Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 206
8
Language and Literacy Development
of English Language Learners
A growing number of adolescents and adults in the United States use a
language other than English at home and require support to develop spoken
and written English. In the United States, of the 280.8 million people ages
5 and older, 55 million (19.6 percent) speak a language other than English
at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009, American Community Survey).
More than 18 percent of those who speak a language other than English at
home are below the poverty level (versus 11.6 percent of those who speak
only English at home), and 31.2 percent have less than a high school educa-
tion (versus 11.7 percent of English only speakers). The percentage of those
without a high school education is higher among those who speak Spanish
or Spanish Creole at home (more than 41 percent).
According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)
(Kutner et al., 2007), which in 2003 assessed the literacy of native- and
foreign-born adults living in the United States, approximately 11 million
adults (5 percent of the U.S. population) were estimated to be nonliterate
in English (though not necessarily in their first language) and so lacked suf-
ficient English language proficiency to be assessed in English (Kutner et al.,
2007). Among those with some English proficiency, the percentage of His-
panics with below average English prose and document literacy increased
from 1992 to 2003.
English language learners are the largest group enrolled in adult educa-
tion programs, with 43 percent of adult learners enrolled in English as a
second language (ESL) programs in the 2001-2002 program year (Tamassia
et al., 2007). In the 2006-2007 program year, more than 1 million adults
were enrolled in ESL programs that were part of state-administered, fed-
206
OCR for page 207
207
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
erally funded adult education programs. This figure is likely to be an un-
derestimate because it does not include nonnative speakers in adult basic
education and adult secondary education (general educational development
[GED]) classes or in ESL classes offered by private organizations.
The adults who participate in ESL classes are diverse in terms of lan-
guages spoken, education levels, literacy skill in the first language, and
knowledge of English (Burt, Peyton, and Adams, 2003). Some are highly
educated in their home countries and have strong academic backgrounds;
others are recent immigrants with low levels of education and first language
literacy. The numbers of adults in ESL classes who have limited education
in their home countries continues to grow (Center for Applied Linguis-
tics, 2010; Condelli, Wrigley and Yoon, 2009; Purcell-Gates et al., 2002;
Strucker and Davidson, 2003). Other adults are born in the United States
or came to the United States as young children but have grown up with a
home language other than English (Tamassia et al., 2007). Though educated
in U.S. schools, these adults can be unprepared for work and higher educa-
tion (Burt, Peyton and Adams, 2003; Thonus 2003; Wrigley et al., 2009),
and many drop out before completing high school.
Despite the need for English language and literacy instruction, adult
ESL programs have had limited success. A 7-year longitudinal study of non-
credit ESL classes showed that only about 8 percent of more than 38,000
learners made the transition to other academic (credit) studies (Spurling,
Seymour, and Chisman, 2008). In fact, 44 percent advanced only one
literacy level, as defined by the U.S. Department of Education’s National
Reporting System for adult literacy programs. Persistence was also an issue.
Half of the learners who did not advance attended fewer than 50 hours of
instruction. Most of those who advanced received 50 or more hours of in-
struction, taking on average 50 to 149 hours of attendance (usually referred
to as “100 instruction hours”) to advance one level.
This chapter has four parts. Part one presents a brief orienting dis-
cussion of the component skills of English learners. Part two summarizes
research on the various factors (cognitive, linguistic, social, affective, and
cultural) that influence the development of literacy in a second language.
Part three identifies practices to develop language and literacy instruction
that warrant application and further study with adults developing their
English language and literacy skills outside school. The available research
does not allow for conclusions about effective approaches to literacy in-
struction. Thus, the chapter concludes with a summary and discussion of
priorities for research to develop effective approaches to instruction for
this population.
In this chapter, we draw on several recent systematic reviews of re-
search on effective instructional practices for English language learners,
augmented with targeted searches to update or expand on previous find-
OCR for page 208
208 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
ings. The available research is quite limited. In their study of “what works”
for English language learners in adult literacy education, Condelli and
Wrigley (2004) identified only one study of ESL students that measured
a literacy outcome and included a design without confounds. Similarly,
Torgerson and colleagues (2004) examined almost 5,000 reports on adult
literacy and numeracy interventions, and only 3 randomized controlled
trial designs focused on English as a second language. Adams and Burt
(2002) cast a much wider net in their search for research on adult language
learners between 1980 and 2001 to include experimental, descriptive, and
practitioner studies from journals, books, reports, and dissertations. The 44
studies reviewed had methodological weaknesses, such as too few partici-
pants, unreliable measures, inadequately described practices and outcomes,
and no comparison tasks or groups, which prevented drawing conclusions
about the effectiveness of the approaches. Several of the studies focused
on language learners in English preparatory classes before attending col-
lege, who are likely to differ in several ways (education level, first language
literacy proficiency, socioeconomic status) from the broader population of
English language learners. These results are consistent with a recent review
of adult literacy instruction research available from the U.S. Department
of Education (Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley, 2010). Similarly, the
committee located four studies (two of adults in adult education and two
of students in developmental college education courses) from 1990 to 2010
with the criterion that the research include at least one quantitative measure
of literacy skill (see Appendix C). Because studies are so few and the ones
available suffer from various methodological constraints, it is not possible
to draw strong conclusions about effective instructional practices.
Given the limited research on the literacy development of adult English
language learners in the United States, we also draw from a broader base
of knowledge on second language and literacy development, which includes
relatively well-educated adults and young children in K-12 education. Be-
cause a main challenge of literacy development for this population is learn-
ing a second language, we review research related to the development of
both spoken and written language.
For simplicity, we use the term English language learners in this chapter
to refer to foreign-born and native-born adults who are developing their
English language skills and refer to other adults as native English speak-
ers. On occasion we use more specific terms provided by study authors
when referring to individual research studies. The research and sources of
information reviewed in this chapter often do not include, however, precise
or consistent ways of defining particular subgroups of the English learner
population. In future research, more standard terms and definitions will be
needed to refer to segments of this population to facilitate the accumulation
of reliable, valid, and more interpretable research findings.
