are any idiomatic expressions culturally appropriate and relevant to the story? (Kruger, 2013)

3

2

1

Does it contain realistic dialogue? (Cavanaugh, 1998)

3

2

1

Total Score: ___/12

Section V Table 5. Appeal of Book

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yes

Somewhat

Is the book appealing to, and enjoyable for, my students? (Tomlinson, 1998)

3

2

1

Did my students understand the book? (Horning, 2010)

3

2

1

Total Score: ___/6

575

Bridging the Gap

APPENDIX 3: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6(3), ix–xi. In this two-page article, Bishop provides a succinct justification for the necessity of exposing children to multicultural books. She refers to books as mirrors, where children see their own cultures reflected and affirmed, or windows, where they are exposed to other cultures. Bishop makes a strong case not just for bilingual books, but those written in different vernaculars. This article is a useful starting point for teachers who are unsure about including bilingual books in their classroom, or who need to justify their use of bilingual books to an administrator. 2. García, O., Johnson, S. I., Seltzer, K., & Valdés, G. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. This book is written by the foremost scholar in translanguaging research, Ofelia García, and her colleagues. It provides an in-depth look at the theory and benefits of translanguaging, while also illustrating pedagogical moves that teachers can use to implement translanguaging in their own classrooms. Recommendations are given for both bilingual teachers and monolingual teachers. This book is a necessity for any teacher who is hoping to begin using translanguaging in their classroom because it provides practical, hands-on advice that can be used in any context. If you only have time to read one thing all year, read this. 3. Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

For teachers interested in implementing culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), this article is a necessary starting point. Written by Gloria Ladson-Billings, a seminal scholar in CRP, this article provides an overview of the tenets of CRP, and a justification for its use in the classroom. The article also directs teachers’ attention to other relevant articles about CRP.

576

577

Chapter 27

Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals: Translanguaging in Writing Etienne Skein Independent Researcher, South Africa Yvonne Knospe Umeå University, Sweden Kirk P. H. Sullivan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9091-6458 Umeå University, Sweden

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Translanguaging is a concept that is increasingly used in multilingualism studies with disparate defnitions and uses in the literature. In this chapter, students who are advanced multilingual speakers at home, school, and elsewhere are in focus. The chapter examines historical and contemporary defnitions of translanguaging and shows that not all defnitions view the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers as translanguaging. However, those that see these speakers as having a unitary linguistic system allow the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers to be viewed as translanguaging. Working from this perspective, the chapter argues for translanguaging writing spaces to be created in schools as a way to foster learning. The chapter also presents ways in which teachers can support the creation of these spaces in multilingual classrooms and considers how translanguaging writing spaces can be maintained when advanced multilingual speakers move to writing for monolingual readers. The challenge of this move is also discussed.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch027

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Scope of the Chapter Translanguaging is increasingly used in diverse and multilingual classrooms to support multilingual literacy development. That is, the use of more than one language by students is encouraged rather than restricted by single language policies such as the English-only movement. Translanguaging recognizes multilinguals as individuals who draw on all their linguistic resources to communicate. One group that seldom figures in the translanguaging literature are multilingual speakers in school classrooms who are growing up speaking more than one language of power, i.e., languages that society perceives as advantageous for students’ future careers. These speakers are considered to be native users of their languages. Some examples of such individuals are a student growing up in Sweden using Swedish and English at home, at school, and out of school, or a student growing up in South Africa using Afrikaans and English at home, school, and elsewhere. This chapter focuses on high school classrooms with students who are such multilingual speakers, and who see it as normal, natural, and easy to use their entire language repertoire. For simplicity, in this chapter, these individuals are referred to as advanced multilingual speakers. This chapter includes examples of how teachers can support translanguaging and translanguaging in writing for advanced multilingual speakers in the classroom. The focus of Teaching Tip 1 is upon how teachers can create translanguaging spaces (Kaufhold, 2018). When producing a multilingual text, advanced multilingual students use all their languages to think and write without the need to monitor that their final texts are in one language. In classrooms without such translanguaging spaces, these highly proficient speakers of several languages are required to use mental energy to restrict their communication to one language only. This cognitive capacity can be used more productively for learning. Although multilingual classrooms are increasingly common, not least as these classrooms allow students to focus their cognitive capacity on learning and literacy development, there are contexts that require monolingual conversation and texts. These include writing for external assessment and for monolingual readers. Moreover, the ability to deliver texts in only one language is an important skill to learn for working life after high school and is part of the literacy skill set high schools provide their graduates. The production of such texts places greater cognitive demands on advanced multilingual speakers, as they have to check, or monitor, that their final texts are in only one language. The focus of Teaching Tip 2 is how teachers can facilitate and support final year high school students’ transition from production of multilingual to monolingual texts. We refer to this transition as Translanguaging in Writing to Writing with Feature Monitoring. Using translanguaging systematically and pedagogically in classrooms enhances school students’ home languages and their bilingualism, helping learners to develop fluid multilingual practices which consist of proficiency in their home language(s) and a new language (see also Neokleous, Park, & Krulatz in this volume). In most of the literature to date, the focus is on contexts where translanguaging is an element of emergent bi- or multilingualism including a minority language and a dominant language (such as English). The present chapter contributes another perspective on the theoretical bases of translanguaging through support for the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers across the curriculum.

578

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

The Structure of the Chapter If translanguaging in education is an approach that has the potential to describe how multilingual individuals use their languages, it is necessary that the definition of translanguaging can efficiently describe the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers. In the next section, historical and contemporary definitions of translanguaging are considered to see if they include and efficiently describe the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers. A definition of translanguaging that includes these speakers would make translanguaging a useful lens to apply when cultivating literacy in multilingual high school classrooms containing school students who are advanced multilingual speakers. After probing definitions of translanguaging, the focus of the chapter hones in on writing and translanguaging in the multilingual classroom. As there is little research on translanguaging and writing among advanced multilingual speakers, or in fact, on translanguaging and writing in the final years of high school more generally, the research on translanguaging at the master’s and doctoral level writing is considered. From this research, the metaphor of the translanguaging space (Kaufhold, 2018) is found to be highly applicable to advanced multilinguals in high school. Within the translanguaging space, we then consider how advanced multilingual students’ writing can be supported through observation of the writing process, namely how the writers have written, translanguaged, paused, and revised during text composition. This approach gives a nuanced understanding of students’ translanguaging during text composition, and helps teachers and students gain an awareness of how students work with their writing (see, for example, Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002). Integrated with our discussion of how heightening writers’ self-awareness of their translanguaging in their writing process has pedagogical benefits, we consider the tension between advocating translanguaging and national education systems that grade students, most frequently only in the official language (or some of the official languages) of the country. After this discussion of translanguaging and writing, we present suggestions for how the theoretical background can be applied practically in the classroom, keeping in mind that two classrooms are never identical. We are interested not only in classrooms where advanced multilingual school students are in the majority, but also in classrooms where there is only one such student.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Translanguaging In this section, definitions, historical and contemporary, of translanguaging are explored to arrive at an understanding of translanguaging that can efficiently describe the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers. First, we consider the definition given by Williams (1994) as the origin of translanguaging. Thereafter the clusters of research articles generated by Poza’s (2017) meta-review paper of translanguaging are shared in order to potentially locate definitions of translanguaging reflecting the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers. Finally, we present our working definition of translanguaging.

579

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

Trawsieithu Cen Williams introduced the term trawsieithu, the Welsh word that was later translated to translanguaging in English in his 1994 doctoral thesis. William described translanguaging as presenting information in one language with the learner manipulating the information through “answering questions, summarizing, expanding on it, etc.” (p. 123) in the other language. Here, the idea of the learner listening and/or reading in one language and working with the material in another is central. At all stages, the learner needs to monitor their language use to make sure they are using one of their languages, e.g., Welsh, or their other language, e.g., English. This limits the available cognitive capacity for learning as the speaker is using mental energy to restrict their language production to just one language. The process of translanguaging as defined by Williams (1994) does not capture how advanced multilingual speakers spontaneously use their languages. Thus, a more complex definition is necessary.

Meta-Analysis of 53 Research Publications In order to find a more useful definition for our purpose, we turn to Poza´s (2017) meta-analysis of 53 research publications. He detected three clusters of definitions that highlight the disparate nature of what translanguaging has come to mean since the term’s introduction. Each of Poza’s three clusters is considered here.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Language Alternation The first cluster Poza (2017) found was labeled Language alternation. This label intuitively fits the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers as defined in the introduction, namely those speakers who can freely select from their languages based on their conversational partner. However, the first definition Poza cites for this cluster places a pedagogical lens on translanguaging and does not acknowledge that speakers combine languages in activities other than learning activities: “Translanguaging refers to the combination of two of more languages in a systematic way within the same learning activity” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011, p. 359). The second definition Poza cites comes from a 2002 paper that Cen Williams presented to a Welsh Assembly committee: “Translanguaging simply means (i) receiving information in one language and (ii) using or applying it in the other language. It is a skill that happens naturally in everyday life” (Williams, 2002, p. 2). This definition of translanguaging is nearly identical to the one from 1994 but without the pedagogical lens. That is, Williams (2002) understands that translanguaging is a skill that happens naturally in multilingual speakers’ everyday activities. Speakers hear or read something in one language and then use ideas and concepts in another language. Interpreting Williams’ two definitions together suggests that he considers changing language for different stages of a task or conversation to be translanguaging. This aligns with the examples of translanguaging found in the work of Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012). They report that school students watched a Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) in English, then discussed the content in Welsh before completing a written task in Welsh, and that students used the Internet in English during a task set in Welsh, and then discussed what they found on the Internet in Welsh. Neither of these definitions cover typical spontaneous writing by advanced multilingual speakers. In the South African context, Bock, Salwai and Stroud (2018) reported text messages that demonstrate

580

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

change in language within phrases in an out of school context. In a multilingual classroom, if translanguaging is to be a useful lens for our purposes, a definition that allows this type of writing is necessary. In sum, the cluster, Language Alternation, recognizes that translanguaging occurs outside the classroom, but this cluster’s definitions of translanguaging are limited to shifts in language between input and output.

Heteroglossic View Tied to Sociocultural Learning Theories Poza (2017) labeled the second cluster of translanguaging research papers found in his analysis of the literature, Heteroglossic view tied to sociocultural learning theories. Again, he illustrated this cluster with important references. The focus of the literature Poza selected is effective communication: “Translanguaging is the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages” (Baker, 2011, p. 288). Baker’s (2011) definition allows use of two (or more) languages to be considered translanguaging. In contrast to Language Alternation, there is no need for a shift in language between input and output, but rather the choice of language can be fluid and mixed in both input and output. This means that advanced multilingual speakers can use their entire linguistic repertoires without monitoring, or language specific selection, and text-message literacy practices such as those illustrated in Bock, Salwai, and Stroud (2018) are examples of translanguaging. The fluidity of language use for meaning making used by translanguagers is expressed well by Celic and Seltzer (2011): Translanguaging posits that bilinguals have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively. That is, translanguaging takes as its starting point the language practices of bilingual people as the norm, and not the language of monolinguals, as described by traditional usage book and grammar (p. 1).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Thus, features are selected from a single or unitary language system that includes all the multilingual speaker’s languages. Feature monitoring for monolingual conversation or writing takes learners’ cognitive capacity away from other tasks, for example learning. When advanced multilingual speakers feature monitor, they select words, phrases and grammatical features from one language and repress those from their other languages to generate monolingual speech or writing. In sum, the cluster of definitions, Heteroglossic view tied to sociocultural learning theories, recognizes translanguaging as the selection of features from a unitary linguistic repertoire that allows effective communication by all multilingual speakers with their conversation partner(s) or reader(s) in everyday and educational contexts. This cluster of definitions is suitable for our purpose.

Heteroglossic View With Schooling and Societal Implications The third cluster Poza (2017) found was labeled Heteroglossic view with schooling and societal implications. Again, Poza illustrated this cluster with several references to related works. At first glance they suggest great similarity with Heteroglossic views tied to sociocultural learning theories. For example, the citation Poza selected from the work by Velasco and García (2004) highlights how the multilingual speaker has a unitary linguistic system from which they select to facilitate effective communication, “Translanguaging does not view the language of bilinguals as separate linguistic systems. The term 581

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

stresses the flexible and meaningful actions through which bilinguals select features in their linguistic repertoire in order to communicate” (p. 7). However, in their 2004 description of translanguaging, Velasco and García also wrote that “translanguaging becomes the framework for conceptualizing the education of bilinguals as a democratic endeavor for social justice” (p. 7). This social turn is made even clearer by García and Leiva (2014): “what makes translanguaging different…is that it is transformative, attempting to wipe out hierarchy… Thus, translanguaging could be a mechanism for social justice, especially when teaching students from language minoritized communities” (p. 200). Here García and Leiva argue that translanguaging is more than a model of multilinguals’ fluid languaging practices. They view translanguaging as “transformative, attempting to wipe out hierarchy” (p. 200). The fluid languaging practices of advanced multilingual speakers with their languages of high status are difficult to position as transformative. However, a thorough reading of García and Leiva (2014) affords a more generous and inclusive understanding of how these authors view translanguaging. For example, García and Leiva’s (2014) also write, “in my [sic] view [translanguaging is] an act of bilingual performance, as well as a bilingual pedagogy for teaching and learning” (p. 199), and translanguaging is a “term to refer to the flexible use of linguistic resources by bilinguals in order to make sense of their worlds” (p. 200). There is no obligation for an educational setting, or social transformation. In sum, this cluster focuses on the schooling and societal implications of translanguaging, but also acknowledges that neither schooling nor political action are necessary for a bilingual action to be viewed as translanguaging. Hence, under this definition of translanguaging, advanced multilingual speakers can be viewed as translanguaging and seen as making flexible use of their unitary linguistic systems to make sense of their worlds, make meaning, and communicate.

Translanguaging: A Working Definition

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The brief historical and contemporary overview of definitions of translanguaging presented above has underscored its development from Williams (1994) and the various complex dimensions integrated into the concept over time. Our working definition for the multilingual literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers is based on Poza’s second and third clusters. Some dimensions required by a number of definitions (and researchers) are not applicable to advanced multilingual speakers, for example educational setting and social transformation. The working definition we will use in this chapter allows these speakers to translanguage fluidly in and out of school. Our working definition has four components: 1. We align with García and Otheguy’s view (2019) that “translanguaging sees multilinguals as possessing a unitary linguistic system that they build through social interactions of different types” (p. 9). 2. We see fluid translanguaging for meaning making as not requiring feature monitoring, and thereby more cognitive capacity is available for other tasks. 3. We view feature monitoring and feature selection as necessary to produce monolingual speech and writing. That is features of languages such as Afrikaans, English, French, Norwegian, and North Sámi are selected from unitary linguistic systems. During this selection, features of the languages not being used are repressed through monitoring. This requires mental energy, and thereby limits the cognitive capacity available for other tasks.

582

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

4. We acknowledge fluid translanguaging for meaning making as an element of the process towards feature monitoring and selection in the production of monolingual speech and text. That is, when writing, we acknowledge fluid translanguaging during the writing process, and feature monitoring of the final writing product. As we move to consider translanguaging and writing, it is important to remember these four points of our working definition of translanguaging and its operationalization.

Translanguaging and Writing Given our working definition and operationalization of translanguaging, two questions arise in relation to translanguaging and writing. First, how do writers negotiate their readers and their unitary linguistic systems when a sociocultural understanding of who will read the text is not immediately known? And second, what stimulus does the translanguager need to understand translanguaging is possible in the final text? García and Otheguy (2019) discussed “unmonitored” contexts where translanguaging is possible, and “monitored” contexts where translanguaging is not possible and only languages spoken by the listener or reader can be used. When writing, the reader has agency over the writer’s selection and repression of features. Exceptions to this lack of immediacy in writing are text message and online chat conversation formats. In these formats, translanguaging occurs when texters know each other well and feel able to use many (potentially all) features of their unitary linguistic system without inhibition. They are aware of two factors: 1. what their texter would understand, and 2. that non-understanding would not lead to any consequences. Translanguaging in text-based conversations can thus include the occasional word or phrase whose features are not inhibited. As Pacheco and Smith (2015) pointed out “whereas research has detailed the unique communicative affordances of oral translanguaging practices, […], far less attention has been given to translanguaging in students’ written compositions” (p. 293). Further, as far as we are aware, even less attention has been given to advanced multilingual individuals who are perceived as being native users of their languages. For this reason, we will now consider other groups of advanced writers in multilingual contexts, before connecting what we find to advanced multilingual speaker high school classrooms.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Translanguaging and Writing in Other Advanced Multilingual Groups The creation of translanguaging spaces for writing to support concept development has been shown to be important for successful doctoral student writing in multilingual contexts (Langum & Sullivan, 2017). In relation to supporting doctoral writing for publication, the authors argued that the “separation of academic writing instruction by language fosters the perception among doctoral students (and academic staff) that language deficit is the only critical problem in academic writing for publication” (p. 24) and implicitly asserted that translanguaging environments need to be created to better support doctoral student writing development to be able to enter international scholarly publishing. In her study of two students during the writing of their master’s theses at a Swedish university, Kaufhold (2018) explicitly argued for the creation of translanguaging spaces that “can incorporate both the arbitrariness of perceived boundaries [between languages] and their real consequences” (p. 8). Her data collected through interviews showed how the students think in both English and Swedish when writing, and that the student, writing in Swed583

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

ish, employed English words in her text for which there were no current Swedish terms or for which the English terms were widely used in Swedish. For example, Translanguaging is more frequently used than transspråkandet, and othering more often than andrandet. Although Kaufhold’s (2018) study is interesting, it reveals little about the process of translanguaging during the writing process. Her study does however illustrate the important role of the student in the creation of translanguaging space, how these spaces are “collaboratively created” (p. 8), and how formal assessment of the end product shapes the translanguaging space and its writing practices. This resonates with one of the questions posed in the opening paragraph of this section, namely what stimulus does the translanguager need to understand translanguaging is possible? Indeed, what stimulus does the translanguager need to understand that the final product needs to conform to one language and should not reflect their full linguistic repertoire? Pfeiffer (2019) researched university students’ writing in two multilingual countries, South Africa and Switzerland, and investigated the process of translanguaging during the process of writing a text in English. Her data showed that only around a third of South African students professed to having used their home language during the writing process. Two of Pfeiffer’s writers, however, used their full linguistic repertoires during the writing process as they thought, translated, and wrote in both Afrikaans and English before finally monitoring their texts so that they only contained features of English. Capturing or recording what these writers did during their writing processes would have strengthened Pfeiffer’s (2019) findings. Such information is readily available when using computer keystroke logging software (see, e.g., Sullivan & Lindgren, 2006; Lindgren & Sullivan, 2019), which is a piece of software that records the writing process so that it can be replayed at various speeds. This replay function makes it possible to see where a writer paused and revised, as well as to view the online sources a writer has used and how these are integrated into the writing process. In translanguaging writing situations, computer keystroke logging makes it possible to see how writers work with their entire unitary linguistic systems during writing on their way towards a feature monitored monolingual text. Although the studies presented above focused on older multilingual students, there are lessons of immediate and direct relevance to multilingual high school classrooms and literacy practices, namely, the creation of translanguaging spaces, and assessment. Research on older multilingual students demonstrates the necessity of creating and negotiating translanguaging spaces. Such spaces need to be created in high school classrooms if translanguaging in writing is to be embraced by both teachers and advanced multilingual high school students. Only when embraced by both groups is it possible for it to become a core aspect of the literacy practices of advanced multilingual speakers. We also saw how assessment can restrict the use of a learner’s full linguistic repertoire. Students’ knowledge and skills in many subjects are examined by written examinations with linguistic expectations that require feature monitoring by translanguagers/multilingual students in order to produce monolingual texts. This monitoring was apparent in Pfeiffer (2019). All the students she followed were writing assignments to be submitted in English. Some students did not monitor the use of features from their unitary linguistic system during the planning stages but monitored them in their final English language texts. Assessment restricts writers’ selection of features when writing to show the grader that a course’s goals have been achieved. This can be challenging for advanced multilingual students for whom feature monitoring may require so much cognitive processing that they are unable to demonstrate fully to the examiner their knowledge and skills, and thus not achieve the grades they deserve. Advanced multilingual speakers in translanguaging spaces have to navigate a shift from approved translanguaging in writing to disapproved translanguaging in final versions of texts as they approach the end of high school with 584

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

its period of examination and grading. This shift we refer to as Translanguaging in Writing to Writing with Feature Monitoring.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS The Individual Translanguager in the Classroom Supporting multilinguals as individual translanguagers in the classroom is complex, not least as every translanguager is unique (see e.g., Takahesu Tabori, Mech, & Atagi, 2018). One student will produce work with more lexical variation and another with greater grammatical complexity and so on. Indeed, some students might be more aware of a topic using particular grammatical and lexical features of their unitary linguistic system than others (de Bruin, 2019; Cumming, 2001; Silva, 1993). This variation is important to recognize when creating translanguaging spaces in advanced multilingual classrooms so that the variation in how features are selected does not come as a surprise. One factor of variation is whether all advanced multilingual speakers acquire the ability to monitor their feature use. Not having this ability makes it particularly difficult to produce work that is monolingual, and in traditional monolingual classrooms this affects some students’ writing. Research in psychology has found that creating utterances including grammatical and lexical features of a bilingual’s languages requires less monitoring and cognitive load than utterances that only translanguage lexical items (e.g., Blanco-Elorrieta, & Pylkkänen, 2019; Green & Wei, 2014). Hence, as we have pointed out earlier in this chapter, monitoring to produce monolingual written text increases cognitive load and reduces the amount of mental energy available for other tasks such as learning and answering examination questions. This can lead to written work that is of poorer content quality, and moreover the writing may contain features that monitoring should have “turned off” or repressed, resulting in lower grades. In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss how content learning in classrooms can be improved with translanguaging for advanced multilingual speakers and present ways in which translanguaging can serve as a bridge to writing with feature monitoring to support written examination success. We provide examples in the form of teaching tips from a linguistically homogeneous classroom and a linguistically heterogeneous classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Content Learning with Translanguaging Advanced multilingual high school students attend classes across the curriculum. When teachers work in classrooms with advanced multilingual students, there is usually access to textbooks and other materials in many languages. It is not necessary that these textbooks cover exactly the same issues, as they can be used to create opportunities for the students to work with different sources, to be exposed to different ways of having topics explained, and to develop their own thoughts. The differences between textbooks afford deeper learning opportunities and should be used as such. It is important to realize that these differences should not be a source of teacher concern coupled with a feeling of having less control of what is happening in the classroom. Teachers should grasp the variation and use it to support the achievement of the learning outcomes. The success of translanguaging classrooms for advanced multilingual speakers requires that teachers have unitary linguistic repertoires that are similar to those of their students. We write similar because 585

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

every multilingual has an individual unitary linguistic system that reflects their personal language learning experiences. Further, simply providing input in different languages is insufficient to stimulate content learning through translanguaging. It is also insufficient to be able to understand a piece of written translanguaged work without actively translanguaging in writing in the classroom. Classroom teachers need to be able to show their classes that translanguaging is normal, is appreciated in the classroom, and has advantages for content learning. This might be difficult for teachers who have been trained in one language, have used one language throughout their education, and have taken all the their written examinations in the same language. As some classroom teachers will initially find it very difficult to spontaneously translanguage in the classroom, it might be necessary for these teachers to adopt another, or complementary, route for encouraging translanguaging among their students. One possible route is presenting and praising student work that exemplifies translanguaging and to focus on content when marking to encourage students to use their entire unitary linguistic system. Teachers must also not give higher marks to students who do not translanguage, and of course not give lower marks to students who do not translanguage. This will encourage students to translanguage in writing and free up mental energy for concept learning. Another strategy for teachers finding it difficult to translanguage in classrooms is not to stop talking when they ‘forget’ a word in one language but remember it in another. In this situation, rather than asking Teaching Tip 1 In their high school science classroom in Sweden, teacher Felix and his students have Internet access. In the class of 20 students, there is an English-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker, a French-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker, and a German-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker. In this classroom, each student has a personal laptop open when working with set tasks. Students are allowed to search and access any site of relevance for the task regardless of language. Thus, in addition to the set text in Swedish, the students have access via their web-browsers to websites in any language. They can conduct relevant research in the language that they think is most useful to them for that specific question. The students sit around tables in groups of four with plenty of space for textbooks, exercise books to write in, and laptops. Felix’s unitary linguistic system includes features of Swedish, English, and German. At times, Felix uses an English word or phrase in his topic introductions. He does this as he knows there is one student in his class whose unitary linguistic system includes features of Swedish and English. By doing this, he hopes that he is indicating to this student that they can use terms, words, and grammar from either language. The classroom is linguistically open and invites translanguaging and metalinguistic discussion. Felix is highly aware that he needs to support students’ translanguaging in the classroom if the students are going to feel they are able to translanguage in their written work. This requires Felix to be alert and support translanguaging his classroom. His aim is that students use as much of their unitary linguistic system that he (Felix) is able to understand and assess. He aims to use translanguaging as a tool for 1. teaching the class new words and phrases, and different ways of viewing the world from other languages, and 2. supporting students in their development of metalinguistic knowledge. When planning his lessons, Felix considers what potential translanguaging prompts are included in his plans. Sometimes these potential translanguaging prompts result in translanguaging and sometimes they do not, and at times the translanguaging trigger is unexpected.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

For the past two weeks, the students have been working with different types of soil and their properties. The students were asked to find five different types of rock and soil and compare them. The students were given the task and in pairs asked to write notes about each of the types of rock and soil they found in the course book with extra information from the Internet. These notes were to be used individually later to write a text for assessment. When walking around the class monitoring the work, Felix noted a discussion about “clay” and “mud” that in Swedish are the same word, “lera.” The student whose unitary linguistic system includes features of Swedish and English was translanguaging and explaining how he perceived the differences between these English words by using a mixture of English and Swedish. Rather than monitoring the student’s language use and correcting him into Swedish, Felix created a metalinguistic learning situation along with a discussion of the differences between clay and mud for entire class. Felix created an open creative translanguaging space to achieve his three goals for translanguaging. The discussion he prompted included translanguaging and encouraged all students to use their expanding unitary linguistic systems in their written work. The task Felix gave his class allowed students to access information in many languages created a context where languaging and translanguaging has become the norm. Further, Felix showed he is a flexible teacher and able to pick up on student group discussion and turn it into a full class discussion on how language can view physical objects differently.

586

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

the class for the word in the language they are using, they should simply use the word in the language they remember it and continue. As teachers get used to doing this in the classroom, translanguaging in the classroom will become increasingly natural and more frequent. In sum, it is important for teachers to show that written translanguaging is permitted and encourage students to use all aspects of their unitary linguistic system without feature monitoring when working with their learning and assessment tasks. This shifts the focus to learning of concepts rather than monitoring and assessing language terms and grammar. Not all teachers, even if positive to translanguaging and appreciative of its advantages for advanced multilingual speakers, find translanguaging in their teacher role easy. Their education, training and professional experience can inhibit their use of translanguaging in the classroom, and consciousness strategies may be necessary to help these teachers use their translanguaging skills in their classrooms. Teaching tip 1 illustrates how translanguaging can be used in a linguistically heterogeneous classroom, how translanguaging can facilitate the learning of advanced multilingual speakers, and how linguistic differences can help those with different unitary linguistic systems engage in metalinguistic discussion. The classroom is a high school science classroom with an English-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker, a French-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker, and a German-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker. In Teaching Tip 1, we focus on an example of content learning based on the English-Swedish advanced multilingual speaker.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Translanguaging in Writing to Writing with Feature Monitoring Teaching tip 1 illustrated how translanguaging can facilitate learning in linguistically heterogeneous classrooms. Acknowledging and encouraging translanguaging in classroom discussions assists in helping students translanguage in writing, and thereby frees-up cognitive capacity for the task with which they are working. However, one of the core challenges for translanguaging students is that in today’s society they need to learn to monitor the features that are active in their unitary linguistic system when writing, that is, they need to check that the final version of a text is in one language. Perhaps, throughout their schooling advanced multilingual speakers have translanguaged in their written schoolwork, or perhaps their natural translanguaging skills have been allowed only more recently in their multilingual classrooms. In both cases, writing with feature monitoring to produce a monolingual text needs to be learned. Schools would be neglecting their role of preparing students for life if they did not support students to monitor their writing when necessary to be understood by readers, including examiners who will decide school grades. Literacy in school is caught between working with students to express themselves creatively and removing aspects that limit content learning, e.g., feature monitoring, and preparing students for life outside of school with its expectations that include monolingual written texts. These texts also have to conform in genre and style with society’s current expectations. Students’ abilities to conform to these literacy norms are tested in final school examinations. The question thus becomes how does the student who has been encouraged to translanguage and use their entire unitary linguistic system learn to monitor when writing for others? This move feels intuitively juxtaposed against the previous section that promotes content learning through translanguaging. In order to make sense of translanguaging in writing to writing with feature monitoring, it is necessary to distinguish between writing process and the final version of a text. This distinction is clearly seen in the way the translanguaging writers in Pfeiffer’s (2019) study worked with the production of their texts. Pfeiffer’s translanguaging writers made use of their entire unitary linguistic system during the writing 587

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

process even if they were aiming to produce texts restricted to the features of English. In other research, it has been shown that if the Internet is available, translanguaging writers use the full resources of their unitary linguistic systems to access pages written in different languages as part of the process of creating a writing product in a single language (e.g., Knospe, Sullivan, Malmqvist, & Valfridsson, 2019). In their study, Knospe et al. (2019) also showed how translanguaging writers wrote words in Swedish to maintain writing flow when working on producing a text that was to be in German, and how they began feature monitoring as they approached the final version of their texts. It is thus important that advanced multilingual speakers are encouraged to use their entire unitary linguistic system when researching, planning, and sketching as part of their writing processes in high school. That is, a translanguaging space for the writing process needs to be created (Kaufhold, 2018; Langum & Sullivan, 2017). However, the transition to writing with feature monitoring needs to be supported towards the completion of high school. We propose that metalinguistic reflection (Flavell, 1979; Hartman, 2001; Haukås, Bjørke, & Dypedahl, 2018; McCormick, 2003; Wenden, 1998) provides a frame to scaffold this transition. Throughout high school, teachers should support advanced multilingual students’ reflection about the nature of language, how what they have written could have been written differently, how language is malleable, and how language structures can be manipulated and differ between languages. Metalinguistic reflection should develop over the course of high school. Initially, reflection might be about how students use language for meaning making and how else they might have expressed themselves. Then, in slightly older groups of advanced multilingual speakers, more explicit metalinguistic reflection about how translanguaging is used for meaning making and what translanguaging means should take place. Before the advanced multilingual students enter their final year at high school, the necessity of feature monitoring in order for texts to be a monolingual text must be introduced. This final step requires that the students have metalinguistic competence of feature monitoring and know what is required for texts written in only one of their languages. Some advanced multilingual speakers find looking at the metalinguistic aspects of their writing easy and others find the metalinguistic view of their text difficult to grasp. Similarly, some advanced multilingual speakers find it easy to feature monitor and others find it problematic and difficult to feature monitor their writing. When working with a single advanced multilingual speaker who has been encouraged to translanguage in their written work, the teaching challenges are different. First, the teaching will be individualized, and second, a single student might never have orally translanguaged with their peers. Hence, no class translanguage creole will have developed, and this student will have monitored their spoken language production in school. Teaching Tip 2 illustrates how teachers can work with computer keystroke logging in linguistically homogenous school classrooms to raise students’ metalinguistic awareness of aspects of their writing processes and their feature monitoring processes towards a monolingual text. Teaching Tip 2 also illustrates how teachers can use this writing recording software to investigate what the students notice during their feature monitoring process, what they work with but may not produce correctly in the writing product and what they fail to notice during their writing process. This information can be used for future lesson planning. When reading teaching tip 2, it is important to remember that its aim is metalinguistic reflection in relation to writing with feature monitoring. Computer keystroke logging is one approach among others to raise advanced multilinguals’ metalinguistic reflection. It is a time-consuming approach, but one that can support both student and teacher greatly. We are not advocating computer keystroke logging as a 588

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

regular element of teaching, but rather an occasional element for specific metalinguistic awareness raising classes (see, e.g., Lindgren & Sullivan, 2019; Spelman Miller, Lindgren & Sullivan, 2008, Sullivan & Lindgren, 2006). Teaching Tip 2 Towards the end of their time in high school, the advanced multilingual speakers who have studied in classes using translanguaging to support content learning need to learn to monitor their written work as the national requirements demand written work in a single language. Teacher Fiona planned a sequence of classes to increase the students’ metalinguistic knowledge and understanding of their personal translanguage writing processes. Fiona has decided in her first two-hour class to use computer keystroke logging. This allows the students to replay their writing process and see what online sources they accessed. It also allows Fiona to analyze the students’ individual writing processes and texts, and it helps her see where individualized support is needed for feature monitoring. Although Fiona does not use computer keystroke logging regularly with her class, her students are familiar with computer keystroke logging software; they had used it earlier to understand that revision is a natural element of the writing process. The focus of the earlier class had been on the content and role of the revisions, rather than confirming the importance of the translanguage writing process space and feature monitoring. Fiona gave the students the following instructions in English (she gave the instructions in English because the text her students were being asked to write was for an English only audience): 1. Spend an hour investigating and writing your answer to the essay question: Global warming is being ignored by politicians. 2. There are no language restrictions when you are writing your answer. 3. Remember that your writing product is for an English only audience. While the students are writing, Fiona only discussed the writing task with students when approached with questions. She did not want to influence the translanguaging space or the features present in the writing product. This final product gave Fiona insights into the features that the students have missed monitoring, that is, in the final text Fiona can note the traces of languages other than English. At the start of the second hour, Fiona asked the students to stop writing, and then she gave them the following instructions. 1. In pairs, replay the first 10 minutes of your writing processes. Discuss what you see and how the writer was thinking during these 10 minutes. Then replay the final 10 minutes of your writing processes and again discuss what you see and how the writer was thinking during these 10 minutes. 2. For homework, each pair is to write a reflective text based on what was seen in both texts and your discussion and this text is to be submitted for an English only reader. Make sure that you share your computer keystroke log files from the work you did in class with each other! Working in pairs and seeing other students’ writing processes as well as discussing them help students begin to see metalinguistic aspects of their writing processes and their feature monitoring processes. The homework task provides more time to the students’ reflection processes and provides Fiona with an understanding of where the students work successfully, of what features partly remain, and what features of the other language were missed. This provides her with useful information for the planning of the next class in the teaching sequence of translanguaging to writing with feature monitoring classes.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter has problematized the term “translanguaging” from its origins to its use today. A multitude of definitions exist, and some include advanced multilingual speakers as translanguagers. The examination of definitions led to a definition of translanguaging that includes advanced multilingual speakers, that is speakers who are considered native speakers of their languages by monolingual speakers of these languages. A translanguager is an individual who has a unitary linguistic system that allows feature monitoring and selection that maximizes comprehension by conversational partners and readers. Working from the writing research distinction between the writing process and the final version of a text, we argue that translanguaging spaces for writing can be created in schools with translanguagers, both in linguistically homogeneous school classrooms and linguistically heterogeneous classrooms. Writers who need to monitor their feature selection from the unitary linguistic system when writing 589

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

monolingual texts use cognitive capacity to do this. They therefore have less mental energy to use for content learning. A translanguaging-friendly classroom allows students to focus on content learning by freeing up mental energy when writing for learning. Teaching Tip 1 showed how a classroom environment that fosters translanguaging can be created in linguistically heterogeneous classrooms. One challenge for translanguaging-friendly classrooms is that society, including school examination boards, expects monolingual writing. Schools would be neglecting their role of preparing students for life if they did not teach students to move from translanguaging in writing to writing with feature monitoring. Teaching Tip 2 showed how the use of computer keystroke logging can be one element in this competence development. Research has shown how the replay function in computer keystroke logging heightens writers’ metalinguistic reflection (e.g., Rahmanpanah, & Tajeddin, 2015; Spelman Miller, Lindgren & Sullivan, 2008; Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002; Lindgren, Sullivan & Stevenson, 2008). The chapter has shown translanguaging spaces are important for content learning and argument development, which are essential elements of writing for advanced multilingual learners even when the final text will be feature monitored and be monolingual. For these, and potentially other reasons, teachers can usefully encourage students to work with their entire unitary linguistic systems and produce translanguaged writing during content learning and argument development. As we mentioned earlier in this chapter, there has been little research on translanguaging in the advanced multilingual speaker classroom. To end this chapter, we suggest three possible lines of future classroom-based research. First, as we wrote earlier, it is important teachers do not mark down translanguaged texts. This raises the questions of how do teachers think when grading translanguaged texts and how can teachers be best supported to develop grading skills for translanguaged texts? Possible approaches to researching these questions include interviewing teachers, observing teachers when they are marking, collecting copies of graded texts, and focus group discussions with teachers about both topics. Second, the challenge of creating translanguaging spaces in the classroom can be profound. Although in this chapter we have suggested some ways these spaces might be created, other ways to support teachers and advanced multilingual speakers to begin translanguaging in classrooms need to be shared and evaluated. Potential approaches that can be used to investigate these spaces both in classrooms where the advanced multilingual speakers are in the majority, but also where there is only one such speaker, include classroom observations, interviews with teachers and students, and questionnaires. Third, how translanguaging spaces are created may interact with how advanced multilingual students create their texts, and how their approach to writing develops over time. To research these questions, computer keystroke logging is the research method currently used by most writing process researchers, and is one that could easily be used to access advanced multilingual speakers’ writing processes in the classroom. Classroom data could be combined with experimental data where stimulated recall (Gass & Mackey, 2000), and think aloud protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) could be combined with computer keystroke logging to approach a multilingual speaker’s thinking processes when writing texts. Connecting observed writing, students’ reflections evidencing their meta-linguistic awareness, and the observed classroom activities gives a comprehensive picture how pedagogical practices are reflected in advanced multilingual speakers’ learning activities and choices in writing. Research findings in these areas can feed back into the classroom through research publications, professional development programs, and more general meetings with teachers. In conclusion, a core argument in this chapter and in translanguaging research is that translanguaging frees up mental energy for learning that would otherwise go to feature monitoring. In the case of lan590

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

guage learners, for example ESOL students, this advantage is very clear. However, while it is unknown how great the impact of translanguaging on the educational outcomes of advanced multilingual learners is, it is worthy of investigation. This study is important not least in order to encourage schools with advanced multilingual speakers to introduce translanguaging and translanguaging literacy practices into their multilingual classrooms.

Discussion Questions 1. If we view a speaker’s languages as forming a unitary linguistic system, how does this affect the way we view the multilingual student’s writing and writing processes? 2. Do students need to learn to monitor and repress features in the unitary linguistic system to succeed in examinations and society? And if so, how can this be scaffolded in a classroom that supports translanguaging? 3. Is translanguaged writing in the classroom something that is easier to make possible for speakers of powerful languages? Why?

REFERENCES Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). Bilingual language switching in the laboratory versus in the wild: The spatiotemporal dynamics of adaptive language control. Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 37(37), 9022–9036. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-17.2017 PMID:28821648 Bock, Z., Dalwai, N., & Stroud, C. (2018). Cool mobilities. In C. Cutler, & U. Røyneland (Eds.), Multilingual youth practices in computer mediated communication (pp. 51–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316135570.004 Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2011). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 356–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23. De Bruin, A. (2019). Not all bilinguals are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of bilingual experiences. Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 33. doi:10.3390/bs9030033 PMID:30909639 Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

591

 Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7856-6_11 García, O., & Ortheguy, R. (2019). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932 Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Green, D. W., & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 499–511. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.882515 Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8 Haukås, Å., Bjørke, C., & Dypedahl, M. (Eds.). (2018). Metacognition in language learning and teaching. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351049146 Kaufhold, K. (2018). Creating translanguaging spaces in students’ academic writing practices. Linguistics and Education, 45, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.02.001 Knospe, Y., Sullivan, K. P. H., Malmqvist, A., & Valfridsson, I. (2019). Observing writing and website browsing: Swedish students write L3 German. In E. Lindgren, & K. P. H. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 258–284). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004392526_013 Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20–25. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.12.004 Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488 Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (Eds.). (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004392526

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lindgren, E., Sullivan, K. P. H., & Stevenson, M. (2008). Supporting the reflective language learner with computer keystroke logging. In B. Barber, & F. Zhang (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 189–204). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-59904-895-6.ch011 McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7. Educational psychology (pp. 79–102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Pacheco, M. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 292–312. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051

592

Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

Pfeiffer, V. (2019). Multilingual education: Encouraging students to use their language backgrounds. In C. A. Seals, & V. I. Olsen-Reeder (Eds.), Embracing multilingualism across educational contexts (pp. 307–338). Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press. Poza, L. (2017). Translanguaging: Definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education, 6(2), 101–128. doi:10.5070/B86110060 Rahmanpanah, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2015). Investigating a systematic approach to the promotion of EFL learners’ autonomy. Journal of Language and Translation, 1(9), 17–31. Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677. doi:10.2307/3587400 Spelman Miller, K., Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 433–454. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00140.x Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (2002). Self-assessment in autonomous computer-aided second language writing. ELT Journal, 56(3), 258–266. doi:10.1093/elt/56.3.258 Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (Eds.). (2006). Computer keystroke logging and writing. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Takahesu Tabori, A. A., Mech, E. N., & Atagi, N. (2018). Exploiting language variation to better understand the cognitive consequences of bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1686. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.01686 PMID:30245660 Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 37(1), 6–23. doi:10. 1080/15235882.2014.893270 Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.515 Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyddestun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wales, Bangor, Wales.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Williams, C. (2002). Extending bilingualism in the education system. Education and Lifelong Learning Committee (ELL Report No. 06–2). Retrieved from http://www.assemblywales.org/3c91c7af0002 3d820000595000000000.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Advanced Multilingual Speakers: Native multilingual speakers who see it as normal, natural, and easy to use their entire language repertoire. Computer Keystroke Logging: Computer software that logs everything a writer does on a computer during a writing session. This permits the replaying and analysis of the writing session.

593

Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Feature Monitoring: When a speaker or writer monitors what they say or write so that only those features of their unitary language system are used that their interlocutor understands. Features: Aspects of the unitary linguistic system that allows selection of appropriate language use for the interlocutor to be able to understand what is being said/written. High School: Post-primary school, including pre-university non-compulsory school. Minoritized Languages: Languages that are not hegemonic. These are often Indigenous and minority languages. Multilingual: An individual whose unitary linguistic system includes features of more than one language. Translanguaging: When a person uses their unitary linguistic system without restriction. Translanguaging Space: A translanguaging friendly space that both allows and encourages translanguaging. Writing Process: The route from the first thought to the final version of a written text. Writing Product: The final version of a written text.

594

Supporting Advanced Multilingual Speakers as Individuals

APPENDIX 1: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. García, O., & Ortheguy, R. (2019). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingualism Education and Bilingualism. Retrieved from https:/ doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932 This paper discusses many of the theoretical elements that make translanguaging a distinctive and productive way of viewing multilingualism in the individual. It provides the reader with a detailed overview of how the concepts of plurilingualism and translanguaging can inform classroom practice to the benefit of multilingual students. 2. Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. This book presents contemporary writing research that has been undertaken using computer keystroke logging. It provides the reader with an excellent understanding of the software and ideas for its use in the classroom. 3. Seals. C. A., & Olsen-Reeder, V. I. (Eds.) (2019). Embracing multilingualism across educational contexts. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This is a collection of chapters by researchers from various multilingual contexts. The chapters primarily discuss translanguaging from a minoritized lens, including those of the immigrant and the indigenous language speaker. It provides the reader with many useful examples of classroom teaching that showcase the value of embracing multilingualism and translanguaging in the classroom.

595

596

Chapter 28

Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use:

Cultivating Literacy Development through Translanguaging Pedagogy in EAL Classrooms Georgios Neokleous Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Koeun Park University of Utah, USA Anna Krulatz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8588-273X Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT With English as an Additional Language (EAL) classrooms increasingly becoming culturally and linguistically diverse, the use of the students’ home language(s) (HLs) can equip emergent bilinguals/ multilinguals with the essential accoutrements that optimize their learning experience. To meet the realities and demands of contemporary classrooms, current research encourages teachers to make use of the students’ entire linguistic repertoires and create space for a fuid and dynamic oscillation between the HL(s) and the target language (TL), which has been labelled as translanguaging pedagogy. Despite the constraints imposed by today’s education policies, translanguaging is believed to have the potential to enhance the teaching of these students. Through the description of activities, this chapter discusses how taking up translanguaging theory can contribute towards fostering meaningful and afrming ways of teaching and learning EAL literacy.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch028

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION In traditional foreign language (FL) classrooms, a long-standing practice has been to optimize the use of a target language (TL) and to limit the use of students’ home languages (HLs). For this reason, many language and literacy educators often create a rather strict environment where only the TL should be used in the classroom, such as English-only classrooms, while prohibiting the use of students’ home languages (García & Kleyn, 2016; Hall & Cook, 2012). However, such strict language policy in classrooms may end up impeding students’ learning (e.g., Auerbach, 1993). To reverse such practices, translanguaging pedagogy stresses the importance of affirming the value of HLs and offers meaningful ways to engage students in developing language and literacy skills by strategically incorporating students’ dynamic and fluid linguistic practices. The term translanguaging was first introduced to denote the pedagogical practice in Welsh bilingual schools where learners received input in one language and produced output in another language. García (2012) reconceptualized the term translanguaging to mean “bilinguals hav[ing] one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively” (p. 1). In other words, García and her colleagues posit that bilinguals/multilinguals (used interchangeably throughout) have one linguistic system where they draw on certain linguistic features that belong to named languages in order to communicate (e.g., García & Li Wei, 2014). Such linguistic practices of bilinguals/multilinguals are often recognized in the literature as codemixing or codeswitching, which describes switching a single word in a sentence or switching from one sentence to the next (Baker & Wright, 2017). However, García and other translanguaging scholars have criticized these two terms on the grounds that they originate in and perpetuate the monoglossic ideology which views bilinguals/multilinguals as drawing from two separate named languages (bilingualism being a sum of two discrete languages) instead of having their own unique and fluid linguistic repertoire that consists of various linguistic features (e.g., García & Li Wei, 2014; Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015). Thus, in a sense, the difference between code-switching and translanguaging is rather ideological (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012) because one may label a bilingual person’s linguistic practice as code-switching or translanguaging based on their linguistic ideology. Why then is it important to take such an ideological turn in the understanding of bilingualism/multilingualism? García and Kleyn (2016) reason that from the ideological conceptualization of translanguaging emerges a new understanding that “[t]he features of a bilingual’s repertoire simply belong to the bilingual speakers themselves who have one language system, and not to the languages” (García & Kleyn, 2016, p. 14). That is, translanguaging allows us to prioritize the speakers and their practices and subordinate the named languages (see also Moody, Matthews, & Eslami in this volume). The scholarship on translanguaging has been expanding to study and recognize the ways bilinguals/ multilinguals appropriate their linguistic resources to forge new meanings and understandings strategically and creatively (e.g., García, 2009; García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017). While moving away from the monoglossic approach toward more inclusive language education, terms and conceptualizations that recognize dynamic and fluid linguistic practices of bilinguals/multilinguals have emerged such as bilinguaging (Mignolo, 2000), codemeshing (Canagarajah, 2011), translingual practice (Canagarajah, 2013a), polylanguaging (Jørgensen, 2008), and metrolingualism (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015). Vogel and García (2017) recognized translingual practice (Canagarajah, 2013a) in particular as falling within translanguaging pedagogy. We also endorse and value translingual practice and pedagogy because it focuses on the dynamic and fluid literacy practices of bilinguals/multilinguals and much of the literacy research associated with translanguaging has used Canagarajah’s translingual 597

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

practice (including codemeshing). Rather than focusing on the theoretical and ideological differences of these terms, we will employ them interchangeably to further explore dynamic and fluid ways to teach literacy to students who come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Recent research promotes the implementation of translanguaging theory in company with current educational policies and practices to enhance multilingual students’ literacy (De Costa et al., 2016; García & Kleyn, 2016). The translanguaging theory shifted the perception of English as an Additional Language (EAL) students away from “limited English proficient” (García & Kleyn, 2016) or simply EAL learners to a view that redefined them as “emergent bilinguals” (García & Kleyn, 2016). Research has evidenced that translanguaging prepares students for the growing demands of the rapidly shifting globalized world (Collins & Cioè-Peña, 2016). As emerged from the findings of the CUNY-NYSIEB project that aimed to promote translanguaging pedagogies across state schools in NYC (García & Kleyn, 2016), their integration in the classroom enhanced the development of the learners’ home language (HL) and their bilingualism. As part of such an effort, this chapter contributes to provide theoretical underpinnings of translanguaging and other related approaches focusing on literacy and classroom translanguaging activities. The goal of these activities is to enable learners to sustain their home languages while developing new languages and fluid linguistic practices.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Attitudes towards HL Integration For years, the use of the students’ HLs was perceived to be detrimental to their EAL learning process as it was believed to hinder language acquisition (Hall & Cook, 2012; Littlewood & Yu, 2011). As a result, EAL national curricula in most educational settings foregrounded the exclusive role of the TL in the classroom (Hall & Cook, 2012; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Sampson, 2012). The main argument behind the support of HL prohibition lay in the often limited opportunities of practicing the TL outside the EAL classroom settings (Hall & Cook, 2012). In addition, the HL was believed to interfere with and negatively influence the acquisition of the TL due to the often-significant structural differences between the two (George, 1972). However, as highlighted in the literature, despite being an integral part of the EAL teaching tradition, such claims do not take into account the benefits associated with HL integration and multilingualism (Lin & Wu 2015; Meiring & Norman, 2002). With a shift from monolingual to multilingual ideologies, multilingualism, and with it the use of HL to support further language development, are no longer seen as “dangerous and unwelcome” (Aronin & Singleton, 2019, p. xvi), but rather as “the new norm” (May, 2014, p. 1). Research has identified many benefits of multilingualism, including life-long cognitive advantages (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004), increased metalinguistic awareness (Jessner, 2014), and improved language learning strategies (Cenoz, 2003). Studies exploring the student perspective revealed that learners prefer an environment that allows them to make recourse to their HL(s) while teachers in studies that ventured to explore the educator perspective, even if most of them claimed to abide by the English-only approach, resorted to the HL to provide explanations to grammar points which students had difficulty mastering (Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Neokleous, 2017). As both student and teacher participants elaborated, making references to the HL to either exemplify or compare not only saves time, but also enables learners to better comprehend and process the language point in question. In addition,

598

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

allowing students to employ their HL contributes to the creation of a stress-free learning environment, while at the same time it enhances a positive and encouraging classroom atmosphere (Neokleous, 2017; Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2005).

Translanguaging Pedagogy Translanguaging pedagogy leverages students’ full linguistic repertories “to support their understanding of content, develop their language performances, and buttress their socioemotional development” (García & Kleyn, 2016, p. 14). Employing the students’ full linguistic repertories into instruction through translanguaging then allows “a more socially just and equitable education” (p. 17), especially because it gives voices to students who otherwise would have been silenced when a strict monolingual policy in the classroom is in place. Thus, translanguaging pedagogy underscores strategically reflecting and appropriating the diverse linguistic practices of learners. García, Johnson, and Seltzer (2017) laid out four purposes of translanguaging pedagogy as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Supporting students as they engage with and comprehend complex content and texts. Providing opportunities for students to develop linguistic practices for academic contexts. Making space for students’ bilingualism and ways of knowing. Supporting students’ bilingual identities and socio-emotional development (p. 7).

