Abstract and Figures
This article presents the lighthouse literacy strategies model using the concentrated language encounter (CLE) approach that has been successfully replicated in many countries in different languages and cultures. A review of CLE research studies and the project implementation in Thailand showed highly significant results in students’ literacy skill improvement. The theoretical bases were derived from the research on language education in Australia with aboriginal children. Through the implementation program in Thailand, three CLE models/stages in teaching language and a specific ‘train the trainers’ program were developed at different levels of literacy skills. Four different types of CLE literacy programs that include formal, informal, special education, and ethnic groups were successfully implemented.
Figu
…
Figures – uploaded by Saowalak Rattanavich
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Saowalak Rattanavich
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Education Studies; Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
21
Concentrated Language Encounter Approach in Practice for Global
Teaching of Literacy: Lighthouse Strategy Implementation
Saowalak Rattanavich1
1 School of Education, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand
Correspondence: Saowalak Rattanavich, School of Education, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tel: 66-81-812-4862. E-mail: s_rattanavich@hotmail.com
Received: March 4, 2015 Accepted: April 28, 2015 Online Published: June 19, 2015
doi:10.5539/ies.v8n7p21 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n7p21
Abstract
This article presents the lighthouse literacy strategies model using the concentrated language encounter (CLE)
approach that has been successfully replicated in many countries in different languages and cultures. A review of
CLE research studies and the project implementation in Thailand showed highly significant results in students’
literacy skill improvement. The theoretical bases were derived from the research on language education in
Australia with aboriginal children. Through the implementation program in Thailand, three CLE models/stages
in teaching language and a specific ‘train the trainers’ program were developed at different levels of literacy
skills. Four different types of CLE literacy programs that include formal, informal, special education, and ethnic
groups were successfully implemented.
Keywords: concentrated language encounter approach, lighthouse strategies, CLE models/stages of teaching
literacy, train the trainers program
1. Introduction
Poverty is a serious global issue that affects people’s lives and has a major impact on national educational reform
planning (OECD, 2014). Literacy education is generally considered to be the only long-term solution to solving
this problem. In many areas in Thailand, illiteracy and poverty are also grave issues causing various difficulties
for educational, social, political, and economical development. In Thailand, the primary emphasis has been on
functional literacy because it involves learning to communicate in practical and direct ways as well as adapting
knowledge to vocations and other subject areas. Even in a poverty-stricken context, the need for literacy is
playing an increasing role in community and workplace processes as well as in educational contexts. The use of
computers in information processing is becoming more necessary and more sophisticated, both for the purposes
of social participation and for economic performance. Rapidly changing demands mean that children need to
enroll in educational programs to reach those goals, especially for children in various rural areas, which
encompass a statistically diverse range of people, such as in the northeast, north, and south of Thailand, where
different minority languages are spoken. Unfortunately, children in these areas experience many language-related
difficulties at school, and as a result, there is a high student learning failure rate. Research indicates that ethnic
language literacy rates in Thailand remain well below average in most groups. Ethnic minority groups have
scarcely benefited from their educational developments. Studies suggest that because of poverty and language
constraints (the Thai language is the official language of instruction in schools) school completion rates are
lower among non-Thai speaking students. As a result of the high school dropout rates, illiteracy is generally
more prevalent among ethnic minorities (Wisanee & Petchragsa, 2005; UNESCO, 2007). Accordingly, good
sustainable literacy programs must be developed as a matter of national urgency ( Ministry of Education, 2009;
UNESCO, 2014).
In general, the traditional approaches to teaching the Thai and English languages in Thailand have not been
successful primarily because they tend to perceive language in terms of various small elements that are broken
down and taught in a fragmented manner. This approach was based on the theoretical assumption that students
must learn all these language elements in isolation before they can put the elements together to create coherent
language. However, such learning theory divorces language from the considerations of purpose and meaning
(Christie, 2012).
To eliminate mass illiteracy in Thailand, appropriate approaches in the teaching of language were researched,
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
22
and the Concentrated Language Encounter (CLE) approach of Gray’s program at Traeger Park was first
introduced to the author by Richard Walker, an educationalist and Deputy of the then Mount Gravatt College of
Advanced Education in Brisbane, Australia, in the early 1980s. It was considered that the general principals
employed from the Traeger Park program were applicable for all students whether they were advantaged or
disadvantaged, first or second language learners, or living in urban or rural situations (Walker, Rattanavich, &
Oller, 1992).
In addition, the proposed Thailand project also had some needs of its own. The first of these was the
development of curriculum materials in the Thai language and the second was development of an approach to
teacher training and dissemination.
2. Original CLE Research Implication in Australia
In the 1980s, Gray (1998) confronted a similar problem in Australia. As a senior teacher charged with developing
a language and literacy program for Aboriginal children at Traeger Park School in Alice Springs, Gray (1980,
1998) demonstrated that the children could not engage effectively when language and literacy instruction was
delivered within a skills-based direct instructional model. He proposed that a more effective approach required
teaching and learning that was transparently situated within discourses relevant to academic learning and to
functioning in the wider community. In particular, the social roles and functions underlying the choices for
structure and vocabulary had to be actively linked to language choices.
Gray (1998) further argued that a conventional language experience approach built around child-centered
pedagogies, such as whole language, was also inadequate when learners did not already possess the culturally
situated literate/language resources necessary to engage successfully within the discourses they were
encountering in their schooling.
In response to the language and literacy needs that he identified concerning the Aboriginal children at Traeger
Park School, Gray developed an approach that used highly staged but practical everyday contexts that he called
Concentrated Language Encounters (CLE), which was a term he borrowed from Cazden (1977). A CLE, as Gray
defined it, was a sequence of lessons that focused upon the production of a specific text. The text was carefully
chosen and the language contextual resources necessary for its production were defined and analyzed by the
teacher prior to teaching. Teaching in the CLE sequence systematically supported the development of the
students’ ability to control, understand, and deconstruct the ‘target’ text.
Gray defined ‘text’, based on Halliday (1975), as a body of language that is designed to do a job in a particular
context. The texts studied and produced by the Central Australian Aboriginal children were taxonomised around
the following three general categories:
Transactional texts (working texts, such as forms, notes, and signs).
Factual texts (recounts, procedures, explanations, descriptions, reports, and arguments).
Literary texts (recounts, narratives, aboriginal stories for children, poetry, legends, and fables).
Gray (1980) identified two basic types of CLE lesson sequences in his earlier work. These lesson sequence
configurations became the basic environment within which teachers and students worked to produce texts. He
labeled these as Type A and Type B. Gray (2014) described these in the following manner.
Type A concentrated encounters produce written texts that originated in experiences shared by both teacher and
students. For example, at school entry, making toast together was used as the basis for giving children control
over the ability to produce an extended procedural text. Once the students had built up the capacity to retell this
procedural text, it was transformed into a written text through teacher/student negotiation around the production
of a written text. This written text was then used for reading development.