OCR for page 209
209
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
COMPONENT LITERACY SKILLS OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
The available research, though limited, suggests that, compared with
adult native speakers with low literacy in adult education programs, adult
English language learners with low literacy in these programs show weaker
vocabulary, passage comprehension, and sight word reading skills but bet-
ter phonological processing (decoding nonwords) and somewhat better
phonological awareness (Nanda, Greenberg, and Morris, 2010; see Chap-
ter 2 for discussion of the components of reading). Similarly, Strucker et al.
(2007) find that adult native speakers and English language learners tend
to have different patterns of strengths and weaknesses as beginning read-
ers. Language learners show weaknesses in vocabulary and comprehension
but relative strength in decoding, whereas native speakers with low literacy
tend to show the opposite pattern (Alamprese, 2009; MacArthur et al.,
2010a). Even for those highly literate in their first language, some explicit
teaching of English decoding rules may be needed to fill gaps in knowledge
(Davidson and Strucker, 2002).
Findings for poor readers in middle school, who are more likely than
proficient readers to need literacy instruction as adults, show a range of
difficulties that are comparable for both native speakers of English and
students with a different home language (Lesaux and Kieffer, 2010). Some
students show global difficulties with language, decoding, and comprehen-
sion of text. Others have accurate and automatic decoding but poor general
and academic vocabulary that affects comprehension. Still others have ac-
curate but slow decoding and so are not fluent readers.
With good instruction, young adolescent language learners can per-
form at similar levels to native speakers on word recognition, spelling, and
phonological processing tasks (Lesaux, Rupp, and Siegel, 2007). Similarly,
adult language learners can develop decoding skills that are equivalent to
native speakers (Alamprese, 2009). For both native speakers and language
learners, once decoding is efficient, English oral proficiency (usually as-
sessed by vocabulary and listening comprehension) predicts English read-
ing comprehension, in higher grades (Lesaux and Kieffer, 2010). However,
young language learners often score considerably lower than native speak-
ers on English reading comprehension tasks (Goldenberg, 2008; Nakamoto,
Lindsey, and Manis, 2008). Although adult language learners (and native
speakers) can establish basic decoding skills quickly with good instruction,
they need help with developing their reading skills beyond the intermediate
fourth and fifth grade levels (Sabatini et al., 2010; Strucker, Yamamoto, and
Kirsch, 2007). Vocabulary and comprehension skills have been particularly
difficult to change with instruction, however.
Vocabulary and background knowledge are usually underdeveloped for
English learners, in part because they lack the English skills needed to learn
OCR for page 210
210 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
through the texts and social and instructional interactions in schools, which
are in English. Like native speakers, English language learners must gain
facility with academic English, which has some features that differ from
conversational English (Snow, 2010). For language learners, conversational
English can develop in a few years (Collier, 1987), but becoming proficient
with an academic language takes longer because it has its own jargon,
linguistic structures, and formats, which can be specific to a discipline.
These features of academic language need to be explicitly highlighted and
supported during instruction (Achugar and Schleppegrell, 2005; de Jong,
2004; Schleppegrell, 2007). Some researchers emphasize that mastery of
academic language is the single most important determinant of academic
success for adolescents who have been in U.S. schools for less than 2 years
(Francis et al., 2006).
INFLUENCES ON LANGUAGE AND LITERACY
IN A SECOND LANGUAGE
Several factors affect the development of language and literacy in a
second language and are important to consider in the design of effective
instructional practices for segments of the English learner population. These
factors include degree and type of first language knowledge, education level,
English language proficiency, age, aptitude for language, reading and learn-
ing disabilities, and cultural and background knowledge.
First Language Knowledge and Education Level
Among adults, years of education in the primary language correlates
with English literacy development (Condelli, Wrigley, and Yoon, 2009;
Fitzgerald and Young, 1997; Strucker and Davidson, 2003). A detailed
statistical analysis involving thousands of immigrants in Australian literacy
programs shows that age and education in the home country were the
two main predictors of literacy (Ross, 2000). Research with young stu-
dents, including instructional intervention studies, also shows that to the
degree that students have a strong literacy foundation in a first language,
their first language literacy proficiency helps English literacy development
(Farver, Lonigan, and Eppe, 2009; Goldenberg, 2008; for a meta-analysis,
see Slavin and Cheung, 2005). For adolescents, self-reported first language
and English proficiency in eighth grade predict English reading comprehen-
sion outcomes in grades 8, 10, and 12 as well as postsecondary achieve-
ment (occupational prestige, postsecondary education). Using data from the
National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), Guglielmi (2008) found
that self-reported language proficiency of Hispanic learners predicted both
initial levels of English reading and rates of improvement and through
OCR for page 211
211
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
that, high school and post–high school achievement. (Similar results were
not found, however, for Asians who spoke various first languages, such as
Chinese, Filipino, or Korean.)
Effects of the first language on second language processes. Precisely
how language and literacy in a first language affects second language devel-
opment needs to be studied more thoroughly to understand how best to fa-
cilitate second language acquisition, especially for less educated adults. The
extensive literature on bilingualism (knowledge of two spoken languages)
is beginning to suggest ways in which a first language may help to support
second language growth. Although more experimental research is needed,
modern research methods that include behavioral, psychophysiological, and
neuroimaging techniques have been used to study questions of bilingualism,
such as how two languages are represented in the brain and whether paral-
lel lexicons coexist for bilinguals or if they possess one integrated lexicon.
Less is known about the development of more than two languages, and so
we have restricted our focus to the bilingual case.
Psycholinguistic research has mainly looked at how knowledge of
two languages affects comprehension and production of each one. Does
a bilingual person using one language activate the same information in
the other language while listening or speaking? Such parallel activation
across languages has been observed in many experiments, in the form of
cross-language ambiguity effects, for example: Whereas “hotel” has the
same meanings in Dutch and English, “room” has different meanings (it
means “cream” in Dutch). A Dutch-English bilingual will briefly (and un-
consciously) activate both meanings of the word “room,” quickly choosing
the one that is appropriate to the language being used. Similarly, words that
are pronounced differently in two languages (e.g., “coin” in French and
English) produce interference in silent reading compared with words with
very similar pronunciations (e.g., “piano”); (Kroll and Linck, 2007, 2009).
