Multilingual Literacy: an Integrated
Approach
© Nielsen, 2010
RATIONALE
Research findings demonstrate that the experiences that enable a child to
acquire any language and then to become literate in it follows a predictable
developmental pathway. This pathway can therefore be used as a basis for
planning an integrated curriculum for learning a first and subsequent
languages based on the development of common language proficiencies
(Doughty & Long, 2003; Griffin, 2009; Petitto, 2009). The mechanism that
drives this developmental interplay is commonly referred to as crosslinguistic transfer (Genesee, Geva, Dressler & Kamil, 2006).
There are two abiding frameworks that govern our current understanding of
cross-linguistic transfer:
1.
Linguistic interdependence (Coady, 1997; Cummins, 1979; Diaz & Klingler, 1991; Verhoeven,
1994)
2.
Contrastive analysis (Connor, 1996; Ellis, 1994; Lado, 1957; Odlin, 1989)
© Nielsen, 2010
UNDERSTANDING CROSS-LINGUISTIC
INTERDEPENDENCE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
1.
Linguistic Interdependence: refers to a mutual central
processing system from which both languages operate. A common
language proficiency.
Studies of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) have identified three
main areas of neuronal activation when reading is occurring across languages,
all located in the left hemisphere of the brain: Broca’s area (articualtion and
word analysis), the parieto-temporal region (sophisticated word analysis –
phoneme sequencing, morphological analysis) and the occipito-temporal region
(visual processing in fluent reading).
UNDERSTANDING CROSS-LINGUISTIC
INTERDEPENDENCE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
2.
Contrastive analysis: here the focus is also on commonalities
between L1 and L2, but in this case the emphasis is on
structural similarities between languages.
Within this perspective our planning and instructional focus is on
identifying and analysing structural (e.g. phonology, syntax,
semantic) similarities and differences (Odlin, 1989).
Differences may lead to inferential errors, whereas similarities
might lead to easier acquisition because the learner may recognise
features (phonological forms, cognates) that are common to both
languages. Thus the amount of structural abilities should moderate
the degree of transfer between L1 and L2 (Connor, 1996; Odlin,
1989).
MULTI-LINGUAL LITERACY: AN INTEGRATED
APPROACH
This approach to languages and literacy teaching is based upon a
global principle of in step collaboration between classroom teachers
of English (the societal language) and teachers of foreign languages
(the target language[s]).
The approach is based upon the following core principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Universal schedules for languages and literacy teaching and
learning (sequencing developmental milestones)
Developmental scaffolding of language and literacy tasks (within
and between - translanguaging)
Task analysis and modification (sequenced and tied to
purpose/outcomes of schedules)
Systematic (diagnostic/criterion, standardised/normed)
assessments tied to in step collaborative programming/schedules
Naturalist-immersion classroom environment (global oral
language development)
© Nielsen, 2010
MULTI-LINGUAL LITERACY: AN INTEGRATED
APPROACH
Tasks that support implementation of the approach in the early
years are:
1.
Activities for awareness of sounds (phonemes) and systematic
phonics use.
2.
Activities to build oral language skills (functional, thematic and
sight vocabulary).
3.
Activities and games to continue to develop and reinforce
vocabulary and phonological aspects of language.
4.
Developmentally integrated use of these activities across
languages: translanguaging.
Although the vast majority of today’s educators and teachers grew up with
the understanding that the human brain doesn’t physically change based
on stimulation it receives from the outside – especially after the age of 3 –
it turns out that that view is, in fact, incorrect.
(Prensky, 2001, p1)
© Nielsen, 2010
DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN ACTIVATION
Konza, 2007
© Nielsen, 2010
LITERACY?
Literacy is uniquely a schooled thing, and very different
to oral language. It is not simply oral language
transcribed…
(Cope and Kalantzis 2000, p.144.)
© Nielsen, 2010
BUZZ…
You have all been engaged in contrastive analysis
in your planning and with your students over the
past year!
In school language groups please take 5 minutes to
reflect on what you have learned / included in your
teaching about the sounds and sound to symbol
correspondences across English and the target
language.
Please record your reflections in your journals.
DEVELOPING MULTILINGUAL LITERACY:
PHONOLOGY TO SYSTEMATIC PHONICS INSTRUCTION
Grapho-phonological Correspondence: mapping phonology
Letter-sound Knowledge = The Alphabetic Principle
The Alphabetic Principle = Phonics Instruction
Syllable-sound Knowledge = The Syllabic Principle
The Syllabic Principle = Phonics Instruction (modified)
© Nielsen, 2010
UNIVERSAL PHONICS INSTRUCTION: IN
STEP PLANNING

