Although LESLLA (Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults) students form a very heterogeneous group (Reder, 2015), many of them share some characteristics that differ from literate language students (i.e. inference making; see Huettig & Mishra, 2014). Thus, researchers have been working on identifying classroom practices that are best suited to LESLLA students' characteristics and needs. In their What Works Study (2003, 2006), Condelli and his collaborators conducted a large-scale study to highlight teaching practices that are associated positively with students' literacy and language development. They identified four practices recommended for teaching LESLLA students: 1) Bringing in the outside (connections to the "real" world), 2) Use the students' native language for clarification, 3) Varied practice and interaction strategy, and 4) Emphasis on oral communication. However, 20 years after the publication of this research, there is a growing literature on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) from which we can draw to critically examine these general orientations.
In order to assess whether the teaching practices currently implemented in LESLLA classrooms in Québec (Canada) align not only with Condelli's orientations but also with recent ISLA research findings (i.e., oral practice without print support; L1 use as a cognitive tool for L2 language learning), our research team conducted a large-scale study throughout the province. We thus collected data on self-reported teaching practices through an online questionnaire with 54 teachers as well as through individual interviews with 42 teachers and 10 pedagogical advisors.
Results show that the self-reported teaching practices generally followed Condelli and al.'s (2003, 2006) recommendations (eg., emphasis on oral skills). Nevertheless, when analyzed more closely, the self-reported practices did not always align with knowledge base from ISLA research. For example, some teachers reported spending a lot of time on oral skills development, but did so using techniques such as decontextualized drills, which find no empirical support in the literature (Wong & VanPatten, 2003).
We believe that bridging ISLA findings to Condelli's influential work will provide more specific guidance to LESLLA practitioners.
Bibliography
Condelli, L., Wrigley, H.S., Yoon, K., Cronen, S., & Seburn, M. (2003). What Works Study for Adult ESL Literacy Students: Final Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Condelli, L., & Wrigley, H. S. (2006). Instruction, language and literacy: What works study for adult ESL literacy students. In Van de Craats, I., Kurvers, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Low-Educated Adult Second Language and Literacy Acquisition: Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium (pp. 111–133). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
Huettig, F., & Mishra, R. K. (2014). How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind–a critical examination of theories and evidence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(10), 401-427.
Reder, S. (2015). Expanding emergent literacy practices: Busy intersections of context and practice. Dans M. G. Santos et A. Whiteside (dir.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition (LESLLA): Proceedings of the 9th symposium (p. 1-29). San Francisco, CA: Lulu Publishing Services.
Wong, W., & Van Patten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign language annals, 36(3), 403-423.
