AUTHOR: KIMBERLY LENTERS
TITLE: No half measures: Reading instruction for young second-language
learners
SOURCE: The Reading Teacher 58 no4 328-36 D 2004/Ja 2005
COPYRIGHT: The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is
reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.reading.org/
The timing of second-language reading instruction for young learners appears to be a
subject fraught with little data and much conflicting popular opinion (Fitzgerald, 1995).
In their report for the National Research Council, Snow, Bums, and Griffin (1998) made
this observation:
Surprisingly, given the many millions of initially non-English-speaking children who
have acquired literacy in English in the United States, and given the many millions of
dollars expended on efforts to evaluate bilingual education programs, straightforward,
data-based answers to [specific questions regarding acquisition of second-language
literacy] are not available, (p. 234)
Indeed, to the novice or the uninitiated, some assertions regarding reading instruction
made within the field of bilingual education even appear to be contradictory. Here is one
case in point: Some contend that second-language reading instruction must be delayed
until first-language reading is firmly established (Weber, 1991; Wong-Filmore & Valdez,
as cited in Anderson & Roit, 1996); others question the validity of waiting that long
(Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999). With seeming disagreement in the research community, how
are educators to address the ubiquitous concern regarding second-language reading
instruction for young learners? Given that approximately one fifth of school-age children
in the United States speak a first language other than English (U.S. Census Bureau,
2000), this question is of critical importance. Fitzgerald's (1995) research review of
English as a second language (ESL) reading instruction contains the following sweeping
observation: "The spectrum of research on ESL reading in the United States might best
be characterized as having considerable breadth, but little depth" (p. 115). In the absence
of detailed longitudinal studies, a return to first principles regarding bilingualism and the
young child seems the wisest approach to untangling the conflicting interpretations drawn
from limited research. In an era when political rhetoric and budget constraints seek to
determine educational policy, it is crucial that teachers have a solid understanding of the
educational needs of young bilingual children.
When speaking of second-language reading acquisition, it is important to note the age
and literacy background of the second-language learner; one observation does not fit all.
Young second-language learners have unique needs to be addressed. In this article I
attempt to survey the literature on bilingual reading for young children, keeping these
considerations in mind. I then go on to address the issue of reading instruction in
culturally and linguistically diverse schools.
Theoretical framework
Forty years ago, few thought to ask whether or not second-language reading instruction
should be undertaken with young second-language learners. The prevailing notion of the
melting pot and the assumption that immigrants must assimilate the host culture as
quickly as possible left little room to question the methodology of educating secondlanguage children. As pluralism and multicultural-ism came to be embraced in the 1960s
and 1970s, the education of minority children came to be widely scrutinized. Much of
that scrutiny focused on the affective benefits accrued to children when their home
culture was not only recognized but also celebrated. Paralleling this phenomenon was the
rise of bilingualism in countries such as Canada and the United States. While countries in
Europe, for example, had been effectively offering dual-language programs for decades,
administration of bilingual programs in Canada and the United States appeared to be a
novel concept. In Canada dual-language programs were developed with the goal of
promoting bilingualism, whereas in the United States the 1968 Bilingual Education Act
was developed as a gesture to the Latino community, which up until then had been
largely ignored (Baker & Hakuta, 1997). The notion of childhood bilingualism soon
found itself under the lens of linguistic researchers, who began to ask how children cope
cognitively with more than one language in their lives.
Cummins's (1979) seminal work on communicative competence, his theory of
linguistic interdependence, and threshold hypothesis have provided an enduring
theoretical framework for approaching bilingualism in education and an answer to
questions regarding possible cognitive confusion in bilingual children. Interdependence
theory states that development of competence in a second language is partially a function
of the type of competence already developed in the first language at the time when
intensive exposure to the second language begins (Cummins). Threshold hypothesis
suggests that there are threshold levels of linguistic competence that bilingual children
must achieve in both of their languages for two reasons: to avoid cognitive disadvantages
and to allow the, benefits of bilingualism to influence cognitive functioning (Cummins &
Swain, 1986). Central to these theories is the concept that there are enormous cognitive
benefits to bilingualism, such as cognitive flexibility, superior language skills, and a
higher IQ. These benefits are found only in additive forms of bilingualism, where careful
support, development, and maintenance of the first language are provided (Cummins &
Swain).
