This article reports a descriptive case study conducted at a community-based adult English language program over 7 weeks. The participants were three Afghan refugee women, who were at beginning-level proficiency in English without prior education and native language literacy. Although phonics is a recommended approach for beginning-level literacy instruction, its effectiveness depends on how actively learners engage with the instruction. This study investigated the benefits of contextualized phonics-based instruction, focusing also on learner agency (engagement and resistance) during the instruction. Based on analysis of class observation notes, teacher reflections, lesson materials, and pre- and post-test scores, the findings are presented as learner profiles, describing their gains in literacy skills and patterns of engagement and resistance. The patterns of resistance are discussed as the result of the value discrepancy between the teacher and the participants. The article recommends that resistance be viewed as valuable feedback from learners and be incorporated when making instructional decisions.
BlackmerR.Hayes-HarbR. (2016). Identifying effective methods of instruction for adult emergent readers through community-based research. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 5(2), 35–49. https://coabe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Journal-summer-2016.pdf
2.
BowersJ. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y
3.
CanagarajahA. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 27(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587398
4.
CarterS. J.HenrichsenL. E. (2015). Addressing reticence: The challenge of engaging reluctant adult ESL students. Journal of Adult Education, 44(2), 15–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083975.pdf
5.
DeKeyserR. (2020). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. In VanPattenB.KeatingG. D.WulffS. (Eds.), Skill acquisition theory (3rd ed., pp. 83–104): Routledge.
6.
DeKeyserR. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In RobinsonR. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151): Cambridge University Press.
7.
EhriL. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45–S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334
8.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. A. (2020). Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.286
9.
HasbrouckJ.ParkerR. (2001). Quick phonics screener. Texas A & M University.
10.
Hayes-HarbR.BarriosS. (2021). The influence of orthography in second language phonological acquisition. Language Teaching, 54(3), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000658
11.
Hevia-TueroC.InceraS.Suárez-CoallaP. (2022). Influences of first and second language phonology on Spanish children learning to read in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), Article 803518. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.803518
KodaK. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(s1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
16.
MartinK. I. (2017). The impact of L1 writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings. Reading and Writing, 30(2), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9673-5
17.
McKayS. L.WongS. L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–609. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.3.n47r06u264944865
PavlenkoA.NortonB. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language teaching. In CumminsJ.DavisonC. (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 669–680). Springer.
20.
PerfettiC. A.LandiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13
21.
PiccininS.Dal MasoS. (2021). Promoting literacy in adult second language learners: A systematic review of effective practices. Language, 6(3), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030127
22.
QuigleyB. A. (1990). Hidden logic: Reproduction and resistance in adult literacy and adult basic education. Adult Education Quarterly, 40(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848190040002004
23.
SharifianF.SadeghpourM.BartonS.-M.BarryJ.BartonG.YilmazI. (2021). English language learning barriers of Afghan refugee women in Australia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12320
24.
StreetB. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. Longman.
25.
SuhE. K. (2020). Engagement from the periphery: Reconceptualizing adult English language learners’ resistance in developmental literacy. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 69(1), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336920937276
26.
TorgersonC.BrooksG.GascoineL.HigginsS. (2018). Phonics: Reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’ review. Research Papers in Education, 34(2), 208–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1420816
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019639
30.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192
31.
YeungS. S.SavageR. (2020). Teaching grapheme-phoneme correspondences using a direct mapping approach for at-risk second language learners: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419894563
32.
YinR. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). Guilford.
33.
Young-ScholtenM.Kreeft PeytonJ. (2020). Introduction: Understanding adults learning to read for the first time in a new language: Multiple perspectives. In PeytonJ.Young-ScholtenM. (Ed.), Teaching adult immigrants with limited formal education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–10). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788927000-004
