Describing ABE Level 1 Learners:
Supporting Research and Implications for Teaching
John Strucker, Ed. D
Describing ABE Level 1 Learners
The designation of ABE Level 1 applies to learners whose reading abilities range from Grade
Equivalent 0 -1.9 (GE 0-1.9). The National Reporting System (NRS) of the US ED Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE) refers to this level as “Beginning Literacy.” In 2004-05 (the latest year for which
there are figures), Beginning Literacy learners made up about 9% of the total ABE/ASE enrollment
nationwide (OVAE, 2007). Although Level 1 encompasses GE 0-1.9, very few native-born adults in
developed countries like the United States actually have “GE 0” reading ability – meaning they possess
absolutely no reading skills.1 In their everyday lives, most U.S.-born Level 1 learners are able to function
to a limited degree in the world of print: they can usually identify some food and product labels, they
operate electronic devices like cell phones, TV remotes, and video games, and they are aware of the
purposes and uses of books, magazines, and other forms of print communication (NAAL, 2003). And,
nearly all U.S.-born Level 1 learners were exposed to some reading instruction in school, and as a result
most retain some basic reading skills. For example, learners in the ABE Level 1 clusters in the Adult
Reading Components Study2 (ARCS) (Strucker & Davidson, 2003) knew the names of most of the letters,
could identify some of the letter sounds (phonemes), and were able to read a few sight words.
Although most Level 1 learners possess a few reading skills, their most relevant characteristic is their
lack of mastery3of those skills. Most importantly, they have not mastered alphabetics, the set of early
1
Adults who are completely non-literate usually reside in rural and/or war-torn areas of developing countries. However, a few
of these adults are enrolled in some Massachusetts English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. Referred to as Beginning ESL
Literacy (BESLL) learners in the National Reporting System (OVAE, 2010), they have little or no literacy in their native languages,
so they face the daunting task of learning to read for the first time in a new or second language. As a result, BESLL learners
require specialized approaches to reading instruction that are significantly different from those used with Level 1 learners who
are native speakers or have become fluent speakers of English (Burt, et al., 2003; Hartel, et al., 2007; Holt, 1995). To give one
example, when teaching a decoding pattern to native English speakers, the teacher is free to choose from many words to
illustrate the pattern and how it is pronounced, e.g., for the –ut pattern, words such as cut, gut, hut, jut, nut, or rut could be
used. In contrast, when teaching BESLL learners, the teacher would focus exclusively on the high-frequency words that new
learners of English both need to know and are likely to use - in this case, words such as cut or nut. And, she would first teach
the meanings of those words in concrete situations using multiple opportunities for practicing the words in oral language. This
is because all learners – ESL or ABE - are much more likely to remember the pronunciations of words if their meanings are
familiar. Because BESLL learners require reading instruction that is supported by parallel oral language development, they
should definitely not be placed in classes with ABE Level 1 learners who are native speakers of English or fluent English
speakers.
2
The Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) (Strucker & Davidson, 2003) interviewed and assessed at 676 ABE learners in
adult literacy programs in Texas, Tennessee, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Each
learner was given a battery of reading and language assessments to determine his or her profile of strengths and needs in
reading. Over half of this testing was done by local ABE and ESOL practitioners who were trained to administer the battery and
conduct the interviews. The profiles of the 676 ABE enrollees were subjected to cluster analysis that yielded 10 instructionally
relevant profiles of ABE learners, ranging from beginners through GED.
3
“Mastery” in the field of reading usually does not mean “perfection.” Most reading assessments define mastery as the highest
level at which a learner has an 80% or greater probability of successfully performing a given set of skills or comparable skills. By
extension, mastery of the Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC) principle in phonics would mean that a learner is able to read at
least 80% of a list of CVC words correctly.
Written by John Strucker for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Adult and Community
Learning Services Unit, May 2011
2
reading skills that support the decoding of printed language into its spoken language equivalents.
Alphabetics includes rapid letter identification, phonemic awareness (the awareness that speech is
made up of a sequence of sounds that can be isolated and manipulated—changed, added, or
subtracted—to form different words) and word analysis or phonics (the relationships between the
sounds of words and their spelling).
Most Level 1 learners also lack speed and automaticity4 with critical basic decoding skills such as
instant and automatic letter recognition. Although Level 1 learners can usually identify nearly all of the
letters of the alphabet, many of them are only able to do so slowly and laboriously. Many cannot even
generate the letters of the alphabet in proper sequence - a, b, c, etc. And, while they may be able to
produce a few of the letter-sounds when presented with printed letters, their knowledge of those
sounds is slow and halting rather than automatic and precise. This makes it slow and exhausting for
them to use their knowledge of those letter sounds to sound out words.
Important point: Practitioners should not assume that when Level 1 learners exhibit partial knowledge
of alphabetics that this means those skills do not need to be taught, reviewed, and practiced.
Not only have Level 1 learners not mastered alphabetics, they experience great difficulty acquiring
these skills even after they enroll in ABE classes. Most Level 1 adults in the ARCS reported difficulties
with reading beginning in kindergarten and first grade, the years when children are first acquiring
alphabetics. Not surprisingly, most of those who attended U.S. public schools from the 1960s on
reported receiving extra help in reading in the form of pull-out programs like extra tutoring, Title
1/Chapter 1, and Special Education, suggesting that their teachers recognized that they were struggling
readers who needed extra help (Strucker & Davidson, 2003). This level of severe and persistent difficulty
acquiring the basic sound-symbol relationships - also called the “core phonological deficit” - is regarded
by reading teachers and researchers as the main characteristic of reading disability or dyslexia in
children and adults (Shaywitz, 1996; Bruck, 1990; Swanson & Hsieh, 2009).
