September 1998 2/2
FL Literacy:
Meeting Needs and Realities in Japan
Presentations from the JALT 97 Foreign Language Literacy N-SIG Roundtable
Introduction
Charles Jannuzi and Bern Mulvey
Fukui University
What is the modern concept of literacy? Does it involve more than the traditional
skills of reading and writing? If literacy is a social, communicative skill,
what is its application to using and learning a FL? On 12 October, 1997,
at the annual JALT conference, the FL Literacy N-SIG conducted a roundtable
and addressed such questions. As is evident from this report from that
roundtable, the answers can be found in actual classroom practice that
is informed by theory. The following is a report that reflects much of
the content and discussion of that roundtable. First, David Dycus gives
a succinct but informative overview of what joins and separates L1 and
L2 literacies. Next, Andy Barfield details the results of classroom research
about types of reading and the difficulties that Japanese EFL students
at the university level report. Then Barry Mateer describes an ambitious,
holistic, reader response approach that uses graded readers to foster student-
and learning-centered activities, such as journals and discussions. Finally,
Elin Melchior informs us of some fundamental uses of computers and the
Internet to support reading, writing, and L2 literacy: a source for informative
but readable texts; a means of writing development through e-mail exchange;
and as a time-saving tool to manipulate texts and write practice and comprehension
exercises.
FL Literacy: How is it Different from L1 Literacy?
David Dycus
Aichi Shukutoku University
Research and practice in EFL/ESL reading and writing have long been guided
by what "good" L1 readers and writers do. However, there is evidence that
because of psycho- linguistic and cultural factors, lower-level FL/SL readers
often approach reading differently. I would like to consider some examples
of these differences, especially as they relate to adult Japanese readers
of English, using examples from different levels of the "bottom-up/top-down"
continuum of language processing and reading strategies commonly accepted
in EFL today.
Orthography
For Japanese learners of EFL, differences at "the bottom" begin the moment
the eye meets the written symbol. The Japanese writing system involves
both a logographic system, kanji, and a syllabic system, kana (which
includes hiragana and katakana). In a logography like kanji,
the basic graphic unit represents both sound and meaning, and word meaning
is often directly accessible without phonological recoding, the conversion
of symbol to sound. Conversely, phonological recoding is essential
to access word meaning in syllabic systems like hiragana and katakana
(Koda, 1987; 1997). The English orthographic system lies between these
extremes; while one can get to meaning without phonological recoding, it
is still often necessary. According to Koda (1997), research shows that
different L1 orthographic properties produce qualitatively different word
processing and recognition procedures, which in turn affect L2 reading
through transfer. Furthermore, difficulties in L2 orthographic processing
lead to word misidentification, which negatively affects one's ability
to guess the meaning of unknown words from context (see below). Koda concludes
that the more orthographies resemble each other the easier they are to
process, and argues for explicit instruction in L2 orthographic properties
and processing strategies. Considering the fundamental differences between
Japanese and English orthographies, these findings indicate the need for
more emphasis on phonics instruction and other low-level processing strategies
when teaching reading.
Guessing word meaning from context
Next I'd like to discuss a higher-level strategy, guessing word meaning
from context. Studies of advanced FL/SL readers consistently show that,
like good L1 readers, they learn words through incidental exposure, often
use context to successfully guess word meanings, and use multiple strategies
to deal with unknown words and other reading difficulties (Laufer, 1997).
But beginning and intermediate level FL/SL readers often display very different
characteristics. They rely heavily on words as landmarks of meaning, less
on background knowledge and virtually ignore syntax. In general, they don't
seem to transfer good L1 reading strategies to L2 reading, and they often
fail at using context to guess word meanings (Barnett, 1989; Laufer, 1997)
. A common explanation is that "poor" FL/SL readers don't make use of good
reading strategies even though they are aware of them.