Type B concentrated encounters were derived from experiences with texts. In these encounters, texts were read
to, with, or by the students and discussed. In these sessions, the teacher mediated the production and discussion
of the target text using the scaffolding strategies that had been introduced (Gray, 2014, pp. 4-5).
In these CLE contexts, students worked jointly with teachers to produce texts that were appropriate to the social
roles studied by the children. The CLE became the central organizing principle for curriculum planning,
although it needed to be identified as part of a wider curriculum theme that involved a number of interrelated
CLE lesson sequences. Gray (1987) gave an example of a CLE lesson sequence on ‘saddling a horse’ that was
incorporated as one aspect of a broader program theme devoted to cattle stations (a significant aspect of life for
remote area Aboriginal students in Outback Australia). As an important part of learning about the general theme
of cattle stations, the children spent time learning how to look after and ride horses. The target text for the CLE
teaching was the production of an extended instructional text that explained how to approach and fit a saddle on
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
23
a horse. In addition, other cattle station themes were explored, such as learning about mustering cattle,
butchering meat, leatherworking, and so on, all of which offered different CLE lesson sequences. In this theme,
most of the CLE activities were focused upon the production of procedural texts, although a number of extended
explanation and narrative texts were also explored.
A critical feature for success in CLE lesson sequences was that they were staged as “routines.” Routines in CLE
programming imitated parent-child language development interaction of the kind described by Bruner (1983,
1986) and other researchers in child language development that were emerging at the time (Goldfield & Snow,
1984; Heath, 1982, 1983; Nineo & Bruner, 1978; Snow, 1977, 1978, 1983a, 1983b; Snow & Goldfield, 1982,
1983; Wood, 1980; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). In a routine, the same text was revisited repeatedly over time
and both the scope of the context for the text production and the language resources used within the text itself
were expanded and developed qualitatively. Through this process, the students became able to control extended
and elaborated texts that were initially well beyond their individual competencies.
A further key element in the CLE approach was the nature of the teaching/learning negotiation process. Critical
to the success of CLE activities was the fact that both teachers and children took an active part in the negotiation
of the children’s learning (Gray, 1985). Gray based the teacher/student negotiation process that took place within
CLE lesson sequences on the work of Vygostky (1978) and on early research on parent/child language and
literacy development that was emerging during his early CLE work (Gray, 1987). Of particular importance was
of the notion of ‘scaffolding’.
In scaffolding, the teacher worked jointly with the learners in activities. In the activity, teachers allowed the
children to do as much as they could do to complete the task. However, because the teacher was working with
the children, they were able to help learners by providing assistance and by contributing whatever the students
could not do to complete the learning task. Further, because the CLE consisted of lesson sequences (i.e., the
lessons were treated as routinized activities), children became increasingly able to control the task over time.
Consequently, as children became more able, the teacher allowed and encouraged them to take more and more
control of the activity. This control was extended to discussion and analysis of the target texts. Eventually, the
children could do the entire activity and produce appropriate texts without the teacher’s assistance.
Although the term scaffolding has been loosely appropriated by child-centered approaches, such as whole
language (K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, & Bird, 1990), Gray’s interpretation (Gray, 2007) differs in relation to the
strength of the role assumed by the adult in determining what is to be learned as well as how the learning is to be
negotiated. Imitation, a process that is often avoided in discussion of learning in child-centered pedagogy, is also
given a more nuanced position in the learning environment. Furthermore, the interpretation of what constitutes
effective questioning strategies also differs from those presumed in child-centered approaches. Thus, while
teaching and learning in CLE activities is experiential in that learning is contextualized in ‘real world’ activities
and experience, it is misleading to presume an affinity with child-centered language experience approaches.
3. Adaptation and Implementation of the CLE Teaching Approach in Thailand
The CLE program implemented in Thailand was not a direct copy of the program Gray (1998) developed. The
Thai CLE program represents an interpretation and adaptation of some of the general principles and significant
teaching strategies to meet what this author, Walker, and other consultants considered to be the needs in Thai
schools at that time (Walker, Rattanavich, & Oller, 1992).
The Thai CLE program paid considerable attention to systematizing and reducing the scope of the original
program to make it more easily accommodated within the teaching expertise of Thai teachers and within the
limited teaching resources available in Thai schools. The Thai program, however, attempted to retain the major
teaching/learning advantages contained within the original CLE model.
One major advantage that was observed at Traeger Park School was that the scaffolding interaction process,
along with the recurrent presentations employed as routines, allowed space within the lesson for shy and
unconfident learners to participate in meaningful communication without placing undue pressure to perform and
produce fully formed responses. This provided a stress-free environment for all students to engage in learning at
their own pace. From the perspective of foreign language teaching, the CLE model provided a sophisticated
response to the language learning issues raised by Asher (2003) concerning comprehension and performance
effects stemming from Sperry’s (1968) research on brain function.
In addition, the fact that Gray’s CLE activities were experiential and firmly grounded directly in cultural and
community discourses offered a teaching context that was more relevant and potentially more powerful than the
rigid and behaviorally oriented solutions and contexts. A central concern of the Thai CLE teaching process is to
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
24
situate the use of language as much as possible around the practical use of language in real life contexts.
Through the scaffolding provided in these situations, the aim was to build a thinking framework in the learner
that is appropriate for responding and speaking in the contexts that directly affect their everyday lives. The
following figure (Figure 1) is used to express this process within the CLE approach used in Thailand.
Figure 1. CLE learning process
The CLE learning process (at each stage) places emphasis on thinking about the language use. This (how to
make effective language choices) is modeled in the presentation of the material explored in the text-based and
activity-based units, and its acquisition is built progressively by the scaffolding techniques of instruction in each
phase. The students also learn language that is practical and appropriate to their effective functioning in school
and the wider community. Because students are continually making connections between thinking about
language and using language in relevant contexts, they can begin to transfer their thoughts into both spoken and
written language and also into nonverbal communication (facial expressions), thereby making possible a direct
improvement in the quality of their everyday lives.
The overall implementation framework for the CLE program adapted within Thailand was set out and discussed
in Walker, Rattanavich, and Oller (1992). The following discussion provides a brief outline of its main features.
The program organization is built around three stages of literacy development, with stage 1 representing Thai
students with less literacy.
1) Stage 1 is used for less experienced readers or beginner readers. The objective is to create enthusiasm in the
learners for reading and writing simple texts of various kinds. The emphasis is on enjoying reading and writing
and becoming successful in spoken and written language. The learners have been taught how to learn and enjoy
the learning process in which self-improvement is developed.
2) Stage 2 is used for learners who are able to read and write simple texts independently. It is aimed at widening
the range of text types or genres that learners can read and write in for everyday life, including reading and
writing techniques to help students learn how to read and write effectively.
3) Stage 3 is used for the advanced learners, emphasizing learning through reading and writing and offering
further experiences with texts. The overall objective is to provide all the literacy skills that learners will ever
need when they leave school and the learning skills that they will need at higher levels.