Vogel and García (2017) argued that these four purposes should work together in order to advance social justice, especially in the education of linguistically minoritized students. Furthermore, García et al. (2017) suggested that teacher stance, design, and shifts are the three core components for educators to have when planning and enacting translanguaging pedagogy. First, educators must develop a philosophical stance in which they recognize bilingualism as a resource for class activities, position students at the center, and believe in the transformative capability that translanguaging holds to disrupt the linguistic hierarchies of schools. When designing and planning instruction, educators also need to create collaborative and student-centered environments, incorporate various and appropriate multilingual and multimodal resources, and strategically facilitate students’ full language repertoires. The final component is the need to be flexible and quickly shift instruction and planning as needed to respond to an individual student’s linguistic needs. Overall, translanguaging pedagogy is more than using students’ home languages as scaffolding or merely helping students to maintain their home languages; rather, it also concerns the continuous development of minoritized languaging practices (García, 2012).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Approaches to Translanguaging in Literacy Translanguaging in literacy has been theorized by scholars such as Hornberger (2003, 2013); García, Bartlett, and Kleifgen (2007); García (2009); and Gutiérrez (2008) through the related concepts of continua of biliteracy, pluriliteracy, and Third Space. Hornberger’s continua of biliteracy (2003, 2013) is a comprehensive classification of interrelated dimensions of literacy that integrates social, linguistic, political, and mental issues that affect biliteracy development, and that can be utilized for research, pedagogical practices, and educational policy. The model views literacy as an interrelated, complex, and dynamic system consisting of four components, each of which contains three sub-dimensions:

599

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

1. Contexts of biliteracy (micro/macro, oral/literate, bilingual/monolingual) 2. Development of biliteracy (reception/production, oral/written, first language/second language) 3. Content of biliteracy (minority/majority, vernacular/literacy, contextualized/decontextualized) Media of biliteracy (simultaneous exposure/successive exposure, dissimilar structures/similar structures, divergent scripts/convergent scripts)The continua of biliteracy framework contests traditional, monolingual, majority language, and power dominated approaches to literacy by opening up for multilingual, minoritized language and learner-oriented practices, including vernacular, every-day, and non-school texts, interactions, and activities (Hornberger, 2003, 2013). The pluriliteracies approach as described in García, Bartlett, and Kleifgen (2007) and García (2009) builds upon and extends Hornberger’s (2003) continua of biliteracy. The term pluriliteracy (García, 2009; García, Bartlett, & Kleifgen, 2007) denotes complex literacy behaviors of multilingual speakers, giving particular emphasis to “the variability, hybridity, and sense-making processes” (García, Bartlett, & Kleifgen, 2007, p. 208) that characterize contemporary literacy practices. García, Bartlett, and Kleifgen (2007) argue that plurilingualism “requires the integration of unevenly developed competences in a variety of languages, dialects, and registers, as well as valuing linguistic tolerance” (p. 208) (italics in original). They emphasize that how literacy is performed is shaped by social and cultural contexts, including affordances of new technologies and interplays of various semiotic systems. Finally, Gutiérrez’s (2008) construct of a collective Third Space, which stems from her work with minoritized language students and challenges traditional views of academic literacy, denotes “a transformative space where the potential for an expanded form of learning and the development of new knowledge are heightened” (p. 150) as learners “begin to reconceive who they are and what they might be able to accomplish academically and beyond” (p. 148). Gutiérrez (2008) proposed that in order to reach their full potential, students from nondominant communities can benefit from hybrid language practices, including both out-of-school (first space) and academic (second space) practices. Translanguaging pedagogies, which create an intentional intersection between students’ home languages and institutional languages, can essentially be seen as a practice that forges linguistic third spaces in the classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Current Attitudes towards Implementing Translanguaging in the EAL Classroom Current literature shies away from an all-English approach and embraces the multilingual turn (Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014), acknowledging that by default learners are working their way towards becoming language bilinguals/multilinguals. The multilingual turn has gained its momentum with translanguaging and its pedagogy, which enables students to take advantage of their entire linguistic repertoires by leveraging the dynamic interrelationship of the linguistic features that belong to their HL(s) and the TL (García & Wei, 2014; Palmer et al., 2014; Sayer, 2013). Translanguaging acknowledges that language learners possess a single linguistic system (repertoire) where different linguistic features that belong to their home languages and other languages co-exist (García & Kleyn, 2016; García & Wei, 2014). Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015) define the notion of translanguaging as “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages” (p. 281). The adoption of this pedagogy views the language learner as “one integrated bilingual” in lieu of “two monolinguals” (García & Kleyn, 2016, p. 12). Enabling translanguaging in the EAL classroom prompts students to choose specific features from

600

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

their linguistic repertoire, which is seen as a unitary system, to carry out a task (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Hornberger & Link, 2012; García & Wei, 2014). García, Johnson and Seltzer (2017) point out that “translanguaging …is not a simple scaffold… Instead, students’ language practice and ways of knowing are seen as both informing and informed by the classroom” (p. 28). This is because the language choice can vary based on the topic of the conversation, the interlocutor(s), and also the setting. Most significantly, however, implementing translanguaging promotes a more just society as it enables the voice of “speakers of minoritized languages” (García & Kleyn, 2016, p. 15) to be heard. Durán and Palmer (2014) highlight the inextricable link that exists between language and identity and the negative impact the restrictive recourse to their HL(s) can create on the formation of the latter. Similarly, Makaela (2015) concludes that the integration of translanguaging theory strengthens the students’ identity as they feel that their bilingual entities are valued. Just as there is no segregation between the students’ linguistic practices inside and outside the classroom, such an approach maximizes the students’ learning opportunities as they can employ the translanguaging pedagogy taught at school to their own community (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017). Consequently, the link between school and community is strengthened. Stemming from the monoglossic language ideologies that still permeate in classroom teaching practices and that are supported by educational policies, monolingual EAL instruction assumes that one language should be used at a time and the two can never co-occur (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017). In contrast, pluralist discourses (de Jong, 2011) encourage educators to embrace the students’ full linguistic repertoires and their translanguaging practices to facilitate and optimize bilingual and multilingual students’ learning opportunities. While some curricula continue to advise a strict separation of languages, studies exploring the use of translanguaging in educational contexts revealed that monolingual ideologies and practices have a negative impact on learner development while dynamic and fluid use of languaging can strengthen understanding and develop students’ literacy (Durán & Palmer, 2014; Guzula, McKinney, & Tyler, 2016; Makaela, 2015; Martin-Beltrán, 2014; Straubhaar, 2013). It is worth mentioning that the inextricable link between the use of translanguaging and literacy enhancement was not only evidenced in studies conducted with emergent bilinguals, but also deaf students (Kleyn & Yau, 2016; Swanwick, 2017) who were aided by the option to make references to their HL(s). Finally, translanguaging strategies can help emergent bilingual students make progress but also keep up with the lesson in a mixed-ability classroom (García & Kleyn, 2016; Seltzer & Collins, 2016). As García and Sylvan (2011) remind us, “monolingual education is no longer relevant in our globalized world” (p. 398).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Literacy and Translanguaging in the EAL Classroom As Hornberger and Link (2012) underline, the implementation of translanguaging enables the multilingual learners to process their linguistic practices holistically rather than separately. For this reason, translanguaging is considered an efficient teaching strategy that can improve students’ overall literacy skills and optimize their educational experience. By acknowledging the role that HL(s) can play in literacy development, teachers equip learners with a resource that can help them negotiate meaning and tackle problematic TL concepts. Most literacy definitions have emphasized the important role that communication plays in defining what it means to be a literate person—one who can apply his/her knowledge of language and social settings to interact with people (Gee, 1989). Similarly, the notion of translanguaging is built on pedagogical approaches that promote active and collaborative learning (Celic & Seltzer, 2012; Collins & Cioè-Peña, 2016; Flores & García, 2013). Students can strengthen newly learned information by exemplifying or

601

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

elaborating on it in conversations with their peers in their HL(s). When students engage in intricate exchanges with others, they are more likely to request assistance and negotiate meaning (Celic & Seltzer, 2012; Flores & García, 2013). The ability to collaborate and receive assistance from each other in their HL(s) extends and develops students’ understanding as they can ask questions, clarify or elucidate on a point while they employ languages the way they would outside the classroom. The fluid and dynamic linguistic practices afforded in classrooms allow students the possibility to tackle questions which might be beyond their fluency level but also engage with more complex content whereas otherwise they might have given up (Celic & Seltzer, 2012; Flores & García, 2013). In this way, students can critically engage in discussions on a deeper level that foster higher order thinking skills. As also evidenced in the literature, translanguaging helps students find meaning by employing their entire linguistic repertoire to produce work in the TL (Celic & Seltzer, 2012; Flores & García, 2013). This idea is also mirrored in studies that explored whether students accessing their HL(s) can develop their writing skills. In his study, Canagarajah (2011) highlighted that the integration of translanguaging not only created the possibility of conversations about writing, but also accounted for more strategic and developed writing. Canagarajah (2013b) defines translingual literacy as “an understanding of the production, circulation, and reception of texts that are always mobile; that draw from diverse languages, symbol systems, and modalities of communication; and that involve inter-community negotiations” (p. 41). By recognizing and valuing the linguistic resources learners bring with them to the classroom, translingual pedagogies extend beyond the binary distinctions between mono- and multilinguals and native and non-native speakers and “[move] literacy beyond products to the processes and practices of cross-linguistic relations” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 40). For instance, the students in Martin-Beltrán’s (2014) study mobilized their linguistic funds of knowledge in order to solve linguistic problems and co-construct knowledge while they were interacting with their peers through collaborative literacy activities. As a result, students’ linguistic repertories also expanded as they engaged with others through translanguaging. Despite being positioned as a useful learning strategy with a positive impact on the students’ literacy growth, the use of translanguaging is still neglected with some FL national curricula even prohibiting uses of other languages than the TL (Hall & Cook, 2012). In addition, teacher-training programs are not reported to prepare future teachers on how to better optimize bi/multingual learners’ EAL literacy development (Heineke, 2015). To help teachers implement translanguaging as a pedagogical practice, the following section discusses some practical solutions that apply translanguaging and can be used in the EAL classrooms to enhance students’ literacy development.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Translanguaging as a Literary Practice While translanguaging is a natural linguistic behavior of bilinguals/multilinguals that often occurs without explicit elicitation by teachers, some voices in the field have argued that effective translingual oral and written, receptive and productive practices can benefit from carefully designed instruction (Canagarajah, 2011). To better familiarize students with the notion of translanguaging, teachers can exploit texts that integrate the fluid alternation between languages as a literary device as a model. García and Kleyn (2016) state that the students’ entire linguistic repertoire can be further developed through ongoing engagement

602

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

with speakers and texts. Literature underlines the importance of working with culturally relevant texts (Freeman, Freeman, Soto & Ebe, 2016; Herrera, Perez & Escamilla, 2015; Larrotta & Yamamura, 2016) as students display active engagement and proficiency (Ebe, 2015; Rodriguez, 2014) (see also chapters by Duggan and Aerila & Kauppinen in this volume). By default, García and Kleyn (2016) argue that “instruction that is supported by translanguaging theory is always collaborative and student-centred” (p. 22). However, recent studies acknowledge the dearth of texts that integrate translanguaging as a literary device (Freeman, Freeman, Soto & Ebe, 2016; García and Kleyn, 2016; Herrera, Perez & Escamilla, 2015; Larrotta & Yamamura, 2016). The extended example provided in the box below prompts students to assume an active role in the lesson by creating their own literary translanguaging materials.

Teaching Tip In their EAL classroom, Darren and his students have created a translanguaging space where students can fluidly and dynamically engage in translanguaging practices by incorporating their existing linguistic repertoires. Despite constraints from the national curriculum that recommend maximized use of the TL, Darren believes that integrating translanguaging helps build an inclusive classroom community. Darren has been a teacher at this school for the past six years, and he has seen a significant increase in the number of students coming from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Translanguaging is identified as the communicative and discursive norm to make the objectives and content accessible for his group. In the past week, the guiding objectives from his country’s national curriculum for his lessons were: ∙ Students will be able to familiarize themselves and explore the structure of fairytales ∙ Students will be able to build new stories in different contexts using previously learnt vocabulary. As is common among teachers of multilingual students, Darren alters the general curriculum objectives to meet the learning needs of his students. In this series of lessons, although he did want to focus on the writing conventions of fairytales, he decided to introduce a twist to traditional fairytale writing to make the material more relevant for his emergent bilingual students. Darren has often consulted websites (e.g., https://www.imnotthenanny.com/2015/03/cinderella-stories-from-around-world.html) that list fairytales from around the world to broaden the notion of the fairytale. As the first part of the activity, Darren focused on activating students’ schemata and building on background knowledge. As a result, led by the teacher, the whole class defined fairytales and listed examples elaborating on what makes them fairytales. The teacher distributed copies of fairytales so that students could read and discuss the characteristics and traits of the genre. Students were then grouped based on their HL. Students who share a common HL had to select a fairytale and collaborate in order to construct their own multilingual version where the main characters of the story translanguage. For this main part of the lesson, the teacher asked the students to reconceptualize the main characters as multilingual speakers that share the same linguistic and cultural background with the students who were working to revamp the story. To make the text more authentic, the students were also encouraged to alter segments of the story, locations, costumes, and accessories to make it correspond to customs and traditions of their own culture.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Working together to come up with the final product where the characters take up translanguaging, students could use any language but were specifically encouraged to employ their HL. Students were also asked to present their fairytale to the rest of class. Alternatively, each group could choose to dramatize the story. As a long-term project, students who share the same HL could work together to develop their own fairytale, and create/publish their own story book using web tools (e.g., StoryJumper, MyStoryBook, StoryBird, CreateMyBooks). What did Darren accomplish with the implementation of the above activities? First and foremost, employing translanguaging as a literary device helped his students grasp the idea that its use is not an incorrect classroom practice. Students bring their own daily linguistic practices in the lesson so as there is no distinction between practices outside the classroom and in educational settings. Thus, Darren and his students legitimized a pedagogy that is often neglected and overlooked in national curricula through the words of the main characters of a well-known fairytale. This maximized learning opportunities as students can employ a teaching approach taught at school to their own community outside the classroom. Therefore, the link between school and community was further strengthened. As a follow-up activity, the different groups could reflect on the choice of words in their HLs in specific parts of the story and make connections to the different ways in which their HL was used in the translanguaged version. Such thinking helped them understand what translanguaging is, how it works, but also how it can help them deepen their TL knowledge. Additionally, the series of activities honed not only the students’ creative skills, but also their writing skills. The students employed their entire linguistic repertoires and familiarized themselves with the way in which fairytales are structured to develop their understanding of the genre. Most significantly, the students from various backgrounds learned to respect and affirm each other.

603

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Textual Negotiation Strategies Research underlines the importance of enabling students to dynamically and fluidly use language in writing (Canagarajah, 2013a; Canagarajah, 2013b; García & Wei, 2014; García & Kleyn, 2016). While research has explored different avenues through which translanguaging can help learners develop their writing skills, recent studies highlight the significance of creating translanguaging opportunities and spaces outside the classroom (Alim, Ibrahim, & Pennycook, 2008). Apart from deepening students’ TL knowledge, such activities could assist students in expressing their multilingual identities but also teachers in better understanding and interpreting how students leverage translanguaging to facilitate the learning process (Canagarajah, 2013b; García and Kleyn, 2016; Herrera, Perez & Escamilla, 2015). Trying to navigate their way through translanguaging, students often produce meaningful texts. Canagarajah (2013b) defines code-meshing as “a form of writing in which bilinguals/multilinguals merge their diverse language resources with the dominant genre conventions to construct hybrid texts for voice” (p. 40). Code-meshing can be performed, for example, by embedding a non-standard variety of English in a text written in a standard variety. Despite challenging traditional writing conventions and being questioned by teachers, employing code-meshing as an explicit pedagogy can empower learners to enact their multilingual literacy development (Bizzell, 2010; Sohan, 2009). Through writing tasks, bi/multilingual students can develop their languaging competency through adopting different translingual negotiation strategies (Canagarajah, 2013a; Canagarajah, 2013b). Canagarajah (2013a; 2013b) identifies four meaning-making strategies used by bilinguals/multilinguals writers when tapping into their semantic resources to employ code-meshing during communication. These are: a) envoicing, b) recontextualization, c) interactional, and d) entextualization. Envoicing “describes the ways in which writers mesh semiotic resources for their identities and interests” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 50). For instance, unconventional writing strategies such as the use of color-coding or special fonts, emoticons, and embedded images are used to signify meshing. Recontextualization strategies “aim to frame the text according to the desired genre and communicative conventions and establish a suitable footing to negotiate meaning” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 50). Bilinguals/multilinguals attempt to adopt more conventional writing practices into their personal writing styles to assist their readers understand their code-meshing. Interactional strategies “are adopted by writers to facilitate the co-construction of meaning” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 50). For instance, Canagarajah (2013b) describes the case of a student who was able to interpret one of his classmate’s use of emoticons in his text by adopting strategies he had developed on Internet chat forums. Last but not least, entextualization “refers to the ways in which writers manage text construction to facilitate voice and meaning” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 50). To help readers reach understanding, bilingual/multilingual writers often provide clues to sentences, for instance, provided in their HLs. The creation and maintenance of blogs or the set-up of a class journal where students can express themselves around different topics that can be related to their personal interests or as a form of sharing their culture offers the possibility of developing the students’ writing skills both in their HL(s) and the TL (Deocampo, 2016). A blog can also be used as a form of diary in which students can report any struggles of learning the TL. Most importantly, however, it allows teachers to experience, understand, and familiarize themselves with the ways in which the students denote the shift of multilingual codes and voices (Canagarajah, 2013b; Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Addressing an audience with whom students do not share the same languages enables students to develop their writing skills through the practice of the four textual negotiation strategies developed by Canagarajah (2013b). Meshing between 604

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

different languages to voice themselves, students contextualize by offering “other clues to help readers reframe the text” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 53). Even if after recontextualization the precise meaning of translingual writing remains elusive, students can, through peer feedback, interact with the writers of the different posts to negotiate meaning. As part of these interactive negotiations, the writers introduce to their readers “their choices gradually in order to ease readers into code-meshing” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 59). Canagarajah (2013b) further argues that “negotiated literacy accentuates the possibilities in social literacy scholarship to situate texts in time and space with full appreciation of their mobile, multimodal, and ecological nature” (p. 59). Likewise, this ongoing literacy negotiation can work to alleviate the struggle for meaning.

Translation as Translanguaging Literacy Practice

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A translanguaging practice that tends to be overlooked or, on the contrary, criticized, is translation. On the one hand, in many local contexts around the world, translation has remained a common language teaching practice, while on the other hand, the supporters of monolingual approaches have been ostracizing it as undesirable and harmful (Cook, 2010, Pennycook, 2008). Recent research has attempted to examine potential benefits of translation and to restore it as a legitimate translingual literacy practice in bi/multilingual contexts. Cummins (2004), Cummins et al. (2005), and Cummins and Early (2011) have advocated for the use of translation to produce what they refer to as identity texts, such as learner autobiographies or stories in which students themselves figures as protagonists. Identity texts are often bi- or multilingual, with translation being one of the central characteristics of the finished product. Learners first write an identity text in their HL and then translate it into the TL on their own or with help from a peer. Identity texts allow language learners to draw on their linguistic and cultural capital, promote the sense of belonging, acknowledge the positive value of diversity, and recognize the impact of educational practices on identity and literacy development (Bernhard et al., 2006). Research has also examined the potential that digital tools such as Google Translate can have on writing practices (Vogel et al., 2018), the process of mental translation as a strategy that supports literacy development in a new language (Dewilde, 2019), and the types of strategies learners employ to verify or improve the quality of their translation for EAL writing (Rodrick Beiler & Dewilde, 2019). For instance, teachers can prompt learners to employ traditional dictionaries and online translation tools to help verify the accuracy of their expression in the TL. Mental or oral translation into the HL can serve as a bridge between languages when learners are not literate in their HLs. Overall, rather than being a detrimental practice, translation helps language learners activate their linguistic resources, move fluidly within their linguistic repertoires, and foster their translanguaging dispositions and literacy skills.

Translanguaging When Reading Most research on translanguaging practices to-date has focused on oral interaction and writing, and translingual practices employed by learners during the process of reading have not been extensively addressed. Hopewell (2011) and Martínez-Roldán (2015) investigated translanguaging that learners engage in when communicating about a text they read with fellow students and teachers. Hopewell (2011) identified root and suffix cognate recognition and words with multiple interpretations as some possible strategies that enable “amplifying the body of knowledge that could be purposefully applied to clarify,

605

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

analyze, and distinguish structural and semantic nuances and patterns within and across languages” (p. 614). The study concluded that the strategic use of translanguaging practices while discussing reading passages serves as an anchor for new linguistic knowledge and therefore increases opportunities to teach and learn and creates opportunities to develop metalinguistic awareness. Likewise, Martínez-Roldán (2015) found that fluid language practices, when interacting around written texts, increase opportunities for meaning making and foster identity development and social relationships. As far as we know, however, only one study to-date, namely Kwon and Schallert (2016) examined instances of translanguaging in cognitive reading strategies. They found that bilingual readers activate their languages in diverse and complex ways, ranging from the predominant use of HL, regardless of whether the text they were reading was in their HL or TL, to mixing the two languages, and identified various purposes for which translanguaging was employed. The study concluded that biliterate readers display “great flexibility and resourcefulness” (Kwon & Shallert, 2016, p. 147), and that the selection of translanguaging practices is deliberate, autonomous, and creative, and dictated by contextual demands and reading goals. Overall, these research findings suggest that translanguaging when reading can support academic literacy development. By activating students’ prior language knowledge and encouraging them to use this knowledge when interacting with texts, teachers can “cultivate students’ deeper understanding of subtle meaning from challenging texts” (Kwon & Schallert, 2016, p. 139). For instance, for pairs of languages that share the same Latin roots, as English and Spanish do, teachers can prompt cognate recognition as a comprehension strategy, while in cases when words with multiple interpretations can cause misinterpretation, teachers can help learners brainstorm different words that are used to convey the same message in the other language (Hopewell, 2011). Teachers can also model an active use of translanguaging strategies for monitoring reading comprehension, asking questions about the text, summarizing and reflecting (see Moody, Matthews, & Eslami in this volume). As translanguaging is employed by bilinguals/multilinguals regardless of whether they read in their HL or TL (Kwon & Schallert, 2016), we would like to postulate that access to texts written in various languages, as well as access to bilingual texts, can also serve as an explicit invitation for learners to engage in fluid language practices.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In an attempt to challenge current policies that favor strict separation of languages, this chapter strives to foster the idea that translanguaging can play a pivotal role in enhancing students’ bi/multilingualism through meaningful and affirming ways. We have provided theoretical foundations, brief reviews of studies on translanguaging, and practical recommendations of translanguaging pedagogy focusing on literacy development. Undisputedly, teachers need to be prepared for the cultural and linguistic diversity of the classroom. For this to be materialized, however, teachers have to go beyond what is expected and prescribed in the curriculum and set aside feelings of guilt (Copland & Neokleous, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010) that might surface when making use of resources that have long been ostracized and neglected. As discussed in the theoretical background of this chapter, the use of the students’ HL(s) is often one of these topics. Training programs should prepare and support teachers to develop theoretical and pedagogical strategies on how to strategically leverage students’ full linguistic repertories in order to promote more equitable learning experiences for their students. The need for this is even more pressing as recent research revealed that teachers are reluctant to implement new pedagogies if they have not undergone training (Heineke, 2015).

606

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

When exploring the student perspective, Espinosa, Herrera, and Goudreau (2016) revealed that learners are well-aware of the benefits associated with the use of translanguaging in the language classroom and that they employ it in different ways to solidify their understanding. While research handbooks provide pedagogical applications as to how translanguaging can enhance literacy, most classroom environments described are in settings where English is the dominant language. Future research should offer more insights about the use of translanguaging between languages other than English as effective strategies for these languages might be different. It is also important to expand the notion of translanguaging to support the development of not only minoritized but also majority or prestigious languages (see also Skein, Knospe, & Sullivan in this volume). As long as national curricula overlook the omnipresence linguistic diversity, it remains the teachers’ responsibility to align their individual classroom curricula with the current needs of our multilingual society. Translanguaging pedagogy is a means that can assist in addressing but also embracing these demands. Many studies mentioned in this chapter emphasized that the students’ HLs do not constitute a crutch to the TL, but rather a valuable resource that can benefit overall language and literacy development. Translanguaging pedagogy additionally affords a space to connect students’ home and school by allowing opportunities for students to bring in their HLs as well as cultures to the classroom. Importantly, García et al. (2014) urge that translanguaging pedagogy should never be enacted randomly. It requires strategic and purposeful instructional planning. Translanguaging pedagogy is more than just celebrating or encouraging the linguistic diversity that students bring. Instead, teachers must pursue academic rigor as well as educational equity for their students when taking up translanguaging pedagogy. Discussion Questions 1. Should teachers who are willing to adopt translanguaging in their classrooms be able to communicate in their students’ HL(s)? Can effective translanguaging pedagogies be implemented if the teacher does not speak his/her students’ HL(s)? 2. In this chapter, we employed the following definitions of translanguaging: “bilinguals hav[ing] one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively” (García, 2012, p. 1) and “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages” (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, p.281). Come up with a definition of translanguaging that you could share with your own students.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

3. A literacy autobiography is a text in which one reflects on their own literacy background, including factors and events that played an important role in one’s literacy development, and interprets these experiences in the light of theories and academic texts about literacy. Canagarajah (2013b) argues that through producing a literacy autobiography, teachers can “develop a reflective awareness of writing” (p. 47), and we would like to further posit that producing a literacy autobiography can help teachers develop a reflective awareness of literacy practices in a broader sense/that extend beyond writing. We would therefore like to invite you to create your own literacy autobiography employing a modality (e.g., written, oral, visual, or performance-based/dramatized)—or a blend of modalities, and a language—or languages—of your choice. If possible, share your autobiography with other teachers and exchange comments and feedback with each other. Consider how your individual literacy experiences have shaped your thinking about literacy and your approaches to supporting literacy development in your students. For an example of an extended literacy autobiography, see Canagarajah (2001).

REFERENCES Alim, H. S., Ibrahim, A., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2008). Global linguistic flows: Hip hop cultures, youth identities, and the politics of language. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203892787 Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2019). Introduction. In D. Singleton, & L. Aronin (2019), Twelve lectures on multilingualism (pp. 13-26). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

607

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Baker, C., & Wright, W. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (6th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bernhard, J. K., Cummins, J., Campoy, F. I., Ada, A. F., Winsler, A., & Bleiker, C. (2006). Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers College Read, 108(11), 2380–2405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00786.x Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290–303. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.290 PMID:15222822 Bizzell, P. (2010, October). English only? Composition instruction in a multilingual, competitive liberal arts college. Paper presented at the Watson Conference, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Canagarajah, S. (2001). The fortunate traveler: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. In D. Belcher, & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 23–37). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853597046-004 Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x Canagarajah, S. (2013a). Translingual practice. Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London, UK: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2013b). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67. Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2012). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. NewYork: CUNY-NYSIEB, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York. Retrieved from https://www. nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2013/03/Translanguaging-Guide-March-2013-pdf Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87. doi:10.1177/13670069030070010501 Collins, B. A., & Cioè-Peña, M. (2016). Declaring freedom: Translanguaging in the social studies classroom to understand complex texts. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 118–139). New York, NY: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092246 Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2010). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x

608

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Cummins, J. (2004). Multiliteracies pedagogy and the role of identity texts. In K. Leithwood, P. McAdie, N. Bascia, & A. Rodigue (Eds.), Teaching for deep understanding: Towards the Ontario curriculum that we need (pp. 68–74). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto and the Elementary Federation of Teachers of Ontario. Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., ... Sastri, P. (2005). Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 38–43. De Costa, P., Singh, J., Milu, E., Wang, X., Fraiberg, S., & Canagarajah, S. (2016). Pedagogizing translingual practice: Prospects and possibilities. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 464–472. de Jong, E. (2011). Foundations of multilingualism in education. From principles to practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing. Deocampo, M. F. (2016). A pedagogical perspective of translanguaging in the ASEAN context: A lesson from blogging. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN). Journal, 9(1), 131–145. Dewilde, J. (2019). Translation and translingual remixing: A young person developing as a writer. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(5), 942–953. doi:10.1177/1367006917740975 Durán, L., & Palmer, D. (2014). Pluralist discourses of bilingualism and translanguaging talk in classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(3), 367–388. doi:10.1177/1468798413497386 Ebe, A. (2015). The power of culturally relevant texts: What teachers learn about their emergent bilingual students. In Y. S. Freeman, & D. E. Freeman (Eds.), Research on preparing inservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals (pp. 33–53). Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Books LTD. doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000024003 Espinosa, C. M., Herrera, L. Y., & Gaudreau, C. M. (2016). Reclaiming bilingualism: Translanguaging in a science class. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 140–159). New York, NY: Routledge. Flores, N., & García, O. (2013). Linguistic third spaces in education: Teachers’ translanguaging across the bilingual continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. van Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Key issues and some responses (pp. 243–256). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783090815-016 Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., Soto, M., & Ebe, A. (2016). ESL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. García, O. (2012). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic, & K. Seltzer (Eds.), Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB. García, O. (2014). What is translanguaging? Expanded questions and answers for U.S. educators. In S. Hesson, K. Seltzer, & H. H. Woodley (Eds.), Translanguaging in curriculum and instruction: A CUNYNYSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB.

609

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Pivot. García, O., Bartlett, L., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer, & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics: Vol. 5. Multilingualism (pp. 207–228). Berlin, Germany: Mouton/de Gruyter. García, O., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2011). Extending bilingualism in US secondary education: New variations. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/19313152.2011.539486 García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). Translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Carlson. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging theory in education. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 9–33). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315695242 García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01208.x Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5–17. doi:10.1177/002205748917100101 George, H. (1972). Common errors in language learning: Insights from English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3 Guzula, X., McKinney, C., & Tyler, R. (2016). Languaging-for-learning: Legitimising translanguaging and enabling multimodal practices in third spaces. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(3), 211–226. doi:10.2989/16073614.2016.1250360 Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Heineke, A. J. (2015). Negotiating language policy and practice: Teachers of English learners in an Arizona study group. Educational Policy, 29(6), 843–878. doi:10.1177/0895904813518101

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Herrera, S., Perez, D., & Escamilla, K. (2015). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies. Boston, MA: Pearson. Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596568 Hornberger, N. H. (2013). Biliteracy continua. In M. R. Hawkinds (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 149–167). New York, NY: Routledge.

610

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.658016 Jessner, U. (2014). On multilingual awareness or why multilingual learner is a specific language learner. In M. Pawlak, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism (pp. 175–184). Bern, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_10 Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 161–176. doi:10.1080/14790710802387562 Kleyn, T., & Yau, H. (2016). The grupito flexes their listening and learning muscles. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 100–117). New York, NY: Routledge. Kwon, H., & Schallert, D. (2016). Understanding translanguaging practices through a biliteracy continua framework: Adult biliterates reading academic texts in their two languages. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(2), 138–151. doi:10.1080/15235882.2016.1167139 Larrotta, C., & Yamamura, E. K. (2011). A community cultural wealth approach to Latina/Latino parent involvement: The promise of family literacy. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 74–83. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488 Lin, A. M., & Wu, Y. (2015). ‘May I speak Cantonese?’–Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.988113 Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990310 Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200–217. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.994524 Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). “What do you want to say?” How adolescents use translanguaging to expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(3), 208–230. doi:10.1080/1931 3152.2014.914372

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

May, S. (2014). Introducing the “multilingual turn.”. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn. Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge. May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. London, UK: Routledge. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39(2), 251–263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011 Meiring, L., & Norman, N. (2002). Back on target: Repositioning the status of target language in MFL teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 27–35. doi:10.1080/09571730285200201

611

 Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Neokleous, G. (2017). Closing the gap: Student attitudes toward first language use in monolingual EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 314–341. doi:10.1002/tesj.272 Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Different but similar: Student teachers’ perspectives on the use of L1 in Arab and Jewish EFL classroom settings. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 18(1), 91–113. doi:10.1080/07908310508668735 Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. doi:10.1515/ applirev-2015-0014 Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240–254. doi:10.1080/14790710903414331 Palmer, D. K., & Henderson, K. I. (2016). Dual language bilingual education placement practices: Educator discourses about emergent bilingual students in two program types. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 17–30. doi:10.1080/19313152.2015.1118668 Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757–772. doi:10.1111/modl.12121 Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a language always in translation. European Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 33–47. doi:10.1080/13825570801900521 Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315724225 Rodrick Beiler, I., & Dewilde, J. (2019, June 28). Translation as translingual writing practice in English as an additional language. Paper presented at International Symposium on Bilingualism 12, University of Alberta, Canada. Rodriguez, A. D. (2014). Culturally relevant books: Culturally responsive teaching in bilingual classrooms. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 5(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/26390043.2014.12067778

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sampson, A. (2012). Learner code-switching versus English only. ELT Journal, 66(3), 293–303. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr067 Sayer, P. (2013). Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 63–88. doi:10.1002/tesq.53 Seltzer, K., Collins, B. A., & Angeles, K. M. (2016). Navigating turbulent waters: Translanguaging to support academic and socioemotional well-being. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 140–160). New York, NY: Routledge. Sohan, V. K. (2009). Working English (es) as rhetoric (s) of disruption. Journal of Advanced Composition, 29(1-2), 270–276.

612

Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

Straubhaar, R. (2013). Student use of aspirational and linguistic social capital in an urban immigrantcentered English immersion high school. High School Journal, 97(2), 92–106. doi:10.1353/hsj.2013.0026 Swanwick, R. (2017). Translanguaging, learning and teaching in deaf education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 233–249. doi:10.1080/14790718.2017.1315808 Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637. doi:10.3102/0162373715573310 Vogel, S., Ascenzi-Moreno, L., & García, O. (2018). An expanded view of translanguaging: Levereging the dynamic interactions between a young multilingual writer and machine translation software. In J. Choi, & S. Ollerhead (Eds.), Plurilingualism in teaching and learning: Complexities across contexts (pp. 89–106). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315392462-6 Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Active Learning: An instructional method that prompts students to assume an active role in the classroom and have a catalyst role in unfolding lesson objectives. Biliteracy: A person’s ability to read and write in two languages. Codeswitching: The alternation between two or more languages within or between utterances. Collaborative Learning: An instructional method that prompts students to build on each other’s knowledge and skills to learn something together. English as an Additional Language (EAL): The teaching and learning of English to students whose home language is not English. Home Language: The language that a student uses to interact with other family members for everyday interactions at home. Linguistic Repertoire: The set of linguistic features that bilinguals/multilinguals possess and strategically select features from in order to communicate and make meaning. Student-centered Environment: A learning environment where the emphasis is placed on students’ interests and the student has a more active role in the learning process. Target Language: The language that students are learning other than the language(s) students have at their disposal for everyday interactions at home. Translanguaging: The dynamic and fluid linguistic practice that bilinguals/multilinguals use in order to make sense of their world by selecting features from their linguistic repertoires. Translingual Practice: Communication that transcends individual languages and involves diverse semiotic resources.

613

Creating Space for Dynamic Language Use

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. The book is divided into three parts and includes detailed definitions, explanations, and real-world examples of translanguaging theory and practice. The book is a great resource for the teachers who are not familiar with the concept of translanguaging and are looking for practical applications that they can use in their own classrooms. 2. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. New York, NY: Routledge. This edited book showcases six empirical studies of translanguaging that were conducted as part of the project CUNY-NYSIEB (City University of New York-New York State Initiative On Emergent Bilinguals). The first part of the book provides theoretical information on translanguaging and translanguaging pedagogy. The second part of the book introduces various empirical studies of translanguaging with actual classroom examples and findings. The last part of the book includes implications for translanguaging education policy and practice for teachers and teacher educators. 3. Freeman, Y.S., & Freeman, D. (Eds.). (2015). Research perspectives in preparing inservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals. Bingely, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. This edited book collection serves as a springboard to prepare inservice teachers to meet the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. The aim is to help prospective teachers develop their understanding of effective practices for emergent bilinguals. 4. Swanwick, R. (2017). Translanguaging, learning and teaching in deaf education.  International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 233–249.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This article discusses the advantages that translanguaging can have for deaf learners. It also offers examples of teacher and student translanguaging in similar educational settings.

614

615

Chapter 29

Leveraging Learner Experience: Pedagogical Scaffolding With Refugee-Background Adults Raichle Farrelly University of Colorado Boulder, USA Iuliia Fakhrutdinova University of Massachusetts Boston, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter builds on the pedagogical knowledge base of educators who work with refugee-background adult language learners. The chapter introduces refugee-background adults who have experienced interruptions in their formal education. The authors present a framework for pedagogical scafolding that emerges from a sociocultural perspective on learning. An overview of research underscores the benefts of recognizing and building upon learners’ strengths, lived experiences, and oral traditions. Classroom-based approaches that integrate pedagogical scafolding into meaningful learning opportunities to enhance the language and literacy practices of adult learners are highlighted. The chapter sustains innovation and conversation among educators working with refugee-background adults, ideally in collaboration with the learners themselves, to cultivate pedagogical practices that foster learner success in the classroom and beyond.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Current global migration trends are resulting in ever-increasing numbers of people in need of developing oral proficiency and literacy in the dominant language of a new country. In particular, schools in refugeereceiving countries are seeing high numbers of students with interrupted formal schooling experiences and limited prior opportunities to develop print literacy in their mother tongue or the official language of their home country (Browder, 2018; deCapua, Smathers, & Tang, 2009; Shapiro, Farrelly, & Curry, 2018). Reasons that people may have interrupted schooling experiences include but are not limited to, war, civil conflict, escape from life-threatening persecution, climate crises, inability to pay school fees, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2722-1.ch029

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leveraging Learner Experience

migration for economic opportunities, or nomadic lifestyles. In many cases, people migrating due to any of the above reasons are likely leaving countries where literacy rates may be low due to insufficient teacher education, under-resourced schools, political unrest, or absence of a writing system associated with Indigenous1 languages (Custodio & O’Loughlin, 2017; DeCapua & Marshall, 2011). In the context of English-speaking resettlement countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and the UK, this subgroup of school-age English language learners is often referred to with the acronym SLIFE– Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (DeCapua, Smathers, & Tang, 2009). SLIFE generally include asylum seekers and immigrants from various countries in Latin America, as well as students with refugee experience from countries throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (Custodio & O’Loughlin, 2017). While the SLIFE label may not be widely used in non-English speaking educational contexts, many of the shared characteristics of learners with experiences of interrupted formal education and limited first language (L1) literacy apply to these learners wherever they are (e.g., Turkey, Lebanon, Sweden, Germany, etc.). When referring to adults with gaps in their schooling and emerging literacy skills, much current educational research refers to this population with the acronym LESLLA– also the name of the international organization committed to better understanding and supporting these adult learners: Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults (see www.leslla.org). It is worth acknowledging that labeling and categorizing of individuals is not straightforward, and in some cases, may also be problematic (Browder, 2018). However, in many instances, it may serve to identify the specific needs of particular groups, such as the adult learner populations discussed in this chapter. According to data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2017), while global literacy rates are steadily increasing, there are over 750 million adults worldwide who still lack basic reading and writing (print literacy) skills–many of whom are women. UNESCO calculates adult literacy rates based on the percentage of a population over 15 years of age who can use functional literacy skills to understand basic sentences about their daily lives. In light of this explanation, this chapter speaks to adult populations encompassing individuals 15 years of age and older, which includes students in upper secondary school (i.e., high school). UNESCO (2005) defines literacy as “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts” such that an individual is able “to achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in community and wider society” (p. 21). This chapter embraces the above definition and extends it to include plural and dynamic notions of literacy that underscore the diverse social practices and dimensions inherent to acquiring and applying literacy (see, for example, Gee, 2010; Freebody & Luke, 2003; Freire, 2000; Street, 1995). Literacy encompasses print, visual, and oral texts and the various ways that individuals combine and interpret multiple modalities to make sense of their world, communicate with a purpose, and participate in society to access new opportunities and be agents of change in their schools and communities. This chapter explores sociocultural approaches to teaching adult language learners that stem from the early work of Vygotsky (1978). In particular, population-specific approaches to language teaching that promote pedagogical scaffolding are considered for use with refugee-background adult language learners settling in countries with Western-style approaches to education. It is important to note that while this particular subset of students shares the broad characterizations of having refugee experience, interrupted formal education, and limited prior opportunities to develop L1 literacy, they are obviously not a homogenous group. They represent a wide range of cultural and linguistic identities and bring with them vast and varied life experiences (see also Durgunoglu & Nimer in this volume). Nonetheless, 616

 Leveraging Learner Experience

the challenges they face are unique in comparison to those of their voluntary immigrant counterparts, who generally arrive to settlement countries with foundational L1 literacy skills, awareness of academic cultures, and perhaps even familiarity with Western-style schooling models in particular. The choice to focus on adult learners stems from the acknowledgement of the unique challenges faced by older learners. For example, SLIFE arriving in secondary schools are expected to extract meaning from academic texts almost immediately, although their target language (TL) oral proficiency and literacy skills are emergent (Collier, 1995; Custodio & O’Loughlin, 2017; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). Similarly, out-of-school adults are afforded very little time to acquire the necessary language and literacy skills that may foster upward mobility in the workplace or provide access to higher education (Wrigley, 2009). For adults, economic pressure and time limitations on social services they can receive demand that they enter the workforce shortly after arrival in the settlement country, often resulting in long-term employment in such roles as custodial staff, factory workers, or housekeepers. Given the challenges and time constraints, how can educators ensure that educational experiences maximize learners’ chance of accessing information through their newly acquired language and literacy skills? This chapter, written by teachers for teachers, aims to offer a few research-based approaches to promote learning by building on learners’ lives, languages, and oral traditions. These approaches are framed through the enactment of specific pedagogical scaffolding strategies. As the particular target language of adult refugee-background learners varies depending on the country of resettlement, the ideas and applications presented in this chapter are meant to be adaptable and applicable to a range of educational contexts around the world, both academic (e.g., formal secondary and post-secondary schools) and community-based (e.g., language programs for adult newcomers).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sociocultural Theory and Pedagogical Scaffolding The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and the associated notion of scaffolding are widely discussed in child development and educational literature (e.g., Bruner, 1983; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Gibbons, 2002, 2009; Hammond & Gibbons, 2001; Walqui, 2006). The ZPD was conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978) to reflect the ways in which children develop cognition and language through social interactions. Vygotsky explains the ZPD as “…the distance between the actual developmental level [of a child] as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). The guidance or the way that a learning experience is designed to foster the learner’s success is known as scaffolding. Scaffolding was coined by Bruner (1983) who viewed it as “a process of ‘setting up’ the situation to make the child’s entry easy and successful and then gradually pulling back and handing the role to the child as he becomes skilled enough to manage it” (p. 60). While originally conceptualized around studies of child development, the notions of both the ZPD and scaffolding have since been applied to learning across the lifespan and offer useful insights when designing instruction to promote adult learning. It is worth noting that the adoption of notions of the ZPD and scaffolding by second language acquisition (SLA) scholars has been questioned. Hamidi and Bagherzadeh (2018) raise questions about the various interpretations of the ZPD and scaffolding given that Vygotsky’s work was not situated within 617

 Leveraging Learner Experience

the educational contexts that now employ these constructs broadly. For the purposes of this chapter, scaffolding is not viewed as a tool to promote second language (L2) development, but rather as a means of enhancing the quality of instruction such that language learners can more readily access and use the target language. In other words, scaffolding is a way to create the conditions for L2 learning, but as bodies of SLA research attest, there are many mitigating factors that play a role in acquiring additional languages (e.g., individual differences, first language(s), instructional setting, etc.; see Mackey & Gass, 2012) Additionally, for the purposes of this chapter, opportunities for scaffolding are not predicated on expert-novice relationships during social interactions, but can also exist between peers with similar abilities and educational experiences (Ellis, 2003) through collective scaffolding (Donato, 1994; Moll, 1990). We embrace Walqui’s (2006) view that “learners create zones of proximal development for each other and engage in mutual scaffolding” (p. 167). The classroom approaches presented later in this chapter were selected for two reasons: first, they foster the integration of pedagogical scaffolding techniques that serve to create the conditions for language learning and literacy development, and second, they target the specific learning needs and strengths of adults with refugee experience. Walqui (2006) outlines six types of pedagogical scaffolding for use with language learners engaged with academic tasks (Table 1). They offer practical applications that best support language learners engaged in formal academic learning; however, they are easily extended to less formal community-based learning contexts, as will be demonstrated later in the chapter. For language teachers, these scaffolding approaches will resonate as best practices for teaching additional languages around the world (e.g., as within the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)). Walqui (2006) introduces and promotes these practices as essential components of mainstream classes as well, where L2 immigrant and refugee-background students are learning content knowledge in the target language alongside their native speaking classmates. Table 1. Types of pedagogical scaffolding

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Type

Description

Modeling

Students benefit from seeing examples of what is expected of them. These can include samples of prior student work or teacher-generated models. It is also important to provide models of language that meets the demands of the academic functions required to complete the assignment.

Bridging

Through bridging, learning language and new concepts builds on students’ existing background knowledge and prior learning. Bridging also requires helping students to make connections between what they are learning and their personal lives–ensuring relevance and making learning meaningful.

Contextualizing

Academic language is often decontextualized and situation-independent, which makes accessing important content in textbooks, for example, a difficult task. Through contextualization, language becomes situation-dependent and embedded in context. This can be accomplished through the use of pictures, realia, manipulatives, video, and verbal elaborations, such as analogies that tap into students’ lived realities and backgrounds.

Schema Building

Through schema building activities, learners can identify and organize meaningful elements of a text or topic prior to engaging with the entirety of the content. In this way, they can anticipate what they are about to learn. As an example, using graphic organizers can help focus learners’ attention on the details that will emerge from the larger picture they are forming as their schemata are being activated.

Re-presenting Text

Re-presenting a text allows learners to collaborate and experiment with language through tasks that invite them to take information from one genre (e.g., a poem or news article) and reformulate it into another genre (e.g., a play or personal narrative).

Developing Metacognition

Providing students with opportunities to manage their thinking and monitor their understanding is paramount to their success in an academic setting. This can be accomplished through applying learning strategies during activities; being aware of the strategies available to them and selecting accordingly; monitoring, evaluating and adjusting their performance; and using insights from this evaluation when planning for future learning.

Note. Data adapted from Walqui (2006, pp. 170-177).

618

 Leveraging Learner Experience

These six types of pedagogical scaffolding build on core features of scaffolding presented by Wood (1988) and later elaborated by van Lier (2004). Wood (1988) asserts that any type of scaffolding should be contingent, collaborative, and interactive. Van Lier (2004) expands on these three elements to develop a pedagogical focus for scaffolding specific to language learning. In doing so, he offers these six core principles: 1. Contextual Support – Instructors create a safe, challenging learning environment where learners can take risks and make mistakes; errors are seen as part of the learning process. 2. Continuity – Routine is established in the classroom to provide multiple, yet varied opportunities to engage with language and content. 3. Intersubjectivity – Learning is promoted through relationship-building, social interaction, and mutual respect within a community of practice. 4. Contingency – Assistance offered by instructors or peers depends on learners’ needs and performance; scaffolding elements are added, adapted, or removed as determined by learners. 5. Handover/Takeover – Learners move through the ZPD toward independence on tasks as skills and confidence increase, leading to reduced scaffolding around a given learning experience. 6. Flow – Appropriate scaffolding creates a balance of skills and challenges such that communication among participants is focused and flows naturally. Pedagogical scaffolding techniques are implemented to support students in a range of learning situations, including academic school settings and informal community-based contexts. In the next section, specific characteristics of adults with refugee experience are explored in order to make the case for the intentional application of these pedagogical scaffolds in the language classroom.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Leveraging Learner Strengths When newcomers with refugee experience arrive to a new host country, they are navigating unfamiliar cultural practices, striving to acquire a new language, and in many cases, adapting to a new (often Western) academic culture. As noted in Feuerherm and Ramanathan (2016), refugees are distinct from immigrants due to the reasons for which they leave their homes, the services they are provided due to their refugee status, and the experiences they arrive with, which include trauma, interrupted schooling, and various mental and physical health issues incurred prior to and after fleeing for their lives (see also Durgunoglu & Nimer in this volume). In addition, many refugees come from oral Indigenous cultures with strengths for learning based in orality rather than print literacy (Bigelow & Watson, 2012; Ong, 1982; Watson, 2019). When evaluated against the backdrop of Western-style models of education and legitimized forms of knowledge and meaning-making, refugee-background students are often viewed through a deficit lens, rather than being seen in light of the constellation of assets and strengths they bring to the learning experience; however, a growing body of asset-focused research is shifting this paradigm (e.g., Bigelow, 2007; Liscio & Farrelly, 2019; Naidoo & Adoniou, 2019; Rios-Aguilar, et al., 2011; Shapiro, Farrelly, & Curry, 2018; Shapiro & MacDonald, 2017). Given the opportunity to welcome newcomers into their classes and communities, educators have the responsibility to identify the strengths and assets of these learners and utilize them towards the goal of learner success (see also Gonzalves, this volume). While focusing on assets is essential, it is also important for teachers to know where learners are starting from, which requires an inventory of students’ educational experiences and assessment of their 619

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leveraging Learner Experience

literacy skills (Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011). In fact, many newcomers with refugee experience have not had the opportunity to develop strong L1 print literacy skills for a number of reasons. However, in order to realize learners’ strengths within the dimension of literacy, it is important to broaden our view of the construct. Most measures of literacy tend to focus on functional print literacy skills–the ability to read and write, to decode the written word, i.e., to make sound-symbol correspondences in a given language’s script (see Christison & Murray in this volume). This narrow view of literacy and the notion that lacking these functional print literacy skills implies less than is problematic and perpetuates the deficit discourse that surrounds refugee populations. The sociocultural perspective of literacy views literacy as multiple and interactional–embedded in social, cultural, and historical contexts (Gee, 2010; Street, 1984). Literacy practices are seen as “integrated with different ways of using oral language; different ways of acting and interacting; different ways of knowing, valuing, and believing; and, too, often different ways of using various sorts of tools and technologies” (Gee, 2010, p. 166). Sociocultural perspectives move literacy beyond the academic and utilitarian approaches that emphasize the mechanical learning of reading and writing skills and overlook the lived experience, language, culture, and sociopolitical concerns of the learners (Freire & Macedo, 1987). What if we view literacy as all-encompassing of learners’ complete linguistic repertoires and abilities to produce and access information in a variety of modalities that go beyond the written word? In educational contexts that employ multiliteracies pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), students’ out-of-school literacy practices (e.g., texting, interacting on social media, uploading videos to YouTube) are leveraged so that students can access and produce multiple forms of texts through multiple modalities (e.g., visual, spatial, linguistic, gestural, and audio) (Hoffman, 2019; Omerbašić, 2018). Omerbašić (2018) identified multimodal out-of-school literacy practices enacted through digital tools. She focused on what she refers to as digital landscapes of knowing to capture the ways in which refugee-background adolescent girls “designed, posted, and interacted with digital texts, displaying rich multilingual, translocal and technological knowledge typically marginalized in formal learning settings” (p. 67). In a separate study of the out-of-school literacy practices of refugee-background high school students, Hoffman (2019) observed that “multimodal literacy can offer non-linguistic support for students to deconstruct difficult texts, as well as the opportunity to produce texts that more fully represent the students’ own experiences of multiple identities” (p. 20). The ways in which refugee-background students employ a range of modalities to make sense of their world, to communicate and to access content knowledge demonstrates how they activate their navigational capital through social networks, as well as available linguistic resources. According to Yosso (2005), navigational capital is reflected in a student’s ability to navigate social institutions, including educational spaces, that perhaps do not always validate or legitimize their ways of learning and communicating. Newcomers with refugee experience quickly identify ways to maneuver through their new world by all means possible (e.g., community ties, social media, technology, and school-based allies). Educators can tap into this navigational capital by creating space for a broader understanding and application of multiple literacies that recognizes and sustains knowledge and meaningful literacy practices from students’ everyday lives (Omerbašić, 2018). Within learners’ funds of knowledge (Moll, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992), linguistic capital is a powerful and often overlooked strength that newcomers can build upon as they work towards oral proficiency and develop print literacy in the target language. Linguistic capital includes the “intellectual and social skills attained through communication in multiple languages and/or linguistic styles” (Yosso, 2005, p. 78). Not only do refugee-background students often arrive with multilingual identities, but they land in multilingual and multicultural classrooms and workplaces, where they activate their linguistic capital to 620

 Leveraging Learner Experience

make connections and build community. In a given language classroom there may be refugee-background students from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Bhutan, Burma, and Venezuela—all living in Sweden and trying to learn Swedish. One of these students alone could speak up to five languages–mother tongue, neighboring tribal languages, official language of the home country, and language of the country hosting the refugee camp. For example, a young man from the Democratic Republic of Congo may speak Lingala (mother tongue), Ibembe (a Bantu language spoken in the DRC), French (official language of the DRC), Swahili (spoken in parts of the DRC and the refugee camps of Tanzania, where many Congolese waited for over a decade before resettlement), and English (medium of instruction for secondary schools in Tanzania). A deficit perspective of this student would be to see him as not speaking the target language (e.g., Swedish) without recognizing the vast linguistic resources that are included in his linguistic capital, which he can draw on as he strives to acquire the target language.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Recognizing Strength in Oral Traditions The linguistic capital of many individuals with refugee experience is rooted in a strong oral culture. A growing body of research on adult emergent readers has explored the relationship between oral language proficiency and literacy development (e.g., Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011; Condelli, Wrigley, & Yoon, 2009; Kurvers, van Hout, & Vallen, 2006; Tarone & Bigelow, 2005, 2007; Tarone, Bigelow, & Hansen, 2009; Vinogradov & Bigelow, 2010). Yet there is arguably not adequate emphasis on oral language development in the curriculum of many literacy programs (Krashen, 2001). In the U.S., as an example, the focus often lies squarely on five core components identified as essential to a reading curriculum by the National Reading Panel (2002): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension. While these components are proven to be critical for literacy development, fostering oral language development is perhaps equally important. Fillmore and Snow (2002) note that “oral language functions as a foundation for literacy and as the means of learning in school and out” (p. 20). Educators can foster oral language development by implementing teaching strategies and scaffolding learning to promote interaction, structured input and output, and negotiation of meaning— each identified as integral for language acquisition (see, for example, Gass, 2003; Long, 1996; Swain, 2005; van Lier, 1996). For many refugee-background students, oral traditions are foundational to their ways of learning (Watson, 2019; Bigelow & Watson, 2012). Yet, as Watson (2019) notes, “while oral Indigenous cultures have been educating the young for thousands of years, and most educators would agree on the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy, there is relatively little inclusion of traditional educational practices in Western schools, even in language classes serving refugee-background students where such practices may be particularly valuable” (p. 203). The next section explores the tensions that exist for students who are entering Western-style systems of education from oral cultures.