Similar effects occur in comprehending sentences, as measured by word-
by-word reading times, eye movements, and evoked potential measures.
These effects are modulated by such factors as an individual’s familiarity
with each language and the relative frequencies of the word in different
languages. However, they suggest that knowledge of a second language
becomes closely interlinked to knowledge of a first language, making it diffi-
cult to inhibit activation of the alternative language under many conditions.
Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging also support that
the two languages share brain structures and circuits instead of having seg-
regated ones (Abutalebi, 2008; Abutalebi, Cappa, and Perani, 2001). The
degree of overlap appears to depend on such factors as the age at which the
second language was learned and second language proficiency. Individuals
whose knowledge of the second language is relatively weak, for example,
have shown greater activation of frontal regions that reflect more cognitive
OCR for page 212
212 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
effort and use of working memory. For skilled bilinguals, switching between
languages involves increased attention or executive functions also associ-
ated with the frontal lobe, areas that are not as activated in monolingual
language processing. These additional processes can be expected to provide
cognitive benefits, specifically enhanced executive function and skill in al-
locating attention (see Bialystok et al., 2005).
Adults bring an already well-developed system for processing a first
language that affects processing specific features of the second language.
For example, language learners appear to be aware of grammatical struc-
tures that are similarly marked in both of their languages (e.g., auxiliary
verbs used in progressive tense: “estar” in Spanish versus is in English)
or unique to a second language (determiner gender marking “un/una” in
Spanish). However, if a linguistic structure is marked differently in the
second language, it may not be noticed (e.g., determiners of number agree-
ment in “el/los” in Spanish versus “the/the” in English) (Tokowicz and
MacWhinney, 2005). To summarize, recent findings from behavioral and
neurobiological research imply that the role of the primary language cannot
be ignored during the learning of a second language.
Literacy skills across languages and possibilities for transfer. Transfer
from a native language to English depends on the overlap in characteristics
between the two languages. Learning to read English involves matching
distinctive visual symbols to units of sound in the spoken language (see
Chapter 2; Ziegler and Goswami, 2006). Language learners may be famil-
iar with writing systems that differ in their degree of similarity to English;
for example, a native Spanish speaker will be familiar with an alphabetic
system like the one for English, whereas a native Chinese speaker will
know a nonalphabetic system. Moreover, some languages do not have a
written form. Languages that do have a writing system represent their oral
languages in different ways, both in terms of the symbols used as well as
the phonological units that are represented in print. Some languages are
nonalphabetic and represent morphological and phonological rather than
purely phonological information (e.g., Japanese Kanji and Chinese). Some
languages have alphabetic writing systems but use a non-Latin script (e.g.,
Korean, Russian, Hebrew). Even alphabetic languages that use the Latin
script can be very different from English (e.g., Malay, Turkish, Welsh).
Languages differ in availability (which phonological units are more sa-
lient in the spoken language), consistency (the number of possible mappings
in word recognition and spelling—more specifically, the number of different
pronunciations for orthographic units and the number of different spellings
for phonological units), and granularity (the nature of orthographic units
that need to be learned to access the phonology). For example, in Chinese
many different characters need to be learned, whereas in languages like
Spanish a small subset of letters is enough to represent phonemes accu-
OCR for page 213
213
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
rately. English is in between: single letters represent phonemes, but because
of the inconsistencies at the phoneme level, larger units (such as onset
rimes) provide more systematic information on how to pronounce a word.
For example, vowel /a/ can be pronounced differently by itself in different
words (“car/lake/pat”), but in a larger rime unit (such as “/-at/”) it is pro-
nounced the same way (“hat/cat/mat”). Even young beginning readers are
sensitive to the characteristics of their spoken language and find it easier to
perform the phonological awareness tasks that focus on the salient units in
their spoken language (Durgunoğlu and Oney, 1999; Ziegler and Goswami,
2006). Depending on a language’s characteristics (consistency, availability,
and granularity), learning to decode can be almost trivial or take longer.
For individuals literate in their home language, the first language writ-
ing system and how it represents the oral language affects the strategies
used in English decoding. For example, when college students who are
highly literate in a first language are learning English, Japanese and Chinese
speakers rely on visual cues more than Korean or Persian speakers because
the latter two groups have a phonologically based rather than morphemi-
cally based writing system, although all four of the groups use non-Latin
scripts (Akamatsu, 2003; Hamada and Koda, 2008; Koda, 1999).
If adult English learners are not literate in their first language, then
literacy development in English has to include instruction to develop sen-
sitivity to the phonological units of English, the English alphabet, and the
mappings at both phonemes and larger units. For individuals who are
already literate in their first language and already have a metacognitive
understanding of spelling-sound mappings, word recognition and spelling
skills develop rapidly (Burt, Peyton, and Adams, 2003), especially when
instruction highlights the specific characteristics of English.
If certain skills and strategies are available to a learner in a first lan-
guage, building on them may help to develop literacy in a second lan-
guage (for reviews see Dressler and Kamil, 2006; Durgunoğlu, 2002, 2009;
Genesee and Geva, 2006). For language learners, proficiency in phonologi-
cal awareness is positively related across two languages, even when the first
language is not similar to English (for a review, see Branum-Martin et al.,
2006; Genesee and Geva, 2006; Swanson et al., 2008). Decoding skills
in a first language overlap with decoding skills in English as the second
language, even across a span of 10 years (Sparks et al., 2009a, 2009b),
suggesting that decoding skill in a first language supports decoding in a
second language. As children gain more experience in English, English
decoding becomes a stronger predictor of English reading comprehension
than Spanish decoding (Gottardo and Mueller, 2009; Manis, Lindsey, and
Bailey, 2004; Nakamoto, Lindsey, and Manis, 2008). The results look dif-
ferent for spelling: spelling in a first language (mostly Spanish) is either not
OCR for page 214
214 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
related or negatively related to proficiency with English spelling (Rolla San
Francisco et al., 2006).