The CLE programs were also categorized into four types of literacy programs to better organize the appropriate
plan of curriculum development, key personnel training, material development, and research studies. The four
types are formal or school-based programs, informal education programs (adult literacy and children), special
education program (for disabled students), and ethnic group program (hill tribe students and immigrants)
Models of language use & concepts for practical improvement
How to think in order to make
effective lan
g
ua
g
e choices
Spoken Language Nonverbal/Facial Expression Written Language
Practical Improvement
Text-Based Units Activity-Based Units
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
25
(Walker et al., 1998; Rattanavich, 2013).
For the development of curriculum materials and a teacher program, Frances Christie introduced a genre-based
or text-based approach to the development of the Thailand literacy program (Rattanavich & Christie, 1993). In
fact, two strategies had been developed, one involving the development of basic literacy curriculum materials
and the other involving a teacher development program. The genre-based approach had been used to plan for the
beginner’s texts used in the program because those genres or text types derive from the context of culture and the
context of situations when people use spoken or written language. A genre has a characteristic overall shape,
technically called a ‘schematic structure,’ similar to a spoken or written organization of language by people when
conveying meaning to a listener or reader for a particular purpose. As different genres have different purposes,
such as recounting, reporting, discussing, explaining, narrating, exposing, interviewing, observing, and so on,
there is a pattern of linguistic features used when conveying the spoken or written messages in these different
situations. Accordingly, teachers should be trained on such essential linguistic enquiries and resources to better
plan the beginner’s texts as the language model to enable their students to feel at ease while learning how to
think about and organize their thoughts into comprehensible and grammatically precise and concise oral or
written texts. The teacher must focus their own thinking upon the text to be considered and the context in which
students should engage with that text. These aspects should be the focus when beginning the study of the whole
text and understood as an important unit for building meaning. Once students have established familiarity with
the text in terms of reading and talking about it, they can, especially in the writing activities developed,
undertake learning about the many aspects of the language used, including spelling and handwriting systems and
aspects of the organization of written sentences. All the latter items can be considered in lively and interesting
ways so that the students find them relevant to their learning. The content of the texts that the students develop is
chosen on the basis of content that is most likely to improve their prospects and enjoyment in life. The topics
may include basic health and hygiene, public health, morals, norms of conduct, arts, crafts, culture, science,
business, procedures, community decision-making, teamwork and cooperation, preservation of environment,
agriculture, and/or other aspects of local and natural life (Rattanavich & Christie, 1993; Rattanavich, 1997;
Christie, 2010).
Various publications on genre theory brought together sets of team-developed teaching project prescriptions for
the range of genres covered in each grade (three through six). Genres of the English language were examined
first, and the linguistic features of these were considered, after which Thai genres were identified, and their
linguistic features were established (Rattanavich & Christie, 1993).
Because genres are not understood apart from context, a comprehensive overview of the various genres is
required for the development of major curriculum themes from which the relevant genres will be selected for
teaching. When the Thai CLE program spread to other regions of Thailand, it was necessary to replace some of
the curriculum themes with others due to geographical and sociocultural differences. The project leaders learned
to hold a writers’ workshop to generate specifications for regional beginner’s texts. Teachers are encouraged to
develop additional program units that are based on activities of local importance. One class may read and write
the same number of books and cover the same number of genres as another, even as they work through
considerably fewer program units. That happens when students become exceptionally engrossed in a particular
topic, and they go on to write several different kinds of texts. The genres used to develop the texts in the CLE
program can be flexible based on reading objectives for entertainment, reading to do, and reading to learn.
The steps/phases of instruction in each CLE stage are organized and developed based on CLE research studies
implemented when conducting the projects as shown in Table 1.
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
26
Table 1. Phases of instruction in CLE
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
A. Text-based Unit B. Activity-based Unit
1. Shared reading
of a starter text.
2. Recalling the
text, discussing the
text, and being
involved in
role-play.
1. Sharing the structured experience
(introducing each material used and
demonstrating how to do or operate the
activity with an oral explanation given
clearly and slowly, step-by-step).
2. Reconstructing the experience (asking
students to orally review the materials used
and the steps of how to do or operate the
activity before allowing them to do the
activity on their own individually or in small
groups).
1. Analyzing
the model text.
2. Linking the
text to personal
experience.
3. Negotiating a
new text.
4. Critically
analyzing a new
text.
5. Language
activities and
elaboration.
1. Orientation using
contextualization, mapping, text
organization survey, genre
establishment, and dealing with
unfamiliar vocabulary.
2. Reflections using a format for
simple writing.
3. Note taking.
4. Synthesizing new text.
5. Editing.
6. Final copy and elaboration.
3. Negotiating a group text.
4. Making a big book.
5. Language activities through games.
Steps 3, 4, and 5 contain activities that are similar to those of the text-based unit in Stage 1. For Stages 2 and 3,
the teacher can adapt the language activities to students’ age groups and abilities to focus on smaller units of the
language, such as pronunciation, idioms, more sophisticated reading activities, writing with different genres,
spelling, grammatical points, etc. of texts loosely derived from the ‘genre’ research of Martin (1984, 1985),
Halliday and Martin (1993), and Christie (1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 2010). Many of the text types chosen as
teaching goals were employed in Gray’s program at Traeger Park School. However, the final taxonomy of text
goals chosen differ somewhat and reflect a perception of the requirements for implementation in Thailand as in
the following:
1) Stage 1
• Story books, such as single episode narratives (telling of legends or carrying a moral) and recounts (telling
the sequence of events of a student project) (e.g., Planting Our Rice).
• Procedural texts or ‘how to’ books, such as How to Make a Paper Hat, or How to Brush Your Teeth.
• Expository texts or information books, such as This is My Hometown, My Family, and books about classes
of things (e.g., Our Book of Birds).
• Incidental letters, notices, messages, and display texts of various kinds.
2) Stage 2
In the genres that continue from the stage 1 level, the beginner’s texts become more complex and more
sophisticated in both structure and content. The following is an example of the stage 2 program in general.
• Stories with a more complex structure than stage 1, including longer episodic narratives set in another time
period.
• Procedural and expository books that have practical uses.
• Brochures and pamphlets those are good for using in a particular community.
• Letters for personal communication.
• Newspaper items, such as reports of local events, advertisements, and cartoons.
• Verse, jingles, and fun with language.
3) Stage 3
The genres at the final stage of elementary school that students need in later life are included in stage 3. For the
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
27
secondary school level, students need the types of texts that they are required to study and write at the secondary
education level and deal with the texts they are likely to encounter in private and commercial life, such as the
following:
• Scientific reports.
• Newspapers and reports.
• Short stories of literary quality or fictional narratives.
• Biographies, travel tales, or factual narratives.
• Plays and films.
• Radio scripts including advertisements.
