Kim Henrie, M.Ed. Thesis

Brock University

kimhenrie@gmail.com

Reading Instruction and Difficulties in LINC Level 1-3 Classes

© K. Henrie 2011

Background for Research Problem & Questions

Research Context

• According to 2006 census data (Stats. Can, 2008), immigrants accounted for 1 in 5 Canadians

​

• Between 1999 and 2008 the number of Permanent Residents with less than 9 years of education doubled from 3,703 => 6, 702

​

• From 2003 to 2008, the number of refugees increased by 6 % (CIC, 2009a)

​

• Statistics Canada (2003) reported that 60 % of immigrants possess inadequate literacy skills

Percentage for Levels of Education of Permanent Residents aged �15 years or older1999-2008 (CIC, 2009a)�

• CIC (2009b) also found that immigration status influenced the rate of progress with lower level clients requiring more time to complete LINC levels

​

• Lower level LINC classes contain more refugee and family class immigrants

​

• On average refugees require 70-80 more hours of instruction to complete a

LINC level

​

*national averages

​

• Infante (2000) correlated the number of years of education with first language literacy levels
• 7 years = basic literacy skills
• 12+ years = strong literacy skills

​

• Burnaby (1989) identified individuals with low levels of education and first language literacy skills as ‘at-risk’

​

​

• Many learners with literacy needs are placed into mainstream LINC classes (Verma, 2004)

​

• 70 % of literacy classes are multi-level classes combining literacy and non-literacy clients (Jangles Productions, 2006)

Review of Literature

Research Questions

1. Does the reading instruction of these instructors reflect

evidence-based practices?

​

2. Why do some clients fail to progress through the LINC

reading benchmark levels as expected?

​

3. How do the previous educational and life experiences

of LINC clients in LINC Level 1-3 classes relate to their

experiences in the LINC program and contribute to

progress that is slower than expected?

​

4. How does the instructors’ understanding of the

learners’ previous educational experiences provide

insight into clients’ progress in the LINC program?

Methodology

​

• 5 participants, from 2 cities in Southwestern Ontario, were recruited from LINC Level 1-3 classes from 4 different LINC providers

​

• I, as the researcher, had the dual role of participant/researcher

​

• Reliability and validity were maintained through triangulation of data and the process of member checking in data analysis

​

​

​

A qualitative case study approach

( Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003)

• data was collected in the form of :

demographic questionnaires

2 semi-structured interviews (60-90 minutes)

teaching artefacts (teaching plans)

field study notes

Limitations

​

• Participant backgrounds and representativeness; prior to TESL training, there’s no singular path to becoming an instructor

​

• Participant engagement in research process; credibility was increased through member checking and triangulation

​

​

• LINC level boundaries

​

• Size of the study limited generalizeability

​

• Member checking allowed for multiple perspectives and ensured that themes weren’t limited to my interpretations

Instructors’ Teaching Profiles

Data�Analysis

​

• A comparative and contrastive case analysis revealed 3 primary themes, each with a number of subthemes

​

• All of the themes were represented by 4 of the 5 participants with the exception of ‘skill development’ and ‘instructor needs’ which were raised by only 2 of the participants

Client/Instructor Backgrounds & Classroom Needs

Client Background, �Needs & Goals

​

“Where they grew up, they weren’t exposed

to books very much. School might have been

very intermittent or spotty, and they had to go

a long way to get there. The quality of

education and the importance of education

might not have been stressed or the benefits

of education were marginal because even if

you did manage to finish high school, there

weren’t many jobs, and civil war was going to

wipe out any chance of industry, commerce,

or professions, and you’re going to end up in a

refugee camp anyway regardless of how many

years you spent in school.” (Alex, Second

interview)

​

Administrative, Volunteer, Peer Support

​

​

“There’s some sort of community spirit within

the women here that are supportive of

each other, so that if someone’s from the

same cultural group or they make a friendship

with another person in the class, that they do

find ways to kind of— somehow there’s some

kind of information transfer between the

clients within my class than can somehow

override the gaps that I not even see. “ (Jane,

First interview)

​

​

Mixed-levels

​

​

“One of the most damaging things is the

mixed level classes. Even if you had a purely

Level 1 class, there would still be a spectrum

of variety within there. So, having a class

that’s a 1/2/3 or a 1/2, I just think it’s far too

much variety, and I think mixed-level classes

are probably one of the biggest issues.” (Kim,

First interview)

​

Class Size

​

“So because my class is up to 20 people, I

need to accommodate a range of benchmarks

within the skills...my morning class is 20

students. It’s full, completely full. And my

afternoon, I have 15. That’s my limit.”