Cognitive benefits support the provision of bilingual education for young secondlanguage learners (and, one might argue, for all young learners), but further import is
added when the negative effects of some types of immersion programs are considered.
When young second-language children in submersion programs are immersed in the
target language and receive no instruction in their first language, the results are typically
a loss over time of the first language--in addition to cognitive and affective difficulties in
the immersion program (Cummins & Swain, 1986). Unfortunately, many English
immersion programs fall into the submersion category. Gunderson (2000) spoke of the
difficulties of minority-language high school students who have been characterized by
high dropout rates and poor academic achievement when their teachers fail to take an
interest in these students' first languages. It appears that significant measures should be
taken to prevent first-language loss.
The picture that emerges from this discussion is that children experience important
cognitive (in addition to affective) gains through bilingualism. These gains, however, are
only experienced when both languages develop to a point of proficiency where transfer
can take place between the two. It is this dual proficiency that we must be cognizant of
when considering reading instruction for young second-language learners. In general, the
development of this proficiency will mean that bilingual children will receive duallanguage instruction throughout their primary school years, with no half measures in
either language.
If there are enormous benefits to bilingualism, why has bilingual education become a
controversial subject? Aside from issues of funding, one major source of contention
stems from the critical shortage of trained bilingual teachers in the United States. This
shortage results in teachers not trained in ESL pedagogy being employed in bilingual
classrooms (see Fitzgerald, 1995; Garcia, 2000) and delivering programs where English
dominates the instruction (Weber, 1991). Too often, half measures abound.
In an ideal world, children would receive instruction in their first language to the point
where they were proficient in all aspects of it. At that time transition to second-language
learning would begin. This typically would occur somewhere around the age of 7.
Reading instruction in the second language would seek to build on what the child knew
about reading in the first language and would encourage transfer of skills. This type of
dual instruction currently takes place in locales where numbers warrant and school boards
have embraced the theory behind interdependence and language threshold (Cummins,
1979; Garcia, 2000). However, as I will discuss later, this is not the sole route to success
for bilingual children.
Cutbacks to bilingual programs in some regions, in addition to the growing multiplicity
of languages spoken within North America, make it virtually impossible for all public
school systems to provide the ideal early education outlined above. In this article I wish
to address the needs of these young bilingual students, and so the question turns from
whether second-language literacy instruction should be undertaken with young children
to how it is best achieved.
Interpreting the research
The arguments for first-language maintenance--difficulties associated with firstlanguage loss and the positive effects of first-language maintenance--are compelling and
provide the impetus to find a method of second-language instruction that builds on
research and not simply on fiscal or political ideology. Untangling the findings as they
pertain to young second-language learners takes some effort, however.
For instance, one might interpret Cummins's (1999) work as suggesting that young
children must be given a strong first-language base in their early years of schooling
before formal instruction in the new language is undertaken. Indeed, Cummins's stated
that "the better developed the conceptual foundation of children's first language, the more
likely children are to develop similarly high levels of conceptual abilities in their second
language" (p. 51). Longitudinal studies have found that immigrant children, from
advantaged families, who arrived in the United States at ages 8 and 9 with first-language
literacy skills already developed, performed better in U.S. schools than younger children,
ages 5 and 6, who came without developed first-language literacy skills. It took more
than 7 to 10 years for these children to perform at grade level in English, as opposed to 5
to 7 years for the older children. The children in this study entered submersion programs,
and the younger children did not receive formal first-language instruction, which
accounted for their difficulties (Collier & Thomas, as cited in Snow et al., 1998).