• Commercial and public documents, such as business letters, invoices, receipts, accounts, timetables,
catalogues, user manuals, and governmental forms.
• Reference books, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias.
• Texts used in formal business, meeting minutes, annual reports of community bodies, and speeches.
Ideally, the stage 3 program would spread across all subject areas of the primary school curriculum. In schools,
the CLE methodology is likely to spread fairly quickly across other subjects.
4. Development Research Studies on the CLE Literacy Project in Thailand
4.1 Initial Pilot Program
In 1985, a first small action research on the CLE in English was introduced and conducted with third and fourth
year students at the primary demonstration school at Srinakharinwirot University. Richard Walker and his
colleague, Brendan Bartlett, from the Brisbane College of Advanced Education, which is now Griffith University
in Brisbane, Australia, conducted this research. Rattanavich participated in this research and conducted the initial
teaching of the CLE approach in English and Thai languages at the demonstration school. Within an action
research model, Rattanavich adapted some phases of the original process to make it appropriate to the students’
classroom activities.
4.2 Second Pilot Program
In 1987 a further CLE pilot program in the Thai language was conducted in two poor schools in the Surin
province in northeastern Thailand, where students had difficulty communicating in the Thai language because
they spoke other languages, Laotien and Suay (a dialect of the Cambodian language). Significant results in Thai
language development in the two pilot schools were found as well as other personal developments, such as
creativity, self-confidence, and responsibility (Rattanavich & Walker, 1987).
The report on the CLE pilot program conducted in Surin was submitted to Rotary International and was proposed
to obtain the 3-H grant so that the program could be implemented in a wider area in Thailand for the academic
years 1990 to 1995. The project was approved and funded for five years in Thailand for developing the literacy
project in the four provinces in the northeast (Surin, Burirum, Chaiyaphum, and Sirsaket). The project was aimed
at 800 schools in the area; the program became the lighthouse for other areas in the country (Rattanavich, 2003).
In the program, the key personnel (in-service teachers, teacher supervisors, school administrators, and office of
Primary Education advisors) were trained using the CLE techniques in teaching language in the regions. There
were 800 project schools selected by the Office of Primary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education.
The training programs were text-based and activity based. Expert participants from supervisors, schoolteachers,
and other outside experts from the Ministry of Education as well as the Srinakharinwirot University selected the
children’s books/texts. The CLE teaching theory and teaching techniques were the main topics to be trained
year-by-year for all in-service teachers of the project schools in the four provinces for grades one through six.
The teacher supervisors of the Office of Primary Education in each region have also been trained in the CLE
techniques as well as in coaching and mentoring for follow up, assistance, and evaluation of the trained
in-service teachers’ performance and achievement. The Rotary Foundation of Rotary International supported the
funding of the classroom materials, workshops, and training as well as other expenses for the training, including
travelling and meals for the trainer and trainees (Walker, 2000; Rattanavich, 2003).
To conduct the research, the original CLE from Gray’s research introduced by Walker was adapted at the
model/stage 1 for the beginner or for Thai students with less literacy (grades 1 and 2). Models/stages 2 and 3 for
upper grade students or more experienced learners were developed for a higher level of literacy skill
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
28
development.
An experimental and control group of students and teachers were randomly drawn from matched pairs of schools,
from both language-problem and non-language problem areas of the four northeastern provinces. In each level,
the experimental group consisted of 98 teachers (98 classes), with 2,945 students in 44 schools, while the control
group consisted of 95 teachers (95 classes), with 2,397 students in 47 schools. Over the academic years from
1988 to 1993, the model 1 CLE program (grades one and two), the model 2 CLE program (grades three and four),
and the model 3 CLE program (grades five and six) were used with the experimental group and the traditional
program was used with the control group for the academic years from 1990 to 1995. The project was extended to
five southern provinces (Songkla, Yala, Pattanee, Narathiwas, and Satool) using the same research plan; the
post-test had only the control group design. The instruments used for data collection were pragmatic tests on
Thai language communicative performance, a standardized test of Thai language usage at the primary school
curriculum level. Questionnaires, structured interviews, and reports from teachers, parents, students, school
administrators, supervisors, librarians, and others with expertise in the project as well as the computer program
SPSS for the t-test, meta-analysis, percentage calculations, and discourse analysis were used for data analysis
(Rattanavich, 2003).
The results from teachers’, students’, and parents’ perspectives in the four northeast provinces and the five
provinces in the south demonstrated a significant improvement with regard to students’ self-expression, personal
development, positive reading and writing attitudes, creative thinking development, and team cooperation skills
as well as a decrease in drop-out levels in the project schools in all provinces. Through meta-analysis of all
results of the average scores of model 1, model 2, and model 3 on Thai language communicative performance
(reading, writing, listening, and speaking), 73% of the students in the control group schools scored lower than
the mean score of the students in the experimental schools in the four northeast provinces, and 74% of the
students in the control group schools scored lower than the mean score of the students in the experimental group
schools in the southern provinces. The projects were so successful that the Thai government expanded the CLE
techniques to cover the entire nation (Rattanavich, 1997).
4.3 Pilot Program for the Blind Students
Rattanavich and a team of Rotarians in Cairo, Egypt, started a small action research on the CLE literacy program
for blind students. Rattanavich conducted a comparative study on the effects of teaching Thai language to blind
students at the Bangkok School for the Blind in Thailand in the 2001 academic year with three levels of students:
the second year of kindergarten, first grade, and second grade. The comparative study was between the CLE
instruction, which has a strong functional orientation, and the traditional instruction, which emphasizes structural
skills (Rattanavich, 2007).
The control group pretest and post-test design was used in the study. A pragmatic test for validating the efficacy
of Thai language use and discourse analysis of observation in Thai language use was conducted; the data
collected were recorded on the observation forms (with a reliability of 0.80 to 1.00). The t-test (dependent and
independent samples) and the Chi-Square test through the SPSS (PC+) were used for statistical data analysis.
The findings revealed that (with the exception of one small group in kindergarten) the CLE students performed
significantly better in Thai language development than those taught through traditional instruction at a .01 level
of confidence. The CLE students had more opportunities than the traditionally taught students for learning,
participation, boldness of expression, and the demonstration of emotional intelligence. Teachers showed a greater
range of student-centered teaching behaviors in the CLE classes than in the traditional classes relative to
modeling thinking, encouragement, and allowing students to evaluate and improve their own work or
achievements (Rattanavich, 2007a). See Tables 2 and 3.
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
29
Table 2. Summary of the comparison between the experimental and control groups of blind students’ Thai
language performance development (literacy skills) using t-test (dependent & independent samples).
