Sarah-Jane Thomas

Ph.D. Student, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

sthomasg@gmu.edu

INTRODUCTION
            John Hanson French Immersion School is located in Oxon Hill, MD.  All core classes, beginning in kindergarten, are taught in French.  In second grade, students begin receiving 45 minutes of daily instruction in the English language (in non-immersion schools, students receive between 90-120 minutes daily).  In third grade, students begin participating in statewide standardized testing in the areas of reading and math.  Students must take the test without special accommodations, despite the abbreviated instruction received.  However, students at John Hanson score very highly on the reading assessment, scoring 81.1% proficiency in reading in the school year 2009-2010 (PGCPS, 2010).

Although students at John Hanson are native English speakers, second grade English language instruction is hard for some students, who are only used to reading in French.  Nevertheless, the high reading skills of the group seem to carry over once they begin reading in English. 

In order to attempt to explain this curious occurrence, I have conducted a literature review of several studies, in order to establish whether or not phonemic awareness and other reading strategies do carry over from language to language.  These studies were located through the ERIC database, with the keyword searches "phonemic awareness" and "English language learners." 

   Statement of Need.  Research such as this is very timely.  Kelly, Gomez-Bellenge, Chen, and Schultz (2008) reported that, by 2000, 18% of the population of the United States spoke a language other than English, and that this increase of second language learners has impacted schools substantially.  The researchers projected that the number will rise to 40% by the 2030s, and expressed the urgency that schools have not met the needs of these students.  Oh, Haager, and Windmeuller (2007) noted that the academic success of ELLs in American schools is based largely upon their ability to learn to read and write in English.  These students are often disproportionally referred to special education and learning disability programs (Oh, Haager & Windmeuller 2007). 

The cross-linguist transfer hypothesis states that knowledge gained in one language is transferrable from one language to another, as long as they have a similar alphabet structure (Odlin, 1989, as cited in Pollard-Durodola and Simmons 2009).  This literature review will address this theory, based on current research about phonemic awareness regarding English Language Learners (ELLs).  I will examine the interplay of reading readiness skills with ELL students, and review the implications of the current research.

READING READINESS

            Betts, Reschly, Pickart, Heistad, Sheran, and Marstad (2008) stated that the need for reading has been progressively more important throughout the course of history.  As our society became more industrialized, the necessity for literacy has reached unprecedented levels.  Educational policy efforts, such as No Child Left Behind, have pressed the movement of preliteracy skills, including alphabetic knowledge and phonemic awareness.  The presence of such skills has been the deciding factor, separating good readers from poor ones (Oh et al., 2008).

A Nationwide Epidemic.  Brice and Brice (2009) echoed this sentiment, relating the statistics that 20% to 30% of elementary students nationwide have significant problems learning to read, and that 38% of fourth grade students are reading below grade level.  Furthermore, several researchers [Kelly et al.; Lonigan (2006); Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, and Pianta (2006); Kainz and Vernon (2007); Teale, Hoffman, and Paciga (2010)] found that children who fall behind within the first few years in school generally stay behind.

Many studies (Atwill, Blanchard, Christie, Gorin, and Garcia (2010); Lonigan (2006); Britto, Fuligini & Brooks-Gunn (2006); Goswami (2001); Juel (2006) among others) have shown that prereading skills, such as phonemic awareness and receptive vocabulary, are valid indicators of early literacy development.  This pre-literacy development has far-reaching benefits, such as higher levels of academic success, and even predicts college attendance and "positive adult outcomes (p. 105)."  However, when students do not fully develop these skills, they are at high risk for academic disadvantages (Stahl, 2001).

Phonemic Awareness.  According to Atwill et al., phonemic awareness encompasses the ability to recognize phonemes in oral and written language.  Brice and Brice defined it as "the ability to perceive, identify, and manipulate the phonemes in spoken language (p. 221)."  Pollard-Durodola and Simmons (2009) agreed, stating that it is a "necessary precursor to successful reading acquisition in all alphabetic languages in which words are divided into smaller units (p. 141)."

