Lita Brusick Johnson March 13, 2013

Curriculum Research Paper LING 583 - Materials and Curriculum Development

Literacy ESL for Young Adults: Bridging the Gap This paper proposes a serious discussion among literacy and ESL stakeholders in Chicago to consider development of a program of specialized and integrated literacy and ESL instruction for young adults at risk: refugees ranging in age from 18-25 who are no longer high school eligible, but who have not acquired basic literacy skills in their L1 or in English and are not proficient in English. Such a program would be modeled after the innovative Bridge Program1, a well-documented Literacy-ESL pilot project funded by the Canadian government and carried out by Bow Valley College, Alberta, Canada (Leong and Collins, 2007). The goal of both the original and the potential U.S.-based adaptation of the Bridge Program is to give at-risk and marginalized young adult learners the educational instruction they are not receiving but need to bridge simultaneously both literacy and L2 gaps and successfully transition to further education in college or career-focused programs. This paper is divided into five parts: I. Background and Rationale a brief discussion of the needs-in-context that prompted the development of the Canadian Bridge Program and that warrant consideration of its adaptation in the U.S. context. II. From the Research an overview of selected studies and resources that identify key elements that should inform thoughtful curriculum choices in the Literacy-ESL area elements that are reflected in the design of the Canadian Bridge Program and could likewise inform development of its adaptation in the U.S. context. III. Bridging the Gap an overview of the Canadian Bridge Program, describing its key conceptual and operational elements and the curricular choices they reflect. (This section will reference specific needs assessment tools and rationale for their use, which are provided in Appendix G.) IV. Adaptation to the U.S. Context a brief discussion of the benefits of a possible adaptation of the Bridge Program in the U.S. context. V. Conclusion.

Bridging the Gap: A Framework for Teaching and Transitioning Low Literacy Immigrant Youth), a 178 page handbook, describes the theory and practice of a successful and well-documented government-funded Literacy-ESL pilot project operated by Bow Valley College, Alberta, Canada (Leong and Collins, 2007).

I. Background and Rationale. Many young adult Literacy-ESL learners in the U.S. and Canada who have both the ability and the motivation to overcome their entwined literacy and English challenges experience a significant gap in educational services. Such learners often find themselves in a double-bind situation, lacking not only English language proficiency but also the literacy skills they need to succeed in employment situations and higher education. This is a population whose intertwined literacy and L2 language needs have not been adequately addressed by high schools and community centers offering ESL courses (Condelli and Wrigley 2008), nor is their need to acquire a sound literacy foundation for future personal and professional development met in many employment programs that focus narrowly on workplace survival skills. Some of these young adults experience repeated failure and discouragement when they are placed side-by-side in high school ESL classes with L2 learners who already possess literacy skills and substantial school experience. Often their financially-challenged schools lack the resources to provide the focused literacy-specific instruction (beyond the most basic literacy training) that Literacy-ESL learners need to access at the same time they are also learning English. Likewise in community centers, such young adults often attend class with learners of different ages who may not only be literate in their L1 but may also possess life skills and experiences that advantage them in their transition to their new cultural context and a similar dynamic of classroom failure emerges. The chances of finding employment that pays a living wage are slim-to-null for at-risk young adults who lack basic literacy skills. According to a 2010 National Institute for Literacy study, literacy proficiency has a marked impact on growth in earnings; it affects not only the initial wage level but also the rate of subsequent growth in earnings (Reder 2010, p. 19). The obstacles to earning a living wage are even greater for young adults, including refugees, who also have not achieved adequate levels of proficiency in English. Absent effective educational opportunities that address in a holistic and intensive way the nexus of their literacy, ESL, and job/education readiness needs, such young adults despite their potential and their motivation face a bleak economic future, to their own detriment and the detriment of the wider society. It is this gap in services that the Canadian Bridge Program has effectively filled and that an adaptation of this program, specifically focused on young adult refugees, could likewise fill in the U.S. II. From the Research: Insights into Literacy ESL Curriculum Design and Course Development. The following studies and resources provide insights that are reflected in the design of the Canadian Bridge Program and that should inform program and curricular decisions in any adaptation of such a program in the U.S. context:
2

[I.A.] In a study of instruction of 173 students in 83 adult literacy classes in 22 states, Purcell-Gates, et al (2002) measured the relative efficacy of two dimensions of adult literacy instruction. The English speakers of other languages, a subset of students participating in this study, did not have high literacy skills in their L1; at the time of the study they were trying to acquire literacy skills while learning English. The study focused the degree of authenticity of both activities and texts used in class [I.A.1] and teacher-student collaboration (power sharing) in shaping the learning experience [I.A.2]. The instruction outcome measured was the actual reading and writing practices of student, in contrast to more traditional assessment measures of changes in skill/achievement through norm- or criterion-referenced tests. No statistically significant effect was shown for the collaboration dimension. However, higher degrees of authenticity in classrooms correlated with a positive change in student literacy practices (students reading and writing more texts at higher levels of discourse). The authors conclude that in order to achieve the best instructional outcomes substantive changes in the way students create literate lives outside the classrooms (Purcell-Gates et al, 2002, p. 91) teachers should utilize to the greatest degree possible real-life texts and purposes for reading and writing in the classroom, integrating skill teaching and practice in this context. The authors subsequently published a large and helpful resource to assist teachers to apply the findings of this study in their classrooms: Creating Authentic Materials and Activities for the Adult Literacy Classroom: A Handbook for Practitioners (Jacobson and Purcell-Gates, 2003). [I.B.] The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), in its 2010 report, Education for Adult English Language Learners in the United States: Trends, Research, and Promising Practices, provides a comprehensive overview that includes descriptions of the types and characteristics of adult learners and ESL program types, government requirements, research, and promising practices in the field, many of which relate to refugees and Literacy-ESL. The study suggest that the following research-based instructional strategies may hold promise for adult learners, who on average may need to study for 6 years (100+ hours) to acquire the English proficiency needed for civic integration or postsecondary education (Schaetzel et al, 2010, p. 16, xi): Incorporation of research-based principles of adult learning and second language acquisition, related to learner integrative motivation (with implications for classroom context, group cohesion, and opportunities for language use outside the classroom), interaction (comprehensible input, output, and feedback), and task- and problem-based learning [I.B.1];