Honoring non-Western Ways of Thinking and Learning Individuals from oral cultures possess unique ways of thinking that impact communication and learning. Bigelow and Watson (2012) emphasize that oral cultures rely more on pragmatics and immediate relevance for communication than the syntactic structures prioritized in the written word. Watson (2019) asserts that “refugee-background migrant students learning to read and do school in a new language and culture have more in common with Indigenous non-migrant students in geographical locations all 621

 Leveraging Learner Experience

over the world in terms of cultural orientation to knowledge and values than either group has in common with the values and practices of Western education” (p. 205). Along similar lines, DeCapua and Marshall (2011) contrast pragmatic and academic ways of thinking to frame challenges faced by SLIFE entering a Western-style education system. They state that, “beginning no later than kindergarten, U.S. school instruction revolves around categorization, classification, and other abstract thinking far removed from concrete and functional referents” (p.19) (see DeCapua & Marshall, 2011 and Shapiro, Farrelly & Tomaš, 2014 for discussions of the ways in which cultural values, beliefs, and norms influence learning and teaching). It is important to explore what is meant by Western-style education. Reference is made throughout educational literature to Western-style models of education, yet given the rarity of a clear definition or explanation in many publications, it must be assumed that readers share an understanding of its essence. In reality, a thorough understanding of the nature of a Western-style education requires an extensive and critical discussion of history and culture. As a start, Woolsey Des Jarlais (2009) offers a list of shared cultural characteristics of Western education systems, including individualization, bureaucratization, homogenization, universalism, meritocracy, and rationalization. Kanu (2006) embraces a postcolonial perspective on curriculum as cultural practice, relating the ways in which colonialists employed curriculum and pedagogy to suppress the colonized and spread Western thought. Kanu (2006) further refers to the work of Norrel London (e.g., London, 2001) who asserts that:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ideology became the primary agent for the internalization and acceptance of British and Western culture, and [that] education and schooling were used as the medium for developing in the colonized Other the required sense of psychological subordination. The curriculum canvas during the period is described as drawing from the universe of educational ideologies available in the metropolitan arena (Britain), enhanced by thinking prevalent in the United States and parts of Western Europe, which emphasized cultural constructs like mental discipline, humanism, child study, and social efficiency. (pp. 9-10) Approaching the dichotomy from the other side, Semali and Kincheloe (1999) explore the features of Indigenous knowledge, which “reflects the dynamic way in which the residents of an area have come to understand themselves in relationship to their natural environment and how they organize that folk knowledge of flora and fauna, cultural beliefs, and history to enhance their lives” (p. 3). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to further tease out the complexity of these two approaches to education—namely Western and Indigenous—but clearly it is important to recognize that each is entrenched in unique and arguably contrasting sets of values and beliefs related to learning and education. Students coming from oral cultures, who rely on pragmatic ways of thinking and learning, gain understanding from what they encounter in the world around them and what is immediately relevant to their lives. They participate in activities within their families and communities and learn more from experienced members of their societies than they do from traditional Western means, such as books. Knowledge within oral cultures is created and accessed through various processes and modalities, such as sharing origin stories orally; contemplating life and stories while in nature; interpreting dreams and visions; learning through mentorships and apprenticeships; and exploring the symbolism in art, music, dance, and architecture (Woolsey Des Jarlais, 2009). Learning within Western-style models of education, on the other hand, often centers on problem-solving and abstract reasoning that is decontextualized and removed from real-life experiences (DeCapua & Marshall, 2011; Guitierrez & Rogoff, 2003). DeCapua and Marshall developed an instructional model known as the Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm 622

 Leveraging Learner Experience

(MALP). Enacting MALP requires an awareness of multiple learning paradigms. Teachers must recognize the learning paradigms of Western-style education models while also familiarizing themselves with learning paradigms more familiar to students that come from oral cultures and who may not have had much experience with formal schooling. In order to achieve mutual adaptability, students who may be accustomed to oral traditions and pragmatic ways of thinking must also adapt to the conditions for learning inherent to the academic culture of their host countries (Table 2). Table 2. Pragmatic knowledge versus academic knowledge Pragmatic Knowledge

Academic Knowledge

Based on experiences, often accumulated over generations and passed down orally

Based on logic and the hypothetical

Focused on the concrete, functional

Focused on abstractions – e.g., taxonomies, comparison/contrast

Concerned with immediate relevance, benefit

Immediate relevance and benefit not necessarily important

Frequently culture/environment specific

Not tied to specific culture or environment – e.g., algebraic equations, definition of a mammal

Changeable

Relatively static

Note. Data taken from DeCapua & Marshall (2011, p. 20).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Legitimizing Out-of-School and Multimodal Literacy Practices Learners with interrupted formal education, particularly older learners in secondary school, which is a formal academic context, often struggle to find the motivation to complete academic writing assignments that are decontextualized or fail to represent authentic literacy practices and purposes (Crandall, 2018). Many of these learners do have high motivation to write for outside audiences, but their out-ofschool literacy practices are often not legitimized by the educational systems in which they study. In a small-scale study of four young Somali men in an American high school, Crandall (2018) explored the tensions of an academic system that prioritizes performance on standardized exams over giving students the opportunity to engage in writing for authentic purposes. While the youth in his study struggled to connect with the types of academic writing they were expected to do in school, writing was important in their lives and they sought alternative ways to express themselves in writing. One participant, Ali, created a magazine with his peers entitled Hope for a New Life. The aim of the magazine was to teach others at the school about English language learners (i.e., immigrant and refugee-background students). They published biographies, articles, photos, and poetry. Another participant identified as Shafac wrote screenplays based on his personal experiences; he wrote creatively and took risks with his ideas. Ade wrote an essay about a family heirloom that was very important to his Somali Bantu family. He was grateful for the opportunity to write multiple drafts, more than typically afforded in the school setting. Yet another learner, Najm wrote editorials on news events that were taking place in Somalia, Palestine, and Egypt. He posted his editorials on Facebook and shared thoughts on world events using poetic devices such as rhyme and lyrical patterns. Crandall (2018) points out that Najm received praise and feedback from around the world, but at school he was unable to pass his 10th grade English class as he was unmotivated to complete academic writing assignments.

623

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Crandall (2018) argues that academic writing assignments should be authentic, target legitimate audiences, and employ multiple writing processes. He further states that “we need to speak globally with instruction, too, as we promote writing to recognize history, to celebrate the power of storytelling and to emphasize the importance of speaking within and across communities” (p. 47). Similarly, Hoffman (2019) argues in favor of bringing out-of-school literacy practices into the classroom by engaging in multiliteracies pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), which legitimizes literacy practices that span the modalities. Hoffman (2019) makes the point that Western-style approaches to writing in school rely on individual and internal print-based processes, such as free-writing, outlining, reading research, and drafting. Ideally, refugee-background students should be encouraged to use more oral-based and non-linguistic modes of communication to both access and generate information. Building on learners’ strengths, oral traditions, and pragmatic ways of thinking necessitates the incorporation of more collaborative and communicative literacy practices, as well as the use of culturally relevant materials (Herrera, Perez, and Escamilla, 2015; Naidoo & Adoniou, 2019; see Section 6 of this volume for more on culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Centering Learners’ Lived Experiences There is ample research emphasizing that adult learning must be grounded in meaningful, relevant content that is contextualized and builds on the lived experiences, goals, and day to day concerns of the learners (Auerbach, 1992; Knowles, 1973; Weinstein, 1999; Williams & Chapman, 2007; Wrigley & Guth, 1992). Adult learners have complex and busy lives, often imbued with responsibilities related to work, children, extended family, living expenses, and health related concerns. It is this very richness in their lives that provides educators a great opportunity to center learning on their experiences, ensuring that the curriculum connects to issues they care about (Condelli et al., 2009). There are several language teaching approaches that center on learners’ lives in the classroom and curriculum. In the late 1990s, Weinstein began using personal narratives with immigrant and refugeebackground adult English language learners. She developed an approach called Learners’ Lives as Curriculum (LLC), which entails compiling the written narratives of learners and teachers and using them as reading material for language instruction. Enacting culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and culturally responsive (Gay, 2000) pedagogy necessitates connecting in-class activities directly with students’ lives and backgrounds. The use of personal narratives in the classroom offers several opportunities to enhance learning and develop language skills for authentic purposes, such as sharing and asking for information. Pavlenko (2008) defines personal narratives as “the stories about real, imagined, or possible events that draw on speakers’ experiences… or stories about times when the speakers felt a particular emotion” (p. 318). According to Weinstein (1999), through personal narratives learners become comfortable talking about their families, cultures, lives, and interests; English is no longer peripheral, but rather the central tool for communicating with an authentic purpose. Moreover, Weinstein (2006) emphasizes that the use of actual, authentic, and unique materials such as personal narratives is more appealing and relevant to the learning process than standard topics from common textbooks. Additionally, crafting personal narratives in a community of practice fosters connection and builds trust among all members of the learning community (DelliCarpini & Gulla, 2006; Griffiths & Keohane, 2000; Pierson, 2014). Narratives also provide an opportunity for sense-making and identity formation. Miyahara (2010) states, “People attempt to create a link to explain events and experiences in their lives. The process of narrating 624

 Leveraging Learner Experience

experience is not merely a communication tool, but also one that allows [individuals] to negotiate and/ or make meaning out of it” (p. 10). Extending the ideas of previous sections related to building on learners’ strengths and oral traditions, personal narratives additionally create an important opportunity for L1 or heritage language use in the classroom, which can be an important tool for L2 literacy development (see Minuz, Haznedar, Peyton, & Young in this volume). Students can use their L1 to read narratives of others from their same language background and to generate a robust set of ideas from which to begin crafting their own ideas. As they begin to write, students can first draft them in the L1, and translate them as a literacy practice in collaboration with other same-language peers. A unique initiative organized through the Vermont Folklife Center in the U.S. used collaborative multimodal storytelling to address issues of isolation and loneliness among migrant workers living and working in rural areas of the state of Vermont. The collection of stories, known as El viaje mas caro/The most costly journey is a collection of powerful stories told by migrant workers in Spanish, animated by New England-based cartoonists, and translated into English. They are available online and serve as a model of what is possible when learners can utilize their linguistic resources to narrate personal stories in their native language, thus allowing for deep, emotional recounts of authentic, often troubling experiences (available at www.vermontfolklifecenter.org/elviajemascaro). These stories, based on the learners’ experiences, become rich sources of learning as they interact with their own stories in English through in-class discussions, translation activities, and ongoing practice to develop their English decoding skills. During storytelling processes, language learners are likely to engage in translanguaging–a dynamic process in which multilingual speakers employ multiple languages, often simultaneously, to maneuver social and cognitive demands (Canagarajah, 2011; García & Wei, 2014; see also Moody, Matthews, & Eslami, and Neokleous, Park, & Krulatz in this volume). Teachers and learners benefit from such opportunities to explore the depths of human experience through stories, especially when they are enriched by the detail afforded through L1 use.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS Classroom-based teachers are responsive and creative agents engaged in the activity of teaching and learning. Collectively, they have generated many outstanding practices and resources that educators can draw on when striving to best meet the needs of adults with refugee experience. The ideas below are approaches that have been implemented with adult learners in classes around the world. They emerge as favorites among teachers and students and have support in the research for their efficacy (e.g., Condelli, et al., 2009; Crandall & Peyton, 1993). In addition, their implementation naturally integrates the pedagogical scaffolding techniques introduced above while building on learners’ cultural and linguistic capital, their oral traditions, and their lived experiences.

Developing Language and Literacy through Personal Narratives Oral and written narratives lie at the heart of storytelling. Thematic units designed around narratives offer students the chance to explore the stories of others, build vocabulary through reading and discussion, and learn how to incorporate key features of the genre to effectively share their own stories. Narratives can be organized around countless themes such as family, identity, travel, relationships, loss, and new beginnings. Narratives are ideal for teaching language through an integrated skills approach as learners 625

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leveraging Learner Experience

read, listen to, and discuss others’ stories and then recount their own experiences orally and in writing. In the language and literacy classroom, narratives naturally lend themselves to pedagogical scaffolding techniques such as modeling, bridging, and contextualizing. With intentional instructional design, they also provide great opportunities for teachers to incorporate approaches to schema building, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. Selecting a theme for a unit on narratives requires that teachers know their learners’ interests and backgrounds in order to ensure relevance to their lives, which is paramount for adult learning (Imel, 1998; Knowles, 1973; Weinstein, 1999). Migration is a theme that emerges as one of great significance to adults with refugee experience. Custodio and O’Loughlin (2017) offer the idea of reading and writing migration narratives as a way to build resilience and community among students. Citing the work of Stewart (2015), they describe an instructional unit that moves students from reading nonfiction migration stories of others to journaling about and illustrating their own migration stories. Custodio and O’Loughlin (2017) note that “writing their own stories validates their experiences and empowers students to define their individuality” (p. 78). Additionally, creating stories in class builds a sense of community among the learners as they work together to generate ideas, support one another’s efforts, and then listen respectfully as stories are shared (Pierson, 2014). Working with narratives presents opportunities to incorporate multiple key scaffolding techniques introduced by Walqui (2006) and outlined above. The other-authored texts learners interact with provide models of the narrative genre, as well as vocabulary and language structures that the students can adopt when crafting their own narratives. Narratives can be accessed through multiple modalities including written narratives in books, blogs, and graphic novels; stories told orally via guest speakers or podcasts; documentary films or fictional accounts in movies; and various forms of visual art–photography, paintings, and sculptures. The theme of migration fosters bridging between learners’ lived experiences and opportunities to develop oral language, literacy skills, and awareness of genre conventions. When reading others’ migration stories, learners use language in meaningful ways to discuss how these stories reflect their own experiences. Migration stories are embedded in a situation or experience that all learners can relate to, making it easy for teachers to contextualize unfamiliar language and content through pictures, video, and engaging class discussions. Employing the scaffolding technique of re-presenting texts gives students the opportunity to first work within the potentially more comfortable mode of orality–listening to and telling stories, and later converting these stories into illustrated or written versions. The range of possible outputs for students’ narratives includes oral presentations, student-generated videos, screenplays, photography exhibitions, poetry, and written memoirs. In addition to providing interaction with a variety of text types both at the level of input and output, learners are introduced to various potential content areas, including geography, history, politics, sociology, and anthropology. Integrating content from other disciplines within the unit provides an opportunity for school-based adults (i.e., students in upper secondary school) to learn and use academic language with discipline specific linguistic features at discourse and word levels (Gottlieb & Ernst-Slavit, 2014). For out-of-school adult learners, exploring content related to geography and history, for example, taps into their world knowledge and acknowledges the value of their lifelong learning in informal, real world settings. This honoring of experience gets to the heart of students’ sense of belonging and well-being in the class. Walqui (2006) affirms that “as students start realizing that their everyday knowledge is not only valued in class, but in fact, desired, a sense of wellness is achieved that promotes further development” (p. 171).

626

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Whether learners are studying in a formal school setting or a less formal community-based environment, narratives create spaces in which students can interact with one another through and in relation to the target language. When introducing a new narrative, educators can develop metacognition and increase language awareness in students through well-established read-aloud and think-aloud techniques, which serve as effective comprehension strategies (Block & Israel, 2004; Wilson & Chavez, 2014). When educators engage learners in a read-aloud, they have the chance to connect the written word to both meaning and oral production. Read-alouds model the pronunciation of individual sounds and suprasegmental features (e.g., intonation, word stress, pauses, linking), as well as how to effectively deliver and engage an audience of listeners through posture, gestures and eye contact. Think-alouds–where teachers articulate their ideas in relation to a text they are reading or writing–promotes comprehension as educators involve learners in making connections to other stories, the content of the text, and current world events (Custodio & O’Loughlin, 2017). Think-alouds enable the teacher to demonstrate what types of thinking processes most effectively target comprehension at various points in a text. They offer insights into the ways that expert readers extract meaning from texts and establish links between the text and personal experiences (Block & Israel, 2004). When designing a unit around narratives, it is important for teachers to have relationships with their students–to truly know them–and to strive to build safe, supportive learning communities so that students are comfortable sharing personal experiences. Refugee-background students are often quite resilient and can tap into their aspirational capital, defined by Yosso (2005) as the “ability to maintain hopes and dreams for the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers” (p. 77). However, migration stories can activate associated trauma stories. Montero (2018) explores the narratives of young adult Rohingya men living in Canada. While her intention was not to uncover trauma stories, she explains how they emerged through the storyteller-listener relationship that was created by the nature of her study. It was only through well-established trust that the learners began to disclose more details about their personal lives and trauma experiences. Montero notes that, “when educators create school and classroom environments that are safe, ‘brave’ and welcoming, refugee-background newcomers may be likely to reveal their trauma stories, whether in small chunks or all at once, within the context of classroom instruction or private conversation…” (p. 101). She cautions against eliciting them, stating that “it is imperative that educators do not go ‘fishing’ for trauma stories and that they understand the boundaries and limits of their professional practice” (p. 101-102); however, she also acknowledges the potential benefit in educators creating space for these stories to be heard as they may be integral to students’ self-healing2. Of course, migration stories are not the only direction one might take with a unit on narratives. Educators should explore other possible themes that lend themselves to equally rich and effective model texts as well as opportunities to engage learners by tapping into their lives. In some cases, it may not be appropriate or feel safe for students to share openly about their personal lives and migration stories. As an example from one of the authors, Raichle presented the idea of memoir writing to a group of adults with refugee experience from the Democratic Republic of Congo. While most of her students were open to the idea, one of them–a single mother of five–quietly looked down and said her stories were too sad and she did not want to think about them or share them in class. Having established a close relationship with this student, Raichle suggested that she write about a happy memory from her time in her new American home instead. Another factor impacting the potential efficacy of a unit on narratives is the continuity of student participation. In a secondary school setting where student attendance is likely more consistent, a teacher can design and implement a cohesive unit around a collection of narratives and related assignments. However, when working with adult learners 627

 Leveraging Learner Experience

in community-based settings, which often have open enrollment and voluntary participation, it is challenging to deliver instruction that is contingent on sustained interaction with a text, topic, or theme over an extended period of time. In this case, a fruitful alternative, explored in the next section, is to build language and literacy through shared experiences and learner-generated texts that can be crafted in a single lesson.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Building Language and Literacy on Collective Experience When learning to read, there is no better source of language for literacy instruction than the ideas and words of the learners themselves (Weinstein, 1999, 2006). Learner-generated texts are those created by the teacher and students together in a community of practice. Elicitation of language for the text can be facilitated through the use of photographs, video, headline news, wordless picture books, or shared class experiences (Croydan, 2005; Liden, Poulos, & Vinogradov, 2008). At the same time, students can also work together to translate familiar stories from their cultures into English (Bigelow, 2010). Similar to work with personal narratives, learner-generated texts can take many forms, including audio recordings, digital stories, posters, photo collages, or written texts. Text production will depend on the focus and learning outcomes for the class. If the aim is to develop oral proficiency, then digital stories offer a nice option for integrating student experience, language, and visuals. One very easy-to-use application for creating digital stories is Adobe Spark (www.spark.adobe.com), which lets learners create stories with text, picture, video, narration, and music. Learners can publish their stories online and easily share with friends and family or keep them private as an in-class resource for ongoing oral skills practice. The Language Experience Approach (LEA) is a well-established method for eliciting learnergenerated texts based on shared experiences (Jones, 1986; Nessel & Dixon, 2008; Vinogradov & Bigelow, 2010). The underlying principle of LEA is to use the learners’ own vocabulary and lived experiences as the basis for creating reading texts so that content is familiar, relevant, and accessible (Nessel & Dixon, 2008). Educators can use LEA in one-to-one tutoring situations as well as with large classes. Implementing LEA with a focus on literacy development begins with learners having a shared experience, such as making a fruit salad, building something in class, watching a demonstration, or taking a field trip. Next, the teacher guides students as they convert oral language about the experience into writing. There are several options at this phase of the process. For example, the teacher can either ask students to dictate what they would like to include in the text or simply take notes based on a semi-structured (i.e., facilitated) conversation about the shared experience. The learners’ utterances and ideas are woven into a cohesive reading text. In a mixed level class, higher level student volunteers could be involved as scribes to write what their classmates say. As the experience becomes a written account, students can see how their spoken language is represented in a text. For emergent readers, seeing the relationship between the spoken word and its representation in print is an important aspect of language awareness that promotes literacy development. The resultant learner-generated text becomes a reading that is familiar, relevant, and level appropriate; it becomes an ideal text for modeling pronunciation, targeting comprehension, building vocabulary, and identifying language patterns and grammatical structures. New texts can be created weekly and previous texts can be revisited for ongoing reading practice to target fluency and phonological awareness skills. Teachers can attend to van Lier’s (2004) scaffolding principle of handover/takeover by observing where students are within the ZPD in relation to a particular text or reading processes. Within an LEA program, literacy level students progress from learner-generated texts, crafted from familiar language and content, 628

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

to texts authored by others. This progression extends their literacy skills, expands their vocabulary, and challenges them to engage with more complex writing and speaking activities (Nessel & Dixon, 2008). The text can serve as the basis of a balanced approach to literacy instruction (Birch, 2007; Campbell, 2004; Vinogradov, 2008), which integrates both top-down and bottom-up reading processes. Citing Fish, Knell, and Buchanan (2007), Vinogradov (2009) argues for an approach to reading instruction that is “grounded in interesting, relevant contexts that emphasize meaning, while also explicitly teaching patterns of sounds, syllables, and word families” (p. 3). Vinogradov presents the Whole-Parts-Whole (WPW) approach to literacy instruction, which combines contextualized meaning-focused instruction that supports vocabulary and content knowledge with explicit instruction to develop word analysis and phonological awareness skills (Trupke-Bastidas & Poulous, 2007). Pedagogical scaffolding techniques are required for successful implementation of balanced literacy instruction. Top-down activities, for example, rely on schema building, bridging, contextualizing, and re-presenting text. Bottom-up activities inherently incorporate scaffolding that develops metacognition–literacy level learners need assistance as they develop their word attack skills and notice key sound-symbol correspondences that will help them crack the code as they develop their print literacy skills (see Gonzalves in this volume for more on developing literacy and metalinguistic awareness among adult emergent readers). A great example of balanced literacy instruction through LEA is a recorded lesson that shows a teacher, Andrea Echelberger, working with a large class of literacy level adults in the U.S. (available online at: www.newamericanhorizons.org). Andrea and her learners took a field trip to a hardware store where they looked for items that they might need to solve problems in their apartments. After the field trip, Andrea elicited language from the students to generate a text that captured the events of the outing. The learnergenerated text was used for the remainder of the week to focus on core components of print literacy, such as orthographic awareness, phonological awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Aspects of her lesson that focused on the whole included work with vocabulary, event sequencing tasks, reading the text in pairs, and dialogue practice that simulated calling the landlord to report problems with their apartments. Her lesson targeted the parts through practice with consonant blends from the text (e.g., / th/, /sh/, /ch/), rhyming words, and sentence stress. Using learner-generated texts in general and LEA texts in particular targets the five principles for literacy-level instruction for adult learners outlined by Vinogradov (2008): 1. Keep it in context (i.e., ensure learning is meaningful, authentic, and relevant to learners’ lives). 2. Go Up and Down the Ladder (i.e., implement balanced literacy instruction that incorporates both top-down and bottom-up reading processes). 3. Provide a buffet of learning opportunities (i.e., provide a variety of options for students to process information and demonstrate learning). 4. Tap into strengths (i.e., build on assets such as oral skills, life skills and experience, and strategies for remembering content). 5. Nurture learners’ confidence (i.e., establish routines and predictability, utilize texts that are familiar and recycle them often to build fluency and comfort with recognizing and decoding words). As with the use of narratives, there is at least one caveat worth acknowledging when implementing an approach reliant on learner-generated texts. It can be difficult to determine whether or not to correct students’ language or write exactly what they say when co-creating the text. By way of personal experience, one of the authors (Raichle) generally relies on the learners for the majority of the language and 629

 Leveraging Learner Experience

all of the content; however, she writes the learner-generated text with correct grammatical structures. The justification is that these texts are often used across multiple lessons as the source of content for language and literacy instruction. If students are to receive copies of the text to take home for extensive reading practice, then it seems helpful to provide a grammatical model. Additionally, Raichle’s learners are newcomer literacy level students with emerging oral proficiency. Learners who have spent many years in the settlement country and have likely experienced many successful interactions with native speakers may be more resistant to having their intended utterances altered (Nessel & Dixon, 2008). Nessel and Dixon (2008) suggest relying on the collective language knowledge of the group to come to consensus about what form the text should take. Despite this small challenge, LEA and other approaches to using learner-generated texts offer a readily accessible, contextualized literacy curriculum designed Teaching Tip Anne teaches refugee-background newcomers in a small high school in the U.S. where most of the students are learning English as an additional language. Supported by policies in the state, students can attend high school for several years, even into adulthood. Anne has 16 students in her English class ranging in age from 17 to 30 years old. They come from Somalia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bhutan, Burma, and Iraq. Most of them have been in the school for at least a year. Their L1 literacy levels vary, as do their educational backgrounds. Most attended school for some length of time, although the majority have experienced interruptions in their schooling. At this point, most of them have learned how to ‘do school’ in the U.S., though they still face challenges when navigating certain aspects of U.S. academic culture. In Anne’s classroom, students sit at tables in groups of four, which fosters interaction, collaboration, and community building. Each student has access to Chromebooks. With access to this technology, her students have become very adept at using Google Drive. They regularly collaborate in groups within Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Slides. They also use Google folders to submit work and share files with Anne. Anne developed a unit on Adulting to prepare her students for life after high school. Some of them are interested in pursuing higher education or vocational training, while others are ready to get full time jobs. This lesson centers on a Language Experience Approach, which Anne designed around a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), where Americans go to get their official driver’s license (DL). Contextualizing: Anne begins the lesson with a brainstorm about what it means to be an adult. At their tables, students discuss the roles, responsibilities, and skills that might be unique to adults. Anne tells them to think of the adults in their lives and recall their day-to-day roles and responsibilities. Modeling: Anne shares her own adult roles, responsibilities, and skills as a model for what they might discuss. She elicits another example from a student before they discuss in groups.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bridging: Anne often uses audio recordings in her class; all students have smart phones that they use to make recordings. Anne invites them to reflect individually about their own adulthood. She asks them to choose one of two prompts, think about it for 3-4 minutes, and then record a short reflection using What’s App, which they send to her. One of the prompts asks them to imagine their life back home: what roles and responsibilities would they have? What skills they would need to be successful? The other prompt focuses on adult skills they need to reach their goals here in the U.S. and what milestones they are most excited about. As students work, Anne walks around and supports them with key words and phrases, pronunciation support, and technical assistance. Schema Building: As expected, many of the students expressed interest in getting their driver’s license, getting a car, and in some cases, becoming a driver. Many of them have family members who drive taxis or trucks and they see it as a quick path to employment. Anne tells the students that they will be visiting the DMV the next day. In preparation, she has them work with their groups to generate questions to ask on their visit. She provides them with a graphic organizer (GO) to prepare 1. questions they have for staff at the DMV, 2. a list of locations they want to know about (e.g., front desk, where the driving test is administered), and 3. key vocabulary that will help them access information. Modeling & Developing Metacognition: Next, the students role-play with one another to practice their interactions with staff at the DMV. Anne assumes the role of a DMV staff person and models a dialogue with an advanced student in the class. As the student asks Anne questions from his GO, she demonstrates how the staff person might ask for clarification or demonstrate that she doesn’t understand. She invites the whole class to offer suggestions for how the question or pronunciation might be modified. As they begin their roleplay practice, she tells them to be creative since they will not necessarily know the actual answers. She continues to monitor and offer individualized support as students work to formulate clear questions with appropriate word stress and intonation. She asks them to think about what part of their question might be confusing or how they could clarify their speech. A few pairs come up and demonstrate their role-play for the class.

630

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Teaching Tip Creating a Learner-Generated Text: The day after the field trip, Anne and her students create a text based on their experience. She first projects pictures that she took of them interacting with the staff at the DMV to activate their memory of the trip. The students eagerly share what they recall from their trip, and Anne types into a Google doc that is projected on the screen for everyone to see. Developing Metacognition: As the students provide ideas, Anne pauses periodically so they can read what they have written so far and decide if they should make any changes to content or organization. As this is a high school class, she uses a joint construction approach (see, for example, Gibbons, 2002), which allows her to co-construct the text with the class while stretching them to use more academic language. She encourages them to use newly acquired key vocabulary. Once they have a complete text, they practice reading in their table groups from the Google document. Many other literacy activities can be incorporated at this stage, depending on students’ levels. For example, they can sequence strips from the text, sort words according to first/last letter sounds or rhyme patterns, do timed readings for fluency, etc. Re-presenting Text: Based on their trip and the learner-generated text, Anne presents the students with three options for a final project. Each option below results in a product that will be shared with students in their high school who are interested in getting their driver’s license. For each option, they have to include key information about location, eligibility, cost, driving test requirements, etc. They are expected to use key vocabulary, edit their work, and prepare a professional final product to share with an audience of their peers. They will all have access to a Google folder with pictures from their trip as well as their co-constructed text. Project options include: 1. Digital Story: Individually or in groups, students can use Adobe Spark to make a digital story about their trip. Adobe Spark allows them to narrate slides orally and with text, sequence photos, and add music. They can share the link to their online digital stories with classmates as well as friends at other schools. 2. Informational Brochure: In small groups, students can create a brochure that organizes information about their trip to provide important information about how one gets a driver’s license. These will be delivered to other classes to generate interest and provide key information. 3. Oral Presentation: Pairs or small groups can prepare an oral presentation using Google slides. These students will make a visit to other classes to share what they learned. Modeling: For each of the possible options above, Anne provides an example. This time, she uses samples that she created herself; however, in a future implementation of these lessons, she’ll have this cohort’s projects to share as student-generated examples of what is expected. What did Anne achieve by integrating these pedagogical scaffolding techniques into a lesson based on students’ interests and experiences? Initial scaffolding that contextualized the learning in light of their prior knowledge (about adult roles and responsibilities) embedded the learning in a reality they could all relate to–becoming an adult and reflecting on adults in their lives. She further tapped into their lived experiences by having them reflect in thought and then orally about the roles, responsibilities, and skills they need to reach their goals and be successful as adults. Importantly, she gave them choices of prompts—allowing those who might see themselves as adults in their home country someday to envision that life while others focus on life in the U.S. Allowing these options was important to the students’ sense of self-efficacy and identity. Scaffolding other aspects of the pre-trip lesson through modeling, activating schemata, and developing metacognition not only served the purpose of providing language instruction, but prepared the students for real-world interactions. Knowing that they will have a genuine audience for their questions helped to make the brainstorming and role-play more meaningful. Following the trip, Anne elicited a text based on her students’ experience in their own words. She scaffolded the process by drawing their attention to elements of the text that could be enhanced with key vocabulary or more academic structures. In the end, Anne provided yet another choice for the final project. She intentionally considered the value of ensuring a legitimate audience for their work, which cultivated motivation and incentive to produce quality work.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

around learners’ experiences. The Teaching Tip demonstrates the application of pedagogical scaffolding throughout an LEA unit with young adult refugee-background learners.

Building on Oral Traditions Another way to build on the social and cultural capital of learners is to bring Indigenous oral cultural knowledge into the classroom. Watson (2019) offers ideas for how to accomplish this through storytelling, proverbs, poetry, and other ways of sharing through the strength of orality. What follows is a classroom example that incorporates pedagogical scaffolding into Watson’s idea for how to involve a Somali elder telling a fairytale in a class of refugee-background students. Storytelling, which Watson frames as a practice that relays important factual and cultural knowledge, as well as morals and life les-

631

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leveraging Learner Experience

sons, offers an ideal channel for bringing elders and their wisdom into the classroom, thereby honoring the students’ Indigenous heritage. Somalis have a rich tradition of passing stories orally from generation to generation. Among the stories, there is a well-known fairytale about a monstrous character named Dhegdheer. The story about Dhegdheer is similar to that of Hansel and Gretel from Germany. In both cases, there is an evil woman who eats children. Of course, despite its horror, the purpose of the story is to teach the moral of obedience (lest you be eaten by Dhegdheer). In preparation for the elder’s visit, the teacher can contextualize the story in terms of the fairy tale genre–exploring notions of morals and life lessons embedded in such stories. The class might discuss storytelling traditions to broaden their understanding and appreciation for this way of learning and sharing knowledge. From there, bridging unfolds naturally as students reflect on the role of storytelling and oral traditions in their family. Perhaps they live with elders now or recall living with elders prior to resettlement. What stories do they recall hearing from the elders? What lessons are taught through stories? What are the oratory features employed by the elders in their various cultures to engage audiences? How does storytelling bring people together? Targeting both modeling and building schema with the learners prior to the elder’s visit, the teacher can introduce the story of Hansel and Gretel. After the students listen to and/or read the story as a class, a graphic organizer or a timeline can be used to organize or sequence the events in the story. The teacher can pre-teach vocabulary that will likely span both stories to prepare them for the Somali tale and engage learners in making predictions about how a Somali version of this story might be similar or different. When the Somali elder visits, she tells the tale of Dhegdheer with an interpreter. Watson suggests that the elder also offer her views about why Somali parents might tell this tale to their children (i.e., what is the moral?), perhaps after the class has the opportunity to make their own guesses. After hearing the story (maybe multiple times), the teacher can activate schemata related to Hansel and Gretel by inviting students to compare and contrast the two stories using a Venn (chapati) diagram or another graphic organizer. To activate their language and literacy skills further, the class might engage in multiple options for re-presenting the text. For example, they might illustrate Dhegdheer and caption the pictures, write the tale in their own words, or re-tell it using a multimodal digital storytelling platform that allows them to integrate text, images, and their own voice (perhaps even with some Somali words integrated with the help of the elder and Somali peers). By extension, Watson (2019) further suggests a project in which students create a version of the fairy tale that combines elements from both Hansel and Gretel and Dhegdheer, which could be performed for an audience in the school or community, including Somali elders. Viewing both orality and Indigenous ways of teaching and learning as strengths is important in the education of refugee-background students. When traditional or utilitarian views of literacy (reading and writing) are privileged over other ways of representing and sharing knowledge, learning communities as a whole experience a great loss, though this may sadly go unnoticed. Watson (2019) concludes her compelling chapter on Indigenous education practices with this apt reflection: “Reading, writing and ‘rithmetic are important, but, in the end, the most important lessons taught in refugee-background classrooms may be not so much the ones we teach students as the ones they and their Indigenous cultures teach us” (p. 219).

632

 Leveraging Learner Experience

CONCLUSION As advocates for refugee-background individuals, our aim with this chapter is to support these resilient learners indirectly by contributing to the professional knowledge base of teachers working with this learner population in classrooms around the world. This chapter brings together a longstanding instructional strategy—pedagogical scaffolding—and best practices for teaching adult refugee-background students with interrupted schooling experiences. Namely, we have proposed intentionally applying Walqui’s (2006) framework of six core pedagogical scaffolding techniques to lessons that weave language and literacy practices into learners’ lives in meaningful, relevant, and enjoyable ways. We have offered ideas for how to build on learners’ strengths by connecting learning immediately to their lived experiences, tapping into their linguistic resources, and building on their oral traditions. Within the learning conditions established through pedagogical scaffolding, teachers and learners can effectively employ the target language (as well as heritage and additional languages) to make connections with one another and a range of texts presented and re-presented across modalities. Future classroom-based research should continue to explore the impact and benefit of personal narratives and learner-generated texts for teaching language and literacy to refugee-background adults. Arguably, this research should involve the learners as collaborators and active participants—individuals with wisdom and insights that can inform how and what they learn and share what underlying goals and interests motivate them. Employing narratives in the classroom with the dual purpose of teaching language and conducting research (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Montero, 2018) has the potential to yield many insights about how teachers can leverage learners’ strengths and ways of knowing through culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Freire and Macedo (1987) said that “educators must develop radical pedagogical structures that provide students with the opportunity to use their own reality as a basis of literacy” (p.151). Extant and emerging research on language and literacy development by adults with refugee experience provide a source of hope that narrow conceptions of legitimate knowledge and literacy are declining. Indeed, educational researchers, practitioners, and policymakers worldwide are increasingly recognizing and heralding the value and importance of learners’ Indigenous heritage and ways of knowing, oral traditions, social and Discussion Questions

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. Identify a theme around which to develop a unit on oral and written narratives. What level-appropriate multimodal texts could you include as models? In what ways can you enact the six core scaffolding techniques (i.e., modeling, bridging, contextualizing, activating schema, re-presenting texts, and developing metalinguistic awareness) throughout the unit to maximize language and literacy development and ensure learner success with creating their own narratives? 2. When considering the use of learner-generated texts in the literacy level class, what are your thoughts about the following questions: Should I correct my students’ language when we are co-creating the text or write it exactly as they say it? What are the pros and cons to writing the text in their exact words? How might you discuss options with the learners to explore their preferences? 3. Considering the immigrant or refugee-background learners you work with, what partnerships can you establish in the local community to bring oral Indigenous ways of knowing, learning, and sharing information into your classroom?

633

 Leveraging Learner Experience

cultural capital, multilingual identities, and lived migration experiences. This book is itself a celebration of pedagogical innovation and educational paradigm shifts. As we continue to center on learners’ lives and experiences when developing curriculum, materials, and instructional practices, our educational institutions will evolve into dynamic and responsive spaces that build confidence and a sense of belonging while affirming the multilingual and multicultural identities of our learners and communities.

REFERENCES Auerbach, E. (1992). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum development for adult ESL literacy. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Bigelow, M. (2007). Social and cultural capital at school: The case of a Somali teenage girl with limited formal schooling. In N. R. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition proceedings of symposium. Richmond, VA: Literacy Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University. Bigelow, M. (2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized identity, and education in a new land. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000109 Bigelow, M., & Watson, J. A. (2012). The role of educational level, literacy, and orality in L2 learning. In A. Mackey, & S. Gass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 461–475). London, UK: Routledge. Birch, B. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 154–167. doi:10.1598/RT.58.2.4 Browder, C. T. (2018). Recently resettled refugee students learning English in US high schools: The impact of students’ educational backgrounds. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 17–32). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-006

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bruner, J. S. (1983). The acquisition of pragmatic commitments. In R. Golinkoff (Ed.), The transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication (pp. 27–42). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum. Campbell, P. (2004). Teaching reading to adults: A balanced approach. Edmonton, Canada: Grass Roots Press. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

634

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and Education National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1(4), 1–12. Condelli, L., Wrigley, H. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). “What works” for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder, & J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132–159). New York, NY: Routledge. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York, NY: Routledge. Crandall, B. (2018). ‘History should come first’: Perspectives of Somali-born refugee-background male youth on writing in and out of school. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 33–48). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-007 Crandall, J. A., & Peyton, J. K. (Eds.). (1993). Approaches to adult ESL literacy instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Croydan, A. (2005). Making it real: Teaching pre-literate adult refugee students. Tacoma, Washington: Tacoma Community House Training Project. Custodio, B., & O’ Loughlin, J. B. (2017). Students with interrupted formal education: Bridging where they are and what they need. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. doi:10.4135/9781506359694 DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. (2011). Breaking new ground: Teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education in U.S. secondary schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.1975824 DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, F. (2009). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted formal schooling: A guide for educators. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/ mpub.339205 DelliCarpini, M., & Gulla, A. N. (2006). Sharing stories and developing multiple perspectives in post9/11 classrooms. English Journal, 96(2), 47–51. doi:10.2307/30047127 Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Feuerherm, E. M., & Ramanathan, V. (2016). Introduction to refugee resettlement in the United States: Language, policies, pedagogies. In E. M. Feuerherm, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Refugee resettlement in the United States: Language, policy, pedagogy (pp. 1–17). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.

635

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Fish, B., Knell, E., & Buchanan, H. (2007). Teaching literacy to preliterate adults: The top and the bottom. Retrieved from https://www.tesol.org/convention-2018/tesol-2018-convention-news/2011/11/01/ aeis-news-volume-5-2-(august-2007) Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging new forms of life: The ‘four roles’ model. In G. Bull, & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 52–65). French Forest, Australia: Prentice-Hall. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch9 Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, practice and research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. P. (2010). A situated-sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165–193). New York, NY: Guilford. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Definitions and contexts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Griffiths, G., & Keohane, K. (2000). Personalizing language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 1–14). Newtown: PETA. Hoffman, M. (2019). Including multiple literacies in the classroom. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 21–37. Imel, S. (1998). Using adult learning principles in adult basic and literacy education practice. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED425336.pdf Jones, E. V. (1986). Teaching reading through experience. Life Learning, 9(7), 29–31. Kanu, Y. (2006). Introduction. In Y. Kanu (Ed.), Curriculum as cultural practice: Post-colonial imaginations (pp. 3–29). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. doi:10.3138/9781442686267-002

636

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Krashen, S. D. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel (NRP) report on “fluency”. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 119–123. doi:10.1177/003172170108300208 Kurvers, J., van Hout, R., & Vallen, T. (2006). Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 69–88). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675 Liden, A., Poulos, A., & Vinogradov, P. (2008). Building literacy in emergent adult readers. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual TESOL Convention, New York City, NY. Liscio, J., & Farrelly, R. (2019). Exploring notions of success through the social and cultural capital of adult refugee-background students. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 131–152. London, N. A. (2001). Curriculum and pedagogy in the development of colonial imagination: A subversive agenda. Canadian and International Education, 30(1), 41–76. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. Miyahara, M. (2010). Researching identity and language learning: Taking a narrative approach. Language Research Bulletin, 25, 1–15. Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Rethinking its instructional implications. [Childhood and Learning]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 13(51-52), 157–168. doi:10.1080/02103702.1990. 10822276

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 Montero, M. K. (2018). Narratives of trauma and self-healing processes in a literacy program for adolescent refugee newcomers. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 92–106). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-011 Naidoo, L., & Adoniou, M. (2019). “I speak 19 languages”: Accessing the linguistic and cultural resources of students from refugee backgrounds. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 111–130.

637

 Leveraging Learner Experience

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Nessel, D. D., & Dixon, C. N. (2008). Using the language experience approach (LEA) with English language learners: Strategies for engaging students and developing literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Omerbašić, D. (2018). Girls with refugee backgrounds creating digital landscapes of knowing. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 66–81). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-009 Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203328064 Pavlenko, A. (2008). Narrative analysis in the study of bi- and multilingualism. In L. Wei, & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 311–325). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pierson, S. J. (2014). The power of story: Using personal narrative, computer technology and podcasting with young adult English language learners. Teaching English with Technology, 14(4), 3–16. Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(1), 163–184. doi:10.1177/1477878511409776 Semali, L. M., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). What is Indigenous knowledge?: Voices from the academy. New York, NY: Routledge. Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Curry, M. J. (Eds.). (2018). Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Tomaš, Z. (2014). Fostering international student success in higher education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Shapiro, S., & MacDonald, M. T. (2017). From deficit to asset: Locating discursive resistance in a refugee-background student’s written and oral narrative. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 16(2), 80–93. doi:10.1080/15348458.2016.1277725 Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to the Carnegie corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Stewart, M. A. (2015). “My journey of hope and peace”: Learning from adolescent refugees’ lived experiences. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 149–150. doi:10.1002/jaal.445 Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. London, UK: Longman.

638

 Leveraging Learner Experience

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 77–97. doi:10.1017/ S0267190505000048 Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. H. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and processing of oral corrective feedback in the L2. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 101–121). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Trupke-Bastidas, J., & Poulos, A. (2007). Improving literacy of L1-non-literate and L1-literate adult English as a second language learners. MinneTESOL Journal, 24. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TESOL-2007.pdf UNESCO. (2005). Aspects of literacy assessment: Topics and issues from the UNESCO Expert Meeting, June 10-12, 2003. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf000014012 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2017. Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/literac van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London, UK: Longman. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kuhler. doi:10.1007/1-4020-7912-5 Vinogradov, P. (2008). “Maestra! The letters speak.” Adult ESL students learning to read for the first time. MinneTESOL, 25. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ TESOL-2008.pdf Vinogradov, P. (2009). Balancing top and bottom: Learner-generated texts for teaching phonics. In T. Wall, & M. Leong (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the 5th annual symposium (pp. 3–14). Calgary, AB: Bow Valley College.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vinogradov, P., & Bigelow, M. (2010). Using oral language skills to build on the emerging literacy of adult English learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639 Watson, J. (2019). Understanding Indigenous education practices as a way of engaging deeply with refugee-background students (and everyone else) in the classroom. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 203–224.

639

Leveraging Learner Experience

Weinstein, G. (1999). Learners’ lives as curriculum: Six journeys to immigrant literacy. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Company Inc. Weinstein, G. (2006). Learners’ lives as curriculum. In G. H. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 159–165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Williams, A., & Chapman, L. (2007). Meeting diverse needs: Content-based language teaching and settlement needs for low literacy adult ESL immigrants. In M. Young-Scholten, (Ed.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the third annual forum (pp 49–60). Durham, UK: Roundtuit Publishing. Wilson, A. A., & Chavez, K. J. (2014). Reading and representing across the content areas. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wood, D. J. (1988). How children think and learn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Wrigley, H. S. (2009). Serving low literate immigrant and refugee youth: Challenges and promising practices. In T. Wall, & M. Leong (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the 5th symposium (pp. 25–41). Calgary, Canada: Bow Valley College. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Interrupted Formal Education: The condition of having gaps in one’s education for various reasons, including, but not limited to, forced or voluntary migration due to a range of mitigating factors, domestic responsibilities, gender identity, or inability to pay school fees. Language Experience Approach (LEA): An instructional method for eliciting learner-generated texts based on shared experiences. The underlying principle of LEA is to use the learners’ own vocabulary and lived experiences as the basis for creating reading texts so that content is familiar, relevant, and accessible. Linguistic Capital: A strength or asset associated with a multilingual identity that an individual can leverage through communication for various social, cultural, educational, and political purposes. Oral Traditions: Ways of knowing and learning that are grounded in orality or oral communication that is less dependent, if at all, on reading and writing traditions. These are often associated with Indigenous or native ways of knowing, sharing information, and relating to the world. Pedagogical Scaffolding: An instructional approach to enhancing the quality of instruction such that language learners’ can more readily access and use the target language and be successful with their learning. Features of pedagogical scaffolding presented in this chapter are modeling, bridging, contextualizing, activating schema, re-presenting texts, and developing metalinguistic awareness. Personal Narratives: Stories that draw on personal, often emotional experiences, whether real or imagined. They generally evoke a response in readers because of their ability to capture and reflect authentic human experiences.

640

Leveraging Learner Experience

Refugee-background: A term often used to refer to individuals who have refugee experience, which means they were forced to flee their country for a variety of possible reasons, including war, violence, fears of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, economic crises, or climate disasters. Social and Cultural Capital: Actual or potential resources that an individual can draw on from within their social networks, relationships, cultural traditions, knowledge, and practices. Individuals can leverage their social and cultural capital to gain certain social advantages or reach individual goals. Storytelling: The act and art of sharing elements of a story orally and visually through spoken words, gestures, and images while involving listeners by engaging their imagination and encouraging their participation. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): The representation of the space in which ideal conditions for learning are established through scaffolding or support provided by a more experienced or capable peer. The ZPD reflects the distance between what an individual can do alone (actual level of development) and what the same individual can do with guidance from another.

ENDNOTES

2



The term Indigenous reflects the identity of individuals, not unlike Spanish, American or European. The Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) and The Diversity Style Guide (https://www. diversitystyleguide.com/) urge that Indigenous be capitalized. (See also the guidelines from Indigenous Corporate Training, Inc. for appropriate terminology when referring to Indigenous Peoples: https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-terminology-guidelines-for-usage) See Montero (2018) for a useful list of resources related to trauma, trauma-informed care, and psychological distress in refugee youth.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1

641

Leveraging Learner Experience

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS 1. Bigelow, M. (2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized identity, and education in a new land. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. This book presents a five-year long interdisciplinary study exploring the experiences of the Somali population in Minnesota with a lens on language learning, multilingual identity, multiple literacy development, and school and community participation. Bigelow establishes relationships with her research participants, thus gaining tremendous insights about language learning in relation to their racialized, religious, and gendered identities. 2. Custodio, B., & O’Loughlin, J. B. (2017). Students with interrupted formal education: Bridging where they are and what they need. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. This book is a good foundational read for anyone who teaches refugee-background adolescents or adults in a school setting, particularly in the U.S. or countries with similar educational systems. The book begins with an introduction to Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) and concludes with practical steps to provide social, emotional, and school-based support to SIFE. 3. Cirocki, A. & Farrelly, R. (Eds.) (2019). Current Perspectives on Teaching English to Refugeebackground Students [Special Issue]. European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 8(1). This is a special issue consisting of ten articles focusing on the theme of Current Perspectives on Teaching English to Refugee-background Students. Articles span a range of topics including reading pedagogy for young adults, multiple literacies, digital storytelling, encountering and accommodating diversity, assessing linguistic and cultural resources, social positioning and intercontextuality, and understanding Indigenous education practices.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

4. Wajnryb, R. (2003).  Stories: Narrative activities in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. This is a practical book for teachers who are looking to incorporate more stories into their English language classes. The materials are best suited to adolescent and adult learners. The author provides procedures for various classroom activities, teaching tips, and a bank of stories that span the narrative genres. 5. Wrigley, H. S. & Guth, G. (2000). Bringing ESL literacy to life: Issues and options in adult ESL literacy. Las Cruces, NM: Literacywork International. This book offers a blend of theory and practice to help practitioners and programs make informed decisions about teaching literacy to adults in their own particular context. The book includes ten curriculum modules, written by teachers in the field, which aim to illustrate some of the best practices that adult ESL literacy has to offer. (Available at https://www.leslla.org/books) 642

643

Compilation of References

Aase, L., Fleming, M., Pieper, I., & Sâmihăian, F. (2007). Text, literature, and “Bildung”: Comparative perspectives. In I. Pieper (Ed.), Languages as a subject in languages of education (pp. 6 ̶ 30). Prague, Czech Republic: Language Policy Division. Council of Europe. Abbott, M., Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., Fenstermacher, H., Fischer, D., Rivers, W. P., . . . Wiley, T. (2014). The language enterprise: Languages for all? Retrieved from https://www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/LFA2013_FinalReport.pdf Abdel-Hack, E. M., & Helwa, H. S. A.-H. A. (2014). Using digital storytelling and weblogs instruction to enhance EFL narrative writing and critical thinking skills among EFL majors at faculty of education. Educational Research, 5(1), 8–41. Aberdeen, T. (2016). Understanding community heritage language schools in Alberta. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Canada. Aber, J. L., Tubbs, C., Torrente, C., Halpin, P. F., Johnston, B., Starkey, L., ... Wolf, S. (2017). Promoting children’s learning and development in conflict-affected countries: Testing change process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Development and Psychopathology, 29(1), 53–67. doi:10.1017/S0954579416001139 PMID:27866501 Abid, R. Z., & Manan, S. A. (2015). Integrating corpus linguistics in critical literacy pedagogy: A case study of Lance Armstrong’s transformation from a titleholder to a fraud. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208(20), 128–137. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.189 Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2002). Reading, writing, orthographic, phonological, syntactic and memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Arab children in Canada. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(6), 661–678. doi:10.1023/A:1021221206119 PMID:12599919 Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic–Hebrew– English-speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing, 16(7), 611–634. doi:10.1023/A:1025838029204

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adami, H. (2008). The role of literacy in the acculturation process of migrants. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fc1b7 Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J. (2008). The limits of the self-teaching hypothesis. In S. B. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America: Top experts tackle poverty, literacy, and achievement in our schools (pp. 277–300). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.



Compilation of References

Adams, M., & Bell, L. A. (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315775852 Adler, J. A. (2002). Chinese religions. London, UK: Routledge. Aerila, J.-A. (2010). Fiktiivisen kirjallisuuden maailmasta monikulttuuriseen Suomeen. Ennakointikertomus kirjallisuudenopetuksen ja monikulttuurisuuskasvatuksen välineenä [From the world of fiction to multicultural Finland] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-4222-0 Aerila, J.-A., & Kauppinen, M. (2019). Lukukipinä. Pedagogisia keinoja lukuinnon herättelyyn. [Spark for reading: Pedagogical approaches for the enjoyment of reading]. Jyväskylä, Finland: PS-kustannus. Aerila, J.-A., & Kokkola, L. (2013). Multicultural literature and the use of literature in multicultural education in Finland. Bookbird Journal, 51(2), 39–50. doi:10.1353/bkb.2013.0023 Aerila, J.-A., & Merisuo-Storm, T. (2017). Emergent readers and the joy of reading: A Finnish perspective. Creative Education, 8(15), 2485–2500. doi:10.4236/ce.2017.815171 Aerila, J.-A., Niinistö, E.-M., Kallio, H., Toivanen, M., Heino, S., & Äimälä, P. (2014). Lukuintoa etsimässä. [Looking for engagement in reading]. In P. Atjonen, H. Happonen, J. Korkki, T. Lehikoinen-Suviranta, R. Patrikainen, & E. Vähän (Eds.), Ohjausta, harjoittelua ja oppimista. Teoria ja käytäntö ohjatussa harjoittelussa. Suomen harjoittelukoulujen julkaisuja [Guidance, practice and learning. Theory and practice]. (pp. 110–125). Joensuu, Finland: The Department of Teacher Education in Joensuu, University of Eastern Finland. Aerila, J.-A., Rönkkö, M.-L., & Grönman, S. (2019). Arts-based activities and stories convey children’s learning experiences. In K. J. Kerry-Moran, & J.-A. Aerila (Eds.), Story in the lives of children: Contributions of the narrative mode (pp. 333–353). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19266-2_17 Aerila, J.-A., Soininen, M., & Merisuo-Storm, T. (2016). Literature as a tool in multicultural education. Perceptions of Finnish student teachers on reading multicultural literature in Finland. Research & Reviews Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 53–62. Ahmed, S. F., Tang, S., Waters, N. E., & Davis-Kean, P. (2019). Executive function and academic achievement: Longitudinal relations from early childhood to adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 446–458. doi:10.1037/ edu0000296 Aiello, G. (2006). Theoretical advances in critical visual analysis: Perception, ideology, mythologies, and social semiotics. Journal of Visual Literacy, 26(2), 89–102. doi:10.1080/23796529.2006.11674635 Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 381–403. doi:10.1023/A:1008053520326

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Al Ajlan, A. (2019). Older refugees in Germany: What are the reasons for the difficulties in language-learning? Journal of Refugee Studies. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jrs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jrs/fez056/5532152 Alamillo, L. A., & Arenas, R. (2012). Chicano children’s literature: Using bilingual children’s books to promote equity in the classroom. Multicultural Education, 19(4), 53 ̶ 62. Albers, J. (2013). Interaction of color (4th ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alcantud-Díaz, M. (2016). Digital storytelling with pre-service teachers. Raising awareness for refugees through ICTs in ESL primary classes. Digital Education Review, 30, 1–16. Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115̶129. 644

Compilation of References

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude, and foreign language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 93–121. doi:10.1177/136216889700100202 Alim, H. S., Ibrahim, A., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2008). Global linguistic flows: Hip hop cultures, youth identities, and the politics of language. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203892787 Alisaari, J. (2016). Songs and poems in the second language classroom: The hidden potential of singing for development writing fluency (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-6673-8 Allan, G. Q. (1999). Enhancing the language awareness of Hong Kong teachers through corpus data. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 57–74. Allen, P. T. (2012). Media transformations: Framing, multimodality and visual literacy in contemporary media spaces (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bradford, UK. Allen, J. (2009). At mentalisere i praksis. [Mentalization in practice] In J. Allen, J. H. Sørensen, P. Fonagy, & A. Slade (Eds.), Mentaliseringsbaseret behandling i teori og praksis [Mentalization based treatment in theory and practice]. (pp. 17–41). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Allington, R., & Gabriel, R. (2012). Every child, every day. Reading. The Core Skill, 69(6), 10–15. Almasi, J. F., & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and discussion of text. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 470 ̶ 493). New York, NY: Routledge. Alston-Abel, N. L., & Berninger, V. W. (2018). Relationships between home literacy practices and school achievement: Implications for consultation and home–school collaboration. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 28(2), 164–189. doi:10.1080/10474412.2017.1323222 PMID:30083040 Alsup, J. (2015). A case for teaching literature in the secondary school: Why reading fiction matters in an age of scientific objectivity and standardization. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315742069 Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Altherr Flores, J. A. (2017). Social semiotics and multimodal assessment of L2 adult emergent readers from refugee backgrounds. In M. Sosinski (Ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje de idiomas por adultos: investigación, política educativa y práctica docente [Adult literacy and language learning: Research, educational policy, and teaching practice] (pp. 9–31). Granada, Spain: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Altherr Flores, J. A. (2018). Decoding citizenship in USCIS naturalization test materials: A critical social semiotic analysis. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 6(1), 22–50.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content reading and literacy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1999). Adolescents’ perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in after-school read and talk clubs. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 221–264. doi:10.3102/00028312036002221 Alves, U. K. (2009). Conciência dos aspectos fonético-fonológicos da L2. [Awareness about the phonetic-phonological aspects of the L2] In R. Lamprecht (Ed.), Consciência dos sons da língua: Subsídios teóricos e práticos para alfabetizadores, fonoaudiólogos e professores de língua inglesa [Awareness of speech sounds: Theoretical and practical resources for literacy instructors, speech therapists, and English language teachers] (pp. 201–231). Porto Alegre, Spain: EDIPUCRS. Amer, A. (2012). Using literature in reading English as second/foreign language. ERIC Collection (ED528593).

