MCL 650: Literacy Development Hilary Walker Miller

Final Project

In one of the file folders of memorabilia that my mother kept until her death is a sheet of

“Williamsburg Lodge” notebook paper, with writing on front and back. On one side, in carefully printed

block letters, it reads:

Dear Daddy, You brobbly do’nt know we are in Williamsburg. We are engoying are trip. We went

threw a maze of holly. We are haveing best of trips. Please bring a preetly marked yo-yo ball from Japan.

We so a Germen lisinse plate. I so two. Love, Hilary

On the opposite side of the sheet, in elegant but slightly less readable cursive, it states:

Dear Larry, Hilary wrote this whilst on our trip & it was mislaid. I have just got home & found it in

my luggage & I think you should have it. I hope you are better – Virginia tells me you were not well in

Paris. I see a letter from Gertrude but have not yet perused it except casually. The hurricane is quite

violent but everything is fine at Bedminster & we arrived home last night all in good condition. With love,

Maud

Are the writers of these two letters literate? Before taking this class, I probably would have

answered for the first writer (myself at 7 years, 10 months), “Just barely.” Of the second writer, my

grandmother Nana Maud, I would have said, “Highly literate!” I can even hear her clipped British accent

and refined diction as I read her words so hastily scrawled almost 50 years ago.

Now that I have a more enlightened understanding of literacy, I would examine the function,

purpose, structure, and register of these two missives and arrive at a different conclusion. Both are

personal letters, containing a greeting, body, and closing, hand-written without editing or revising, and

sent to a loved one for the social purpose of communicating information and expressing affection.
Therefore, both letters fulfill the requirements of the genre and its objectives ; in fact, I suspect that

despite its “creative” spelling, my production pleased and entertained my father more than his mother’s.

If literacy is the ability to communicate effectively to achieve a particular goal, then both writers can be

considered literate. Indeed, as Herrera points out in “Teaching Reading to English Language Learners,”

children (like myself at age seven) use many strategies to express themselves even without a full

mastery of the language’s complexity. In this view, literacy becomes less about following prescriptive

language rules governing such things as grammar, syntax, and spelling, and more about fulfilling specific

and meaningful social objectives through communication.

Mike Rose’s book, Lives on the Boundary, led me to an even broader view of literacy. Rather

than a one-way process of helping students to achieve communicative competence, with the “literate”

teacher seeking to impart “literacy skills” to his or her learners, literacy development in Rose’s view is a

“mutual venture” in which both teacher and student “bring something to the table.” While a teacher can

hone a student’s abilities to decipher print, shape a sentence, and communicate a thought, students

bring to the teacher “the tales and folklore and genres that [are] part of their various families and

cultures.” Through this interaction, both become more literate people. Thus, Rose’s “fundamentally

social act” of literacy goes far beyond the so-called fundamentals of language – phonics, spelling,

vocabulary, grammar, decoding skills, pronunciation. Although the importance of these skills cannot be

minimized, reducing literacy to this “dry dismembering of language,” as personified by Rose’s

intimidating goddess Grammatica, presents a barrier to both students and teacher, obstructing the

ultimate purpose of literacy, to communicate with each other. When I first began teaching, I understood

the need for my students to communicate with me and each other, but failed to recognize that as a

teacher I had just as much to learn from them!

Seen from this point of view then, my juvenile, semi-literate scribblings to my father provided

him with a window into a child’s mind, if he cared to look … the delight in a holly maze, the excitement
of seeing a license plate from Germany, the burning desire for a “preetly marked” yo-yo from the exotic

country he was visiting. Literacy, in this sense, is not just communication but a meeting of minds and a

sharing of souls, mediated by and through the acts of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. In my

childish communication to my father, misspellings and improper grammar did not prevent me from

successfully conveying my thoughts and emotions. But as my fluency in English developed, as I became

more “literate” in the conventional understanding of the word, communication with my father became

even deeper and more meaningful: we were eventually able to “enter the conversation,” that

“historically rich” conversation that Rose envisions when people share an understanding of and

engagement with the great thinkers and texts of their common literary tradition. Thus, in this sense,

literacy development is a fluid, ever-changing process, a continuum, not a stage or a threshold that has

to be met before someone is considered “literate.” Slowly and sometimes painfully, all human beings

seek to communicate with one another in a shared language; the goal of literacy development is to

enable them to do so more and more effectively.