However, Laufer (1997) presents evidence showing that the size of the
reader's active vocabulary is the key, with a threshold vocabulary of about
5000 lexical items needed before L1 reading strategies like guessing from
context can be effectively transferred to L2 reading. From this perspective,
we should be placing less emphasis on having lower-level FL/SL readers
guess from context in order to learn new words and more on direct vocabulary
instruction (Dycus, 1997).
Rhetorical organization strategies
At "the top" of the strategies/processing ladder, in the realm of formal
schemata, we encounter cultural differences in rhetorical organization.
Most common Japanese rhetorical organization strategies violate the "rules"
of the linear organizational style of English. The kishoutenketsu
strategy allows the writer to add topics and a conclusion unrelated to
the introductory topic and discussion. In the tempura (inductive)
strategy, facts, examples and other support are presented throughout the
beginning and middle of the text, but the controlling idea is not introduced
until the end. Finally, the return to baseline theme rhetorical
approach allows the writer to initially introduce an opinion which is repeated
throughout but never explained or defended, although seemingly unrelated
topics may be discussed at length (Mulvey, 1997). The fundamental differences
in the "logical" development of English and Japanese rhetorical organization
pose a challenge to our students, and contrastive study of such differences
is clearly warranted in our reading and writing classes.
Conclusion
The differences discussed here are just the tip of the iceberg. As far
as reading strategies are concerned, we see that bottom-up processes are
more important than is often assumed (Paran, 1996). On the other hand,
the influence of top-down, culturally determined factors like rhetorical
strategies on readers' and writers' expectations and strategies is considerable.
Effective approaches to FL/SL reading instruction must take these factors
into account, as well as the fact that becoming a good FL/SL reader and
writer involves not only learning language, but also learning to think
in new ways, which is seldom easy.Return to the top of the page
Learner Constructions of Foreign Language Literacy
Andrew Barfield
Foreign Language Center, University of Tsukuba, Japan
To understand better what first-year non-English majors find difficult
in reading English, Andy Barfield collected self-reports from an Art and
Design reading class over the course of one academic year. In his presentation,
he sought to give answers to these recurrent 'teacher' questions:
- What do learners report as difficult when reading graded stories?
- What do learners report as difficult when reading newspaper articles and
teenage content-based materials?
- What do learners report as difficult when reading expository prose and academic text?
Because of the difficulties encountered in categorizing the student self-reports
and of the lack of any objective measurement, the above results must be
treated with caution. In general, the inquiry's main benefit was one of
sensitization for both the students and the teacher to the foreign language
reading process. Some--not unexpected--general contrasts can nevertheless
be briefly mentioned. First, reading graded texts fluently does not require
students to activate background knowledge nor deal with complex sentences,
whereas reading academic text does. Second, vocabulary inferencing skills
seem to take on much greater importance as text difficulty increases. Asking
my students to articulate their reading processes has helped both my students
to become reflective about their own reading and me to organize better
what I do to help them.Editor's note: A full-length article by Andy Barfield on this topic will be presented in an upcoming issue of LAC.
Return to the top of the page
A Reader Response Approach to Junior High Oral Communication Classes
Barry Mateer
Nihon University's Buzan Junior High School, Japan
In the May 1997 issue of JALT's The Language Teacher, an article
by Paul Nation (1997) referred to research showing the importance of extensive
reading:
Huang and van Naerssen (1987) found that reading outside class
was the most significant predictor of oral communicative ability. Green
and Oxford (1995), in a study of the effect of learning strategies on language
proficiency, found that reading for pleasure was most strongly related
to proficiency to proficiency. Gradman and Hanania (1991) found that out
of class reading was the most important direct contributor to TOEFL test
performance. (cited in Nation, 1997, p. 15)
These studies clearly indicate that extensive reading can be a major factor
in learning another language.
Beginning with second year junior high Oral Communication classes, we
use graded readers as the springboard for communication activities in class.
