Teaching

 Literacy  to  Preliterate  Adults:  The  Top  and  the  Bottom    

By  Barbara  Fish,  Ellen  Knell,  and  Hannah  Buchanan    

Introduction  

 
Recently,  many  dozens  of  Somali  Bantu  families  settled  in  the  Salt  Lake  Valley  after  living  for  
more  than  a  decade  in  refugee  camps  in  Kenya.  Many  of  the  women  in  this  group  received  
ESL  services  during  the  day  shortly  after  their  arrival.  These  women  spoke  almost  no  English  
and  had  never  attended  school.  They  were  considered  preliterate  because  they  never  had  the  
opportunity  to  learn  to  read  or  write  in  their  native  language  Maay-­‐Maay  (which  has  only  
recently  been  standardized  in  alphabetic  form).  Another  challenge  was  that  they  had  never  
experienced  everyday  conventions  that  are  the  norm  in  the  United  States,  such  as  electricity,  
doors  that  lock,  toilets  with  running  water,  and  shopping  at  supermarkets.  

Our  ESL  classes  at  the  Hartland  Center  were  offered  through  the  University  Neighborhood  
Partners  (UNP),  a  group  that  coordinates  various  departments  of  the  University  of  Utah  and  
community-­‐based  organizations  to  address  the  needs  of  low-­‐income  residents  on  the  west  
side  of  the  city.  UNP  created  a  center  for  their  various  programs  in  an  apartment  at  the  
complex  where  these  Somali  Bantu  women  and  other  refugees  had  been  resettled.  Many  
programs  were  offered  at  the  center,  including  healthcare,  financial  literacy,  and  social  
services.  The  ESL  component  was  a  collaboration  between  university  students  and  tutors  
from  the  English  Skills  Learning  Center,  an  organization  that  trains  volunteers  to  teach  
English  to  adult  immigrants  and  refugees.  During  the  ESL  classes,  childcare  was  made  
available  to  the  women  because  many  of  them  had  small  children.  The  location  of  the  classes  
at  the  apartment  complex  and  the  provision  of  childcare  eliminated  two  of  the  most  common  
barriers  to  education  for  adult  learners.  

The  Reading  Process  

 
Reading  is  a  multifaceted  procedure  in  which  a  variety  of  cognitive  mechanisms  interact  
simultaneously  to  produce  meaning.  This  procedure  has  been  characterized  in  various  ways,  
and  many  reading  models  have  been  developed  to  capture  these  interactions.  One  of  the  
most  influential  reading  models  distinguishes  between  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  processing  
(Birch,  2007;  Burt,  Peyton,  &  Adams,  2003).  

A  top-­‐down  model  of  reading  requires  readers  to  be  actively  involved  in  constructing  
meaning  by  relating  previous  experiences  to  the  text.  Activating  background  knowledge  and  
contextualizing  meaning  through  the  use  of  realia  and  pictures  are  common  top-­‐down  
methods.  Previously  learned  oral  language  and  repetitive  formulaic  phrases  provide  "hooks"  
to  facilitate  the  understanding  of  written  language  and  can,  therefore,  also  be  considered  top-­‐
down  mechanisms.  

Preliterate  students  are  beginning  readers,  but  they  are  not  beginning  problem  solvers;  
therefore,  it's  important  to  utilize  materials  and  methods  that  can  connect  to  students'  
immediate  needs.  Teaching  authentic,  meaningful  language  and  texts  is  crucial  because  
students  want  to  learn  language  that  can  be  immediately  helpful  to  them  in  their  daily  lives  
(Brod,  1999).  This  type  of  meaningful  instruction  engages  the  processes  at  the  top  because  
the  students'  past  experiences  and  future  needs  will  interact  with  the  information  to  be  
learned,  leading  to  increased  comprehension.  

Bottom-­‐up  processes  of  reading  are  best  exemplified  by  the  mapping  of  letters  to  sounds  to  
extract  information  from  the  page.  Whereas  top-­‐down  processing  involves  the  use  of  familiar  
vocabulary  and  background  knowledge,  bottom-­‐up  processing  utilizes  the  small  units  of  our  
writing  system—that  is,  letters,  sounds,  and  syllables—and  combines  them  into  larger  
chunks  comprising,  words,  phrases,  and  sentences.  