(Sam, First interview)

Skill Development (*)

​

​

“When you come to Canada, life is like a big

wall. There is a big wall inside of you that you

have to break and then go through to the

other side. … You have to explore the new

world, and every time, it’s a challenge.” (Sam,

First interview)

​

Continuous Intake & Attendance

​

​

“There’s a challenge there. Stressful because

you have already planned your class until up

to that point, and you are planning the next

level. All of a sudden, you have to go back.

Oh, you have to plan something that will be in

the middle. Something like that. So, you’re

planning, sometimes it works. Sometimes it

doesn’t and you have to keep making a new

plan, re-plan. I would like to change that. I

would wait at least until the semester end.

The new students should not come before

that.” (Sam, First interview)

​

Instructors’ Undergraduate Backgrounds/TESL Training

​

​

“I guess the framework is meant to be the

same for how we do things, but because our

everyday realities are so different, you go into

the classroom, and you shut your door, and it’s

kind of, I mean, like most teachers, right?

What goes on within your classroom is unique,

right?” (Kim, Second interview)

​

Instructor Needs (*)

​

​

“I know that I need to improve my techniques

in transferring that knowledge to them- the

technicalities of reading and decoding, or

pronunciation. I still see the weaknesses in my

ability to teach. But I think that I’ve made a

good connection with my students. “ (Alex,

First interview)

​

Reading Strategies, Methods, & Challenges

Reading Strategies

​

​

“I think sometimes you do notice different

strategies, different approaches. There are

the students who use a dictionary quite

frequently, and then, there are some who

don’t as much. There are some students who

underline the words and will ask me and some

students who won’t. So yeah, I mean, there’s

quite a difference in what they’re used to, I

guess, their personalities, how they approach

it.” (Amy, Second interview)

​

Instructional Methods

​

​

“So, what I ended up doing is differentiating

the tasks that we’re doing and trying to come

up with two, maybe three different methods

for one assignment that can be accomplished

by everyone within the group.” (Kim, First

interview)

Reading Challenges in Class

​

​

“I think that, for the most part, my students

have little reading education and instruction in

reading, probably limited access to books. I

would say they’re handicapped in their choice

of reading material. They seem to be

attracted to reading, but they don’t know how

to approach it.” (Alex, Second interview)

​

L1 Literacy Problems

​

​

“Some people can just automatically make

meaning on their own because they’re used to

reading well in their own language, and so

they can just pick and go with English without

any difficulty. And then other people are less

experienced, less proficient readers in their

first language, and they’re really at the

beginning.” (Kim, First interview)

​

Assessment Expectations & Progress

Classroom Progress

​

​

“There’s so many factors holistically that play

out within the testing scenarios to determine

my students’ ability on any given test on any

given day, but I need to continually provide

opportunities for them to show me what they

can do without them sitting down with the

test paper and sum up the situation.” (Jane,

First interview)

​

Benchmark/LINC level progression

​

​

“It’s not just for moving levels, but it’s just a

formal way of showing their progress, so that

we all know what our goals are. It clarifies.”