Vocabulary knowledge across the two languages of language learn-
ers is relatively independent (Cobo-Lewis et al., 2002; Nakamoto et al.,
2008). However, the metacognitive aspects of vocabulary knowledge, such
as knowing how to construct formal definitions, are related across the two
languages (Durgunoğlu, Peynircioğlu, and Mir, 2002; Ordoñez et al., 2002).
In addition, proficiency with explicit analytic processing or awareness of
language (e.g., of morphology or cognates) in a first language correlates
with having these skills in the second language (Deacon, Wade-Woolley,
and Kirby, 2007; Nagy et al., 1993).
Good readers use similar comprehension strategies in both of their
languages (Jiménez, 1997; Langer et al., 1990; van Gelderen et al., 2007).
Writing proficiency is also correlated across the two languages of language
learners: good writers use similar writing strategies in both of their lan-
guages (Durgunoğlu, Mir, and Arino-Marti, 2002; Schoonen et al., 2003).
These findings point to possibilities for applying knowledge and skills
in a first language to the second language when the literacy tasks involve
analyzing language structure (phonology, morphology) or using metacogni-
tive strategies. When the tasks involve language-specific patterns (e.g., or-
thographic rules for spelling, meanings of items), the data suggest limited or
no transfer. The available data are correlations, however. Experiments are
still needed to determine whether specific literacy skills may be leveraged for
the development of more efficient instructional approaches. In addition, it
is not yet known how much these relationships are due to the learner trans-
ferring a specific skill from the first language to the second language and
how much they are due to common underlying proficiencies that may be
less sensitive to instruction. For example, although metacognitive strategies
in a first language may be spontaneously accessed and used in the second
language, or have the potential for transfer with instruction, other shared
cognitive processes (e.g., working memory in phonological awareness) may
be less amenable to change.
English Language Proficiency
For young language learners, proficiency with speaking English strongly
predicts growth in English reading comprehension, and those with higher
English proficiency reach reading comprehension levels of their native
speaker peers (Kieffer, 2008). One crucial influence on reading comprehen-
sion is vocabulary. Grabe and Stoller (2002) and Laufer (1997) estimated
that one needs at least 3,000 words in a second language to read inde-
pendently in that language. The greater the number of unknown words
in a text, the more text comprehension suffers (Hsueh-chao and Nation,
OCR for page 215
215
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
2000). Zareva, Schwanenflugel, and Nikolova (2006) found that in order
to comprehend a college-level academic text, a vocabulary of about 9,000
words is needed. In addition to vocabulary breadth, the depth of one’s
vocabulary correlates with reading comprehension (Qian, 1999). Based on
their empirical work, Perfetti and Hart (2002) proposed the lexical quality
hypothesis, which states that rich, stable, and integrated word knowledge
(that includes orthographic, phonological, syntactic-semantic information)
facilitates word recognition, especially when decoding cues are weak (see
also Stanovich, 1980).
Explicitly teaching vocabulary can lead to significant improvement in
word knowledge and comprehension for both monolinguals and language
learners (August et al., 2009; Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux et al., 2010;
McKeown et al., 1985; Vaughn et al., 2009). Vocabulary develops not only
through explicit teaching but also through routine exposure to language,
especially print, which contains words and word structures used less often
in speech (Nagy, Herman, and Anderson, 1985). In native speakers, literacy
and degree of print exposure both predict growth in reading comprehen-
sion. Individuals with high levels of literacy do more reading and so develop
their vocabulary, comprehension, and general knowledge through text,
whereas those with lower proficiencies get less and less benefit from print.
Not only in childhood, but across the life span, vocabulary and knowledge
are predicted by print exposure (Stanovich, 1986; Stanovich, West, and
Harrison, 1995). This pattern has not been studied specifically with adult
language learners, but it is reasonable to expect that increased opportunities
to learn from print and other exposure to spoken English beyond explicit
instruction would help all learners.
For language learners in elementary and middle school, proficiency in
oral communication develops rapidly, whereas decontextualized and formal
language structures, such as those in academic settings, tend to take longer
to acquire through exposure to varied texts and routine social interactions
that support learning and practicing those forms of spoken and written lan-
guage. The development of academic language has not been systematically
investigated with adults, but a similar pattern can be expected. Most adult
language learners, especially if they were born in the United States, report
having good speaking skills, but according to the NAAL only a third had
literacy skills beyond the basic level (Wrigley et al., 2009).
An analysis of U.S. census data (Batalova and Fix, 2010) showed that
adults (both nonnative and native English speakers) who self-reported poor
oral English skills (ratings of not very well/not at all) also had poor docu-
ment literacy, but self-reports of good oral proficiency (ratings of very well/
well) did not predict literacy performance. For example, only 13 percent
of native speakers and only 9 percent of nonnative speakers (and only 13
percent of native speakers) who reported having good spoken English skills
OCR for page 216
216 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
were proficient on document literacy tasks. Although these self-reported re-
sults need to be interpreted with caution, they suggest a difference between
everyday communication skills in English and the English language skills
needed to comprehend more sophisticated material in different domains.
(The report did not state how many of the native speakers were second-
generation immigrants or Generation 1.5 who had not completed their
education.)
Age
An important question in the teaching of adults is whether age affects
the ability to acquire spoken and written language. In childhood, a first lan-
guage is learned rapidly and without explicit instruction or consistent feed-
back. Children exposed to two languages are able to learn both (Bialystok
and Hakuta, 1995), and hearing children of deaf parents become bilingual
in both speech and sign (Mayberry, 2009). Because the bilingual’s learning
task is more difficult, there are some differences in patterns of language
development compared with the single language learner (Genesee, 2001).
Some have hypothesized that a critical period for developing language
ends with puberty (Lenneberg, 1967), and others propose that the window
closes earlier (e.g., Pinker, 1994). Regardless of the exact timing, it is well
established that the ability to learn a second language declines with age.
The declines observed do not suggest, however, that literacy in a second
language cannot be achieved in adulthood at the levels required for career
and academic success. What they do imply is that learning a second lan-
guage will take more time and practice at later ages, and that even at high
levels of second language facility differences in spoken language might be
expected between a native and nonnative English speaker.
There are competing explanations for why the decline occurs, which
differ in their emphasis on biological versus environmental influences.