Knowing  how  to  break  the  sound/symbol  code  and  doing  it  automatically  is  crucial  to  
reading  success,  but  this  process  has  traditionally  been  deemphasized  in  second  language  
reading  (Birch,  2007;  Eskey,  1988).  This  deemphasis  may  have  occurred  in  the  past  because  
many  adult  English  learners  were  already  literate  in  their  native  languages  and  could,  
therefore,  transfer  much  of  their  knowledge  about  the  reading  process  from  their  first  
language  (L1).  They  were  already  familiar  with  the  cognitive  mechanisms  that  enable  
readers  to  construct  meaning  from  symbols  on  a  page.  Preliterate  learners,  however,  are  
unaware  of  the  ways  that  letters  and  sounds  work  together.  Direct  instruction  and  
systematic  experience  with  the  alphabetic  system  is  necessary  in  order  for  preliterates  to  
process  and  retain  written  words.  

During  the  past  two  decades,  researchers  have  focused  on  many  bottom-­‐up  processes  for  
beginning  L1  readers.  There  is  now  a  large  body  of  research  that  supports  the  notion  that  
automatic  word  recognition  and  phonological  awareness  (i.e.,  awareness  of  subsyllabic  
sound  units  in  spoken  language)  are  skills  that  are  imperative  for  reading  success  in  the  first  
language  (see  Adams,  1990;  Kruidenier,  2002).  Recent  research  shows  that  these  skills  are  
equally  important  for  second  language  (L2)  readers  (August  &  Shanahan,  2006).  Moreover,  
the  limited  research  that  has  been  done  in  second  language  reading  suggests  that  bottom-­‐up  
skills  are  also  extremely  important  for  L2  adults  with  limited  educational  experiences  
(Hilferty,  1996;  Mullady-­‐DelliCarpini,  2004).  

The  remainder  of  this  article  describes  some  of  the  methods  and  materials  we  have  found  
helpful  from  both  the  top  and  the  bottom  when  teaching  reading  to  preliterate  students.  It  
summarizes  the  development  of  our  own  instructional  and  reading  materials  that  we  created  
because  we  were  unable  to  find  appropriate  sources  elsewhere.  

The  Hartland  Experience  

 
We  began  instruction  with  the  intention  of  combining  top-­‐down  and  bottom-­‐up  methods,  as  
well  as  emphasizing  listening  and  speaking  skills  in  every  lesson.  We  soon  found  that  we  had  
to  make  some  serious  adjustments  to  our  initial  teaching  plans.  

One  key  factor  emerged  at  our  first  class:  The  women  came  with  pencil  and  paper.  Clearly,  
they  were  expecting  to  write  in  this  first  and  each  subsequent  class.  We  learned  that  their  
concept  of  school  was  that  of  a  teacher  who  wrote  on  the  board  and  students  who  copied  
diligently  into  their  notebooks.  Most  were  already  able  to  write  their  first  names  in  capital  
letters,  but  it  was  clear  that  they  had  had  no  instruction  in  how  to  form  the  letters,  and  much  
of  their  writing  was  difficult  to  decipher.  We  were  encouraged  by  their  positive  attitude  but  
dismayed  by  their  lack  of  skills.  
The  second  key  factor  was  that  our  group  of  Somali-­‐Bantu  women  had  no  experience  in  the  
everyday  situations  in  which  they  now  found  themselves.  We  began  teaching  them  by  
focusing  on  standard  survival  skill  topics  such  as  personal  information,  family,  numbers,  
time,  money,  health,  and  shopping.  We  soon  found,  however,  that  their  lack  of  experience  
with  industrialized  society  made  it  impossible  for  us  to  teach  these  in  the  traditional  way.  We  
had  to  provide  our  students  with  basic  concepts  and  background  knowledge  in  addition  to  
the  vocabulary.  

Our  initial  approach  to  building  background  knowledge  was  through  traditional  top-­‐down  
methods  of  TPR  (Total  Physical  Response),  use  of  realia,  role  play  using  realia,  and  simple  
dialogue.  But  because  of  the  students'  expectations  and  needs,  we  also  spent  a  portion  of  
each  lesson  on  forming  letters  and  numbers.  Learning  lowercase  letters  presented  a  
particular  challenge,  as  many  lowercase  letters  do  not  resemble  their  uppercase  
correspondent.  Phonological  awareness  was  included  from  the  beginning  by  stressing  the  
sounds  of  the  letters  as  well  as  the  blending  and  segmenting  of  sound  units.  