Within each writing system, orthographies vary in the transparency of
mappings between graphemes and phonemes
Consequences for phonics instruction?

A learner can confidently connect a letter (or durable syllable) to a sound in
shallower orthographies but the basis for such confidence wanes as the
learner moves to deeper orthographies (English as a “dyslexic” orthography)
Perfetti & Dunlap, 2008, p 18
© Nielsen, 2010
PHONICS ACROSS LANGUAGES
Learning to read in Spanish undoubtedly requires phonemic
awareness and proceeds from a foundation of readiness through a
developmental progression of encoding and decoding skills
(Estes & Richards 2002, p.222)
Hiragana and Katakana symbols represent the sounds of
syllables. Each is a kind of alphabet, or syllabary, of 46 basic
sounds or characters (Romaji / Hepburn System to Kanji)
Akiyama, 2002
A review of the literature to date also indicates that while all
languages use syllables to form lexical items (words) they too vary
in depth / durability:
Language
No. Syllables ≈ all words
Spanish
35 CV
Japanese (Kana)
100 V CV
Modern Greek
433
Chinese
Siok, Wai Ting (2001)
1200 mono (21 onset; 37 rime)
Indonesian
1900
English
3000
© Nielsen, 2010
REFLECTIONS FOR TEACHING…
Research shows …
Strong correlations between L1 and L2 oral language, decoding
and phonological awareness skills …
according to the interdependence framework this is due to the
development of a common underlying proficiency that serves the
skills in both languages.
according to the contrastive analysis framework this is due to
the extent of similarities between the languages. The learner
recognises that some structures (phonemes, graphemes and
cognates) are similar in each language and thereby transfer
knowledge of these structures from one language to another.
Thus, the correlations (or ability to transfer) can be
explained from within both frameworks.
How do these findings compare with your experiences?
HOW HAVE YOU TAUGHT?
Interdependence Framework…
Contrastive Analysis Framework…
WHY?



Introduction of a new language does not “damage” or “contaminate”
the home language of the child (Petitto et al., 2003)
The brains of multilinguals are not deviant to monolingual brains,
they overlap the classic language areas that are universally
observed in monolinguals (Petitto et al., 2009)
Learning of a second alphabetic language enhances and improves
students’ literacy outcomes in their first alphabetic language (School
of Languages, 2005)

That students who average 4 or more years of foreign language
study score higher on their Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) than
those who study 4 or more years in any other area (US College
Examination Board)

