Presentation from the 'Global Dimension' workshop at the Erasmus+ 2016 Annual Conference.

1. The Three-Phase EU-Speak project
European Speakers of Other Languages:
Teaching Adult Immigrants and Training their Teachers
I

2. 2

3. The problem EU-Speak set out to address
Adult immigrants without home language literacy due to no/inadequate schooling
• Take much longer than educated adults to reach A1 Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages; some never attain A1 (Condelli et
al., 2003; Kurvers et al. 2010; Schellekens, 2011; Tarone et al., 2009)
• They require three times longer to benefit from integration + vocational
programmes (e.g. Sweden’s; six or seven rather than two years)
Visa status across Europe may be tied to achieving A2 or B1 CEFR.
• There’s insufficient basic skills provision for beginning-level immigrants
past the age of compulsory schooling in a number of OECD countries.
• There’s limited sufficient, specific teacher training and continued
professional development for those working with these adults as full-time
or part-time teachers or volunteers
3

4. A professional organisation est. 2005 by researchers and
teacher trainers in the Netherlands, UK and USA:
Low-educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition
An international forum of practitioners, researchers and policy makers,
from a range of disciplines, who promote the development of second
language and literacy skills by adults past the age of compulsory
schooling with little or no formal education prior to immigration.
LESLLA holds an annual conference with venues alternate between
English- and non-English-speaking countries, publishes proceedings,
hosts a user-list. Visit: http://www.leslla.org
Palermo, 2018 host; Tilburg, 2005 inaugural host ------->
4

5. The starting point:
evidence from decades of research
All adults – literate, non-literate, instructed or
naturalistic - can attain high levels of linguistic
competence in a second language (studies from the
1970s onwards, e.g. Vainikka & Young-Scholten 2011)
Adults can learn to read for the first time in a second
language (Kurvers, van de Craats, & van Hout; Young-
Scholten & Strom/Naeb, 2006; 2009)
5

6. The small body of LESLLA research
(several decades of case studies; ethnographic studies;
action research; large-scale studies)
Influential studies:
Condelli et al. (2003) What Works? 495 adults in classrooms in seven
US states showed correlations between learner success in reading
with active, individualised, relevant learning.
Kurvers et al. (2010): 322 adults from 39 countries (80% women;
61.3% no formal schooling) in the Netherlands took between 300 and
2700 hours to reach A1 CEFR; this was connected to a range of
classroom and extra-classroom factors.
Condelli et al. (2010; see also Paget & Stevenson, 2014; Schellekens,
2011) These adult learners progress faster when taught by well-
qualified teachers.
6

7. The EU-Speak project: three phases
2010-2012: European partnership exchange with workshops to
share ideas on and experience with all components of LESLLA basic
skills provision: approach; method; materials; assessment; policy;
teacher training/development (Grundtvig 2010-1-GB2-GRU06-
03528 )
2014-2015: European and US partners conducted surveys;
consultation; draft curriculum; module pilot (Grundtvig 539478-
LLP- 1-2013-1-UK-GRUNDTVIG-GMP)
2015-2018: six online modules each lasting six weeks,
designed and to be delivered twice, in English, Finnish, German,
Spanish, and Turkish (Erasmus+ 2015-1-UKo1-KA204-013485)
7

8. EU-Speak 3 partners
Andreas Rohde Universität zu Köln
Belma Haznedar Boğaziçi University, Istanbul
Marcin Sosiński & Universidad de Granada
Antonio Manjon Cabeza Cruz
Minna Suni & University of Jyväskylä
Taina Tammelin-Laine
Martha Young-Scholten(lead) Newcastle University
Yvonne Ritchie ( ass’t manager)
Nancy Faux Virginia Commonwealth University
Rola Naeb Northumbria University
Advisory Board (Phase 2 partners)
Paula Bosch University of Amsterdam
Larry Condelli American Institutes for Research
Joy Kreeft Peyton Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC
Maisa Martin University of Jyväskylä
Info.eu-speak@ncl.ac.uk and www.eu-speak.com