Each  lesson  would  begin  with  individual  work  copying/writing  with  direction  because  
students  arrived  at  varying  time  intervals.  The  lesson  proper  began  with  a  review  of  
previously  learned  material.  In  order  to  build  an  oral  base,  we  adapted  traditional  songs  and  
chants  to  fit  the  particular  topic,  because  music  and  rhythm  assist  retention.  A  word  sort  
review  activity  could  be  included  at  this  point  or  could  follow  a  language  experience  activity  
(LEA).  The  main  focus  of  the  lesson  was  one  of  the  survival  topics  broken  down  into  very  
basic  elements.  For  example,  we  spent  several  lessons  on  My  name  is...,  teaching  the  
formulaic  phrases  for  introductions  using  only  first  names  through  oral  repetition  and  
chaining  activities;  listening  for  the  beginning  sound  of  a  person's  name;  connecting  the  
sound  with  the  beginning  letter;  picking  out  one's  own  name  from  the  name  cards  in  the  
center  of  the  table;  picking  out  a  classmate's  name;  learning  to  write  the  first  name  with  
lowercase  letters;  and  ultimately  reading  and  completing  the  sentence  My  name  is  _________.  
Breaking  this  topic  into  these  very  basic  steps,  which  we  repeated  as  many  times  as  
necessary  -­‐and  then  some-­‐provided  the  students  with  the  elaborative  rehearsal  required  to  
move  the  information  from  working  memory  into  long-­‐term  memory  (Baddeley,  1986;  Wolfe  
&  Nevills,  2004).  

This  shared  group  experience  became  the  first  page  of  their  first  book,  which  was  
personalized  for  each  student  with  a  photograph.  Although  this  first  book  had  only  four  
pages,  it  was  an  introduction  into  the  world  of  books:  how  to  manipulate  the  book,  turn  
pages,  recognize  page  numbers,  and  follow  the  directionality  of  print.  Each  page  of  this  and  
the  many  homemade  books  that  followed  represented  lessons  of  shared  top-­‐down  activities  
that  created  the  background  knowledge  that  the  students  needed.  Because  the  classes  took  
place  in  the  UNP  apartment,  we  were  able  to  utilize  the  realia  around  us  and  provide  hands-­‐
on  activities  to  create  sense  and  meaning.  Photographs  and  illustrations  frequently  used  in  
traditional  ESL  classes  to  introduce  topics  were  confusing  and  often  meaningless  to  our  
students  because  of  their  lack  of  exposure  to  this  medium.  After  experiencing  the  shared  
activities,  we  could  use  illustrations  and/or  photographs  of  group  members  and  their  
apartments  in  our  classroom  activities  and  in  the  books  we  created.  

The  individual  and  group  bottom-­‐up  exercises  prepared  students  to  relate  sounds  of  the  
spoken  language  (phonemes)  to  the  symbols  of  the  written  language  (graphemes).  Once  
students  learned  to  recognize  and  write  the  alphabet,  both  upper-­‐  and  lowercase,  we  began  
to  teach  letter  sounds  by  having  the  students  sort  realia  and  then  pictures  of  these  familiar  
words  according  to  their  initial  sound.  This  word  study  technique  is  often  referred  to  as  
word  sort.  Our  adaptation  of  word  sort  actually  became  a  vocabulary  activity  as  the  words  
were  all  high  frequency  and  the  students  learned  to  associate  words  with  pictures  as  they  
sorted  sounds.  

Our  initial  sort  began  with  two  letters:  b  and  m.  Each  letter  was  associated  with  a  key  
picture:  b/book;  m/man.  Following  this,  we  put  other  pictures  that  began  with  these  sounds  
on  index  cards  and  the  students  sorted  them.  To  begin  with,  only  two  or  three  pictures  were  
sorted  into  a  column  for  each  letter  sound,  but  three  or  four  columns  were  used:  for  example,  
b,m,s  with  three  or  four  pictures  for  each  letter  (boy,  bread,  baby,  banana  /  money,  mother,  
man,  milk  /  sink,  sandwich,  socks).  The  teacher  modeled  the  word  sort  procedure,  and  then  
students  practiced  with  partners.  