One theory emphasizes the role of neurobiological development (Newport,
1990; Stromswold, 1995): whereas the young brain is well suited to acquir-
ing languages rapidly and effortlessly, this capacity decreases because of
neurodevelopmental processes, such as dendritic proliferation and prun-
ing, and synapse elimination (Buonomano and Merzenich, 1998; Hensch,
2003). These neurodevelopmental changes are seen as similar to ones that
affect other capacities (e.g., vision, Daw, 1994) and occur in other species
(Doupe and Kuhl, 1999). This theory predicts an age-related discontinuity
in second language attainment associated with the closing of the critical
period for acquiring the skills of a native speaker (Johnson and Newport,
1989). Data from a recent large-scale study using U.S. census responses
show linear age-related declines in second language attainment but not the
OCR for page 225
225
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
more formal written input in authentic communications can be overwhelm-
ing. Although one option could be to simplify the input, such simplified
materials do not allow learners to experience the complex structures of the
second language that they need to learn. A more promising approach is to
use “elaborated” input (Long, 2009) that includes linguistic supports, such
as redundancy, paraphrasing, synonyms, clear signaling, and marking to
increase topic salience, making the information flow chronologically, using
shorter sentences, and so on. Likewise in written and especially spoken
language elaborations, instruction includes frequent clarification requests
and comprehension checks (Long, 2009; Yano, Long, and Ross, 1994).
However, making the language more comprehensible does not mean using
child-like content. Adult learners need materials that are interesting and
relevant to their knowledge development needs.
Development of Language and Knowledge for
Learning and Reading Comprehension
Francis and colleagues (2006) have compiled research-based recom-
mendations for helping adolescent newcomers in schools who have limited
English proficiencies and have difficulty especially with reading and writ-
ing academic texts. The literacy difficulties of these students may stem
from limited oral proficiency in English, limited exposure to English texts,
and possible gaps in background knowledge for the topic. Taking all of
these factors into consideration, it is suggested that effective instruction
for adolescent newcomers includes content-based literacy instruction, with
an emphasis on developing academic language. In this approach, there are
dual, integrated objectives: teachers address content through language and
teach language through content. In addition, explicit instruction is used to
teach reading comprehension and writing for academic purposes.
Effective vocabulary instruction for adolescent newcomers is explicit,
systematic, extensive, and intensive (Francis et al., 2006). Explicit instruc-
tion involves not only direct instruction of the meanings of specific key
words but also direct instruction in effective word learning strategies, such
as breaking words down into parts, using contextual clues, and using dic-
tionaries as references. Systematic instruction requires teachers to thought-
fully choose the key words that they teach and create multiple opportunities
for meaningful exposure to the words and their meanings. Extensive vo-
cabulary instruction is incorporated into every lesson, integrated across
the curriculum. Finally, intensive vocabulary instruction provides depth
of knowledge, such as an understanding of multiple meanings of words,
their different forms, and different contexts of use and situated in larger
conceptual frameworks. These instructional strategies are accompanied by
high-quality ongoing classroom assessments to monitor students’ progress
OCR for page 226
226 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
and, if needed, appropriate intervention for newcomers with word reading
difficulties (Francis et al., 2006).
Initiatives to improve the academic vocabulary of language learners in
upper elementary and middle schools (August et al., 2009; Lesaux, Kieffer,
and Kelley, 2009; Vaughn et al., 2009) have integrated the teaching of aca-
demic vocabulary with learning in content areas, such as social studies and
science. Instead of teaching vocabulary as an itemized list of new words,
the instruction integrates the words into discussion of what Vaughn et al.
(2009) calls “big ideas,” such as human rights. The target words are taught
using a combination of strategies, including reading, writing, oral discus-
sions, and multimedia (e.g., videos to build background knowledge). The
words are used and practiced in different contexts. In addition to teaching
specific words, these programs also explicitly model and teach word analy-
sis and comprehension strategies. Some also use students’ first language,
Spanish, as a resource. There is also peer support, dyad and group work
of the learners.
ALIAS (Academic Language Instruction for All Students) is a good
example of such a program developed for middle school students (Lesaux
et al., 2009). As the name implies, this program targets all students, both
native speakers and English language learners. The curriculum provides
rich and systematic instruction of high-utility academic words. There are
multiple, planned exposures to each word through reading, writing, class
discussions, and group activities. The students are encouraged to talk about
these concepts, engage through personal connections and class discus -
sions, and finally use the words in writing. The evaluation of the program
indicates that for native speakers as well as language learners, there was
significant growth in the targeted vocabulary, in word analysis, and, most
importantly, in reading comprehension—although it should be noted that
the size of the gain was relatively small compared with the amount of gain
needed, and the practical meaning of the gains was not clear.
As discussed in Chapter 3, contextualized literacy instruction is an
approach that is consistent with principles of learning and has sufficient
preliminary support to warrant further research on its effectiveness with
adults. Few data exist for adult language learners. The Integrated Basic
Education and Skills Training program, or I-BEST, in Washington state is a
program in which basic skills instructors and college-level career-technical
faculty jointly design and teach college-level occupational courses for adult
basic skills students. The program aims to increase successful completion
of postsecondary occupational education and training (Jenkins, Zeidenberg,
and Kienzl, 2009). The instruction of basic skills is integrated with instruc-
tion in college-level career-technical skills courses. The tracking of these
students for 2 years showed that I-BEST students (both adult basic educa-
tion and ESL students) had better basic skills (assessed by Comprehensive
OCR for page 227
227
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Adult Student Assessment Systems) and the persistence to continue their
education (e.g., earning college or vocational credits, certification). These
students were not randomly assigned, however, but rather self-selected into
I-BEST programs, so the results need to be interpreted cautiously. The ef-
fectiveness of embedded programs has not been evaluated systematically.
Observations and interviews indicate that teacher specialization or bound-
aries and coordination within programs can present challenges to effective
implementation (Cara et al., 2006; Guenther, 2002).