However, this evidence does not imply that there is a critical order in which bilingual
learners must learn to read. Verhoeven's (1994) study, examining linguistic
interdependence among Turkish children learning Dutch as a second language, found that
transfer between two languages can proceed in two directions at the level of literacy
skills. Chang and Watson (as cited in Garcia, 2000) did an investigation of predictable
texts used in the reading instruction of Chinese bilingual kindergarten students who
attended weekend Chinese school. It showed that these children transferred what they
knew about reading in English to their Chinese reading. This phenomenon is also
demonstrated in Canadian French immersion programs. Children first receive formal
instruction in second-language reading and then move on to begin formal first-language
reading instruction in the third or fourth grade. The documented success of French
immersion programs that actively promote proficiency in both languages does support the
finding that language of initial literacy need not be the child's native language.
As the various findings are untangled, a picture emerges of young second-language
children successfully learning to read in a new language, provided they have reached an
oral language threshold that enables them to handle the vocabulary of simple text geared
toward young emergent readers. This picture is qualitatively different from that of the
older second-language reader. However, the success of these young readers will continue
only if they are taught to read in their first language and enabled to develop a level of
reading proficiency in it that allows interdependence between the two languages to occur
in their elementary school years. These specific findings also provide direction for
undertaking second-language reading instruction with young children.
Instructional guidelines
Many researchers have supplied guidelines for second-language reading instruction.
Agreement appears to be present in the idea that recent findings in first-language reading
acquisition have much to contribute to the area of second-language reading instruction.
(See Figure 1 for a summary of the similarities and differences between first- and secondlanguage readers.) In the remainder of this article I explore key instructional focuses that
help young second-language readers to attain proficiency in both of their languages. (I
also provide guidelines that I hope will lead to successful reading instruction for young
second-language learners.)
Oral language proficiency
Reading in the first or second language is founded upon oral knowledge of the
language. One cannot read with comprehension a language one cannot speak and
comprehend; reading instructors of young second-language learners need to be mindful
of this. While a definitive level of the oral proficiency essential for reading instruction to
begin is difficult to pinpoint, it appears that readers must be familiar with a minimum of
95% of the vocabulary in the text for comprehension to occur (Laufer, as cited in Carrell
& Grabe, 2002). This belief corresponds with the widely accepted first-language axiom
that independent reading only occurs at the level of 95% word recognition and above and
works to the advantage of young second-language learners--given the availability (and
age-appropriateness) of texts that are geared toward young first-language learners and
that contain simple, high-frequency vocabulary. But it also highlights the need to
continually work at increasing the vocabulary of young second-language readers and to
address problematic vocabulary within any text given to them.
Cummins and Swain (1986) reminded us that if second-language learners have reached
an acceptable level of conversational ability, we must not assume proficiency has been
reached. Because it takes young second-language learners between 7 and 10 years to
reach the academic proficiency of their first-language peers, explicit attention must be
given to building vocabulary throughout the primary and intermediate years of education.
Droop and Verhoeven (2003) found that extensive vocabulary training is crucial for
efficient second-language reading comprehension: Deep understanding of vocabulary
must be fostered on the semantic level through multiple exposures to words in a variety
of genres, subject areas, and contexts. Rereading of text, advocated by Samuels (2002),
helps with this vocabulary development. The use of graded readers is a systematic
method for addressing vocabulary acquisition through reading (Nation & Meara, 2002).
Care must be taken, however, to provide text that is at least somewhat reflective of
natural speech, if this mode of vocabulary acquisition is to have a positive impact on oral
development (Anderson & Roit, 1996).
It is noted throughout recent second-language literature that second-language students
have little opportunity within the classroom to simply converse (see Au, 2000; Toohey,
1998). Meaningful opportunity for oral interaction is one way teachers can foster
vocabulary acquisition for young learners. For second-language learners, it is particularly
important to develop the child's familiarity with and comprehension of oral speech, which
in turn assists vocabulary knowledge for reading development. (See Figure 2 for ideas to
promote oral language.)
Two more notes of caution are needed here. First, negative correlations have been
found to exist between the emphasis on accuracy in pronunciation and grammar with
young second-language learners (Fitzgerald, 1995). Second, Cunningham and Stanovich
(1998) reminded us that most first-language vocabulary growth in a child's lifetime
occurs indirectly through language exposure rather than direct teaching. It has been
demonstrated that second-language vocabulary acquisition should not be assumed to be
complete when only incidental vocabulary teaching is used (Nation & Meara, 2002). The
notes of caution are a reminder that vocabulary building to bolster second-language
reading should be undertaken in a manner that is thoughtful and attentive to the affective
and cognitive needs of young second-language children. Vocabulary must be attended to
but not belabored or fostered in isolated drills that serve as replacements for meaningful
oral interaction.