Because Level 1 learners find it so difficult to acquire sound-symbol relationships, they need carefullypaced, step-by-step instruction that includes many opportunities for practice and review. So, for
example, simply explaining the silent-e rule and giving them a few examples of silent-e words will
neither lead to their mastery of the silent-e pattern nor their ability to recognize it in new silent-e words.
In fact, for many Level 1 learners, such brief exposures to alphabetics are often not retained from one
class to the next.
Of course, Level 1 learners’ needs in reading extend beyond alphabetics. Because they have not been
able to read to gain information and concepts, their vocabulary is often stuck at conversational levels
(GE 4 or below), and their background knowledge about science, civics, and literature is also severely
4
“Automaticity” refers to activities that can be done quickly and accurately, but with little or no conscious thought. During
reading, proficient readers are not aware that they are recognizing individual letters, groups of letters, and words. Their
conscious mental activity is directed toward understanding, interpreting, and interacting with what they are reading. If a
learner has to think consciously about whether a letter is a “u” or a “v,” or how to pronounce the “au-“ vowel digraph, this
conscious activity takes away undermines being able to read for meaning.
3
limited (Strucker & Davidson, 2003). As a result, even when higher level texts are read to them
(eliminating the need for decoding), they still may have difficulty comprehending passages about
unfamiliar topics because they lack the necessary concept development, content-specific vocabulary, or
background of knowledge. In recognition of the range of challenges faced by Level 1 learners, the
Massachusetts ABE Level 1 Standards for the Revised Reading Strand not only include topics in
alphabetics and decoding such as word identification and fluency, but the additional topics of
vocabulary, comprehension strategies, informational reading, and literary reading.
Given that Level 1 learners face challenges in every aspect of reading, what should be their
instructional priorities, and how should their instructional time be allotted? One way to approach this
issue is to consider the reading process itself. It begins when the reader recognizes a string of letters as a
word, accesses its spoken language equivalent (pronunciation), and its meaning. Proficient readers
accomplish all of this within ¼ second per word, and carry this process effortlessly forward from word to
word, phrase to phrase, and sentence to sentence - almost as if the text is “talking to them” (Adams,
1990; Rayner, 1998). Moreover, for proficient readers these activities occur with little conscious effort,
leaving their minds free to think about what the text is saying, compare it to previous information, and
make judgments about its relevance and accuracy.
However, because of their severe difficulties with alphabetics, Level 1 readers are blocked during the
initial ¼ second of the reading process in which letter strings are recognized as words and their spoken
language equivalents are accessed. As Chall (1983) put it, their main priority is “unlocking print,”
literally learning to read, meaning they must learn the basics of how to decode words and recognize
them quickly. This inability to decode has prevented them and continues to prevent them from being
able to read to learn – that is, being able to use reading to acquire new vocabulary, information, and
knowledge. Therefore, the primary goal of Level 1 instruction should be developing learners’ mastery
of basic decoding skills.
Important point: The amount of space devoted to the various topics in the Level 1 Standards is
emphatically not an indication of the proportion of instructional time that should be devoted to the
topics. Specifically, while the topics pertaining to alphabetics (word identification and decoding and
fluency) occupy less than one-third of the Level 1 Standards’ text, alphabetics would normally occupy at
least two-thirds of the instructional time. That is, about two-thirds of Level 1 learners’ class time should
be spent on letter/sound relationships, word analysis, sight word practice, oral reading of texts for
fluency and accuracy, and writing and spelling the words they are learning to read. The remaining onethird of the instructional time should be used to address the topics of vocabulary, comprehension
strategies, informational texts, and literary texts. As will be discussed below, because Level 1 adults’
decoding ability is severely limited, many of these topics can best be addressed via oral language
activities and the discussion of informational and literary texts that are read to the learners.
4
What approaches work best for teaching alphabetics to Level 1 Learners?
Although few “what works” studies have been done with ABE Level 1 readers, we can generalize from
what is known about children who struggle with alphabetics, because, after all, most of our adult
beginners were once struggling young readers. But first, let’s consider what doesn’t work: there is
strong research evidence that struggling beginning readers do not fare well when decoding skills are
taught piecemeal or incidentally – e.g., teaching a phonics principle only when it crops up randomly in a
text or language experience story. Instead, what works best are direct and systematic approaches to
teaching word analysis and decoding (NRP, 2000; Kruidenier, 2002; McShane, 2005). Direct and
systematic approaches to teaching decoding are usually referred to as “structured language
approaches” (SLAs). Most SLAs share these features:

Direct, explicit teaching of decoding principles, i.e., readers are taught the pronunciations of
letters and spelling patterns directly, not asked to infer them from their similarities in lists of
words or based on their context in a sentence.

Systematic instruction, i.e., well-designed formats and templates for activities that are repeated
and reused from lesson to lesson. This helps learners to concentrate on what is being taught,
rather wasting energy or worrying about learning new procedures for every class.

An optimal sequence for teaching phonics, i.e., a sequence based on linguistic analyses of the
structure of English sounds and spelling, starting with the smallest units (sounds, letters, letters
and sounds together) and moving to the spelling patterns and their pronunciations in words and
syllables.