Word  sort  usually  begins  with  sorting  initial  and  final  letter  sounds  and  then  extends  into  
sorting  rhyming  word  families:  man,  can,  fan,  ran/hat,  rat,  sat.  The  next  step  requires  
students  to  blend  and  segment  phonemes.  Alphabet  letter  tiles  or  cards  can  be  used  at  this  
stage  to  help  students  learn  to  blend  sounds  to  form  words.  Students  benefit  from  the  
manipulation  of  the  cards  as  well  as  the  reading  instruction.  Word  cards  can  also  be  used  to  
play  concentration,  matching  words  that  have  similar  sound  patterns.  

After  our  students  became  familiar  with  the  words,  they  were  ready  for  dictation.  This  
provided  students  with  practice  in  decoding  (reading)  and  encoding  (spelling)  sounds.  
Teaching  these  two  together  was  mutually  reinforcing.  We  also  practiced  the  rehearsed  
words  in  formulaic  phrases  (e.g.,  I  have  a  can.  I  have  a  fan.  This  is  a  hat.  This  is  a  map.).  

We  found  that  incorporating  word  sort  activities  during  each  lesson  increased  our  students'  
awareness  of  letter/sound  correspondences.  Students  also  became  aware  of  how  to  blend  
and  segment  sounds,  which  contributed  to  their  phonological  awareness.  They  also  sorted  
words  from  the  text  of  language  experience  activities  and  in  preparation  for  the  class-­‐created  
books.  

Conclusion  
 
Examining  the  reading  process  from  the  top  and  the  bottom  has  informed  and  guided  our  
instruction.  Both  the  top  and  the  bottom  need  to  be  considered  together  when  teaching  L2  
reading  to  a  preliterate  population.  Through  a  balanced  approach  targeting  the  bottom  as  
well  as  the  top,  preliterate  adults  can  learn  tools  that  will  help  them  gain  enough  English  
literacy  skills  to  function  in  their  new  environment.  

Fish,  B.,  Knell,  E.,  &  Buchanan,  H.  (2007).  Teaching  Literacy  to  Preliterate  Adults:  The  Top  and  
the  Bottom.  Retrieved  from  AEIS  Newsletter.  

References  
 
Adams,  M.  J.  (1990).  Beginning  to  read:  Thinking  and  learning  about  print.  Cambridge,  MA:  
The  MIT  Press.  
 
 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:  Erlbaum.  
 
Baddeley,  A.  D.  (1986).  Working  memory.  Oxford,  England  :  Oxford  University  Press.    
 
Birch,  B.  M.  (2007).  English  L2  reading:  Getting  to  the  bottom.  Mahwah,  NJ:  Erlbaum.  
 
Brod,  S.  (1999).  What  non-­‐readers  or  beginning  readers  need  to  know:  Performance-­‐based  
ESL  adult  literacy.  Denver,  CO:  Spring  Institute  for  International  Studies.  
 
Burt,  M.,  Peyton,  J.  K.,  &  Adams,  R.  (2003).  Reading  and  adult  English  language  learners.  A  
review  of  the  research.  Washington,  DC:  Center  for  Applied  Linguistics.  
 
Eskey,  D.  (1988).  Holding  in  the  bottom:  An  interactive  approach  to  the  language  problems  of  
second  language  readers.  In  P.  Carrell,  J.  Devine,  &  D.  Eskey  (Eds.),  Interactive  approaches  to  
second  language  reading  (pp.  93-­‐100).  Cambridge,  England:  Cambridge  University  Press.  
 
Hilferty,  A.  G.  (1996).  Coding  decoding:  Predicting  the  reading  comprehension  of  Latino  
adults  learning  English.  Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  
MA.    
 
Kruidenier,  J.  (2002).  Research-­‐based  principles  for  adult  basic  education  reading  
instruction.  Washington,  DC:  National  Institute  for  Literacy.  Retrieved  February  8,  2005,  
from  
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/adult_ed/adult_ed_1.html    
 
Mullady-­‐DelliCarpini,  M.  E.  (2004).  Phonological  awareness  and  adult  second  language  
literacy  development.  Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  Stony  Brook  University,  Stony  
Brook,  NY.  
 
Wolfe,  P.,  &  Nevills,  P.  (2004).  Building  the  reading  brain.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Corwin  Press.  

At  the  time  that  this  instruction  took  place,  Ellen  Knell  and  Hannah  Buchanan  were  PhD  
students  at  the  University  of  Utah  and  Barbara  Fish  was  the  director  of  the  English  Language  
Skills  Center.