Clear understanding/assessment of learners needs and goals (e.g., where and why they use or want to use English) as instructional content is chosen; such content needs to relevant to and usable in students daily life experience [I.B.2].

Use of a variety of instructional approaches in consonance with learner needs, motivations, and goals [I.B.3]. Provision of opportunities for interaction, problem-solving, and task-based learning [I.B.4]. Drawing upon learners prior experiences and strengths in L2 learning [I.B.5]. Inclusion of regular assessment and evaluation of learner proficiency progress [I.B.6]. Provision of courses with different intensity and duration, flexible schedules [I.B.7]. Utilization of technology to provide individualization of learning opportunities that are responsive to learners needs and learning preferences, both inside and outside the classroom [I.B.8]. Another important future direction relates to instruction that prepares English learners for the workplace through

application of the National Work Readiness Credential, which identifies skills critical to worker success in the global economy [I.B.9]: speak so others can understand, listen actively, solve problems and make decisions, cooperate with others, resolve conflicts and negotiate, observe critically, take responsibility for learning, read with understanding, and use math to solve problems general, rather than specific skills, that apply across disciplines in a variety of academic, work, and life situations (Schaetzel et al, 2010, p. 52). Finally, this CAL report highlights key findings of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (2006), which the authors suggest are also applicable to adult literacy/ESL learners: The teaching specific reading and writing elements (e.g., vocabulary) assists second language learners [I.B.10]. Effective reading instruction requires integration with extensive oral English language development while students are learning English [I.B.11]. Research has also indicated that attention to learners use of cognitive strategies thinking tools yields substantial benefits, from higher achievement in writing to better community college placement tests [I.B.12]. [I.C.] The What Works Study: Instruction, Literacy and Language Learning for Adult ESL Literacy Students (Condelli and Wrigley, 2008) fills a major research void by focusingon current instructional practice in adult classes of nonliterate learners (or learners with limited literacy skills) who are also learning English. The authors argue that these learners have not been well served in conventional ESL classes, where the pace is often set by those who are literate in
4

their L1 and literacy skills are seldom taught. The study analyzed the instruction of almost 500 learners (with less than 4 years of prior schooling) using a framework that looked at key components needed to enable students to learn to read and write for the first time in English: reading as meaning-making, reading for practice, and activities related to oral fluency, grammatical accuracy, and vocabulary development. Also studied was inclusion of learning strategies likely to improve literacy development and sub-skills related to phonemic awareness, decoding, and pronunciation. The authors conclude that teaching ESL Literacy requires instruction in a combination of (1) the language skills necessary to communicate in English, including sub-skills related to sentence structure, pronunciation, word endings, tenses; and (2) the literacy or reading and writing skills necessary to process print and gain meaning from the written word (Condelli and Wrigley, 2008, p. 2) [I.C.1]. Three specific instructional strategies were correlated to increased learner literacy and language learning (measured by standardized tests): connection to everyday life using real-world materials [I.C.2] ; judicious use of learners L1 to clarify instruction, reduce the cognitive load, and encourage critical thinking) [I.C.3];2 variation, practice, and interaction with oral language learning, which is needed before aspects of literacy and English usage can become automatized [I.C.4]. Classroom balance is beneficial, including a degree of explicit attention to language forms and learner practice/drills, within the wider context of meaningful communication where fluency is encouraged [I.C.5]. Heide Spruck Wrigley, one of the studys authors, sums up the implications of this study, observing that curriculum that connects literacy development with oral language development and connects it back to students lives3 best serves literacy and the ESL needs of adult learners. [I.D.] Wrigley and Guth (2000/1993) offer a comprehensive road map through the thicket of issues and options in adult ESL literacy. They describe shifts in theory and instructional practice in second language teaching and literacy education influencing this relatively new field, including: focus on meaning in reading and writing; social context of literacy; active learning; learning to learn and language awareness; perceptions of what literacy is. The authors note the lack of consensus on what it means to be literate (and even less, what it means to be literate in a second language). They
This research observation about the importance of having a bi-lingual teacher or an interpreter available at least occasionally to interpret in the L1 key elements of classroom activity for beginning Literacy-ESL students was affirmed by a practitioner who published an action-reflection study of her classroom experience in Literacy-ESL classes with Eritrean, Ethiopian, and Sudanese refugees in Australia (see Gunn, 2003). 3 Interview, NCSALL Focus on Basics, September 2003, p. 14.
2