Emphasis on teaching decoding using the synthetic phonics approach, i.e., in which the reader
converts letters into sounds, then blends those sounds to produce recognizable words, e.g., /c//a/-/t/ = cat. Research has found synthetic phonics to be the best approach to employ with
reading disabled children and adolescents (NRP, 2000). Among its advantages, it proceeds from
left-to-right like the movement of our eyes as we read, and it directs the reader’s attention to
each letter in turn, skipping none.

Ample opportunities for practice, review, and mastery, sometimes called “over-learning” or
“learning to automaticity.”
Most SLAs also employ some multi-sensory techniques (Birsch, 2005); for example, practicing
the spelling of sight words by “sky-writing” them in the air or finger-tapping letter-sounds when
decoding or spelling words.
A number of SLA approaches are used in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the U.S. for Level 1 learners,
including (in alphabetical order):
* Lindamood-Bell http://www.lindamoodbell.com/
* Orton-Gillingham http://www.orton-gillingham.com/
* Reading Horizons http://www.readinghorizons.com/
5
* The Wilson Reading System http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/.
These approaches are very similar in their broad contours, and all owe much to Orton-Gillingham, the
original SLA. All employ instruction that is direct, systematic, sequential, and multi-sensory – with many
opportunities for review, practice, and over-learning. All require extensive training for teachers,
including in some cases supervised practica leading to certification. Most of them are also designed as
complete packages with assessment/locator tools, sequenced lesson plans, and complete instructional
materials, which in some cases include computer-based activities and support.
In addition to these SLAs, Sylvia Greene’s Basic Literacy Kits I and II (Greene, 1996) should be
mentioned. Greene, a Wilson-trained teacher at the Community Learning Center in Cambridge, MA,
developed these materials specifically for ABE Level 1 learners. They include informal word analysis and
sight word assessments, sequenced phonics lessons, sample exercises and worksheets, and a controlled
basal reader5, Sam and Val. In the next section, the topics and benchmarks that comprise the Level 1
Standards will be discussed in the order in which they appear in the Revised Massachusetts ABE Reading
Standards and Benchmarks (2010).
STANDARD 1 (READING FOUNDATIONS): Learners will integrate knowledge, skills, and strategies
related to word identification/decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension to construct
meaning from informational and literary texts
The Research Basis for Standard 1
The four Reading Foundations topics listed below are derived from research about the reading
process and how reading develops:

Topic A: Word Identification and Decoding (the ability to recognize and pronounce
words);

Topic B: Fluency (the ability to read smoothly, accurately, and with expression);

Topic C: Vocabulary (knowledge of word meanings);

Topic D: Comprehension Strategies (a range of conscious strategies - from basic to
higher order - that readers use to improve their understanding and retention of what
they read).
These four topics are important components of reading that are known to contribute to reading
comprehension, which is the ultimate goal and purpose for reading. The National Reading Panel (NRP)
(2000) defined reading comprehension as “…an active process that requires an intentional and
5
Sam and Val is called a “controlled basal reader” because the words used in its stories closely follow the
sequence in which the phonics patterns taught in the Literacy Kits. The result is that readers are always reading
text that is almost entirely comprised of words and word patterns they’ve already learned to decode and/or
recognize as sight words.
6
thoughtful interaction between the reader and the text” (NRP, p. 13). Note that the Revised Standards
make a distinction between reading comprehension (the goal and purpose for reading) and the
Foundation Topic D, Comprehension Strategies (the conscious strategies employed by readers to
improve reading comprehension).
Although proficient readers experience reading as a seamless process - as if the text were talking to
them – reading researchers and teachers have found it useful to separate reading into its component
parts in order to first understand which aspects of reading are causing difficulties for struggling readers
and then address those aspects through focused instruction. In the case of ABE Level 1 learners, as
discussed above, their word identification and decoding problems block the reading process at its start
and prevent fluent reading from developing, and without fluent reading, comprehension of text is
almost impossible.
Topic A: Word Identification and Decoding
As discussed previously, without doubt this is the most important topic for Level 1 learners. Notice
that Level 1 Topic A Word Identification and Decoding includes many more benchmarks than are
included in Levels 2 and beyond. That is because Level 1 learners need to master all of the preliminary
building blocks of reading such as automatic and fluent identification of letters and letter soundsbenchmarks that are expected to have been mastered by readers at Levels 2-6. The benchmarks under
Topic A are were ordered in the approximate sequence in which they would usually be acquired by Level
1 readers. However, the Topic A benchmarks are not meant as a curriculum; they do not include all of
the skills Level 1 learners need to acquire, nor do they cover all of the intervening steps in their
instruction. For that information teachers should turn to the actual curricula employed in one of the
aforementioned structured language approaches.
Benchmark R1.1a refers to rapid automatic letter recognition – literally the ability of a learner to say
the names of the upper and lowercase letters quickly and accurately when they are presented randomly
(as opposed to in alphabetical order) on a page.
R1.1.b refers to the ability to provide the sounds made by the letters – again, quickly and accurately.
Note that the letter sounds include the consonants, short and long vowels, and common consonant
digraphs such as /ch/, /sh/, or /th/ where two letters make one sound.
Some SLAs provide practice on the letter names and their sounds together. For example, the Wilson
Reading System uses “Key Word Cards”6 that teach learners to associate the letter’s name, a key word
beginning with the letter’s sound, and the sound itself. Whether letter names and sounds are practiced
together as in Wilson or not, the goal is for learners to be able to produce the letter names and letter
sounds quickly and accurately. Again, it should be stressed that the Level 1 benchmarks are not a
curriculum, much less a step-by-step teaching guide. For example, most SLAs provide opportunities for
6
This is a Wilson Key Word Card for short a:
7
learners to use the first ten or so letter sounds to read and spell a few simple words, rather than waiting
until after they have mastered all the letter sounds.
