Resultados Conflicto Social

The necessity for developing an assessment for this research project became clear after an investigation of available oral skills tests for LESLLA learners of Dutch. Two types of tests were on the market: curriculum-dependent and curriculum-independent. The first type was excluded. In curriculum- dependent tests the learners using the textbook on which the test is based would have an advantage over learners not using that textbook. The only existing curriculum-independent tests for assessing the oral skills were those

developed by ICE.46 This was the only organization that developed tests for

the literacy student that was readily available at the start of this research project in 2005. These tests were part of a battery of tests called the NT2

Profieltoets Alfabetisering (DSL Profile Test for Literacy), developed to

assess the literacy student after having completed the WIN language training program of approximately 600 classroom hours. Next to assessing the learner’s literacy decoding skills, the test also included an oral skills component based on a simulation format in situations such as making an appointment with the doctor or shopping in a grocery store. The student’s

46 ICE is the abbreviation for Bureau Interculturele Evaluatie (Bureau Intercultural Evaluation).

performance was globally evaluated based on the descriptors characteristic for the level being tested. These were derived from the CEFR levels,47 a framework based on “user-oriented scales [that] report typical or likely behaviours of learners at any given level. Statements tend to talk about what the learner can do” (Council of Europe, 2001:22). The oral skills tests could also be analyzed using a more detailed model focusing on, for example, grammatical correctness, vocabulary, and coherence. But again, these were based on global descriptions of the CEFR levels. For example, assessing grammatical correctness on an A1 level was characterized as: “the utterances are limited to a small number of simple grammatical constructions and memorized expressions”, while that on an A2 level say, “the utterances

consist of simple constructions of small word groups” (Bureau ICE, 2003).48

It is clear that not only is the difference between A1 and A2 difficult to determine, it is also difficult to determine variation within a group of learners on the same level. The ICE criteria are insufficiently fine-tuned to capture small steps in learning. The ICE oral assessments assess the student’s general ability to perform a particular task. Results based on this type of testing would be too general and unspecific, making comparisons vague and inexplicit. The only option open was to construct an assessment which could capture the small steps in language achievement and would make comparisons between the learners investigated in this project possible.

The assessment developed in this project was entirely based on the use of pictures, as its aim was to test oral language proficiency. Secondly, these learners were still in the beginning stages of learning to read, so the written word could not be used as a support, and if used it might distract the learner from his purpose. Not every picture is adequate for such a test. The fact that LESLLA learners are to take the test puts constraints on the format. As Arbuckle (2004) observed, “People who do not see educational pictures regularly have few opportunities to learn how to understand and interpret pictures” (p. 451). This is a skill which must be learned. Cook (1980) found that the use of pictures for the L1 non-literate learners can be a formidable task (p. 3). He states that the ability to read pictures, meaning to recognize and interpret them, involves a visually literate skill (p. 8). Learning to read pictures is just as important as learning to read the letters of words, and both can be trained. A study among non-literate unskilled Moroccan labourers showed that many had trouble interpreting a two-dimensional reproduction of a three-dimensional object (Haverkort, 1972). Such drawings are often used in illustrated instructions—just think of instructions for the use of home appliances. At work, the ability to read such pictures can be of utmost

47 See footnote 6 for an explanation of the CEFR-levels. 48 Translation is mine.

importance for safety measures. In the Netherlands Zikkenheimer (1986a, 1986b), investigated the comprehensibility of illustrations in information brochures for low-literate Moroccan and Turkish women. In studying her subjects, Zikkenheimer identified several characteristics that facilitate picture interpretation. The most important one concerned picture detail. She found that unnecessary detail in an illustration confused the non-literate learner to a greater degree than it would the literate learner. In communicating specific information, the picture should focus only on those elements important for understanding the message. Zikkenheimer illustrated this by showing one photograph with all the background details just as clear as the main action in the foreground, and another picture, in which the background details are vaguely visible (see Figure 6:2).

Figure 6:2 Pictures showing a detailed and a dimmed background

Zikkenheimer (1986b) p.27. Reprinted with permission from the author.

Not only is it important to reveal only those details necessary for the message, the picture must be presented as realistically as possible and recognizable for the ‘reader’ (Cook, 1980; Zikkenheimer, 1986a). The use of iconic symbols and color to focus on a certain detail must be used sparingly, for it might not always be understood (Zikkenheimer, 1986a, p.70). A study on illustrations in health information brochures used for educating LESLLA residents, found that “simple, realistic pictures with limited content and familiar objects and symbols communicate well”, and that “an illustration of a complete face is less confusing than an isolated facial feature” (Hill, 2008, p. 40). Hill warns that caution should be taken in the use of symbols indicating time, such as a calendar or clock. These are often not interpreted in the intended way, particularly in information concerning a span of time such as ‘in two days’ or ‘every four hours’ (Zikkenheimer, 1986a; Hill, 2008). In conclusion, from previous research there is evidence that indicates that for the LESLLA learner the use of photographs is preferred to drawings and the use of colored photographs is preferred to black-white photographs and colored drawings to black-white drawings (Cook, 1980; Hill, 2008;

Zikkenheimer, 1986a). Van der Erve, et al. (1981), the author of one the first literacy courses for LESLLA learners in the Netherlands, pointed out the importance of proper illustrations in teaching material. Since illustrations form an essential part in LESLLA materials, these must be unambiguous, meaning that caricature type drawings should be avoided. In addition, she also advised not to use symbols such as arrows or ticks because they can be misinterpreted. Van der Erve, et al. (1981) reminded teachers that illustrations are not always interpreted by the LESLLA learner in the same manner as they do. Whiteside (2008) found that the same applies for illustrations accompanying a text. Students have to learn to interpret the pictures correctly if they are to function as a support for reading. For the assessment of this research project these findings pertaining to picture use were adhered to as much as possible. Nevertheless, misinterpretations were not always avoidable.