----

##  The Preliterate Student: A Framework for Developing an Effective                Instructional Program. ERIC/AE Digest.                                       

The number of limited English proficient (LEP) children attending               American schools has grown dramatically over the past decade.  Much             of this growth has occurred in states and school districts that                 previously enrolled only a handful of these students. As the LEP                student population has grown, so has the need for the development of            special language-learning programs.  The challenge of educating LEP             students arises from the growth and diversity of this group of                  students and their diverse academic and social needs (Minicucci &               Olsen, 1992). 
Until recently, a majority of the secondary schools             in the nation were meeting the needs of most of these LEP students              by offering courses/ programs in English as a Second Language (ESL)             which were designed primarily for LEP students possessing literacy              skills in their native language. However, with the continuous                   increases in enrollment of the LEP student population, the number of            LEP students lacking literacy skills in their native language has               also increased.  As a result, there has been an increase in the need            for programs designed specifically for this special segment of the              LEP student population. This special group of LEP students is most              often referred to in the literature as either students with limited             formal schooling (LFS) or as "preliterates."  Unlike the                        term "illiterate" which means not knowing how to read and write, the            term preliterate implies that the individual will eventually obtain             the aforementioned skills. 
This article discusses important                   aspects of the LFS student population: LFS student defined, impact              on schools, individualized language development plan, classroom                 instruction, and assessment of the LFS student. WHO IS THE LFS                STUDENT?Generally, the LFS student is an older youth (aged                  12-21) who lacks literacy skills in his/her native language because             of limited formal education. In most cases, the LFS student                     possesses less than 2 complete years of a formal education and                  possesses a language proficiency that is either non-English or                  limited-English. 
Various factors may contribute to the preliterate            student's lack of a formal education.  The need for the child to                supplement the family's income and/or the need for the child to help            in the home are two possible factors.  Others may include the remote            location of a home, the lack of parental supervision, and frequent              moves caused by economic need or political turmoil (Morse, 1996; The            TESOL Assoc.,1997). 
The number of years a student spends in                   school, the quality of the education received, and the consistency              of that educational experience is important in assessing all LEP                students.  Research indicates that students with strong academic and            linguistic skills in the native language will more easily acquire a             second language than those with weaker skills (Cummins, 1981).                  Students who are literate in their native language, who possess                 grade-level school experience, and who possess an uninterrupted                 educational background require a very different academic focus than             students of the same age who possess only limited, if any, literacy             skills in their native language. For instance, a student with                   limited literacy skills in the native language will require more                native-language support than the literate student from the same                 country. Yet, a majority of the content courses in the typical                  middle school and high school rely on academic language proficiency             in English. HOW IS THE SCHOOL AFFECTED?Although the percentage            of the LFS youth in the school may only represent a small portion of            the LEP student population, the impact can be significant. In most              cases, the implementation of additional native language                         instructional services and the employment or reassignment of                    instructional assistants to provide these services is necessary.                Services provided by these "special" instructional assistants often             include instruction, translation between teacher and student,                   translation between staff and parents, and other language related               tasks. 
In addition, staff development training for all teachers in            topics such as native language instruction, ESL in the content                  areas, and parental involvement is necessary.  Because many of the              preliterate students may come from backgrounds very different from              those of most teachers, training in multicultural awareness is also             important. Teachers must realize that the LFS student population                generally finds all aspects of the school experience alien:                     language, culture, socioeconomic levels, schedules, procedures, and             building facilities. Equally as important as the aforementioned                 topics, although not discussed as often, is the need to train                   teachers in the utilization of appropriate instructional strategies             and the means (authentic assessment) by which to assess LFS                     students. HOW DOES ONE DEVELOP AN INDIVIDUALIZED LANGUAGE                     DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ILDP)?In an effort to determine the                       instructional strategies/activities that are most likely to prove               effective in working with a particular LFS student, it is highly                recommended that an Individualized Language Development Plan (ILDP)             for that student be developed. The ILDP, adapted from an                        individualized education plan developed by Clark and Starr (1996),              should serve as the basis for the content, the instructional                    activities, and the teaching activities that are to be selected for             that particular student.  In addition, the ILDP should serve as the             basis from which to measure the LFS student's progress.  The ILDP               should include the following: 
*an assessment of the student's                 present level of academic performance (reading/writing in the native            language and math), 
*an assessment of the student's English                   language proficiency, a diagnosis of the student's strengths and                weaknesses, 
*a statement of the long-term goals, 
*an allocation             of the time the student will 
*spend in the selected program (an               after school program, a self-contained classroom, a school within a             school, a language development center, etc.), 
*the                            person (teacher, parent, specialist, etc.) responsible for each                 aspect of the instructional service being provided, 
*a statement              of the short-term instructional goals necessary to attain long-term             goals, 
*specific recommendations concerning materials of                      instruction and teaching strategies, and 
*appropriate                         assessment (portfolios, performance, anecdotal records, teacher                 observations, etc.). 