Benchmarks R1.1.c and R1.1.d address aspects of phonemic awareness (PA). Phonemic awareness is
the awareness that speech is made up of a sequence of sounds that can be isolated and manipulated—
changed, added, or subtracted—to form different words, e.g., sick, slick, slim, slam.7 A large body of
evidence indicates that practice with PA games and activities in kindergarten and first grade helps all
children learn to read better and appears to reduce the number of children who experience early
reading failure (Adams, 1990; NRP, 2000). There is a much smaller body of evidence suggesting that
exposing ABE beginners to PA training can facilitate their learning to read as well (Kruidenier, 2002;
McShane, 2005). However, studies of struggling adult learners show that even after they have learned
to read at 4th grade level and above, most are never able to master the more challenging aspects of PA,
such as the manipulation of single phonemes within words (Bruck, 1990; 1991; Strucker & Davidson,
2003). Their difficulty mastering the more challenging aspects of PA is probably a manifestation of the
core phonological deficit that defines their reading disability or dyslexia (Bruck, 1990; Johnson, 1987;
Read, 1988).
What does this mean for phonemic awareness (PA) instruction for ABE Level 1 learners? Although
their reading disability will usually prevent them from mastering many aspects of PA, time spent working
with letter-sounds (i.e., without the letter symbols) is still likely to be beneficial. But teachers need to
be careful not to overdo PA instruction, or to feel they must delay teaching phonics until all aspects of
PA are mastered, because that may never happen. The PA benchmarks R1.1c and R1.1d were chosen
because they are achievable for most Level 1 readers and, more importantly, because they involve PA
skills that are directly related to two of the skills that readers actually use in the decoding process.
R1.1c, “providing the initial consonant sound when a one-syllable word is presented orally
(pronounced for the learner),” directs learners to be able to separate the onset (initial sound) from the
rime (the rest of the word). This can help learners to recognize spelling patterns or word families and
thus enable them to read more words by analogy (e.g., ham, clam, Sam, tram, etc.).
R1.1d, “blending sounds to pronounce complete words (e.g., /s/-/a/-/d/ = /sad/; /t/-/r/-/i/-/p/ =
/trip/),” is the PA pre-cursor of synthetic phonics. And, as mentioned above, synthetic phonics is the
preferred method of teaching decoding in which learners learn to sound out words letter-sound by
letter-sound and blend the sounds to pronounce complete words.
Important point: Because the Massachusetts Adult Proficiency Test does not cover ABE Level 1, the
TABE 9 -10 Level L has been mandated for Level 1 learners. Like any other standardized test, the TABE L
should not be used as a guide for what to teach. This is especially true when it comes to phonemic
awareness: although 25% of the items on the TABE L are focused on PA, teachers should definitely not
7
For a detailed discussion of phonemic awareness and ABE readers see
http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/MC_Phonemics.htm.
8
take up 25% of class time with PA, nor should they attempt to reproduce some of the PA tasks that
appear on the TABE L. Instead, it is recommended that teachers follow the PA activities that embedded
in whatever SLA they are using. Instructional time that could be fruitfully employed on phonics, sight
word reading, and oral reading fluency should not be wasted teaching to the TABE L PA items.
Benchmark R1.1e addresses word analysis or phonics, the ability to “[a]pply knowledge of common
spelling patterns to decode one-syllable words including CV,8 e.g., ‘me’, CVC., e.g., ‘met’, CVCC, e.g.,
‘melt’ or ‘much’, CCVC, e.g., ‘slip’ or ‘chip’, CVCV, e.g., ‘mate’, and CVVC, e.g., ‘meat’.” These skills focus
on the basic word and syllable patterns that Level 1 learners need to master to unlock print. SLAs usually
start with the CVC pattern because it is very consistent and occurs in many English words and syllables.
Sylvia Greene’s controlled basal reader Sam and Val is written using mostly CVC words, supplemented
by a few necessary sight words (see below) such as live or work.
For Level 1 knowing a learner’s GE score in phonics is far less important than identifying which specific
phonics principles (e.g., CVC, CVCV, etc.) a learner knows on entry and which need to be reviewed and
taught. The various SLAs use proprietary diagnostic phonics assessments that are directly linked to the
phonics sequence they teach, and they employ ongoing phonics assessments to monitor a learner’s
progress as instruction proceeds. Sylvia Greene’s Basic Literacy Kit I and II includes her Informal Word
Analysis Inventory (IWAI) that can also be used to identify a learner’s knowledge of basic phonics. The
learner reads words exemplifying various phonics patterns from a list, and a key explains to the teacher
what principle of phonics a miscue on a given item might represent. Information from assessments like
the IWAI can also be used by ABE programs to help decide whether a learner should be placed in a Level
1 or Level 2 class; for example, a learner who reads almost all of the IWAI words correctly and with little
hesitation is probably ready for Level 2, at least in terms of his phonics ability. Greene’s informal
inventory is available free on the LINCS ASRP website at:
http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/SG_All_Docs.pdf.