9. The solution EU-Speak 3 is working on
Those working in some pedagogical capacity with LESLLA learners
should understand (1) their situations; (2) their backgrounds; (3) their
language + literacy learning trajectories and have (4) expectations
reflecting their considerable potential.
• In most countries there’s little or no specific training/development
for them to gain this knowledge; this is unlikely to change.
1. Training and development can be offered internationally, because
those who work with these adults have much in common.
2. While English could be the lingua franca, because teachers teach
their own languages, training/development should be offered in
teachers’ languages, i.e. English and other languages.
9

10. Alpha delivery of modules; Beta 2017-2018
Vocabulary Acquisition
Designed by University of Cologne, piloted Feb-March 2015 (60
participants); May-June 2017
Working with LESLLA Learners
Designed by Virginia Commonwealth University, Feb-March 2016 (130
participants)
Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Designed by Boğaziçi University, May-June 2016 (99 participants)
Language and Literacy in their Social Contexts
Designed by University of Jyväskylä, Oct-Nov 2016 (100 participants)
Reading Development from a Psycholinguistic Perspective
Designed by University of Granada, February-March 2017
The Acquisition and Assessment of Morphosyntax
Newcastle University and Northumbria University, Oct-Nov 2017
10

11. Evaluation
Feedback Questionnaires
Discussion forum analyses
The modules were
supported by mentors;
they evaluated themselves
11

12. The Working with LESLLA Learners module:
Feedback questionnaire results
Cross-cultural interaction is lively, but cross-linguistic interaction
non-existent until October when the project switched from
language-based discussion forums to a single multi-lingual
discussion forum. Participants can post in any of project language.
Teachers have expressed enthusiasm regarding the cross-cultural
sharing of experiences; the current module finishes this week and
we’ll soon know how well multi-lingual sharing works.
12

13. Module participant feedback
Organization Knowledge & skills Participant engagement
93% said it was
well organized
86%said the
publications
deepened knowledge
89% enjoyed the
international interaction
93% agreed six
weeks was a good
length
79% said the content
deepened their
knowledge
85% liked the on-line mode
of learning
86% noted clear
module objectives
79% said it helped
their teaching
64% logged on at least
three times a week
13

14. Module discussion forum analysis
of uptake of activities
14

15. Discussion forum data revealed that
15
Questions on the discussion forum: 53% completed most of these
Activities
24% completed: ‘World Map of Languages’ activity useful for working
with students; expanded teachers’ knowledge of linguistic features of
their students' languages. They were challenged by the
recommendation that they try out an activity on comparing languages
with their students.
59% completed: ‘Languages in the Household and Community’. They
said this fostered interaction with their students; they employed
various methods including questionnaires and interviews to
implement this activity with students.

16. The project has been a success so far due to
WORKING SMOOTHLY WITH PARTNERS
16

17. TRANSNATION MEETING, GRANADA SEPTEMBER 2016
17

18. WORKING WITH AMERICAN PARTNERS
1. Can mean dealing with a state rather than the country
States make many of their own laws and have their own policies, systems
and programmes (e.g. sales and some other taxes are state or even county-
or city-level)
• Qualifications are state-based (e.g. for teaching, medicine; practicing
law)
• Standards, curricula, tests are state-based
The federal government makes laws, imposes various policies, systems and
programmes (e.g. income tax; refugee resettlement programmes;)
• States cooperate on federal programmes to receive federal funding but
they are not invariably bound to do so (the state of Utah rejected No
Child Left Behind federal funding during the Bush administration)
18

19. WORKING WITH AMERICAN PARTNERS
2. Means understanding what Americans are really like
•Flexible, friendly, optimistic, direct, goal-driven, individualistic,
not bureaucratic
• There are rural-urban, regional, cultural and other differences
• Might not get British humour!
•If educators, they know about the rest of the world and are
part of a highly diverse sector
•Those in adult immigrant education may have lived in
developing countries (e.g. the Peace Corps started by JFK; it’s
the US version of the UK Voluntary Service Overseas/VSO)
19

20. WORKING WITH AMERICAN PARTNERS
3. Means listening carefully and avoiding acronyms
•Two countries separated by the same language (George
Bernard Shaw)
• Word meanings differ
• In education: a module is a course and a course is a degree; staff
member is faculty member; school and college can mean university
•Different policies, programmes and systems mean that
the acronyms we use usually differ
20

21. WORKING WITH PARTNERS
•Don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s all
small stuff. (Carson 1997)
•But not to everyone (cultural
differences).
21