Atwill et al. further noted that below-average phonemic awareness skills can increase the risk of early reading failure.  Receptive vocabulary, as described by the authors, refers to an individual's understanding of spoken language, an achievement that predates written language in young children.

Kelly et al. (2008) and Oh et al. (2007) found that early intervention is a key factor in the academic success of all students, including ELLs.  Loeb, Gillam, Hoffman, Brandel, and Marquis (2009) conducted a study utilizing Fast ForWord, a reading intervention program, and analyzed its effects on 103 children, aged 6 to 8 years, with poor language skills and delays in reading development.  The report did not describe the Fast ForWard program in detail, instead stating that it was based on two premises:

The first is that children with language impairment are impaired in their ability to perceive rapidly successive information from a speech signal and to store speech sounds. The second is that intensive training can improve children's attention, discrimination, sequencing, and memory, which in turn will improve processing skills" (p. 377).

The researchers found that the program helped students recognized blending sounds in words in the short-term, but long-term recognition was not established.

Oh et al., and Tabors and Snow (2001) further stated that English reading skills in ELLs develop similarly to the pattern of native speakers, with factors such as rapid letter naming, phonemic awareness, decoding, and reading fluency playing a large role in the development of reading.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE - ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

            Several researchers [Betts et al.; Neufeld, Amendum, Fitzgerald, and Guthrie (2006); Kelly et al.; Respreto, Castilla, Schwanenflugal, Neuharth-Pritchett, Hamilton, & Arbodela (2010); Roberts and Corbett (1997); Tabors and Snow, 2008)] have noted a gap in the research concerning ELL students.  Betts defines ELLs as students who do not speak English as a first language, a phenomenon that has grown at a significant rate in the US.  Between the 1970s and the 2000s, the rate of ELLs in the public school systems has grown by 162%, with over 100 different primary languages spoken by students and families (Betts, 2008).  However, bilingual instruction is not available to many students, reaching only about 50% of the ELL population (Kelly et al.; Pollard-Durodola & Simmons). 

Linklater, O'Connor & Palardy (2009) observed 401 kindergarten students (206 males and 195 females; 289 English Only and 112 ELLs) and examined their progress after being instructed in the Houghton Mifflin Curriculum.  They measured progress through five assessments: initial sound fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, combined phoneme segmentation, nonsense word fluency, and the Woodcook Reading Mastery Test - Revised Normative Update.  The latter was a battery of tests, which served to measure overall reading progress for children and adults alike.  The researchers found that ELL students progressed more slowly than their native English-speaking peers, which aligned with their earlier statement that, "English language learners typically exhibit lower academic achievement, particularly in literacy, than their non-ELL peers." (p. 372)  ELL students may perform poorly academically due to lack of exposure to English, as well as other learning problems. 

Conversely, Neufeld et al. (2006) compared the reading language development of ELL students to their native English-speaking peers, by observing two classes of first grade students (n=47, 28 Latino ELL, 19 native English speakers). Data were analyzed through a battery of reading language tests.  The researchers found that language status is not related to Instructional Reading Level growth; however, the researchers described the complexity of language acquisition, stating that oral language is comprised of vocabulary, syntax, phonology, morphology, and pragmatics, while reading involves skills such as word recognition, comprehension, and fluency.  Such skills may be difficult for some ELL students to navigate. 

Bliss, Skinner, and Adams' 2006 case study used a multiple baseline approach in order to document the progress of an English Language Learner of Ukrainian origin.  The researchers recorded a list of 120 Dolch words on an audiocassette.  The participant, Dimitri, learned these words, and was able to recall the majority of the words within three seconds.  In this study, the researchers stated that it is critical for ELL students to acquire phonemic awareness skills, or they will be at high risk for academic failure. 