R1.1.f refers to the ability to “[a]utomatically identify 100-150 basic high-frequency sight words,
including basic personal information words (e.g., name, address) and signs (e.g., stop, exit) and
especially safety/survival words (e.g., danger, poison).” For the purposes of the MA Standards, the term
“sight words” refers both to the many common English words that do not lend themselves to phonetic
decoding (e.g., the, one, was, right) as well as words that are phonetically decodable, but whose instant
recognition is critical for day-to-day functioning and survival (e.g., name, exit, danger, stop). Sight words
can be practiced through memorization using flash cards and lists, and by spelling them using “air
writing” or tracing. Fortunately, many sight words occur so frequently in text that readers get multiple
exposures to them when they read, and this makes them somewhat easier to learn. Two free sight word
lists are available from the LINCS ASRP website: the widely-used Dolch Basic Words
(http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/Dolch_Basic.pdf) and Edward Fry’s Instant Words
(http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/Instant_Words.pdf). The latter arranges the words in the order of
8
In this format for representing syllable types, “C” denotes “consonant” and “V” denotes “vowel.”
9
their frequency in English print. Sylvia Greene’s Basic Literacy Kits I and II (1996) also includes a sight
word list comprised of non-phonetic sight words and important functional/survival words.
Topic B. Fluency
Although Topic B Fluency contains only one concisely-worded benchmark, R1.1f, “Read aloud text
written at approximately 1.9 GLE with accuracy, appropriate rate, and attention to punctuation and
phrasing,” the importance of fluency cannot be overstated. Level 1 readers require abundant
opportunities to practice oral reading fluency for several reasons. First, learners need to practice
reading words in meaningful text in order to consolidate the phonics principles and sight words they are
learning. Simply practicing the words on lists is not enough to enable learners to retain and master
them; learners need to encounter them while reading for meaning. Second, fluent oral reading involves
expression - making the printed words sound like natural speech. To accomplish this, the reader has to
pay attention to meaning, rather than pronouncing the words monotonously as if they were on a list. In
This sense, oral reading with appropriate expression mirrors what good readers do when they read
silently. Third, Level 1 readers need the feedback they get from oral reading – both the reinforcement
they get in hearing their own voices as they read and the feedback they get from their teachers when
they hesitate or make a miscue. Quite rightly, Level 1 learners seem to prefer oral reading over silent
reading, perhaps because they realize that the feedback oral reading affords is necessary and because
oral reading helps to build their confidence.
Every Level 1 lesson should provide opportunities for oral reading, but the reading must be accessible
in terms of its decoding difficulty. Text that is too difficult, no matter how potentially interesting, will
not allow them to consolidate their skills and it may discourage them. For this reason, the SLAs and the
Sylvia Greene kits include carefully controlled texts that offer accessible material linked to the sequence
of phonics and sight words they are being taught. Controlled texts also tend to focus on familiar topics
where the patterns of the writing are repeated and predictable. If the text follows a familiar topic and
uses simple, repeated patterns of writing, such as Greene’s basal Sam and Val, it is easier for learners to
detect their own mistakes because they can detect that the mistake doesn’t make sense in the story.
Teachers should avoid giving Level 1 learners material for oral reading practice that is above their level
or material that contains words and syllable types that have not yet been introduced. Such materials
can be used from time to time for comprehension discussions, but only when they are read to the
learners. It is a waste of time to ask Level 1 readers to practice oral reading of texts which they have
little chance of reading fluently and where the teacher has to repeatedly supply pronunciations for
words.
Oral reading fluency does not come easily for Level 1 learners. At first, even the simplest texts can be
challenging. Repeated reading of passages until the learner can read a brief text fluently has been
shown to be effective with children, so ABE teachers should employ this method as well. When
practicing oral reading with groups of learners, the teacher should remember to take turns herself to
model reading with expression and appropriate pace. Choral reading (where the learners read with the
teacher) can be useful, but it is important that learners also get plenty of opportunities to practice
independently of the “chorus.” Contrary to many teachers’ assumptions that beginning readers will be
too embarrassed to read out loud, in reality most learners are not only eager, but insistent on doing so.
10
Potential embarrassment can be avoided by assigning each member of the class a particular sentence in
the text, and providing time for everyone to read his or her sentence silently first. This makes
collaborative oral reading go more smoothly and facilitates comprehension as well.
Some teachers may be concerned that learners will become bored by having to practice basic skills either for phonics, sight words, or repeated oral reading fluency. This issue can be tackled head-on by
explaining to learners that as with learning a sport, the role of the coach (i.e., reading teacher) is to
create practice routines that build strength and proficiency. Like sports coaches, some SLA teachers also
use games for practicing skills, taking care that the game’s rules are not so complicated that they
overshadow the skill being practiced. To develop speed, some teachers time learners’ practice, saying to
a learner, “You’ve just read the list of words in 15 seconds. Good job! Now let’s try it again to see if you
can do it even faster.” Because Level 1 learners are often unaware of the progress they are making,
they can become demoralized. Tracking their speed and accuracy can help them to see that their
repeated practice really is leading to improvement. In addition, interest can be maintained by teaching
the same principles using a variety of materials (worksheets, 3” x 5” cards, crossword puzzles, and
computer-based programs like Lexia (2011) and a variety of techniques (students underline and label
aspects of words, students take turns reading words out loud, teacher says “Circle the word that says
“coat,” teacher says “I’ll read this line of words, but you raise your hand if you hear me make a
mistake”).
Topic C. Vocabulary
ABE Level 1 learners who are native or fluent non-native speakers of English know the meanings of
many more words than they can read. For example, the native speakers in the ARCS Level 1 clusters
averaged GE 4 in their knowledge of word meanings on an oral vocabulary test.9 Given the basic nature
of the texts they will be reading, Level 1 learners averaging GE 4 in vocabulary will encounter few if any
unknown words through their reading. For more advanced readers at ABE Levels 2 - 6, the texts they
are able to read become increasingly important sources for strengthening their vocabulary knowledge.
