David

The purpose of the __Developing Literacy in the Second-Language Learners__ is to add to the knowledge base of what is already out there. The question was raised, “How can we best improve literacy achievement for language-minority?” The panel does not want to have this study to be the “end all, be all” piece of work and to acknowledge key knowledge gaps. They wanted to look at new issues worth investigating. It was admitted that there were time and monetary constraints that limited the examination of all studies on the development of second-language literacy. The investigation was driven by basic and applied research. It also mirrored what educational policy makers wanted. There were a few areas to investigate. The first is the relationship between first-language literacy development and second-language literacy. Secondly is the difference between native speakers and second-language learner’s development of language. Another point is that language in literacy as it pertains to minority children and its connection, if any, with culture of the child’s environment and literacy. A key to implementation of valuable instruction and professional development needed for student success. Finally, the assessment is important to understand the effectiveness of the instructional approach. The findings revealed an association with first-language acquisition and second-language acquisition. There is an influence of “sociocultural variables” that could inhibit or push for second-language learners to achievement. Finally, few studies indicate the enough research on the assessment and the classroom factors that could increase the second-language learner’s success. Catherine Snow was part of the panel and had a few words to say about the daunting task of this panel. She mentions specifics unlike the generalizations of the introduction the panel’s research. She mentions some limits to the panels work, especially in the areas of second-language learner’s achievement, how student culture acknowledges literacy, first to second language acquisition, lack of proper assessment, and also skillful teaching to meet the needs of the students. There were topics almost overlooked because of little or lack of research. For example, prevention for younger students as seen through reading readiness, as well as, information for servicing older students should be considered. The issue of literacy and the subtle nuances of language correlate the understanding of exactly the older English-language student’s literacy knowledge. The exposure of the student’s country of origin content through language and literature does affect the likelihood of second-language acquirement. There were several interesting points that were stated in the introduction. The first is home and school differences in communication. It reminds me of one of my excellent students, “John” and how he communicates. “John” communicates in English at all times at school. It was commented by a Spanish-speaking teacher that his Spanish pronunciation is excellent. His parents are successful professionals. From what I understand during parent conferences and what he shares, his parents speak at a low to medium conversational English level. At home there is rich conversation in Spanish. It also brings up another point that he knows vocabulary in his native tongue but he is only assessed in the second language where he at times does struggle through vocabulary. The report has stated that for some students it is just a matter of using new labels, with vocabulary, to concepts they have already acquired. Through artifacts and conversation, I find he understands different academic concepts. When he writes or speaks in English, he gets the words scrambled at times and has minor grammar problems. I wonder if brain sees words, ideas, and concepts in his native language and then has to translate in order to say or write it in English.