Brice and Brice similarly reported that "Hispanic, African American, limited-English-proficient [ELL] students, students with disabilities, and poor children are among the highest groups for reading failures (p. 208)," in their 2009 study which examined the differences in reading levels between four groups of kindergarten students: (a) 20 high-reading-level English monolinguals, (b) 20 low-reading-level English monolinguals, (c) 20 high-reading-level English-Spanish bilinguals, and (d) 20 low-reading-level English-Spanish bilinguals.  The researchers utilized the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills assessment to measure students' reading levels, and found that English proficiency status played no roles in phoneme and grapheme identification.  However, the researchers did find an overall reading gap between native English speakers and English Language Learners.  Conversely, learners who do acquire phonemic awareness in their native language have been shown to apply these skills to other languages (Tindall and Nisbet, 2010), as described below. 

Cross-Language Transfer.  Atwill et al. discussed the idea of Cross-Language Transfer (CLT), a theory originated by Cummings in 1979, which is supported by the premise that skill in an individual's first language (L1) would predict the skill in their second language (L2).  Thus, a high level of L1 receptive vocabulary would make it easier for a child to recognize this vocabulary in his/her second language.  The same can be said about phonemic awareness.  However, there is a lack of literature about CLT.  The researchers sought to fill this gap, and found that, "L1 and L2 share consistent, positive relationships for most, but not all, children (p. 117)."  The researchers tested the Cross-Language Transfer hypothesis by observing 438 Spanish-speaking kindergarten children in the school year 2004-2005, using the Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test.  One hundred fifty five of these children were classified as emergent English speakers, meaning they had no discernible English skill.  The researcher found that the more skill that a child had in their L1, the greater the likelihood for CLT to occur.

            Reyes and Azuara studied cross-language transfer as well, focusing on two guiding questions: (1) What knowledge of biliteracy do young bilingual preschool children develop in the early years? (2) How do context and specific language environments influence the development of biliteracy in young Mexican Spanish-English bilingual children?  They sought answers to these questions by observing 12 4- and 5- year old children, and their progress in reading while receiving bilingual instruction.  The researchers found that alphabetic languages (meaning writing systems are composed of similar phonemes and graphemes), phonemic awareness will transfer from one L1 to L2, but there are some exceptions, particularly when it comes to instructional strategies.  For example, English instruction tends to focus on onsets (consonant clusters) and rimes (ending word sounds), as well as initial sound isolation, but Spanish instruction focuses more on vowel sounds prior to the instruction of consonants (Pollard-Durodola and Simmons, Tindall and Nesbet). 

Pollard-Durodola and Simmons' research utilized an extremely small sample size of convenience; thus, more research would be needed before their findings could be generalized.  However, the findings of all of the studies listed above suggest several implications for practitioners. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS

            Cross-Linguistic Transfer.  As stated above, Pollard-Durodola and Simmons advocated the use of Cross-Linguistic Transfer in order to facilitate the transition of ELL students from L1 to L2, through explicit instruction.  Explicit instruction advocates the use of certain delivery and design procedures, supported by research, in combination with behavior analysis.  The researchers maintained that practitioners should follow conspicuous explicit strategies, which initially emphasize similarities between languages, then gradually transition to exclusive instruction in L2.  Tindall and Nesbit (2010) found that it is highly beneficial to emphasize cognates (words similar in form and meaning) between the two languages.

Thus, it is important to encourage the use of L1 development simultaneously with L2 instruction.  However, Tabors and Snow warn that L2 advancement efforts should not be promoted at the expense of students' L1.  Instead, parents should be encouraged to continue the use of L1 at home through oral and written use.  Restrepo also found that ELL students tend to learn more if they receive instruction in both L1 and L2, even further stating that as little as 30 minutes a day of L1 instruction can bolster reading skills in both languages.  Conversely, exclusive L2 instruction leads to minimal growth in both L1 and L2 prereading skills.

            Tabors and Snow and Atwill et al. recognized the difference in backgrounds of various ELL children, and urged educators to meet the needs of individuals.  They stated that it is not possible for ELL children who enter kindergarten with deficits to "catch up" through exclusive L2 instruction.  Thus, it is beneficial to incorporate L1 elements into daily classroom instruction.  Neufeld et al. reported that the understanding of reading trajectories for ELL students should help to inform the instructional decisions of educators.