While literacy in the broader sense that I’ve discussed above encompasses speaking and

listening, this paper focuses on the development of reading and writing skills. So how do second

language learners develop these skills? In one’s native language, oral language development occurs

almost effortlessly, but the ability to write in that language takes years of painstaking instruction and

practice. Likewise, very few people learn to read in their L1 without some explicit instruction. While oral

language is the vehicle for people to meet their basic needs, reading and writing are not necessary for

human survival and do not exist in every culture. And even in cultures that have a written language,

there are varying numbers of people who remain nonliterate and yet fully functional in their society.

Of course, in a second language, the development of these skills may proceed in a different

order. As Herrera points out, though both productive skills, the abilities to speak and write develop

differently in several important ways; someone who speaks English as an L2 will not necessarily be able
to write in English. But the reverse may also occur: for example, students learning Latin are generally

taught to read and write it; oral communication in Latin is rarely studied, especially now that it is less

often used in the Catholic liturgy. I believe when it comes to learning an L2, students may acquire

reading/writing skills before (or even in exclusion of) oral communication abilities, but the latter abilities

can be acquired without explicit instruction, while reading/writing generally must be taught or at least

studied. Furthermore, since reading is a passive activity, while writing is productive, acquiring writing

skills generally requires more effort and ability in any language. From my own experience with French, I

know that it is much easier to translate certain grammatical structures in text I am reading, but7 much

harder to reproduce the same structures in my own writing. Likewise, vocabulary words read in context

are relatively easy to decipher, at least when most of the text is fairly understandable – it is much more

difficult to come up with the appropriate, properly nuanced mot juste to fit the meaning that I intend for

it. And finally, if the student’s L1 has a different orthographical system than English, much time will be

spent learning the new alphabet and combining those unfamiliar letters into words.

Second language learners definitely don’t acquire their English skills in a predictable, lock-step

manner. For example, with my high-intermediate/low-advanced Operation Read students, who came

from many different countries, had widely varying educational backgrounds, and had been in the U.S.

for as little as a few weeks to as many as 20 years, some were better at oral communication while

others excelled at reading and (to some extent) writing. This variation seemed due at least in part to

their cultural and social backgrounds and how they had attained their knowledge of English prior to the

class.

The students who were taught some English in their native country before coming to the U.S.

generally seemed to be better readers and writers, perhaps because the EFL (English as a Foreign

Language) classes they took emphasized these skills. From what I have read, EFL classes often tend to

focus on grammar, reading, and writing; they may be large and lecture-based with minimal teacher-
student and student-student interaction; non-native English teachers may also conduct much of the

class in the L1 rather than English. So, for example, my Nepali student Kedar, a well-educated man in his

50’s, had an excellent vocabulary and grasp of English grammar, but very poor English pronunciation; he

knew most of the words in the crossword puzzles we did in class, but no one could understand him

when he called them out. In addition, the students who were educated in English in their native country

were generally of higher social status and had had access to better education and more years of

schooling before coming to the U.S. Most likely, they were probably better readers and writers in their

native language and thus had an easier time mastering the same skills in another language as well.

On the other hand, my students who came to this country without much prior formal instruction

in English were more proficient in speaking and listening, but much less so in reading and writing. They

needed oral communication skills to conduct day-to-day business in this country ̶ shopping, asking

directions, working, obtaining requisite documents like driver’s licenses, and so on. These students were

more likely to struggle with grammar usage, reading, and writing. Although it was not always true, these

students also tended to be less well-educated and of a lower social status; while all were able to read

and write in their L1, many had not graduated from high school in their native country.

I believe ESL learners will generally acquire reading and writing skills in fairly predictable stages,

especially if the teacher uses a textbook or other standardized curricula. However, the speed of

acquisition will depend on characteristics of each student: similarity of their L1 to English in terms of

orthography, phonetics, etc.; literacy level in their L1 (especially their understanding of metalanguage,

grammatical terms and concepts used to talk about any language); motivation; amount of time spent

learning English; age at which they first started studying English; and their innate ability or facility with

language learning. All students will go through a period of using interlanguage, where aspects such as

phonology or syntax of the L1 are transferred to English, and will gradually transition into greater

fluency and proficiency.