Some evidence is emerging that second-language reading instruction may benefit
second-language orality. Dlugosz's (2000) pilot study was designed to teach English to
beginning second-language kindergarten students while simultaneously teaching them to
read in English. These children were not yet reading in their first language, Polish.
Dlugosz had students engage in multiple listenings with recordings of simple story books.
The test group members, who had been taught the graphic forms of words used in the
storybook series and how to reconstruct the story for themselves using copies of the text,
not only learned to read in English but also developed stronger speaking and
comprehension skills than the control group, which had been instructed with an emphasis
on oral response and picture drawing. Children in the test group also demonstrated much
better retention rates for understanding and speaking, as well as apparent increased
eagerness to speak in English. Although one might find the approach to reading
instruction used in this study somewhat restrictive and therefore not advisable as the sole
methodology for second-language reading instruction, the findings do lend support to the
mounting evidence that reading in a second language can assist oral development in it
(Anderson & Roit, 1996; Gersten, as cited in Fitzgerald, 2000).
Alphabet instruction
Many in the second-language reading field have observed that second-language
learners, whether from backgrounds that employ a similar alphabetic system or
backgrounds with completely dissimilar orthographies, benefit from explicit instruction
in the second-language sound-symbol system (Carrell & Grabe, 2002; Wallace, 2001). In
first-language reading acquisition, Adams (1994) contended that not only is difficulty at
the word-recognition level a leading cause of reading delay, but also difficulty at the
letter-recognition level is significant as well. For some, the difficulty may lie with simply
having incomplete alphabetic knowledge at the single-letter level, but for many the
difficulty lies in incomplete knowledge of likely letter combinations.
One method of phonics instruction that has been found to be particularly effective with
young second-language children is the Jolly Phonics program (Lloyd, 1993). Jolly
Phonics is a multisensory program that employs systematic, cumulative over-learning of
the names, sounds, and symbols of the English alphabet, as well as the common blends
and digraphs (i.e., it combines phonemic awareness training with early phonic skill). In
response to the challenge that children must first learn to read in their native language,
while early second-language instruction focuses on speaking and listening, Kwan and
Willows (1998) undertook a study designed to systematically teach English sounds and
symbols to kindergarten and grade I second-language children using the Jolly Phonics
program. These children, who were in the very early stages of English-language learning,
had not learned to read in their native language. The researchers found that children
taught through the program outperformed their untrained first-language counterparts in
auditory discrimination and phoneme blending and equaled them in phoneme
segmentation. The study demonstrated that there is no need to continue with the
prevailing assumption that young second-language learners have acoustic-based
processing weaknesses that require a focus on literacy development in their first language
before their second. For young children, explicit, systematic instruction in the secondlanguage sounds and symbols does appear to address perceived auditory weaknesses, just
as it does for first-language children with poorly developed phonemic awareness.
Comprehension
Vocabulary and orthography are two important areas that must be addressed; however,
comprehension is also an area of difficulty for the second-language learner, particularly
when the teacher does not speak the first language or there are no other children of
similar background present in the class.
The language experience approach to teaching reading has long been a useful method
for instructing young first-language children in early reading. Its deployment in secondlanguage reading not only allows the young child to understand the encoding of oral
language into written language but also provides tremendous opportunity to use concepts,
contexts, and language that are important and meaningful to the second-language child.
In working with this highly meaningful text, comprehension (in addition to vocabulary
and orthographic development) is greatly enhanced. Shared reading methodology, widely
used with top-down reading approaches, is also helpful for comprehension building as
texts are jointly read and reread by students and teacher.