            Betts and Oh also supported the idea of fluency-based early literacy skills to predict later reading achievement.  Bliss, Skinner & Adams (2006) and Tisdall and Nesbit both suggested the use of taped-words intervention, in which students are given a list of words and asked to read them along with a tape recorder.  This idea is beneficial, because students are self-managed, and can feel empowered in their own learning.

            Reading Recovery. The research of Kelly et al. focused mainly on Reading Recovery (RR), which serves roughly 140,000 first grade students in 10,000 schools.  RR has been used since the 1970s to help low-performing first graders learn how to read and write.  The researchers supported use of the program with ELL students, however also advocated "substantial amounts of instruction in English and Spanish," with students "gradually exposed to English for instruction" (p. 237).  Oh et al. maintained that a bilingual model of reading instruction may be useful when focusing on English outcomes for ELLs. 

            Phonemic Awareness Interference.  Brice and Brice discussed phonemic awareness interference, which is based on the premise that phonological representations from the L1 can cause naming errors and delay progress in L2, especially if the two languages have the same alphabet, but different pronunciations for the letters.  They recommend the partnership of educators with speech-language pathologists in order to further meet the need of ELLs. 

Linklater et al. also stated the need for teamwork amongst colleagues to screen for reading difficulties and to intervene based on those screenings.  They further advocated the need for extensive documentation to obtain feedback on best practices.  Neufeld et al. also implied the need for documentation, writing that "a robust description of how relationships between oral-English and English-reading abilities might change over time could significantly impact teachers' expectations for students' progress as well as their instructional planning (p. 25)."

CONCLUSION

            Since reading skills are so important in school, ELL students may face great difficulties in attaining educational success, because of the challenge of navigating two oral and written languages simultaneously.  Thus, more research should be conducted on the matter of phonemic awareness regarding ELL students.

Recommendations for Future Research.  In conducting this review of current literature, it was noted that a great number of studies cited referenced only Latino children (Atwill et al., Brice and Brice, Kelly et al., Linklater et al., Neufeld et al., Oh et al., Pollard-Durodola and Simmons, Respreto et al., Reyes and Azuara).  An area for consideration for further research would be to extend the research to focus on children of other ethnic groups (Tabors and Snow).

            In other future research, Neufeld et al. suggested longitudinal studies in order to collect data that can better inform on how ELL students process information over the course of a school year.  Betts (2008) discussed how careful attention should be paid to students' individual backgrounds and demographics, with factors such as acculturation, immigrant status, recency of immigration, cultural background, and language proficiency in English being documented.  Kelly et al. also suggested the consideration of socioeconomic status.

            In sum, research supports the assertion that reading skills can transcend language barriers.  However, it is beneficial to students for teachers to incorporate L1 instruction whenever possible.  Students should be encouraged to maintain their native tongues, as this helps in learning a new language.  Such is the case at John Hanson French Immersion School, where students receive French language instruction (L2) in their core classes, while using English (L1) in their Creative Arts classes and at home.  This practice helps to explain the school's high test scores, and, according to the literature, should be utilized with English Language Learners as well.

REFERENCES

Atwill, K., Blanchard, J., Christie, J., Gorin, J., & Garcia, H. (2010). English-Language Learners: Implications of Limited Vocabulary for Cross-Language Transfer of Phonemic Awareness with Kindergartners. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(2), 104-129. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Betts, J., Reschly, A., Pickart, M., Heistad, D., Sheran, C., & Marston, D. (2008). An Examination of Predictive Bias for Second Grade Reading Outcomes from Measures of Early Literacy Skills in Kindergarten with Respect to English-Language Learners and Ethnic Subgroups. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 553-570. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Bliss, S., Skinner, C., & Adams, R. (2006). Enhancing an English Language Learning Fifth-Grade Student's Sight-Word Reading with a Time-Delay Taped-Words Intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 663-670. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Brice, R., & Brice, A. (2009). Investigation of Phonemic Awareness and Phonic Skills in Spanish-English Bilingual and English-Speaking Kindergarten Students. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30(4), 208-225. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Britto, P. B., Fuligni, A. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Reading ahead: Interventions for young children's early literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 311-332). New York: Guilford. ER

Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr, (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 251-267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ER

Juel, C. (2006). The impact of early school experiences on initial reading. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 410-426). New York: Guilford Press. ER

Justice, L. M., Mashburn A., J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23, 51-68. BB

Kainz, K. & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2007) The ecology of early reading development for children in poverty. Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 407-427. BB

Kelly, P., Gomez-Bellenge, F., Chen, J., & Schulz, M. (2008). Learner Outcomes for English Language Learner Low Readers in an Early Intervention. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 42(2), 235-260. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Linklater, D., O'Connor, R., & Palardy, G. (2009). Kindergarten Literacy Assessment of English Only and English Language Learner Students: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of Three Phonemic Awareness Measures. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6), 369-394. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Loeb, D., Gillam, R. B., Hoffman, L., Brandel, J., & Marquis, J. (2009). The Effects of Fast ForWord Language on the Phonemic Awareness and Reading Skills of School-Age Children with Language Impairments and Poor Reading Skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(4), 376-387. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Development, assessment, and promotion of preliteracy skills. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 91-114. BB

McKenna, M., Walpole, S., & Conradi, K. (2010). Promoting Early Reading: Research, Resources, and Best Practices. Guilford Publications. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Neufeld, P., Amendum, S., Fitzgerald, J., & Guthrie, K. (2006). First-Grade Latino Students' English-Reading Growth in All-English Classrooms. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(1), 23-52. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Oh, D., Haager, D., & Windmeuller, M. (2007). A Longitudinal Study Predicting Reading Success for English-Language Learners from Kindergarten to Grade 1. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 10(1-2), 107-124. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Pollard-Durodola, S., & Simmons, D. (2009). The Role of Explicit Instruction and Instructional Design in Promoting Phonemic Awareness Development and Transfer from Spanish to English. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 139-161. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Prince Georges County Public Schools.  John Hanson French Immersion School Chart.  Retrieved from the Internet on October 27, 2010 at http://schools.pgcps.org/index.asp?code=6539&Submit=GO.

Restrepo, M., Castilla, A., Schwanenflugel, P., Neuharth-Pritchett, S., Hamilton, C., & Arboleda, A. (2010). Effects of a Supplemental Spanish Oral Language Program on Sentence Length, Complexity, and Grammaticality in Spanish-Speaking Children Attending English-Only Preschools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(1), 3-13. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Roberts, T., & Corbett, C. (1997). Efficacy of Explicit English Instruction in Phonemic Awareness and the Alphabetic Principle for English Learners and English Proficient Kindergarten Children in Relationship to Oral Language Proficiency, Primary Language and Verbal Memory. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374-398. BB

Stahl, S. A. (2001). Teaching phonics and phonological awareness. In S. B. Neumann & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 333-347). New York: Guilford. ER

Strickland, D., Schickedanz, J., & International Reading Association, N. (2004). Learning about Print in Preschool: Working with Letters, Words, and Beginning Links with Phonemic Awareness. International Reading Association. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Tabors, P. O. & Snow, C. E. (2004). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes in reading (5th edition, pp. 240-267). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ER

Teale, W. H., Hoffman, J. L., & Paciga, K. A. (2010). Where is NELP leading preschool literacy instruction? Potential positive and pitfalls. Educational Researcher, 39, 311-315. BB

Tindall, E., & Nisbet, D. (2010). Exploring the Essential Components of Reading. Journal of Adult Education, 39(1), 1-9. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Association for Supervision and Curriculum, D. (2007). Research-Based Methods of Reading Instruction for English Language Learners, Grades K-4. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from ERIC database.