 The first step in teaching reading and writing to ESL students is to properly assess their current

proficiency. However, I have had little direct experience with this. My Operation Read students were

assessed with the CASAS test before being placed in my class. In my experience, this assessment had

limited value. When I used a form of the QRI-5 reading assessment with three of my students, one

student tested at a high school level while the other two were at a 3rd or 4th grade level. The nature of

the two tests may explain the discrepancy. While CASAS used texts such as charts, recipes, checklists,

maps, and short memos, the QRI-5 texts were narratives describing historical event or figures or

scientific phenomena.

Likewise, my CESL students have also been assessed and placed in particular levels by the

program directors prior to entering my classroom. One of my biggest challenges when I started teaching

them was trying to figure out exactly what they did and didn’t know. So, for example, my Level 2

grammar students struggled mightily with the first test that I gave them, even though I thought the

material was relatively easy. As a result, I had to scale back my expectations and start again from the

beginning of the unit to ensure their understanding of very fundamental grammatical concepts such as

simple present tense and subject-verb agreement.

After assessing their abilities, I think the teacher must try to determine the students’ goals, if

possible. With my CESL students this is quite straightforward. They are all attending the program with

the goal of raising their TOEFL score and ultimately entering an academic program in the U.S. With these

students, it is appropriate to use a CALP (Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency) approach, focusing

on academic study oriented around textbooks, classroom lectures, grades, and assignments. In contrast,

my Operation Read students were interested in BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) topics

that they needed for their day-to-day interactions. For this reason, I tended to steer away from reading

and writing activities that seemed somewhat abstract or not immediately relevant to their needs.
 As an example of the different orientation of the two student groups, I had the opportunity to

initiate a discussion on the use of the “introductory hook” in essay-writing to both my CESL writing class

and my Operation Read class. Uniformly, my CESL students were already familiar with the topic, were

able to identify “good” and “bad” examples of hooks, and could successfully incorporate introductory

hooks into their own essays. All of them were interested in the subject and felt that it was relevant to

their objectives, a skill they would need in their prospective academic careers. On the other hand,

although my Operation Read students differed in how well they understood the concept, none seemed

particularly interested in a topic that seemed unconnected to their goals. In fact, one student was so

baffled by the whole concept that she stopped coming to class and complained in emails to me that this

confusing discussion of “hooks” made her feel like giving up altogether. I was able to convince her to

return to class but only by assuring her that I would never again bring up the topic of “hooks!”

In addition to being mindful of each student’s goals, I try to pinpoint and, if possible, alleviate

individual problems they may be facing. The inconsistency of attendance and the lack of progress

resulting from sporadic attendance by my Operation Read class caused me much frustration, but I

realized that my students had important work and family commitments. This motivated me to develop

my own website, eslbootcamp.blogspot.com, with links to, reviews of, and instructions for using

different websites where my students could study English on their own. I have also found this website

really helpful for my CESL grammar students who need additional practice in points of grammar that

most of their classmates understand. Rather than spending the whole class’s time going over and over a

topic, I can direct my students to the website for further drill. Other ways I have helped students include

taking them to the Lexington Central Library’s used bookstore to find good reading books in English,

giving CESL students extra credit opportunities, and providing extra test-taking time for students with

documented learning disabilities. The bottom line, really, is just to treat students as individuals and to

take the time to understand their personal situations and how they can be helped to meet their goals.
 Whatever abilities the student currently has, I believe their reading and writing skills can be

better developed by presenting material in a context that is relevant and interesting. Students are more

motivated and develop their skills more rapidly, I think, when they see a clear relationship between

what they are learning and how they will be using what they learn. So, for example, one of the most

popular teaching aids I used with my Operation Read students was a kit of large cards containing text

models that my students would encounter regularly – restaurant menus, mall directories, class

schedules, bus schedules, itineraries for street festivals, advertisements. The students would have to

answer various questions regarding this information: How much is a burger with a side order of fries at

Charlie’s Restaurant? How many days a week does the community college English for Beginners class

meet? What is the earliest bus you can catch on Plainview Street to go downtown? Likewise, my

students seemed to be the most engaged by writing assignments that mimicked tasks they might

perform in real life, such as filling out an online job application or writing an email to a friend.