But until their reading improves, Level 1 learners will only be able to strengthen their vocabulary
primarily through oral language activities and discussion.
Before examining the vocabulary benchmarks in greater detail, let’s consider the role of vocabulary
assessment, especially when it comes to making the decision about whether a non-native speaker of
English (NNSE) should be placed in an ABE Level 1 class or an ESL class. The federally-mandated BEST
Plus test and informal oral interviews can provide information about a non-native English speaker’s
ability to understand and speak English in the classroom. In addition, programs may want to administer
a brief oral vocabulary assessment, such as the Word Meaning Test of the Diagnostic Assessments of
9
Given that GE 4 is an average in word meaning, some Level 1 learners may have oral vocabulary levels that are considerably
higher –perhaps because their spouse is well-educated or because their intellectual curiosity has led them to watch PBS nature
programming, the History Channel, or other information-bearing TV shows. On the other hand, teachers may also encounter
native-born Level 1 learners with somewhat lower levels of oral vocabulary – perhaps because they have lived in isolated or
restricted environments such as group homes or prisons. That is why it is a good idea to assess new Level 1 learners in oral
vocabulary. The Davidson-Bruce Word Meaning Test is easy to administer and enjoyable for learners to take. It can be
downloaded free from the Assessment Strategies and Reading Profiles website:
http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/WMT_All_Docs.pdf.
11
Reading (DAR) (Roswell, Chall, et al., 2007) or the similar Davidson-Bruce Word Meaning Test (2002).
(The latter is downloadable free from the LINCS ASRP website:
http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/WMT_All_Docs.pdf).
With both the DAR and Davidson-Bruce word meaning tests, the teacher asks the learner to tell what
a word means and scores his responses as correct or incorrect. If the learner defines at least four out of
five words at a given grade equivalent correctly, he is said to have mastered that level of vocabulary,
e.g., GE 1, GE 2, etc. On the Davidson-Bruce test, the five GE 1 words are house, train, confuse, start,
and climb. A non-native speaker who can’t provide basic meanings for four out of five of these GE 1
words might be better placed in an ESL class where basic words at that level will be taught, rather than
placed in an ABE class where knowledge of words at this level would be assumed. This is because most
native English speakers in ABE Level 1 start with word meaning knowledge at a much higher level
including words such as connect, interruption, ruin, candidate, and inventor (from Level 4 of the
Davidson-Bruce Word Meaning Test).
Benchmark R1.1g “Demonstrate orally an understanding of the meanings of everyday words likely to
be found in simple texts” is not focused on whether a learner knows the meanings everyday words - this
knowledge is assumed if he is a native speaker or fluent non-native speaker of English. Instead it refers
to a learner’s ability to give thorough and reasonably precise oral definitions of everyday words. This
ability is important because it lays the foundation for talking about words with more precision and
clarity, a skill learners will need when they begin to encounter more challenging vocabulary through
further reading and their continuing adult education. In addition, many of the oral language activities
associated with the benchmarks in Vocabulary (Topic C) and Comprehension Strategies (Topic D)
Standard 2 (Informational Reading) and Standard 3 (Literary Reading) are meant to help strengthen
Level 1 learners’ capacity to participate in decontextualized or distance communication, a key attribute
of literacy (Snow, 1991).10
Benchmark R1.1h “Recognize synonyms and antonyms for basic words (e.g., large/big; poor/rich)” is
not meant to suggest that instructors should teach lists of pairs synonyms and pairs of antonyms.
Rather its purpose is to ensure that learners are aware of the concepts of synonyms and antonyms via
oral language activities. As a result, these concepts learned with known words will be familiar when
learners begin studying more challenging words at Levels 2 and above, synonyms such as (lengthy /
extended) or antonym prefixes (e.g., pro- / anti-).
10
In our day-to-day oral language interactions with family, friends, and co-workers, we don’t need to specify many details. For
example, you might say to your spouse, “On the way home from work, stop at the market and pick up some salad makings for
dinner.” Because your spouse knows which market you are referring to and what salad ingredients the family usually eats, your
terse message is completely understandable just as it is. But writers must communicate to unknown audiences across great
expanses of space and time. A writer needs to be as precise and complete as possible to be understood – whether it is Rachel
Ray posting a recipe on the internet or Julius Caesar recounting his conquest of Gaul in 50 BC. Because Level 1 learners have
not been able to read more than the simplest texts, they have operated for most of their lives in familiar, face-to-face oral
language contexts. They are not experienced either with employing or understanding distance communication. This may be
reflected in their expressive language, such as how they define words (fence – “It goes around your yard”) or summarize a story
(“He quit and she got mad.”) It can also be reflected in their limited understanding of words that used in written distance
communication, such as prior, ample, or decline.
12
Benchmark R1.1i “When words whose meanings are known are presented orally or via pictures, be
able to classify them into appropriate categories (e.g., categories of animals: reptiles, birds, mammals or
categories of transportation: land, sea, and air)” is aimed at introducing learners to the concept that
words can be organized into classes or groups or categories according to their meanings, uses, shared
characteristics, physical features, etc. Although this benchmark appears under Topic C Vocabulary, the
ability to classify words could also be thought of as part of Topic D Comprehension Strategies because it
is directly related to the skill of getting the main idea (comparable to choosing a category) and
distinguishing it from supporting details (comparable to the words within a category).