suggest that teachers, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who attempted to define pornography, say "they know it when they see it" (Wrigley and Guth, 2000/1993, p. 13). However, they suggest that the field has come to understand literacy in the following ways: as a plurality of literacies or many literacies, shaped by social contexts and defined individually as well as collectively, as a continuum that grows and expands as a person gains experience with different types of literacies, rather than as a dichotomy or great divide between literate and illiterate. The nature of ESL literacy is still more complex since it depends on literacy in two languages (Wrigley and Guth, 2000/1993, p. 12). Wrigley and Guth view positively programs that, rather than adhering lockstep to a specific method/approach, resist categorizations and judiciously combine elements of the six basic orientations to the literacy curriculum in order to meet student needs, thereby dealing effectively with the tensions that are inherent in literacy education for adults. They identify those six orientations as: common educational core (basic skills) [I.D.1]; social and economic adaptation (life skills/self-sufficiency and employment) [I.D.2]; development of cognitive processes ("learning how to learn"/process over content, strategies over skills) [I.D.3]; personal relevance [I.D.4]; social change (participatory program design, addressing issues of power and control) [I.D.5]; and technological management of education [I.D.6]. In terms of curriculum development, Wrigley and Guth also affirm a blended or negotiated curriculum [I.D.7] within which skills are integrated into meaning-based approaches, where elements of the conventional curriculum (that focuses on the acquisition of skills/knowledge and has an instrumental aspect) are balanced with the characteristics of an alternative curriculum (participatory, with a focus on process and with content that is developed from interactions between teachers and learners in contrast to rigidly sequenced lessons/topics). The authors conclude: While the curriculum as a product to be delivered by teachers to students is still the dominant model in ESL and in literacy education, more and more programs are seeking ways of effectively combining product and process models the field is moving away from dichotomous thinking [toward] curriculum configurations, in which aspect of various orientations are intermixed to yield maximum usefulness for a given context (Wrigley and Guth, 2000/1993, p. 138, 146). The Canadian Bridge Program applies what has been learned in recent ESL-Literacy research in a specific context and with a specific subset of literacy learners. In the description of the Bridge Program that follows, specific references to the research findings identified above are provided [in brackets and italics]. These give evidence of how the Bridge Program has given curricular and instructional expression to these important research findings.

III. Bridging the Gap: A Canadian Model for Effective Literacy-ESL Teaching. In order to understand the Bridge Program, awareness of the Canadian context in which it was developed is necessary specifically, the Canadian government system of clearly articulated national benchmarks, which provide explicit frameworks for evaluating progress in achieving English language proficiency. Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: ESL for Literacy Learners (Johansson, et al 2000) provides language benchmarks specifically for literacy learners who are also working toward proficiency in English. This 72-page Canadian resource provides clear and detailed benchmarks for four specific LiteracyESL phases: Foundation and Phases I-III. Each phase also has Initial, Developing, and Adequate sub-category benchmarks. This resource describes specific language competencies and literacy competencies for each of these phases/subcategories, together with a wealth of additional information (conditions, sample tasks, and examples) for each. The Canadian Language Benchmarks are different than the Illinois ESL Content Standards, which provide one category of Beginning ESL Literacy alongside the mainstream ESL progression. In the Canadian model, Literacy-ESL efforts are not just conceptualized as initial literacy instruction (e.g., students learning the letters of the alphabet and being able to recognize the relationship between letters and their sounds). Literacy-ESL is conceptualized as a process that parallels regular ESL, but does not take for granted the acquisition of necessary, and increasingly complex, literacy competencies that students need to move to higher levels of overall English proficiency. Both these elements are explicitly addressed and integrated into the Bridge Programs unified curriculum, which is in alignment with the Canadian benchmarks. Any adaptation of the Bridge Program to the US context would need to give serious consideration to this valuable conceptual and practical frame. (See Appendix A for an example of these benchmarks and related elements.) The Canadian Bridge Program began as a three-year pilot project carried out by Bow Valley College, in Calgary, Alberta. This project, the Young Adult ESL Literacy Program (now called the Bridge Program), was funded by Alberta Employment, Immigration and Industry and Employment. The core goal/overarching outcome that drives this program is: young adult learners (18-25 years old) with low literacy skills and limited English proficiency acquire the skills they need to make the successful transition to further educational opportunities (college or career). The target group does not include Literacy-ESL learners at the foundational (most basic) literacy level; it does include learners who have some fundamental literacy skills but would benefit from more focused and integrated instruction in literacy and English language acquisition. After its three-year pilot, the Bridge Program has continued to demonstrate success in achieving its stated goal, with 85 percent of students completing the program moving on to college or to other educational opportunities.
7

A. Achieving Outcomes in a Communicative Language Teaching Environment. As Kathleen Graves suggests, teaching is about making choices. Clearly articulated goals and outcomes make explicit where administrators and teachers want [their] students to come out (Graves 2000, 73-74) and, day-in and day-out, they inform teacher choices about what happens in the classroom. Specific outcomes for the Bridge Programs three courses levels, which roughly mirror Phases I-III of the Canadian benchmarks cited above, have been developed for each of the three skill areas described below. Yet more detailed outcomes for related sub-skills have also been developed all of which are sequenced and aligned to help achieve the programs overarching goal (See Appendix B). These outcomes inform the teaching decisions that are made in the context of the programs commitment to integrate skills instruction within a communicative language teaching framework. While specific learning outcomes are identified, teachers understand that language elements are not learned nor should they be taught in isolation. The Bridge Program describes its classrooms as learner-centered, where learners engage with each other and the teacher in a safe but challenging learning environment. Learners background knowledge and experiences are valued and connections with their lives outside the classroom are encouraged. In consonance with the communicative approach, teachers serve as facilitators and coaches (Leong and Collins, 207, p. 19-20.). [Reference I.A.1, I.B.1., I.C.2, 1.D.7 above.] It is within this context and within the context of the programs overall thematic syllabus described below that teachers are expected to develop and employ tasks/activities for classroom use that explicitly relate to at least one specific outcome. Instructors teaching the Phase I-III classes serve as a team and resource each other as they develop tasks and activities that advance these outcomes, reflect the specific interests of learners, and intentionally address the gaps in the learning of individual students. This approach enables the program to live out its commitment to use authentic materials that are related to real-world experience, to honor learners real world experiences and strengths, and to enable student input in the selection and shaping of topics all of which are can contribute to the deepening of students intrinsic motivation. [Reference I.A.1, I.B.1. 1.B.5, I.C.2, I.D.4 above.] Given the innovative nature of this Literacy-ESL program, no textbook is utilized. Rather, the program relies on teachers outcome-focused creativity and their reading of those who share their classroom space in the development and use of instructional material. Given the commitment to ongoing needs assessment (described below), these outcomes are regularly adjusted to reflect experience in the classrooms and evaluation of learners progress and learning gaps. In many ways, the Bridge Programs approach embodies the type of negotiated or blended curriculum advocated by Wrigley and Guth (2000/1993). [Reference I.D. above.]
8