(Amy, First interview)

Benchmark Expectations

​

“No, the problem really is that I can’t expect

certain things necessarily from a learner who

is labelled 1, 2, or 3 in certain skills. There’s a

general sense of what this learner can do and

has the skill to learn to do. And that’s sort of

what you’re working with is a general sense of

that. There are certain basics that learners

must have.” (Jane, Second interview)

​

Discussion

Theoretical Principles:

• Adult education principles of using clients’ experiences to frame instruction were consistent with instructors’ approaches (Brookfield, 1995; Giroux, 1997; Merriam et al. 2007; Pratt, 2008)
• Some instructors went to greater lengths to incorporate clients’ experiences and utilize a plurality of methods and materials
• Instructors mentioned issues with assessment, including: over-emphasis on summative assessment, ineffectivess of assessment tools, subjectivity of instructors’ interpretations, and the correspondence between the CLBs and LINC levels
• Brookfield (2005) cautioned against idealizing a single framework as a perfect model; Freire (1985) assessment should evaluate experience not inspect learning

• A comparison between the themes and literature demonstrated 6 areas for discussion which fell into 3 separate areas of knowledge:

​

1. Theoretical principles
2. Backgrounds, needs, & goals of LINC clients
3. Evidence-based reading instruction

Theoretical Principles continued

​

• Collaboration was seen as a necessary part of instruction to respond to challenges of:

class size, diverse needs, monitoring and managing instruction, planning and facilitating instruction

​

• This created a ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (Vygotsky, 1978) where individuals were able to operate slightly beyond their current ability

Backgrounds, Needs and Goals� of LINC clients

​

• Many instructors wanted more information about their clients for instructional planning

​

• TESOL (2000) identified these key background factors: languages spoken, country of origin, language of previous schooling, written literacy levels in all languages, and external factors (war, famine, natural disasters)

​

• Progress is highly variable, and some clients take more time

​

• CIC (2009b) found that refugees required 70-80 additional hours to progress to the next benchmark

​

• Some instructors saw a range of proficiencies as a potential flag for literacy problems

​

• Burnaby (1989, 1991) & Klassen & Burnaby (1993) stated that a range of listening and speaking proficiencies doesn’t indicate full literacy skills

Backgrounds, Needs and Goals� of LINC clients continued

​

• A connection was found between the number of years of previous education and literacy skills (UNESCO-ECLAC, 2010); less than 12 years = likely literacy problems

​

• Mixed level classes were more common among the instructors (80 %) than was reported by Jangles Productions (2006) (70 %)

​

• Condelli et al. (2008), Millar (2007) & Verma (2004) stated that clients with literacy needs should be separated from mainstream LINC clients

​

• Instructors spoke about identifying and communicating goals; Gillette (1994) found that intrinsic motivation coloured all parts of language learning

​

• Some instructors were unable to look beyond a Western model of education, which created an instructional barrier

Evidence-based Reading Instruction

​

• Instructors described challenges in reading including:

poor L1 language skills, inexperience with text, lack of motivation to read, & large class sizes

​

• Grabe & Stoller (2002) found that educational background was important in determining reading proficiency; Grabe & Stoller, Robson (1982), & Strucker (2002) agreed that it is vital to establish L1 literacy first

​

Evidence-based Reading Instruction continued

​

• Instructors’ reading strategies were largely congruent with Kruidenier’s (2002) findings

​

• Major components of reading: phonemic awareness and decoding, fluency, vocabulary & comprehension; instructors cited a lack of time for each component

​

• One instructor indicated a reliance of contextual cues as a reading strategy, which is a proven characteristic of poor readers (Katts & Camhi, 2005)

​

• NPR (2000) & McShane (2005) defined five features of effective reading instruction: explicit instruction/explanation of purpose, strategy instruction, support leading to self-direction, intensive instruction, & segmenting instruction

​

• These features were not always reflected in the instructors’ responses

​

Evidence-based Reading Instruction continued

​

​

• Collaboration extends learners’ abilities (Joe, 1998; Krashen & Terrell, 1983, Vygotsky, 1978)

​

• This was evident with all instructors; however, large, mixed-level classes or clients with literacy needs made collaboration challenging

Implications

1. Access to client information primarily occurred outside of class time, during uncompensated time, making the change to a client profile or case management system impractical in spite of any potential benefits. Information currently available to instructors needs to be expanded to include information about goal setting.