A good ESL classroom should also offer lots of opportunities for group interaction. When I

started teaching, I’m afraid I tended to be somewhat of a lecturer. I had trouble understanding my

students’ pronunciation, and they in turn had difficulty understanding each other. It seemed simpler just

to do most of the talking myself. But without this interaction between teacher and students and among

the students themselves, we miss out on what Rose sees as the essential part of literacy – that “mutual

venture into literacy” that encourages everyone to share their personal histories, stories, and viewpoints.

When working on listening/speaking skills, group interaction is almost inevitable; with reading/writing

activities, it is slightly more difficult to implement. One writing exercise that worked well was when my

Operation Read students wrote their individual reactions to the results of a personality assessment test

that they each took. Having previously learned many vocabulary words to describe personality (reserved,

enthusiastic, talkative), the students were able to share their essays and to discuss what kind of

personalities they had, which led to an interesting class discussion.

 In addition to group discussions, pairing up students is another way of encouraging students to

work together and to negotiate meaning with each other. It compels them to interact with a peer in

English rather than to sit passively listening to me. Pairing up also seems to promote more interaction

among a whole classroom. Those students who share a common L1 naturally gravitate toward each

other, but by pairing up students with different L1s, those who might have been reluctant to talk

together are required to converse. In classrooms with students of differing abilities, more proficient

students can assist those who are struggling.

Interaction among students can also promote better teacher-student understanding, as some

students serve as advocates or spokespersons for the shyer or less expressive students. Several times I

used one of my more fluent Mexican students, Obdulia, to reassure and support Hispanic students who

were experiencing difficulties in the class. Some lacked confidence in their speaking/listening abilities or

felt that the class was moving too fast but had difficulty verbalizing their concerns. Obdulia would serve

as an informal intermediary to elicit their problems and help find a solution. In addition, giving my

Operation Read students my email address, texting with them, and adding them as Facebook friends

helped encourage them to share things with me that they might not be comfortable saying “in person.”

While I’m not sure Facebook “friending” is necessarily appropriate in an academic setting, this kind of

interaction worked very well with my Operation Read students and ended up being the easiest way to

communicate information quickly among the whole group.

Although I completely support the idea of students interacting with and assisting each other, I

have some reservations about having them evaluating each other. When I had my CESL students

exchange the first drafts of their narrative essays, a typical comment afterwards was, “We understood

what was wrong but we didn’t know how to correct it.” The students did not have a sufficient

underpinning of grammatical knowledge to make substantive corrections to their peers’ work. However,

by guiding the students to evaluate aspects they could recognize as successful or not, such as effective
hooks, proper connector words, consistent verb tense, and chronological order, they were able to

identify to what degree their peers had met these objectives. I’m not sure how helpful these comments

were to the students being reviewed, but I’m certain that the students examined their own productions

more carefully once they had been made to evaluate the same facets in someone else’s work.

Over the past few years, I hope I’ve become a more compassionate, effective, and focused

teacher. Before taking this literacy class, I think my expectations of my students were sometimes too

high. Now I have a better understanding of what Herrera terms “strength-based” assessment and am

trying to de-emphasize grammar problems and at the same time to recognize and value the insights that

my students communicate. For example, here is a small part of a narrative essay I am grading for my

CESL writing class:

Please just thinking if you have a great dream in your life but to achieve that dream you should

to leave your native country, family, culture, customs and traditions, and you have to leave every things

that you so love!!? If you want to achieve that great dream you have to travel to USA! I had opportunity

to achieve my life’s dream but…!?! I was in extremely difficult choice. I had to choose leave my dream or

leave my country and all things in it?!? The days passed and finally I decided, yes I decided! …

My student is trying to communicate the difficult choice she faced when she received the

opportunity to study abroad. In my opinion, she has done so effectively. The basic goal of literacy has

been met; she has shared her thoughts successfully, and I have a new understanding of her dilemma.

While she is not fully fluent in English, her skills are developing. With time and effort on her part and

skillful and competent instruction from her teachers, she will develop her reading and writing skills, just

as I did as an almost-eight-year old telling her father about her great adventure in Williamsburg. Literacy,

the “two-way street,” enables us to communicate our thoughts and feelings and to establish a human

connection that is both enriching and deeply satisfying.