Outcomes are identified in the three core skill/content areas4 areas which are generally in alignment with the three essential goals identified by Genesee and Upshur (in Graves 2000, p. 85): language goals, strategic goals, and socioaffective goals: (1) Integrated Language and Literacy (Reading and Writing) Skills. The Bridge Program integrates language and literacy skills with a major focus on reading and writing within a communicative learning environment [Reference I.C.1, 1.D.1 above.]. Specific outcomes describe the core reading and writing tasks learners are expected to be able to carry out at particular phases (courses) of the program. These specific language and literacy outcomes are aligned with the Canadian Language Benchmark and provincial standards. (See Appendix B, Part 1 for examples, including the Bridge Programs reading and writing outcomes for Phases II and III, along with the descriptions of what students, at the initial, developing, and adequate levels within these two Phases, should be able to do in the reading and writing areas, in Appendix B, Part 2). Two additional elements are of note: Given its assessment of the particular needs of Literacy-ESL learners, acquisition and use of vocabulary is a

significant focus. [Reference I.B.10 and I.C.5 above.] Grammar is taught in context. While teachers utilize a very general grammar scope and sequence, which

identifies grammar topics appropriate to the course outcomes and their sequence (Appendix C), sequencing is not rigidly prescribed. The explicit focus on grammar is related to identification of gaps and emerges as part of the theme-shaped syllabus described below; grammar is addressed explicitly when relevant and appropriate to the communicative context. Grammar instruction is provided with a purpose: so students can acquire real-life skills for real-life communication: Teaching grammar in context helps learners, particularly literacy learners, integrate the grammar into their daily use (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 124). [Reference I.A.1, I.B.1, I.C.2 and 5, and I.D.7 above.] (2) Learning Strategy Skills. The Bridge Program has also developed outcomes for a second basket of skills that identify key elements of successful reading, writing, language-learning, and test-taking, and help learners break down these processes in order to facilitate more effective learning both inside and outside the classroom (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 118). Research has shown how important utilization of a variety of such skills is for learners success in L2 acquisition; in addition, these skills are considered especially important to learners because they are transferable, from the classroom to less familiar situations. The Bridge Program takes some pride in its commitment that a variety of strategies
4

The numeracy skills that are also part of the Bridge Programs curriculum are not addressed in this paper. 9

are taught directly, used explicitly, recognized persistently, and assessed regularly (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 126). The Bridge Programs strategy outcomes are listed in Exhibit B, Part 1; Exhibit D contains the programs How to Teach Strategies summary. [Reference I.B.12, 1.D.3, above.] (3) Essential Skills. The Canadian government has identified nine skills that are considered essential in most occupations and in daily life, at varying levels of complexity: reading text, writing, oral communication, thinking skills, numeracy or math skills, computer use, document use, continuous learning, and working with others. Taking seriously this frame, the Bridge Program placed into three broad baskets the teachable and measurable/observable essential skills identified by the Canadian government that are not addressed elsewhere in the Bridge Program: managing yourself, working with others, and working with computers. Each of these baskets includes several specific skill outcomes that equip learners for a successful post-secondary educational journey (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 13), which is the Bridge Programs overarching goal. (See Appendix B, Part 1 for the essential skills outcomes.) These essential skills are similar in type to those identified in the National Work Readiness Credential in the U.S. context. [Reference I.B.9 above.] Within the thematic frame described below, essential skills are taught primarily through a participatory, project-based learning approach. These are often longer-term, cooperative learning projects that are specifically focused on essential skills outcomes and are linked with real-world situations; they are structured to provide substantial learner control and choice, which positively affects motivation. [Reference all studies cited above.] B. About the Syllabus. The Bridge Problem has a syllabus that employs themes as the organizing principle, through which the content areas listed above are addressed. Thematic units provide outcome-based contexts for learning using real-world, high-interest, age-appropriate content [they] focus on teaching language through content engagement and [help learners] to achieve specific reading, writing, and learning strategy outcomes through a variety of authentic learning tasks (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 121-122). Each thematic unit follows a pattern of introduction, development, and final product, a structure within which learning can be sequenced and activities/tasks designed to provide adequate scaffolding for learners. Recycling and repetition within the unit structure enables learners, over the course of a unit, to use the L2 with ever greater depth, complexity and automaticity aided by a decrease in cognitive load that results from their growing familiarity with the unit content and related vocabulary. The thematic framework also provides opportunity for development of thinking skills, engaging personal experience and the experiences of others, and encouraging learner movement from concrete to abstract thought. Tasks are to be interesting, relevant, and focused on explicit outcomes
10

(Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 122). (See Appendix E, which includes the Common Structure for Thematic Units, plus an overview of the Bridge Program that illustrates visually how the unit themes and related program elements are structured.) C. About the Students. Bridge Program students, between 18 and 25 years of age, are learning English as a second language but, through testing, have been identified as not functionally literate in their own language or English for reasons that include: their L1 lacks a written code, they had little education in their home countries (six years or less Florez and Terrill, 2003, p. 2), they may have gone to school for several years, but with sporadic attendance due to circumstances like war, displacement, and family issues; or are literate in an L1 that is not alphabetic or that has a nonRoman alphabet. Students who wish to participate (most of whom are recommended by the various stakeholders identified below) are assessed and placed in one of three classes according to their skill levels; the program allows a degree of movement among the courses as appropriate, as benefits individual learners progression. D. Logistics and Class Size. Bridge Program classes meet Monday through Thursday, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., at Bow Valley College, following the semester pattern. The program is structured with open entry and transition points, to accommodate learner needs. One of the important findings of the Bridge Program pilot phase is that full-time, small group instruction is critical to the success of programs that target Literacy-ESL young adult learners; it is a factor that contributes to learners ability to make the transition to more advanced educational opportunities in a relatively short period of time. The expectation is that such transition will happen within two years, made possible by the intentional focus on individual learners and their needs, which a small class size enables. (Reference the six-year, 100+ hour estimate of the Center for Applied Linguistics cited in I.B. above.) All of these factors, together with clear outcomes, contribute to achieving the overarching program goal. Program staff believe that this type of focus is necessary to avoid keep becoming a catch-all class that can continue indefinitely and without achieving the core goals of learners. E. Building Relationships and Mitigating Barriers. One of the cornerstones of the Bridge Program is building relationships with key stakeholders, starting with initial exploratory needs assessments and maintaining ongoing channels of communication and collaboration in programming and learner support. In addition to students the primary stakeholders other key stakeholders for the Bridge Program include local high schools and school boards, community partners (agencies and service providers that assist youth and immigrant communities), other post-secondary institutions,

11

governments and other funders, families, immigrant communities, and those within Bow Valley College. (See Appendix F for a summary of the Bridge Programs Building Relationships list of key activities, organized by stakeholder groups.) This web of relationships is an essential aspect of the Bridge Program, providing resources and expertise to assist students to overcome barriers to participation and learning. These barriers include: Psychological barriers (including lack of support systems, emotional or personal issues, and fear of the unknown); Physical barriers (broadly speaking, including financial, housing, and transportation issues); and Social barriers (employment, issues, legal, child care, and physical and mental health issues) (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 74) Addressing these barriers requires more than sensitivity; ESL and other refugee programs need to be proactive and intentional in enabling learners to recognize issues, access resources, manage processes, understand conditions of support, anticipate issues, and plan for independent navigation of the services they need in the future (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 74.) And yet, as Perry (2007), in her ethnographic study of Sudanese refugees ESL learners in Michigan suggests, barriers should be contextualized and include an asset-based perspective of immigrants constraints and affordances that can be brought into the problem-solving picture: Constraints are not one-sided and are instead more like a coin with two sides. That is, something that constrains in one way may offer affordances in another, such as communities making demands on students but also providing various types of support (Perry, 2007, p. 37). F. Needs Assessment and Learner-Centered Continuous Improvement. The Bridge Program is informed by an intentional and well developed set of assessment processes, including: initial assessment processes involving identified stakeholders, which are useful both in understanding the student population as a group and as individual learners (e.g., gathering information about learner needs from teachers in earlier classroom settings, in high school or in community centers) and building cooperative efforts to support learners; initial learner needs assessment, which includes gathering information about students history, interests, and experiences to assist teachers in shaping activities related to student interests and needs (using a question set upon which the needs assessment found in Exhibit G, Part 1, is based), plus specific literacy and language testing/screening, which enables their placement in one of the three classes; ongoing, in-class assessments and teacher observations of various sorts (using activities similar to the example adapted from Woodard (2001) that is found in Exhibit G, Part 2);
12

formal assessments: program level assessments (such as the screening tests mentioned above, pre-tests, and posttests); assessments by teachers (e.g., unit tests, grade equivalency readings, and mid-term tests); and learner selfassessments (e.g., intentional processes of goal setting and assessments in one-on-one conversations between learner and teacher, student self-reflection on learning skills, portfolio development) (Leong and Collins, 2007, p. 144.) The Bridge Programs approach reflects a thoughtful learning-centered approach to needs analysis (Hutchinson

and Waters, 1987, p. 63). Simply put, assessment the continuous gathering of useful information on a daily and term basis is a purposeful and necessary part of teaching, which helps programs to better understand learners and their needs; report learner progress; guide and improve instruction; and improve overall learning in the classroom (Leong and Collins, 2007, 148). [Reference all of the research cited above, which describe the value of assessment in its many forms.] IV. Adaptation of the Bridge Program in the U.S.: Literacy-ESL for Young Adult Refugees. Heide Spruck Wrigley, one of the authors of the landmark What Works Study of Literacy-ESL practices referenced above (Condelli and Wrigley, 2008) describes a dangerous out-of-school and out of mind attitude that is prevalent in the United States a laissez-faire mindset that contributes to the marginalization of at-risk young adult literacy learners. This attitude with its significant policy and program implications produces damaging consequences in the lives of these young people; it is also detrimental to the communities in which they live and to the wider American society, which comes up a loser when the learning and earning capacities of a group of young people are stunted. Wrigley writes: In the US, at least, we have large numbers of immigrant students who are uneducated but whose lives go largely unnoticed since they are no longer in the school system. The most vulnerable among out-of-school youth are students who come in late adolescence [who lack proficiency in English] To help these students build the strong academic skills so they can be on par with their English speaking peers and graduate from high school is a challenging task and many schools are unsuccessful in doing so. As a result, we find thousands of youth who are outside of the formal system .they nevertheless have a strong need to continue their education so as to create a better life for themselves, move out of poverty, and find work that can sustain themselves and a family (Wrigley, 2010, p. 28). Young adult refugees who lack both literacy skills and English language proficiency are arguably the most vulnerable and marginalized subset of the wider group of Literacy-ESL young adult learners, for they also carry the added burden of their experience as refugees. They did not choose to emigrate but were forced to flee from their homes and move into a new culture; they cannot return to their country of origin due to a well-founded fear of persecution, danger, and even death. As refugees, they have experienced varying degrees of trauma, interrupted schooling, and dislocation; many