The main objective is for students to become comfortable in reading graded
readers by becoming more aware of language form, meaning, and use. Students
record in journals questions that arise as they compare and contrast what
they have learned 'about' English in teacher-centered textbook classes
with what they encounter when reading independently. Then, in the classroom,
students bring up their recorded observations and questions for discussion.
Journaling as Homework
After a period of introduction and support in the "how-to's" of journaling,
the students are expected to read independently at home and do the following
as homework:
- Read the assigned number of pages in the graded reader and attempt to comprehend not only individual words but also whole phrases; comprehend not only individual
sentences, but also sentences in relation to surrounding sentences, not translate words, but translate situations through paraphrase.
- The journaling of questions involves the following steps.
1. Write down the complete sentence which triggered a question while reading.
2. Underline the part of the sentence that is the focus of the question ( which allows others to see how a person is going about 'chunking' the language ).
3. Write the meaning of the sentence as it is now understood, and/or write down the situation/context within the story in which this sentence occurred.
4. Pose a problem / question. This can be either a language question ( about the way English is used ) or a story question ( about the content/context of the story ).
5. Write down a possible response to the problem posed.
Introductory Worksheets
As an introductory step before students are expected to do journaling on
their own, examples of journaling are presented on worksheets. Frame sentences
modeling the language of posing problems are thus presented to students
in context. Also possible responses to the posed problems are listed from
which learners can choose, not having to create their own answers. Though
students are not required to pose problems or solutions at this step, the
activity still requires mental activities fundamental to comprehension:
raising questions, making inferences, forming hypotheses, predicting, and
evoking images. In figure 1 is an example of a worksheet prepared for Alissa,
a starter level graded reader from Heinemann.
Conclusion
Not only are second year junior high students capable of working within
this approach, many of them embrace the chance to engage with the language
and its various aspects of form, meaning and use, allowing the students
to show a level of awareness, insight and curiosity that more traditional
lessons do not so easily encourage.
Figure 1
Sample Worksheet for the Heinemann Graded Reader, Alissa.
1. Her father calls to her.
Does "calls to her" mean "calls her name"? (Does ____ mean _____?)
2. She reads all day.
Instead of "all day" is "every day" also okay? (Instead of ____ is _____ okay?)
3. There isn't any work here in the village?
How are "work" and "job" different? ( How are ____ and ____ different?)
4. They drive to a house.
Is Alissa driving the car?
How do you translate " drive "?
5. Alissa goes into the room. The room is small and dark. ( Please rewrite this sentence)
Alissa ____ ____ a _____, ______ room.
6. Here face is hot and red?
Does that mean ( _____ ______ _______ ) (Does that mean.........?)
7. Alissa is angry ( _______ ____ ______ ) and afraid ( _____ _____ ______ ).
8. ( ___ ___ ___ so she cries every night ( ___ ___ ___ )
( she is angry ) ( with her father ) ( of the man ) ( she is unhappy ) ( in her room )
|
Return to the top of the page
Using Computers to Attain FL Literacy
Elin Melchior
Komaki English Teaching Center, Japan
Computers have not revolutionized the teaching of literacy; they do not
offer any new miraculous techniques. Instead CALL makes what teachers have
been doing all along much easier. Some techniques and projects that many
gave up on because they were too time-consuming and labor-intensive are
now not only feasible but easy to undertake with the aid of computers.
Computers can help teach- ers find reading texts, provide real English
contexts, and greatly facilitate mechanical reading exercises.
Tailored Texts
Tailoring reading texts to students is of vital importance. I realized
how serious this problem is while I was talking to a junior high school
English teacher last year. She said, "I understand how to teach listening
and speaking, but since reading and writing aren't communicative, I don't
know how I should teach these subjects." I understand exactly how
she came to this faulty conclusion because there is very little reading
in textbooks which communicates anything students want to know. As someone
with a profound love of reading, I find this very sad.