Access to Language and Literacy Practice Outside Classrooms
Learning continues outside the classroom where adult language learners
can experience continued interactions in both spoken and written English
(Reder, 2008). Successful language learning requires extensive second lan-
guage input and opportunities to interact with others and to use language
to express their own ideas, thoughts, and views (Ellis, 2009). Exposure
to rich language patterns is also helpful, because learners are quite sensi-
tive and readily notice the common patterns in a language (Vouloumanos,
2008). Thus, it is important not to isolate language learners from native
speakers and to maximize exposure to the second language using many
different venues.
Technology is a promising tool to provide practice outside the class-
room through opportunities to use Internet sites, distance learning, and
email. Although some new research has accumulated with adult language
learners, most research on technology’s effectiveness with this population
is old and ambiguous (Abraham, 2008; Torgerson, Porthouse, and Brooks,
2003). A new generation of research is needed because the feasibility, use-
fulness, and effectiveness of self-access models via technologies for adult
language learners have not been fully explored (Wrigley, 2009).
Leveraging Knowledge in the First Language, When Available
Given the possibilities of transfer discussed earlier, more needs to be
known about how best to use the first language to support development
of English literacy. It is also reasonable to expect that acknowledging and
valuing a learner’s first language are motivating, since they acknowledge
and build on the knowledge and capabilities of the learner. When the first
language is used as an aid to clarify instructions and tasks, learners show
more growth in second language reading comprehension and oral pro-
ficiency (Condelli, Wrigley, and Yoon, 2009). Systematic use of the first
language may not be feasible in many languages other than Spanish because
of lack of qualified teachers and materials.
OCR for page 228
228 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
Integrated Multimodal Instruction
Research with monolinguals indicates that higher order comprehen-
sion skills necessary for reading can also be developed through discussions
of material presented in different modalities, such as visual or auditory
(Kendeou et al., 2008). Using technology to present information in a vari-
ety of modalities shows particular promise for language instruction, since
language and content presented in a variety of modalities (visual, auditory,
text-based) reinforce each other. In addition, visual and auditory presenta-
tions can provide varied input that is not available in print, such as regional
accents, speed of discourse, pronunciation, and pragmatic uses of language.
Research with monolinguals indicates that higher order comprehension
skills necessary for reading can also be developed through discussions
of material presented in different modalities, such as visual or auditory
(Kendeou et al., 2008). As Hanley, Herron, and Cole (1995) report, visual
support in the form of descriptive pictures significantly improved compre-
hension scores for English-speaking students learning French.
Anecdotal evidence from the adult literacy field consistently stresses
that adults in literacy programs enjoy using technology (Benbunan-Fich
and Hiltz, 1999; Parke and Tracy-Mumford, 2000). Cromley (2000) sug-
gests that access to technology results in greater learner engagement and
retention. Technologies for acquiring English have shown positive impacts
on the frequency of revision and the complexity of content in the writing
of adults learning a second language (Li and Cumming, 2001).
As explained earlier, speaking, listening, reading, and writing are all
interrelated modes of communication (Hornberger, 1989). Even with very
young language learners, providing exposure to oral and written lan-
guage together is more effective in developing vocabulary and phonological
awareness (Farver, Lonigan, and Eppe, 2009). Likewise, for adults, it is not
a good strategy to provide only oral language instruction while waiting un-
til reading and writing reach a certain level of proficiency. It is also useful
to include and integrate both decoding and comprehension instruction (see
Chapter 6 for further discussion of instructional approaches).
Writing
As for native speakers, writing is an essential part of instruction for
adult language learners. It offers an opportunity to practice second lan-
guage skills related to both reading and writing, and it can be another way
to track second language proficiencies. Writing can also help to meet the
learner’s practical needs for communication because those with limited
literacy in their first language tend to take notes (and use other cognitive
strategies) to overcome this limitation (Klassen and Burnaby, 1993).
Cross-sectional studies suggest that uses of vocabulary, syntax, mor-
OCR for page 229
229
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
phology, signaling, and rhetorical devices in writing improve with sec-
ond language proficiency, as does the coherence and fluency of writing
(Chenoweth and Hayes, 2001; Cumming, 2001; Sasaki, 2000; Sasaki and
Hirose, 1996). First and second language writing processes are fundamen-
tally similar, and knowledge of the first language is used in second language
writing. But those with weak second language skills tend to devote more
attention to form (e.g., finding the right word or syntactic structure in the
second language by translating from the first language) and thus devote less
attention to the macro processes of generating ideas, planning, revising, and
editing (Sasaki, 2000). A promising avenue for research is to understand
more about how to develop these macro processes in second language in-
struction (Sasaki, 2000). Other promising instructional strategies provide
additional scaffolds and support, such as prediscussions of the writing
topic, peers evaluating and responding to each other’s work (Berg, 1999),
and teacher-student dialogue journals (Peyton and Seyoum, 1989). As
Cumming (in press) summarizes, educators can facilitate second language
writing development by providing extensive opportunities to write and
by responding to that writing, modeling relevant text types and discourse
interactions, by enhancing students’ self-control over their composing and
learning processes, and by organizing curricula and assessments appropriate
to learners’ abilities, purposes, and interests. Finally, extensive reading and
vocabulary development in the second language are also helpful for writing.
Writing is a complex cognitive skill that is influenced by social and cul-
tural aspects of the learner’s environment. Although the basic components
of writing discussed in Chapter 4 apply to all adults, several other factors
affect writing for second language learners. These include significant vari-
ability in first language background, educational level, second language
proficiency, length of time in the new country, acculturation and familiar-
ity with second language writing contexts, and the purposes and needs for
writing. This complex web of factors has yet to be considered in a com-
prehensive model of second language writing development (Cumming, in
press). Research is needed, especially with adult language learners in adult
education settings, to track learners’ progress in the use of text features,
their use of composition processes for different tasks and writing environ-
ments, and how progress changes as a function of different types of instruc-
tion (Cumming and Riazi, 2000).
As for reading, more needs to be understood about how to develop
second language writing in content domains and how to support writing
outside the classroom. A rare study of second language writing in the work-
place illustrates how the specific style of writing and vocabulary required
in a particular workplace evolves. In this observational research, newly
graduated Francophone nurses who received mentoring, were encouraged
to interact informally with peers, and had opportunities to observe others
who modeled forms of communication in the workplace developed both
OCR for page 230
230 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
their expressive communication skills in the second language and the spe-
cific workplace genre for completing patient charts and discharge papers
(Parks, 2001; Parks and Maguire, 1999). Such studies show the potential
for developing language, reading, and writing in a second language outside
the classroom.