645

Compilation of References

Amsden, J., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2005). Community mapping as a research tool with youth. Action Research, 3(4), 357–381. doi:10.1177/1476750305058487 Anand, P. (2017). Integrated skills testing in an academic English program: a potential to increase written proficiency In J. Demperio, M. Deraiche, R. Dewart, & B. Zuercher (Eds.), Proceedings of meeting on language teaching (pp. 2 ̶ 16). Montreal, Canada: UQAM. Anand, P. (2018). Testing regime change as innovation: Washback potential over time (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carleton University, Canada. Anderson, A. R. (2012). Implementing literature circles: An experimental study in an English language learners’ classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minnesota. Anderson, A. B., Teale, W. H., & Estrada, E. (1980). Low-income children’s preschool literacy experiences: Some naturalistic observations. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2, 59–65. Anderson, G. L., & Irvine, P. (1993). Informing critical literacy with ethnography. In P. L. McLaren, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 81–104). New York, NY: State University of New York. Anderson, J. (2005). Mechanically inclined: Building grammar, usage, and style into writer’s workshop. New York, NY: Stenhouse Publishers. Anderson, J., & Macleroy, V. (2017). Connecting worlds: Interculturality, identity and multilingual digital stories in the making. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(4), 494–517. doi:10.1080/14708477.2017.1375592 Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Longman. Anderson, R. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss and implications for clinical practice. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 187–212). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2 Angelovska, T., Krulatz, A., & Šurkalović, D. (in press). Predicting EFL teacher candidates’ preparedness to work with multilingual learners: Snapshots from three European Universities. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL. Anh, P. H. M., & Lee, Y.-S. (2008). A study on the classifications and symbolic meanings of Vietnamese traditional patterns. International Journal of Human Ecology, 9(1), 29–40.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Anonby, S. (2007). A report on the creoles of Amapá. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?d oi=10.1.1.486.9617&rep=rep1&type=pdf Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2011). Helping teachers to explore multimodal texts. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 8(16). Retrieved from www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/helping_teachers_to_explore_multimodal_texts,31522.html?issuesID=12141 Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., & Masterson, J. (2019). Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading and Writing, 32(4), 873–889. doi:10.100711145-018-9895-9 Apol, L. (1998). “But what does this have to do with kids?”: Literary theory and children’s literature in the teacher education classroom. Journal of Children’s Literature, 24(2), 32 ̶ 46. 646

Compilation of References

Appleyard, J. A. (1998). Becoming a reader: The experience of fiction from childhood to adulthood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Archibald, A. (2004). Writing in a second language. Retrieved from http://www.lang.itsn.ac.uk/index.aspx Arciuli, J. (2018). Reading as statistical learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3S), 634–643. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-STLT1-17-0135 PMID:30120442 Areklett, K. M., Pettersen, S., Røkaas, F., & Tørnby, H. (2013). Stages 8. Oslo, Norway: Aschehaug. Areklett, K. M., Pettersen, S., Røkaas, F., & Tørnby, H. (2014). Stages 9. Oslo, Norway: Aschehaug. Areklett, K. M., Pettersen, S., Røkaas, F., & Tørnby, H. (2015). Stages 10. Oslo, Norway: Aschehaug. Aristotle. (2009). Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html (Original work published 350 BCE). Arizpe, E. (2013). Meaning-making from wordless (or nearly wordless) picturebooks: What educational research expects and what readers have to say. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2), 163–176. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.767879 Arizpe, E., Bagelman, C., Devlin, A. M., Farrell, M., & McAdam, J. E. (2014). Visualizing intercultural literacy: Engaging critically with diversity and migration in the classroom through an image-based approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(3), 304–321. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.903056 Arizpe, E., Colomer, T., & Martínez-Roldán, C. (2014). Visual journeys through wordless narratives. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Armour, W. S. (2001). This guy is Japanese stuck in a white man’s body: A discussion of meaning making, identity slippage, and cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/01434630108666422 Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2019). Introduction. In D. Singleton, & L. Aronin (2019), Twelve lectures on multilingualism (pp. 13-26). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Asadi, B. (2016). Blogging or paper-and-pencil writing? Evidence from an Iranian academic L2 setting. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 4(5), 60–67. Asghari, M., & Salmani, B. (2016). Cultural-context adaptation in translation of children’s short stories from English to Persian. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 965 ̶ 971. Askew, A. (2018). Cinderella. London, UK: Quarto Publishing PLC.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Assaf, L. C., & López, M. M. (2012). Reading rocks: Creating a space for preservice teachers to become responsive teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(4), 365–381. doi:10.1080/10901027.2012.732667 Association of English teachers of the Dominican Republic (RD-TESOL) affirms the greatest educational failure in DR is not learning English (2019, September 14). Dominican Today. Retrieved from https://dominicantoday.com/dr/ local/2019/09/14/affirms-the-greatest-educational-failure-in-dr-is-not-learning-english/ Aston, G. (1996). The British National Corpus as a language learner resource. In S. Botley, J. Glass, A. McEnery, & A. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of TALC 1996 (pp. 178–191). Lancaster, UK: UCREL. Attard, E. (2005). Ali Baba and the forty thieves. London, UK: Mantra Lingua. Auerbach, E. R. (1992). Making meaning, making change. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

647

Compilation of References

Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–33. doi:10.2307/3586949 Auernheimer, G. (2006). The German education system: Dysfunctional for an immigration society. European Education, 37(4), 75–89. doi:10.2753/EUE1056-4934370406 Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute. August, D., Calderón, M., & Carlo, M. (2002). Transfer of skills from Spanish to English: A study of young learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(3), 341–348. doi:10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745 Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297–319. doi:10.1080/10862969809548000 Au, K., & Kawakami, J. (2012). Culture and ownership: Schooling of minority students. Childhood Education, 67(5), 280–284. doi:10.1080/00094056.1991.10520812 Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2018). International student data 2018. Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Pages/InternationalStudentData2018.aspx Austring, B. D., & Sørensen, M. (2009). Æstetik og læring. Grundbog om æstetiske læreprocesser [Aesthetics and learning. Textbook on aesthetic learning processes]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Aydin, H., & Kaya, Y. (2019). Education for Syrian refugees: The new global issue facing teachers and principals in Turkey. Educational Studies, 55(1), 46–71. doi:10.1080/00131946.2018.1561454 Aydin, S. (2014). The use of blogs in learning English as a foreign language. [MIJE]. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(1), 244–259. doi:10.13054/mije.13.79.4.1 Bacchilega, C., & Alohalani Brown, M. (2019). The Penguin book of mermaids. London, UK. Penguin Classics.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 449 ̶ 465. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Badger, R., & MacDonald, M. (2010). Making it real: Authenticity, process, and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 578 ̶ 582. Baker, P. (2011). Discourse, news representations, and corpus linguistics. Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, UK. 648

Compilation of References

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, P. (2010). Will Ms ever be as frequent as Mr? A corpus-based comparison of gendered terms across four diachronic corpora of British English. Gender and Language, 4(1), 125–149. doi:10.1558/genl.v4i1.125 Baker, P. (2013). Introduction. Virtual special issue of Gender and Language on corpus approaches. Gender and Language, 1(1). doi:10.1558/8psxqda5wh3d Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62–70. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr017 Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: Student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), 437–451. doi:10.1080/14708477.2016.1168053 Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2006). Perceptual paths to accurate production of L2 vowels: The role of individual differences. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(3), 231–250. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2006.010 Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). “Speech genres” and other late essays (VW McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979). Bakhtin, M. M., & Medvedov, P. N. (1985). The formal method in literary scholarship (A. J. Wehrle, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1928). Ball, J. (2014, February 21). Children learn better in their mother tongue: Advancing research on mother tongue-based multilingual education. Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/children-learn-better-their-mother-tongue Ball, E. W. (1997). Phonological awareness: Implications for whole language and emergent literacy programs. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(3), 14–26. doi:10.1097/00011363-199705000-00004 Ball, J. (2011). Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Paris, France: UNESCO; Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000212270?posInSet=6&queryId=8ae24925-3f0b-4863880a-6478f49bceb7 Bamford, A. (2003). The visual literacy white paper. Retrieved from https://www.aperture.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/ visual-literacy-wp.pdf Bamford, A. (2010–2011). Arts and cultural education in Norway. Retrieved from https://www.kulturskoleradet.no/ upload/bruker/dokumenter/Dokumentarkiv/10_Forskning/2012_Arts_and_Cultural_Education_in_Norway.pdf Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of arts in education. Berlin, Germany: Waxmann.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bamgbose, A. (2014). The language factor in development goals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(7), 646–657. doi:10.1080/01434632.2014.908888 Banerjee, J., & Wall, D. (2006). Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 50 ̶ 69. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. Hoboken, NJ: John R. Wiley & Sons. Bao, Y., Yang, T., Lin, X., Fang, Y., Wang, Y., Pöppel, E., & Lei, Q. (2016). Aesthetic preferences for Eastern and Western traditional visual art: Identity matters. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01596/full

649

Compilation of References

Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 36–54. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000339 Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01707.x PMID:22313034 Barczewska, S., & Andreasen, A. (2018). Good or marvelous? Pretty, cute, or lovely? Male and female adjective use in MICASE. [Contemporary Linguistics]. Suvremena Lingvistika, 44(86), 194–213. Barkhuizen, G. (2017). Investigating multilingual identity in study abroad contexts: A short story analysis approach. System, 71, 102–112. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.09.014 Bärlund, P., & Kauppinen, M. (2017). Teaching heritage German and Russian through authentic material in Jyväskylä, Finland: A case study. L1 Educational Studies in Languages and Literature, 17, 1–23. Bär, M. (2009). Förderung von Mehrsprachigkeit und Lernkompetenz – Fallstudien zu Interkomprehensionsunterricht mit Schülern der Klassen 8 bis 10 [Promoting multilingualism and learning competence –Case studies on intercomprehension teaching with pupils in grades 8 to 10]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. London, UK: Open University Press. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/4635.001.0001 Barr, A., Gillard, J., Firth, V., Scrymgour, M., Welford, R., Lomax-Smith, J., & Constable, E. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. South Victoria, Australia: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Barratt-Pugh, C. (2002). The socio-cultural context of literacy learning. In C. Barratt-Pugh & M. Rohl (Eds.), Literacy learning in the early years (pp. 1–26). NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Barrett, J. (1994). Why is English still the medium of education in Tanzanian secondary schools? Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 7(1), 3–16. doi:10.1080/07908319409525162 Bartels, N. (2009). Knowledge about language. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 125–134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image–Music–Text (S. Heath, Trans.) (pp. 142–148). New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux. Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2003). Blogging to learn. Knowledge Tree e-journal. Retrieved from http://Knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition04/pdf/Blogging_to_learn.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bartlett, L. (2005). Identity work and cultural artefacts in literacy learning and use: A sociocultural analysis. Language and Education, 19(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/09500780508668801 Bartlett, L. (2007). To seem and to feel: Situated identities and literacy practices. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 51–69. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, UK: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, UK: Routledge. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/09658410208667042 650

Compilation of References

Bauer, L., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (1998). Language myths. London, UK: Penguin. Baumann, B., & Terrasi-Haufe, E. (2015). Umbrüche und Chancen mit der Bildungssprache Deutsch – drei Projekte, drei Modelle [Upheavals and opportunities with German as the language of instruction: Three projects, three models]. Retrieved from https://www.mercator-institut-sprachfoerderung.de/themenportal/thema/umbrueche-und-chancen-mitder-bildungssprache-deutsch-drei-projekte-drei-modelle/ Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/referenceguides/bawarshi-reiff/ Baynham, M. (1995). Literacies practices. Essex, UK: Longman. Bayram, F., Prada, J., Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2018). Why should formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition be linked to heritage language pedagogies? In P. P. Trifonas, & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 187–206). Norwell, MA: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44694-3_48 Beacco, J. C. (2005). Languages and language repertoires: Plurilingualism as a way of life in Europe. Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/languages-and-language-repertoires-plurilingualism-as-a-way-of-life-in/16802fc1ba Beacco, J.-C. (2013). Specifying languages’ contribution to intercultural education: lessons learned from the CEFR. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/specifying-languages-contribution-to-intercultural-education-lessons-l/16808ae53b Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2016). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/ CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806ae621 Beacco, J.-C., Little, D., & Hedges, C. (2014). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Guide to policy development and implementation. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Beach, R. (2006). Teachingmedialiteracy.com: A web-linked guide to resources and activities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Beach, R. (2009). Digital tools for collecting, connecting, constructing, responding to, creating, and conducting media ethnographies of audience use of media texts. In R. Hammer & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 206–228). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Bean, J., Eddy, R., Grego, R., Irvine, P., Kutz, E., Matsuda, P. K., & Lehner, A. (2003). Should we invite students to write in home languages? Complicating the yes/no debate. Composition Studies, 31(1), 25 ̶ 42.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, F. (2015). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers. London, UK: Kogan Page. Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Roth, H.-J. (2017). Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlegende Begriffe und Konzepte. [Linguistic education - Basic terms and concepts] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, & H.-J. Roth (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder [Linguistic education – basics and fields of action]. (pp. 11–36). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Behrman, H. (2006). Teaching about power, language, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(6), 490–498. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.6.4

651

Compilation of References

Behr, U. (2007). Sprachenübergreifendes Lernen und Lehren in der Sekundarstufe I [Cross-lingual learning and teaching in lower secondary education]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Beiser, M., & Hou, F. (2000). Acquisition and employment consequences among southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(3), 311–330. doi:10.2307/3552403 Benmayor, R. (2012). Digital testimonio as a signature pedagogy for Latin@ Studies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(3), 507–524. doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.698180 Benseman, J. (2014). Adult refugee learners with limited literacy: Needs and effective responses. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 30(1), 93–103. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bergman Deitcher, D., Aram, D., & Adar, G. (2017). Book selection for shared reading: Parents’ considerations and researchers’ views. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 19(3), 291 ̶ 315. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475–509. Berne, J. (2004). Think-aloud protocol and adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 14(3), 153–173. Bernhard, J. K., Cummins, J., Campoy, F. I., Ada, A. F., Winsler, A., & Bleiker, C. (2006). Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers College Read, 108(11), 2380–2405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00786.x Bernhardt, E. B. (1990). A model of L2 text reconstruction: The recall of literary text by learners of German. In A. Labraca, & L. M. Bailey (Eds.), Issues in L2: Theory as practice/practice as theory. (pp. 21 ̶ 24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15 ̶ 34. Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 65–84. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020040-00007 Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. doi:10.1080/01425699995380 Berry, R. (2014). Investigating language awareness: The role of terminology. In A. Łyda, & K. Szcześniak (Eds.), Awareness in action: The role of consciousness in language acquisition (pp. 21–34). Bern, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Berthrong, J. (2003). Confucian views of nature. In H. Selin (Ed.), Nature across cultures (pp. 373–392). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_19 Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge. Bhaktin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bhatia, V. K. (1991). A genre‐based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10(2), 153–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467971X.1991.tb00148.x Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica, 4, 3–9. Retrieved from https://doaj. org/article/14e30e86bb124220aea214f382b40298 Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London, UK: Continuum. 652

Compilation of References

Bhola, H. S. (1994). A sourcebook for literacy work: Perspective from the grassroots. Paris, France: UNESCO. Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/ Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 65(4), 229–235. Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. American Psychological Association, 143(3), 233–262. Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29(1), 81–103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01053.x Bialystok, E. (1992). Symbolic representation of letters and numbers. Cognitive Development, 7(3), 301–316. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(92)90018-M Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605963 Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52(1), 159–199. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00180 Bialystok, E. (2006). The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In T. Bhatia, & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 577–601). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. doi:10.1002/9780470756997.ch22 Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210–223. doi:10.2167/beb441.0 Bialystok, E. (2015). Bilingualism and the development of executive function: The role of attention. Child Development Perspectives, 9(2), 117–121. doi:10.1111/cdep.12116 PMID:26019718 Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. doi:10.1177/1529100610387084 PMID:26168404 Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290–303. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.290 PMID:15222822 Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2011). Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. In A. Y. Durgunoglu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy development in bilingual settings (pp. 121–138). New York, NY: Guilford. Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sorting task. Developmental Science, 7(3), 325–339. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00351.x PMID:15595373

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Biancarosa, G., & Shanley, L. (2016). What is fluency? In K. D. Cummings, & Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_1 Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. doi:10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib Bickerton, D. (2009). Bastard tongues: A trailblazing linguist finds clues to our common humanity in the world’s lowliest languages. New York, NY: Hill & Wang. Bigelow, M. (2007). Social and cultural capital at school: The case of a Somali teenage girl with limited formal schooling. In N. R. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition proceedings of symposium. Richmond, VA: Literacy Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University.

653

Compilation of References

Bigelow, B. (2006). The line between us: Teaching about the border and Mexican immigration. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Bigelow, M. (2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized identity, and education in a new land. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Bigelow, M., & Schwarz, R. L. (2010). Adult English language learners with limited literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 689–700. doi:10.2307/3588285 Bigelow, M., Vanek, J., King, K., & Abdi, N. (2017). Literacy as social (media) practice: Refugee youth and native language literacy at school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 183–197. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.002 Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000109 Bigelow, M., & Watson, J. A. (2012). The role of educational level, literacy, and orality in L2 learning. In A. Mackey, & S. Gass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 461–475). London, UK: Routledge. Bigot, V., Bretegnier, A., & Vasseur, M. (Eds.). (2014). Vers le plurilinguisme? Vingt ans après. Paris, France: Editions des archives contemporaines. Billings, E. (2009). Prescriptions to read: Early literacy promotion outside the classroom. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning, 13(1–2), 81 ̶ 101. Binnenpoorte, D., van Bael, C., den Os, E., & Boves, L. (2005). Gender in everyday speech and language: A corpusbased study. Retrieved from https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2005/i05_2213.pdf Birch, B. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Biria, R., & Abadi, M. A. N. (2016). A generic assessment of Persian translations of English fairy tales and fairy tales written in Persian: From a cultural perspective. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 176–183. Birkeland, T., Mjør, I., & Teigland, A.-S. (2018). Barnelitteratur: sjangarar og teksttypar [Children’s literature: Genre and types of texts]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm. Birketveit, A., & Rimmereide, H. E. (2017). Using authentic picture books and illustrated books to improve L2 writing among 11-year-olds. Language Learning Journal, 45(1), 100–116. doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.833280

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Birman, D., & Tran, N. (2017). When worlds collide: Academic adjustment of Somali Bantu students with limited formal education in a U.S. elementary school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 132–144. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2017.06.008 Birner, A., & Bromley, L. (2015). Critical literacy: Using picturebooks to read the world. Journalism, 5(3), 132–142. Bishop, E. (2014). Critical literacy: Bringing theory to praxis. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(1), 51–63. Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives - Gerontological Nursing Association, 6(3), 9–11. Bissex, G. L. (1980). GNYS at WRK: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Biswas, S. (2014). How to teach multiliteracies? The Canadian Journal for Teacher Research, 1(1), 40 ̶ 47.

654

Compilation of References

Bizzell, P. (2010, October). English only? Composition instruction in a multilingual, competitive liberal arts college. Paper presented at the Watson Conference, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7 ̶ 74. Blackledge, A. (2000). Power relations and the social construction of “literacy” and “illiteracy”: The experience of Bangladeshi women in Birmingham. In M. Martin-Jones, & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). Bilingual language switching in the laboratory versus in the wild: The spatiotemporal dynamics of adaptive language control. Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 37(37), 9022–9036. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-17.2017 PMID:28821648 Bland, J. (2015). From a global language to global citizenship: Stories for tolerance and worldmindedness. In C. Lütge (Ed.), Global education: Perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 129–153). Münster, Germany: LIT. Bland, J. (2018). Children’s literature and learner empowerment. Children and teenagers in English language education. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Bland, J. (Ed.). (2018). Using literature in English language education, challenging reading for 8–18 year olds. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 154–167. doi:10.1598/RT.58.2.4 Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 342–367. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.3.5 Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/3577.001.0001 Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6(1), 33–43. Bobkina, J., & Stefanova, S. (2016). Literature and critical literacy pedagogy in the EFL classroom: Towards a model of teaching critical thinking skills. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 677–696. doi:10.14746sllt.2016.6.4.6 Bock, Z., Dalwai, N., & Stroud, C. (2018). Cool Mobilities. In C. Cutler, & U. Røyneland (Eds.), Multilingual youth practices in computer mediated communication (pp. 51–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316135570.004

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Boesen, J., & Rosendal, M. (Eds.). (2011). A piece of cake. Learner’s Guide 7-9. Copenhagen, Denmark: Alinea. Bogost, I. (2011). How to do things with videogames. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.5749/ minnesota/9780816676460.001.0001 Boileau, T. (2015). Methods for teaching digital literacy skills. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 507–509). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Bold, M. R. (2019). Representation of people of colour among children’s book authors and illustrators. Retrieved from https://www.booktrust.org.uk/globalassets/resources/represents/booktrust-represents-diversity-childrens-authorsillustrators-report.pdf Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 655

Compilation of References

Boon, D., & Kurvers, J. (2008). Learning to read Portuguese in Timor-Leste: Strategies of adult literacy learners. In M. Young-Scholten (Ed.), Low-Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition: Research, Policy, and Practice (pp. 75–90). Durham, UK: Roundtuit Publishing. Borsheim‐Black, C., Macaluso, M. & Petrone, R. (2014). Critical literature pedagogy: Teaching canonical literature for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy: A Journal from the International Reading Association, 58(2), 123 ̶ 133. Borsheim-Black, C., Macaluso, M., & Petrone, R. (2014). Critical literature pedagogy: Teaching canonical literature for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 123–133. doi:10.1002/jaal.323 Bosman, A. M. T., & van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 173–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Both, S. J. (2006). Da aldeia à cidade: O cotidiano de estudantes Paresi em escolas urbanas de Tangará da Serra [From village to town. The daily lives of Paresi’s students in urban schools at Tangará da Serra] (Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Brazil.) Retrieved from http://www.bdae.org.br/handle/123456789/1615 Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (90), 9–18. doi:10.1002/ace.16 Boulton, A., & Landure, C. (2016). Using corpora in language teaching, learning and use. Researching and Teaching Languages for Specific Purposes, 35(2). Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/apliut/5433#quotation Boulton, A. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. The Journal of EUROCALL, 21(1), 37–54. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000068 Boulton, A. (2010). Data-Driven learning: on paper, in practice. In T. Harris, & M. M. Jaén (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in language teaching (pp. 17–52). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. San Francisco, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Bourke, L., & Adams, A. M. (2010). Cognitive constraints and the early learning goals in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 94–110. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01434.x Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 124–141. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571 Bowers, M. A. (2004). Magic(al) realism. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203625002

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bowey, J. A., & Miller, R. (2007). Correlates of orthographic learning in third-grade children’s silent reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(2), 115–128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00335.x Bowey, J. A., & Muller, D. (2005). Phonological recoding and rapid orthographic learning in third-graders’ silent reading: A critical test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(3), 203–219. doi:10.1016/j. jecp.2005.06.005 PMID:16095604 Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440–470. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010 .520778

656

Compilation of References

Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.7194 Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511810237 Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337–356. doi:10.120715548430jlr3403_4 Braun, S. (2007). Integrating corpus work into secondary education: From data-driven learning to needs-driven corpora. ReCALL, 19(3), 307–328. doi:10.1017/S0958344007000535 Bredthauer, S. (2018). Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik an deutschen Schulen – eine Zwischenbilanz [Multilingualism didactics in German schools: An interim result]. Die deutsche Schule (DDS) [The German School], 3, 262–273. Bredthauer, S. (2016). Gestaltung, Einsatz und Lernerwahrnehmung mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktischer Elemente im Fremdsprachenunterricht – eine exemplarische Untersuchung in einem universitären Niederländischmodul [Design, use and learner perception of multilingual didactic elements in foreign language teaching: An exemplary study in a university Dutch module]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik [Journal of Applied Linguistics], 65(1), 129–157. doi:10.1515/ zfal-2016-0020 Brekke, B. (2016). Kreativitetens næringskjede: estetiske arbeidsformer i lærerutdanningen [The food chain of creativity: Aesthetic forms of work in teacher education] (Master’s thesis, University of Agder, Norway). Retrieved from https:// brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2414164 Brewster, J., Ellis, G., & Girard, D. (2002). The primary English teacher’s guide. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Breyer, Y. (2009). Learning and teaching with corpora: Reflections by student teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 153–172. doi:10.1080/09588220902778328 Brinchmann, E. I., Hjetland, H. N., & Lyster, S. A. H. (2016). Lexical quality matters: Effects of word knowledge instruction on the language and literacy skills of third- and fourth-grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 165–180. doi:10.1002/rrq.128 Brinton, D. M. (2001). The use of media in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 459 ̶ 475). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Britto, P. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Griffin, T. M. (2006). Maternal reading and teaching patterns: Associations with school readiness in low-income African American families. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 68–89. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.3 Broek, P. V. D., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 299–316. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651685 Brooks, C. (1947). The well wrought urn: Studies in the structure of poetry. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Brook, T. (1993). Rethinking syncretism: The unity of the three teachings and their joint worship in late-imperial China. Journal of Chinese Religions, 21(1), 13–44. doi:10.1179/073776993805307448 Browder, C. T. (2018). Recently resettled refugee students learning English in US high schools: The impact of students’ educational backgrounds. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 17–32). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-006 657

Compilation of References

Brown, B. A. (2002). Literature circles in action in the middle school classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia College and State University, Georgia. Brown, C. L., Schell, R., Denton, R., & Knode, E. (2019). Family literacy coaching: Partnering with parents for reading success. School Community, 29(1), 63 ̶ 86. Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp. 328 ̶ 334). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Brown, S. (2016). Story nights: An apprenticeship into literacy through bilingual story reading. Teaching Education, 27(3), 286 ̶ 304. Brown, F. B. (2013). The Oxford handbook of religion and the arts (F. B. Brown, Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Brozo (2010). The role of content literacy in an effective RTI program. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 147–150. Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their reading and spelling skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 77–92. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000461 Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1983). The acquisition of pragmatic commitments. In R. Golinkoff (Ed.), The transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication (pp. 27–42). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum. Buchanan, S. (2002). Tran trung tin: Paintings and poems from Vietnam. London, UK: Asia Ink. Budd, Y. (2016). Using culturally diverse picture books in the classroom: Exploring culture, language and identity. Practically Primary, 21(2), 7–10. Budke, A., & Hoogen, A. (2018). Das Boot ist voll: Wie Bilder in Geographieschulbüchern Vorstellungen von illegalen Migrantinnen und Migranten produzieren. [The boat is jammed: How visuals in geography books produce images of illegal migrants] In C. Rass, & M. Ulz (Eds.), Migration ein Bild geben: Visuelle Aushandlungen von Diversität [Imagining migration: Visual negotiations of diversity] (pp. 129–160). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3658-10442-9_7 Bullen, E., & Lunt, T. (2015). Asia and the autobiographical picture book. In C. Halse (Ed.), Asia literate schooling in the Asian century (pp. 151–166). London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bunch, C. (1998). Not by degrees: Feminist theory and education. In G. Kirk, & M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Women’s lives: Multicultural perspectives (pp. 14–18). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Burdick, J., & Sandlin, J. A. (2013). Learning, becoming, and the unknowable: Conceptualizations, mechanisms, and process in public pedagogy literature. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 142–177. doi:10.1111/curi.12001 Burdick, J., Sandlin, J., & O’Malley, M. P. (2013). Problematizing public pedagogy. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203113059 Burgard, K. L., & Boucher, M. L. (2018). The special responsibility of public spaces to dismantle white supremacist historical narratives. In A. M. Labrador, & N. A. Silberman, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public heritage theory and practice (pp. 239 ̶ 257). London, UK: Oxford University Press.

658

Compilation of References

Burgess, A., & Hamilton, M. (2011). Back to the future? Functional literacy and the new skills agenda. Retrieved from https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/66608/1/Functional_Literacy_Discussion_Paper_AB_MH.pdf Burgess, J., & Green, J. (Eds.). (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Burke, J. (2010). What’s the big idea? Question-driven units to motivate reading, writing, and thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Literacy-as-event: Accounting for relationality in literacy research. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 48(1), 1–12. Burt, M., Peyton, J. K., & Schaetzel, K. (2008). Working with adult English language learners with limited literacy: Research, practice, and professional development [CAELA Network Briefs]. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/resources/limitedliteracy.html Burt, M., Peyton, J., & Schaetzel, K. (2008). Working with adult English language learners with limited literacy: Research, practice, and professional development. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Burtoff, M. (1985). The Haitian Creole literacy education study. New York, NY: Ford Foundation. Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 38–52. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.008 Bygate, M. (2011). Teaching and testing speaking. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Byram, M. (2009). Multicultural societies, pluricultural people, and the project of intercultural education. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016805a223c Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–151. doi:10.1111/flan.12319 Caglar, A. S. (1997). Hyphenated identities and the limits of “culture.”. In T. Modood, & P. Werbner (Eds.), The politics of multiculturalism in the new Europe: Racism, identity, and community (pp. 169–185). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cameron, D. (2008). Teaching languages to young learners (11th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, P. (2004). Teaching reading to adults: A balanced approach. Edmonton, Canada: Grass Roots Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2001). The fortunate traveler: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. In D. Belcher, & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 23–37). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853597046-004 Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1 ̶ 47.

659

Compilation of References

Candau, V. M. (2012). Sociedade multicultural e educação: Tensões e desafios [Multicultural society and education: Tensions and challenges]. In V. M. Candau (Ed.), Didática crítica intercultural: Aproximações [Critical intercultural didactics: Approaches]. (pp. 19–54). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes. Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lőrincz, I., Meiẞner, F.-J., Nougerol, A., & Schröder-Sura, A. (2012). FREPA. A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures competences and resources. Retrieved from https://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/documents/ECML-resources/CARAP-EN. pdf?ver=2018-03-20-120658-443 Candelier, M., de Pietro, J.-F., Facciol, R., Lőrincz, I., & Pascul, X. (2012). La CARAP - Une introduction à l’usage. Retrieved from https://carap.ecml.at/Components/tabid/2668/language/en-GB/Default.aspx Candelier, M., Camilleri Grima, A., Castelotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., & Schröder-Sura, A. (2009). RePA – Referenzrahmen für Plurale Ansätze zu Sprachen und Kulturen [FREPA/CARAP framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures]. Graz, Austria: Europäisches Fremdsprachenzentrum ECML. Capiberibe, A. (2009). Nas duas margens do rio: Alteridade e transformações entre os Palikur na fronteira do Brasil – Guiana Francesa [On both banks of the river: alterity and transformation among the Palikur on the Brazil-French Guiana border] (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.) Retrieved from http://objdig. ufrj.br/72/teses/ArtionkaCapiberibe.pdf Caraher, B. G. (2006). Genre theory: Cultural and historical motives engendering literary genre. In G. Dowd, L. Stevenson, & J. Strong (Eds.), Genre matters: Essays in theory and criticism (pp. 29–40). Bristol, UK: intellect. Carder, M. (2013). English language teaching in International school: The change in students’ language from ‘English only’ to ‘linguistically diverse’. In R. Pearce (Ed.), International education and school: Moving beyond the first 40 years (pp. 85 ̶ 105). London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3–4), 291–322. doi:10.1080/02702710390227369 Carlisle, J. F., & Kearns, D. (2017). Learning to read morphologically complex words. In K. Cain, D. Compton, & R. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of Reading Development (pp. 191–214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075wll.15.11car Carlo, M. S., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. E. (1996). A longitudinal investigation on the literacy development of Spanish-, Korean-, and Cambodian-speaking adults learning to read English as a second language (Unpublished manuscript). Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Carpenter, J. (2014). Hokusai’s iconic “Great Wave”. Retrieved from https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-themet/2014/great-wave Carrison, C., & Ernst-Slavin, G. (2005). From silence to a whisper to active participation: Using literature circles with ELL students. Reading Horizons, 46(2), 93 ̶ 113. Carrol, G., Conklin, K., & Gyllstad, H. (2016). Found in translation: The influence of the L1 on the reading of idioms in an L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 403–443. doi:10.1017/S0272263115000492 Carroll, J., Snowling, M., Hulme, C., & Stevenson, J. (2003). The development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 913–923. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.913 PMID:12952403 Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 631–644. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.631

660

Compilation of References

Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing, 18(1), 27–49. doi:10.100711145-004-2345-x Castañeda, M., Shen, X., & Claros-Berlioz, E. (2018). English learners (ELs) have stories to tell: Digital storytelling as a venue to bring justice to life. English Journal, 107(6), 20–25. Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a casual link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91(1), 77–111. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00164-1 PMID:14711492 Castro-Caldas, A., Petersson, K. M., Reis, A., Stone-Elander, S., & Ingvar, M. (1998). The illiterate brain. Learning to read and write during childhood influences the functional organization of the adult brain. Brain, 121(6), 1053–1063. doi:10.1093/brain/121.6.1053 PMID:9648541 Catalado, S., & Ellis, N. (Eds.). (1990). Learning to spell, learning to read. Bristol, UK: The Palmer Press. Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11(41), 63–65. doi:10.1093/mind/os-XI.41.63 Cavanaugh, L. M. (1995). Multicultural education: A checklist for selecting children’s literature in the classroom. Insights into Open Education, 3 ̶ 12. Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2012). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. NewYork: CUNY-NYSIEB, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York. Retrieved from https://www.nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2013/03/ Translanguaging-Guide-March-2013-pdf Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2011). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 28(1), 8 ̶ 24. Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 71–87. doi:10.1177/13670069030070010501 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 356–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2019). Educational policy and multilingualism. In D. Singleton, & L. Aronin (Eds.), Twelve lectures on multilingualism (pp. 101–132). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2009). The study of multilingualism in educational contexts. In L. Aronin, & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The development of research on multilingualism (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/aals.6.07ch7

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Çeri, V., Nasıroğlu, S., Çeri, M., & Çetin, F. Ç. (2018). Psychiatric morbidity among a school sample of Syrian refugee children in Turkey: A cross-sectional, semistructured, standardized interview-based study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(9), 696–698. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2018.05.019 PMID:30196873 Cermak, M. (2012). Hip-hop, social justice, and environmental education: Toward a critical ecological literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), 192–203. doi:10.1080/00958964.2011.633579 Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369 ̶ 383. Chapelle, C. A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Assessment and testing: Overview. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 240 ̶ 244). Oxford, UK: Blackwell/Wiley.

661

Compilation of References

Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 741–753. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x Chard, D. J., & Dickson, S. V. (1999). Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 261–270. doi:10.1177/105345129903400502 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2000). Official Journal of the European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. (1998). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. Human Communication, 2(1), 27–54. Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom: Teachers supporting student learning. London, UK: Palgrave. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-46484-2 Chen, J. J. (2016). Educating English language learners for success in the 21st century: Facilitating their acquisition of multiliteracies. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 75–90). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9.ch004 Chen, M. L. (2014). Teaching English as a foreign language through literature. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 232–238. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.2.232-236 Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. doi:10.1177/0741088301018001004 Chen, X., & Browne, S. (2015). Pearls of meaning: Preschool children respond to multicultural picturebooks. New Waves, 18(2), 16–28. Chen, X., & Pasquarella, A. (2017). Learning to read in Chinese. In L. Verhoeven, & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 31–56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752.002 Chliounaki, K., & Bryant, P. (2007). How children learn about morphological spelling rules. Child Development, 78(4), 1360–1373. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01070.x PMID:17650143 Chlosta, C., & Ostermann, T. (2017). Grunddaten zur Mehrsprachigkeit im deutschen Bildungssystem. [Basic data on multilingualism in the German educational system]. In B. Ahrenholz, & I. Oomen-Welke (Eds.), Deutsch als Zweitsprache [German as a second language]. Vol. 9, pp. 21–40). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. Cho, H. (2017). Racism and linguicism: Engaging language minority pre-service teachers in counter-storytelling. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 20(5), 666–680. Choi, Y. (2001). The name jar. Decorah, IA: Dragonfly Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christensen, T. (1994). Whose standard? Teaching standard English. In B. Bigelow, & B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (pp. 142–145). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2012). Linguistically appropriate practice: A guide for working with young immigrant children. North York, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2019). Using linguistically appropriate practice: A guide for teaching in multilingual classrooms. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.

662

Compilation of References

Chung, S. K. (2006). Aesthetic practice and spirituality: Chi in traditional East Asian brushwork. Art Education, 59(4), 33–38. doi:10.1080/00043125.2006.11651601 Cinnirella, M., & Green, B. (2007). Does ‘cyber-conformity’ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 2011–2025. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2006.02.009 Cirocki, A. (2012). Genre theory: A horn of plenty for EFL learners. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 11(3), 78–99. Cirocki, A., & Farrelly, R. (Eds.). (2019). The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1). Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clark, W., & Luckin, R. (2013). iPads in the Classroom: What the research says. Retrieved from http://ss-web-stag.westminster.ac.uk/teachingandlearning/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/08/2013-iPads-in-the-Classroom-Lit-Review-1.pdf Clarke-Klein, S. M. (1994). Expressive phonological deficiencies: Impact on spelling development. Topics in Language Disorders, 14(2), 40–55. doi:10.1097/00011363-199402000-00006 Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Clayton, M. (2015). The impact of PTSD on refugee language learners. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/299467247_The_Impact_of_PTSD_on_Refugee_Language_Learners Climo, S. (2001). The Persian Cinderella. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishing. Cline, B. J. (2016). Media ecology and the 21st century classroom. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 275–290). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9. ch013 Cloeters, G., & Osseiran, S. (2019). Healthcare access for Syrian refugees in Istanbul: A gender-sensitive perspective. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center. Clyne, M. G. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597084 Cobb, C. L., Branscombe, N. R., Meca, A., Schwartz, S. J., Xie, D., Zea, M. C., & Martinez, C. R. (2019). Toward a positive psychology of immigrants. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 619–632. doi:10.1177/1745691619825848 PMID:30998855 Coburn, J. R. (2000). Domitila: A Cinderella tale from the Mexican tradition. New York, NY: Lee & Low Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Coelho, D., Galante, A., & Pires, L. A. (2016). Online collaboration for English Learners: Implementing an international project with Edmodo. TESL-EJ, 19(4). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume19/ej76/ej76int/ Coffey, H., Davila, L., & Kolano, L. (2013). Understanding dialect and developing critical literacy with English language learners. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 115–132. doi:10.1515/mlt-2012-0006 Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human development, 39(5), 250 ̶ 256. Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and Education National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1(4), 1–12. 663

Compilation of References

Collier, V., & Thomas, W. P. (2007). Predicting second language academic success in English using the prism model. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language education (pp. 333–348). Norwell, MA: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_24 Collins, B. A., & Cioè-Peña, M. (2016). Declaring freedom: Translanguaging in the social studies classroom to understand complex texts. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 118–139). New York, NY: Routledge. Comber, B. (2005). Literacies with currency: Teachers work to make a difference. Keynote Address presented at AATE/ ALEA National Conference: Pleasurable Learning, Passionate Teaching and Provocative Debates, Queensland, Australia. Comber, B. (2010). Critical literacies in place: Teachers who work for just and sustainable communities. In J. Lavia, & M. Moore (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives in policy and practice: Decolonizing community contexts (pp. 43 ̶ 57). London, UK: Routledge. Comber, B. (2001). Classroom explorations in critical literacy. In H. Fehring, & P. Green (Eds.), Critical literacy: A collection of articles from the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (pp. 90–102). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Comber, B. (2015) Critical literacy and social justice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 358–363. Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410600288 Comber, B., Thompson, P., & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a “place”: Writing and social action in a lowincome Australian 2/3 classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 10(4), 451–464. doi:10.1086/499681 Comings, J. P. (2019). Functional literacy. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo9780199756797/obo-9780199756797-0032.xml Comings, J., & Soricone, L. (2007). Adult literacy research: Opportunities and challenges. Washington, DC: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy and National Institute for Literacy. Common Sense Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/ Condelli, L., Wrigley, H. S., & Yoon, K. (2002). What works study for adult ESL literacy students. Washington, DC: Aguirre International & American Institutes for Research. Condelli, L., Wrigley, H. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). “What works” for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder, & J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132–159). New York, NY: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Connor, C. M., & Al Otaiba, S. A. (2015). Primary grade reading instruction in the United States. In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 415–430). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869–878. doi:10.1037/a0012544 Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 548–560. doi:10.2307/3587743 Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092246

664

Compilation of References

Cook, D., & Klipfel, K. (2015). How do our students learn? References & Users Quarterly, 55(1), 34–41. doi:10.5860/ rusq.55n1.34 Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC). (2019). Publishing statistics on children’s/YA books about people of color and First/Native Nations and by people of color and First/Native Nations authors and illustrators. Cooperative Children’s Book Center, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from https://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ books/pcstats.asp Cooperrider, K., Slotta, J., & Núñez, R. (2018). The preference for pointing with the hand is not universal. Cognitive Science, 42(4), 1375–1390. doi:10.1111/cogs.12585 PMID:29349840 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2010). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq047 Cortoni, I., Lo Presti, V., & Cervelli, P. (2015). Digital competence assessment: A proposal for operationalizing the critical dimension. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 7(1), 46–57. Coste, D. (2013). Le(s) plurilinguisme(s) entre projet de diversification scolaire des langues et objets de discours dans le champ sociolinguistique et didactique [Plurilingualism(s) between a project for the linguistic diversification of languages and objects of discourse in the sociolinguistic and didactic field]. In V. Bigot, A. Bretegnier, & M. Vasseur (Eds.), Vers le plurilinguisme? Vingt ans après [Towards plurilingualism? Twenty years later] (pp. 9–17). Paris, France: Editions des archives contemporaines. Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (1997). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Strasbourg, France: Conseil de l’Europe. Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence. With a foreword and complementary bibliography. Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division. Coulmas, F. (2018). An introduction to multilingualism: Language in a changing world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Council of Europe. (2001). Quadro europeu comum de referência para as línguas. Aprendizagem, ensino, avaliação [Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment]. Porto, Portugal: Edições ASA. Council of Europe. (2019). The council of Europe and language education. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/ common-european-framework-reference-languages/language-policy-in-the-council-of-europe Council of the European Union. (2004). Immigrant integration policy in the European Union: Press release. Retrieved from www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

665

Compilation of References

Crandall, B. (2018). ‘History should come first’: Perspectives of Somali-born refugee-background male youth on writing in and out of school. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 33–48). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-007 Crandall, J., & Peyton, J. K. (1993). Approaches to adult ESL literacy instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20 ̶ 35. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as readers: Building communities of readers. Literacy, 43(1), 11–19. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2009.00515.x Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315772585 Crookes, G. (2010). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(3), 333–348. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990292 Crookes, G., & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical pedagogy teacher education course. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 319–328. doi:10.2307/3587586 Croydan, A. (2005). Making it real: Teaching pre-literate adult refugee students. Tacoma, Washington: Tacoma Community House Training Project. Cruz, C. (2006). Testimonial narratives of queer street youth: Toward an epistemology of a brown body. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 14(5), 657–669. doi:10.1080/09518390110059874 Cruz, M. C., & Pollock, K. B. (2004). Stepping into the wardrobe: A fantasy genre study. Language Arts, 81(3), 184–195. Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139196970 Cua, A. S. (2005). Human nature, ritual, and history: Studies in Xunzi and Chinese philosophy. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. CullerJ. (1998). Structuralism. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N055-1

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cumming, A. (2014). Assessing integrated skills. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 216 ̶ 229). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5 ̶ 43. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23. Cummins, J. (2005). Second language teaching for academic success: A framework for school language policy development. Retrieved from https://www.andrasprak.su.se › 2000_19_Cummins_Eng Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222 666

Compilation of References

Cummins, J. (1983). Heritage language education: A literature review. Toronto, Canada: Publication Sales, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. (1992). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(3), 281–286. doi:10.1080/0022027920240306 Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537–548. doi:10.2307/3587742 Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596773 Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education? Sprogforum, 19, 15–21. Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2004). Multiliteracies pedagogy and the role of identity texts. In K. Leithwood, P. McAdie, N. Bascia, & A. Rodigue (Eds.), Teaching for deep understanding: Towards the Ontario curriculum that we need (pp. 68–74). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto and the Elementary Federation of Teachers of Ontario. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585–592. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Cummins, J. (2019). Should Schools Undermine or Sustain Multilingualism? an Analysis of Theory, Research, and Pedagogical Practice. Sustainable Multilingualism, 15(1), 1–26. doi:10.2478m-2019-0011 Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., ... Sastri, P. (2005). Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 38–43. Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada’s linguistic resources. Montreal, Canada: Our Selves Education Foundation. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and practice. London, UK: Longman.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cunningham, A. E. (2006). Account for children’s orthographic learning while reading text: Do children self-teach? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95(1), 56–77. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.03.008 PMID:16714031 Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Share, D. L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading: Examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82(3), 185–199. doi:10.1016/S00220965(02)00008-5 PMID:12093106 Currie, P., & Cray, E. (2004). ESL literacy: Language practice or social practice? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 111–132. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.008 Curry, D., Reeves, E., & McIntyre, C. (2016). Connecting schools and families: Understanding the influence of home literacy practices. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 4(2), 69 ̶ 77.

667

Compilation of References

Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2010). Languages and children: Making the match: New languages for young learners, grades K/8. Boston, MA: Pearson. Curtin, A. (2020). And they all lived happily ever after: Literacy through children’s literature. London, UK: Routledge. Curtis, A., & Romney, M. (Eds.). (2006). Color, race, and English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Custodio, B., & O’ Loughlin, J. B. (2017). Students with interrupted formal education: Bridging where they are and what they need. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. doi:10.4135/9781506359694 Daase, A. (2018). Zweitsprachsozialisation in den Beruf. Narrative Rekonstruktionen erwachsener Migrant*innen mit dem Ziel einer qualifizierten Arbeitsaufnahme [Second language socialization in the profession. Narrative reconstructions by adult migrants with the aim of a qualified start to work]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Dahlen, S. P., & Hyuck, D. (2019, June 19). Picture this: Diversity in children’s books 2018 infographic. Retrieved from https://readingspark.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/picture-this-diversity-in-childrens-books-2018-infographic/ Dahl, R. (1982). The big friendly giant. London, UK: Penguin. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000092 Daly, N. (2018). The linguistic landscape of English–Spanish dual language picturebooks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(6), 556–566. doi:10.1080/01434632.2017.1410163 Damari, R. R., Rivers, W. P., Brecht, R. D., Gardner, P., Pulupa, C., & Robinson, J. (2017). The demand for multilingual human capital in the U.S. labor market. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1), 13–37. doi:10.1111/flan.12241 Damber, U. (2012). Equity and models of literacy in a diverse world. Issues in Educational Research, 22(1), 36–46. Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin. Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publisher. Daniels, P. T., & Share, D. L. (2018). Writing system variation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(1), 101–116. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1379082 Danish Ministry for Children and Education. (2019). Engelsk: Læseplan og veiledning [Reading plan and instructions]. Retrieved from https://emu.dk/sites/default/files/2019-08/GSK-L%C3%A6seplan-Engelsk.pdf Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science. (2016). Professional bachelor programmes. Retrieved from https:// ufm.dk/en/education/higher-education/university-colleges/university-college-education

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Darder, A. (2003). The critical pedagogy reader. London, UK: Psychology Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 23(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/10888691.201 8.1537791 Davidson, F., & Lynch, B. K. (2002). Testcraft: A teacher’s guide to writing and using language test specifications. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Davies, A. (2008). Assessing academic English language proficiency: 40 years of UK language tests. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 73 ̶ 86). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. 668

Compilation of References

Davis, B. H., Resta, V., Davis, L. L., & Camacho, A. (2001). Novice teachers learn about literature circles through collaborative action research. Journal of Reading Education, 26(3), 1 ̶ 6. Davis, J. N. (1989). “The act of reading” in the foreign language: Pedagogical implications of Iser’s reader-response theory. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 420 ̶ 428. Davis, J. N. (1992). Reading literature in the foreign language: The comprehension/response connection. The French Review, 65(3), 359 ̶ 370. Davis, H. S., Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L. M., Soares, D. A., Resendez, N., ... Hagan-Burke, S. (2016). Home literacy beliefs and practices among low-income Latino families. Early Child Development and Care, 186(7), 1152–1172. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1081184 Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 459–472. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01993.x Day, D., & Ainley, G. (2008). From skeptic to believer: One teacher’s journey implementing literature circles. Reading Horizons, 48(3), 157 ̶ 176. Day, K. S. (1996). The challenge of style in reading picture books. Children’s Literature in Education, 27(3), 153–166. doi:10.1007/BF02355687 De Bruin, A. (2019). Not all bilinguals are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of bilingual experiences. Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 33. doi:10.3390/bs9030033 PMID:30909639 De Costa, P. (2016). The power of identity and ideology in language learning: Designer immigrants learning English in Singapore. Lansing, MI: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30211-9 De Costa, P., Singh, J., Milu, E., Wang, X., Fraiberg, S., & Canagarajah, S. (2016). Pedagogizing translingual practice: Prospects and possibilities. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 464–472. De Felice, D., Curtis, W., & Ortiz Alcocer, L. M. (2020). Effectively utilizing a socially-mediated network: Facilitating meaningful collaboration among preservice student-teachers and university EFL students. In C. Stevenson (Ed.), Enriching collaboration and communication in online learning communities (pp. 168–185). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. De Felice, D., & Lypka, A. (2013). The knowledge base in second language teacher education. De Linguis, 11(2), 15–22. De Felice, D., & Ortiz Alcocer, L. M. (2014). Building collaborations between university preservice student-teachers and English language students through a socially mediated network. In C. Stevenson, & J. Bauer (Eds.), Building online communities in higher education institutions: Creating collaborative experience (pp. 44–68). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5178-4.ch003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

de Jager, A., Fogarty, A., Tewson, A., Lenette, C., & Boydell, K. M. (2017). Digital storytelling in research: A systematic review. Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2548–2582. de Jong, E. (2011). Foundations of multilingualism in education. From principles to practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing. de Jong, P. F., Bitter, D. J. L., van Setten, M., & Marinus, E. (2009). Does phonological recoding occur during silent reading, and is it necessary for orthographic learning? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(3), 267–282. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.06.002 PMID:19608198 De la Iglesia, M. (2012). Multicultural literature for children. Retrieved from http://www.ipl.org/div/pf/entry/48493

669

Compilation of References

de Oliveira, L. C., Gilmetdinova, A., & Pelaez-Morales, C. (2016). The use of Spanish by a monolingual kindergarten teacher to support English language learners. Language and Education, 30(1), 22–42. doi:10.1080/09500782.2015.1070860 De Pry, R., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Reflections on culturally responsive teaching: Embedding theory into practices of instructional and behavioral support. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5(1), 36–51. doi:10.9741/2161-2978.1031 De Santos Loureiro, C., Willadino Braga, L., Do Nascimento Souza, L., Nunes Filho, G., Queiroz, E., & Dellatolas, G. (2004). Degree of illiteracy and phonological and metaphonological skills in unschooled adults. Brain and Language, 89(3), 499–502. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2003.12.008 PMID:15120540 Deacon, H., Pasquarella, A., Marinus, E., Tims, T., & Castles, A. (2018). Orthographic processing and children’s word reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(2), 509–534. doi:10.1017/S0142716418000681 Debes, J. (1969). The loom of visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction, 14(8), 25–27. DeCapua, A. (2016). Reaching students with limited or interrupted formal education through culturally responsive teaching. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(5), 225–237. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12183 DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, F. (2009). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted formal schooling: A guide for educators. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.339205 Deetjen, C. (2019). Teaching for a global perspective: Multimedia narrative and archiving projects on the refugee crisis in the EFL classroom. Paper presented at the Educating the Global Citizen: International Perspectives on Foreign Language Teaching in the Digital Age Conference, Munich, Germany. Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s education. London, UK: Falmer Press. DelliCarpini, M., & Gulla, A. N. (2006). Sharing stories and developing multiple perspectives in post-9/11 classrooms. English Journal, 96(2), 47–51. doi:10.2307/30047127 Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press. Deocampo, M. F. (2016). A pedagogical perspective of translanguaging in the ASEAN context: A lesson from blogging. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN). Journal, 9(1), 131–145. Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2012). An appropriate model of language. In Teaching language in context (pp. 2–10). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts in higher education. In F. Dervin, & E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New approaches to assessment in higher education (p. 157174). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., & Georgiou, G. G. (2018). Early contribution of morphological awareness to literacy skills across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1695–1719. doi:10.100711145017-9772-y Detmold, B. (2019). Leitlinie ‚Schule in der digitalen Welt [Guidelines for school in the digital world]. Retrieved from https://www.bezreg-detmold.nrw.de/200_Aufgaben/025_Schule/015_Bildung-in-der-digitalen-Welt/017_Infopool/ Dokumente/Leitlinie-Schule-in-der-digitalen-Welt.pdf Deuze, M. (2012). Media life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

670

Compilation of References

Devitt, A. (2009). Teaching critical genre awareness. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 337–351). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/genre/ DeVoogd, G. L., & McLaughlin, M. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’ comprehension. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Dewaele, J., & Wei, L. (2012). Multilingualism, empathy, and multicompetence. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 352–366. doi:10.1080/14790718.2012.714380 Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1991). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, volume 16 (pp. 1 ̶ 280). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Minton, Balch, and Company. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Dewilde, J. (2019). Translation and translingual remixing: A young person developing as a writer. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(5), 942–953. doi:10.1177/1367006917740975 Díaz-Cárdenas, A. F., Díaz-Furlong, H. A., Díaz-Furlong, A., & Sankey-García, M. R. (2016). Syllabic schemes and knowledge of the alphabet in reading acquisition: Onset or nucleus variation. International Education Studies, 9(11), 151–162. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n11p151 Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, J. B. (2018). Visual word recognition in multilinguals. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 118–143). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dixon, L. Q., Chuang, H., & Quiroz, B. (2012). English phonological awareness in bilinguals: A cross-linguistic study of Tamil, Malay and Chinese English-language learners. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 372–392. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9817.2010.01471.x Dixon, L. Q., & Wu, S. (2014). Home language and literacy practices among immigrant second language learners. Language Teaching, 47(4), 414–449. doi:10.1017/S0261444814000160 Doğmuş, A., Karakaşoğlu-Aydın, Y., & Mecheril, P. (Eds.). (2016). Pädagogisches Können in der Migrationsgesellschaft [Pedagogical skills in the migration society]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-07296-4 Doignon-Camus, N., & Zagar, D. (2014). The syllabic bridge: The first step in learning spelling-to-sound correspondences. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1147–1165. doi:10.1017/S0305000913000305 PMID:24040752 Donaghy, K., & Xerri, D. (2017). The image in ELT: An introduction. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 1 ̶ 11). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dooley, K. T., & Thangaperumal, P. (2011). Pedagogy and participation: Literacy education for low-literate refugee students of African origin in a western school system. Language and Education, 25(5), 385–397. doi:10.1080/095007 82.2011.573075 Douglas, D. (2013). ESP and assessment. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 367 ̶ 383). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Dowd, G. (2006). Introduction: Genre matters in theory and criticism. In G. Dowd, L. Stevenson, & J. Strong (Eds.), Genre matters: Essays in theory and criticism (pp. 11–28). Bristol, UK: intellect.