Teachers can, of course, find reading texts off-line, but this is not
always easy to do in Japan. I constantly use the internet to supplement
my courses. Teaching current events classes, I often find holes in The
Daily Yomiuri's coverage of the news while News- week is too
difficult and a little late. On the Internet I can find easier texts almost
immediately after an event--the Washington Post page often yields
good results. When I taught the movie Rain Man, I found information
on autism at the National Association for Autism's home page. These searches
generally take me less time than it used to take me to walk to the library
when I taught in the U.S. It also gives me great pleasure to encourage
student reading by supplying them with articles in English about their
special interests -- whether they be River Phoenix, Namie Amuro, or Area
51.
Writing Exchanges via E-mail
Writing exchanges are another wonderful technique which can now be conducted
in a timely fashion through e-mail. Writing something and sending it to
someone else to read gives students a sense of consequence that they do
not usually feel when only the teacher reads their writing. More formal
exchanges of opinions and other types of information as well as simple
getting-to-know-you letters make e-mail projects appropriate for all levels
of students. I have noticed that when reading pieces of writing which have
been exchanged with other students, my students automatically follow many
reading strategies (such as skimming) which do not seem to come naturally
during textbook reading.
Mechanically Manipulating Text
Mechanical reading exercises, such as scrambled paragraphs, timed reading,
and paced reading, can be done very easily on the computer. I think paced
reading is a wonderful thing and I have seen people teach it without the
computer--but it so easy to do on the computer and so difficult without.
A good CALL reading program will allow the teacher to scan and import (input)
texts, and will also offer a dictionary (so students can click on unknown
words and get a definition), cloze exercises, scrambled sentences and paragraphs,
timed and paced reading, hidden text, a scoring mechanism and a way to
print results and problem areas.
Conclusion
As I said at the beginning none of these activities are revolutionary,
many teachers have been using them all along; however, the computer helps
teachers utilize them quickly and efficiently allowing more time to devote
to other aspects of teaching.Return to the top of the page
Conclusion
Bern Mulvey and Charles Jannuzi
Fukui University, Japan
We think the most important result of the roundtable was the exploring
and re-defining of the term "FL Literacy." As a newer N-SIG in JALT, it
is essential that we continue to delineate who and what we are with respect
to other groups both within and outside of JALT, and that we continue to
stake out a place for ourselves that is neither too narrow to be exclusionary
or too broad as to be meaningless. As the presentations and their reports
made clear, by "FL literacy," we are not referring just to traditional
conceptions of being literate but also to the broader ramifications of
what becoming literate in a foreign language entails: that is, the special
cultural and cross-linguistic challenges that monolingual native speakers
never have to face.
In this increasingly electronic and international age, when so much
conversation has been removed from the oral arena and placed squarely into
our e-mail program's in-box, one's ability to both read and understand
that electronic correspondence has become critical. Are our FL students
prepared for this? How ready are we as teachers to help prepare them? It
is these issues we have tried to bring up and illuminate in some of their
myriad aspects through this roundtable.
References
Barnett, M. (1989). More than meets the eye: Foreign language reading
theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
Dycus, D. (1997). Guessing word meaning from context: Should we encourage
it? Literacy Across Cultures, 1(2), 1-6.
Gradman, H., & Hanania, E. (1991). Language learning background
factors and ESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 39-51.
Green, J.M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies,
L2 proficiency and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
Huang, X., & van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral
communication. Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 287-307.
Koda, K. (1987). Cognitive strategy transfer in second language reading.
In J. Devine, et al. (Eds.), Research in reading English as a second
language (pp. 125-144). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: A
cross-linguistic perspective. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 35-52). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading. In
J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 20-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mulvey, B. (1997). Japanese and English rhetorical strategies: A contrastive
analysis [English abstract]. Literacy Across Cultures, 1(2),
13-23.
Nation, P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading.
The Language Teacher, 21(5), 13-16.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fictions. ELT Journal,
50 (1), 25-34.
Return to the Top
All articles and contributions are copyright © of the respective
authors.
Literacy Across Cultures
September 1998 2/2