Literacy Development and Engagement
Literacy development for English Language Learners (ELLs) is a contested context, as consensus in the research literature is historically episodic, reflecting the dominant ideological, political, and cultural values, interests, and beliefs of the time (Haley & Austin, 2014, p. 199). Despite the paradigmatic nature of literacy development methodology throughout educational history, literacy itself is seen as a form of social practice (Haley & Austin, 2014), meaning a form of activity through which we use texts in culturally appropriate ways for specific purposes. Consequently, literate behavior must be understood as being ideologically bound with and defined through relations of power within the classroom, schools, and broader society. In this entry, I am looking at how literacy can be practiced in the classroom in ways that enable ELLs to enhance their social power as collaborative, innovative, and productive agents in the learning environment. A purposeful selection of two key artifacts aims to address this concern and extend consideration to include how ELLs can expand notions of literacy to encompass environmental and grammatical awareness.
Environmental literacy is a term that brings attention to the need for a comprehensive approach to environmental education. The environmental education curriculum emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that young people become environmentally active and responsible citizens. Students need to have the knowledge and skills that will enable them to understand and deal with complex issues that affect the environment now and in the future (Environmental Education, 2017, p. 2). For ELLs, the need to become aware of the complex issues facing the environment can be promulgated through a greater sensitivity towards understanding Indigenous ways of knowing and being in the world (Teaching for Ecological Sustainability, 2011). This epistemic and ethical orientation towards learning involves recognizing that relationships among human beings need not emphasize individualist notions of responsibility and initiative. Rather, embracing an indigenous understanding of the environment embodies a respect for relationality, interdependence, holism, and reflexive and reflective processes and relationships (see First Peoples Principles of Learning, 2018). As a culturally responsive educator and as a self-described cultural ally of the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit (FNMI) communities, I draw upon Gifted Teachings from Elders, Senators, and Knowledge Keepers to inform a range of lessons in the classroom, so that students can relate to and understand the multiple ways (e.g., Western and Indigenous ontologies) to come to an understanding about the world. I enjoy infusing inquiry-based learning with FNMI teachings to form project-based initiatives like the climate change project that I had my Grade 6, 7, and 8 students conduct in partners this past school year. These students researched in partnership with the school librarian, devised a plan to reduce our carbon footprint, and delivered an interactive gallery tour between themselves and Grade 4 students. ELLs were quite enthused as they provided their understandings in both Arabic and English, and furthered their literacy development among group members and through the design of models, posters, and speaking minutes.
Several teaching methodologies have been leveraged to support a grammatical approach to second language acquisition. As a learner of Latin and Greek at the university level, I am familiar with a structural and linguistic orientation. In this modality, there is an emphasis placed on the solation of grammatical and syntactic elements of L2; these are taught either deductively or inductively in a predetermined sequence (Mora, 2018). For example, grammar instruction provides the rules for putting words together (see Wheelock's Latin, 2016); instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words. Reading of difficult texts is begun early in the course of study. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis.
For the teaching of English grammar for ELLs, the structural and linguistic approach may not be the most accessible, as such an approach relies on much meta-linguistic content or "learning about the language" in order to learn the language. The affective and interpersonal approach focuses on the psychological and affective pre-dispositions of the learner that enhance or inhibit learning (Mora, 2018). Emphasizes interaction among and between teacher and students and the atmosphere of the learning situation as well as students' motivation for learning. Based on concepts adapted from counseling and social psychology. In this pedagogical orientation, acquisition of a second language is facilitated through communicative acts among students and teachers. As a mainstream classroom educator, I would acknowledge this approach and construct lessons, activities, and assignments with students as they both address content and language objectives. An outline is represented below that further details the stages and content of the communicative approach to second language acquisition:
Characteristics of the Communicative Classroom
The classroom is devoted primarily to activities that foster acquisition of L2. Learning activities involving practice and drill are assigned as homework.
The instructor does not correct speech errors directly.
Students are allowed to respond in the target language, their native language, or a mixture of the two.
The focus of all learning and speaking activities is on the interchange of a message that the acquirer understands and wishes to transmit, i.e. meaningful communication.
The students receive comprehensible input in a low-anxiety environment and are personally involved in class activities. Comprehensible input has the following major components:
a. a context
b. gestures and other body language cues
c. a message to be comprehended
d. a knowledge of the meaning of key lexical items in the utterance
Stages of language acquisition in the communicative approach
1. Comprehension or pre-production
a. Total physical response
b. Answer with names–objects, students, pictures
2. Early speech production
a. Yes-no questions
b. Either-or questions
c. Single/two-word answers
d. Open-ended questions
e. Open dialogs
f. Interviews
3. Speech emerges
a. Games and recreational activities
b. Content activities
c. Humanistic-affective activities
d. Information-problem-solving activities