671

Compilation of References

Dower, J. W. (1990). The elements of Japanese design: A handbook of family crests, heraldry, & symbolism. New York, NY: Weatherhill. Downes, P. (2014). Access to education in Europe: A framework and agenda for system change. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8795-6 Doyle, M. (1998). Introduction to the A-Z of non-sexist language. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language (pp. 149–154). London, UK: Routledge. Dozier, C. L., & Rutten, I. (2005). Responsive teaching toward responsive teachers: Mediating transfer through intentionality, enactment, and articulation. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 459–492. doi:10.120715548430jlr3704_3 Dresang, E. T., & Koh, K. (2009). Radical change theory, youth information behavior, and school libraries. Library Trends, 58(1), 26–50. doi:10.1353/lib.0.0070 Drinkwater, S., Eade, J., & Garapich, M. (2009). Poles apart? EU enlargement and the labour market outcomes of immigrants in the United Kingdom. International Migration (Geneva, Switzerland), 47(1), 161–190. doi:10.1111/j.14682435.2008.00500.x Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. Berry, Australia: Target Texts. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78–103. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4 Dryden-Peterson, S., Dahya, N., & Adelman, E. (2017). Pathways to educational success among refugees: Connecting locally and globally situated resources. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1011–1047. doi:10.3102/0002831217714321 DSE/CEOV. (1994). Keys to life: Professional development program for secondary subject teachers. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Secondary Education/Catholic Education of Victoria (DSE/CEOV). Ducate, L. I., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28. doi:10.1080/09588220701865474 Dudeney, G., & Hockley, N. (2016). Literacies, technology and language teaching. In F. Farr, & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 115–126). New York, NY: Routledge. Duff, P. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students in mainstream courses. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne de Langue Vivantes, 58(1), 103–132. Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000048

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dugdale, G., & Clark, C. (2008). Literacy changes lives: An advocacy resource. London, UK: National Literacy Trust. Duggan, J. (2019). Fanfiction: Remixing race, sexuality, and gender(s). In A. Sparrman (Ed.), Making culture: Children’s and young people’s leisure cultures (pp. 47–50). Göteborg, Sweden: Kulturanalys Norden. Dunsmore, K., Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Herrera, G. (2013). Welcoming their worlds: Rethinking literacy instruction through community mapping. Language Arts, 90(5), 327–338. Durán, L., & Palmer, D. (2014). Pluralist discourses of bilingualism and translanguaging talk in classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(3), 367–388. doi:10.1177/1468798413497386

672

Compilation of References

Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2018). The multidimensional effects of AÇEV Hayat Dolu Buluşmalar Program on women. Unpublished manuscript. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & IYOP Team. (2012). Adult literacy and empowerment: Description and evaluation of a program in Turkey. In P. Vinogradov, & M. Bigelow (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA (Low Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition) symposium (pp. 27–46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Durgunoglu, A. Y., Sagar, A., Fagan, K., & Brueck, A. (2015). Developing language skills and content knowledge of adult learners: CILIA (Content Integrated Language Instruction for Adults). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meetings, Chicago, IL. Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2006). How the language’s characteristics influence Turkish literacy development. In R. M. Joshi, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 219–230). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness in literacy acquisition: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3), 245–266. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0603_3 Dvorghets, O. S., & Shaturnaya, Y. A. (2015). Developing students’ media literacy in the English language teaching context. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 192–198. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.051 Dybdahl, R. (2001). Children and mothers in war: An outcome study of a psychosocial intervention program. Child Development, 72(4), 1214–1230. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00343 PMID:11480943 Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (2001). Where are the childhoods in childhood literacy? An exploration in outer (school) space. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(1), 9–39. doi:10.1177/14687984010011002 Earnest, J., Mansi, R., Bayati, S., Earnest, J. A., & Thompson, S. C. (2015). Resettlement experiences and resilience in refugee youth in Perth, Western Australia. BMC Research Notes, 10(8), 236–246. doi:10.118613104-015-1208-7 PMID:26054946 Eaves, M. H., & Leathers, D. (2018). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ebe, A. (2015). The power of culturally relevant texts: What teachers learn about their emergent bilingual students. In Y. S. Freeman, & D. E. Freeman (Eds.), Research on preparing inservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals (pp. 33–53). Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Books LTD. doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000024003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Egbo, B. (2000). Gender, literacy, and life chances in sub-Saharan Africa. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2010). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ehri, L. (2011). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. Metsalal, & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). New York, NY: Routledge. Ehri, L. C. (1986). Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and read. In M. Wolraich, & D. Routh (Eds.), Advances in developmental and behavioral pediatrics (pp. 121–195). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 673

Compilation of References

Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00005 Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence (pp. 153–186). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 Eilam, B. (2012). Teaching, learning, and visual literacy: The dual role of visual representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026611 Eisner, E. (2009). The Lowenfeld lecture 2008: What education can learn from the arts. Art Education, 62(2), 6–9. doi :10.1080/00043125.2009.11519006 Elder, C. (2017). Language assessment in higher education. In E. Shohamy, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). (pp. 271 ̶ 286). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/9783-319-02261-1_35 El-Esery, A. M. (2016). Corpus concordance for enhancing EFL learners’ vocabulary retention. Journal of Education and Training, 3(1), 56–64. doi:10.5296/jet.v3i1.8202 Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passagelevel comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/19345740802539200 Elleman, A. M., Steacy, L. M., & Compton, D. L. (2019). The role of statistical learning in word reading and spelling development: More questions than answers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(1), 1–7. doi:10.1080/10888438.2018.15 49045 PMID:30718941 Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002140 Ellis, N. C., Natsume, M., Stavropoulou, K., Hoxhallari, L., van Daal, V. H. P., Polyzoe, N., ... Petalas, M. (2004). The effects of orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 438–468. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Elm Magazine . (2018). Theme issue: Adult education and cultural heritage. Retrieved from https://www.elmmagazine. eu/articles/theme-issue/adult-education-and-cultural-heritage Elmeroth, E. (2003). From refugee camp to solitary confinement: Illiterate adults learn Swedish as a second language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 431–449. doi:10.1080/00313830308593 Elya, S. M. (2014). Little roja riding hood. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons Book for Young Readers. Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood... and the rest of y’all too: Reality pedagogy and urban education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Enfield, N. J. (2001). ‘Lip-pointing’: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1(2), 185–212. doi:10.1075/gest.1.2.06enf 674

Compilation of References

Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki, (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377 ̶ 406). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1996). Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55, 126–132. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media. Enz, B. J. (2003). The ABCs of family literacy. In A. Debruin-Parecki, & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.), Family literacy: From theory to practice (pp. 195–214). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Erlbruch, W. (2007). Duck, death, and the tulip. Frankfurt, Germany: Kunstmann. Erstad, O. (2011). Citizens navigating in literate worlds: The case of digital literacy. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology and the new literacies (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Routledge. Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism Applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-speaking emerging bilinguals: Biilliteracy or emerging biliteracy? Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2329–2353. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00784.x Espin, C. A., & Deno, S. L. (2016). Conclusion: Oral reading fluency or reading aloud from text: An analysis through a unified view of construct validity. In K. D. Cummings & Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 365–384). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_13 Espinosa, C. M., Herrera, L. Y., & Gaudreau, C. M. (2016). Reclaiming bilingualism: Translanguaging in a science class. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 140–159). New York, NY: Routledge. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformations of Western democracies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137275844 Europarat. (2001). Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen [Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment]. Berlin, Germany: Langenscheidt. European Commission. (2005). A new framework strategy for multilingualism. Commission of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0596:FIN:EN:PDF Eurostat. (2019). Migration and migrant population statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/pdfscache/1275.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Evans, D. (2003). Emotion: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780192804617.001.0001 Evans, J. (2009). Talking beyond the page: Reading and responding to picture books. London, UK: Routledge. Ewing, R. (1994). What is a functional model of language? Retrieved from https://www.petaa.edu.au/iMIS_Prod/ PETAA_Docs/PPs-open/095F.pdf Extramina, C., Pulinx, R., & Van Avermaet, P. (2014). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Policy and practice. Final report on the 3rd Council of Europe survey. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Færch, C. (1985). Meta talk in the FL classroom discourse. Studies in Higher Education, 7(2), 184–199. 675

Compilation of References

Fang, T.-m. (1986). Chinese philosophy: Its spirit and its development. Taipei, Taiwan: Linking. Farrell, T. S. C. (2013). Reflective practice in ESL teacher development groups: From practices to principles. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137317193 Farrell, T. S. C. (2017). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315206332 Farr, F. (2008). Evaluating the use of corpus-based instruction in a language teacher education context: Perspectives from the users. Language Awareness, 17(1), 25–43. doi:10.2167/la414.0 Farris, P. J., Nelson, P. A., & L’Allier, S. (2007). Using literature circles with English language learners at the middle level. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 38 ̶ 42. Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Lonigan, C. J., & Eppe, S. (2013). The home literacy environment and Latino Head Start children’s emergent literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 775–791. doi:10.1037/a0028766 PMID:22662767 Fegert, J. M., Diehl, C., Leyendecker, B., Hahlweg, K., & Prayon-Blum, V. (2018). Psychosocial problems in traumatized refugee families: Overview of risks and some recommendations for support services. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12(1), 5–13. doi:10.118613034-017-0210-3 PMID:29344083 Feisner, E. A. (2006). Colour: How to use colour in art and design. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing. Felten, P. (2008). Visual literacy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(6), 60 ̶ 64. Fenner, A. B. (2005). Engelskfagets utvikling i et danningsperspektiv. [The development of the subject of English in a bildungs perspective] In K. Børhaug, A.-B. Fenner, & L. Aase (Eds.), Fagenes begrunnelser: skolens fag og arbeidsmåter i danningsperspektiv [Subject reasoning: The school subjects and working practices in a formation perspective]. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Fenner, A. B., & Newby, D. (Eds.). (2000). Approaches to materials design in European textbooks: Implementing principles of authenticity, learner autonomy and cultural awareness. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages, Council of Europe Press. Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 14(2), 47–56. Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Retrieved from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83167/lb-na-26035-enn.pdf Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Feuerherm, E. M., & Ramanathan, V. (2016). Introduction to refugee resettlement in the United States: Language, policies, pedagogies. In E. M. Feuerherm, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Refugee resettlement in the United States: Language, policy, pedagogy (pp. 1–17). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Feuerherm, E. M., & Ramanathan, V. (Eds.). (2016). Refugee resettlement in the United States: Language, policy, pedagogy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(3), 323–346. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80059-6 Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

676

Compilation of References

Finlay, S., & Faulkner, G. (2005). Tête à tête: Reading groups and peer learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 32–45. doi:10.1177/1469787405049945 Finnish Ministry of Education. (2014). Grunderna för läroplanen för den grundläggande utbildningen 2014. [The foundation for the national curriculum of primary and secondary education 2014]. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/ sites/default/files/documents/166434_grunderna_for_laroplanen_verkkojulkaisu.pdf Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Finnish national core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish National Board of Education. Fish, B., Knell, E., & Buchanan, H. (2007). Teaching literacy to preliterate adults: The top and the bottom. Retrieved from https://www.tesol.org/convention-2018/tesol-2018-convention-news/2011/11/01/aeis-news-volume-5-2-(august-2007) Fishman, J. A. (2004). Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift. In T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 406–436). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Flack, Z. M., Naylor, M., & Leavens, D. A. (2018). Pointing to visible and invisible targets. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(2), 221–236. doi:10.100710919-017-0270-3 PMID:29527081 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., Shankweiler, D., & Frost, S. (2004). Coordination of reading and spelling in early literacy development: An examination of the discrepancy hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 17(6), 617–644. doi:10.1023/ B:READ.0000044297.85675.f5 Flewitt, R. (2013). Multimodal perspectives on early childhood literacies. In J. Larson, & J. Marshall (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed., pp. 295–310). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446247518.n17 Flores-González, N., & Gutiérrez, E. R. (2010). Taking the public square: The national struggle for immigrant rights. In A. Pallares, & N. Flores- González (Eds.), Marcha! Latino Chicago and the immigrant rights movement (pp. 3–36). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Flores, N., & García, O. (2013). Linguistic third spaces in education: Teachers’ translanguaging across the bilingual continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. van Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Key issues and some responses (pp. 243–256). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783090815-016 Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader. (pp. 48 ̶ 78.) Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegen Paul. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1988). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977– 1984. New York, NY: Routledge. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fowler, M. J. (2019). Rewriting the school story through racebending in the Harry Potter and Raven Cycle fandoms. Transformative Works and Cultures, 29. doi: . doi:10.3983/twc.2019.1492 Fox, J. D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 26 ̶ 42. 677

Compilation of References

Fox, J., Cheng, L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Do they make a difference? The impact of English language programs on second language students in Canadian universities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 57 ̶ 85. Fox, B. J., & Saracho, O. N. (1990). Emergent writing: Young children solving the written language puzzle. Early Child Development and Care, 56(1), 81–90. doi:10.1080/0300443900560108 Fox, J. D. (2004). Test decisions over time: Tracking validity. Language Testing, 21(4), 437–465. doi:10.1191/0265532204lt292oa Foy, J., & Mann, V. (2001). Does strength of phonological representations predict phonological awareness in preschool children? Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(3), 301–325. doi:10.1017/S0142716401003022 Foy, J., & Mann, V. (2003). Home literacy environment and phonological awareness in preschool: Differential effects for rhyme and phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 59–88. doi:10.1017/S0142716403000043 FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2017). Together in the EU: Promoting the participation of migrants and their descendants. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://fra. europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-together-in-the-eu_en.pdf Franken, M., May, S., & McComish, J. (2005). Pasifika languages research and guidelines project: Literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect, 5(7), 7–16. Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging new forms of life: The ‘four roles’ model. In G. Bull, & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 52–65). French Forest, Australia: Prentice-Hall. Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., Soto, M., & Ebe, A. (2016). ESL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation (D. Macedo, Trans.). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogia do oprimido [Pedagogy of the oppressed]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Paz e Terra. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garve.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Fricke, S., Bowyer-Crane, C., Haley, A. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Efficacy of language intervention in the early years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54(3), 280–290. doi:10.1111/ jcpp.12010 PMID:23176547 Friedman, A. (2016). Three-year-old photographers: Educational and parental mediation as a basis for visual literacy via digital photography in early childhood. Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education, 8(1), 15 ̶ 31. Friesem, Y., Quaglia, D., & Crane, E. (2014). Media now: A historical review of a media literacy curriculum. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 35–55. doi:10.23860/JMLE-2016-06-02-4 Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X11001841 PMID:22929057 Fuchs, C. (2011). Foundations of critical media and information studies. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203830864 678

Compilation of References

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Svenson, E., Yen, L., Thompson, A., McMaster, K., ... Braun, M. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies: First grade reading. Nashville, TN: Center on Accelerating Student Learning. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. doi:10.1207/ S1532799XSSR0503_3 Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam. How new pedagogies find deep learning. Retrieved from https:// www.michaelfullan.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf Furnes, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2011). Phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming predicting early development in reading and spelling: Results from a cross-linguistic longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 85–95. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.10.005 PMID:21359098 Fürsich, E. (2009). In defense of textual analysis: Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 238–252. doi:10.1080/14616700802374050 Gaines, E. (1993). A lesson before dying. New York, NY: Vintage. Galante, A. (2014). Developing EAL learners’ intercultural sensitivity through a digital literacy project. TESL Canada Journal, 32(1), 53–66. doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1199 Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it. New York, NY: Stenhouse Publishers. Galling, I. (2011). Sprachenporträts im Unterricht. Eine Unterrichtseinheit über Mehrsprachigkeit. [Language portraits in class. A teaching unit on multilingualism] In S. Fürstenau, & M. Gomolla (Eds.), Migration und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit [Migration and school change: Multilingualism]. (pp. 1–27). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Gallop, J. (2000). The ethics of reading: Close encounters. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 16(3), 7 ̶ 17. Gámez, P. B., González, D., & Urbin, L. M. (2017). Shared book reading and English learners’ narrative production and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3), 275 ̶ 290.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ganske, K. (2014). Word Journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford. Gantefort, C., & Michalak, M. (2017). Zwischen Sprache und Fach – Deutsch als Zweitsprache im Lehramtsstudium an der Universität zu Köln. [Between language and subject – German as a second language in teacher-training at the university of Cologne] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, P. Rosenberg, C. Schroeder, & A. Witte (Eds.), Deutsch als Zweitsprache in der Lehrerbildung [German as a second language in teacher-training]. (pp. 61–73). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Pivot. Garcia, A. (2017). Good reception: Teens, teachers, and mobile media in a Los Angeles high school. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/10215.001.0001 García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Basil/Blackwell. 679

Compilation of References

García, O. (2012). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic, & K. Seltzer (Eds.), Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB. García, O. (2014). Educação, multilinguismo e translanguaging no século XXI. [Education, multilingualism and tanslanguaging in the 21st century] In M. Moreira, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Filhos de um Deus menor: Diversidade linguística e justiça social na formação de professores [Children of a lesser God: Linguistic variety and social justice in teacher education]. (pp. 53–76). Ramada, Portugal: Edições Pedago. García, O. (2014). What is translanguaging? Expanded questions and answers for U.S. educators. In S. Hesson, K. Seltzer, & H. H. Woodley (Eds.), Translanguaging in curriculum and instruction: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB. García, O., Bartlett, L., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer, & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics: Vol. 5. Multilingualism (pp. 207–228). Berlin, Germany: Mouton/de Gruyter. García, O., & Flores, N. (2010). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. García, O., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2011). Extending bilingualism in US secondary education: New variations. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/19313152.2011.539486 García, O., Johnson, J., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. García, O., & Kao, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh, & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education. Opportunities and challenges (pp. 258–277). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092246-018 García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315695242 García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/97894-007-7856-6_11 García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education (3rd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_9-1 García, O., & Ortheguy, R. (2019). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

García, O., Sylvan, C., & Witt, D. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01208.x Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765 Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2004). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Garrity, S., Aquino-Sterling, C. R., & Day, A. (2015). Translanguaging in an infant classroom: Using multiple languages to make meaning. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(3), 177–196. doi:10.1080/19313152.2015.1048542 680

Compilation of References

Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch9 Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gavelek, J., & Bresnaban, P. (2008). Ways of meaning making. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 140 ̶ 176). New York, NY: Routledge. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, practice and research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003 Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to high-stakes school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.007 Gee, J. (2001). Reading as situated language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725. doi:10.1598/ JAAL.44.8.3 Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5–17. doi:10.1177/002205748917100101 Gee, J. P. (1992). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 31–48. doi:10.1017/S0267190500002130 Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J. P. (1997). A discourse approach to language and literacy. In C. Lankshear (Ed.), Changing literacies (pp. 13-19). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: St. Martins Griffin. Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802157.006 Gee, J. P. (2010). A situated-sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165–193). New York, NY: Guilford. Gee, J. P. (2013). Good video games and good learning. Bern, Switzerland: Pater Lang.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gee, J. P. (2015). The essential James Gee: An introduction to discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2015). The new literacy studies. In J. Rowsell, & K. Pahl (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of literacy studies (pp. 35–48). London, UK: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gegeo, D., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1999). Adult education, language change, and issues of identity and authenticity in Kwara’ae. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(1), 22–36. doi:10.1525/aeq.1999.30.1.22 Geisinger, K.F. (2016). 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245 ̶ 249. 681

Compilation of References

Geluso, J., & Yamaguchi, A. (2014). Discovering formulaic language through data-driven learning: Student attitudes and efficacy. ReCALL, 26(2), 225–242. doi:10.1017/S0958344014000044 Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts: Threshold of interpretation (J. Lewin, Trans.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1987) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511549373 Gentry, J. R. (2000). A retrospective on invented spelling and a look forward. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 318–332. George, H. (1972). Common errors in language learning: Insights from English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Germany policy brief. (2016). Migration: Integrating refugees and other migrants into education and training. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/germany/germany-integratingrefugees-and-other-migrants-into-education-and-training.pdf Geudens, A. (2006). Phonological awareness and learning to read a first language: Controversies and new perspectives. LOT Occasional Series, 6, 25–43. Geva, E., & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12(1), 1–30. doi:10.1023/A:1008017710115 Geva, E., & Willows, D. (1994). Orthographic knowledge is orthographic knowledge is orthographic knowledge. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge. Neuropsychology and Cognition (Vol. 8). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3492-9_11 Ghosn, I. (2002). Four good reasons to use literature in primary school ELT. ELT Journal, 56(2), 172 ̶ 179. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Giles, H., & Le Poire, B. A. (2006). Introduction: The ubiquity and social meaningfulness of nonverbal communication. In V. Manusov, & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 15–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gillespie, M. K. (1994). Rationales for adult native language literacy and directions for research (NCAL Technical Report TR94-03). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gilliland, E. (2016). Racebending fandoms and digital futurism. Transformative Works and Cultures, 8. doi: . doi:10.3983/ twc.2016.0702 Giraldo, F. (2018). Language assessment literacy: Implications for language teachers. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 20(1), 179 ̶ 195. GIZ. (n.d.). ABCami – Alphabethisierung und Grundbildung in den Moscheen [ABCami – Alphabetisation and basic education in the mosques]. Retrieved from https://giz.berlin/projects/abgeschlossene-projekte.html. Goatley, V., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education “book clubs”. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352 ̶ 380.

682

Compilation of References

Gogolin, I. (2008). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule, 2. unveränderte Auflage [The monolingual habitus of the multilingual school, 2nd ed.]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Gogolin, I. (2017). Sprachliche Bildung als Feld von sprachdidaktischer und erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung. [Linguistic education as a field of linguistic didactic and educational research] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, & H.-J. Roth (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder [Linguistic education – basics and fields of action]. (pp. 37–54). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Gogolin, I., & Neumann, U. (1991). Sprachliches Handeln in der Grundschule [Linguistic activities in primary school]. Die Grundschulzeitschrift [The Primary School Journal], 43, 6–13. Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf Goldfeld, S., Kvalsvig, A., Incledon, E., O’Connor, M., & Mensah, F. (2014). Predictors of mental health competence in a population cohort of Australian children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68(5), 431–437. doi:10.1136/ jech-2013-203007 PMID:24407594 Gombert, J. E., & Fayol, M. (1992). Writing in preliterate children. Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 23–41. doi:10.1016/09594752(92)90003-5 Gomes, A. A. S. (2012). Português brasileiro em uso por professores indígenas do estado do Amapá [Brazilian Portuguese used by indigenous teachers in the state of Amapá]. Retrieved from http://www.ileel.ufu.br/anaisdosielp/wp-content/ uploads/2014/06/volume_2_artigo_037.pdf Gonzalez, J. E., Acosta, S., Davis, H., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L., Soares, D., Resendez, N., & Zhu, L. (2017). Latino maternal literacy beliefs and practices mediating socioeconomic status and maternal education effects in predicting child receptive vocabulary. Early Education and Development, 28(1), 78 ̶ 95. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Rahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Lexical characteristics of words and phonological awareness skills of preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1509–1531. doi:10.1017/S0142716414000526 Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075ibil.48.18goo Gopalakrishnan, A. (2011). Multicultural children’s literature: A critical issues approach. New York, NY: Sage.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Goretti Zaragoza Ninet, M., & Brígido Corachán, A. (2011). Creative evaluation of communicative competence through digital story. The Grove: Working Papers on English Studies, 18, 285–303. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2016). Phonological skills and learning to read. New York, NY: Psychology Press and Routledge Classic Editions. Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Definitions and contexts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal. How stories make us human. New York, NY: Mariner Books. Government of Amapá. (2003). Resolution n. 06 of January 5, 2003 of Education State of Amapá. Approves the Fundamental Curriculum of the Indigenous Schools in Oiapoque. Amapá, Brazil: Education State of Amapá. 683

Compilation of References

Government of Brazil. (1996). Law n. 9.394 of 20 December 1996: Establishes the guidelines and basis for national education. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L9394.htm Government of Brazil. (2013). Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil: Constitutional text of October 5, 1988 with the alterations introduced by Constitutional Amendments no. 1/92 through 72/2013 and by Revision Constitutional Amendments no. 1/94 through 6/94 (6th rev. ed.). (I. Vajda, P. Q. C. Zimbres, & V. T. Souza, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: The Federal Senate, Undersecretariat of Technical Publications. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London, UK: British Council Publications. Grafe, S. (2011). Media literacy und media (literacy) education in den USA: Ein Brückenschlag über den Atlantik [Media literacy and media (literacy) education in the U.S.A: Bridging the gap across the Atlantic]. Medien-Pädagogik [Media education] 20, 59–80. Graff, H. (1994). Literacy, myths and legacies: Lessons from the history of literacy. In L. T. Verhoeven (Ed.), Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (pp. 231–322). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075wll.1.05gra Granath, S. (1998). Using corpora in teaching English syntax to EFL students at the university level. In L. Burnard (Ed.), Proceedings of teaching and language corpora: TaLC98 (pp. 87–92). Oxford, UK: Keble College. Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aljmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast. Text- based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press. Gray, S. H., Ehri, L. C., & Locke, J. L. (2018). Morpho-phonemic analysis boosts word reading for adult struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31(1), 75–98. doi:10.100711145-017-9774-9 PMID:29367806 Gray, W. S. (1956). The teaching of reading and writing. Paris, France: UNESCO. Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education (Vol. 25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Greenberg, D. (1998). Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(4), 252–261. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. doi:10.1017/S1366728998000133

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Green, D. W., & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 499–511. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.882515 Gregory, E., & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies: Learning to read across generations and cultures. London, UK: Routledge. Gresswell, R., & Simpson, J. (2012). Class blogging in ESOL. In D. Mallows (Ed.), Innovations in English language teaching for migrants and refugees (pp. 105–116). London, UK: British Council. Griffith, P. L. (1991). Phonemic awareness helps first graders invent spellings and third graders remember correct spellings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 215–233. doi:10.1080/10862969109547737 Griffiths, G., & Keohane, K. (2000). Personalizing language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 684

Compilation of References

Grinter, R. E., & Palen, L. (2002, November). Instant messaging in teen life. Paper presented at the 2002 Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587082 Grupioni, L. D. B. (2008). Olhar longe, porque o futuro é longe. Cultura, escola e professores indígenas no Brasil [To look forward, since the future is far away culture, school, and indigenous teachers in Brazil] (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil). Retrieved from http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8134/tde-24082009-170851/en.php Grupioni, L. D. B. (Ed.). (2001). As leis e a educação indígena: Programa parâmetros em ação de educação escolar indígena [The laws and the indigenous education: Program parameters in action in indigenous school education]. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Educação, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Guedes, W. M. M. (2005). Línguas em contato no Oiapoque: As comunidades indígenas Karipuna [Languages in contact at Oiapoque: The Karipuna indigenous communities] (Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal do Pará, Brazil). Retrieved from http://repositorio.ufpa.br/jspui/handle/2011/2110 Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S. (2011). The relation of morphological awareness and syntactic awareness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary knowledge a mediating variable? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. doi:10.1177/1086296X11403086 Guss, F. G. (2005). Dramatic playing beyond the theory of multiple intelligences. Research in Drama Education, 10(1), 43–54. doi:10.1080/13569780500053155 Guss, F. G. (2015). Barnekulturens iscenesettelser 1: Lekens dynamiske verdener [The gestalting of child culture 1: The dynamic worlds of play]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Guss, F. G. (2017). Barnekulturens iscenesettelser: II: Dramaturgiske spiraler [The gestalting of child culture 2: The dynamic worlds of play]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Gutiérrez, K. (2006) Culture matters: Rethinking educational equity. Retrieved from https://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/files/ gutierrez/gutierrez_culturematters.pdf> Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3 Gutiérrez, K., & Orellaña, M. F. (2006). The “problem” of English learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 502–507. Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

GuttingG. (1998). Post-structuralism. Retrieved from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/poststructuralism/v-1 Guzula, X., McKinney, C., & Tyler, R. (2016). Languaging-for-learning: Legitimising translanguaging and enabling multimodal practices in third spaces. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(3), 211–226. doi :10.2989/16073614.2016.1250360 Guzzetti, B. J., & Gamboa, M. (2005). Online journaling: The informal writings of two adolescent girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(1), 168–206. Haake, M., Hansson, K., Gulz, A., Schötz, S., & Sahlén, B. (2014). The slower the better? Does the speaker’s speech rate influence children’s performance on a language comprehension test? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(2), 181–190. doi:10.3109/17549507.2013.845690 PMID:24160304 685

Compilation of References

Haas, A. M. (2007). Wampum as hypertext: An American-Indian intellectual tradition of multimedia theory and practice. Studies in American Indian Literatures, 19(4), 77–100. doi:10.1353/ail.2008.0005 Haberman, M. (2011). The beliefs and behaviors of star teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Hadjioannou, X., & Fu, D. (2007). Critical literacy as a tool for preparing prospective educators for teaching in a multicultural world. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(2), 43–48. Hadley, G. (2002). An introduction to data-driven learning. RELC Journal, 33(2), 99–124. doi:10.1177/003368820203300205 Haese, A., Costandius, E., & Oostendorp, M. (2018). Fostering a culture of reading with wordless picturebooks in a South African context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(4), 587–598. doi:10.1111/jade.12202 Häggblom, C. (2006). Young EFL-pupils reading multicultural children’s fiction: An ethnographic case study in a Swedish language primary school in Finland (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-765-327-1 Hall, D., & Williams, E. (2000). The teacher’s guide to building blocks. Greensboro, NC: Carson- Dellosa. Hall, G. (2015). Literature in language education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137331847 Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067 Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional linguistics. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hall, J. (2018). Illustrated dictionary of symbols in Eastern and Western art. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429499937 Hall, J. K. (2012). Teaching and researching language and culture. London, UK: Routledge. Hall, K., Curtin, A., & Rutherford, V. (2014). Networks of mind: Language, culture, neuroscience. London, UK: Routledge. Hall, K., Murphy, P., Murphy, P. F., & Soler, J. (2008). Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities. London, UK: Sage.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hall, S. (2006). A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade [The question of cultural identity]. (11th ed.). (T. T. Silva, & G. L. Louro, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: DP&A. Halse, C., Cloonan, A., Dyer, J., Kostogriz, A., Toe, D., & Weinmann, M. (2013). Asia literacy and the Australian teaching workforce. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30059952 Halse, C. (2015). Asia literate schooling in the Asian century. In C. Halse (Ed.), Routledge series on schools and schooling in Asia. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315815121 Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2008). Influence of first language orthographic experience on second language decoding and word learning. Language Learning, 58(1), 1–31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00433.x Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2010). The role of phonological decoding in second language word-meaning inference. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 513–531. doi:10.1093/applin/amp061 686

Compilation of References

Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605796 Hamlyn, D. W. (2017). The psychology of perception. A philosophical examination of gestalt theory and derivative theories of perception. London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1957) doi:10.4324/9781315473291 Hammer, J. (2005). Exploring literacy with infants from a sociocultural perspective. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’. Work (Reading, Mass.), 2(2), 70–75. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 1–14). Newtown: PETA. Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2. (pp. 89 ̶ 105). New York, NY: Routledge. Han, E. (2012, November 29). Outcry over police reaction to assaulted Korean student. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/outcry-over-police-reaction-to-assaulted-korean-student-20121128-2ae93.html Hanemann, U., & McKay, V. (2019). Learning in the mother tongue: Examining the learning outcomes of the South African Kha Ri Gude literacy campaign. International Review of Education, 65(3), 351–387. doi:10.100711159-019-09782-5 Hannon, L. (2003). Delinquency and educational attainment: Cumulative disadvantage or disadvantage saturation? Sociological Inquiry, 73(4), 575–594. doi:10.1111/1475-682X.00072 Harbon, L. (2013). Second language teachers and intercultural literacy. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 77–87. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Sulkunen, S., Suni, M., & Vettenranta, J. (2014). Avaimet osaamiseen ja tulevaisuuteen. Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisesta ja siihen liittyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012-tutkimuksessa [Keys to competence and a future. A Report on PISA 2012 results and related underlying factors for students with an immigrant background]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Harris, S. R. (2010). What is constructionism? Navigating its use in sociology. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Hartley, J. (2009). Uses of YouTube: Digital literacy and the growth of knowledge. In J. Burgess, & J. Green (Eds.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (pp. 126–143). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/97894-017-2243-8 Hartman, P. L., & Judd, E. L. (1978). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 308–393. doi:10.2307/3586137 Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007 PMID:29729947 Haß, F. (2012). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition, Innovation, Praxis [English didactics: Tradition, innovation, practice]. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen.

687

Compilation of References

Hateley, E. (2017). Art, adaptation, and the antipodean in Shaun Tan’s “The Lost Thing”. In P. Nodelman, N. Hamer, & M. Reimer (Eds.), More words about pictures: Current research on picturebooks and visual/verbal texts for young people. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315621814-4 Hatoss, A., O’Neill, S., & Eacersall, D. (2012). Career choices: Linguistic and educational socialization of Sudanesebackground high-school students in Australia. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 16–30. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.10.003 Hauber-Ozer, M. (2019). Culturally sensitive language and literacy instruction for Afghan refugee women in the US. Paper presented at the Language Education for Adult Refugees Experts Panel, Istanbul, Turkey. Haukås, Å., Bjørke, C., & Dypedahl, M. (Eds.). (2018). Metacognition in language learning and teaching. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351049146 Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. doi:10.1126cience.298.5598.1569 PMID:12446899 Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Haznedar, B. (in press). Bilingualism and multilingualism. In J. K. Peyton, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Teaching adults with limited literacy: Theory, research, and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Haznedar, B., Peyton, J. K., & Young-Scholten, M. (2018). Teaching adult migrants: A focus on the languages they speak. Critical Multilingualism Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 155–183. Healy, A. (2008). Expanding student capacities. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies: Pedagogies for diverse learners (pp. 2–29). Sydney, Australia: Oxford University Press. Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bed-time story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49–78. doi:10.1017/S0047404500009039 Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, lie, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511841057 Hedgcock, J. S., & Lee, H. (2017). An exploratory study of academic literacy socialization: Building genre awareness in a teacher education program. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 17 ̶ 28. Heger, H., & Wroldsen, N. (2013). [Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.]. Crossroads, 8B. Heikkilä-Halttunen, P. (2015). Lue lapselle! Opas lasten kirjallisuuskasvatukseen [Read to a child! Guide for children’s literature education]. Helsinki, Finland: Atena.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Heineke, A. J. (2015). Negotiating language policy and practice: Teachers of English learners in an Arizona study group. Educational Policy, 29(6), 843–878. doi:10.1177/0895904813518101 Hellmich, F., & Hoya, F. (2017). Primary school students’ implicit theories and their reading motivation: The role of parents’ and teachers’ effort feedback. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 225(2), 117–126. Helmchen, Ch., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2018). Introduction: Multilingual literacy practices at school and teacher education. In C. Helmchen, & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Plurilingual literacy practices at school and teacher education (pp. 9–15). Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang. Hempel-Jorgensen, A., Cremin, T., Harris, D., & Chamberlain, L. (2018). Pedagogy for reading for pleasure in low socio-economic primary schools: Beyond ‘pedagogy of poverty’? Literacy, 52(2), 86–94. doi:10.1111/lit.12157

688

Compilation of References

Henderson, D. (2008). Politics and policy-making for Asia literacy: The Rudd report and a national strategy in Australian education. Asian Studies Review, 32(2), 171–195. doi:10.1080/10357820802064690 Henderson, E. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Hernes, G., Martin, M., & Zadra, E. (2004). Planning for diversity: Education in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000139016 Herrera, S., Perez, D., & Escamilla, K. (2015). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies. Boston, MA: Pearson. Heyward, M. (2000). Intercultural literacy and the international school. The International Schools Journal, 19(2), 29–36. Hicks, D. (2001). Literacies and masculinities in the life of a young working-class boy. Language Arts, 78(3), 217 ̶ 226. Hiebert, E. H., Goodwin, A. P., & Cervetti, G. N. (2018). Core vocabulary: Its morphological content and presence in exemplar texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 29–49. doi:10.1002/rrq.183 Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2009). Repetition of words: The forgotten variable in texts for beginning and struggling readers. In E. H. Hiebert, & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 47–69). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2015). Changes in the texts of reading instruction during the past 50 years. In P. D. Pearson, & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 215–236). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Higgins, J. J. (2000). Multicultural children’s literature: Creating and applying an evaluation tool in response to the needs of urban educators. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Antioch University, Washington. Higgins, C. (2009). English as a local language: Post-colonial identities and multilingual practices. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847691828 Hill, D. A. (2013). The visual elements in EFL coursebooks. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 157 ̶ 166). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Hilpert, M., & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401. doi:10.1093/llc/fqn012 Hinnells, J. R. (2005). The Routledge companion to the study of religion. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203412695

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hjarvard, S. (Ed.). (2008). The mediatization of religion: A theory of the media as agents of religious change. Bristol, UK: Intellect. Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Retrieved from https://knightfoundation.org/reports/ digital-and-media-literacy-plan-action Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 1–11. Hobfoll, S. E., Watson, P., Bell, C. C., Bryant, R. A., Brymer, M. J., Friedman, M. J., ... Ursano, R. J. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4), 283–369. doi:10.1521/psyc.2007.70.4.283 PMID:18181708

689

Compilation of References

Ho, D. G. E. (2009). Systemic text analysis in the ESL writing classroom: Does it work? RELC Journal, 40(3), 333–359. doi:10.1177/0033688209343869 Hoff, H. E. (2018). Intercultural competence. In A. B. Fenner, & A. A. Skulstad (Eds.), Teaching English in the 21st century: Central issues in English didactics (pp. 67 ̶ 89). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Hoff, E. (2018). Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 80–86. doi:10.1111/cdep.12262 PMID:29805472 Hoff, H. E. (2017). Fostering the ‘intercultural reader’? An empirical study of socio-cultural approaches to EFL literature. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(3), 443–464. doi:10.1080/00313831.2017.1402366 Hoffman, M. (2019). Including multiple literacies in the classroom. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 21–37. Hoffman, P., McClelland, J. L., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2018). Concepts, control, and context: A connectionist account of normal and disorder semantic cognition. Psychological Review, 125(3), 293–328. doi:10.1037/rev0000094 PMID:29733663 Hohberger, W. (2018). Opportunities in higher education for Syrians in Turkey: The perspective of Syrian university students on the educational conditions, needs and possible solutions for improvement. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center. Hohr, H. (2015). Estetisk oppdragelse og kunst [Aesthetic fostering and art]. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk [Nordic Journal of Pedagogy and Critique], 1, 1–11. Holland, P. (2004). Picturing childhood: The myth of the child in popular imagery. London, UK: I. B. Tauris. Holliday, J. J. (2010). Inter- and intra-L1 differences in L2 speech perception. Talk given at the INTERSPEECH 2010 Satellite Workshop on Second Language Studies: Acquisition, Learning, Education and Technology. Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. September 22, 2010. Holliday, A. (2019). Understanding intercultural communication: Negotiating a grammar of culture (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition of English literacy. Cognition, 59(2), 119–147. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00691-5 PMID:8681508 Holm, B. (2017). Northwest coast Indian art: An analysis of form. Washington, DC: University of Washington Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. New York, NY: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470754863 Homer, B. (2002). Literacy and metalinguistic thought: Development through knowledge construction & cultural mediation. In J. Brockmeir, M. Wang, & D. Olson (Eds.), Literacy, narrative and culture (pp. 266–282). London, UK: Curzon Press. Honeyford, M. A., & Boyd, K. (2015). Learning through play. Portraits, photoshop, and visual literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(1), 63–73. doi:10.1002/jaal.428 hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London, UK: Routledge. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. London, UK: Routledge. hooks, b. (2006). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. London, UK: Routledge.

690

Compilation of References

Hope, J. (2011). New insights into family learning for refugees: Bonding, bridging and building transcultural capital. Literacy, 45(2), 91–97. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00581.x Hornberger, N. (2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2&3), 155–171. doi:10.1080/13670050408667806 Hornberger, N. H. (2013). Biliteracy continua. In M. R. Hawkinds (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 149–167). New York, NY: Routledge. Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853596568 Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.658016 Horner, B., & Lu, M. (2007). Resisting monolingualism in English. In V. Ellis, C. Fox, & B. Street (Eds.), Rethinking English in schools: A new and constructive stage (pp. 65–87). New York, NY: Longman. Horning, K. T. (2010). From cover to cover: Evaluating and reviewing children’s books. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Hourigan, T., & Murray, L. (2010). Using blogs to help language students to develop reflective learning strategies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 209–225. doi:10.14742/ajet.1091 Hsu, C. F. (2014). Open and positive attitudes toward teaching. In K. G. Hendrix, & A. Hebbani (Eds.), Hidden roads: Non-native English-speaking international professors in the classroom (pp. 41–49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hu, A. (2010). Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. [Multilingual pedagogy] In C. Surkamp (Ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik [Metzler encyclopedia foreign language didactics]. (pp. 215–217). Stuttgart, Germany: J. B. Metzler. Huang, J. (2013). Bridging authentic experiences and literacy skills through the language experience approach. Journal of Adult Education, 42(1), 8–15. Hubbard, P. (2009). A general introduction to computer assisted language learning. In P. Hubbard (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics. Volume I – Foundations of CALL (pp.1–20). New York, NY: Routledge. Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company. Huffman, J. M., & Fortenberry, C. (2011). Helping preschoolers prepare for writing: Developing fine motor skills. Young Children, 66(5), 100–103.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hu, G. (2011). Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System, 39(1), 63–77. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011 Hughes-Hassell, S. (2013). Multicultural young adult literature as a form of counter-storytelling. The Library Quarterly, 83(3), 212–228. Hulstijn, J. H. (2010). Linking L2 proficiency to L2 acquisition. Opportunities and challenges of profiling research. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 233–238). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Second Language Association. Hurley, N. (2014). The little transgender mermaid: A shape-shifting tale. In M. Reimer, N. Ali, D. England, & M. D. Unrau (Eds.), Seriality and texts for young people: The compulsion to repeat (pp. 258–280). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

691

Compilation of References

Hutchinson, M. (2013). Bridging the gap: Preservice teachers and their knowledge of working with English language learners. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 25–54. doi:10.1002/tesj.51 Huynh, N. T., Thomas, A., & To, V. T. (2018). East meets west? Identifying points of contestation when mediating understandings about Eastern picturebooks with children. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Multimodality, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Huynh, N. T., Thomas, A., & To, V. T. (2019). Interpreting cultural meanings of non-western Images with East Asian philosophical concepts. Paper presented at the ASFLA 2019, The University of Sydney, Australia. Hyman, L. M. (1975). Phonology: Theory and analysis. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Ilyas, H. P. (2016). Retaining literature in the Indonesian ELT curriculum. Studies in English Language and Education, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.24815iele.v3i1.3384 Imel, S. (1998). Using adult learning principles in adult basic and literacy education practice. Retrieved from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED425336.pdf Ingersoll, C. (2001). Meeting the language needs of low-literacy adult immigrants in Washington, DC and suburban northern Virginia (Report No. FL 801452; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 456 676). International Youth Foundation. (2018). Opportunities for Syrian youth in Istanbul: A labor market assessment. Istanbul, Turkey: International Youth Foundation (IYF). Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504. doi:10.1093/elt/ccs047 Iser, W. (1972). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. New Literary History, 3(2), 279 ̶ 299. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Itten, J. (1993). The art of color: The subjective experience and objective rationale of color. New York, NY: John Wiley. Iversen, L. L. (2019). From safe spaces to communities of disagreement. British Journal of Religious Education, 41(3), 315 ̶ 326. Iversen, L. L. (2012). Learning to be Norwegian: A case study in identity management. Münster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag. Jackson, T., & Bryson, B. (2018). Community mapping as a tool for developing culturally relevant pedagogy. New Educator, 14(2), 109–128. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2018.1426323 Jafarpour, A. A., & Koosha, M. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 192–209.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jakobsen, I. K., & Tønnessen, E. S. (2018). A design-oriented analysis of multimodality in English as a foreign language. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 40–52. doi:10.16993/dfl.89 Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Janks, H. (2012). The importance of critical literacy. English Teaching, 11(1), 150–163. Janks, H., Dixon, K., Ferreira, A., Granville, S., & Newfield, D. (2014). Doing critical literacy: Texts and activities for students and teachers. London, UK: Routledge. Japan Student Services Organization. (2019). Overview of international students’ acceptance. Retrieved from https:// www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2018/index.html 692

Compilation of References

Jarvis, P. (1987). Meaningful and meaningless experience: Towards an analysis of learning from life. Adult Education Quarterly, 37(3), 164–172. doi:10.1177/0001848187037003004 Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press. Jessner, U. (2014). On multilingual awareness or why multilingual learner is a specific language learner. In M. Pawlak, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism (pp. 175–184). Bern, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_10 Jetnikoff, A. (2013). Exploring intercultural and ethical understanding through “Ethical Intelligence” and drama in Asian texts for the “Australian Curriculum: English”. Engineers Australia, 48(2), 45–54. Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London, UK: Routledge. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. R. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In T. van Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134–156). London, UK: Sage. Jitendra, A. K., Nolet, V., Xin, N. P., Gomez, O., Renouf, K., Iskold, L., & DaCosta, J. (2001). An analysis of middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(2), 151–173. doi:10.1080/105735601300007606 Johnson, K. R. (2017). Immigration and civil rights in the Trump administration: Law and policy making by executive order. Santa Clara Law Review, 57, 611–665. Johnson, K., & Bayrd, P. (2010). Megawords: Decoding, spelling, and understanding multisyllabic words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: School Specialty Inc. Johnson, L., & Kendrick, M. (2016). “Impossible is nothing”: Expressing difficult knowledge through digital storytelling. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(6), 1–9. Johnson, N. J., Koss, M. D., & Martinez, M. (2018). Through the sliding glass door: #EmpowerTheReader. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 569–577. doi:10.1002/trtr.1659 Johns, T. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learners’ research tool. System, 14(2), 151–162. doi:10.1016/0346251X(86)90004-7 Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. In T. Johns, & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing (pp. 1–16). Birmingham, UK: ELR. Jolls, T., & Wilson, C. (2014). The core concepts: Fundamental to media literacy yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 68–78. doi:10.23860/JMLE-2016-06-02-6

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jonas, R. C. K., & Lantz, C. (Eds.). (2010). Spotlight 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Natur & Kultur. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3). Retrieved from https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f674/80594ca2ab46e25 777653a8cc4f05fbe3135.pdf Jones, E. V. (1986). Teaching reading through experience. Life Learning, 9(7), 29–31. Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 161–176. doi:10.1080/14790710802387562

693

Compilation of References

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 17–29. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/003) Justice, L., & Pullen, P. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(3), 99–113. doi:10.1177/02711214030230030101 Kabuto, B. (2010). Code-switching during parent-child reading interactions: Taking multiple theoretical perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(2), 131–157. doi:10.1177/1468798409345109 Kagan, O. E., Carreira, M., & Chik, C. H. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315727974 Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies (2nd ed.). Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316442821 Kalman, J. (1999). Writing on the plaza: Mediated literacy practice among scribes and clients in Mexico City. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Kalogirou, T., & Malafantis, K. (2012). Do I dare/disturb the universe? Critical pedagogy and the ethics of resistance to and engagement with literature. The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 265–284. Kaltenböck, G., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65–84. doi:10.1017/S0958344005000613 Kamhi, A. G., & Hinton, L. N. (2000). Explaining individual differences in spelling ability. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 37–49. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00006 Kanu, Y. (2006). Introduction. In Y. Kanu (Ed.), Curriculum as cultural practice: Post-colonial imaginations (pp. 3–29). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. doi:10.3138/9781442686267-002 Karakilic, I. Z., Korukmez, L., & Soykan, C. (2019). Resilience, work and gender in the Turkish migratory context: Literature review. Istanbul, Turkey: Gar and Heinrich Boll Stiftung. Kashina, K. (1994). The dilemma of standard English in Zambia: Pedagogical, educational and sociocultural considerations. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 7(1), 17–28. doi:10.1080/07908319409525163 Kathryn, J., & Jason, R. M. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. Advances in Psychology, 94, 67–84. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62789-2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kaufhold, K. (2018). Creating translanguaging spaces in students’ academic writing practices. Linguistics and Education, 45, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.02.001 Kauppinen, M. (2010). Lukemisen linjaukset: lukutaito ja sen opetus perusopetuksen äidinkielen ja kirjallisuuden opetussuunnitelmissa [Literacy delineated – reading literacy and its instruction in the curricula for mother tongue in basic education] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4011-9 Kearns, D. M., & Al Ghanem, R. (2019). The role of semantic information in children’s word reading: Does meaning affect readers’ ability to say polysyllabic words aloud? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 933–956. doi:10.1037/ edu0000316

694

Compilation of References

Kearns, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. L., & Sáenz, L. (2015). Peer-assisted learning strategies to improve students’ word recognition and reading comprehension. In K. R. Harris, & L. Meltzer (Eds.), The power of peers in the classroom: Enhancing learning and social skills (pp. 143–187). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Keehne, C. N. K., Wai’ale’ale Sarsona, M., Kawakami, A. J., & Au, K. (2018). Culturally responsive instruction and literacy learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(2), 141–166. doi:10.1177/1086296X18767226 Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Hensley, L. (2014). Exploring teacher emotions: A literature review and an experience sampling study. In P. W. Richardson, S. Karabenick, & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 69–82). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203119273-5 Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12025 Kennedy, S. (2012). Exploring the relationship between language awareness and second language use. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 398–408. doi:10.1002/tesq.24 Kennedy, S., & Blanchet, J. (2014). Language awareness and perception of connected speech in second language. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 92–106. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863904 Kennedy, S., Blanchet, J., & Trofimovich, P. (2014). Learner pronunciation, awareness, and instruction in French as a second language. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 79–96. doi:10.1111/flan.12066 Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness, 19(3), 171–185. doi:10.1080/09658416.2010.486439 Kenner, C. (2004). Living in simultaneous worlds: Difference and integration in bilingual script-learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 43–61. doi:10.1080/13670050408667800 Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210. doi:10.2307/40264516 Kervin, L., Mantei, J., & Herrington, J. (2009). Using technology in pedagogically responsive ways to support literacy learners. In L. T. W. Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 203–215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch013 Keyes, E. F., & Kane, C. F. (2004). Belonging and adapting: Mental health of Bosnian refugees living in the United States. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(8), 809–831. doi:10.1080/01612840490506392 PMID:15545245

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Khatib, M., Rezaei, S., & Derakhshan, A. (2011). Literature in ESL/EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 201 ̶ 208. Khodadady, E. (2008). Schema-based textual analysis of domain-controlled authentic texts. Iranian. Journal of Language Studies-IJLS, 2(4), 431–448. Kim, S. J. (2015). Korean-origin kindergarten children’s response to African-American characters in race-themed picture books. Education Research International. Retrieved from https://new.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2015/986342/ Kim, A.-Y., Park, A., & Lust, B. (2018). Simultaneous vs. successive bilingualism among preschool-aged children: A study of four-year-old Korean-English bilinguals in the USA. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 164–178. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1145186 695

Compilation of References

Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., & Gruelich, L. (2014). The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartners. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 237–253. doi:10.100711145-013-9440-9 PMID:24982590 Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2017). Early readers’ perceptions of the value of literacy in their lives. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5(1), 57–70. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kister, D. A. (2006). Korean shamanist ritual: Symbols and dramas of transformation. Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing Company. Kkese, E. (2010). Issues in L2 acquisition of spelling: When spelling tests are simply not enough. In P. Pavlou (Ed.), Research on English as a foreign language in Cyprus (pp. 223–257). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Nicosia Press. Kkese, E. (2016). Identifying plosives in L2 English: The case of L1 Cypriot Greek speakers. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG. doi:10.3726/b10379 Kkese, E. (2018). Assessing L2 writing in the absence of scoring procedures: Construction of rating scales in a CypriotGreek EFL in-class context. Journal of English Education, 3(2), 46–56. doi:10.31327/jee.v3i2.809 Kkese, E. (2020). L2 writing assessment: The neglected skill of spelling. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kkese, E., & Petinou, K. (2017). Perception abilities of L1 Cypriot Greek listeners –Types of errors involving plosive consonants in L2 English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(1), 1–25. doi:10.100710936-016-9417-3 PMID:26965243 Klassen, C. R. (1993). Exploring “The color of peace:” Content-area literature discussions. In K. M. Pierce, & C. J. Gilles (Eds.), Cycles of meaning (pp. 237 ̶ 259). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Klassen, J. (2012). This is not my hat. London, UK: Walker Books. Kleckova, G., & Svejda, P. (2019). Creating visually effective materials for English learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Kleyn, T., & Yau, H. (2016). The grupito flexes their listening and learning muscles. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 100–117). New York, NY: Routledge. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading “real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291–302. doi:10.1177/074193 25040250050301 Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A., & Swanson, E. (2012). Now we get it: Boosting comprehension with collaborative strategic reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kloock, D., & Spahr, A. (2000). Medientheorien: Eine Einführung [Media theories: An introduction]. München, Germany: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101. doi:10.1002/jaal.314 Knospe, Y., Sullivan, K. P. H., Malmqvist, A., & Valfridsson, I. (2019). Observing writing and website browsing: Swedish students write L3 German. In E. Lindgren, & K. P. H. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 258–284). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004392526_013 Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

696

Compilation of References

Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1 orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 393–410. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009499 Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. Modern Languages, 83(1), 51–64. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00005 Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139524841 Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(Suppl. 1), 1–44. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1 Ko, M. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of EFL learners’ post-reading reflections in a critical literacy-based class. English Linguistics Research, 2(2), 1–14. doi:10.5430/elr.v2n2p1 Ko, M., & Wang, T. F. (2009). Introducing critical literacy to EFL teaching: Three Taiwanese college teachers’ conceptualization. Asian EFL Journal, 11(1), 174–191. Ko, M., & Wang, T. F. (2013). EFL learners’ critical literacy practices: A case study of four college students in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 221–229. doi:10.100740299-012-0013-5 Koskinen, P. S., Blum, I. H., Bisson, S. A., Phillips, S. M., Creamer, T. S., & Baker, T. K. (2000). Book access, shared reading, and audio models: The effects of supporting the literacy learning of linguistically diverse students in school and at home. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 23–36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.23 Kosmidis, M. H., Tsapkini, K., Folia, V., Vlahou, C. H., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2004). Semantic and phonological processing in illiteracy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10(6), 818–827. doi:10.1017/S1355617704106036 PMID:15637772 Kostiainen, E., Ukskoski, T., Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., Kauppinen, M., Kainulainen, J., & Mäkinen, T. (2018). Meaningful learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 66–77. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.009 Kozar, O. (2016). Teachers’ reaction to silence and teachers’ wait time in video and audioconferencing English lessons: Do webcams make a difference? System, 62, 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.07.002 Kozlowski, C. T. (2019). Professional development for teachers of English learners (ELs): How constructivist thinking and culturally responsive pedagogy can support best practice for ELs. In J. Keengwen, & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of research on assessment practices and pedagogical models for immigrant students (pp. 41–62). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9348-5.ch003 Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel (NRP) report on “fluency”. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 119–123. doi:10.1177/003172170108300208 Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from research (2nd ed.). London, UK: Libraries Unlimited. Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Kress, G. (2017). Making meaning: from teaching language to designing environments for learning in the contemporary world. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 9 ̶ 10). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment.

