Reading Instruction and Difficulties in LINC Level 1-3 Classes

Kim Henrie, M.Ed. Thesis

Brock University

kimhenrie@gmail.com

​

© K. Henrie 2013

“Language training is a journey, not a destination” (Singh & Blakely, 2012, p. 9)

Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC)

​

• LINC classes are free for all Permanent Residents & Convention Refugees; no time limits (except in AB); citizenship possible after 3 years; 85 % of LINC clients are in Ontario (Dempsey et al, 2009)

​

• the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) are the theoretical framework for LINC classes (CCLB, 2000)

�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

​

​

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

• a qualitative case study approach ( Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) situated within a critical and constructivist framework

​

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

​

• data was collected in the form of :
• demographic questionnaires
• 2 semi-structured interviews (60-90 minutes)
• teaching artefacts (teaching plans)
• field study notes

​

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

​

Themes

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

Themes

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

​

Themes

“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)

“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)

“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

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

​

• Theoretical principles
• Backgrounds, needs, & goals of LINC clients
• Evidence-based reading instruction

​

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

​

• 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

​

• 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
• 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

​

​

• 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

​

​

​

Conclusion

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

(Tomlinson, 2001, p. viii)

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.

Dempsy, C., Xue, L., & Kustec, S. (2009). Language instruction for newcomers to Canada client profile and performance indicators. Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/LINC-indicators.pdf.

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.

Hutt, N., Young, L., & Crawford, K. (1997). The revised LINC literacy component 1997 of the LINC curriculum guidelines. Ottawa, ON: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Reprinted with permission.

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.

​

​

References

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.

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.

Singh, D. & Blakely, G. (2012). Federal and provincial policy iniatives LINC and CLIC: Looking forward, looking back. International Settlement Canada (INSCAN), Special Issue on Settlement Language Training, Spring.

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.

​

​

​

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