2. New tools and/or methods for assessing clients need to be developed. TESL training and on-going PD should be expanded to include different client profiles. Expectations regarding progress between benchmarks and LINC levels should reflect the variable rate of progress between different clients, particularly in reading.

Implications

3. Instructors required more support in their classrooms and used a patchwork of collaborative methods to meet the diverse needs of clients. They struggled to meet the needs of their clients on a daily basis. Instructors needs a voice to express their needs to LINC administrators, assessors, TESL Ontario, and CIC.

4. The descriptions of the instructors demonstrated a real need for professional development around evidence-based reading practices.

​

Implications

5. Clients with literacy needs should be carefully screened and placed into an appropriate literacy level class as having clients with literacy needs in mainstream classes causes stress on both the clients and instructors. All four phases of literacy should be implemented to facilitate better placement of clients with literacy needs.

​

©Hutt et al. (1997), Reprinted with Permission.

Conclusion

​

“Teachers must often define challenge and growth differently in response to students’ varying interests and readiness levels.”

(Tomlinson, 2001, p. viii)

Thank-you!

kimhenrie@gmail.com

​

References

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S.D. (2005). The power of critical theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burnaby, B. (1989). Non-traditional approaches to immigrant language training. Toronto, ON: OISE.

Burnaby, B. (1991). Adult literacy issues in Canada. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, pp 156-171 doi:10.1017/S0267190500002208.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2009a). Facts and figures 2008: Immigration overview permanent and temporary residents. Ottawa, ON:

Author.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2009b). Language instruction for newcomers to Canada-Performance Results by LINC level. Ottawa: ON:

Author. Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/LINC-results.pdf

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2005). Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Condelli, L., Wrigley, H. S. & Yoon, K.S. (2008). “What works” study: Instruction, literacy and language learning for adult ESL literacy students. In

S. Reder & J. Brynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research. (pp. 132-159). New York:

Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation. Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc..

Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research

(pp. 195-213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. A critical reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Infante, M. I. (2000). Functional literacy in seven Latin American countries. Santiago, Chile: UNESCO.

Jangles Productions. (2006). An investigation of best practices in the instruction and assessment of LINC literacy learners in Ontario. Retrieved

from http://jangles.ca/LINCLiteracyProject.pdf

Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19(3),

357-377. doi:10.1093/applin/19.3.357.

Klassen, C. & Burnaby, B. (1993). Those who know: Views on literacy among adult immigrants in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 377-397.

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for teachers. Washington, DC: National Centre for Family

Literacy.

​

​

References

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S. & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Millar, D. (2007). Second language students in Canadian literacy programs: Current issues and concerns. Winnipeg, MB: Red River Community

College. Retrieved from http://www.nald.ca/library/research/slsinclp/cover.htm

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its

implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.

Pratt, D. D. (1998). The research lens: A general model of teaching. In D.D. Pratt, Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.

(pp. 3-13). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co..

Robson, B. (1982). Hmong literacy, formal education, and their effects on performance in an ESL class. In B. T. Downing & D. P. Olney (Eds.),

The Hmong in the west: Observations and reports (pp. 201-225). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Statistics Canada. (2008). Census snapshot —Immigration in Canada: A portrait of the foreign-born population, 2006 census. Retrieved from

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2008001/article/10556-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2003). International adult literacy and life skills survey. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.ca/english/Dli/Data/Pumf/all/2003/all2003dat.zip

Strucker, J. (2002, June). NCSALL’s adult reading components study (ARCS). Paper presented at the International Conference on Multilingual

and Cross-cultural Perspectives on Dyslexia, Washington, DC.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (2000). Adult ESL language and literacy instruction: A vision and action agenda for the 21^st

century. Retrieved from: www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/vision.pdf

Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, 2^nd Edition, Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

UNESCO-ECLAC. (2010). The social and economic impact of illiteracy: Analytical model and pilot study. Retrieved from:

www.unesco.org.santiago.

Verma, S. (2004). TESL Ontario position paper on the adult education review in Ontario. Retrieved from

http://www.teslontario.org/uploads/research/AdEdRevPosPaper.pdf

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

​