Text type is also an area of comprehension concern when working with secondlanguage readers. Some types of illustrations found in many western-world texts may be
confusing and unfamiliar to second-language students (Gregory, 1996). Anderson and
Roit (1996) made a similar observation regarding the efficacy of using text that contains
culturally familiar content. They extend this notion to the provision of culturally familiar
content area text and to inviting parents to share their personal cultural expertise. Seeking
to balance instruction with texts whose content is culturally sensitive to these learners
helps to bridge comprehension gaps. Where this is not possible, concerted effort is
necessary to fill in the missing background knowledge for second-language children.
Gregory (1996) addressed issues of comprehension by forming strong home-school
links with students' families (even those with limited or no second-language proficiency).
She described a helpful early reading process that recognizes the parent as the expert in
the first language and the child as the expert in the second language, simultaneously
honoring both languages.
Children take home "key words" from classroom reading sessions, practice "matching"
them to words and pictures on a card and spelling them.... If possible, the caregiver writes
the words in the child's mother-tongue on the back and discusses the word with the child,
encouraging him/her to use the word in sentences. With this kernel of key words, the
child practices making sentences and completing a variety of word games. The child
writes the sentences made in an exercise book which, like the books used in many
community classes, is specifically designed for this purpose, (p. 109)
This practice, when thoroughly explained to parents, fosters comprehension and
encourages transfer skills between the two languages in accordance with interdependence
theory. Where parents were not available or able to fill this role, Gregory employed older
siblings to mediate the process. In addition, book packages would be sent home with
copies or translations of the text in the child's first language. Parents or older siblings and
children were then encouraged to share the book in both languages, listen to audiotapes
of the book in both languages (if possible), use puppets or figurines to act out the story,
and play games with the words to build vocabulary. Similar programs exist in the United
States through family literacy initiatives (Paratore, Melzi, & Krol-Sinclair, 1999).
Another method for developing comprehension is to allow students to respond to text
in their first language, rather than discouraging first-language orality in the secondlanguage classroom. Focusing on reading comprehension as a gateway to oral language
development rather than on proficient language as a prerequisite to reading helps increase
the understanding of text and, simultaneously, oral proficiency (Anderson & Roit, 1996).
Many creative and useful techniques exist for fostering comprehension in young
second-language readers. That comprehension is at the heart of reading, be it first or
second language, must be a reminder to educators to give attention to this important area
from the beginning of second-language reading instruction. (See Figure 3 for ideas to
develop comprehension.)
Respect for first-language reading practices
Underpinning vocabulary, orthography, and comprehension development, and perhaps
most important, is the requirement that the schools in which children receive their
second-language instruction support and celebrate the first language. Programs that
experience the greatest success not only promote literacy in the home but also recognize
the first-language literacy practices of the children's families. This is true of family
literacy initiatives (see Paratore et al., 1999), home-school interactions (Gregory, 1996),
and classroom practice in general (Au, 2000). The reasons for this positive correlation are
twofold: Children bring skills and abilities from their first language, which must be seen
as assets not setbacks (Anderson & Roit, 1996; Au, 2000; Gregory, 1996); when parents
believe their literacy beliefs and practices are respected and upheld, they become strong
supporters of the second-language school practices and effective allies for their children
in the negotiation of meaning between their two languages.
To this end, and in accordance with interdependence theory and threshold hypothesis,
schools and teachers need to work not only to honor first-language traditions but also to
find ways to actively support the child's first-language reading acquisition. (See Figure 4
for a list of suggestions for supporting first-language reading instruction.)
Concluding thoughts
Given present demographic realities, which find significant linguistic diversity in an
ever-increasing number of regions worldwide, and the limited resources of school
systems in general, it is critical to consider literacy practices that ensure success for
young second-language children. Fitzgerald (1995) observed that ESL instructional
philosophy contains much more debate than in the past about whether it is best to teach
ESL reading by beginning with native-language instruction, by teaching native-language
reading concurrently with ESL reading, or by solely teaching ESL reading. Even now,
almost 10 years later, research findings continue to appear to be contradictory.