Class Level Tests
Within Groups
Pre-post Experiment
Between Groups
Pre-post Experiment
X
1 S
1 t X1 S
2 t MD1 SMD1 MD2 S
MD2 t
Kindergarten
2
(4-5 years old)
Cloze Test
Pre 2.57 2.07
3.48*
.71 1.25
2.23 3.21 2.45 2.14 2.54 .80
Post 5.79 1.87 2.86 2.85
Dictation
Pre 8.00 1.83
.87
6.00 2.45
.80 .50 1.53 .86 2.85 -.29
Post 8.50 .58 6.86 3.69
Interview
Pre 3.07 .84
1.80
3.21 .70
-.23 .57 .07 .14 .84 1.44
Post 3.64 .48 3.14 .38
Total Scores
Pre 13.64 3.15
3.99**
9.93 3.35
1.51 4.29 2.84 2.95 5.14 .61
Post 17.93 2.42 12.86 5.96
Grade 1
(6 years old)
Cloze Test
Pre 5.43 2.82
8.56**
5.29 5.47
6.62** 9.29 2.87 7.14 2.85 1.40
Post 14.71 3.90 12.43 2.99
Dictation
Pre 45.86 5.55
5.69**
48.71 7.63
2.49* 6.43 2.99 5.14 5.46 .55
Post 52.29 4.35 53.86 4.56
Essay
Pre 14.43 3.60
4.38**
14.57 3.36
-.83 4.57 2.76 -1.43 4.54 2.99*
Post 19.00 4.62 13.14 4.85
Interview
Pre 14.46 4.14
3.81**
15.86 3.85
1.80 5.93 4.12 2.71 3.99 1.48
Post 20.57 1.81 18.57 2.15
Total Scores
Pre 80.36 11.28
8.43**
84.43 14.43
3.51* 26.21 8.23 13.57 10.23 2.55*
Post 106.57 9.61 98.00 7.94
Grade 2
(7 years old)
Cloze Test
Pre 5.38 4.60
8.66**
10.86 4.67
4.73** 14.13 4.61 9.00 5.03 2.06
Post 19.50 5.04 19.86 4.78
Dictation
Pre 53.75 6.04
3.61**
55.86 6.99
1.18 5.13 4.02 .71 1.60 2.86*
Post 58.88 4.16 56.57 5.86
Essay
Pre 15.00 3.78
3.82**
13.29 6.99
.80 5.00 3.70 1.29 4.23 1.81
Post 20.00 .93 14.57 3.69
Interview
Pre 7.19 .65
2.82*
6.29 1.58
2.21 1.19 1.19 1.57 1.88 -.48
Post 8.38 .92 7.86 .69
Total Scores
Pre 81.31 11.87
9.90**
86.29 12.40
4.12** 25.44 7.27 12.57 8.06 3.25**
Post 106.75 8.08 98.86 11.98
X
1 = Average Scores of Experimental Group, X
2 = Average Scores of Control Group, S1 = Standard Deviation of
Experimental Group, S2 = Standard Deviation of Control Group, MD1 = Average Differences Scores of
Experimental Group, MD2 = Average Differences Scores of Control Group, SMD1 = Standard Deviation of
Different Scores in the Experimental Group, SMD2 = Standard Deviation of Different Scores in the Control Group,
t = Test of Significance, * =.05 Level of Significance, ** = .01 Level of Significance.
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
30
Table 3. Summary of the comparison between the frequency of students’ learning behaviors, emotional
intelligent and teachers’ behaviors stressing student-centered approach in the experimental and control groups
using Chi-Square
Observed Behaviors Kindergarten 2 Grade 1 Grade 2
1. Learning Behaviors O1 O2 X2O1 O2 X2O1 O2 X2
1.1 Classroom Participation 1183 757 93.54** 1235 793 96.33* 1110 969 18.89**
1.2 Boldness of Expression/Initiation 312 250 6.84* 119 73 11.02** 273 186 81.39**
2. Emotional Intelligence
2.1 Self-control 171 78 34.73** 289 253 3.68 45 16 13.79**
2.2 Sympathy to Others 1157 563 205.13** 714 480 45.86** 615 432 31.99**
2.3 Responsibility 101 37 29.68** 92 48 80.67** 31 11 9.52**
2.4 Self-esteem 44 13 16.86** 20 8 5.14* 82 52 6.72**
2.5 Making Decisions and Problem
Solving 4 2 0.67 8 0 8.00** 8 1 5.44*
2.6 Learning Enjoyment 84 55 6.05* 63 7 44.80** 70 12 41.02**
3. Teachers’ Behaviors Stressing Student-Centeredness
3.1 Modeling Thinking 706 528 28.68** 694 445 54.43** 982 706 45.13**
3.2 Allowing students to
independently apply their learning
knowledge through their own
thoughts
261
127
46.28**
361
155
82.24**
91
45
15.56**
3.3 Motivating Students in Learning 289 126 64.02** 154 74 28.07** 122 80 8.73**
3.4 Reinforcing Encouragement 200 19 0.26 141 67 26.33** 268 160 27.25**
3.5 Allowing students to
evaluate/improve
achievements/learning by themselves
20 10 3.33 15 10 1.00 140 42 52.77**
O1 =Average of Frequency of Experimental Group, O2 = Average of Frequency of Control Group, X2 =
Chi-Square Value.
4.4 Meta-Analysis of CLE Research Studies (Model 1-3) All Over Thailand
To synthesize the effectiveness (an effect size) of the CLE instruction in both Thai and English in all types of
CLE models/stages as the treatment compared to the traditional instruction, a meta-analysis was done on 76
graduate students’ research studies on the CLE instruction in Thai and English programs at kindergarten, primary,
and secondary levels with similar research designs, clear statistical analysis, and dependent variables on
language performance, attitudes, and personality development during 1989 to 2004. It was found that students in
the CLE program in both Thai and English using models 1, 2, and 3 showed a much higher percentage of
achievement in language performance than those taught through a traditional teaching program: 98.30% (d =
2.12) for the kindergarten level, 97.44% (d = 1.95) for grades one to two (model 1), 93.45% (d = 1.51) for grades
three to four (Model 2), and 72.57% (d = 0.60) for grades five to six (Model 3) in the Thai language program and
99.99% (d = 8.55) for grades one to two (Model 1), 99.55% (d = 2.61) for the secondary level, grades seven to
eight (Model 1), 99.97% (d = 3.40) for grades nine to ten (Model 2), and 94.52% (d = 1.60) for grades eleven to
twelve (Model 3) in the English program. Significant results were also found on attitudes in learning and
personal development of students taught through the CLE method compared to the traditional instruction
(Rattanavich, 2007b).
