S

Comments

Elaine Tarone University of Minnesota

SIFE/SLIFE

These presentations explore different characteristics of “the SIFE student … the student w/limited formal schooling” Browder: what factors correlate with low English proficiency gains? SIFE? 2 year

gap=interruption to schooling. What is schooling? Not good predictor of English gains. What does:# ESOL classes, below grade level measured math skills, low self-reported literacy.

Young: what opportunities for oral question-oriented usage events does a classroom provide a low-literate SIFE student (Amina)? Interlocutor effects? How does print interact with oral SLA? Answer: not many, as she spends a lot of time copying words from board, doesn’t interact with peers who cut her off or write in her answers.

Bigelow & King: what personal strengths does a low-literate SIFE student bring to peer interaction in reading activities with a higher-schooled & literate peer? Ayan is very focused on task-completion, keeps pair on task (impt role in cooperative learning groups), benefits from Aisha’s scaffolding. (mutual support, scaffolding in oral interaction around print reading)

Pettitt & Dillard: what pragmatic skills are used to reach communicative goals? Roba’s excellent pragmatic and conversational skills in alignment with interlocutor to achieve communicative goals: strategic lexical repetition, utterance completion, back-channels, encapsulation. None depend on formal instruction or literacy.

Browder

What correlates with English proficiency gains? Low proficiency on arrival, below grade-level math,

low L2 literacy all correlate with low English proficiency gains.

No difference SIFE and non-SIFE as defined by NY

NY state def. SIFE: 2yr gap in schooling

Asks “Is it possible that schooling measured in years or grade is an unreliable way to measure education as the effect of one year can vary greatly from country to country or even student to student?”

Browder

Yes. See Bigelow, delMas, Hansen & Tarone (2006):

Literacy level of SIFE learner?

The four studies used four different ways of characterizing the literacy levels of their SIFE learners: Browder: self-assessment. Young’s Amina: 6 years or fewer of formal instruction, ‘has trouble

writing independently’ but exact literacy level not measured. Big & King: measured Ayan and Aiesha individually with NLLSD

(though ethical dilemmas here). Most recent arrivals class. Pettitt & Dillard: qualitative battery of skills: LINCS 2012 read-

aloud: word analysis, blending, onset-rime, structural analysis; sound-symbol production; use of focal strategies; following print w/ finger; self & teacher assessment; CASAS.

Role of print in interaction w/ SIFEs in classroom

ecology (Non-SIFE) Guerrettaz & Johnston (2013) and upcoming MLJ

Perspectives colum: what opportunities for SLA occur in a teacher’s and students’ oral interactions around a testbook grammar drill? Little previous research documenting how materials are actually used in interaction in classroom ecology, or the opportunities for SLA their use provides.

Bigelow & King: how pair manages reading activity, scaffolding each other’s progress through task w/ diff strengths. What opportunities for L2 learning?

Young: ‘materials’= board, notes. SIFE learner copies all writing from board, asks scripted questions, little interaction w/peers, few opportunities for L2 Q learning. Note: social context can affect Pienemann’s order acquisition of questions (see Tarone & Liu 1995). Why did peers cut her off? Does her slow writing slowing them down in task completion?

Submit to MLJ, citing both the G&J paper and the Perspectives column summer 2014.!

What learner assets are NOT affected by lower alphabetic print

literacy?

Pettitt & Dillard: pragmatic conversational skill in achieving one’s communicative goals (Roba).

Bigelow & King: strong goal and task-completion orientation in small group work (Ayan).

Young: persistence in goal orientation & task completion (Amina’s board-copying); willingness to ask for and give help (Amina)

Others?