Until more definitive longitudinal studies are completed, educators will need to keep
three principles in mind. First, it is clear that when seeking to understand the needs of the
bilingual child, age and previous literacy experience must be considered. Second,
regardless of the order of literacy acquisition, the principle of developing proficiency in
both languages at primary school will underlie all sound approaches. Considering
programs or proposals that do not give credence to this or that advocate half measures
will prove only a disservice to the bilingual child. Third, important discoveries in firstlanguage reading research and their applicability to second-language reading acquisition
should not undercut or circumvent what we know about how to help young bilingual
children become successful and proficient in both of their languages. Children of diverse
linguistic backgrounds are a fact in educational systems worldwide; embracing this
diversity and building on first principles for the reading instruction these children receive
seems the obvious and necessary approach. Their future depends on educators taking no
half measures.
ADDED MATERIAL
Lenters is a doctoral student in the department of Language and Literacy Education at
the University of British Columbia, Vancouver (2121 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T
1Z4, Canada). E-mail klenters@interchange.ubc.ca.
References
Adams, M.J. (1994). Modeling the connections between word recognition and reading.
In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models -and processes of
reading (4th ed., pp. 838-863). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1996). Linking reading comprehension instruction to
language development for language-minority students. Elementary School Journal, 96,
295-310.
Au, K.H. (2000). Literacy instruction for young children of diverse backgrounds. In
D.S. Strickland & L.M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing (pp. 35-45).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Baker, S., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Bilingual education and Latino civil rights. Retrieved
November 29, 2003, from
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/latino97/Hakuta. pdf
Bamford, J., & Day, R.R. (1998). Teaching reading. In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual review
of applied linguistics: Volume 18. Foundations of second language teaching (pp. 124141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P.L., & Grabe, W. (2002). Reading. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to
applied linguistics (pp. 233-250). London: Edward Arnold.
Clay, M.M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Hong
Kong: Heinemann.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49,222-251.
Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does
theory have a place? Educational Researcher, 28(7), 26-32.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory,
research, and practice. London: Longman.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1998, Spring/Summer). What reading does for
the mind. American Educator, 8-15.
Dlugosz, D.W. (2000). Rethinking the role of reading in teaching a foreign language to
young learners. ELT Journal, 54, 284-291.
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in firstand second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78-103. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4
Eskey, D. (2002). Reading and teaching of second language reading. TESOL Journal,
11, 5-9.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United
States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27,115-149.
Fitzgerald, J. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next
millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35,520-523. doi: 10.1598/RRO.35.4.4
Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G.W. (1999). About hopes, aspirations, and uncertainty: Firstgrade English-language learners' emergent reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 31,133182.
Garcia, G.E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 813-834). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Grabe, W. (2002). Reading in a second language. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 49-59). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gregory, E. (1996). Making sense of a new world: Learning to read in a second
language. London: Paul Chapman.
Gunderson, L. (2000). Voices of the teenage diasporas. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 43,692-707.
Hudson, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on reading. In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual
review of applied linguistics: Volume 18. Foundations of second language teaching (pp.
43-60). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kwan, A.B., & Willows, D.M. (1998, December). Impact of early phonics instruction
on children learning English as a second language. Paper presented at the National
Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Lenters, K. (2003). The many lives of the cut-up sentence. The Reading Teacher,
56,535-536.
Lloyd, S. (1993). The phonics handbook. Chigwell, UK: Jolly Learning.
Nation, P., & Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to
applied linguistics (pp. 35-54). London: Edward Arnold.
Paratore, J.R., Melzi, G., & Krol-Sinclair, B. (1999). What should we expect of family
literacy? Experiences of Latino children whose parents participate in an intergenerational literacy project. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Samuels, S.J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A.E.
Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.
166-183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stinson, K. (1982). Red is best. Toronto: Annick Press.
Toohey, K. (1998). "Breaking them up, taking them away": ESL students in grade 1.
TESOL Quarterly, 3, 61-84.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000, summary file 3 from the World Wide Web.
Retrieved November 29, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phct20/tab02.pdf
Verhoeven, L.T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic
interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44, 381-415.
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 143-160). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Weber, R. (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr,
M.L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
2, pp. 97-119). White Plains, NY: Longman.