Affective Aspects of Learning and Instruction
Field research indicates the importance of attending to the affective
aspects of instruction (Wrigley, 2009), although more systematic research
on English language learners’ affective responses to literacy instruction is
needed to develop motivating and supportive approaches. Field observa-
tions show that beginning learners are reluctant to use English inside and
outside the classroom because they may feel insecure about their linguistic
skills. English learners can become demotivated, frustrated with the slow
pace of literacy instruction; repetitive instruction (e.g., as teachers try to
catch up students who have missed a class); a focus on topics that are not
well matched to the learner’s education level, interests, or familiarity with
U.S. culture (e.g., a focus on holidays when content related to science and
technology and topical discussions is preferred). Those whose goal it is to
transition to training or postsecondary education mention the lack of focus
on academic vocabulary in high beginning or intermediate classes.
As mentioned earlier, the general principles for supporting motivation
and persistence in Chapter 5 are likely to apply to language learners. Given
the unique contexts that surround language learners, it is important to make
the learning environment safe, supportive, and comfortable (Hardman,
1999); to make instruction useful and valuable to the learner (Burt, Peyton,
and Adams, 2003); to encourage support through collaborations and peers
(Baynham et al., 2007; Cener for Applied Lingistics, 2010; Slavin, 1996;
Taylor et al., 2007; Watanabe and Swain, 2007; see Torgerson, Porthouse,
and Brooks, 2003, for a review); and to use relevant topics, activities, and
texts for instruction. Although not yet systematically evaluated, cooperative
learning and other forms of peer support may matter even more for adult
language learners. Even when adults in certain ESL classes reported feeling
frustrated at times, they reported enjoying meeting people and getting to
know other speakers of Spanish (Klassen and Burnaby, 1993), so the social
aspects of the instructional environment may be especially powerful in
motivating persistence.
Assessment
Adequate assessments are lacking for English language learners. The
need to develop more valid and comprehensive approaches to the assess-
ment of adults’ reading and writing skills also applies to this population.
OCR for page 231
231
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Four additional issues specific to the English language learner population
have emerged in research and practice: (1) assessment of learners’ linguistic
and cultural backgrounds and existing language proficiencies, (2) the need
to avoid the use of tests developed for native speakers of English, (3) as-
sessment of incremental progress in subcomponents of spoken and written
language proficiency, and (4) assessment of affective and psychological
outcomes.
Learner Background and Existing Proficiencies
The heterogeneity of adult English language learners requires having
systematic ways to assess the backgrounds and such factors as first and
second language and literacy proficiencies that influence English literacy
development. Currently, teachers report that it is a challenge to provide
instruction that is sufficiently common to all in a classroom while differen-
tiating instruction to meet the needs of all learners (Wrigley, 2009). As more
is understood about the factors that affect English language and literacy de-
velopment for different English language learner populations, more reliable
and valid assessments can be developed to help make placement decisions
and inform instructional planning.
Use of Tests Developed for Native English Speakers
Assessments in English that are developed for native speakers may
not provide valid information about language learners for two reasons.
If linguistic complexity rather than the content of a test item causes low
performance, the assessment does not reliably assess that content knowl-
edge (Abedi, 2006). This type of measurement error occurs on tests other
than reading, such as mathematics tests, which are sometimes incorrectly
assumed to be relatively independent of linguistic proficiency (Abedi, 2002,
2006; Abedi and Lord, 2001).
Second, because reading comprehension, whether in a first or second
language, is tied to background knowledge (Garcia, 1991; Lesser, 2007),
a language learner may show poor comprehension not because of poor
language or comprehension ability but because the topic is unfamiliar. In
fact, for Spanish college students learning English, discipline-related back-
ground knowledge and language proficiency compensated for each other.
Those with low English proficiency could read texts successfully if they had
prior knowledge about the topic, and those with high English proficiency
comprehended texts even if they had low background knowledge about the
topic (Uso-Juan, 2007).
Such interrelationships between language proficiency and background
knowledge have not been systematically explored with adult language
learners. The possibility of existing background knowledge (in the first
OCR for page 232
232 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
language) compensating for low linguistic proficiency is intriguing, and
further research can identify if and how background knowledge in the
first language can be used as an instructional tool while building English
proficiency.
Assessment of Incremental Progress in All of the Subcomponents of
Spoken and Written Language
Another challenge in assessing language learners is the complexity of
language acquisition. Understanding spoken or written language requires
integrating multiple sources of information, such as word meanings, syn-
tactic rules, and background knowledge. Because assessments usually tap
into only a subset of language skills (e.g., vocabulary) or include measures
that are too broad (e.g., oral proficiency), they may not assess the full range
of language skill. Moreover, different components of language develop at
different rates and in an incremental fashion. For example, vocabulary
knowledge is not a simple dichotomy of knowing or not knowing a word’s
meaning. Rather, knowledge is a continuum that ranges from not knowing
a word, to recognizing it, to knowing it roughly, to describing it very accu-
rately and knowing its uses in different contexts (Schoonen and Verhallen,
2008; Vermeer, 2001). Such incremental growth in linguistic knowledge
is not reflected in vocabulary tests. An analysis of the 19 most common
assessments for language learners (many of which are not widely used or
standardized) identified the need for assessments that measure a greater
range of language skills and more detailed proficiency levels (Center for
Applied Linguistics, 2010). Assessments are needed for different purposes.
Although global measures at the program level may be sufficient for ac-
countability purposes, more fine-grained assessments are needed at the
individual level to assess language and literacy growth for planning instruc-
tion and providing feedback to learners (see Center for Applied Linguistics,
2010, for a review).
Given the integrated development of spoken and written language, pro-
ficiencies in both written and spoken English should be assessed. Language
and literacy in the first language and level of education are also important
to assess to guide instruction because, as reviewed earlier, these are closely
linked to second language development.
