Four learners who cannot access the coursebook
You teach an A2 evening class of 18 adults, 90 minutes twice a week for 12 weeks, at a community centre. Six learners are refugees with interrupted schooling; four of those have limited literacy in Arabic script and no experience of Roman script. The other twelve are university students and professionals who read and write comfortably. The coursebook assumes Roman-script literacy from page one: matching exercises, gap-fills, written instructions. In week 3 the four low-literacy learners have stopped attempting the writing tasks and sit in silence during pair work; one has stopped attending. The rest of the class is complaining that the pace has dropped, and your coordinator says the funding requires all 18 to stay enrolled.
1. What are your realistic options, and what reasoning should decide between them?
Read the worked answer
There is no clean solution here, so the reasoning has to be about trade-offs rather than about finding the right method.
The options:
- Slow the class to the lowest literacy level - protects the four, loses the twelve, and probably loses the four too, since their oral skills are not the problem.
- Continue as planned and let the four disengage - cheapest, and ethically and contractually bad; it also contradicts what we know about anxiety and participation driving attendance.
- Run a common oral core with differentiated recording: the same language content and the same speaking tasks for everyone, but the way learners record and respond varies (drawing, matching pictures, word cards, first-letter grids, oral rehearsal, scribing by a partner).
- Split or stream - often not available, and mixed-ability grouping has real benefits if tasks are differentiated.
- Refer the four to a dedicated literacy class alongside this one, if one exists.
What decides it:
- What is the actual barrier? It is the written channel, not the language. So the intervention belongs in the recording and instruction stage, not in the target language.
- What cannot be compromised? The twelve need pace; the four need access to the same oral content and to be seen as members of the class.
- What is within my control? Materials, grouping, task format, board routines. Not the enrolment policy, not the funding rule.
So: option 3 as the default, option 5 pursued in parallel with the coordinator, and the one who has left contacted this week. Option 1 is a false economy - a slower class does not teach reading, it just delays everyone.
2. Plan the next 90-minute lesson so that the four low-literacy learners participate in the oral work without the lesson collapsing for the others. Be specific about format.
Read the worked answer
Structure it as one oral spine, several exit channels.
- No written instructions on the board for the core task. Demo the task with two learners, then check understanding by asking a learner to show the class what to do, not by asking "OK?"
- Record answers without writing. Ranking tasks with picture cards, information gaps with grids of symbols, "find five people who..." recorded with ticks or names, or the partner scribes. The language demand (asking, answering, negotiating) is identical for all 18.
- Grouping deliberately. Do not pair a low-literacy learner with the strongest student, who will do the work. Pair with a patient, mid-level learner, and rotate. Seat the four near the board and near me.
- A short parallel literacy slot (10 minutes) while the others do a written extension. Alphabet, sight words from the oral task, personal details, first-letter sound sorting - routine, repetitive, success guaranteed. Same ten-minute slot every lesson so it becomes a norm rather than a label.
- Praise publicly for oral contribution. If the only visible currency in the room is written accuracy, the four will keep opting out.
- Protect the pace. Set a visible timer for each stage; the differentiated channel means the twelve are not waiting for the four to finish writing.
3. What evidence would tell you this is or is not working, and what would you do if it is not?
Read the worked answer
I need indicators that are about participation and progress, not just attendance.
Early indicators (within two weeks):
- The four attempt the oral task without prompting; count contributions in one 10-minute window and compare week to week.
- The learner who stopped attending returns, or I make contact and find out the actual reason - it may have nothing to do with literacy.
- The twelve are not complaining about pace; check by asking two of them directly rather than inferring from silence.
- The literacy slot shows movement: recognising their own name, a growing sight-word set.
Medium-term indicators (weeks 4–8):
- Handwriting attempts appear in classwork even if inaccurate.
- The four can follow a routine without a demonstration.
If it is not working: I would not keep improvising. I would (a) speak to the coordinator about a referral route to a literacy-specific provision, (b) look for a volunteer or second adult for the literacy slot, (c) reconsider whether the four are better served by a separate beginners' literacy course plus a place in an oral conversation group, and (d) document what I have tried - both because it is good practice and because the funding requirement will need evidence. I would also be honest that a mainstream A2 course may be the wrong container for a learner with no Roman-script literacy, and that sustaining a differentiated strand alone for twelve weeks is not realistic.