Topic D: Comprehension Strategies
For the reasons discussed above under Topic B Fluency, much of the reading that Level 1 learners
engage in should employ simple texts; i.e., texts that are controlled11 in terms of the phonics principles
and sight words they use and predictable because of their repeated sentence patterns and highly
familiar subject matter. The purposes of reading simple controlled texts are to help a reader to perfect
and become confident in his decoding and word identification and thus translate the printed symbols on
the page into natural-sounding language. The comprehension challenges of these simple texts are kept
to a minimum to allow the learner to concentrate his attention on decoding, word identification, and
fluency. As a result they are usually of limited use in strengthening comprehension strategies.
But teachers can still help Level 1 learners to develop some of the comprehension strategies they will
need later by introducing those skills through oral language activities. Teachers can read higher level
texts to learners (or have them listen to books on tape) and follow those activities with comprehension
discussions. As learners’ skills begin to strengthen their decoding ability, they may also be able to read
with minimal support from the teacher simple texts that are not tightly controlled, such as GE 1-2 fiction
and non-fiction texts written for explicitly for adult beginning readers (e.g., Reiff, 2011). In particular,
fiction texts at that level may lend themselves to discussions of character, plot, and theme.
Benchmark R1.1j states “Identify and understand uses of the following conventions of written
language (e.g., how to hold a book, that print goes from left to right, visual markers of a sentence (starts
with a capital letter, ends with a final punctuation mark); the punctuation symbols (period, question
mark, exclamation point, quotation marks) and their uses; the title of an article, book, or chapter; the
function of captions and sub-heads and the relationship of pictures and other visuals to nearby text).”
Proficient readers may not consider their knowledge of the “conventions of written language” as part of
their repertoire of comprehension strategies. However, many Level 1 learners are unaware of their
purposes and unable to make use them – so much so that their lack of knowledge of them is a basic
impediment to comprehension.
Benchmark R1.1k states, “Use pre-reading strategies to determine or refine the purpose for reading
(identify type of text, purpose and intended audience; preview title/headings/ visuals; ask self “What is
it about? What do I know about this? What do I want to know?;” make predictions).” Some of these prereading skills can be introduced and practiced with the simple and familiar texts learners read for
11
Controlled texts are made primarily of previously taught phonics patterns and sight words.
13
fluency. Sam and Val, the controlled basal reader that is part of Greene’s Basic Literacy Kits, I and II,
contains chapter numbers and headings, numbered pages, and illustrations. Before beginning to read a
chapter of such a book, the teacher can draw learners’ attention to the illustrations and ask some of the
pre-reading questions that are part of this benchmark. Once they are into the book, the learners can be
asked to summarize the story so far, discuss the previous chapter, or make predictions about what will
happen next.
Higher level materials such as the GE 5-6 level adult new readers’ newspaper News For You (2011) can
be used to initiate comprehension discussions. Before reading an article to the learners the teacher can
direct their attention to its accompanying photos and headlines and ask the learners to reflect on “What
do I already know about this?” and “What do I expect to find out?”
Benchmark R1.1l, “Use strategies to monitor and/or enhance comprehension (know what to do when
encountering a word one cannot decode or whose meaning is not known; paraphrase short sections
(both read below GE 2 and presented orally above GE 2); scan for important words and numbers; check
predictions).” The first part of this benchmark is important because many Level 1 learners, in their
frustration, have gotten used to skipping words they can’t decode or whose meanings they don’t know.
They need to be encouraged to trust the decoding and word reading skills they are acquiring, rather
than skipping over or guessing at pronunciations.
The second part of this benchmark, the ability to paraphrase short sections is important for readers at
all levels. In addition to paraphrasing chunks of texts they can read independently (e.g., below GE 2),
they should also be challenged to paraphrase material that is above GE 2 when it is read to them. As
learners offer their paraphrases, the teacher and the class can discuss the degree to which their efforts
are accurate and complete. The third part of R1.1l, “scanning for important words and numbers,” can
be useful to help learners comprehend at least parts of texts that are otherwise quite challenging. For
example, in a newspaper article about a proposed hike in the Social Security retirement age, learners
could scan for the proposed age, or perhaps the year in which the change would take effect. In an
article about the benefits of eating certain fruits or vegetables, learners could scan for the names of
some of the beneficial items.
The last part of R1.1l, “check predictions,” might be best addressed using oral language activities. The
teacher would hold up a newspaper article, read its title, ask students to look at its accompanying
picture, then ask, “What do you think we will find out from this?” She can write some of the learners’
predictions of the board. Following that she would read the story aloud to the group. After listening to
the story, the class could review their predictions and discuss whether they were accurate.
Standard 2 Informational Reading and Standard 3 Literary Reading
The benchmarks under these standards are relatively straightforward. Although these two standards
are fairly lengthy, teachers should bear in mind that they should comprise less than one-third of the
class time for Level 1 learners, with word recognition, decoding, and fluency taking up the remaining
two-thirds of the class time. The rationale behind Standards 2 and 3 for Level 1 learners is to introduce
them the types of texts they will eventually be able to read independently as they move up through
Level 2 and beyond. Many of the benchmarks involve helping learners to identify the types of texts,
14
their uses, and strategies for tackling them. As with Standard 1, Topic D Comprehension Strategies,
some of the topics and benchmarks are designed to be addressed using texts below GE 2 that can be
read independently but more challenging texts above GE 2 should also be read out loud by the teacher
and discussed.
Occasionally, some simple informational and literary texts can also be used for fluency and
comprehension activities. For example, the William Carlos Williams poems The Red Wheelbarrow and
This Is Just to Say could occasionally be read for fluency by Level 1 learners (with support from the
teacher), discussed as literary works, or used for comprehension activities such as paraphrasing. Again,
teachers are cautioned not to overuse non-controlled texts like the Williams poems; most of Level 1
learners’ fluency practice should be done with controlled texts that carefully track and reinforce the
phonics and sight words they are learning.
