1

Analytic and Personal Essay

When I began the PhD program in Education with a focus in Literacy, I wished to study
and uncover the reasons why some English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students
who are born in the United States or start their academic journeys in the United States are unable
to pass the mandatory English proficiency exam after participating in ESOL programs for the
entirety of their academic lives. In my Goal Statement, I posit that literacy serves as a hindrance
to such students who have been unfortunately labeled lifers, and express the desire to study
that particular group of students both in the United States and the United Kingdom, as this group
of students is not unique to our country.
My research interests have since shifted to another group of students who fall under the
ESOL umbrella. My interest in Students with Limited or Interrupted Education (SLIFE) has
grown as I have had the opportunity to both study the research on this group of students and
work with them at school. This past school year, I taught newcomers and ESOL 1 students. This
was not a new experience for me as an ESOL teacher, but I did find myself woefully unprepared
to meet the needs of students who I quickly realized had more learning experience outside of the
classroom than in. As the year went on and I learned more about my students and their academic
needs, I realized I was not the only one who was unprepared. SLIFE are categorized as ESOL
students and frequently disappear under that label, until they reemerge to bolster the deficit
perspective often used to characterize language learners making their way through the public
school system.
In Early and Emergent Literacy (EDRD 830), I learned more about what research says
about how all students learn to read at the beginning of their school careers, as well as how
language learners learn to read in a second language. This growing knowledge boosted my

interest in my students experiences, as some of them were as old as fifteen and did not read in
their first languages. They did not experience what I was learning about in class in
prekindergarten or kindergarten or at home at ages 3-4; rather, they were experiencing the stages
of emergent and early literacy ten years after the students described in the studies I read. As my
classroom numbers grew throughout the year, and I encountered more students intent not only
upon learning English and learning to read, but learning how to do school, my interest in
SLIFE grew. In Adolescent Literacy (EDRD 831), we studied the various types of literacies and
what research says effective literacy instruction looks like. I conducted a literature review
focused on SLIFE, and while I found many qualitative studies, I struggled to find quantitative
studies focused solely on that particular group. Reviewing the available literature allowed me to
gain a deeper understanding of how teachers and students feel SLIFE should be helped, both in
the United States and in other countries. It also allowed me to identify gaps in the literature, and
ultimately to realize that I would like to contribute to closing those gaps. Although I would still
like to study the differences and similarities between language learners in the U.S. and the U.K.,
now I would like to focus on the language learners in both countries who have interrupted or
limited education, instead of Long-Term ELs.
I am also interested in analyzing the language teachers and researchers use to describe
SLIFE, as well as the language they use to describe themselves. Because SLIFE frequently
disappear under the ELL label, I find it necessary to analyze the way ELLs are written about,
too. I would like to compare and contrast the way SLIFE are treated in the discourse here and
abroad to uncover any themes or patterns that occur, regardless of country of origin or language
studied. Taking EDRS 818 allowed me to practice and learn more about critical discourse
analysis. I learned how to analyze and consider the power relationships inherent in the language

used in research and the status and inequities that result (Gee, 2011), and tried to analyze the
speech communities built by these bodies of research and social institutions (Fairclough, 2013).
I chose to analyze the language used to discuss and frame research on ELLs, in general, and
found that many researchers both acknowledge and denounce the deficit perspective that
characterizes research on ELLs, but simultaneously utilize a pattern in their own writing that
echoes deficit themes. Analyzing the discourse on SLIFE could allow schools to better meet
their needs, as it could provide a fuller picture of who they are, and who they are not.
In addition to analyzing the discourse surrounding SLIFE, I would like to analyze the
discourse SLIFE use to discuss their perspectives on literacy. I would like to see how much of
the deficit perspective is reflected in their thoughts about themselves academically, and
determine how they see themselves as students. I believe detailing what SLIFE want
academically for their futures beyond vague generalizations and test scores could allow teachers
to serve them better. In EDRS 811, I learned more about the work of Paulo Freire, as I
researched for a discourse analysis paper, and I believe that his theories regarding the
pathologization of literacy and need for agency among individuals learning to read (Freire, 1985)
are particularly relevant to the current challenges facing SLIFE and their teachers. I hope to
learn more about his work and how it could be used to frame my studies in future, as I suspect
that the concept of agency is forgotten in regards to SLIFE education-- functional literacy is seen
as a more attainable goal (Wickens & Sandlin, 2007).
While my interests have shifted in terms of what I would like to study and research after
completing 18 credits in the program, they have not changed professionally. I taught ESOL
students before and during the program, and stopped for family reasons. I plan to continue
teaching in the classroom as soon as I complete my coursework, hopefully overseas. I believe

that studying and researching literacy and SLIFE will allow me to become a better ESOL teacher
and advocate, which is necessary for all ESOL teachers, both stateside and abroad.

References
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Gee, J.P. (2011). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In Rogers, R. (Ed.). An
introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wickens, C.M., & Sandlin, J.A. (2007). Literacy for what? Literacy for whom? The
politics of literacy education and neocolonialism in UNESCO- and World Banksponsored literacy programs, Adult Education Quarterly, 57(4), 275-292