4.5 Latest Replicated Study on CLE Model 3
Piyapong Promnont (Promnont & Rattanavich, 2015) conducted a study on the development of reading, creative
writing abilities, and satisfaction of eleventh grade students taught through the concentrated language encounter
instruction method, CLE model III. One experimental group time series design was used, and the data was
www.ccsen
analyzed
b
figures in
developm
e
satisfactio
n
Fig
u
5. The D
e
in the Lit
e
The CLE
Thailand.
more tha
n
Malaysia,
coordinat
o
respective
lighthous
e
p
ositive r
e
Children
L
Egypt, Ni
g
in Nigeri
a
leaders in
dissemina
t
Internatio
n
shown th
e
three mon
t
of learnin
g
5.1 Lighth
The light
h
The prepa
r
• Surv
e
• Tar g
e
Edu
c
• Orga
n
• Plan
n
reco
m
• Plan
n
et.org
/
ies
b
y MANOV
A
the study. T
h
e
nt in English
n
at a .001 lev
u
re 2. Compa
r
e
velopment o
f
e
rac
y
Imple
m
teaching mo
d
Through the
f
n
ten countrie
Egypt, Turk
e
o
rs and techn
i
countries to
i
e
strategies as
e
sults in langu
a
L
iteracy in Tu
r
g
eria, the Phil
i
a
and Egypt
h
different are
a
t
ion (Donald
&
n
al, 2009). In
e
same results
t
hs for the m
o
g
time per we
e
ouse Strategi
e
h
ouse strategie
s
r
ation stage in
e
ying the nee
d
e
ting the ben
e
c
ation Commi
s
n
izing and ap
p
n
ing material
m
mended by
S
n
ing the CLE
A
with repeat
e
h
e study’s re
s
reading and c
r
el, as depicte
d
r
ison of the de
v
f
the CLE Ap
m
entation Mo
d
d
els develope
f
inancial supp
o
s around the
e
y, S o uth Afr
i
i
cal coordinat
o
i
mplement th
e
conducted i
n
a
ge developm
e
rkey, Egypt, I
i
ppines, Mala
y
h
ave been im
p
a
s using their
&
Forrester, 2
0
addition, ma
n
(i.e., learners
o
ther tongue a
n
ek
) (Rotary Int
e
e
s
s
used to spre
a
cludes the fol
l
d
s of literacy t
r
e
ficial group
s
sion of the M
i
p
ointing the a
d
development
S
rinakharinwir
o
key personn
e
Internatio
n
e
d measures,
t
s
ults demonst
r
r
eative writin
g
d
in Figure 2.
v
elopment in
r
proach to Te
a
d
el
d in the pro
g
o
rt from Rota
r
world, inclu
d
i
ca, Brazil, a
n
o
rs to be tra
i
e
ir own CLE
p
n
Thailand in
e
nt and perso
n
n
dia, and So
u
y
sia, India, Br
a
p
lemented. Th
e
own success
f
0
03; Andzayi,
n
y research st
u
are able to co
m
n
d within six
m
e
rnational, 20
0
a
d the literacy
l
owing:
r
aining in the
a
and selecting
i
nistry of Edu
c
d
ministrator te
a
and creation
o
t University
a
e
l training (s
c
Reading, Pr
e
st, 11.34
Creative
Writing, Pr
e
st, 15.65
n
al Education St
u
31
t
-test for one
–
r
ated that the
g
at a .001 lev
e
r
eading and cr
e
a
cher Traini
n
g
ram have be
r
y Internation
a
d
ing Lao PD
R
n
d the USA h
i
ned in Bang
k
p
rogram in m
a
many types
o
n
al developme
n
u
th Africa; sc
h
a
zil, and Sout
h
e
trained key
f
ul areas as
c
Deshi, Neng
a
u
dies on the
C
m
municate in
m
onths for th
e
0
9; Rattanavi
c
project using
t
a
rea.
the project
s
c
ation.
a
m: Project Li
of beginner
b
a
nd the Minis
t
c
hool admini
s
e
te
R
e
te
W
u
dies
–
group sampl
e
experimental
e
l and register
e
ative writing
ng
and Disse
m
en successful
l
a
l, The Worl
d
R
, the Philip
p
ave been sen
d
k
ok since 19
9
a
ny areas and
o
f CLE prog
r
n
t. Programs,
s
h
ool-
b
ased pro
h
Africa; and
t
personnel ha
v
c
enters of the
a
l, & Pyelsha
k
C
LE literacy
both spoken
a
e
nonnative la
n
c
h, 2013).
t
he CLE appr
o
s
chools by t
h
aison and Pro
j
b
ooks/texts b
y
t
er of Educati
o
s
trators and p
r
R
eading, Post
t
est-1, 12.9
Creative
W
riting, Post
t
est-1, 18.62
R
C
r
e
s, and
b
asic
group had s
i
ed significant
l
of the experi
m
m
ination: Li
gh
l
y extended t
o
Bank, UNE
S
p
ines, Bangla
d
d
ing their ke
y
9
8. They hav
e
have success
f
r
ams with th
e
s
uch as Adult
grams, as in
N
t
he disabled l
e
v
e become th
e
lighthouse li
t
k
, 2003; Gom
w
i
n Thailand a
n
a
nd written la
n
n
guage on the
o
ach are listed
h
e Provincial
j
ect Teacher s
u
y
children’s b
o
o
n.
r
ovincial ad
m
t
Reading, P
o
est-2, 13.
6
Creativ
e
Writing, P
o
est-2, 20.
1
e
ading
r
eative Writin
g
Vol. 8, No. 7;
statistical an
d
i
gnificantly h
i
l
y at a much h
i
m
ental group
h
thouse Strat
e
o
all provinc
e
S
CO, and UNI
d
esh, Nepal,
I
y
–
p
ersonnel p
r
e
returned to
f
ully replicate
d
e
same satisfa
c
Literacy and
S
N
epal, Bangla
d
e
arner progra
m
e
resource tra
i
t
eracy progra
m
w
al
k
, 2003; R
o
n
d elsewhere
n
guage well
w
basis of five
h
below.
Office of Pri
m
u
pervision.
o
ok experts/w
r
m
inistrators, te
a
o
st
t
6
e
o
st
t
1
1
g
2015
d
line
i
gher
i
gher
e
g
ies
e
s in
CEF,
I
ndia,
r
oject
their
d
the
c
tory
S
treet
d
esh,
m
s, as
i
ning
m
for
o
tary
have
w
ithin
h
ours
m
ary
r
iters
a
cher
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
32
supervisors, and in-service teachers in the project schools.)
• Constructing tools for follow-up/evaluation planning for outsider teams (local Rotarians), teacher
supervisors, school administrators, and project in-service teachers.
The main content in the CLE train the trainer programs at each model/stage cover the following topics:
• Goals and objectives of the training program.
• Theory and practices of the CLE approach in a particular model/stage.
• The CLE phases of instruction and techniques in a particular model/stage.
• Materials used in each model/stage: beginner texts, activities, teacher manuals, and teaching
equipment/materials.
• Classroom management, group learning processes, classroom problem solving.
• Continuous phase-by-phase teaching demonstrations with the students’ sampling group for different levels
in each model/stage by the team training leader.
• Group teaching practice for the trainees (key personnel).
• Feedback and discussion of each phase of instruction after teaching demonstrations and group teaching
practice.