The average mathematics score for individuals who have studied
languages for 4 or more years is identical to the average score of
those who have spent that same time on extra mathematics study
(US College Examination Board)
CONNECTING TRANSLANGUAGING WITH ACARA
CONNECTING TRANSLANGUAGING WITH ACARA
SCAFFOLDING LEARNING BOTH WITHIN AND
BETWEEN LANGUAGES: A WAY FORWARD
What does research tell us?
1.
There is little transfer of oral language knowledge
(universal developmental path for content, 30 million)
(Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011)
TRANSLANGUAGING ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT:
SEQUENTIAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
Level 1
 Vocabulary: building of basic functional nouns.
 The language of basic social interactions (functional / thematic).
 Basic classroom language: instructions and interactions.
Level 2
 Expanding the language of social interactions.
 Expanding noun vocabulary.
 Introducing verbs.
Level 3
 Expand verb and noun vocabulary.
 Introduce adjectives; emotions, size, describing people.
Level 4
 Expand on nouns, verbs, and adjectives.
 Explore verb tenses.
 Introduce adverbs.
Level 5
 Continue expanding all areas of vocabulary.
 Focus on sentence construction.
© Nielsen, 2010
SCAFFOLDING LEARNING BOTH WITHIN AND
BETWEEN LANGUAGES: A WAY FORWARD
What does research tell us?
1.
There is little transfer of oral language knowledge
(universal developmental path for content)
2.
There is a moderate to strong cross-linguistic transfer of
decoding skills and phonological awareness (reading
comprehension in L1 and L2 - flashcards)
3.
There are a number of factors that moderate how strong /
successful this transfer can be:
1.
2.
3.
Whether the learners are provided with instruction in both L1
and L2 or just L2 (4000 to 1400 hours with translanguaging)
The degree of structural similarity between L1 and L2
The age and SES of the learners (decontextualised L1 oral
language, a metalanguage). As learners master decoding to the
point of automaticity then oral language knowledge becomes
more significant for comprehension (receptive, 15 y.o. knows
around 13,000 words by sight. 30 million deficit)
(Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011)
A WRITING CONTINUUM
FROM TALKING TO WRITING TO READING:
PERSPECTIVES
A
Receptive:
Hearing and
listening
B
Expressive:
Speaking
D
Receptive:
Reading
C
Expressive:
Writing
L2
SAY WHAT YOU CAN HEAR, READ WHAT YOU CAN WRITE
A.
Oral language development: functional, thematic. Nouns and modifiers
B.
Phonemic awareness
C.
Decoding skills: segmenting and blending

Write what you can actively hear (LSCWC&T)

Modelled construction of sentences - build words into phrases (Q & A as class and in pairs)

Students practise listening to and saying modelled sentences




Students recite in Q & A format or dialogue format with teacher as a whole class the
modelled sentences – swap roles and act out
Modelled construction with individual adaptations (open-ended co-construction – going
beyond fast mapping). Linguistic adaptations may include; adjectives, greetings, number,
demonstratives, superlatives, nouns, pronouns etc…
Students practise reading aloud what they have written in pairs and as a whole class
(compare and contrast different models / different lexical and syntactical constructs)
Class co-construction of longer dialogue / script drawing upon known language and
integrating new phrases and target vocab

Students then use co-constructed model to write their own

In pairs, students read and recite what they have written


Students present their dialogues to class using drama props – pop-up stages, costumes,
wigs, glasses, sombreros, puppets, realia etc…
Record on DVD for student reflection and planning and teacher reflection, planning and
reporting
AN EXAMPLE FROM MY PRACTICE…
IN-STEP PLANNING FOR 2011
New Students:
1.
Oral language development activities
functional, thematic and sight vocabulary
2.
Systematic phonics instruction
mapping principle for sounds to symbols –
decoding and encoding skills, spelling skills
Resources: resources on blog + distributed, new books, IWB book /
activities, dice activities, flashcards, bilingual songs,
classroom language, web sites, lap and big books etc…
IN-STEP PLANNING FOR 2011
Continuing Students:
1.
Moving oral language (functional, thematic and
sight vocabulary) into writing for reading
(employing phonics strategies)
 Class letter/sound book
Children’s alphabet books (IWB)
 Page in class big book
 Rhyme in pocket chart
 Class chart with photos and captions
 Photostory on computers and IWB (ToonTwisters 3D)
 Joint construction of text: Sharing The Pen

SCHOOL PLANNING: 2 COHORTS & 2
CLASSROOM TEACHERS
LANGUAGE TEACHERS: WHAT SUPPORT DO YOUR COLLEAGUES NEED IN
2011?
New …
 Assessments
 Activities
…
Continuing …
Discuss and record in your journals
RAY WILLIAMS’ TOP TEN PRINCIPLES FOR
TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGE READING
This article puts forward ten principles for an extensive
reading approach to teaching reading. They deal with the
nature of extensive reading and the conditions and
methodology necessary for its success.
Next FUSA session, Term 2?
 Feedback and TRT accounts
 Permits