In developing the ILDP, it is also highly                recommended that ESL educators take into consideration the ESL                  Standards for Pre-K-12 Students as set forth by the TESOL                       Association (1997).  The standards are organized by grade-level                 clusters (pre-K-3, 4-8, 9-12) and address different English                     proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate, advanced, and limited              formal schooling).  The purpose of the ESL Standards is to improve              the education of students learning English as a second or additional            language in the United States. WHAT TYPES OF INSTRUCTIONAL                    ACTIVITIES/STRATEGIES BEST MEET

THE NEEDS OF THE LFS                         STUDENT?First and foremost, prior to considering the                        instructional activities/strategies to be used, it is extremely                 important that the student be provided with a warm, caring                      school/classroom environment. This is vital because, as previously              stated, LFS students often find all aspects of the school                       environment alien.  The idea of not "fitting in" can eventually                 result in the development of low self-esteem and the risk of                    dropping out (Johnson, Levy, Morales, Morse, and Prokopp, 1986).                Past statistics indicate that for many secondary LEP students, the              middle school is often the beginning of a high dropout                          rate (Minicucci, 1985; Olsen & Chenn, 1988). 
Varying activities,              providing cooperative learning opportunities, and using audio-visual            aids while attempting to draw from the student's past experiences is            an excellent strategy to implement. The goal is to not only teach               students literacy skills in the native language, but to also teach              meaningful, communicative, and functional use of the English                    language.  The previously mentioned ESL Standards provide educators             with a foundation from which to develop various meaningful                      opportunities for LFS students to learn English. 
For example,                 giving students an opportunity to communicate(using English) in                 social settings is Goal 1 Standard 1 of the ESL Standards. According            to Holt, Chips, and Wallace (1991), cooperative learning provides               the structure for this to occur. In cooperative teams, students with            lower levels of proficiency can interact with students who possess a            higher level of proficiency in order to negotiate meaning of the                content. In this type of learning environment, LFS students can                 begin to build a strong foundation in oral proficiency as they                  acquire literacy skills in the second language. Because all students            engage in oral practice and utilize interpersonal skills, all                   students benefit. 
According to Goal 1 Descriptors of the ESL                  Standards, activities like cooperative learning can provide students            with an opportunity to share and request information, express needs             and feelings, utilize nonverbal communication, engage in                        conversations, and conduct transactions. Cooperative learning                   activities can also provide LFS students with the skills that are               necessary to function in real-life situations such as the                       utilization of context for meaning, the seeking of support from                 others, and the comparing of nonverbal and verbal cues. 
Because               LFS students are generally older, it is important that school                   learning result in discourse, products, and performances that have              value or meaning in real life beyond success in school.  For this               reason, some school leaders argue that a distinction be made between            academic literacy and functional literacy.  Academic literacy is                generally identified as that which is free from error in syntax and             word structure, punctuation and spelling. Functional literacy, on               the other hand, varies according to the individual's needs and                  divergent roles. These school leaders state that functional literacy            rather than academic literacy should be the goal of education for               preliterate students (Walker de Felix, Waxman, & Paige, 1994).  As a            result, many current high school programs have taken this idea a                step further and developed courses that provide the LFS student with            the training needed to acquire/maintain a job. 