697

Compilation of References

Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. New York, NY: Routledge. Kress, G. (1997). Multimodal texts and critical discourse analysis. In E. Pedro (Ed.), Proceedings of the first international conference on discourse analysis (pp. 367–383). Lisbon, Portugal: Colibri. Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 337–340. doi:10.2307/3587959 Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, UK: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203619728 Krieger, D. (2003). Corpus linguistics: What it is and how it can be applied to teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(3). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Krieger-Corpus.html Krijnen, E., van Steensel, R., Meeuwisse, M., & Jongerling, J. (2019). Exploring a refined model of home literacy activities and associations with children’s emergent literacy skills. Reading and Writing, 1–32. doi:10.100711145-019-09957-4 Kristof, N. D., & Wu Dunn, S. (2010). Half the sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide. New York, NY: Vintage. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. doi:10.1037/e561252012-001 Krulatz, A. (2019). Content based instruction in teacher education: Reshaping pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language teaching. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 22, 9 ̶ 16. Krulatz, A., Dahl, A., & Flognfeldt, M. E. (2018). Enacting multilingualism from research to teaching practice in the English classroom. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm. Krumm, H. J., & Jenkins, E. M. (Eds.). (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehrsprachigkeit [Children and their languages–lively multilingualism]. Vienna, Austria: Eviva.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kubanyiova, M., & Crookes, G. (2016). Re-envisioning the roles, tasks, and contributions of language teachers in the multilingual era of language education research and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 117–132. doi:10.1111/modl.12304 Kultusministerkonferenz. (2016). Bildung in der digitalen Welt. Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz [Education in a digital world: Strategies of the standing conference of the ministers of education and cultural affairs of Germany]. Retrieved from https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2017/Strategie_neu_2017_datum_1.pdf Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. doi:10.4324/9781410615725 Kumashiro, K. K., & Ngo, B. (2007). Six lenses for anti-oppressive education: Partial stories, improbable conversations. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1298-0

698

Compilation of References

Kümmerling-Meibauer, B. (2012). Bilder intermedial. Visuelle Codes erfassen. [The medium of pictures. Understanding visual codes] In A. Pompe (Ed.), Literaturisches Lermen im Anfangsunterricht [Literary learning for beginners]. (pp. 19–33). Balmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Kümmerling-Meibauer, B., & Meibauer, J. (2018). Early-concept books and concept books. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 149–157). London, UK: Routledge. Kurvers, J. (2007). Development of word recognition skills of adult L2 beginning readers. In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Research, policy and practice- Proceedings of the 2nd annual forum (pp. 23 ̶ 44). Richmond, VA: The Literacy Institute. Kurvers, J., Vallen, T., & van Hout, R. (2006). Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates. In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 69 ̶ 88). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Kurvers, J., van Hout, R., & Vallen, T. (2006). Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 69–88). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Kurvers, J. (2015). Emerging literacy in adult second-language learners: A synthesis of research findings in the Netherlands. Writing Systems Research, 7(1), 58–78. doi:10.1080/17586801.2014.943149 Kurvers, J., van Hout, R., & Vallen, T. (2009). Print awareness of adult illiterates: A comparison with young pre-readers and low-educated adult readers. Reading and Writing, 22(8), 863–887. doi:10.100711145-008-9129-7 PMID:19768120 Kusumaningputri, R., & Widodo, H. P. (2018). Promoting Indonesian university students’ critical intercultural awareness in tertiary EAL classrooms: The use of digital photograph-mediated intercultural tasks. System, 72, 49–61. doi:10.1016/j. system.2017.10.003 Kwon, H., & Schallert, D. (2016). Understanding translanguaging practices through a biliteracy continua framework: Adult biliterates reading academic texts in their two languages. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(2), 138–151. doi:10.10 80/15235882.2016.1167139 Kyte, C. S., & Johnson, C. J. (2006). The role of phonological recoding in orthographic learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(2), 166–185. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.09.003 PMID:16246358 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465 Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In W. Ayres, G. LadsonBillings, & G. Michie (Eds.), City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row (pp. 162–177). New York, NY: The New Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751 Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language in woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

699

Compilation of References

Laloy, D., & Marcelle, H. (2014). Alphabétisation et littératie: Politiques, pratiques et publics [Alphabetization and literacy: Politics, practices and publics]. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263073894_LALOY_D_ MARCELLE_H_2014_Alphabetisation_et_litteratie_Politiques_pratiques_et_publics_Les_politiques_sociales_1_2_2014 Lambelet, A., Berthele, R., Desgrippes, M., Pestana, C., & Vanhove, J. (2018). Testing interdependence in Portuguese heritage speakers in Switzerland: The HELASCOT project. In R. Berthele, & A. Lambelet (Eds.), Heritage and school language literacy development in migrant children (pp. 26–33). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lambert, J. (2009). Where it all started: The center for digital storytelling in California. In J. Hartley, & K. McWilliam (Eds.), Story circle: Digital storytelling around the world (pp. 79–90). New York, NY: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9781444310580.ch4 Lambert, J. (2013). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating communities (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203102329 Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211 Landgraf, S., Beyer, R., Hild, I., Schneider, N., Horn, E., Schaadt, G., ... van der Meer, E. (2012). Impact of phonological processing skills on written language acquisition in illiterate adults. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(Suppl. 1), S129–S138. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.11.006 PMID:22682902 Landi, N., Perfetti, C. A., Bolger, D. J., Dunlap, S., & Foorman, B. R. (2006). The role of discourse context in developing word form representations: A paradoxical relation between reading and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(2), 114–133. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.12.004 PMID:16600285 Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2004). Phonological awareness assessment and instruction: A sound beginning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Lanehart, S. (Ed.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of African American language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20–25. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.12.004 Lankshear, C. (2007). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1 ̶ 24). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2002). DOOM or Mortal Kombat? Bilingual literacy in the mainstream classroom. In D. L. Soto (Ed.), Making a difference in the lives of bilingual/bicultural children, (pp. 31 ̶ 52). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). Literacies: Social, cultural, and historical perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lao, C. Y., & Krashen, S. (2000). The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System, 28(2), 261–270. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00011-7 Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Larrotta, C., & Yamamura, E. K. (2011). A community cultural wealth approach to Latina/Latino parent involvement: The promise of family literacy. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 74–83.

700

Compilation of References

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 55–72. doi:10.1111/flan.12314 Latif, M. M. M. A. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 99–105. doi:10.1093/applin/ams073 Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lawton, D., & Gordon, V. (1996). Dictionary of English. London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton. Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511733048 Le, K. T. (2015). Tam-giao cultural expression and representations of post-war trauma in Vietnamese visual arts. (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University, Australia). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/2192 Lea, M. R. (2017). Academic literacies in theory and practice. In B. V. Street, & S. May (Eds.), Literacies and language education: Encyclopedia of language and education, (pp. 147 ̶ 158). Cham, Switzerland: Springer doi:10.1007/978-3319-02252-9_19 Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368 ̶ 377. Lebart, L., Salem, A., & Berry, L. (1997). Exploring textual data: Vol. 4. Kluwer. The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media. Lee, S. (2001). The relationship of writing apprehension to the revision process and topic preference: A student perspective. Paper presented at the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan. Lee, C. (2007). Culture, literacy and learning: Taking Bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lee, H. (2015). Telling stories and making social relations: Transnational women’s ways of belonging in intercultural contexts. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 174–193. doi:10.1093/applin/amt038 Lee, H. N. (2015). Using picture books in EFL college reading classrooms. The Reading Matrix, 15(1), 66–77. Lee, J. F. (2018). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks: A corpus study. Gender and Education, 30(3), 379–395. doi:10.1080/09540253.2016.1214690

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It’s not my job”: K–12 teacher attitudes toward students’ heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453–477. doi:10.1080/15235882.2006.10162885 Lee, K., Cameron, C. A., Xu, F., Fu, G., & Board, J. (1997). Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations of lying and truth telling: Similarities and differences in the context of pro‐and antisocial behaviors. Child Development, 68(5), 924–934. doi:10.2307/1132042 PMID:29106719 Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(2), 212–222. doi:10.1017/S095834401000008X Lee, L. (2017). Learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of blogging for L2 writing in fully online language courses. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 19–33. doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2017010102 701

Compilation of References

Lehman, B. (2011). Reading globally: The reader’s responsibility in literary transactions. In L. M. Pavonetti (Ed.), Bridges to understanding: Envisioning the world through children’s books (pp. 9–16). Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press. Leikin, M., Schwartz, M., & Share, D. L. (2010). General and specific benefits of bi-literate bilingualism: A RussianHebrew study of beginning literacy. Reading and Writing, 23(3-4), 269–272. doi:10.100711145-009-9210-x Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123–143. doi:10.2307/3587031 Leland, C., Harste, J., & Huber, K. (2005). Out of the box: Critical literacy in a first-grade classroom. Language Arts, 82(4), 257–268. Lems, K., Miller, L. D., & Soro, T. M. (2017). Building literacy with English language learners: Insights from linguistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Lerkkanen, M. K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Viljaranta, J., Poikkeus, A. M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., ... Nurmi, J. E. (2012). The role of teaching practices in the development of children’s interest in reading and mathematics in kindergarten. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 266–279. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.03.004 Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18. doi:10.1177/002205741719700202 Levine, K. (1982). Functional literacy: Fond illusions and false economies. Harvard Educational Review, 52(3), 249–266. doi:10.17763/haer.52.3.77p7168115610811 Levin, F. (2007). Encouraging ethical respect through multicultural literature. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 101–105. doi:10.1598/RT.61.1.13 Levy, R. (2008). Third spaces are interesting places: Applying third space theory to nursery-aged children’s constructions of themselves as readers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1), 43–66. doi:10.1177/1468798407087161 Lewis, C. (1997). The social drama of literature discussions in a fifth/sixth grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 163 ̶ 204. Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.4.5 Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488 Li, Y., Wang, M., & Sherlock, D. R. (submitted). Orthographic learning in Chinese L1 English L2 children.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler, & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1–33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Liden, A., Poulos, A., & Vinogradov, P. (2008). Building literacy in emergent adult readers. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual TESOL Convention, New York City, NY. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429–448. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009517 Lillis, T., & Tuck, J. (2016). Academic literacies: A critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 54 ̶ 67). New York, NY: Routledge.

702

Compilation of References

Lim, T.-S. (2017). Verbal communication across cultures. In L. Chen (Ed.), Intercultural communication (pp. 179–197). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9781501500060-008 Lin, A. M., & Wu, Y. (2015). ‘May I speak Cantonese?’–Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305. doi:10.1080/1367 0050.2014.988113 Lin, C. (2004). Literature circles. Teacher Librarian, 31(3), 23. Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (Eds.). (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004392526 Lindgren, E., Sullivan, K. P. H., & Stevenson, M. (2008). Supporting the reflective language learner with computer keystroke logging. In B. Barber, & F. Zhang (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 189–204). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-895-6.ch011 Lindholm, T., & Mednick Myles, J. (2019). Navigating the intercultural classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Lindqvist, G. (2002). Lekens estetik [The aesthetics of play]. Psyke & Logos [Psyche & Logos], 5(23), 437–450. Lin, L. K., Thang, S. M., Jaafar, N. M., & Zabidi, N. A. (2013). Digital storytelling as a project in an E.A.P. course: Insights from Malaysian undergraduates. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 11(2), 48–67. Lin, M., & Lee, J. (2015). Data-driven learning: Changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, 69(3), 264–274. doi:10.1093/elt/ccv010 Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4 ̶ 16. Liou, H. C. (2001). Reflective practice in a pre-service teacher education program for high school English teachers in Taiwan. System, 29(2), 197–208. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00011-2 Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge. Liscio, J., & Farrelly, R. (2019). Exploring notions of success through the social and cultural capital of adult refugeebackground students. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 131–152. Little, D. (2006). The common European framework of reference for languages and the development of policies for the integration of adult migrants. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM Content?documentId=09000016802fc0b1 Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990310 Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners’ reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 223 ̶ 243. Liu, J. (2013). Visual images interpretive strategies in multimodal texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1259 ̶ 1263. Liu, C. C., Yang, C. Y., & Chao, P. Y. (2019). A longitudinal analysis of student participation in a digital collaborative storytelling activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 907–929. doi:10.100711423-019-09666-3 Liu, C., Wang, P., & Tai, S. D. (2016). An analysis of student engagement patterns in language learning facilitated by web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 28(2), 104–122. doi:10.1017/S095834401600001X 703

Compilation of References

Liu, M., & Peng, W. (2009). Cognitive and psychological predictors of the negative outcomes associated with playing MMOGs (massively multiplayer online games). Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1306–1311. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2009.06.002 Livingstone, S. (2009). Foreword: Coming to terms with mediatization. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 9–13). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Li, X., Bicknell, K., Liu, P., Wei, W., & Rayner, K. (2014). Reading is fundamentally similar across disparate writing systems: A systematic characterization of how words and characters influence eye movements in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(2), 895–913. doi:10.1037/a0033580 PMID:23834023 Li, Y., Li, H., & Wang, M. (2019, September 19). The roles of phonological recoding, semantic radicals and writing practice in orthographic learning in Chinese. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1–12. doi:10.1080/10888438.2019.1663199 Llaurado, A., & Tolchinsky, L. (2016). The developmental pattern of spelling in Catalan from first to fifth school grade. Writing Systems Research, 8(1), 64–83. doi:10.1080/17586801.2014.1000812 Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (2001). Australian literacies informing national policy on literacy Education. Canberra, Australia: Language Australia Ltd. Lockridge, K. A. (1974). Literacy in colonial New England: An inquiry into the social construct of literacy in the early modern west. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 123–146. doi:10.1080/1057356970130203 Logan, J. A. R., Justice, L., Yumus, M., & Chaparro-Moreno, L. J. (2019). When children are not read to at home: The million word gap. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(5), 383–386. doi:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000657 PMID:30908424 Lohrey, A. (1998). Critical literacy: A professional development resource. Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia. London, N. A. (2001). Curriculum and pedagogy in the development of colonial imagination: A subversive agenda. Canadian and International Education, 30(1), 41–76. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (1998). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/z.96.11lon Long, S., Volk, D., López-Robertson, J., & Haney, M. J. (2014). ‘Diversity as a verb’ in preservice teacher education: Creating spaces to challenge the profiling of young children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 152–164. doi:10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.152 Lonsdale, M., & McCurry, D. (2004). Literacy in the new millennium. Adelaide, Australia: NCVER. Lopez, A. A., Turkan, S., & Guzman-Orth, D. (2017). Assessing multilingual competence. In E. Shohamy, L. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment, (pp. 91 ̶ 102). Cham, Switzerland: Springer doi:10.1007/978-3-31902261-1_6 704

Compilation of References

López, L. E., & Hanemann, U. (Eds.). (2009). Alfabetización y multiculturalidad: Miradas desde América Latina [Literacy and multiculturalism: Views from Latin America]. Guatemala City, Guatemala: UNESCO-UIL, GTZ-PACE. López, F., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(20), 1–31. doi:10.14507/epaa.v21n20.2013 López-Gopar, M. (2007) Beyond the alienating alphabetic literacy: Multiliteracies in indigenous education in Mexico. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education Studies of Migration, Integration, Equity, and Cultural Survival, 1(3), 159–174. López, M. M. (2020). Linking community literacies to critical literacies through community language and literacy mapping. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87; Advanced online publication. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102932 López, M. M., & Fránquiz, M. (2009). “We teach this way because it is the model we’ve adopted”: Asymmetries in language and literacy policies and implementation in two way Immersion Programs. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 175–200. doi:10.1080/02671520902867176 Lotherington, H. (2017). Elementary language education in digital multimodal and multiliteracy contexts. In S. Thorne, & S. May (Eds.), Language education and technology. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. (3rd ed., pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_7 Lotherington, H. (2019). Remixing emergent literacy education: Cross-age, plurilingual, multimedia adventures in narrative teaching and learning. In O. Erstad, R. S. Flewit, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, & Í. S. P. Pereira (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 227–241). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203730638-17 Louie, A. L. (1996). Yeh-shen: A Cinderella story from China. London, UK: Penguin Publishing. Louie, B. Y. (2006). Guiding principles for teaching multicultural literature. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 438–454. doi:10.1598/RT.59.5.3 Lucy, J. A. (1999). Reflexivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1-2), 212–215. doi:10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.212 Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4 ̶ 11. Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448–461. Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524834.002 Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012 .636324

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5–8. Lukes, M. (2011). “I understand English but can’t write it”: The power of native language for adult English learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(1), 19–38. doi:10.1080/19313152.2011.539488 Lundby, K. (Ed.). (2008). Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self-representations in new media. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Luo, J. (2015). Chinese painting and traditional Chinese culture. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 3(5), 176–181.

705

Compilation of References

Lutnæs, E. (2013). Regimes of competence in the subject art and crafts. Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 20(3). Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/757 Lutnæs, E. (2018). Creativity in assessment rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.designsociety.org/publication/40842/ creativity+in+assessment+rubrics Luttrell, W., & Parker, C. (2001). High school students’ literacy practices and identities, and the figured world of school. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 235 ̶ 247. Lynn, S. (2011). Texts and contexts: Writing about literature with critical theory (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Lyovin, A., Kessler, B., & Leben, W. (2017). An introduction to the languages of the world (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lypka, A. (2018). Infusing participatory digital service-learning to deepen community-engaged professional excellence: Triumphs and challenges. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 8(2), 77–93. Lypka, A. (2019). Transforming L2 learning and identity negotiation through linguistic landscapes and field trips. In A. L. G. Saglam, & K. Dikilitas (Eds.), Stories by teacher researchers in an online research community (pp. 33–44). Kent, ME: IATEFL. Maahs, I.-M. (2017). Türöffner Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Ein Jahr Weiterbildungsstudium DaZ intensiv: Interview mit zwei Teilnehmerinnen [Door opener German as a second language. One year of further education DaZ intensive: Interview with two participants]. ZMI-Magazin [ZMI Journal], 30–31. Retrieved from https://zmi-koeln.de/wp-content/ uploads/2018/02/zmi-mag-2017web.pdf Macedo, S. L. S. (2006). Ekolya et karetajar, maître de l’école, maître de l’écriture: L’incorporation de l’écriture et de l’écolep par les amérindiens Wayãpi de l’Amapari (Brésil) et de l’Oyapock (Guyane française) [Ekolya and Karetajar, master of the school, master of the writing: The incorporation of the writing and of the school by the Wayãpi indiens of the Amapari (Brazil) and of the Oyapock (French Guyana)] (Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne, France). Retrieved from http://www.theses.fr/2006EHES0239 Mackenzie, N. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching priorities in the first six months of school? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(3), 322–340. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. MacPhee, J. S. (1997). “That’s not fair!”: A white teacher reports on white first graders’ responses to multicultural literature. Language Arts, 74(1), 33–40.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

MacWhinney, B. (2018). A unified model of first and second language learning. In M. Hickmann, E. Veneziano, & H. Jisa (Eds.), Sources of variation in first language acquisition: Languages, contexts, and learners (pp. 287–312). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tilar.22.15mac Mahiri, J. (2004). What they don’t learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Mahlberg, M. (2007). Clusters, key clusters and local textual functions in Dickens. Corpora, 2(1), 1–31. doi:10.3366/ cor.2007.2.1.1 Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200–217. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.994524 Malaga, K. (2008). Maestra, ¿qué es un alfabeto? / Teacher, what is an alphabet? (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hamline University, St. Paul, MN. 706

Compilation of References

Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas and basic philosophy: An interview with Lelli Gandini by Loris Malaguzzi. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach: Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 49–98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Malczewska-Webb, B. (2014). Cultural and intercultural awareness of international students at an Australian university. In A. Lyda, & K. Szczepaniak (Eds.), Awareness in action (pp. 225–239). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_15 Malessa, E. (2018). Learning to read for the first time as adult immigrants in Finland: Reviewing pertinent research of low-literate or non-literate learners’ literacy acquisition and computer-assisted literacy training. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(1), 25–54. doi:10.17011/apples/urn.201804051932 Mallette, M. H., Kile, R. S., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. E. (2000). Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Pre-service teachers beginning to think about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 593–612. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00009-3 Mallows, D. (Ed.). (2014). Language issues in migration and integration: Perspectives from teachers and learners. London, UK: The British Council. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x PMID:21848955 Mansell, R. (2009). The power of new media networks. In R. Hammer, & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media / cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 107–122). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Manzoor, A. (2016). Media literacy in the digital age: Literacy projects and organizations. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 249–274). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9667-9.ch012 Marbley, A., Bonner, F., McKisick, S., Henfield, M., & Watts, L. (2007). Interfacing culture specific pedagogy with counseling: A proposed diversity training model for preparing preservice teachers for diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 14(3), 8–16. Marcinkowski, F., & Steiner, A. (2014). Mediatization and political autonomy: A systems approach. In F. Esser, & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformations of Western democracies (pp. 74–89). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137275844_5 Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Cerebrum, 13. Retrieved from https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583091 PMID:23447799 Markel, M. (2012). The fantastic jungles of Henri Rousseau. Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdman’s Books.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Marlowe, J., Bartley, A., & Hibtit, A. (2014). The New Zealand refugee resettlement strategy: Implications for identity, acculturation, and civic participation. Kotuitui, 9(2), 60–69. doi:10.1080/1177083X.2014.934847 Maroni, B. (2011). Pauses, gaps and wait time in classroom interaction in primary schools. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(7), 2081–2093. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.006 Marrapodi, J. (2013). What doesn’t work for the lowest level literacy learners and why? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 7–23. Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1–22.

707

Compilation of References

Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). “What do you want to say?” How adolescents use translanguaging to expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(3), 208–230. doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.914372 Martin-Chang, S. (2017). Learning to read with and without feedback, in and out of context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 233–244. doi:10.1037/edu0000131 Martin-Chang, S. L., & Levy, B. A. (2005). Fluency transfer: Differential gains in reading speed and accuracy following isolated word and context training. Reading and Writing, 18(4), 343–376. doi:10.100711145-005-0668-x Martin-Chang, S. L., Levy, B. A., & O’Neil, S. (2007). Word acquisition, retention, and transfer: Findings from contextual and isolated word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 37–56. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.08.004 PMID:17034812 Martin-Chang, S., & Levesque, K. (2013). Taken out of context: Differential processing in contextual and isolated word reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(3), 330–349. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01506.x Martin-Chang, S., Ouellette, G., & Bond, L. (2017). Differential effects of context and feedback on orthographic learning: How good is good enough? Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(1), 17–30. doi:10.1080/10888438.2016.1263993 Martinez, R. A., Hikida, M., & Duran, L. (2015). Unpacking ideologies of linguistic purism: How dual language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(1), 26–42. doi:10.1080/1 9313152.2014.977712 Martinez-Roldan, C. M., & Lopez-Robertson, J. M. (1999). Initiating literature circles in a first-grade bilingual classroom. The Reading Teacher, 53(4), 270 ̶ 281. Marx, N. (2005). Hörverstehensleistungen im Deutschen als Tertiärsprache. Zum Nutzen eines Sensibilisierungsunterrichts im „DaFnE [Listening comprehension in German as a tertiary language. On the benefits of a sensitisation training in “DaFnE”]. Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Marx, N. (2010). Eag and multilingualism pedagogy. An empirical study on students’ learning processes on the internet platform English after German. In P. Doyé, & F.-J. Meißner (Eds.), Lernerautonomie durch Interkomprehension: Projekte und Perspektiven [Learner autonomy through intercomprehension: Projects and perspectives] (pp. 225–236). Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Masten, A. S. (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 12–31. doi:10.1111/jftr.12255 Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. London, UK: Comedia.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1260–1275. doi:10.1177/0146167208320555 PMID:18678860 Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., Mahoney, S., & Rilling, S. (2014). Accent and speech rate effects in English as a lingua franca. System, 46, 143–150. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.07.015 Matusiak, K., Heinbach, C., Harper, A., & Bovee, M. (2019). Visual literacy in practice: Use of images in students’ academic work. College & Research Libraries, 80(1). Retrieved from https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16950/19370 Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819

708

Compilation of References

May, S. (2014). Introducing the “multilingual turn.”. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn. Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge. May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. London, UK: Routledge. McArthur, T. B. (1998). The English languages. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9780511621048 McBride, C. A. (2016). Is Chinese special? Four aspects of Chinese literacy acquisition that might distinguish learning Chinese from learning alphabetic orthographies. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 523–549. doi:10.100710648015-9318-2 McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K., & Yanping, L. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(2), 93–111. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.05.001 PMID:15388300 McCaffrey, M., & Hisrich, K. E. (2017). Read-alouds in the classroom: A pilot study of teachers’ self- reporting strategies. Reading Improvement, 54(3), 93–100. McCalman, C. L. (2014). International instructor preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms in the United States: Teaching intercultural communication competence online. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 138(138), 73–81. doi:10.1002/tl.20098 McCluskey, C. (2012). Professional development to work with low-educated adult ESL learners: Searching beyond the program. The CATESOL Journal, 23(1), 56–64. McConigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. London, UK: Penguin Books. McConnochie, M., & Mangual Figueroa, A. (2017). “Dice que es bajo” (“She says he’s low”): Negotiating breaches of learner identity in two Mexican families. Linguistics and Education, 38, 68–78. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2017.02.005 McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7. Educational psychology (pp. 79–102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325. doi:10.1007/BF01464076 McDaniel, C. A. (2006). Critical literacy. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. McDermott, R. (1999). On becoming labelled: The story of Adam. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning, and assessment (pp. 1–21). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

McDrury, J., & Alterio, M. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using reflection & experience to improve learning. London, UK: Kogan Page. McElvain, C. M. (2010). Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of English learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 178 ̶ 205. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory, and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge.

709

Compilation of References

McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., Walker, J., Howatson, K., Stockburn, A., & Dufton, P. (2015). The relationship between young children’s enjoyment of learning to read, reading attitudes, confidence and attainment. Educational Research, 57(4), 389–402. doi:10.1080/00131881.2015.1091234 McGurty, K. A. (2014). The Tokugawa samurai: Values & lifestyle transition. Retrieved from https://cupola.gettysburg. edu/student_scholarship/283 McKenzie, C., & Jarvie, S. (2018). The limits of resistant reading in critical literacy practices. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17(4), 298 ̶ 309. Mckenzie, J. (2014). National identity and the perspective of the other: New Zealand children responding to South African picture books. Mousaion, 32(4), 93–127. McKey, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McLaren, P. L., & Lankshear, C. (1993). Critical literacy and the postmodern turn. In P. L. McLaren, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 379–426). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2001). An e-learning solution to creating work-related skills and competencies for the knowledge-based economy. In J. Cook (Ed.), e-Xplore 2001: A face-to-face odyssey: Proceedings of the Apple University consortium conference 2001 (pp. 14-1–14-13), Queensland, Australia: ECU Publications. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill. McMahon, C. G. (2003). The sign system in Chinese landscape paintings. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37(1), 64–76. doi:10.2307/3527422 McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/10573560500203491 McMaster, K. L., Jing, P.-G., Brandes, D., Pinto, V., Fuchs, D., Kearns, D., ... Yen, L. (2014). Customizing a researchbased reading practice: Balancing the importance of implementation fidelity with professional judgment. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 173–183. doi:10.1002/trtr.1301

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39(2), 251–263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011 McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O’Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. In F. Schmalhofer, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233–251). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Megino-Elvira, L., Martín-Lobo, P., & Vergara-Moragues, E. (2016). Influence of eye movements, auditory perception, and phonemic awareness in the reading process. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 567–573. doi:10.1080/ 00220671.2014.994197 Meier, G. S. (2017). The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education. Assumptions, challenges and a need for reflection. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 131–161. doi:10.1515/applirev-2016-2010

710

Compilation of References

Meiring, L., & Norman, N. (2002). Back on target: Repositioning the status of target language in MFL teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 27–35. doi:10.1080/09571730285200201 Meißner, F.-J. (1997). Philologiestudenten lesen in fremden romanischen Sprachen. Konsequenzen für die Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik aus einem empirischen Vergleich. [Philology students read in foreign Romance languages. Consequences for multilingual pedagogy from an empirical comparison] In F.-J. Meißner (Ed.), Interaktiver Fremdsprachenunterricht [Interactive foreign language teaching]. (pp. 25–43). Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Meißner, F.-J. (2010). Interkomprehension empirisch geprüft: Kompetenzprofile, Mehr- sprachenerlebnis, Lernerautonomisierung. [Intercomprehension empirically tested: Competence profiles, multilingual experience, learner autonomisation] In P. Doyé, & F.-J. Meißner (Eds.), Lernerautonomie durch Interkomprehension: Projekte und Perspektiven [Learner autonomy through intercomprehension: Projects and perspectives]. (pp. 193–225). Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Mellard, D., Woods, K., & Fall, E. (2011). Assessment and instruction of oral reading fluency among adults with low literacy. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(1), 3–14. PMID:23795231 Melrose, A. (2012). Here comes the bogeyman: Exploring contemporary issues in writing for children. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203156872 Meltzer, L., Greschler, M., Kurkul, K., & Stacey, W. (2015). Executive functioning and peer mentoring: Fostering metacognitive awareness, effort, and academic success. In K. R. Harris, & L. Meltzer (Eds.), The power of peers in the classroom: Enhancing learning and social skills (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Guilford. Mendive, S., Lissi, M. R., Bakeman, R., & Reyes, A. (2017). Beyond mother education: Maternal practices as predictors of early literacy development in Chilean children from low-SES households. Early Education and Development, 28(2), 167–181. doi:10.1080/10409289.2016.1197014 Menezes De Souza, L. M. T. M. (2003). Voices on paper: Multimodal texts and indigenous literacy in Brazil. Journal Social Semiotics, 13(1), 29–42. doi:10.1080/1035033032000133508 Mercator-Institut. (n.d.). Weiterbildungsstudium Deutsch als Zweitsprache [Further education in German as a second language]. Retrieved from https://www.mercator-institut-sprachfoerderung.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/PDF/Lehre/Fyler_Weiterbildungsstudium_Mercator-Institut_Web.pdf Merga, M. (2015). Access to books in the home and adolescent engagement in recreational book reading: Considerations for secondary school educators. English in Education, 49(3), 197 ̶ 215. Merga, M. (2016). “I don’t know if she likes reading”. Are teachers perceived to be keen readers, and how is this determined? English in Education, 50(3), 255–269. doi:10.1111/eie.12126

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Merisuo-Storm, T., & Aerila, J. A. (2018). Boys’ reading skills and attitudes during the first six school years. In P. Baldwin, & O. García (Eds.), Reading motivation and achievement differences between boys and girls (pp. 157–181). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75948-7_9 Merriam, S. B., & Clark, M. C. (1993). Learning from life experience: What makes it significant? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 12(2), 129–138. doi:10.1080/0260137930120205 Merse, T., & Schmidt, J. (2018). Internet-Medien und Web 2.0. [Media of the internet and web 2.0]. In C. Lütge (Ed.), Englisch Methodik [English methodology] (pp. 156 ̶ 177). Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241 ̶ 256. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 711

Compilation of References

Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Miller, E. R., & Kobota, R. (2013). Second language identity construction. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 230 ̶ 250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139051729.015 Miller, J. K., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Digital storytelling as an integrated approach to second language learning and teaching. Language and Communication Quarterly, 4(3-4), 41–55. Miller, L., Hafner, C. A., & Fun, N. K. (2012). Project-based learning in a technologically enhanced learning environment for second language learners: Students’ perceptions. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 183–195. doi:10.2304/ elea.2012.9.2.183 Mills, K. A., & Doyle, K. (2019). Visual arts: A multimodal language for Indigenous education. Language and Education, 33(6), 521–543. doi:10.1080/09500782.2019.1635618 Ministry of Education and Sport. (1998). Referencial curricular nacional para as escolas indígenas [National curricular referential for indigenous schools]. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Educação e do Desporto, Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Minmeau, C., Ricketts, J., & Deacon, S. H. (2018). The role of orthographic and semantic learning in word reading and reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(5), 384–400. doi:10.1080/10888438.2018.1464575 Minuz, F. (2017, August). Changing routes, changing needs: Perspectives on migration and language teaching in Europe. Plenary address at the LESLLA 2017 Symposium. Portland, OR. Minuz, F. (in press). A heritage language hub: Connecting users to reading and teaching materials for LESLLA learners. Mitschke, D. B., Praetorius, R. T., Kelly, D. R., Small, E., & Kim, Y. K. (2017). Listening to refugees: How traditional mental health interventions may miss the mark. International Social Work, 60(3), 588–600. doi:10.1177/0020872816648256 Miyahara, M. (2010). Researching identity and language learning: Taking a narrative approach. Language Research Bulletin, 25, 1–15. Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15 ̶ 48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4 Molina Cruz, M. (2000). Lengua y resistencia indígena frente a los contenidos formalmente impuestos: Una experiencia de lecto-escritura Zapoteca-Español en la Sierra Juárez [Language and indigenous resistance before the contents formally imposed: An experience of Zapotec-Spanish literacy in the Sierra Juarez]. In Instituto Estatal de Educación Pública de Oaxaca (Ed.), Inclusión y diversidad: Discusiones recientes sobre la educación indígena en México [Inclusion and diversity: Recent discussions about indigenous education in Mexico] (pp. 402–420). Oaxaca, Mexico: Instituto Estatal de Educación Pública de Oaxaca. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132 ̶ 141.

712

Compilation of References

Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Rethinking its instructional implications. [Childhood and Learning]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 13(51-52), 157–168. doi:10.1080/02103702.1990.10822276 Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890 PMID:21219054 Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/10409280701838603 Montag, J. L., Jones, M. N., & Smith, L. B. (2015). The words children hear: Picture books and the statistics for language learning. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1489–1496. doi:10.1177/0956797615594361 PMID:26243292 Montero, M. K. (2018). Narratives of trauma and self-healing processes in a literacy program for adolescent refugee newcomers. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 92–106). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-011 Moon, J. (2005). Children learning English. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education. Moon, S., & Oh, S. (2018). Unlearning overgenerated be through data-driven learning in the secondary EFL classroom. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 30(1), 48–67. doi:10.1017/S0958344017000246 Moore, H. (1997). Learning pronunciation and intonation of Japanese through drama by beginning language students: A case for reflective journals. Japanese Association of Language Teachers Journal, 19(2), 235–269. Morais, J. (1996). A arte de ler [The art of reading]. São Paulo, Brazil: Unesp. Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7(4), 323–331. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(79)90020-9 Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2004). The linguistic consequences of literacy. In T. Nunes, & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 599–622). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1731-1_31 Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2019). Phonological abilities in fully illiterate adults. In D. Perin (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of adult literacy (pp. 41–61). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119261407.ch2 Mora, J. C., Rochdi, Y., & Kivistö-de Souza, H. (2014). Mimicking accented speech as L2 phonological awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 57–75. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863898

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151–169. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000085 Morgan, P., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73(2), 165–183. doi:10.1177/001440290707300203 Morkötter, S. (2016). Förderung von Sprachlernkompetenz zu Beginn der Sekundarstufe. Untersuchungen zu früher Interkomprehension [Promotion of language learning skills at the beginning of secondary education. Studies on early intercomprehension]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Morrell, E. (2005). Critical English education. English Education, 37(4), 312 ̶ 321. Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers: Literacy and empowerment for urban youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

713

Compilation of References

Morrell, E. (2009). Critical research and the future of literacy education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(2), 96–104. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.2.1 Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging Hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91(July), 88–92. doi:10.2307/821822 Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor of first grade reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 441–457. doi:10.1086/461375 Mrázek, J. (2011). The visible and the invisible in a Southeast Asian world. In R. M. Brown, & D. S. Hutton (Eds.), A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture (pp. 97–120). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9781444396355.ch5 Muhinyi, A., & Rowe, M. L. (2019). Shared reading with preverbal infants and later language development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 64, 101053. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101053 Mukherjee, J. (2004). Bridging the gap between applied corpus linguistics and the reality of English language teaching in Germany. In U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 239–250). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi. doi:10.1163/9789004333772_014 Mukherjee, J. (2006). Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of art and beyond. In S. Braun, K. Kohn, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Corpus technology and language pedagogy (pp. 5–24). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Müller, J., Sancho, J. M., & Hernández, F. (2009). New media literacy and the digital divide. In L. T. Wee Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and challenges (pp. 72 ̶ 88). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch005 Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-v. Ditfurth, M. (2018). Introduction to English language teaching. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016: International results in reading. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/ Munro, T. (1965). Oriental traditions in aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24(1), 3–6. doi:10.2307/428241 Muon, T. V., & Chu, A. (2015). In the village by the sea. Berkeley, CA: Creston Books. Murray, N., & Nallaya, S. (2016). Embedding academic literacies in university programme curricula: A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1296 ̶ 1312.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Murray, P. (2008). The floating world: An investigation into illustrative and decorative art practices and theory in print media and animation (Master’s thesis, RMIT University, Australia). Retrieved from http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/ eserv/rmit:9772/Murray.pdf Murray, C. (2007). Reflections on the question of mother tongue instruction in Namibia. Journal of Language and Communication, 1(2), 69–77. Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. A. (2019). What English language teachers need to know: Vol. 1. Understanding learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Myers, J., & Eberfors, F. (2010). Globalizing English through intercultural critical literacy. English Education, 42(2), 148 ̶ 170.

714

Compilation of References

Nag, S., Vagh, S., Dulay, K., & Snowling, M. (2019). Home language, school language and children’s literacy attainment: A systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Review of Education, 7(1), 91–150. doi:10.1002/rev3.3132 Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253. doi:10.2307/747758 Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness and literacy acquisition in different languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 155–160. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 730–742. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.730 Naidoo, L. (2015). Educating refugee-background students in Australian schools and universities. Intercultural Education, 26(3), 210–217. doi:10.1080/14675986.2015.1048079 Naidoo, L., & Adoniou, M. (2019). “I speak 19 languages”: Accessing the linguistic and cultural resources of students from refugee backgrounds. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 111–130. Naldic. (2019). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. Retrieved from https://www.naldic.org.uk/eal-teachingand-learning/outline-guidance/bilingualism/ NAMLE. (2007). Core principles of media literacy education. Retrieved from https://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ coreprinciples.pdf Narayan, A. J., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Children and adolescents in disasters, war, and terrorism: Developmental pathways to psychopathology and resilience. In C. Widom (Ed.), Trauma, psychopathology, and violence (pp. 131–158). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nash, K., Howard, J., Miller, E., Boutte, G., Johnson, G., & Reid, L. (2018). Critical racial literacy in homes, schools, and communities: Propositions for early childhood contexts. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(3), 256–273. doi:10.1177/1463949117717293 Nation, K. (2017). Nurturing a lexical legacy: reading experience is critical for the development of word reading skill. npj Science of Learning, 2(3). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0004-7 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces. ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). National assessment for education progress reading report card. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education. National Education Union and UK Feminista. (2017). “It’s just everywhere”: A study on sexism in schools - and how we tackle it. Retrieved from https://ukfeminista.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-Its-just-everywhere.pdf

715

Compilation of References

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards (English language arts). Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Skills Coalition. (2011). Training policy in brief. Workforce Investment Act, Title II. Washington, DC: Retrieved from https://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/resources/publications/file/NSC_TPIB_WIA_TitleII.pdf Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139858656 Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84. doi:10.1016/j. jecp.2006.06.004 PMID:16904123 Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2017). Putting the learning in orthographic learning. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 147–168). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075wll.15.09nat Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 154–167. doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.2.2 NCES. (2018). English language learners. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?ik=96 Neal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (1999). The success of reading recovery for English language learners and descubriendo la lectura for bilingual students in California. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning, 4(2), 81–108. Nėjė, J. (2014). 25 of the most dangerous and unusual journeys to school in the world. Retrieved from https://www. boredpanda.com/dangerous-journey-to-school/ NelsonJ. M. (n.d.). Cat and mouse. Retrieved from https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/cat-and-mouse-13/

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Neokleous, G. (2017). Closing the gap: Student attitudes toward first language use in monolingual EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 314–341. doi:10.1002/tesj.272 Nessel, D. D., & Dixon, C. N. (2008). Using the language experience approach (LEA) with English language learners: Strategies for engaging students and developing literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2011). Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Guilford. New London Group (NLG). (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u New London Group (NLG). (2014). Multiliteracies: New learning theories. Retrieved from https://www.learning-theories. com/multiliteracies-new-london-group.html

716

Compilation of References

New Media Consortium. (2005). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century literacy summit. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/Global_Imperative.pdf Nieto, S. (1994). Moving beyond tolerance in multicultural education. Multicultural Education, 1(4), 9–12, 35–38. Niklas, N., Cohrssen, C., & Tayler, C. (2016). The sooner, the better: Early reading to children. SAGE Open, 6(4). doi:10.1177/2158244016672715 Nikolajeva, M. (2003). Verbal and visual literacy: The role of picturebooks in the reading of young children. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 235–248). London, UK: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781848608207.n20 Nikolajeva, M. (2013). Picturebooks and emotional literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 249–254. doi:10.1002/trtr.1229 Nikolajeva, M. (2014). Reading for learning: Cognitive approaches to children’s literature. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/clcc.3 Nikolajeva, M. (2018). Emotions in picturebooks. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 110–118). London, UK: Routledge. Nikolajeva, M., & Scott, C. (2006). How picturebooks work. New York, NY: Routledge. Nimer, M. (2019). Learning Turkish as a foreign language: Institutional structures and Syrian refugees’ experiences in Turkey. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center. Nind, M., Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2016). Research methods for pedagogy. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about pictures: The narrative art of children’s picture books. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Nodelman, P., Hamer, N., & Reimer, M. (2017). More words about pictures: Current research on picturebooks and visual/verbal texts for young people. New York, NY: Routledge. Noguerón-Liu, S., & Hogan, J. J. (2017). Remembering Michoacán: Digital representations of the homeland by immigrant adults and adolescents. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 267–289. NOKUT. (2012). Kjennetegn ved finsk lærerutdanning [Hallmarks of Finnish Teacher Education]. Retrieved from https:// www.nokut.no/contentassets/6812ce6c37b24c078c1f539532f17d49/kantardjiev_kim_kjennetegn_ved_finsk_larerutdanning.pdf Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783090563 Norton, B., & Morgan, B. (2013). Poststructuralism. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524834 Norton, D. (2005). Multicultural children’s literature: Through the eyes of many children. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

717

Compilation of References

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2006). Læreplan for kunnskapsløftet (Vol. LK06). Oslo, Norway: Kunnskapsdepartementet. [Curriculum for knowledge promotion] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2008). Meld. st.11 (2008-2009) Læreren Rollen og utdanningen [White paper: The teacher, the role, and the education system]. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/ stmeld-nr-11-2008-2009-/id544920/sec2?q=svensk%20l%25C3%25A6rerutdanning%23match_0 Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). Læreplan i Engelsk [Curriculum for English]. Retrieved from http://data.udir.no/kl06/ENG1-03.pdf Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Overordnet del – verdier og prinsipper for grunnopplæringen [Guiding introduction to the Norwegian National Curriculum]. Utdanningsdirektoratet. Retrieved from https://www. udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/ Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2018). Engelsk – oppsummering av innspill [English – Summary of responses]. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/fagfornyelsen/kjerneelementer/engelsk-oppsummering-av-innspill/ Norwegian Ministry of Church and Education. (1987). Mønsterplan for grunnskolen: M87 [Curriculum for primary and lower secondary school: M87]. Oslo, Norway: Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet. Norwegian Ministry of Church, Education and Research. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen [Curriculum for 1st to 10th grade primary and lower secondary school]. Oslo, Norway: Nasjonalt Læremiddelsenter. Norwegian Ministry of Education. (2015). NOU 2015:8 Fremtidens skole [White paper: The school of the future]. Oslo, Norway: Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon. Norwegian Ministry of Education. (2016). Forskrift om rammeplan for grunnskolelærerutdanning for trinn 5-10 [Regulations of the framework for teacher education for grades 5-10]. Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/forskrift/2016-06-07-861 NSW Department of Education. (2017). Multicultural education. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teachingand-learning/curriculum/multicultural-education Ntelioglou, B., Fannin, M., Montanera, J., & Cummins, J. (2014). A multilingual and multimodal approach to literacy teaching and learning in urban education: A collaborative inquiry project in an inner city elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(5), 70 ̶ 80. Nussbaum, M. C. (2005). Poetic justice: The literary imagination and public life. London, UK: Beacon Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

O’Connor, M., Cloney, D., Kvalsvig, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Positive mental health and academic achievement in elementary school: New evidence from a matching analysis. Educational Researcher, 48(4), 205–216. doi:10.3102/0013189X19848724 O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2005). Ladders to literacy: A kindergarten activity book (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M., & Hoey, M. (2012). Exploring textinitial words, clusters and concgrams in a newspaper corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 73–101. doi:10.1515/cllt-2012-0004 Ochoa, G., McDonald, S., & Monk, N. (2018). Adapting open-space learning techniques to teach cultural literacy. Open Cultural Studies, 2(1), 510–519. doi:10.1515/culture-2018-0046 Ode, E. (2013). Cat and mouse. In H. Heger, & N. Wroldsen (Eds.), Crossroads 8B (p. 17). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. (Original work published 2006). 718

Compilation of References

OECD. (2013). Skilled for life? Key findings from the survey of adult skills. Paris, France: OECD. Oecd.org. (2019). PISA. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ Ohara, Y., Saft, S., & Crookes, G. (2001). Toward a feminist critical pedagogy in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language class. Japanese Language and Literature: Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 35(2), 105–133. doi:10.2307/489693 Ohler, J. (2006). The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 44–47. Ohta, A. S. (2013). Sociocultural theory and the zone of proximal development. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 648 ̶ 649). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139051729.037 Olivares, E. (2013, January 11). We are 90% visual beings [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ernestoolivares.com/weare-90-visuals-beings/ Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Longman. Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. R. (2000). Curriculum as a multi-storied process. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(3), 169–187. doi:10.2307/1585952 Olson, D. R. (2017). The languages of instruction: The literate bias of schooling. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:10.4324/9781315271644-7 Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. G. (2017). Literacy and cognitive development: A conceptual transformation in the early school years. In S. Meadows (Ed.), Developing thinking: Approaches to children’s cognitive development (pp. 102–121). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315213323-7 Olson, G. A. (1999). Toward a post-process composition: Abandoning the rhetoric of assertion. In T. Kent (Ed.), Postprocess theory: Beyond the writing process paradigm (pp. 7–15). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Olson, R. K., Keenan, J. M., Byrne, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2014). Why do children differ in their development of reading and related skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 38–54. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.800521 PMID:25104901 Omerbašić, D. (2018). Girls with refugee backgrounds creating digital landscapes of knowing. In S. Shapiro, R. Farrelly, & M. J. Curry (Eds.), Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts (pp. 66–81). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783099986-009

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Onderdelinden, L., van de Craats, I., & Kurvers, J. (2009). Word concept of illiterates and low-literates: Worlds apart? In I. van de Craats, & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 35 ̶ 48). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203328064 Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241. doi:10.1016/j. tics.2008.02.014 PMID:18468944 Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Jasis, P. (2011). Mapping literacy, mapping lives: Teachers exploring the sociopolitical context of literacy and learning. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(4), 189–196. doi:10.1080/15210960.2011.616824

719

Compilation of References

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow-further results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: OECD. Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Different but similar: Student teachers’ perspectives on the use of L1 in Arab and Jewish EFL classroom settings. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 18(1), 91–113. doi:10.1080/07908310508668735 Orner, P. (2008). Underground America: Narratives of undocumented lives. San Francisco, CA: McSweeney’s Books. Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2012). Understanding the impact of social tools in the FL classroom: Activity theory at work. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 131–153). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Oskoz, A., & Pérez-Broncano, O. (2016). What did you say? How did you say it? Linguistic choices in online discussions. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 772–788. doi:10.1111/flan.12240 Østern, A.-L. (2008). Aktiv estetisk respons som utfordring i litteraturundervisning. [Active aesthetic response as a challenge in teaching literature] In A.-L. Østern, H. Otnes, & H. Hestnes (Eds.), Estetisk tilnærming til tekstarbeid i språkfagene [Aesthetic approach to text work in language subjects]. Vol. 2, pp. 15–23. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Akademisk Forlag. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. doi:10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240–254. doi:10.1080/14790710903414331 Ott, M. (2016). Tweet like a girl: A corpus analysis of gendered language in social media. (Unpublished manuscript). Yale University, CT. Ott, M. (2017). Zweitsprachler in der Sekundarstufe. [Second language learners in secondary learning]. In B. Ahrenholz, & I. Oomen-Welke (Eds.), Deutsch als Zweitsprache [German as a second language]. vol. 9, pp. 251–263). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. Ozden, S., & Ramadan, O. (2019). Syrian women’s perspectives on life in Turkey: Rights, relations and civil society. Istanbul, Turkey: Badael Foundation. Pacheco, M. B., Daniel, S. M., Pray, L. C., & Jiménez, R. T. (2019). Translingual practice, strategic participation, and meaning-making. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(1), 75–99. doi:10.1177/1086296X18820642 Pacheco, M. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 292–312. doi:10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning in real word context: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(3), 401–426. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.401 PMID:11561917 Paetzold, H. (2009). The origins of landscape painting: An intercultural perspective. In A. van den Braembussche, H. Kimmerle, & N. Note (Eds.), Intercultural aesthetics (pp. 55–67). Dordrecht, The Neitherlands: Springer. Pagán, A., Bird, M., Hsiao, Y., & Nation, K. (2019, September 29). Both semantic diversity and frequency influence children’s sentence reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1–9. doi:10.1080/10888438.2019.1670664 Pahl, K., & Burnett, C. (2016). Literacies in homes and communities. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. C. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture (pp. 3–14). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 720

Compilation of References

Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: The new literacy studies in the classroom. London, UK: Paul Chapman. Painter, C. (2018). Multimodal analysis of picturebooks. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 420–427). London, UK: Routledge. Painter, C., Martin, J. R., & Unsworth, L. (2013). Reading visual narratives: Image analysis of children’s picture books. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Pub. Paivio, A. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. Pathways to literacy achievement for high poverty children. Detroit, MI: The University of Michigan, School of Education. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.12071532690xci0102_1 Pallares, A. (2015). Family activism: Immigrant struggles and the politics of noncitizenship. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Palmer, B. C., Sun, L., & Leclere, J. T. (2012). Students learn about Chinese culture through the folktale “Yeh-Shen”: Emphasizing figurative language interpretation. Multicultural Education, 19(2), 49–54. Palmer, D. K., & Henderson, K. I. (2016). Dual language bilingual education placement practices: Educator discourses about emergent bilingual students in two program types. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 17–30. do i:10.1080/19313152.2015.1118668 Palmer, D., Martínez, R. A., Matteus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757–772. doi:10.1111/modl.12121 Palmer, M. (2016). Are pride and vanity the fall of Britain? IPC mercator policy brief. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy Center-Sabancı University-Stiftung Mercator Initiative. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames, and writing in research settings. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Pan, M., & Wang, S. (2017). The construction of interculturality: A study of Chinese as heritage language teachers in Canada. In T. Jin, & F. Dervin (Eds.), Interculturality in Chinese language education (pp. 63–87). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-58322-2_4 Pantaleo, S. (2018). Paratexts in picturebooks. In B. Kümmerling-Meibauer (Ed.), The Routledge companion to picturebooks (pp. 38–48). London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Parajuli, P., & Enslin, E. (1990). From learning literacy to regenerating women’s space: A story of women’s empowerment in Nepal. Convergence (Toronto), 23(1), 44–56. Paran, A. (2008). The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An evidence-based survey. Language Teaching, 41(4), 465–496. doi:10.1017/S026144480800520X Pardo, J. L. (1996). El sujeto inevitable. [The inevitable subject] In M. L. Cruz (Ed.), Tiempo de subjetividad [Subjectivity time]. (pp. 133–154). Barcelona, Spain: Paidós. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244 Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77 721

Compilation of References

Paris, D., & Alim, S. H. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Park, S. (2009). East Asian and Western perception of nature in 20th century painting. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Brighton, UK). Retrieved from https://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/12377/1/East%20Asian%20and%20Western%20Perception%20of%20Nature%20in%2020th%20Century%20Painting_Sungsil%20ParkPhD2009.pdf Parker, R. D. (2008). How to interpret literature: Critical theory for literary and cultural studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Park, H. R. (2019). ESOL preservice teachers’ experiences and learning in completing a reflection paper and digital storytelling. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 63–77. doi:10.14742/ajet.4117 Parsons, L. T. (2004). Ella evolving: Cinderella stories and the construction of gender-appropriate behavior. Children’s Literature in Education, 35(2), 135–154. Patsala, P. (2015). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of lexicography: The case of concessive connectives in Modern Greek (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o so/9780198717959.001.0001 Pavlenko, A. (2008). Narrative analysis in the study of bi- and multilingualism. In L. Wei, & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 311–325). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pearce, M. (2008). Investigating the collocational behaviour of MAN and WOMAN in the British National Corpus using Sketch Engine. Corpora, 3(1), 1–29. doi:10.3366/E174950320800004X Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3 ̶ 31). New York, NY: Routledge. Pearson, B. (1998). Assessing lexical development in bilingual babies and toddlers. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2(3), 347–372. doi:10.1177/136700699800200305 Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Some theoretical and methodological considerations in studying literacy in social context. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 54 ̶ 65). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Pennington, M. (1996). Phonology in English language teaching. London, UK: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London, UK: Longman. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329–348. doi:10.2307/3587668 Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a language always in translation. Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 33–47. doi:10.1080/13825570801900521 Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315724225 Pereira, Í. S. P., Silva, C. V., Borges, M. M., & Araújo, M. D. (2019). Digital reading in the early years. In O. Erstad, R. S. Flewit, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, & Í. S. P. Pereira (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 270–281). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203730638-20 722

Compilation of References

Pérez, W. (2012). Americans by heart: Undocumented Latino students and the promise of higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Perfetti, C. (2017). Lexical quality revisited. In E. Segers & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven (pp. 51–67). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/z.206.04per Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1), 3–24. doi:10.1207/ S1532799XSSR0701_02 Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. N. (2017). Learning to read English. In L. Verhoeven, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 347–370). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752.014 Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687 Perry, N. J., Kay, S. M., & Brown, A. (2008). Continuity and change in home literacy practices of Hispanic families with preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 178(1), 99 ̶ 113. Pesonen, J. (2017). Monikulttuurisuudesta Tatun ja Patun Suomessa: Kansallista tarinaa rakentamassa vai uudenlaista suomalaisuutta tuottamassa? [On multiculturality in Tatu’s and Patu’s Finland. Building a national story or producing a new kind of Finnishness?] Kirjallisuudentutkimuksen aikakauslehti Avain [The journal of literature research, Key], 3, 38 ̶ 55. Petrone, R., & Bullard, L. (2012). Reluctantly recognizing resistance: An analysis of representations of critical literacy in English Journal. English Journal, 102(2), 122–128. Pew Research Center. (2019, October 7). Key facts about refugees to the U.S. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https:// www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/07/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/ Peyton, J. K. (2012). Understanding adult learners as multilingual/multicultural individuals: Practical and research implications. In M. Bigelow, & P. Vinogradov (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA (Low literate second language and literacy acquisition) symposium (pp. 135 ̶ 156). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Peyton, J. K. (2013, August). Recognizing, valuing, and building on heritage cultures and languages in English language programs. Bilingual Basics: Newsletter of the Bilingual Education Interest Section and Teachers of English to Deaf Students. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ tesolbeis/issues/2013-08-28/2.html

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Charting a new course: Heritage language education in the United States. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 3 ̶ 26). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems & Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Peyton, J. K., Haznedar, B., & Young-Scholten, M. (2017). Teaching refugee and immigrant adults: A focus on the languages they speak. Presentation at the United Nations Symposium on Language, the Sustainable Development Goals, and Vulnerable Populations. New York City, NY. Peyton, J. K., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (in press). Understanding adults learning to read for the first time in a new language: Multiple perspectives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pfeiffer, V. (2019). Multilingual education: Encouraging students to use their language backgrounds. In C. A. Seals, & V. I. Olsen-Reeder (Eds.), Embracing multilingualism across educational contexts (pp. 307–338). Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

723

Compilation of References

Phan, C. T. (2014). The daily arts (The arts and cultures of Viet Nam: A journey through history) (L. T. Nguyen, Trans.). Ha Noi, Viet Nam: The Gioi Publisher. Phillipson, R. (2007). English in Europe: Threat or promise? In M. N. Craith (Ed.), Language, power, and identity politics (pp. 65–82). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230592841_4 Phillipson, R. (2013). Linguistic imperialism continued. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203857175 Phung, N. Q., & Huynh, K. L. (2017). The first journey. Central Region, Singapore: Scholastic. Piaget, J. (1969). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1972). Development and learning. In C. S. Lavatelly, & F. Stendler (Eds.), Reading in child behavior and development (pp. 7–20). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K., Payne, C., Cox, M., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225–238. doi:10.1086/499701 Picard, D., Martin, P., & Tsao, R. (2014). iPads at school? A quantitative comparison of elementary schoolchildren’s pen-on-paper versus finger-on-screen drawing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 203–212. doi:10.2190/EC.50.2.c Pieloch, K. A., McCullough, M. B., & Marks, A. K. (2016). Resilience of children with refugee statuses: A research review. Canadian Psychology, 57(4), 330–339. doi:10.1037/cap0000073 Pierson, S. J. (2014). The power of story: Using personal narrative, computer technology and podcasting with young adult English language learners. Teaching English with Technology, 14(4), 3–16. Pike, M. A. (2003). Personal to social transaction: A model of aesthetic reading in the classroom. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37(2), 61–72. doi:10.2307/3527455 Pimentel, S. (2013). College and career readiness standards for adult education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Pinker, S. (1997). Foreword. In D. McGuinness (Ed.), Why our children can’t read: And what we can do about it. New York, NY: The Free Press. Pipa, A. (1968). Some remarks about Western and Eastern aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 8(4), 365–372. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/8.4.365

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pirnajmuddin, H., & Ramezani, Z. (2011). Idioms in translation of children’s literature: The big clay jar by Moradi Kermani. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1861 ̶ 1864. Piske, T. (2008). Phonetic awareness, phonetic sensitivity and the second language learner. In J. Cenoz, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 155–166). New York, NY: Springer Science. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_146 Plato. (2009). The republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html. (Original work published 360 BCE). Plunkett, S. (1996). Kongi and Potgi: A Cinderella story from Korea. New York, NY: Dial Press. Podhajski, B. (1998). Reading through common sounds. Linkages: Linking Literacy and Learning Disabilities, 5(1), 1–3.