• Particular important topics concerning theoretical assumptions, teaching techniques, and learning activities
in each model/stage, such as scaffolding techniques, role-playing, language games, and songs (model/stage
1); workshops on top-level structure, genre analysis, integrated or cross-curriculum designs; elaboration of
language activities.
• Language testing (pragmatic tests), evaluation, and assessments.
• Review of the instructional process; questions and answers about difficulties and other teachers’ and
students’ problem solving, such as effective lesson plans, classroom/action research, and so on.
• Follow-up sessions after the training, such as forums, displaying classroom students’ activities, visiting the
CLE actual classes in different areas, and so on.
• Rewards and recognition program (optional).
5.2 Teacher Training Strategies
The teacher training strategies used in the CLE program are concerned with the following principles:
• The CLE techniques should be taught in a phase-by-phase demonstration usually by the trainer. The
methodology should be developed with the students.
• If possible the sampling group of students for the demonstration should be drawn from a school where
workshop participation is encouraged. Feedback, discussion, and additional explanations should be done
after the demonstration between the trainer and trainees.
• The demonstration should be followed by what is called ‘return teaching’ whereby the workshop
participants teach the phase that has been demonstrated under the supervision of the group trainers.
• Demonstrating with students from their own school proves that their own students can react just as well,
and ‘return teaching’ with other students from the same school confirms that they (not just teachers with
rare teaching talents) can achieve the same results.
Keeping to the general principles outlined above for training in the CLE method, the training workshops usually
conform to what is now generally accepted as the most effective sequence for preparing teachers to implement a
new teaching approach as follows:
1) Evocation: Calling upon what the teachers already have knowledge on regarding current problems in teaching
for real-life purposes, how students learn the language, other matters related to the current type of project and
program, and the need for fundamental changes in approach.
2) Demonstrating the methodology.
3) Analysis of what is happening in the new teaching sequence.
4) Practice teaching: ‘return teaching’ by the workshop participants.
5) Planning the implementation of the new techniques within teachers’ classrooms.
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
33
6) Implementation: Teachers use the new teaching techniques with their own students, as soon as they return to
their schools.
7) Follow–up: The teachers report on the implementation of the new techniques in periodic follow-up seminars
at home centers, usually at least twice a year. They report and discuss such things as their own reactions to its use,
the response from students, plans for the future, and recommendations for future teaching. They also provide
feedback and guidance on the conduct of the project.
Teams of trainers and training workshops are an integral part of developing the pool of experienced, skillful, and
knowledgeable local educators that enable the province or even the country to upgrade its language teaching
from its own resources. As time passes and their value to the province or division becomes more obvious, they
are truly the key personnel to further the progress in literacy teaching, especially in the different contexts of
language teaching. Lighthouse strategies can perform effectively and sustainably.
5.3 The Structure of Program Cooperation and Leadership
The successful lighthouse CLE literacy program in Thailand had been operated through a model of cooperation
and leadership as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Lighthouse literacy strategies
As the main lighthouse literacy project in Thailand began, three leadership groups emerged: a national
coordinating committee, a central project team, and provincial project teams. The national coordinating
committee consisted of senior representatives of Rotary International, of the Ministry of Education, of the
Srinakharinwirot University, and of the central project team, respectively. The central project team consisted of
University staff, officers from the Ministry of Education, and Rotary leaders in Thailand. Throughout a five-year
period, this team carried immediate responsibility for the coordination of all aspects of the project. Key
personnel from provincial officers of the Ministry of Education (in-service teachers, supervisors, and school and
provincial administrators) managed the project within their own provinces. That included making local
arrangements for training and follow-up seminars and for week-to-week administration and supervision of the
work in the schools. When extension training began in the third year of the project, regional teacher trainers also
Effective Literacy Training Program
CLE Class Model or Program of Project
Expand Other Model Programs
Replicate/Disseminate to Other Areas
National Coordinating Committee
(Project Coordinators)
Administrators
Central Project Team
(Technical Coordinator)
Qualified Educators
Provincial Leaders
(In-service Teachers,
Supervisors, Administrators)
Qualified Teachers
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
34
became available in each province.
Members of the central project team were trained by experts or resource persons invited from abroad (Australia,
England, and America) and from Thailand. When those members became familiar with the current theory and
practice in literacy teaching and literacy program development, they trained the key personnel and the provincial
leaders from the provinces with the assistance of the resource persons. As the program spread to further regions
of the country, officers who had been appointed by the Ministry of Education to oversee the work in each major
region were also given the training by the central project team.
The success of this large-scale work in Thailand indicates that this is a model of language curriculum that has
much to be commended, both for its important theoretical bases, and for the example it provides as a
collaborative effort between funding agencies and the State of Education.
6. Conclusion and Implications
It has been found through continuity and long-term commitment of the team using the CLE lighthouse literacy
strategies that the integrated dynamic group learning process based on text-based and activity-based units
developed in the curriculum covers all the needs for alleviating mass illiteracy and reaching the goal of life-long
education on topics, such as vocational skills, creativity, democratic thinking, problem solving, ethics and
morality learning, multiple intelligence use, sharing and helping others, personality development, and
responsibility. The CLE approach in teaching literacy has become one of the best, inexpensive, practical literacy
educational programs that can be adapted to different languages and cultures to overcome illiteracy problems
around the world that affect people’s long-term lives by socially, economically, and politically improving their
lives. The teaching process allows students to have more opportunities to construct for themselves knowledge
and experiences in life skills more autonomously and in a democratic manner under the cooperative and
interactive learning process with the teacher’s assistance and consultancy. In addition, analyzing the learning
types of the CLE approach according to the four pillars of successful education suggested by Delors (1998), CLE
encompasses learning to know (expanding students’ knowledge and understanding), learning to do (involving
students in practical activities and vocational skills using real life experiences), learning to live together(allowing
students to learn through a dynamic group process to experience their reading, writing, listening, and speaking
around core activities), and learning to be (offering students opportunity to develop their intellect, judgment,
ability, creativity, feelings, relationships, and imagination).
Any effective CLE classroom can become an effective center of learning for other interested teachers, educators,
or parents who can observe and study the methods and techniques under the coaching and mentoring of
successful teachers. Any other literacy supportive programs in schools or communities should be considered to
strengthen the lighthouse program, such as classroom libraries, community mobile libraries, school clinical
reading centers, parental training (CLE at home), and innovative computer assisted programs.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Richard Walker, Dr. Brian Gray, Past Rotary International Director
Noraseth Pathmanand, Professor Frances Christie, Professor John Oller, and Dr. Nea Dore as well as The Rotary
Foundation of Rotary International and Srinakharinwirot University for constant advice, assistance, and financial
support in lighthouse literacy projects for all.