13

have spent considerable time in refugee camps before being cleared for resettlement. With many of their formative years spent under such circumstances, they face significant cultural and psychological challenges as they seek to negotiate their lifes path in American culture, not by their own or their parents choice. Chicago has many literacy and ESL programs and a wide array of individuals and organizations with extensive experience and deep commitment to assisting learners acquire both literacy skills and English language proficiency: schools (both public and private), local, state, and national government agencies, community organizations, colleges and universities, among others. Funding is always an issue and it certainly is now, in the midst of state and federal funding constrictions and the Canadian Bridge Program is a resource-intensive (and expensive) model of intervention, with its intensive schedule of instruction and small class size. And yet it has a proven track record of: (1) integrating literacy and ESL training in an effective communicative language program that is well-structured, research-informed, and has rigorous expectations (in alignment with Canadian government benchmarks); (2) providing services to a strongly motivated group of young adult literacy learners; (3) focusing explicitly on preparation of literacy learners for other educational opportunities (college or career track), rather than just focusing on survival English; and (4) connecting intentionally and systematically with stakeholders in a common concern for the whole person. This paper suggests that the Bridge Program warrants serious consideration by Literacy-ESL stakeholders in the U.S. (Chicago) context, which could lead to its possible adaptation. A rigorous needs assessment similar to that which shaped the Bridge Program, involving the full spectrum of stakeholders discussed above, would be an important first step in this process. Such a pilot program would require government or foundation funding and the interest of an educational institution like Bow Valley College (possibly a college in the Chicago city system) in hosting such a pilot. This would provide an ideal academic context for comparing/contrasting the framework of integrated Literacy-ESL instruction articulated in the Canadian Benchmarks with the Illinois ESL Content Standards, deriving important insights into ways the current U.S./Illinois system might be strengthened. A specific target group for such an adaptation might be young adult refugees who lack literacy skills in their L1 and have limited proficiency in English. As noted above, this is one of the most at-risk subsets of young adults; it is also one that the federal government has a clear responsibility for, given its explicit international commitment to refugee resettlement. However, one of the governments stated interests is that refugees not remain a burden on tax-payer
14

resources and that, through employment, refugees quickly achieve financial independence. A well-structure pilot program (with longitudinal follow-up) might test the costs and the benefits to students and the wider society of early, intense investment in Literacy-ESL training in contrast to on-the-job or after hours ESL and literacy training. Targeting young adult refugees who have aged out of high school but still lack literacy skills both in their L1 and/or in English would address the pressing needs of a clearly defined, at-risk group. It would also provide an opportunity to learn more about the scaffolding that is needed for learners to achieve L2 literacy (where L1 literacy is minimal or nonexistence) while they are learning English learners whose needs are multi-faceted needs and whose classroom learning may be affected by the impact of earlier trauma. (See Finn 2010 for a discussion of factors relating to adult refugee trauma survivors in learning communities.) Findings from this pilot could assist high schools, with their not insignificant refugee and immigrant populations, to create classes that are more responsive to refugee student needs, as well as those of other immigrant Literacy-ESL learners. Indeed, in the building of the stakeholder network, strong involvement of feeder high school(s) would be an important element. An additional element that might speak for the selection of young adult refugee as the target group is the connection of congregations and other citizen groups that have worked with resettlement agencies in the early stages of refugee resettlement. It is possible that, with careful planning, their early involvement might be expanded to include subsequent scholarship support that could help facilitate full-time, day-time study by refugee young adults. The Bridge Programs strong case management approach could also provide a model for helping young adult refugees to negotiate systems and overcome the barriers to success, and the integration of an essential skills component could be calibrated to the U.S. National Work Readiness Credential Nation [Reference I.B.9, above]. This would be in alignment with the governments push toward employability, but it would explicitly reject any assumption that a lack of literacy, resulting from circumstances beyond young adult refugees control, should inevitably mean a lifetime of dead-end jobs and poverty. Indeed, establishment of such a pilot could undergird advocacy by literacy and ESL stakeholders for government policy and support that takes into account the special challenges faced by language minority students who have limited L2 language and literacy skills, while at the same time offering an academically rigorous curriculum that prepares students for transition to training and higher education (Wrigley, p. 37).

15

V. Conclusion. The intensive and innovative Canadian Bridge Program has a proven track record of enabling a high percentage of its literacy-challenged ESL young adult learners to transition into college studies or career-enhancing continuing education. Adaptation of this program to the US context with a specific target population of young adult refugees learners, which would be informed by a careful needs assessment and shaped by intentional engagement with the network of stakeholders, could fill a significant gap in educational services, provide learnings that could inform future program and policy development, and provide a pathway out of life-long poverty and marginalization for a particularly vulnerable and at-risk group of young people.