Assessments that involve selected or constrained responses (e.g., mul-
tiple choice or completion) show the largest effects of instruction because
they match instruction closely. Free response tasks that require spoken or
written answers are better measures of learners’ second language profi-
ciency, however, because they relate most closely to language use outside
the classroom (Ellis, 2009; Norris and Ortega, 2000). Developing tests of
the second type, especially for language learners, is a challenge, but, as for
all adults in literacy instruction, it is important to develop reliable and valid
OCR for page 233
233
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
measures to assess performance on relevant real-world tasks (Purcell-Gates
et al., 2002).
Assessment of Affective and Psychological Outcomes
A range of affective and psychological influences on learning and de-
sired outcomes are important to evaluate in addition to language and
literacy skill. These include self-efficacy in the use of spoken and written
English, effortless and confident navigation of new contexts in the culture,
and the ability to interact comfortably with native speakers, all of which
remain difficult to quantify.
SUMMARY AND DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
The number of adults who need to develop their English literacy skills
in the United States is substantial and growing, and the population is ex-
tremely diverse. These adults differ in languages spoken, education levels,
literacy skill in the first language, knowledge of English, familiarity with
U.S. culture, and other characteristics. The adults differ in the component
skills they need to develop and bring to the challenging task of learning
to use and comprehend a second language. Some English learners need
to understand how the English writing system represents the spoken lan-
guage and how to decode and read words in English. They often need to
develop vocabulary and knowledge of linguistic features, such as syntax
and morphology. Background knowledge related to the culture, the texts
to be comprehended, and purpose of a literacy task all may need attention
to help adults use their skills to make inferences and create a rich mental
representation of the meaning of text. Communicative expression may need
to be developed in both spoken and written modalities.
Various cognitive, linguistic, social, affective, and cultural factors influ-
ence the development of literacy in a second language. These include educa-
tion and proficiency in the first language, age, type and degree of existing
English proficiency, aptitude for language, possible learning disabilities,
cultural and background knowledge, and interest. All of these factors must
be considered in the development of instruction for adults learning English
as a second language.
Research on effective practices for developing English language and
literacy in adults is severely limited, especially those with low levels of edu-
cation and literacy in the first language. Thus, this chapter reviews three
additional sources of information to identify promising practices to study
further with adult English language learners: (1) studies of second language
teaching in high school and college settings, (2) studies of children who
have limited literacy in their first language and who are developing both
oral and written language skills in English and thus may provide insights
OCR for page 234
234 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION
BOX 8-2
Practices to Apply and Study with English Language Learners
Engaging and differentiated instruction for adults who vary in
• English language and literacy skills,
• first language proficiency,
• educational background, and
• familiarity with U.S. culture.
Instruction that integrates explicit instruction with opportunities for the implicit
learning of language and literacy, with a focus on
• both linguistic form and meaning with feedback,
• evelopment of vocabulary and content knowledge for learning and reading
d
comprehension,
• extensive practice outside the classroom,
• leveraging knowledge of the first language,
• multimodal instruction,
• attention to writing,
• attention to the affective aspects of learning and instruction, and
• ound assessment of literacy skill and affective and psychological out-
s
comes of instruction.
into effective practices for adults with limited education or literacy facil-
ity in a first language, and (3) practitioner descriptions of practices used
in adult education ESL classes and that warrant more systematic research
attention. Box 8-2 shows practices to apply and study in future research.
A particular challenge is the need to differentiate instruction for adults in a
classroom who vary in first language proficiency, educational background,
and familiarity with U.S. culture.
Box 8-3 summarizes directions for research. The overarching priorities
for this research agenda are to (a) develop and evaluate effective instruc-
tional methods for diverse populations of English language learners; (b)
develop adequate assessment methods; (c) identify or develop the tech-
nologies that can facilitate the learning of language and literacy skills for
adult English language learners who differ in their knowledge of English
language and literacy, first language literacy, and educational and linguistic
backgrounds; and (d) specify the training and supports instructors need
to implement the instructional approaches effectively. Standard terms and
definitions for describing the subgroups of this diverse population of adults
will need to be used in this research to produce more reliable, valid, and
interpretable information about the approaches that generalize across sub-
groups and the specific approaches that meet a particular group’s literacy
development needs.
OCR for page 235
235
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
BOX 8-3
Directions for Research on English as a
Second Language Instruction
• xperiments to identify effective instructional practices for different groups of
E
language learners (with varying first languages, knowledge of English, first
language literacy skills, educational backgrounds, and reasons for attending
instruction) to help instructors differentiate instruction.
• tudies to specify the length, type, and intensity of instruction that is the most
S
effective for different language learner groups.
• ystematic and longitudinal analyses of language teaching practices (inte-
S
grating language structures with language use and meaningful content) and
documentation of outcomes for adult language learners.
• omprehensive description and analysis of the components of effective pro-
C
grams at multiple levels (instructional content, teaching practices, student
interactions, and so on) using quantitative and qualitative methods that link
components to outcomes.
• ackground variables that have an impact on outcomes and that are important
B
to assess at program entry and for differentiated instruction.
• haracteristics of learners and aspects of language exposure (both inside
C
and outside the classroom) that predict learning and a range of other desired
outcomes that include persistence, continuation with further education, finding
employment, and lifelong learning.
• he relation between first language skills and the development of spoken and
T
written English skills and identification of opportunities for transferring skills
and strategies.
• ays to provide effective multimodal language instruction (speaking, reading,
W
writing, visual presentations) and technology.
• ays to integrate classroom instruction with informal learning opportunities
W
provided by interactions in communities and through the use of technology.
• he most effective ways to integrate language and literacy development with
T
content instruction.
• evelopment and evaluation of “integrated instruction” models that combine
D
language and literacy education with academic and career education.
• ssessments that (a) provide enough information about language and literacy
A
skills and progress to be useful for planning instruction and providing feed-
back to learners, (b) are valid measures of practically important language and
literacy competencies, and (c) measure affective, cultural, and psychological
factors that affect learning.
• eacher knowledge and professional development to effectively administer
T
and use assessments and flexibly adapt the curriculum to meet learners’
needs.