Note that the Standard 2 benchmark R2.1b “Identify the main idea from a group of words or
conceptually related pictures (e. g., worm, fishing pole, lake = fishing)” introduces the concept of main
idea with pictures, and that benchmark R2.1c “Identify the topics and stated main ideas of a short
passages or paragraphs, both read (below GE 2) and presented orally (above GE 2)” follows up with main
idea in texts, to be read independently at below GE 2 and presented orally (i.e., read to the learners)
above GE 2. In selecting informational and literary texts to read to the class, teachers should be aware
that Level 1 learners’ limited oral vocabulary and background knowledge may restrict their ability to
understand even some texts that are read to them or some videos. Remember that Level 1 learners on
the ARCS (Strucker & Davidson, 2003) averaged GE 4 in oral vocabulary. This is yet another reason why
it is worthwhile to assess each learner’s oral vocabulary on entry. The Davidson-Bruce Word Meaning
Test is easy to administer and enjoyable for learners. It can be downloaded free from the Assessment
Strategies and Reading Profiles website: http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/WMT_All_Docs.pdf.
Many of the Informational Reading benchmarks involve real-life literacy contexts and the use of
objects, signs, and forms. They can also sometimes be combined with or added to the end of an
alphabetics lesson because they sometimes involve sight words learners are practicing or words they
can decode using the phonics they are acquiring.
Finally, even though the Standard 3 Literary Reading benchmarks should not occupy more than a
fraction of class time, these benchmarks are nevertheless very important for Level 1 readers. Discussing
a work of literature or a poem, sharing emotional reactions and likes and dislikes – these activities allow
Level 1 learners to experience the joy of reading and the intellectual growth reading can provide. Even
though they are not yet proficient in decoding, because they are adults with adult experiences and
insights, they can nevertheless appreciate literature as much as more proficient readers.
15
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bader, L. & Pearce, D.L. (2009). Reading & Language Inventory, 6/E. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
BEST Plus Oral Proficiency Test (2007). http://www.cal.org/aea/ (Accessed 2-8-11).
Birsch, J.R. (ed.).(2005).Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, Second Edition.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexic’s phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology,
28 (5), 874-886.
Bruck, M. (1990). Word recognition skills of adults with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 439-454.
Burt, M., Peyton, J., & Adams, R. (2003). Reading and Adult English Language Learners: A Review of the
Research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S. (1994). Patterns of adult reading. Learning Disabilities, 5(1), 29-33.
Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, D.M. (1997) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III). Circle Pines,
MN: AGS.
Greene, S. (1996). Basic literacy kits I and II. 121 Holden Road, Concord, MA: Basic Literacy Services.
Greene, S. L. (1996). Basic literacy kits I and II. 121 Holden Road, Concord, MA: Basic Literacy Services.
Grenier, S., Jones, S., Strucker, J., Murray, S., Gervais, G., & Brink, S. (2008). Learning Literacy in Canada.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-552-m/89-552-m2008019-eng.pdf
Holt, G.M., (1995). Teaching Low-Level Adult ESL Learners. Washington, DC: Center for English Language
Acquisition. http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/HOLT.html
Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy, http://nifl.gov/publications/pdf/adult_ed_02.pdf
Lexia Learning (2011). http://www.lexialearning.com/ (Accessed 2-7-11).
McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading to instruction for adults. Washington, DC: National
Institute for Literacy. http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/applyingresearch.pdf
News for You. (2011). http://www.newsforyouonline.com/index.asp (Accessed 2-7-11.)
NRP. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction:
Reports of the subgroups. (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. Also http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/
16
OVAE (2007). Office of Adult and Vocational Education Annual Report to Congress 2004-05. (Author).
Washington, DC: US Dept. of Education.
http://www.nrsweb.org/reports/documents/AEFLACongressionalReportFY04-05.pdf
Pratt, A. C., & Brady, S. (1988). Relation of phonological awareness to reading disability in children and
adults. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 319-323.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: Twenty years of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-442.
READ Test. (1986). Syracuse, NY: New Readers Press, ProLiteracy Worldwide.
Reiff, T. (2011). See for example Tana Reiff’s Chicken by Che
http://www.jacketflap.com/bookdetail.asp?bookid=0822446065 (Accessed 2-7-11).
Roswell, F., Chall, J.S., Curtis, M.E., and Kearns, G. (2007). Diagnostic Assessments of Reading. Chicago:
Riverside.
Scarborough, H. S. (1984). Continuity between childhood dyslexia and adult reading. British Journal of
Psychology, 75, 329-348.
Scarborough, H. S. (1984). Continuity between childhood dyslexia and adult reading. British Journal of
Psychology, 75, 329-348.
Shaywitz, S. E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American, November, 98-103.
Snow, C.E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in development.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education.
Strucker, J., Yamamoto, K., & Kirsch, I. (2007). The relationship of the component skills of reading to IALS
performance: Tipping points and five classes of adult learners. Boston: NCSALL.
http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/report_29_ials.pdf
Strucker, J. & Davidson, R. (2003). Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) Research Brief.
http://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/brief_strucker2.pdf (Accessed 2-8-11).
Swanson, H.L. & Hsieh, C. (2009). Reading disability in adults: A selective meta-analysis of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 2009 79: 1362
Woodcock, R. W. (1997). Woodcock-Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.