FIGURE 1 Similarities and differences In first- and second-language reading
Requirements of first- and second-language readers:
* alphabetic understanding
* decoding skills
* automaticity of sight vocabulary
* overall fluency
* development of metacognitive strategies that foster fluency and comprehension
* text matched to reading level and interests
* engagement in extensive reading
Unique challenges second-language readers face:
* sound/symbol dissimilarity or interference
* oral vocabulary constraints
* limitations due to background knowledge
* difficulties with text structure
(Bamford & Day, 1998; Carrell & Grabe, 2002; Eskey, 2002; Grabe, 2002; Hudson,
1998; Wallace, 2001)
GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL READING INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG SECONDLANGUAGE LEARNERS
Oral language
* Develop the child's oral vocabulary to the point of basic communicative competence
before attempting reading instruction.
* Continue to work on vocabulary training with the child well beyond the point of
basic communicative competence to ensure adequate vocabulary for increasingly more
difficult text.
* Provide opportunity for second-language children to converse in the classroom,
being careful not to place undue emphasis on accurate speech.
Reading materials
* Remember that the child must know 90% to 95% of the vocabulary in the text before
that text is used for reading instructional purposes.
* Use graded readers with second-language readers to ensure that text difficulty keeps
pace with vocabulary development. But be sure to supplement with authentic literature
first in read-alouds, then shared reading, and finally independent reading to ensure
second-language readers are exposed to text that reflects natural speech.
* Encourage and provide opportunity for rereading of text.
Phonemic awareness
* Extend phonemic awareness training to include phonics instruction/using materials
that teach sound-symbol correspondences in a multisensory and systematic manner.
Comprehension
* Use a language experience approach to provide meaningful materials the child is able
to read.
* Pay attention to cultural biases in text and illustrations presented to young secondlanguage learners.
* Fill in the missing cultural information when materials must be used that are
culturally unfamiliar to the learner.
* When possible, use translations alongside English texts to enhance comprehension
and support first-language reading skills. Parents and older siblings may be enlisted for
this process.
* Allow students to respond to text in their first language.
First-language reading support
* Form strong home-school connections with the families of second-language learners.
* Value the child's first language.
* Find any means possible to ensure that the child receives reading instruction in his or
her first language.
FIGURE 2 Ideas to promote oral language for ESL reading development
* Scaffold vocabulary development through prereading activity where children take
turns with proficient English speakers discussing the illustrations of a story to predict its
content prior to reading it.
* Engage in repeated reading of simple, predictable texts such as Red Is Best (Stinson,
1982). New vocabulary and important text structures may be internalized through this
method.
* Tape recordings of simple stories and graded readers will allow ESL readers to
independently engage in shared and repeated reading.
* Highlight the vocabulary and story structure of favorite simple stories the children
are learning to read, and have them reconstruct the stories in book-making activities. The
activity will provide ESL learners with a growing library of personal texts they may read
and reread for oral vocabulary and sight word development.
FIGURE 3 Ideas to develop ESL reading comprehension
* Use language experience book-making methods to help ESL children make the
connection between oral and written language, especially in the very early stages of their
reading development.
* Use of the cut-up sentence (Clay, 1993) provides a meaningful and engaging vehicle
for the ESL child's voice in reading acquisition. Type or print the child's simple dictated
stories. Then, with the help of a proficient English speaker, have the child cut the
sentences into individual words and glue them into a premade blank booklet, which is
later illustrated by the child (see Lenters, 2003, for an elaboration of this technique).
* Involve parents or older siblings in the making of translations of favorite simple
stories. These translations may be illustrated by the student for placement alongside the
English version in the classroom library.
* Encourage ESL speakers of the same language background to discuss stories they are
reading in English in their native language. Together they will naturally support one
another to address gaps in comprehension.
FIGURE 4 Supporting first-language reading acquisition
* Encourage parents to engage in meaningful conversation and read in the first
language with their children.
* Allow the children to demonstrate what they can do in first-language reading.
* Purchase first-language texts to match the second-language texts being used.
* Find a bilingual volunteer to translate the text and make first-language translation
audiotapes.
* Help families find first-language resources within the community.
* Advocate for after-hours provision of space within the school building for firstlanguage instruction.