Because the focus              of well-designed preliterate programs relies heavily on learning                that is significant and meaningful in real life, authentic                      assessment is a must.  The goal is to ascertain student progress via            a variety of assessment tools.  Continuous teacher                              observations (informal and/or formal), a collection of the student's            work samples, and periodic anecdotal descriptions of the student's              accomplishments are a few of the methods one can use in assessing               the LFS student. To be fully effective, the student and the                     student's parents should be allowed to participate in assessing                 whether or not sufficient progress is being                                     made. CONCLUSIONProvided that schools recognize and address               the special needs of the LFS student population, an LFS student can             respond positively with dramatic progress. Although the progress                will often vary dramatically from that of the literate LEP student,             it is important that teachers recognize it as progress.  A proper               ILDP, effective instructional strategies, and authentic assessment              aid all those involved(the student, the teacher, and the parents) in            recognizing the progress made as such. The result is a sense of                 accomplishment and continued encouragement for                                  learning. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGChamot, A.U. &                O'Malley, J.M. (1986). A cognitive academic language learning                   approach: An ESL content-based curriculum. Wheaton: National                    Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 
Clark, L., & Starr,                    I. (1996). Secondary and middle school teaching methods.(7th ed.)               Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Collier, V.P. (1992). A synthesis            of studies examining long-term language minority student data on                academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16,                           187-212. 
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language                     development in promoting educational success for language minority              students. In California Department of Education, Schooling and                  language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-50). Los             Angeles, CA: Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State              University, Los Angeles. 
Hancock, C. (1985). Teaching pre- and                semi-literate Laotian and Cambodian adolescents to read: Helpful                hints. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360 879). 
Holt,             D.D., Chips, B., & Wallace, D. (1991). Cooperative learning in the              secondary school:  Maximizing language acquisition, academic                    achievement, and social development. Washington, DC: National                   Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 
Johnson, F., Levy, R.,                 Morales, J., Morse, S., & Prokopp, M. (1986).  Migrant students at              the secondary level: Issues and opportunities for change. Las                   Cruces, NM:ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.             ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 070). 
Krashen,                  S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (2000). The natural approach. Pearson                      Education. 
Lado, A. (1990). Ways in which Spanish-speaking                    illiterates differ from literates in ESL classrooms. (ERIC Document             Reproduction Service No. ED 367 195). 
Minicucci, C. (1985).                   Dropping out, losing out: The high cost for California. Sacramento,             CA: Assembly Office of Research. 
Minicucci, C., & Olsen,                      L. (1992). Programs for secondary limited English proficient                    students: A California study. Focus Occasional Paper No. 5                      Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual                            Education. 
Morse, S. (1996). Unschooled migrant youth:                        Characteristics and strategies to serve them. ERIC Digest. (ERIC                Document Reproduction No. ED405 158). 
Olsen, L., & Chen, M.                   T. (1988). Crossing the schoolhouse border: Immigrant students and              the California public schools. San Francisco, CA: California                    Tomorrow. 
Richard-Amato, P.A. (1996).  Making it happen:                      Interaction in the second language classroom. White Plains, NY:                 Addison-Wesley. 
The TESOL Association. (1997, March). ESL                     standards for pre-K-12 students. Available at                                   http://www.tesol.org/assoc/k12standards/it/02.html 
Walker de                  Felix, J., Waxman, H.C., & Paige, S. 1994).  Instructional processes            in secondary bilingual classrooms. Third National Research Symposium            on Limited English Proficient Student Issues:  Focus on Middle and              High School Issues. 
----- 
This Digest is based on an article                originally appearing in Practical Assessment, Research and                      Evaluation. 
This publication is prepared with funding from the                Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of              Education, under contract ED99CO0032. The opinions expressed in this            report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI             or the U.S. Department of Education. Permission is granted to copy              and distribute this ERIC/AE Digest.                                          **Title:** The Preliterate Student: A Framework for Developing an Effective                Instructional Program. ERIC/AE Digest.                                       **Note:** Based on an article appearing in "Practical Assessment, Research and            Evaluation."                                                                 **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Descriptors:** Beginning Reading,  Bilingual Education, Elementary Secondary                   Education,  Illiteracy,  Immigrants,  Limited English Speaking,                  Reading Instruction,  Teaching Methods                                      **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]