724

Compilation of References

Pohl, K.-H. (2009). Identity and Hybridity–Chinese culture and aesthetics in the age of globalization. In A. van den Braembussche, H. Kimmerle, & N. Note (Eds.), Intercultural aesthetics (p. 87103). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5780-9_7 Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368–395. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x Pollo, T. C., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2008). Three perspectives on spelling development. In E. L. Grigorenko, & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 175–191). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pontier, R., & Gort, M. (2016). Coordinated translanguaging pedagogy as distributed cognition: A case study of two dual language bilingual education preschool coteachers’ languaging practices during shared book readings. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(2), 89–106. doi:10.1080/19313152.2016.1150732 Posselt, M., Eaton, H., Ferguson, M., Keegan, D., & Procter, N. (2019). Enablers of psychological well-being for refugees and asylum seekers living in transitional countries: A systematic review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(4), 808–823. doi:10.1111/hsc.12680 PMID:30417476 Poza, L. (2017). Translanguaging: Definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education, 6(2), 101–128. doi:10.5070/B86110060 Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33–40. Priego, S., & Liaw, M. L. (2017). Understanding different levels of group functionality: Activity systems analysis of an intercultural telecollaborative multilingual digital storytelling project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(5), 368–389. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1306567 Prinsloo, M., & Breier, M. (Eds.). (1996). The social uses of literacy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: J. Benjamin. doi:10.1075wll.4 Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (L. Scott, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1928). Pugliese, R., & Malavolta, S. (2017). La pluralità linguistica in classe come risorsa per le attività riflessive [Linguistic plurality in the classroom as a resource for reflective activities]. In M. Vedovelli (Ed.), L’italiano dei nuovi italiani [The Italian of the New Italians] (pp. 269–289). Roma, Italy: Aracne. Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. C. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in preschool children. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(2), 87–98. doi:10.1177/10534512030390020401

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. (2014). Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 453–467. doi:10.1002/rrq.79 PMID:25316955 Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). From scribbles to Scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 567–589. doi:10.100711145-009-9220-8 PMID:22448101 Putjata, G., Olfert, H., & Romano, S. (2016). Mehrsprachigkeit als Kapital: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Moduls “Deutsch für Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte” in Nordrhein-Westfalen [Multilingualism as a capital: Possibilities and limits of the module “German for students with a migration background” in North Rhine-Westphalia]. ÖDaF-Mitteilungen [Austrian Association for German as a Foreign and Second Language Messages], 32(1), 34–44. Quakernack, S. (2018). Political protest and undocumented immigrant youth: (Re-)framing testimonio. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351232234 725

Compilation of References

QUA-LiS NRW. (2013). Kernlehrplan: Gymnasium Sek II [Core curriculum: High school, grades 11-13]. Retrieved from https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/lehrplannavigator-s-ii/gymnasiale-oberstufe/ Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–175. doi:10.1111/ cdev.12292 PMID:25201552 Quintero, E. P. (2009). Critical literacy in early childhood education: Artful story and the integrated curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Quintero, E. P. (2010). Something to say: Children learning through story. Early Education and Development, 21(3), 372–391. Quintero, L. (2008). Blogging: A way to foster EFL writing. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 10(1), 7–49. Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 485–528. doi:10.3102/00346543070004485 Qu, W. (2011). English, identity and critical literacy. Changing English, 18(3), 297–307. doi:10.1080/135868 4X.2011.602837 Rabušicová, M., & Oplatková, P. (2010). Functional literacy in people’s lives. Journal of Pedagogy, 1(2), 29–51. doi:10.2478/v10159-010-0008-3 Rahbari, N. (2019). Error patterns in word reading and spelling in Persian: Is spelling more difficult than reading? Reading and Writing, 32(3), 585–601. doi:10.100711145-018-9884-z Rahmanpanah, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2015). Investigating a systematic approach to the promotion of EFL learners’ autonomy. Journal of Language and Translation, 1(9), 17–31. Rajendram, S. (2015). Potentials of the multiliteracies pedagogy for teaching English language learners (ELLs): A review of the literature. Critical Intersections in Education, 3, 1–18. Ramírez, L. (2011). Social action. In L. Ramírez (Ed.), Chicanas of 18th street: Narratives of a movement from Latino Chicago (pp. 166 ̶ 200). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Ramírez-Verdugo, D. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language Awareness, 15(3), 141–159. doi:10.2167/la404.0 Raney, K. (1998). A matter of survival: On being visually literate. The English and Media Magazine, 39, 37–42.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Rasinski, T. V., & Samuels, S. J. (2011). Reading fluency: What it is and what it is not. In S. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 94–114). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0829.04 Rasool, E. (1996). Unveiling the heart of fear. In W. James, D. Caliguire, & K. Cullinan (Eds.), Now that we are free: Coloured communities in a democratic South Africa (pp. 54–68). Cape Town, South Africa: IDASA. Rau, A. K., Moeller, K., & Landerl, K. (2014). The transition from sublexical to lexical processing in a consistent orthography: An eye-tracking study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(3), 224–233. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.857673 Raven, J., & O’Donnell, K. (2010). Using digital storytelling to build a sense of national identity amongst Emirati students. Education, Business, and Society, 3(3), 201–217. doi:10.1108/17537981011070118

726

Compilation of References

Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 417–447. doi:10.1017/S0305000902005111 PMID:12109379 Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(6), 787–799. doi:10.1002/wcs.68 PMID:21170142 Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. doi:10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray Read, C. (1988). Phonological awareness and adult readers. A final report to the US DOE. Madison, WI: Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Rea-Dickins, P. (2011). Foreword. Formative assessment: Scoping the horizons. In D. Tsagari, & I. Csepeas (Eds), Classroom-based language assessment (pp. 9 ̶ 14). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Immigrant Latinos’ cultural model of literacy development: An evolving perspective on home-school discontinuities. American Journal of Education, 108(2), 103 ̶ 134. Reese, E., Suggate, S., Long, J., & Schaughency, E. (2010). Children’s oral narrative and reading skills in the first 3 years of reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 627–644. doi:10.100711145-009-9175-9 Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Immigrant Latinos´ cultural model of literacy development: An alternative perspective on home-school communities. American Journal of Education, 23(1), 57–81. doi:10.1086/444236 Reich, H., & Krumm, H.-J. (2013). Sprachbildung und Mehrsprachigkeit: Ein Curriculum zur Wahrnehmung und Bewältigung sprachlicher Vielfalt im Unterricht [Language education and multilingualism: A curriculum for the perception and management of linguistic diversity in the classroom]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Reinhardt, J., Warner, C., & Lange, K. (2014). Digital games as practices and texts: New literacies and genres in an L2 German classroom. In J. P. Guikema, & L. Williams (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education (pp. 159–190). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: A cause for biased cognitive development. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3(5), 444–450. doi:10.1017/S135561779700444X PMID:9322403 Reis, A., Guerreiro, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2003). A sociodemographic and neuropsychological characterization of an illiterate population. Applied Neuropsychology, 10(4), 191–204. doi:10.120715324826an1004_1 PMID:14690800 Reppen, R. (2010). Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In A. O’ Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 31–37). London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203856949.ch3 Resnick, L. B., & Schantz, F. (2017). Testing, teaching, learning: Who is in charge? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 24(3), 424 ̶ 432.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reyhner, J. (2009). Indigenous education in global contexts. International Studies in Education, 10(1), 6–9. Reynolds, J. F., & Orellana, M. F. (2014). Translanguaging within enactments of quotidian interpreter-mediated interactions. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 24(3), 315 ̶ 338. Reynolds, K. (2007). Radical children’s literature. Future visions and aesthetic transformations in juvenile fiction. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Riasati, M., & Mollaei, F. (2012). Critical pedagogy and language learning. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(2), 223–229.

727

Compilation of References

Richards, I. A. (1930). Practical criticism: A study of literary judgment. London, UK: Kegen Paul, Trench, Trubner. Richards, J. C. (1990). The teacher as self-observer. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), The language teaching matrix (pp. 118–143). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667152.009 Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Literacy. In J. C. Richards, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (p. 345). New York, NY: Routledge. Richardson Bruna, K. (2007). Finding new words: How I use critical literacy in my multicultural teacher education classroom. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(1), 115–118. doi:10.1080/02607470601098377 Richardson, E. (2006). Hiphop Literacies. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203391105 Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V. M., Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2011). The role of self-teaching in learning orthographic and semantic aspects of words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 47–70. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.536129 Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(1), 163–184. doi:10.1177/1477878511409776 Rißmann, J., Feine, U., & Schramm, U. (2013). Vom Schüler zum Lehrer – Biografische Selbstreflexion in der Lehramtsausbildung. [Language education and multilingualism: A curriculum for the perception and management of linguistic diversity in the classroom] In B. Jürgens, & G. Krause (Eds.), Professionalisierung durch Trainings [Professionalization through training]. (pp. 125–136). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Ritchey, K. D., McMaster, K. L., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C. S., Kim, Y.-S. G., Parker, D. C., & Ortiz, M. (2016). Indicators of fluent writing in beginning writers. In K. D. Cummings, & Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 21–66). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_2 Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70(2), 332–348. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00025 PMID:10218258 Roberts, C. A. (1994). Transferring literacy skills from L1 to L2: From theory to practice. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13(Spring), 209–221.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1628–1644. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.003 Roberts, T. A. (2008). Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 103–130. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.43.2.1 Robin, B. (2006). The educational uses of digital storytelling. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber,, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 709–716). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Robson, B. (1982). Hmong literacy, formal education, and their effects on performance in an ESL class. In B. T. Downing, & D. P. Olney (Eds.), The Hmong in the west: Observations and reports (pp. 201–225). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 728

Compilation of References

Rocca, L. (2017). Language support for adult refugees: A council of Europe toolkit. Report on piloting carried out in Italy from February to April 2017. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/language-support-for-adult-refugees-a-council-ofeurope-toolkit-report/168073cf1d Rodrick Beiler, I., & Dewilde, J. (2019, June 28). Translation as translingual writing practice in English as an additional language. Paper presented at International Symposium on Bilingualism 12, University of Alberta, Canada. Rodriguez, A. D. (2014). Culturally relevant books: Culturally responsive teaching in bilingual classrooms. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 5(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/26390043.2014.12067778 Rodriguez, N. N., & Kim, E. J. (2018). In search of mirrors: An Asian critical race theory content analysis of Asian American picturebooks from 2007 to 2017. Journal of Children’s Literature, 44(2), 17–30. Rodriques-Brown, F. V. (2003). Family literacy in English language learning communities: Issues related to program development, implementation and practice. In A. Debruin-Parecki, & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.), Family literacy: From theory to practice (pp. 145–172). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0872075117.6 Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S. (2012). English language learners’ transitional needs from high school to university: An exploratory study. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 13(3), 285 ̶ 301. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez, (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139 ̶ 164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children’s development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 490–515). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003 Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. S., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 43–67. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162823 Romero, E. D., & Bobkina, J. (2017). Teaching visual literacy through memes in the language classroom. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 59 ̶ 69). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Do you hear what I hear? Raciolinguistic ideologies and culturally sustaining pedagogies. In D. Paris, & S. H. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 175–190). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem. The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: Transactional theory of literary work. Chicago, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 729

Compilation of References

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America. Rosenfeld, K. N. (2016). Terms of the digital age: Realities and cultural paradigms. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media literacy in the digital age (pp. 115–144). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-4666-9667-9.ch006 Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (2013). Common core, common places and community in teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 469–473. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1150 Roth, M. (2013). Curriculum in the making: A post constructivist perspective. Victoria, Australia: Peter Lang. Rothman, J., Tsimpli, I., & Pascual y Cabo, D. (2016). Formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition: Bridges for pedagogically oriented research. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075ibil.49.02rot Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 21–30. doi:10.100712552-014-9134-1 Rottmann, S., & Nimer, M. (2019). Negotiating power dynamics in the classroom and beyond: Language learning as a woman refugee in Turkey. Manuscript submitted for publication. Rowe, M. L. (2014). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762–1774. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01805.x PMID:22716950 Rowley, G. (1959). Principles of Chinese painting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowling, J. K., Thorne, J., & Tiffany, J. (2017). Harry Potter and the cursed child. London, UK: Arthur A. Levine Books. Rowsell, J., Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). Fostering multiliteracies pedagogy through preservice teacher education. Teaching Education, 19(2), 109–122. doi:10.1080/10476210802040799 Rowsell, J., Kress, G., Pahl, K., & Street, B. (2013). The social practice of multimodal reading: A new literacy studies–Multimodal perspective on reading. In D. E. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1182–1207). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0710.43 Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191–205. doi:10.2307/3588330 Royce, T. (2007). Multimodal communicative competence in second language context. In T. Royce, & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 361–390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. New York, NY: Longman. Ryan, C. (2010). How do you spell family? Literacy, heteronormativity, and young children of lesbian mothers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio. Sabater, C. (2015). Research on sexist language in EFL literature: Towards a non-sexist approach. Porta Linguarum, 23(1), 187–203. Safieddine, Z. N. (2014). Interactive web 2.0 technology in L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 139–145. doi:10.12785/jtte/020205

730

Compilation of References

Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854. doi:10.1002/tesq.67 Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Salminen, S., Toivanen, P., Virkkala, J., Hankama, S., & Vahermaa, J. (2017). Reflections on North–South collaboration in music education. In E. Lehtomäki, H. Janhonen-Abruquah, & G. L. Kahangwa (Eds.), Culturally responsive education: Reflections from the global South and North (pp. 131–142). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315201900-9 Salter, P. (2015). A reconceptualisation of “Knowing Asia” in Australian education. Discourse (Abingdon), 36(6), 781–794. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.967178 Samarin, W. (1987). Lingua franca. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 371–374). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Sampson, A. (2012). Learner code-switching versus English only. ELT Journal, 66(3), 293–303. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr067 Samuels, A. J. (2018). Exploring culturally responsive pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives on fostering equitable and inclusive classrooms. SRATE Journal, 27(1), 22–30. San Pedro, T. (2018). Abby as ally: An argument for culturally disruptive pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1193 ̶ 1232. Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2019). Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 54–71. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.006 Sanders-Brunner, M. (2004). Literature circles. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 20(7), 39. Sandlin, J. A., Schultz, B. D., & Burdick, J. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of public pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203863688 Sandlin, J., O’Malley, M. P., & Burdick, J. (2011). Mapping the complexity of public pedagogy scholarship: 1894-2010. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 338–375. doi:10.3102/0034654311413395 Santos Green, L. (2013). Language learning through a lens: The case for digital storytelling in the second language classroom. School Libraries Worldwide, 19(2), 23–36. Santos, M. (2018). Metodologia de documentação linguística como subsídio para ensino de língua [Methodology of language documentation as a tool for language teaching]. Revista Brasileira de Línguas Indígenas [Brazilian Journal of Indigenous Languages], 1(1), 117–130. doi:10.18468/rbli.2018v1n1.p117-130

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Saunders, E. D. (1985). Mudra: A study of symbolic gestures in Japanese Buddhist sculpture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Saviani, D. (2013). História das ideias pedagógicas no Brasil [The history of pedagogical ideas in Brazil]. Campinas, Brazil: Autores Associados. Savić, V. (2012). Effective CLIL lesson planning: What lies behind it? In R. Popović, & V. Savić (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in teaching English to young learners (pp. 35 ̶ 45). Jagodina, Serbia: University of Kragujevac. Savić, V., & Shin, J. K. (2013). Contextualizing language learning through stories in Serbia. Teaching Innovations, 26(1), 62 ̶ 83.

731

Compilation of References

Savić, V., & Shin, J. K. (2016). Improving quality of primary English language teaching in Serbia through Themebased instruction. In J. Teodorović (Ed.), Improving quality of elementary education (pp. 328 ̶ 338). Jagodina, Serbia: University of Kragujevac. Savvidou, C. (2004). An integrated approach to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Savvidou-Literature.html Sawyer, W., & van de Ven, P. H. (2007). Starting points: Paradigms in mother-tongue education. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(1), 5–20. doi:10.17239/L1ESLL-2007.07.01.06 Saxe, J. G. (1963). The blind men and the elephant; John Godfrey Saxe’s version of the famous Indian legend. New York, NY: Whittlesey House. Sayer, P. (2013). Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 63–88. doi:10.1002/tesq.53 Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2(1), 54–63. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1996)2:13.0.CO;2-X Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 191–215. doi:10.12071532799xssr0103_2 Schank, R. C. (2002). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Scheuermann, L., & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette. Internet Research, 7(4), 269–273. doi:10.1108/10662249710187268 Schick, A. R., & Melzi, G. (2016). Print-related practices in low-income Latino homes and preschoolers’ school-readiness outcomes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(2), 171–198. doi:10.1177/1468798415592009 Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 163–191. doi:10.1146/ annurev.an.15.100186.001115 Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H., Whittingham, J., & Dolmans, D. (2019). Peer-to-peer dialogue about teachers’ written feedback enhances students’ understanding on how to improve writing skills, Educational Studies, 45(1), 1 ̶14. Schlick Noe, K. L., & Johnson, N. J. (1999). Getting started with literature circles. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Schmidt, T. (2010). Multimediale Lernumgebungen für das Fremdsprachenlernen. [Multimedia learning environments for second language learning] In W. Hallet, & F. G. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik [Handbook of foreign language didactics] (pp. 280–284). Seelze-Velber, Germany: Klett. Schoen, M. J. (2015). Teaching visual literacy skills in a one-shot session. VRA Bulletin, 41(1). Retrieved from https:// online.vraweb.org/vrab/vol41/iss1/6 Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2016). Leadership guide for reading apprenticeship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Wiley & Sons.

732

Compilation of References

Schöp, F. (2013). Mehrsprachigkeit als Zeitfresser? – Was Lehramsstudierende über interkomprehensives Arbeiten im Unterricht der romanischen Sprachen denken. [Multilingualism as a time waster? – What prospective teachers think about working intercomprehensively in the teaching of Romance languages]. In E. Vetter (Ed.), Professionalisierung für sprachliche Vielfalt. Perspektiven für neue LehrerInnenbildung [Professionalization for linguistic diversity. Perspectives for new teacher education] (pp. 148–176). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Schultz, S. (2010). Judging a book by its cover: An evaluation tool for the evaluation, selection and inclusion of multicultural children’s literature in the elementary classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dominican University of California, California. Schulz, W. (2014). Mediatization and new media. In F. Esser, & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformations of Western democracies (pp. 57–73). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137275844_4 Schwartz, M., Kahn-Horwitz, J., & Share, D. L. (2014). Orthographic learning and self-teaching in a bilingual and biliterate context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117, 45–58. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.08.008 PMID:24140992 Schwartz, M., Share, D. L., Leikin, M., & Kozminsky, E. (2007). On the benefits of bi-literacy: Just a head start in reading or specific orthographic insights? Reading and Writing, 21(9), 905–927. doi:10.100711145-007-9097-3 Schweitzer, R., Perkoulidis, S., Krome, S., Ludlow, C., & Ryan, M. (2005). Attitudes towards refugees: The dark side of prejudice in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 170–179. doi:10.1080/00049530500125199 Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/ harvard.9780674433014 Seals, C. A., & Peyton, J. K. (2017). Heritage language education: Valuing the languages, literacies, and cultural competencies of immigrant youth. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(1), 87–101. doi:10.1080/14664208.2016.1168690 Seburn, T. (2017). Learner-sourced visuals for deeper text engagement and conceptual comprehension. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 79 ̶ 88). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2018). The impact of language experience on language and reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 38(1), 66–83. doi:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000144 Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Pedagogy and local learner corpora: Working with learning driven data. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 213–234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.6.14sei

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Seifert, L. (2015). Introduction: Queer(ing) fairy tales. Marvels & Tales, 29(1), 15–20. Seltzer, K., Collins, B. A., & Angeles, K. M. (2016). Navigating turbulent waters: Translanguaging to support academic and socioemotional well-being. In O. García, & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 140–160). New York, NY: Routledge. Semali, L. M., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). What is Indigenous knowledge?: Voices from the academy. New York, NY: Routledge. Sénéchal, M., Pagan, S., Lever, R., & Ouellette, G. P. (2008). Relations among the frequency of shared reading and 4-year old children’s vocabulary, morphological and syntax comprehension, and narrative skills. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 27–44. doi:10.1080/10409280701838710

733

Compilation of References

Serafini, F. (2011). Expanding perspectives for comprehending visual images in multimodal texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 342 ̶ 350. Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the 21st century. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 26 ̶ 32. Serafini, F. (2014). Reading the visual. [electronic resource]: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Serafini, F. (2017). Visual literacy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Retrieved from http://frankserafini. com/publications/serafini-oxford-vis-lit.pdf Serafini, F. (2010). Reading multimodal texts: Perceptual, structural and ideological perspectives. Children’s Literature in Education, 41(2), 85–104. doi:10.100710583-010-9100-5 Serafini, F. (2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies, 7(2), 150–164. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2012.656347 Serafini, F., & Gee, E. (2017). Remixing multiliteracies: Theory and practice from New London to new times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sermier Dessemontet, R., & de Chambrier, A. F. (2015). The role of phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge in the reading development of children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 41–42, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.04.001 PMID:25965277 Seymour, J. (2018). Racebending and prosumer fanart practices in Harry Potter fandom. In P. Booth (Ed.), A companion to media fandom and fan studies (pp. 333–347). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859 PMID:12803812 Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1), 22–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00359.x Shang, H. (2006). Content-based instruction in an EFL literature curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, 12(11). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Shang-CBI.html Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Curry, M. J. (2018). Educating refugee-background students. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Curry, M. J. (Eds.). (2018). Educating refugee-background students: Critical issues and dynamic contexts. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Tomaš, Z. (2014). Fostering international student success in higher education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Shapiro, S., & MacDonald, M. T. (2017). From deficit to asset: Locating discursive resistance in a refugee-background student’s written and oral narrative. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 16(2), 80–93. doi:10.1080/153484 58.2016.1277725 Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 PMID:7789090 Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72(2), 95–129. doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2481 PMID:9927525

734

Compilation of References

Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(4), 267–298. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.001 PMID:15050455 Sheikh, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Acculturation patterns and education of refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic literature review. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.07.003 Shen, L. C. (2017). Femininity and gender in contemporary Chinese school stories: The case of Tomboy Dai An. Children’s Literature in Education, 50(3), 278–296. Shen, L. C. (2018). The effeminate boy and queer boyhood in contemporary Chinese adolescent novels. Children’s Literature in Education. doi:10.100710583-018-9357-7 Shimron, J., & Sivan, T. (1994). Reading proðciency and orthography: Evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44(1), 5–27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01447.x Shin, J. K. (2007). Developing dynamic units for EFL. English Teaching Forum, 45(2), 2 ̶ 9. Shin, J. K., & Crandall, J. A. (2014). Teaching young learners English: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning. Shin, S. J. (2013). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Shioshita, J. (1997). Beyond good intentions: Selecting multicultural literature. Retrieved from https://www.leeandlow. com/educators/race/beyond-good-intention-selecting-multicultural-literature Shiu, E., & Lenhart, A. (2004) How Americans use instant messaging? Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet. org/2004/09/01/how-americans-use-instant-messaging/ Shneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (2002). What is learned under difficult circumstances is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 419–440. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2813 Shohamy, E. (2013). Expanding the construct of language testing with regards to language varieties and multilingualism. In D. Tsagari, S. Papadima-Sophocleous, & S. Ioannou-Georgiou (Eds.), International experiences in language testing and assessment–Selected papers in memory of Pavlos Pavlou (pp. 17 ̶ 32). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: a critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London, UK: Pearson Education. Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? The Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism and Practice, 1(4), 1–27.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to the Carnegie corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Short, K. (2007). Critically reading the word and the World. Building intercultural understanding through literature. Bookbird Journal, 2(1), 2–10. Short, K., Eadie, P., Descallar, J., Comino, E., & Kemp, L. (2017). Longitudinal vocabulary development in Australian urban Aboriginal children: Protective and risk factors. Child Care, Health, and Development, 43(6), 906–917. doi:10.1111/ cch.12492 PMID:28776756 Short, K., & Pierce, K. M. (1990). Talking about books: Creating literate communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sigley, R., & Holmes, J. (2002). Looking at girls in corpora of English. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(2), 138–157. doi:10.1177/007242030002004 735

Compilation of References

Silva, C., & Alves-Martins, M. (2002). Phonological skills and writing of presyllabic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 466–483. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.4.6 Silva, C., Faísca, L., Ingvar, M., Petersson, K. M., & Reis, A. (2012). Literacy: Exploring working memory systems. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34(4), 369–377. doi:10.1080/13803395.2011.645017 PMID:22260217 Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677. doi:10.2307/3587400 Silva, T. T. (2000). A produção social da identidade e da diferença. [The social production of identity and difference] In T. T. Silva (Ed.), Identidade e diferença: A perspectiva dos estudos culturais [Identity and difference: The perspective from cultural studies]. (pp. 73–102). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes. Simeon, J. (2015). Learner writing strategies of Seychellois ESL secondary school students: A sociocultural theory perspective. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 8, 1 ̶ 11. Simpson, A. (1996). Critical questions: Whose questions? The Reading Teacher, 50(2), 118–127. Simpson, J. (2017). Translanguaging, superdiversity, and ESOL [TLang e-seminar]. Retrieved from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tlang/index.aspx]. The Summary (Indianapolis, Ind.), 2017. Simpson, J., & Whiteside, A. (Eds.). (2015). Adult language education and migration. Challenging agendas in policy and practice. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315718361 Sinclair, J. M. (1996). The empty lexicon. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 99–119. doi:10.1075/ ijcl.1.1.07sin Sinclair, J. M. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075cl.12 Singh, N. K., & Reyhner, J. (2013). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy for indigenous children. In J. Reyhner, J. Martin, L. Lockard, & W. S. Gilbert (Eds.), Honoring our children: Culturally appropriate approaches for teaching indigenous students (pp. 37–52). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Sipe, L. R. (2001). Picturebooks as aesthetic objects. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning, 6(1), 23–42. Sipe, L. R. (2008). Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sipe, L. R., & McGuire, C. (2006). Picturebook endpapers: Resources for literary and aesthetic interpretation. Children’s Literature in Education, 37(4), 291–304. doi:10.100710583-006-9007-3

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Skerrett, A. (2011). “Wide open to rap, tagging, and real life”: Preparing teachers for multiliteracies pedagogy. Pedagogies, 6(3), 185–199. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2011.579048 Skoog Waller, S., Eriksson, M., & Sörqvist, P. (2015). Can you hear my age? Influences of speech rate and speech spontaneity on estimation of speaker age. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00978 PMID:26236259 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers: A handbook of activities & classroom language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

736

Compilation of References

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247–284. doi:10.3102/00346543075002247 Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. doi:10.1177/0022487101052002002 Smith, L., & Fershleiser, R. (2009). Not quite what I was planning and other six-word memoirs by writers. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Smith, L., & King, J. (2017). A dynamic systems approach to wait time in the second language classroom. System, 68, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.05.005 Smith, N., Hoffmann, S., & Rayson, P. (2008). Corpus tools and methods, today and tomorrow: Incorporating linguists’ manual annotations. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(2), 163–180. doi:10.1093/llc/fqn004 Smyser, H., & Alt, M. (2018). Developing mental orthographic representations in refugee spellers with low literacy: How much input is too much? Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 455 ̶ 474. Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-Based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 303 ̶ 318). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470757642.ch26 Snow, C. E., & Kang, J. Y. (2007). Becoming bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural. In A. N. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 75–102). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge or academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008 Sohan, V. K. (2009). Working English (es) as rhetoric (s) of disruption. Journal of Advanced Composition, 29(1-2), 270–276. Sok, S. (2014). Deconstructing the concept of ‘incidental’ L2 vocabulary learning. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 21–37. Song, K. (2015). “Okay I will say in Korean and then in American”: Translanguaging practices in bilingual homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(1), 84 ̶ 106. Song, H. J., & Wiese, R. (2011). Resistance to complexity interacting with visual shape - German and Korean orthography. Writing Systems Research, 2(2), 87–103. doi:10.1093/wsr/wsq010

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Soter, A. O. (1999). Young adult literature and the new literary theories: Developing critical readers in middle school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x Spelman Miller, K., Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 433–454. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00140.x Spender, D. (1998). Extracts from Man Made Language. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language (pp. 93–99). London, UK: Routledge. 737

Compilation of References

Spiegel, M., & Sunderland, H. (2006). Teaching basic literacy to ESOL learners. London, UK: London South Bank University. Srinivasan, D. (1997). Many heads, arms, and eyes: Origin, meaning, and form of multiplicity in Indian art. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers. Stables, A. (2003). Environmental education and the arts–science divide: The case for a disciplined environmental literacy. In A. Winnett, & A. Warhust (Eds.), Towards an environment research agenda (pp. 49–59). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230536814_4 Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1 Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 69–96. doi:10.3102/0034654310388819 Stewart, M. A. (2015). “My journey of hope and peace”: Learning from adolescent refugees’ lived experiences. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 149–150. doi:10.1002/jaal.445 Stöckl, H. (2004). In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In E. Ventola, C. Cassily, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ddcs.6.03sto Stockwell, P. (2005). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203995143 Stokke, S. R. I. (2014). Men han har forskjellig farge på øynene. Om barns møte med litteratur i skolen sett i lys av teori om mentalisering og theory of mind [But his eyes have different colors. Children’s exposure to literature in school examined in light of theory of mentalization and theory of mind]. Norsklæreren [Norwegian Teacher], 4, 43–55. StoRe—Stories make readers . (2019). Retrieved from https://peda.net/id/b7896a1230b Straubhaar, R. (2013). Student use of aspirational and linguistic social capital in an urban immigrant-centered English immersion high school. High School Journal, 97(2), 92–106. doi:10.1353/hsj.2013.0026 Street, B. V. (2017). New literacies, new times: Developments in literacy studies. In B.V. Street, & S. May (Ed.), Literacies and Language Education (pp. 1 ̶ 13) London, UK: Springer International Publishing. Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. London, UK: Longman. Street, B. (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies. Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. Harlow, UK: Longman. Street, B. V. (2006). Autonomous and ideological models of literacy: Approaches from new literacy studies. Media Anthropology Network, 17, 1–15. Street, B. V. (2013). New literacy studies. In M. Grenfell, D. Bloome, C. Hardy, K. Pahl, J. Rowsell, & B. Street (Eds.), Language, ethnography, and education (pp. 33–55). London, UK: Routledge. Street, B. V. (Ed.). (2001). Literacy and development. London, UK: Routledge. Street, B., & Lefstein, A. (2007). Literacy: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203463994

738

Compilation of References

Street, B., & Street, J. (1995). The schooling of literacy. In P. Murphy, M. Selinger, J. Bourne, & M. Briggs (Eds.), Subject learning in the primary curriculum (pp. 179–183). London, UK: Routledge. Strube, S. (2009). What do teachers do? A look at the oral skills practices in the LESLLA classroom. In I. van de Craats, & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 49 ̶ 62). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Strucker, J. (2002, June). NCSALL’s adult reading components study (ARCS). Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Dyslexia Association, Washington, D.C. Styles, M., & Arizpe, E. (2001). A gorilla with ‘Grandpa’s Eyes’: How children interpret visual texts: A case study of Anthony Browne’s Zoo. Children’s Literature in Education, 32(4), 261–281. doi:10.1023/A:1012760422501 Suarcaya, P., & Prasasti, W. D. (2017). Investigating students’ critical reading: Critical literacy in EFL setting. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(2), 220–232. Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension intervnetions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96. doi:10.1177/0022219414528540 PMID:24704662 Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (2002). Self-assessment in autonomous computer-aided second language writing. ELT Journal, 56(3), 258–266. doi:10.1093/elt/56.3.258 Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (Eds.). (2006). Computer keystroke logging and writing. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Sulzby, E. (1992). Research directions: Transitions from emergent to conventional writing. Language Arts, 69(4), 290–297. Sun, Y. C. (2000). Using on-line corpus to facilitate language learning. Retrieved from //www.learntechlib.org/p/88735/ Sun, Y. C. (2007). Learner perceptions of a concordancing tool for academic writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 323–343. doi:10.1080/09588220701745791 Sun, Y., & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 43–61. Susilo, A., Yang, P., & Qi, R. (2019). Shaping EFL teachers’ critical intercultural awareness through intercultural education. In D. Mulyadi, H. D. Santoso, S. Aimah, & R. Rahim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd English language and literature international conference (pp. 316–324). Bratislava, Slovakia: EAI (European Alliance for Innovation). 10.4108/ eai.27-4-2019.2285307 Swain, J., & Cara, O. (2017). Changing the home literacy environment through participation in family literacy programs. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12(1), 1–28.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. doi:10.1177/136216880000400304

739

Compilation of References

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (1990). The concept of genre. In Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings (pp. 33–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swan, M. (2011). Using texts constructively: what are texts for? Teaching English. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/using-texts-constructively-what-are-texts Swanwick, R. (2017). Translanguaging, learning and teaching in deaf education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 233–249. doi:10.1080/14790718.2017.1315808 Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2018/curriculum-for-the-compulsoryschool-preschool-class-and-school-age-educare-revised-2018?id=3984 Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528–546. doi:10.1558/cj.v25i3.528-546 Szabo, S. (2010). Older children need phonemic awareness instruction, too. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 130–141. doi:10.5054/ tj.2010.215246 Tabatadze, S. (2015). Factors influencing the effectiveness of bilingual educational programs: The prospects of pilot programs in Georgia. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(2), 93–109. Takahesu Tabori, A. A., Mech, E. N., & Atagi, N. (2018). Exploiting language variation to better understand the cognitive consequences of bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1686. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01686 PMID:30245660 Tammelin-Laine, T., & Martin, M. (2015). The simultaneous development of receptive skills in an orthographically transparent second language. Writing Systems Research, 7(1), 39–57. doi:10.1080/17586801.2014.943148 Tamura, N., Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2017). Orthographic learning, fast and slow: Lexical competition effects reveal the time course of word learning in developing readers. Cognition, 163, 93–102. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.002 PMID:28314178 Tan, S.-C., & Tan, A.-L. (2011). Developing students’ new literacies with computer-supported collaborative argumentation. In C. M. L. Ho, K. T. Anderson, & A. P. Leong (Eds.), Transforming literacies and language: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age (pp. 105 ̶ 121). London, UK: Continuum. Tan, S. (2006). The arrival. New York, NY: Scholastic Imprint.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Tanti, M. (2012). Literacy education in the digital age: Using blogging to teach writing. Teaching English with Technology, Special Edition on LAMS and Learning Design, 12(2), 132–146. Tarnanen, M., Kauppinen, M., & Ylämäki, A. (2017). Oman äidinkielen tekstitaidot monikielisyyttä rakentamassa. Näkökulmia kielille annettuihin merkityksiin ja kielten käyttöön [L1 literacy practices and use of L1 from the perspectives of students and teachers with immigrant background. Meaning making of literacy practices]. In S. Latomaa, E. Luukka, & N. Lilja (Eds.), Kielitietoisuus eriarvoistuvassa yhteiskunnassa [Language awareness in an increasingly unequal society] (pp. 278–297). Helsinki, Finland: AFinLa. Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2011). A research agenda for second language acquisition of pre-literate and low-literate adult and adolescent learners. In P. Vinogradov, & M. Bigelow (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA (Low Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition) symposium (pp. 27–46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

740

Compilation of References

Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied population. Language Teaching, 43(1), 75–83. doi:10.1017/S0261444809005734 Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 77–97. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000048 Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. H. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and processing of oral corrective feedback in the L2. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 101–121). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tassinari, A. M. I. (2001). Da civilização à tradição: Os projetos de escola entre os índios do Uaçá. [From civilization to tradition: The school projects among the indians from Uaçá] In A. Silva, & M. Ferreira (Eds.), Antropologia, história e educação: A questão indígena e a escola [Anthropology, history and education: The indigenous question and the school]. (pp. 157–195). São Paulo, Brazil: Global. Tassinari, A. M. I. (2003). No bom da festa: O processo de construção cultural das famílias Karipuna do Amapá [In the best of the party: The process of cultural construction of the Karipuna’s families from Amapá]. São Paulo, Brazil: EDUSP. Tauveron, C. (2006). Literature in French primary school. Aikakauskirja Äidinkielen opetustiede [The journal of the pedagogical science of the mother tongue], 35, 3–37. Tavakoli, P. (2018). L2 development in an intensive Study Abroad EAP context. System, 72, 62–74. doi:10.1016/j. system.2017.10.009 Taylor, L., & Hoechsmann, M. (2011). Beyond intellectual insularity: Multicultural literacy as a measure of respect. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L’éducation, 34(2), 219 ̶ 238. Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2016). Sparks 7. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups. Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2017). Sparks 8. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups. Taylor, J. (Ed.). (2018). Sparks 9. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups. Texas Education Agency. (2019). 2018-2019 ELL student reports by category and grade. Retrieved from https://rptsvr1. tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2019). Statistical report on international students in China for 2018. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/201904/t20190418_378586.html

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The New Media Consortium. (2008). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century literacy summit. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/search#?page=4&publicationandcollection_search=New%20Media%20Consortium%20 (NMC)&sortBy=relevance&sortOrder=asc Thomas, E. E. (2019). The dark fantastic: Race and the imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games. New York, NY: NYU Press. Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2016). Restorying the self: Bending toward textual justice. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 313–338. Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Race, storying, and restorying: What can we learn from Black fans? Transformative Works and Cultures, 29. doi:10.3983/twc.2019.1562 Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 741

Compilation of References

Thompkins, J. (1980). An introduction to reader-response criticism. In J. Thompkins (Ed.), Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism (pp. 9–24). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Thompson, R., & McIlnay, M. (2019). Nobody wants to read anymore! Using a multimodal approach to make literature engaging. Children’s Literature in English Language Education (CLELE), 7(1), 61 ̶80. Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). Bridging activities, new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558–572. doi:10.1558/cj.v25i3.558-572 Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267–280. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00013-6 Tighe, E., & Binder, K. S. (2015). An investigation of morphological awareness and processing in adults with low literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 245–273. doi:10.1017/S0142716413000222 PMID:25926711 Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1), 91–102. doi:10.1016/ S0346-251X(00)00047-6 Todorov, T. (1976). The origin of genres (R. M. Berrong, Trans.). New Literary History, 8(1), 159–170. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:10.1075cl.6 Tolchinsky, L., & Teberosky, A. (1998). The development of word segmentation and writing in two scripts. Cognitive Development, 13(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90018-1 Tomlinson, C. M. (1998). Children’s books from other countries. Lanford, MD: Scarecrow Press. To, N. L., Tighe, E. L., & Binder, K. S. (2016). Investigating morphological awareness and the processing of transparent and opaque words in adults with low literacy skills and in skilled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(2), 171–188. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12036 PMID:27158173 Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: Design, development, and applications. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Corpus Linguistics Conference (pp. 808–809). Lancaster, UK: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. Torgesen, J. K., & Mathes, P. (2000). A basic guide to understanding, assessing, and teaching phonological awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Tørnby, H., & Stokke, S. R. I. (2018). Estetiske dimensjoner i litteraturarbeid. [Aesthetic dimensions in working with literature] In S. R. I. Stokke, & E. S. Tønnessen (Eds.), Møter med barnelitteratur: Introduksjon for lærere [Meetings with children’s literature: An introduction for teachers]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Torppa, M., Niemi, P., Vasalampi, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Tolvanen, A., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2019, March 30). Leisure reading (but not any kind) and reading comprehension support each other – a longitudinal study across grade 1 and 9. Child Development, cdev.13241. doi:10.1111/cdev.13241 PMID:30927457 Tosenberger, C. (2008). Homosexuality at the online Hogwarts: Harry Potter slash fanfiction. Children’s Literature, 36, 185–207. Tran, T. (2000). The Vietnamese elderly refugees’ experience in America (Unpublished master’s thesis). San Jose State University, CA. Tran, T. P. (2017). Lĩnh Nam chích quái [Selected tales of extraordinary beings in Linh Nam]. Hanoi, Vietnam: Kim Dong.

742

Compilation of References

Treaty on the European Union (Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) . (2008). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT Tredway, L. (2003). Community mapping: A rationale. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the Principal Leadership Institute, University of California, Berkeley. Treiman, R. (2018). Statistical learning and spelling. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3S), 644–652. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-STLT1-17-0122 PMID:30120443 Treiman, R., & Bourassa, D. C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 1–18. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00004 Treiman, R., & Yin, L. (2011). Early differentiation between drawing and writing in Chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(4), 786–801. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.013 PMID:21106204 Tribble, C. (2000). Practical uses for language corpora in ELT. In P. Brett, & G. Motteram (Eds.), A special interest in computers: Learning and teaching with information and communications technologies (pp. 31–41). Kent, UK: IATEFL. Troia, G. A. (2004). Phonological processing and its influence on literacy learning. In C. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 271–301). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Trupke-Bastidas, J., & Poulos, A. (2007). Improving literacy of L1-non-literate and L1-literate adult English as a second language learners. MinneTESOL Journal, 24. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ TESOL-2007.pdf Tse, S. K., & Cheung, W. M. (2010). Chinese and the learning of Chinese. In F. Marton, S. K. Tse, & W. M. Cheung (Eds.), On the learning of Chinese (pp. 1 ̶ 8). Hong Kong, China: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1163/9789460912696_002 Tucker, R., Castles, A., Laroche, A., & Deacon, S. H. (2016). The nature of orthographic learning in self-teaching: Testing the extent of transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 79–94. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.12.007 PMID:26826469 Turnball, B., & Evans, M. S. (2017). The effects of L1 and L2 group discussion on L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29(1), 133 ̶ 154. U. S. Department of State. (2019, May 31). Refugee admissions report. Bureau of Populations, Refugees, and Migration. Retrieved from https://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

U.N. Refugee Agency. (2019, June 19). Worldwide displacement tops 70 million, UN Refugee Chief urges greater solidarity in response. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/6/5d03b22b4/worldwide-displacementtops-70-million-un-refugee-chief-urges-greater-solidarity.html Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring crossdisciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. doi:10.1002/rrq.104 UK Council for International Student Affairs. (2019). International student statistics: UK higher education. Retrieved from https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research--Policy/Statistics/International-student-statistics-UK-higher-education UN Refugee Agency. (2017). Global trends. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/5b27be547.pdf UNESCO Education Sector. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf 743

Compilation of References

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2017). Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. UNESCO Fact Sheet. Montreal, Canada: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://uis. unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs45-literacy-rates-continue-rise-generation-to-next-en-2017_0.pdf UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2017. Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/literac UNESCO. (2003). Education in a multilingual world. UNESCO Education Position Paper 2003, Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://resources.wycliffe.net/pdf/Education%20in%20a%20multilingual%20world.pdf UNESCO. (2005). Aspects of literacy assessment: Topics and issues from the UNESCO Expert Meeting, June 10-12, 2003. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf000014012 UNESCO. (2006). Understandings of Literacy. In Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006, 147–159. Retrieved from reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/141639e.pdf UNESCO. (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. Retrieved from http://www.eunec.eu/sites/www.eunec.eu/files/attachment/files/global_citizenship_education_report.pdf UNESCO. (2017). Reading the past, writing the future. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco. org/ark:/48223/pf0000247563 UNESCO. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000002897 United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://www. unicef.pt/media/2766/unicef_convenc-a-o_dos_direitos_da_crianca.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization. (2003). Education in a multilingual world: UNESCO education position paper. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000129728 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ sustainable-development-goals Unsworth, L. (2008). Explicating inter-modal meaning-making in media and literary texts: Towards a metalanguage of image/language relations. In A. Burn, & C. Durrant (Eds.), Media teaching: Language, audience, production (pp. 48–80). Kent Town, South Australia: Wakefield Press and AATE-NATE. Unsworth, L., & Thomas, A. (2014). English teaching and new literacies pedagogy: Interpreting and authoring digital multimedia narratives. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1311-6

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2013). The cognitive linkage and divergence of spelling and reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 89–107. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.614665 Valdés, G., Fishman, J. A., Chávez, R., & Pérez, W. (2006). Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637. doi:10.3102/0162373715573310 Van Avermaet, P., & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based perspective. In K. van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 17–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667282.003 744

Compilation of References

van Bon, W. H. J., & van Leeuwe, J. F. J. (2003). Assessing phonemic awareness in kindergarten: The case for the phoneme recognition task. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 195–219. doi:10.1017/S0142716403000109 van de Craats, I., Kurvers, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (2006). Research on low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & M. Young-Scholten (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 7–23). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London, UK: Longman. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kuhler. doi:10.1007/1-4020-7912-5 Van, T. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 47(3), 2–9. Van, T. T. M. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 47(3), 2 ̶ 7. Vannestål, M. E., & Lindquist, H. (2007). Learning English grammar with a corpus: Experimenting with concordancing in a university grammar course. ReCALL, 19(3), 329–350. doi:10.1017/S0958344007000638 Varghese, M. M. (2004). Professional development for bilingual teachers in the United States: A site for articulating and contesting professional roles. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2&3), 222–238. doi:10.1080/13670050408667810 Vasquez, V. (2010). Getting beyond I like the book: Creating space for critical literacy in K-6 classrooms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217 Veiga-Pfeifer, R., Maahs, I.-M., Triulzi, M., Hacisalihoglu, E., & Steinborn, W. (in press). Linguistische Lernertextanalyse als Weiterbildungsbaustein. [Linguistic learner text analysis as a component of further training] In J. Asmacher, C. Serrand, & H. Roll (Eds.), Universitäre Weiterbildungen im Handlungsfeld von Deutsch als Zweitsprache [University further education in the field of German as a second language]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 37(1), 6–23. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.893270

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R. S., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. New York, NY: Guildford. Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16(4), 263–277. doi:10.2167/la417.0 Ventola, E., Charles, C., & Kaltenbacher, M. (Eds.). (2004). Perspectives on multimodality. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/ddcs.6 Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (Eds.). (2017). Learning to read across languages and writing systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316155752 745

Compilation of References

Vernon, S., & Ferreiro, E. (1999). Writing development: A neglected variable in the consideration of phonological Aa. Harvard Educational Review, 69(4), 395–415. doi:10.17763/haer.69.4.p411667586738x0w Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 83–95. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01749.x Vickery, A. E. (2016). ‘I know what you are about to enter’: Lived experiences as the curricular foundation for teaching citizenship. Gender and Education 28(6), 725 ̶ 741. Vidal, L. B. (2007). Povos indígenas do baixo Oiapoque: O encontro das águas, o encruzo dos saberes e a arte de viver [Indigenous peoples from the Low Oiapoque: The encounter of waters, the mixing of knowledges and the art of living]. Retrieved from https://www.institutoiepe.org.br/media/livros/livro_povos_indigenas_do_oiapoque-baixa_resolucao.pdf Viise, N. M. (1996). A study of the spelling development of adult literacy learners compared with that of classroom children. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(4), 561–587. doi:10.1080/10862969609547940 Villaba, E. (2011). Critical thinking. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 323 ̶ 325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Villegas, A. M. (1988). School failure and cultural mismatch: Another view. The Urban Review, 20(4), 253–265. doi:10.1007/BF01120137 Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2014). Quadro de referência para a formação linguística de professores. [Common framework for teachers’ linguistic education] In M. Moreira, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Filhos de um Deus menor: Diversidade linguística e justiça social na formação de professores [Children of a lesser God: Linguistic variety and social justice in teacher education]. (pp. 153–174). Ramada, Portugal: Edições Pedago. Villenas, S. (2019). Pedagogies of being with: Witnessing, testimonio, and critical love in everyday social movement. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 32(2), 151–166. doi:10.1080/09518398.2018.1533148 Vinogradov, P. (2008). “Maestra! The letters speak.” Adult ESL students learning to read for the first time. MinneTESOL, 25. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TESOL-2008.pdf Vinogradov, P. (2009). Balancing top and bottom: Learner-generated texts for teaching phonics. In T. Wall, & M. Leong (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the 5th annual symposium (pp. 3–14). Calgary, AB: Bow Valley College. Vinogradov, P., & Bigelow, M. (2010). Using oral language skills to build on the emerging literacy of adult English learners. Retrieved from www.cal.org/caelanetwork

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vinogradov, P., & Liden, A. (2009). Principled training for LESLLA instructors. In I. van de Craats, & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (pp. 133 ̶ 144). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Vinogradova, P. (2007). Positive social self: Symbolic construction of social identity in digital storytelling. International Journal of the Humanities, 5(8), 69–78. doi:10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v05i08/42189 Vinogradova, P., Linville, H. A., & Bickel, B. (2011). “Listen to my story and you will know me”: Digital stories as student-centered collaborative projects. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 173–202. doi:10.5054/tj.2011.250380 Vinogradov, P., & Bigelow, M. (2010). Using oral language skills to build on the emerging literacy of adult English learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