16

LIST OF APPENDICES Note: Appendix A - Appendix F are provided in hard copy only; Appendix G is provided electronically, along with a link to the initial written needs assessment tool on Survey Monkey.

Appendix A: Appendix B: Part 1: Part 2: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G:

Example (Phase III) of the Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: ESL for Literacy Learners Bridge Program Outcomes and Expectations Outcomes in Each of the Three Skill Areas (Reading and Writing, Learning Strategies, Essential Skills) Reading and Writing Expectations, Levels II and III. Bridge Program Grammar Scope and Sequence Bridge Program Model of Strategy Instruction Bridge Program Common Structure for Thematic Units and Program Overview Bridge Program Building Relationships Needs Assessments: Initial Learner Survey In-class Vocabulary Building Task and Assessment

17

APPENDIX G: Needs Assessment Tool and Activity for a Level II Literacy-ESL Class, patterned on the Canadian Bridge Program model Should a Literacy-ESL program modeled on the Canadian Bridge Program be developed, it would be characterized by a strong and systematized commitment to initial, ongoing, and final assessments and evaluations of the kind described above (pp. 12-13). The following two assessments a combination of a written needs assessment and a teacher-student conversation (Part 1) plus an in-class vocabulary-building activity that also serves as a needs assessment (Part 1) would be within the sphere of ongoing teacher-developed evaluations that enable classroom activities to be geared to students interests and their competency levels and to address gaps in their knowledge. Initial One-on-one Needs Assessment, with Written Input. For the initial needs assessment, the teacher would have a one-on-one conversation with each student within the first week of class, asking the questions found in Part 1 of this appendix. Prior to this conversation, students would be asked to fill out the shorter written assessment (found on Survey Monkey - http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XDNVY2C ); this could be done online or with a written handout, depending on the ability of students to utilize the online channel. (This activity could also be coordinated with the initial testing/placement process for new students.) The written form alone might not yield enough solid information to be helpful, given the literacy focus of this course and the initial reading and writing skills level of students in the Level II Literacy-ESL class (initial reading Grade 1-2 equivalency, writing not yet forming sentences; see Appendix B, Part 2). The teacher would also have the end-of-class assessments for a majority of the class from their previous teacher (and fellow team member) in the program. Yet, especially given new students in the class, an initial very simple written assessment complemented by a related oral one would provide useful information. Care would need to be taken to ensure that a written form would not be overwhelming, so the most simple of words would need to be used. It is likely that the students will have at least some proficiency in spoken English. (Some could, in fact, be quite fluent but not have comparable reading and writing skills.) The information gathered by the oral interview, which would complement the information the teacher would have received from the written questionnaire, from programs earlier placement tests, and from past teacher assessments would help the teacher to assess the oral proficiency of each student; it would also provide initial information about each students background and how he/she engages with the teacher. If the students are able to do so, it might also be helpful to have them share what type of ESL learning comes easily to them and

18

what comes harder, as well as what strategies they use help them to learn to read, write, listen and speak in English. Of course, those who were in the Bridge Program adaptation in the entry level course would have a certain advantage over newer students; they would likely have the capacity to respond more easily to questions about learning strategies, having had previous explicit instruction on them. Nonetheless, their self-assessment of what has worked for them would provide valuable information and the teacher would also learn if new students have been exposed to such strategy instruction. Since, in this program, teachers would have occasional access to an English speaker from the refugee communities who could assist with translation, the possibility exists to schedule a more in-depth conversation, should that be necessary for specific students; this might be a good option for the newer students, for whom less information is available. In-class Vocabulary Activity and Assessment. Part 2 of this appendix is a classroom activity that would be done early in the course if possible, within the first week. It is based upon the Class Dictionary activity developed by Tessa Woodward (2001) and would enable the teacher to assess what vocabulary students have immediate access to. This is particularly important, since it would fall to each teacher in the Bridge Program adaptation to assess students vocabulary gaps and design activities to help meet learner needs in this area. As noted above (p. 9), building vocabulary is key to advancement for Literacy-ESL learners. In addition to helping the teacher gain an early assessment of students working vocabulary, this exercise is also a vocabulary builder (refresher); it also encourages awareness of word groups, and, early on in the course, underscores the cooperative nature of classroom learning through group and pair work. This combination of individual, small group, and class activity would not be an isolated activity; rather, building and maintaining a class dictionary would become a regular feature throughout the course (and perhaps the whole program). An additional layer of this activity, given the specific literacy context, would be an oral activity that discover what words members of the group might know from oral conversation and be able to produce, but do not know how to write. Thus, this initial class activity would also give the teacher a sense of how wide the oral-written gap is (if it exists) in this particular group of learners.

19

Appendix G, Part 1: Needs Assessment Questions for One-on-one Conversations with Students Week 1 (The Survey Monkey instrument includes a subset of these questions.) Questions for one-on-one conversations with students would include the following, but the conversation would not rigidly follow this format (especially the follow-up questions) if doing so would place undue pressure on students, given their proficiency levels: What is your name? What do you like to be called? Where do you come from? What part of [name specific country] do you come from? (Have map available) What is your first language? Do you speak other languages? How long have you been in the U.S.? How many years did you go to school in [name specific country]? o When did you have to stop going to school? o Why? Did you like learning to read and write in your country of origin? How long have you been learning English? o Have you studied it in classes? Where? o Are you learning it in other ways? How do you remember things best: when you see them, hear them, or do them? Did you work in your home country? Do you have a job here? o If so, what do you do? o Do you speak English at work? Do you take care of children, parents, or others? o Do you speak English at home? What do you like doing in English classes: read, write, talk, or listen? What would you like to do after finishing these classes? Do you have any questions for me?

