2. SIFE/SLIFE
S These presentations explore different characteristics of “the SIFE student … the student
w/limited formal schooling”
S Browder: what factors correlate with low English proficiency gains? SIFE? 2 year
gap=interruption to schooling. What is schooling? Not good predictor of English gains. What
does:# ESOL classes, below grade level measured math skills, low self-reported literacy.
S Young: what opportunities for oral question-oriented usage events does a classroom provide a
low-literate SIFE student (Amina)? Interlocutor effects? How does print interact with oral SLA?
Answer: not many, as she spends a lot of time copying words from board, doesn’t interact with
peers who cut her off or write in her answers.
S Bigelow & King: what personal strengths does a low-literate SIFE student bring to peer
interaction in reading activities with a higher-schooled & literate peer? Ayan is very focused on
task-completion, keeps pair on task (impt role in cooperative learning groups), benefits from
Aisha’s scaffolding. (mutual support, scaffolding in oral interaction around print reading)
S Pettitt & Dillard: what pragmatic skills are used to reach communicative goals? Roba’s excellent
pragmatic and conversational skills in alignment with interlocutor to achieve communicative
goals: strategic lexical repetition, utterance completion, back-channels, encapsulation. None
depend on formal instruction or literacy.
3. Browder
S What correlates with English proficiency gains?
S Low proficiency on arrival, below grade-level math, low L2
literacy all correlate with low English proficiency gains.
S No difference SIFE and non-SIFE as defined by NY
S NY state def. SIFE: 2yr gap in schooling
S Asks “Is it possible that schooling measured in years or
grade is an unreliable way to measure education as the effect
of one year can vary greatly from country to country or
even student to student?”
5. Literacy level of SIFE learner?
S The four studies used four different ways of characterizing the
literacy levels of their SIFE learners:
S Browder: self-assessment.
S Young’s Amina: 6 years or fewer of formal instruction, ‘has
trouble writing independently’ but exact literacy level not
measured.
S Big & King: measured Ayan and Aiesha individually with
NLLSD (though ethical dilemmas here). Most recent arrivals
class.
S Pettitt & Dillard: qualitative battery of skills: LINCS 2012 read-
aloud: word analysis, blending, onset-rime, structural analysis;
sound-symbol production; use of focal strategies; following print
w/ finger; self & teacher assessment; CASAS.
6. Role of print in interaction w/
SIFEs in classroom ecology
S (Non-SIFE) Guerrettaz & Johnston (2013) and upcoming MLJ Perspectives
colum: what opportunities for SLA occur in a teacher’s and students’ oral
interactions around a testbook grammar drill? Little previous research
documenting how materials are actually used in interaction in classroom ecology,
or the opportunities for SLA their use provides.
S Bigelow & King: how pair manages reading activity, scaffolding each
other’s progress through task w/ diff strengths. What opportunities for L2
learning?
S Young: ‘materials’= board, notes. SIFE learner copies all writing from
board, asks scripted questions, little interaction w/peers, few
opportunities for L2 Q learning. Note: social context can affect
Pienemann’s order acquisition of questions (see Tarone & Liu 1995).
Why did peers cut her off? Does her slow writing slowing them down in
task completion?
S Submit to MLJ, citing both the G&J paper and the Perspectives column
summer 2014.!
7. What learner assets are NOT affected by
lower alphabetic print literacy?
S Pettitt & Dillard: pragmatic conversational skill in achieving
one’s communicative goals (Roba).
S Bigelow & King: strong goal and task-completion
orientation in small group work (Ayan).
S Young: persistence in goal orientation & task completion
(Amina’s board-copying); willingness to ask for and give
help (Amina)
S Others?