746

Compilation of References

Vogel, S., Ascenzi-Moreno, L., & García, O. (2018). An expanded view of translanguaging: Levereging the dynamic interactions between a young multilingual writer and machine translation software. In J. Choi, & S. Ollerhead (Eds.), Plurilingualism in teaching and learning: Complexities across contexts (pp. 89–106). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315392462-6 Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181 Vos, K. (2002). Symbolism & simplicity: Korean art from the collection of Won-Kyung Cho. Leiden, The Netherlands: Hotei Publishing. Vukovic, R. (2019, June 4). Valuing multilingual students’ skills. Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/valuing-multilingual-students-skills Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thinking and speaking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Lopez-MorillasM., Trans.). (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, D., & Venezky, R. L. (1999). Adult literacy: The next generation. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 21–29. doi:10.3102/0013189X028001021 Wagner, R. K., & Barker, T. A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge. Neuropsychology and Cognition (pp. 243–276). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3492-9_8 Wagner, R. K., Muse, A. E., & Tannenbaum, K. R. (Eds.). (2006). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford. Wagner, R., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 203–220. doi:10.100711145-010-9266-7 PMID:22228924 Wallace, C. (2002) Local literacies and global literacies. In D. Black, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 101 ̶ 114). London, UK: Routledge. Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230514447 Wall, T., & Leong, M. (Eds.). (2010). Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Bow Valley, Canada: Bow Valley College. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639 Walsh, A. (2009). Information literacy assessment: Where do we start? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1), 19–28. doi:10.1177/0961000608099896

747

Compilation of References

Wang, H.-C., Castles, A., Nickels, L., & Nation, K. (2011). Context effects on orthographic learning of regular and irregular words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(1), 39–57. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.005 PMID:21315372 Wang, M. (2017). Learning and second language. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 131–153). New York, NY: Routledge. Wang, M., Yang, C., & Cheng, C. (2009). The contributions of phonology, orthography, and morphology in ChineseEnglish biliteracy acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 291–314. doi:10.1017/S0142716409090122 Wasilewska, M. (2017). The power of image nation: How to teach a visual generation. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 43 ̶ 50). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Watenpaugh, K. D., Fricke, A. L., & King, J. R. (2014). We will stop here and go no further: Syrian university students and scholars in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.alnap.org/resource/20518 Watson, G., & Zyngier, S. (Eds.). (2006). Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331–350. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00233.x Watson, J. (2019). Understanding Indigenous education practices as a way of engaging deeply with refugee-background students (and everyone else) in the classroom. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 203–224. Webb, J. (2009). Understanding representation. London, UK: Sage. Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33–52. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050023 Weber‐Fève, S. (2009). Integrating language and literature: Teaching textual analysis with input and output activities and an input‐to‐output approach. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 453–467. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01035.x Weigle, S. C., & Malone, M. M. (2016). Assessment of English for academic purposes. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 608 ̶ 620). New York, NY: Routledge. Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035 Weine, S., Ware, N., Hakizimana, L., Tugenberg, T., Currie, M., Dahnweih, G., ... Wulu, J. (2014). Fostering resilience: Protective agents, resources, and mechanisms for adolescent refugees’ psychosocial well-being. Adolescent Psychiatry, 4(3), 164–176. doi:10.2174/221067660403140912162410

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Weinstein, G. (1999). Learners’ lives as curriculum: Six journeys to immigrant literacy. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. Weinstein, G. (2006). Learners’ lives as curriculum. In G. H. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 159–165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. doi:10.1093/ applin/19.4.515 Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice. Retrieved from https://wenger-trayner. com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

748

Compilation of References

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Weschenfelder, V. I. (2019). Teacher education in a racialized society: An interview with Gloria Ladson-Billings. Revista Brasileira de Educação [Brazilian Journal of Education], 24. doi:10.15901413-24782019240044 Wessels, S., & Trainin, G. (2014). Bringing literacy home: Latino families supporting children’s literacy learning. Young Children, 69(3), 40 ̶ 46. Wessels, S. (2014). Supporting English and Spanish literacy through a family literacy program. School Community Journal, 24(2), 147–164. Westland, E. (1993). Cinderella in the classroom: Children’s responses to gender roles in fairy-tales. Gender and Education, 5(3), 237–249. Whistle, J. (1999). Concordancing with students using an ‘off-the-Web’ corpus. ReCALL, 11(2), 74–80. doi:10.1017/ S0958344000004985 Whitcher, A. (2017). Image makers: the new language learners of the 21st century. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 13 ̶ 22). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91–128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. White, J. W. (2009). Reading “the word and the world”: The double-edged sword of teaching critical literacy. Voices from the Middle, 17(2), 55–57. White, R., & Wyn, J. (2008). Youth & society: Exploring the social dynamics of youth experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. White, S. J., Warrington, K. L., McGowan, V. A., & Paterson, K. B. (2015). Eye movements during reading and topic scanning: Effects of word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 233–248. doi:10.1037/xhp0000020 PMID:25528014 Whiteside, A. (2008). Who is “you”?: ESL literacy, written text and troubles with deixis in imagined spaces. In M. Young-Scholten (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the third annual forum (pp. 99 ̶ 108). Durham, UK: Roundtuit Publishing. Whitford, V., & Titone, D. (2016). Eye movements and the perceptual span during first- and second-language sentence reading in bilingual older adults. Psychology and Aging, 31(1), 58–70. doi:10.1037/a0039971 PMID:26866589

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Widdowson, H. (1977). Stylistics and the teaching of literature. London, UK: Longman. Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190–195. doi:10.1111/cdep.12184 PMID:27617030 Wiley, T. C., Peyton, J. K., Christian, D., Moore, S. C. K., & Liu, N. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of heritage, community and Native American languages in the United States: Research, educational practice and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203122419 Williams, A., & Chapman, L. (2007). Meeting diverse needs: Content-based language teaching and settlement needs for low literacy adult ESL immigrants. In M. Young-Scholten, (Ed.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the third annual forum (pp 49–60). Durham, UK: Roundtuit Publishing. 749

Compilation of References

Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wales, UK. Williams, C. (2002). Extending bilingualism in the education system. Education and Lifelong Learning Committee (ELL Report No. 06–2). Retrieved from http://www.assemblywales.org/3c91c7af00023d820000595000000000.pdf Wilson, A. A., & Chavez, K. J. (2014). Reading and representing across the content areas. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wilson, J. K. (1990). Powerful form and potent symbol: The dragon in Asia. The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 77(8), 286–323. Windle, J., & Miller, J. (2012). Approaches to teaching low literacy refugee-background students. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(3), 317–333. Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783093496 Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481–495. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.525630 Winters-Ohle, E., Seipp, B., & Ralle, B. (2012). Zur Vermittlung sprachlicher Kompetenzen an Schüler mit Migrationsgeschichte. [On mediating language skills to pupils with a migration background] In E. Winters-Ohle, B. Seipp, & B. Ralle (Eds.), Lehrer für Schüler mit Migrationsgeschichte. Sprachliche Kompetenz im Kontext internationaler Konzepte der Lehrerbildung [Teachers for pupils with a migration background. Language competence in the context of international concepts of teacher education]. (pp. 27–32). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Witte, A. (2017). Sprachbildung in der Lehrerausbildung. [Language training in teacher training] In M. Becker-Mrotzek, & H.-J. Roth (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung – Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder [Linguistic education – Basics and fields of action]. (pp. 351–363). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Wofford, M. C., & Tibi, S. (2018). A human right to literacy education: Implications for serving Syrian refugee children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(1), 182–190. doi:10.1080/17549507.2017.1397746 PMID:29171285 Wohlwend, K. E., & Lewis, C. (2011). Critical literacy, critical engagement, and digital technology: Convergence and embodiment in global spheres. In D. Lapp, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 188–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2 Wolfram, W. (2003). Language variation in the American south: An introduction. American Speech, 78(2), 123–129. doi:10.1215/00031283-78-2-123 Wolf, S., Torrente, C., Frisoli, P., Weisenhorn, N., Shivshanker, A., Annan, J., & Aber, J. L. (2015). Preliminary impacts of the “Learning to read in a healing classroom” intervention on teacher well-being in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 24–36. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.08.002 Wood, D. J. (1988). How children think and learn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Woolard, K., & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82. doi:10.1146/ annurev.an.23.100194.000415 750

Compilation of References

World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Schools_of_the_Future_Report_2019.pdf Worthy, J., & Viise, N. M. (1996). Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences between the spelling of normally achieving children and basic literacy adults. Reading and Writing, 8(2), 139–159. doi:10.1007/BF00555366 Wray, B. K. (2010). Kuhn’s constructionism. Perspectives on Science, 18(3), 311–327. doi:10.1162/POSC_a_00014 Wray, D. (1997). Research into teaching of reading: A 25-year debate. In K. Watson, C. Modgill, & S. Modgill (Eds.), Education dilemmas: Debates and diversity. Quality in education (Vol. 4, pp. 118–126). London, UK: Cassell. Wrembel, M. (2011). Metaphonetic awareness in the production of speech. In M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language acquisition (pp. 169–182). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847694126-013 Wrembel, M. (2013). Metalinguistic awareness in third language phonological acquisition. In K. Roehr, & G. A. GánemGutiérrez (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 119–144). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Wrembel, M. (2015). Metaphonological awareness in multilinguals: A case of L3 Polish. Language Awareness, 24(1), 60–83. doi:10.1080/09658416.2014.890209 Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A systematic review of research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226. doi:10.1002/rrq.163 Wrigley, H. S. (2009). Serving low literate immigrant and refugee youth: Challenges and promising practices. In T. Wall, & M. Leong (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the 5th symposium (pp. 25–41). Calgary, Canada: Bow Valley College. Wrigley, H. S., & Guth, G. J. (1992). Bringing literacy to life: Issues and options in adult ESL literacy. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Xi, X., Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (2014). Tests of English for academic purposes in university admissions. In J. A. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 318 ̶ 337). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Yaffe, D. (2017, April 11). Breaking school language barriers: Teaching K-12 students content in native language shows promise, though translations beyond Spanish can be hard to find. District Administration. Retrieved from https://www. districtadministration.com/article/breaking-school-language-barriers

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yamashita, J. (2013). Word recognition subcomponents and passage level reading in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(1), 52–71. Yang, P. (2010). Nonverbal gender differences: Examining gestures of university-educated Mandarin Chinese speakers. Text & Talk - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse & Communication, 33(3), 333–357. doi:10.1515/ text.2010.017 Yang, P. (2016). Intercultural communication between East and West: Implications for students on study abroad programs to China. In D. M. Velliaris, & D. Coleman-George (Eds.), Handbook of research on study abroad programs and outbound mobility (pp. 755–777). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0169-5.ch030 Yang, P. (2017). Intercultural nonverbal communication competence as intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom. In J. Kathryn, & R. M. Jason (Eds.), Intercultural responsiveness in the second language learning classroom (pp. 127–147). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2069-6.ch008

751

Compilation of References

Yang, P. (2018). Developing TESOL teacher intercultural identity: An intercultural communication competence approach. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 525–541. doi:10.1002/tesj.356 Yang, P. (2019). Intercultural dialogue as constructive and positive communication: From intercultural communication to global peacebuilding. In S. Peleg (Ed.), Intercultural and interfaith dialogues for global peacebuilding and stability (pp. 30–49). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7585-6.ch002 Yavcan, B., & El-Ghali, H. (2017). Higher education and Syrian refugee students: The case of Turkey (policies, practices, and perspectives). Beirut, Lebanon: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in the Arab States. Yelland, N., Lee, L., O’Rourke, M., & Harrison, C. (2008). Rethinking learning in early childhood education. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Yi, Y. (2014). Possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in teaching and learning English as an additional language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(4), 158 ̶ 169. Yılmaz, E., & Soruç, A. (2014). The use of concordance for teaching Vocabulary: A data-driven learning approach. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45(2), 2626–2630. Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257–283. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002 Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006 Young, S. C. (2016). Reframing metalinguistic awareness for low-literate L2 learners: Four case studies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Young, A. S. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ language ideologies: Attitudes, beliefs, and practiced language policies in schools in Alsace, France. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 157–171. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863902 Young, A. S. (2017). “Non, moi je lui dis pas en turc, ou en portugais, ou en, j’sais pas moi en arabe”: Exploring teacher ideologies in multilingual/cultural preschool contexts in France. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 10(2), 11–24. doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.729 Young, H. (2016). Race and popular fantasy literature: Habits of whiteness. London, UK: Routledge.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Young-Scholten, M., & Maguire, M. D. (2009). Stories for extensive reading for LESLLA. In J. Kurvers, & I. van de Craats (Eds.), Low educated adult second language and literacy acquisition. Research, policy, and practice. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference (pp. 145–157). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Young-Scholten, M., & Strom, N. (2006). First-time L2 readers: Is there a critical period? In N. Faux (Ed.), Low-educated adult second language and literacy: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 45 ̶ 68). Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT. Young-Scholten, M., Peyton, J., Sosinski, M., & Cabeza, A. M. (2015). LESLLA teachers’ views of the knowledge and skills they need: An international study. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & R. van Hout (Eds.), Adult literacy, second language, and cognition (pp. 165 ̶ 186). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Center for Language Studies. Young-Scholten, M. (2013). Low-educated immigrants and the social relevance of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 29(4), 441–454. doi:10.1177/0267658313491266

752

Compilation of References

Yu, L., & Reichle, E. D. (2017). Chinese versus English: Insights on cognition during reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(10), 721–724. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.004 PMID:28676283 Zacarian, D., & Silverstone, M. (2015). In it together: How student, family, and community partnerships advance engagement and achievement in diverse classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483388205 Zafeirakou, A. (2015). The power of mother tongue and multilingual education: Students who learn to read in their mother tongue transfer these skills to a second language. Washington, DC: Global Partnership for Education; Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/power-mother-tongue-and-multilingual-education Zakime, A. (2017). Using Pinterest to promote genuine communication and enhance personalised learning. In K. Donaghy, & D. Xerri (Eds.), The image in English language teaching (pp. 51 ̶ 58). Valletta, Malta: ELT Council, Ministry for Education and Employment. Zandi, P., Thang, S., & Krish, P. (2014). Teacher professional development through blogging: Some preliminary findings. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118(22), 530–536. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.072 Zeevaert, L., & Möller, R. (2011). Wege, Irrwege, Holzwege bei der Texterschließung – Empirische Untersuchungen zur germanistischen Interkomprehension. [Paths, wrong paths, wooden paths in text interpretation – Empirical studies on germanic intercomprehension] In F.-J. Meißner, F. Capucho, C. Degache, A. Martins, D. Spita, & M. Tost (Eds.), Intercomprehension: Learning, teaching, research (pp. 146–163). Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Zentella, A. C. (2005). Premises, promises, and pitfalls of language socialization research in Latino families. In A. C. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 13–30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Zhang, L., & Treiman, R. (2015). Writing dinosaur large and mosquito small: Prephonological spellers’ use of semantic information. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(6), 434–445. doi:10.1080/10888438.2015.1072820 PMID:27064560 Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009 Zhao, J. (2019). The effects of literature circles on Chinese foreign language immersion students’ literacy skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Utah, Utah. Zhu, A. (2005). Written communication across cultures: A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 PMID:15631549

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ziehe, T. (2001). De personlige livsverdeners dominans [The dominance of personal lifeworlds]. Uddannelse [Education], 10, 3 ̶ 12. Zipin, L. (2009). Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy: exploring boundaries between life worlds and schools. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 317 ̶ 331. Zollers, A. (2009). Critical perspectives on social network sites. In R. Hammer, & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches (pp. 602–614). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Zong, J., & Batalove, J. (2018). International students in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy. org/article/international-students-united-states

753

754

About the Contributors

Georgios Neokleous completed his PhD in Education at Saint Louis University in 2014, focusing on the use of the mother tongue in EFL classrooms. He holds a post as associate professor of English in the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where he works with pre- and in-service EFL teachers and supervises at BA, MA, and PhD levels. Anna Krulatz is a professor in the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway. Her research interests include multilingualism with English, literacy, pragmatic development in adult language learners, content-based instruction, and language teacher education. Raichle Farrelly is a TESOL teacher educator in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Colorado where she offers courses on a range of topics including language teaching methods, teaching English oral skills, teaching adult emergent readers, and pedagogical grammar. She also teaches English as an additional language in the International English Center. Her professional interests include second language teacher education, reflective teaching, curriculum design, community engaged learning, and teaching refugee-background adults. Farrelly has presented extensively on a range of pedagogical topics at national and international conferences, including TESOL, IATEFL and Africa TESOL. In addition to peer-reviewed articles and chapters, Farrelly co-authored the book Fostering International Student Success in Higher Education and co-edited a volume for Multilingual Matters entitled Educating RefugeeBackground Students: Critical Issues and Dynamic Contexts.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

*** Juli-Anna Aerila works as a senior lecturer of didactics of mother tongue and literature in the University of Turku. Since her PhD year 2010, she has been involved in different projects and research concerning reading and literature education. She received the Title of Docent in didactics of literature education and reading from the University of Oulu (Finland) in 2018. Since 2017, she has been working together with Merja Kauppinen on Stories Make Readers -project and is well-known for her projects supporting reading engagement with various groups of learners. Earl Aguilera is an assistant professor in the Kremen School of Education and Human Development at California State University, Fresno. Prior to his time at Fresno State, he was a high school English/ Language Arts teacher and K-12 Reading Specialist.  

About the Contributors

Poonam Anand received her PhD in Applied Linguistics and Discourse Studies from Carleton University, Ottawa in 2018. With a teaching experience of over twenty years, she has worked in the Middle East and Canada in the fields of ESL/EAP and Teacher Training. Currently she works as a teacher trainer at the Bahrain Teachers’ College, University of Bahrain. She is interested in the relevance of high-stakes proficiency tests and academic literacies of second language learners at tertiary level. Stefanie Bredthauer is a postdoctoral researcher at the Mercator Institute for Literacy and Language Education at the University of Cologne. Her work focuses on the field of multilingual pedagogy. Amongst other responsibilities, she leads a research team on multilingual learning groups and teaches in seminars for prospective teachers dealing with language education. MaryAnn Christison is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Utah. She is the author of over 90 published articles and 20 books on English language teaching and second language teacher education. She was President of TESOL International 1998 and served on its Board of TESOL for seven years. She currently serves on the board of trustees for The International Research Foundation (TIRF) for English language education. Her current research interests include literature circles instruction, content and language integration, second language acquisition, online language teacher education (OLTE), and second language teacher education. Alicia Curtin is a lecturer and researcher in the School of Education, University College Cork, Ireland. Her research employs sociocultural theory to explore issues highly relevant to education and learning. These include adolescent literacies in and out of school, language and identity, educational discourses, and neuroscientific perspectives on literacy and learning. Her most recent research project investigated the professional work place learning of experienced teachers and school principals.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dustin De Felice, PhD, is the director of the English Language Center at Michigan State University and an Associate Professor in the Master of Arts in Foreign Language Teaching Program. In addition to his administrative responsibilities, he teaches courses on Language Concepts in Foreign Language Teaching, Pedagogical Grammar, and Technology in Foreign Language Classrooms. He previously worked as an ESL Instructor at a number of community-based organizations in the Chicago area including the Albany Park Community Center where he served as the director of the Citizenship Preparation program. Jennifer Duggan is a PhD candidate at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her general research interests include children’s and youth literatures and cultures, popular culture, fan studies, reader response, and language acquisition. Her work has appeared in Reading in a Foreign Language, International Research in Children’s Literature, Bookbird, Scandinavian Studies in Language, and Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology, well as in several anthologies, including the recent Queerbaiting and Fandom (University of Iowa Press, 2019). Aydin Yücesan Durgunoğlu is a Distinguished Global Professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota Duluth, USA. She has received her BS degree from Middle East Technical University, Turkey and MS and PhD degrees in cognitive psychology from Purdue University, USA. She has conducted research and published numerous papers on cognitive and affective dimensions of language and literacy development in both first and second languages of both children and adults. She 755

About the Contributors

also works as an academic advisor for the Mother Child Education Foundation in Turkey, and has, since 1995, worked on developing literacy, numeracy and empowerment programs for women. These programs have now reached almost 200,000 people and won UNESCO and US Library of Congress Literacy awards. Zohreh Eslami is a professor at the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University in College Station and currently serves as the Liberal Arts Program Chair at Texas A&M University in Qatar. Her research has examined intercultural and cross- cultural communication, English as an International Language, sociocultural perspectives of teaching, and acquisition of English as a second/foreign language. Her publications include over one hundred journal papers, book chapters, and conference proceedings. Daniel Espinas is a research assistant in the Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology (HDQM) at the University of Maryland, College Park. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from George Mason University and a Master’s degree in special education from Vanderbilt University. Iuliia Fakhrutdinova (MA, TESOL, Saint Michael’s College) is a PhD student and research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Boston. She volunteered as a teacher of refugee-background adult emergent readers for two years through the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program. She is also a Foreign Fulbright awardee and Cultural Vistas, Edmund S. Muskie Internship Program alumna. Prior to coming to the U.S., Iuliia taught English to undergraduate students of Computer Science and Television Journalism departments at Samara University in Russia. Her interests include refugee adult education, immigrant education, literacy, culture, identity, and multilingualism.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Christina Nicole Giannikas holds a PhD in the field of Applied Linguistics. She currently works for the Language Centre at Cyprus University of Technology and is a pre-service teacher trainer for the Department of Education of the University of Cyprus. She has been involved in a number of research projects with a focus on early language learning, CALL, digital storytelling and literacy, student-centred teaching approaches, language teaching policies, teacher education and professional development, language assessment literacy, special education in the primary school context, and E-learning/Blended Learning in Higher Education. Evghenia Goltsev is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cologne. Prior to this position she was a PhD-scholarship holder at the interdisciplinary Research Training Group “Frequency Effects in Language” at the Albert-Ludwig University of Freiburg and a research assistant at the University of Hamburg. She also served as heritage-language teacher at different schools. Her current interests include multilingual literacy promotion, which she explores as the head of a research team, and multilingualism in teacher education, which she investigates in several joint studies. Lisa Gonzalves is a PhD candidate in linguistics at the University of California at Davis. Her research lies at the intersection of linguistics, second language acquisition, literacy studies, and critical policy studies, covering areas of L2 metalinguistic awareness, language assessment, learner perspectives, firsttime literacy development, and pedagogical practices. She currently serves on the board for Literacy Education and Second Language Acquisition in Adults (LESLLA). 756

About the Contributors

Ilana Greenstein is a 3rd grade teacher in Sacramento, California. She recently completed her Master’s in Teaching at California State University, Fresno. Jessica Allen Hanssen is an Associate Professor of English at Nord University, Bodø, Norway, where she is Director of the Bachelor Program in English. Among other responsibilities, she teaches young adult literature to pre-service teachers. She has recently published articles on the American writers Washington Irving and Nathaniel Hawthorne, as well as on approaches to teaching young adult dystopian novels, sustainability narratives, and Norwegian educational policy. Belma Haznedar is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. She completed her MA and PhD studies at the University of Durham, UK, specializing in childhood bilingualism. Her research focuses on questions that bring together linguistics and language teaching. She is internationally known for her studies of simultaneous and successive bilingual children; for her investigation of mother-tongue development, bilingual language acquisition in early childhood and reading acquisition. Ngoc Tai Huynh is a PhD candidate working on a project on Australian Curriculum and Vietnamese culture at the University of Tasmania, Australia. He was previously employed as a full-time lecturer at School of Foreign Languages, Tra Vinh Univeristy, Vietnam. He has presented at international conferences and published papers in journals such as Asian EFL Journal, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, and Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. Maja Henriette Jensvoll is a PhD candidate and Assistant Professor of English at Nord University, Bodø, Norway, where she has worked as the Project Manager for School Development and Development partner for school teachers, school managements, and school stakeholders. She specializes in foreign language teaching and learning, school development, curriculum development and implementation, and collective learning processes amongst teachers.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Merja Kauppinen received her PhD in Applied Language Studies from the University of Jyväskylä (Finland) in 2010. She received the Title of Docent in didactics of L1 Finnish and literature from the University of Helsinki in 2018. She has worked as a lecturer of pedagogy in L1 (Finnish) and literature in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä since 2009. She currently works as a project manager at Finnish National Education Evaluation Centre conducting a project on the evaluation of learning outcomes of 9th graders in L1 Finnish and literature. Elena Kkese works at both public and private universities in Cyprus teaching in applied linguistic courses and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). Her research interests include the difficulties of Cypriot Greek users concerning the L2 acquisition of English with special emphasis on phonology, spelling, and writing. She is the author of Identifying Plosives in L2 English: the case of L1 Cypriot Greek speakers, and has published numerous journal articles and book chapters on the areas of L2 phonology, spelling, and writing.

757

About the Contributors

Yvonne Knospe holds a PhD in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. She is Senior Lecturer in language, reading, and writing development at Umeå University, Sweden. Her research interests include writing instruction, writing strategies, and writing development in the multilingual contexts, and special education. Yixun (Annie) Li is currently a third-year doctoral student at the University of Maryland. She graduated from Beijing Normal University with a Master’s degree in Developmental and Educational Psychology. Her research interests include cross-language comparisons in reading development including the specific mechanisms underlying orthographic learning in first and second languages. Silvia Lopes da Silva Macedo holds a PhD in Anthropology and Ethnology at Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. She is a professor of Anthropology and Sociology of Education at the French Guiana University, where she develops researches on indigenous education and literacy processes amongst Amazonian Indians. Andrea Enikő Lypka is director for the Integrated Learning Programs at Learning Empowered, Florida, United States. She is also a Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology Ph.D. candidate at the University of South Florida with over 10 years of language teaching and administration experience. Her research interests include discourse analysis, teacher training, service-learning, CALL, intercultural communication, and participatory visual methods. Sharon Matthews is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Literacy in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University. She utilizes her public classroom teaching experiences, supported by ongoing supervision, research and translation of evidence-based practices to guide the preparation of knowledgeable, decisive, and agentive preservice teachers who integrate literacy across all contexts. Her research interests include writing development, disciplinary literacy, and the selection and integration of diverse children’s literature.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Maria Michali works as a Research Assistant in the South-East European Research Centre (SEERC) based in Thessaloniki, Greece, conducting research within the context of European Commission-funded projects. She holds a BA in English Language and Literature from the School of English of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece) as well as an MA in Applied Linguistics with TESOL from the University of Sheffield International Faculty, CITY College. Her research interests include corpus linguistics and its pedagogical applications. Fernanda Minuz, formerly senior lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University (Bologna), has participated in and coordinated Italian and European projects on language teaching. She has worked as a teacher’s trainer, author of handbooks and researcher in L2 and literacy education for adult migrants since 1992. Stephanie Moody has over a decade of experience teaching elementary ESL and is currently a PhD candidate at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on translanguaging as a literacy strategy, the impact of writing on vocabulary development, and preservice teacher preparation for ELL writing instruction.

758

About the Contributors

Minda Morren López is an Associate Professor of Literacy in the College of Education at Texas State University. In 2008, Minda completed her PhD. in Culture, Literacy, and Language from the University of Texas, San Antonio. Dr. López conducts mixed-methods research on topics such as equity, ideologies, literacies, language acquisition, multicultural/multilingual education, and teacher development and has over a dozen publications on these topics. Recently, she has been leading faculty in several professional learning initiatives including ESL Academies, Race and Education Book Study and an institute on Language, Literacy and Culture. Mario Moya is a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) in the UK and is currently the Programme Leader of the Master in English Language Teaching at the University of East London (UEL), where he teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the areas of language education, teacher training, and psychology of language learning. He serves as a consultant for the British Council on English as a medium of instruction (EMI) and advises Higher Education institutions in non-English speaking countries on the implementation of content-based language methodologies for the teaching of degrees through the medium of English. Denise E. Murray is a Professor Emeritus at Macquarie University in Sydney and at San José State University in California. She has a long history as a language teacher educator, having been the Executive Director of the Adult Migrant English Program Research Centre and of the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research at Macquarie University. Prior to her appointment at Macquarie, she was founding Chair of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development at San José State. She was TESOL International President in 1996-7. Her research interests include the intersection of language, literacy, society, and technology; OLTE; language education policy; and leadership in language education. Tara Newman received her EdD in Educational Leadership in 2007. As a longtime educator, she has taught across the educational sector from kindergarten to the doctoral level. She writes and presents widely on issues of educational concern, including effective pedagogy and cultural responsiveness in P-12 and higher education. Since 2017, she has been a faculty member in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Maissam Nimer obtained a PhD in sociology at Paris Saclay University in 2016. She is currently a Mercator-IPC fellow at Sabanci University and the recipient of a one-year Koç University Seed Grant. As a postdoctoral researcher at Koç University, she works on the topic of experiences of Syrian refugee youth in Turkey. She also teaches a course in sociology of education at Galatasaray University in Turkey. Koeun Park is a doctoral student in the Department of Education, Culture and Society, and an associate instructor in the Department of World Languages and Cultures at the University of Utah. Her experience teaching English to students from refugee backgrounds and directing a Korean community heritage language school inform her research interests in the education of linguistically and culturally diverse students. She examines critical and socially-just approaches to bilingual and ESOL education as well as educational inequalities that persistently impact linguistically minoritized students and families.

759

About the Contributors

Paschalia Patsala holds a PhD in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, an MA in Lexicography, a PGCert in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, and a BA in English Language and Literature. She is the International Partnerships and Engagement Manager of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK, where she is heavily involved in the development, management and delivery of a range of funding schemes, partnerships and strategic activity across the entire AHRC international portfolio. Her research interests include corpus linguistics, second language acquisition, lexicography, learning and teaching in HE, and educational technologies. Íris Susana Pires Pereira is an assistant professor at the Institute of Education of the University of Minho, Portugal, where she also coordinates the research group Technologies, Multiliteracies and Curriculum at the Research Centre in Education (CIEd). Her research focuses on multimodal literacy, pedagogy of multiliteracies, second language learning and teachers’ professional development. She is currently co-editor of the Revista Portuguesa de Educação. Joy Kreeft Peyton, PhD, Georgetown University, is a senior fellow at the Center for Applied Linguistics, in Washington, DC. She has over 35 years of experience working in the field of languages, linguistics, and culture in education. She collaborates with teachers and program leaders in K-12 and adult education on improve their instructional practice and study the implementation and outcomes of research-based practice. Her work includes implementing and studying approaches to writing that facilitate learner engagement and learning and promote academic and professional success. She has worked on the EU-Speak project and is now a member of the Board. Mayara Priscila Reis da Costa is a PhD student in Education in Literacies and Portuguese Education at the University of Minho, Portugal, and a teacher at Federal Institute of Amapá, Brazil.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Stefanie Ruhe is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics and Applied Cultural Studies at TU Dortmund, Germany. Before that, she taught at the Schülerlabor (students’ lab) at Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. Her current field of research is the mediatization of politics, media literacy, and bilingual education. She also teaches English and German as a Second Language teacher at a secondary school in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Vera Savić is an Assistant Professor and Head of Philological Department at the University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Education in Jagodina, Serbia. She has developed and delivered courses in applied linguistics and in Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL) to preservice and inservice EFL teachers. Her research focuses on early language learning and teaching and teacher education, and includes beginning reading in English, content-based and theme-based instruction, inclusive L2 teaching, assessment, teacher attitudes, teacher professional development, and curriculum development. She has presented papers at a number of international conferences in Europe and the USA and published extensively in the field of TEYL. Linda Shannon is founder of Riviera PlaySchool in Redondo Beach, California, a constructivist preschool based on play in nature, nonviolence, and non-bias, and she is passionate about assisting others in establishing like-hearted communities. She has worked with children young and old for more than twenty years. She recently completed her Masters in Teaching at California State University, Fresno. 760

About the Contributors

Etienne Skein is an independent researcher working in the private sector in the Eastern Cape and is about to undertake further education. He has a growing research interest in the interaction of sociolinguistics, multilingual writing, and commerce, specifically in the complex linguistic context of South Africa. Kirk P. H. Sullivan is a Professor of Linguistics at Umeå University, Sweden. He also holds an EdD from the University of Bristol. Dr. Sullivan’s research interests lie at the nexus of sociolinguistics, education, writing research, and cognition, specifically language learning. He heads Umeå University’s postgraduate school within the field of the educational sciences that has facilitated the setting up of a number of research projects with South African academics, and has recently co-edited two anthologies, Indigenous Writing and Literacies, and Observing Writing: Insights from Keystroke Logging and Handwriting. Angela Thomas is a senior lecturer of English in the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania. Her research and teaching focus on multimodal semiotics, digital literacies, critical literacies, and children’s literature. She has published three books and a number of book chapters and journal articles and has been a Chief Investigator on an ARC grant with linkage partner The Australian Children’s Television Foundation. Angela has won teaching and research awards and has been an invited keynote speaker in the UK, US, Singapore, and Australia. She is currently a co-recipient of a grant entitled Literacy, Language, Teaching and Learning with Augmented Reality. Vinh To is a lecturer in English Curriculum and Pedagogy in the College of Arts, Law and Education at the University of Tasmania, Australia. She has maintained broad research interests including functional grammar, systemic functional linguistics, applied and educational linguistics, English, literacy, TESOL, Vietnamese, languages, bilingual, and cultural education. She has published a number of journal articles and book chapters and presented her work at national and international conferences.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hilde Tørnby is an associate professor at Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. She has extensive experience from teaching at all levels in Norwegian schools as well as from teaching undergraduate and graduate students. Her fields of research are children’s and young adult literature, literature didactics, practical-aesthetic methodology, and aesthetics and art within in teacher education. She has published book chapters and articles on these topics. Min Wang received her PhD from the University of Toronto in 2000 and completed her post-doctoral training at the Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC) at the University of Pittsburgh. She is now full professor at the Faculty of Human Development at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests are in the area of language and reading development. She has served as the Director of Graduate Studies in her department and the Executive Committee of the NSF-IGERT program at the University of Maryland in Biological and Computational Foundations of Language Diversity. She is a Fellow of the Association of Psychological Science (APS) and Psychonomic Society. Ping Yang is a senior lecturer in Linguistics and an Academic Course Advisor for the Master of Arts (TESOL) course in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at Western Sydney University. He holds a PhD in Linguistics from Macquarie University, Australia. His teaching and research areas include intercultural communication, nonverbal communication, cross-cultural perspectives in TESOL, 761

About the Contributors

and cross-cultural differences in translation studies. Dr. Yang has supervised PhD candidates in these research areas and has actively published books, book chapters, peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers. Martha Young-Scholten is Professor of second language acquisition. Since the 1980s she has conducted research on the second language acquisition of morphosyntax and phonology by educated but L2-uninstructed adults and more recently on adults with little or no formal education including on their reading development. She participated in the 2013-2015 EU-funded Digital Literacy Instructor project and from 2010 to 2018, she led a three-phase EU-funded project which culminated in six online modules for teacher training/professional development in English, Finnish, German, Italian, Spanish and Turkish. She co-directs the Simply Stories project and is Editorial Board Member of Second Language Research, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, and series editor for de Gruyter Mouton and Niemeyer.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jing Zhao received her PhD in Linguistics from the University of Utah. Her research interests focus on dual language immersion and literacy development in Chinese as a foreign language, including the acquisition of Chinese characters, reading comprehension skills, and reading strategies.

762

763

Index

A AAC-Model 391 Academic Socialization 41-42, 48, 50, 60, 314 Active Learning 235, 613 Advanced Multilingual Speakers 577-582, 584-585, 587-591, 593 Aesthetic Learning Processes 285 Aesthetics 207, 402 Afective Factors 469 Agency 131, 147, 151, 219, 274-276, 298, 302, 329330, 332-334, 341, 346, 371, 373-376, 423, 449, 500, 507, 541, 583 Asia Literacy 394-397, 403, 410, 412-413, 419 Autonomous Model of Literacy 212, 232

B Bedtime-Story Shelf 382-383, 391 Bending 298, 306, 308 Bilingual Books 556, 558-560, 562-563, 567, 572573, 576 Bilingualism 67, 218, 233, 428-430, 445, 447, 479, 486, 493-494, 578, 597-599 Biliteracy 105, 233, 427, 445, 447, 558, 599-600, 613 Blogger 122, 154 Blogosphere 108-109, 122 Buddhism 397, 403-404, 411, 419-420

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

C CBI 166-167, 174-178, 180, 182-183, 187 Children’s Literature 280, 294-295, 329-333, 335-343, 346-347, 369-371, 373-374, 377, 379, 561, 574 CLIL 175-176, 187 Codeswitching 597, 613 Cognitive Load 44, 46, 60, 585 Collaborative Learning 28, 32, 124, 147, 601, 613

Communicative Context 306, 398 Communities of Practice 50, 148-149, 163, 298, 329334, 336-341, 343, 346-347, 350-351, 365 Communities of Readers 369, 373-376, 378-380, 385, 391-392 Community Mapping 535-537, 539-540, 548, 552, 554 Computer Keystroke Logging 584, 588, 590, 593, 595 Concordance Line 258 Confucianism 397, 403-406, 411, 419-420 Constructionism 146, 148, 154, 158, 163 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 175, 187 Content-Based Instruction (CBI) 166-167, 187 Core Principles of Media Literacy Education 132, 143 Corpora 234-239, 244-245, 248-249, 258 Corpus 235-238, 244-246, 248, 258, 260, 292 Counterstorytelling 298, 307-308 Creativity 115, 176-177, 194, 198, 207, 261-264, 266267, 271-272, 275, 278-280, 285, 287, 289, 375, 384, 391, 469 Critical Analysis 132, 285 Critical Literacy 1, 7, 10, 20, 116, 210-211, 213-215, 217, 219, 221-225, 232-236, 238-246, 249, 258, 260, 270-272, 288-290, 294-295, 297-298, 302, 307-308, 334, 504, 507 Critical Literature Pedagogy 243, 270, 285 Critical Pedagogy 214, 218, 258, 287, 289, 307 Criticality 261-264, 266, 268, 273-274, 278, 280, 285, 300, 507, 536 Cross-language Transfer 457, 471 Cultural Dissonance 48, 60-61, 148 Cultural Literacy 23, 213, 215, 217, 232 Cultural Symbols 403, 405-407, 410-411, 413, 419 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy 504, 513, 515 Culturally Responsive Teaching 338, 548, 556, 563, 572 Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies 332, 515, 535-536, 538-539, 541, 548, 552 Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) 475, 493  

Index

Curriculum Development 28, 262, 285, 340, 494, 521 Cyberbullying 114, 122 Cypriot Greek (CG) 67, 79

D Data-Driven Learning (DDL) 235, 258, 260 Decoding 5-6, 20, 42-46, 63, 67, 79, 84, 87-88, 92, 218, 380, 458, 502, 625 Digital Citizens 111, 122, 138 Digital Literacy 11-12, 20-21, 111, 118, 122-123, 128, 131-138, 143, 146-150, 156, 163, 173, 183, 279, 431, 451 Digital Multiliteracies 163 Digital Storytelling (DS) 128-129, 131, 133-135, 138, 143, 147, 153, 163, 632, 642 Dynamic Bilingualism 493

E EFL Classroom 125, 128, 132, 134-135, 138, 237, 239, 258 Emerging Bilinguals 535-537, 540-541, 544, 548, 552-554 Emoticons 122, 604 Encoding 5-6, 20 English as an Additional Language (EAL) 596, 598, 613 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 151, 163, 309310, 314-315, 321 Ethnic Groups 474-475, 482, 486, 541, 552, 572 Ethnocentrism 510, 515, 560, 572 Eveil aux Langues 521, 532 Expansive Learning 210, 220, 232

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

F Family Literacy 373, 376-378, 381-384, 391, 424, 433, 555, 567 Feature Monitoring 578, 581, 584-585, 587-590, 594 Features 10, 44, 49, 68, 72, 87, 115-116, 149-150, 158, 196, 207, 234-236, 238-239, 291, 294, 297, 314, 341, 349, 355, 359, 361-362, 371-372, 394, 402-404, 411, 429, 433-434, 456, 509, 536, 539, 581-585, 587-588, 594, 597, 600, 613, 619, 622, 625-627, 632, 640 Focus Group Discussions 430-431, 434, 445, 590 Focus on Form 46, 60, 340 Foregrounding 191, 207 Formative Assessment 310-311, 313, 316, 319, 325 Functional Literacy 3, 213-214, 232, 616

764

G Gender Asymmetry 259 Genre Pedagogy 288, 296-298, 302, 307 Grapheme 43, 66, 80, 213

H Heritage Language (HL) 32, 422-431, 433-434, 436, 445-447, 474, 493, 521, 555, 557, 572, 625 Heritage Language Maintenance 422, 425-426, 433, 445 Heterogeneity 451-452, 458, 469, 526 High School 13, 15, 82, 125, 127-129, 134-135, 238, 507, 578-579, 583-585, 587-588, 594, 616, 620, 623 High-Stakes Tests 325 Home Language 3, 28, 341, 372, 376, 383, 445, 449, 452, 457, 469, 557-558, 562, 564-565, 567, 578, 584, 596, 598, 613 Home Literacy Environment 376, 572 Host Country and Language 469

I Identity 11, 26, 30, 39-40, 67, 146-152, 154, 157, 159, 163, 169, 211, 213, 216-219, 225, 232, 240-241, 263, 267, 273, 297, 314, 329-336, 339-340, 342343, 346-347, 351, 355, 369-376, 422, 426, 458, 473-476, 479, 486, 493, 501, 517, 527, 538, 553, 559, 564, 601, 605-606, 624-625, 640, 642 Ideological Model of Literacy 213, 232 Immigrant 30, 42, 127-130, 133-135, 137, 144-145, 148, 202, 372, 377, 422-424, 426, 430, 433, 435, 447, 452, 469, 493, 520, 543, 595, 617-618, 623-624 In-depth Learning 266, 271, 285 Indigenous Framework 535-538, 540, 543, 552 Indigenous Language 475, 478, 538, 552, 595 Instructional Strategies 171, 423, 426, 445, 447 Integrated Skills Assessment 312, 325 Integrated Skills Tests 325 Intercomprehension 518, 521, 533 Intercultural Attitudes 22-27, 30, 33-34, 39 Intercultural Awareness 22-27, 32-34, 39, 149-150, 239, 393, 396, 412 Intercultural Communicative Competence 127, 134, 163 Intercultural Education 28, 34, 39, 520 Intercultural Literacy 22-28, 32-34, 39-40, 477

Index

Intercultural Nonverbal Communication Competence 22-27, 30-31, 33-34, 39 Intercultural Understanding 34, 371, 394-397, 410, 412-413, 419 Intercultural Verbal Communication Competence 22-28, 33-34, 39 Interrupted Formal Education 616, 623, 640, 642

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

L L2 Writing 28, 108-110, 112, 115, 117, 122, 149 Language and Literacy Development 351, 376, 427, 448, 453, 458, 548, 607, 633 Language Education as a Subject Area of Teacher Training 533 Language Experience Approach (LEA) 46, 628, 640 Language Learning 10, 25, 28, 42, 50, 86, 108-110, 112, 114, 124, 127, 137, 148, 154, 172-174, 218, 235, 239, 243, 263, 266, 268, 271, 273, 275, 279, 288, 296-297, 299, 307, 312, 351, 372-373, 384, 433, 451, 453-454, 457-458, 461-462, 469, 518, 523, 586, 598, 616, 618-619, 642 Language of Schooling 215, 430, 474, 486-487, 493 Language Sexism 234, 244, 246, 259 Language Teacher Education 3, 22-24, 27, 34, 39, 171-172, 183 Language Teacher Professional Development 34, 39 Language-Portrait Method 533 Languaging 10, 20, 219, 582, 599, 601, 604 Learner Roles 360, 365 Lexical Representation 85, 89, 105 Lifelong Learning 172, 334, 455, 469, 626 Limited Literacy 45, 430, 433, 445, 455-456, 470 Limited Schooling 433, 452 Linguicism 298-299, 540, 552 Linguistic Capital 219, 432, 620-621, 625, 640 Linguistic Landscaping 521, 524, 533 Linguistic Repertoire 10, 219, 429-430, 533, 542, 556, 558-559, 572, 581-582, 584, 597, 600-602, 613 Linguistically Appropriate Practice (LAP) 479, 493 Literacy Development 1, 5-7, 10, 14, 41-42, 44-46, 6364, 67, 73, 83-86, 91, 108-110, 112, 116, 124, 167, 169, 172, 174, 183, 190, 242, 263, 285, 335, 343, 350-351, 365, 367, 374, 376, 427-428, 433, 448, 451-453, 458, 487, 498, 502, 516, 548, 578, 596, 601-602, 604-607, 618, 621, 625, 628, 633, 642 Literacy Practices 7, 11, 15, 22, 123, 132, 147-148, 150, 172, 194, 210-213, 215-221, 223, 225, 313, 330, 333-334, 338, 340-342, 369-370, 376-378, 383-384, 450, 482, 498-504, 506-509, 513, 538539, 544, 553, 555-557, 560, 566-567, 577-582, 584, 591, 597, 600, 615, 620, 623-624, 633

Literature Circles 348-357, 359-362, 365-367, 380 Literature-based Instruction 285, 372

M Media Literacy 7, 125-133, 135, 137-138, 143-145, 159 Media Literacy Education 126, 132, 138, 143, 145 Media Logic 128-129, 132-133, 135, 137, 143, 145 Mediatization 126, 128-130, 133, 137, 143, 145 Metalinguistic Awareness 11, 41-42, 44, 46-47, 50, 60-61, 153, 430, 434, 588-589, 598, 606, 629, 640 Metalinguistic Refection 46, 60, 434, 588, 590 Minoritized Languages 594, 601 Mother Tongue (MT) 62, 73, 216, 278, 333, 376, 425, 469, 473, 493, 521, 615, 621 Multicultural 9-10, 17, 28, 30, 33, 40, 147, 216, 225, 241-243, 273-274, 278, 288, 298, 302, 307, 330331, 369-373, 375-376, 378-379, 384, 391, 393394, 397, 412, 482, 493-494, 497-498, 509-510, 515, 555, 559, 561, 572, 576, 620, 634 Multicultural Classroom 30, 33, 298, 302, 307 Multicultural Literature 371-372, 379, 391, 394 Multilingual 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-17, 20, 23, 30, 42, 44-46, 49, 61, 82-83, 86, 90, 93, 95, 147, 149, 152, 190, 207, 210, 216-218, 242, 262, 268, 273, 288, 297-299, 302, 309, 311-313, 315-316, 320-321, 327, 329, 331, 335-336, 338-343, 347, 368-370, 372, 374-376, 378, 382-384, 391, 425, 427, 432-434, 436, 447, 456, 474, 476-477, 482, 484, 486, 493-494, 496-498, 516-524, 526-527, 533-538, 540-541, 543, 548, 552, 560-561, 564, 577-591, 593-595, 598-601, 604-605, 607, 620, 625, 634, 640, 642 Multilingual Individuals 518, 533, 579, 583 Multilingual Learners 1, 5-6, 9-12, 14-17, 20, 83, 95, 210, 320, 327, 590-591, 601 Multilingual Literacy 14, 369, 391, 516-517, 519-523, 527, 578, 582, 604 Multilingual Pedagogy 521, 533 Multilingualism 83, 105, 134, 215-216, 224, 232, 297, 424, 436, 445, 473, 476, 493-494, 500, 513, 517, 519-524, 527, 533, 577-578, 595, 597-598, 606 Multiliteracies 1, 5, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 20-21, 147148, 150, 152, 156, 159, 163, 172, 174, 176, 183, 297-299, 301, 307, 393, 401, 475-479, 498, 500, 506-509, 513, 537-540, 548, 552, 620, 624 Multimedia 5, 146, 151-154, 157, 159, 163, 165-166, 176, 187, 318, 322 Multimodal Communication 163, 166-167, 171-172, 476, 493 Multimodal Communicative Competence 163 765

Index

Multimodal Literacy 1, 5, 9-10, 20, 146-148, 151, 159, 163, 172, 183, 473, 620, 623 Multimodal Texts 9-10, 152, 159, 163, 166-168, 170174, 176, 180, 182-183, 189, 200, 202, 396, 398, 476 Multimodalities 11, 150 Multimodality 9, 21, 129, 132-133, 135, 137-138, 143, 157, 170, 189, 240, 314, 325, 476, 478, 513

Picturebooks 240, 301, 393, 395-404, 407-410, 412413, 419 Plurilingual Approaches 427, 430, 432 Plurilingual Instructional Approaches 445 Political Logic 127, 129, 133, 135, 137-138, 143, 145 Poststructuralism 146, 148, 154, 163 Practitioner Guidelines 431, 446 Public Pedagogies 537, 539-540, 552, 554

N

R

Nature-Human Relationship 403-405, 409-410, 413, 419 Needs Analysis 34 Needs Assessment 317, 325 Netiquette 112-113, 122 New Literacies 9, 126, 513 New Literacy Studies (NLS) 213-214, 476, 513 New Visual Literacy 187

Reader-Response Theory 265, 348, 350-352, 355, 359, 361, 365 Reading Materials 249, 354, 368-370, 374, 376, 379, 381, 383, 422, 426, 431, 436, 446 Refection-based Teaching 286 Refugee-background 453, 462, 471, 615-621, 623-624, 627, 631-633, 641-642 Refugees 4, 13, 30, 423, 431-432, 448-451, 453-457, 459, 461-462, 469-471, 541-542, 619 Remediation 192, 200, 207 Rime 80, 95

O Online Resource Hub 431, 445 Onset 68, 80, 124 Oral Traditions 615, 617, 621, 623-625, 631-633, 640 Orthographic Forms 44, 83, 86, 88-89 Orthographic Knowledge 84-87, 90-91, 93, 105-106 Orthographic Learning 82, 84, 86-95, 105-106 Orthographic Representation 105 Orthography 42, 44-45, 63, 81, 84, 92, 105

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

P Participation 23, 40, 110, 124, 126, 130-132, 138, 143144, 173, 182, 216, 219-220, 238, 270, 280, 285, 302, 310-311, 334, 339, 346, 356, 371, 374, 424, 427, 452, 456, 461, 477, 486-487, 499-500, 516, 518, 521, 548, 566, 627-628, 641-642 Pedagogical Scafolding 180, 615-619, 625-626, 629, 631, 633, 640 Performance-Based Assessment 325 Personal Narratives 221, 298, 307, 624-625, 628, 633, 640 Phoneme 65-66, 71-72, 80, 213 Phonemic Awareness 6, 64-65, 69, 80, 192, 497, 502, 621 Phonological Awareness 42, 62-73, 80-81, 84, 457458, 628-629 Phonological Representation 65, 105

766

S Scafolding 117, 147, 177, 179-180, 196, 220, 263, 270, 272, 351, 354, 359-362, 366, 376, 458, 599, 615619, 621, 625-626, 628-629, 631, 633, 640-641 Second Language (L2) 3, 13, 21, 23, 28, 42, 44, 46, 50, 60, 62, 89, 108, 147, 149-150, 164, 166, 175, 187, 192, 216, 218, 242, 263, 268, 270, 273, 287, 309, 311, 315, 348, 368-370, 372, 378, 392, 422, 425, 427, 429, 433, 446, 451-453, 457-459, 469, 493, 540, 556, 558, 616-618 Second language (L2) Development 164, 618 Second Language Learning 42, 50, 218, 372, 616 Self-Experience 522-524, 533 Semantic Representation 105 Semiotic Systems 9, 12, 20-21, 148, 600 Shared Reading 72, 91, 377, 379, 382-383, 556-559, 562-567, 572 Situated Learning 346 Social and Cultural Capital 453, 631, 633, 641 Social Justice 131, 151, 223, 243, 259, 288-289, 294, 296, 307-308, 509, 582, 599 Social Languages 499, 509, 513, 515 Socio-critical Literacy 219-220, 232 Sociocultural Theory (SCT) 123, 343, 346, 348, 350, 366, 373, 617

Index

Sociolinguistics 211, 245, 499, 501, 513 Stories make Readers (StoRe)-project 369-370, 380 Storytelling 128-129, 131, 133-135, 137-138, 143, 146-147, 150-153, 157, 159, 163, 335, 346, 356, 370, 384, 396, 419, 453, 501, 624-625, 631-632, 641-642 Student-centered Environment 613 Student-Led Discussions 349, 351-353, 355-356, 358, 360, 366 Sublexial Representation 105 Summative Assessment 310, 313, 326 Syllable 43, 64-65, 71-72, 80, 92 Syria 278, 449, 621

T

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Taoism 397, 403-406, 411, 419-420 Target Language 10, 44, 49, 62-63, 67-68, 73, 154, 235, 239, 289, 296-298, 432, 434, 456, 461, 596-597, 613, 617-618, 620-621, 627, 633, 640 Teacher Training 34, 455-456, 477, 516-517, 519, 526-527, 533 Teaching Strategies 171, 177-178, 249, 286, 621 Telecollaboration 147, 149-150, 154, 164 Thematic Unit (TU) 178, 187 Third Space 210-211, 218-220, 232, 599-600 Transformation 126, 172, 192, 200, 207, 232, 289, 292, 342, 510, 582 Translanguaging 1, 5, 10, 17, 20, 280, 354, 429, 434, 482, 484, 518-519, 521, 524, 533, 539, 543, 555-556, 558-560, 562-565, 567, 572, 576-591, 594-607, 613-614, 625 Translanguaging Space 579, 584, 588, 594 Translingual Practice 597, 613

Trauma 397, 448, 450-452, 454-457, 462, 469, 619, 627 Turkey 448-453, 455, 457, 462, 616

U Undocumented Immigrant Youth 128-129, 133-135, 137, 144

V Visual Grammar 167-169, 171, 176-177, 188, 398-399 Visual Literacy 5, 7, 12-13, 17, 20, 166-174, 177-180, 182-183, 187-195, 202, 207 Visual Semantics 167-169, 179-180, 188 Visual Syntax 167-168, 171, 179-180, 188 Visual Word Recognition 105

W Washback 317, 320, 322, 326 Writing Process 118, 579, 584, 587-590, 594 Writing Product 588, 594

Y YouTube 14-15, 32-33, 125, 127-129, 131-133, 135, 137-138, 143-145, 153-154, 156, 158, 620

Z Zone of Contact 232 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 350, 366, 617, 641

767