Adapted from Bridge Program Initial Needs Assessment

The actual SurveyMonkey instrument is included in the hard copy version of this paper. The link to the survey is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XDNVY2C.

20

Appendix G, Part 2: Needs Assessment In-class Vocabulary Activity and Assessment (Week 1 and Continuing) Class Dictionary (Teacher Instructions) Class size: 12 students; Group work in groups of 6. 45 minutes (1) Prior to class, write a list of eight topics on the board very general areas that have been covered in Level I, with blank lines underneath. Example:

FOOD

FAMILY

___ ___ ___ ___

___ ___ _ ___

___________ ___ ___ ___

(2) Explain that the class will be building a class dictionary during this course, beginning today, starting with the words they already know and that the activity they will be doing today is the first step in that process. Walk through the eight words on the board to ensure comprehension; explain that they will be asked to add specific words under these categories. Solicit at least one example for each and write it one the appropriate line on the board. Ask if there is any category that they would like to add, and solicit examples in the same way, if any additional categories are suggested. (3) Explain that the class will get to choose which six topics they want to focus on and invite individuals to raise their hands and say which ones they want to choose, with the first six mentioned the ones the class will focus on. (4) Break the class into two groups and ask them to make a circle with their chairs. Give each student a sheet of paper with a blank box and several lines underneath (above, right). Assign to two students (one from each of the two group) one of the six topics chosen; ask him/her to write down that word in the box, and the example underneath. Repeat until all six categories are assigned and all twelve students have a category. (5) Ask each student to write down all the words he/she knows under their specific category; have dictionaries available so they can check spelling of the words they already know. Circulate to engage with students. (6) When they have done so, ask students to pass the paper to the person in their group who is sitting on their left. Individual students first check/correct spelling on the paper they received, and then add new words in the same category. This step is repeated until all have had a chance to work with all six categories. (7) After all have done this, ask the students to get up and find the person in the other group that has in his/her hand the same category they ended up with, and work with that person in a pair (e.g., the person in Group 1 holding the family category works with the person in Group 2 who ended up with that groups family sheet at the end of the exercise). The pairs will compare and add to their sheet any words found by the other group that their group did not list. (8) Then, in the whole class, ask if there are any words in these categories that students might have known how to say, but didnt know how to write, working through each category. If there are, write them on the board and ask whichever two students are holding the paper with that category to write down that new word. (9) Pass out a clean sheet, same as the earlier one, to each student and ask him/her to take it home, and, after checking the spelling in a dictionary of the words on list they have gathered, correct any misspellings, rewrite the list, and bring the clean sheet back to class. In the next class, look these over and put them into two separate class dictionary notebooks, which can be added to throughout the course. Adapted from Woodward, 2001, pp. 33-34

21

REFERENCES Condelli, L. and Wrigley, H. (2008). The What Works Study: instruction, literacy and language earning for adult ESL literacy students. Published in S. Reder and J. Bynner (Eds.). Tracking Adult Literacy and Numeracy Skills: Findings from Longitudinal Research. London & New York: Routledge. Finn, H.B. (2010). Overcoming barriers: adult refugee trauma survivors in a learning community. TESOL Quarterly, 44(3):286-296. Florez, M.C. and Terrill, L. (2003). Working with Literacy-Level, Adult English Language Learners. Center for Applied Linguistics. (Retrieved from the World Wide Web, Feburary 2013.) Foster, J., DeHesus, P., and Obrzut, G. (2007). Illinois ESL Content Standards. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Community College Board Adult Education and Family Literacy. Graves, K (2000). Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle Press. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Jacobson, E., Degener, S. and Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Creating Authentic Materials and Activities for the Adult Literacy Classroom: A Handbook for Practitioners . National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. (Retrieved from the World Wide Web, Feburary 2013.) Johansson, L., Angst, N., Beer, B., Martin, S., Rebek, W, and Sibilleau, N. (2000) Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: ESL for Literacy Learners. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Center for Canadian Language Benchmarks. Leong, M & Collins, L. (2007). Bridging the Gap: A Framework for Teaching and Transitioning Low Literacy Immigrant Youth. Alberta, Canada: Bow Valley College. Perry, K. (2007). More of the people want to know English: Sudanese refugee adults participation in ESL programs. University of Kentucky. (Accessed online, Feburary 2013, part of the Purcell-Gates Cultural Practices of Literacy Study.) Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E. and Soler, M. (2002). Impact of authentic adult literacy instruction on adult literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1):70-92. Reder, S. (2010). Adult Literacy Development and Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy. Schaetzel, K., Young, S. and Center for Applied Linguistics Staff. (2010). Education for Adult English Language Learners in the United States: Trends, Research, and Promising Practices. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. (Supported by funding from the US Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.)
22

Woodward, Tessa. (2001). Planning Lessons and Courses: Designing Sequences of Work for the Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press. Wrigley, H.S. and Guth, G. (1993, revised 2000) Bringing Literacy to Life: Issues and Options in Adult ESL Literacy. Aguirre International, CA/U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education Wrigley, H.S, (2003) What Works in ESL Literacy? Aguirre International. (PowerPoint presentation, retrieved from World Wide Web, February 2013.) Wrigley, H.S. (2010) Serving Low Literate Immigrant and Refugee Youth: Challenges and Promising Practices. Wall, L. and Leong, eds. 2009 LESLLA Conference Papers. Bow Valley College, Calgary, Ontario, Canada. (Retrieved from the World Wide Web, February 2013.)

23