References
Andzayi, C., Deshi, P., Nengal, S., & Pyelshak, D. (2003). Lesson learned from a Concentrated Language
Encounter Pilot Project in Nigeria. In E. Arua (Ed.), Reading for all in Africa: Building communities where
literacy thrives (pp. 158-160). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Asher, J. J. (2003). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook (6th ed.). Los
Gates, California: Sky Oaks Production.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1977). Concentrated versus contrived encounters: Suggestions for assessment in Early Childhood.
In A. Davies (Ed.), Language and Learning in Early childhood. London: Heinemann.
Christie, F. (1987). Young children’s writing: From spoken to written genre. Language and Education, 1(1), 3-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500788709541204
Christie, F. (1989). Curriculum Genres in Early Childhood Education: A Case Study of Writing Development
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
35
(PhD. thesis, University of Sydney: Unpublished).
Christie, F. (1990). The Changing Face of Literacy. In Literacy for a Changing World (pp. 1-22). Hawthorn,
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Christie, F. (1993). Text as curriculum and as technology: A systematic functional linguistic perspective. In B.
Green (Ed.), Curriculum Technology and Textual Practice. Geelong. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Christie, F. (2010). School Discourse: Learning to Write Across the Years of School (Bloombury Discourse).
London: Continuum.
Christie, F. (2012). Language Education throughout the School Years: A Functional Perspective.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Delors, J. (1998). Learning: The treasure within (Revised edition of the report to UNESCO of the International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century). Paris: UNESCO.
Donald, D., Condy, J., & Forrester, J. (2003). Literacy Development: Lessons Learned from a Pilot Concentrated
Language Encounter Project in South Africa. In E. Arua (Ed.), Reading for all in Africa: Building
communities where literacy thrives (pp. 149-157). Newark, DE: Reading Association.
Gomwalk, N. (2003). My Experience Using a Concentrated Language Encounter to Develop Literacy Skills in
Persons with Learning Handicaps. In E. Arua (Ed.), Reading for all in Africa: building communities where
literacy thrives (pp. 161-165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Bird, L. B. (Eds.). (1990). The Whole Language Catalog. Santa Rosa, CA:
American School Publishers.
Gray, B. (1980). Developing Language and Literacy with Urban Aboriginal Children: A First Report on the
Traeger Park Project. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.
Gray, B. (1984). Helping children to become language learners in the classroom. In P. Kidston, & D. Patullo,
(Eds.), Reading and Writing: Implications for Teaching. Brisbane, Queensland: Meanjin Reading Council of
Australian Reading Association.
Gray, B. (1985). Helping children become language learners in the classroom. In F. Christie (Ed.), Aboriginal
Perspectives on Experience and Learning: The Role of Language in Aboriginal Education (pp. 87-104).
Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Gray, B. (1987). How ‘natural’ is language teaching? Employing holistic methodology in the classroom.
Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12(4), 3-28.
Gray, B. (1998). Accessing the Discourses of Schooling. English Language and Literacy Development with
Aboriginal Children in Mainstream Schools (Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne).
Gray, B. (2007). Accelerating the Literacy Development of Indigenous Students. Darwin: Charles Darwin
University Press.
Gray, B. (2014). The Traeger Park Project: Developmental Outline. Accelerated Literacy Practitioners
Association of Australia (ALPAA). Retrived from http://www.alpaa.com.au/resources/publications
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London:
Edward Arnold. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-443701-2.50025-1
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. (1983). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer
Press.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narratives at home and school. Language in Society, 11,
49-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009039
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. (1984). Language, register and genre, In, F. Christie (Ed.), Children Writing: Reader (pp. 21-30).
Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press (ECT 418 Language Studies).
Martin, J. (1985). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin
University Press (Republished in Language Education Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
Ministry of Education, Thailand. (2009). Focus on Quality Improvement in Education in 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.en.moe.go.th/docs/EducationThailandProgress.pdf
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5(1),
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
36
1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900001896
OECD. (2014, December 16-17). Thailand Seminar on Financial Inclusion and Financial Literacy in Asia.
Promnont, P., & Rattanavich, S. (2015). Concentrated Language Encounter Instruction Model 3 in Reading and
Creative Writing Abilities. Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(5), 1-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p1
Rattanavich, S. (1987). A report on a concentrated language Encounter literacy program at Srinakharinwirot
University: An action research. A paper presented at the RELC Regional Seminar, Singapore.
Rattanavich, S. (1988). A pilot project on Reading Development in Thailand: Teaching Thai language to the
non-native students with language learning difficulty in the North East. Bangkok: Center of Research and
Language Teaching Development at the Faculty of Education, Srinakharinwirot University.
Rattanavich, S. (2003). A report on the Development of Thai Language Teaching through the Concentrated
Language Encounter Project, 1988-1995. Journal of Education Research, Faculty of Education,
Srinakharinwirot University, 30, 86-94.
Rattanavich, S. (2007a). The Effects of Blind Students’ Literacy Development through Concentrated Language
Encounter and Traditional Approach. Faculty of Education Review, Assumption University, 1(1), 127-147.
Rattanavich, S. (2007b). A Synthesis of Graduate Students’ Research Study Results in Thailand Universities
concerning Thai and English Language Learning-Teaching Organization through Concentrated Language
Encounters. Journal of Education Research, Faculty of Education, Srinakharinwirot University, 2(1), 17-21.
Rattanavich, S. (2013). Concentrated Language Encounter Instruction: Strategies to Success in the Development
of Literacy for All (3rd ed.). Bangkok: The Rotary Foundation in Thailand.
Rattanavich, S., & Christie, F. (1993). Developing text-based approaches to the teaching of literacy in Thailand.
In G. Gagne, & A. C. Purves (Eds.), Papers in Mother Tongue Education 1. International association of
Research in Mother tongue Education 1. International Association of Research in Mother Tongue
Education (pp. 97-110). Munster: Waxmann.
Rattanavich, S., & Walker, R. F. (1997). Literacy for the Developing World. In F. Christie, & J. Foley (Eds.),
Some Contemporary Themes in Literacy Research. International Association of Research in Mother Tongue
Education (pp. 17-45). Munster: Waxmann.
Rotary International. (2009). Global Outlook: Focus on Literacy. The Rotarian, 187(8), 63-70.
Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language,
4, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900000453
Snow, C. E. (1978). The conversational context of language learning. In R. N. Campbel, & P. Smith (Eds.),
Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language: Language Development and Mother Child Interaction.
London: Plenum Press.
Snow, C. E. (1983a). Literacy and Language: Relationships during the Preschool Years. Harvard Educational
Review, 53(2), 165-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.2.t6177w39817w2861
Snow, C. E. (1983b). Saying it again: The role of expanded and deferred imitations in language acquisitions. In
K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s Language (Vol. 4). NY: Gardner Press.
Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (1982). Building stories: The emergence of information structures from
conversation. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (pp. 127-141).
Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language acquisition. Journal of
Child Language, 10(3), 551-569.
Sperry, R. (1968). Hemisphere disconnection and unity in conscious awareness. American Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026839
UNESCO. (2007). Promoting Literacy in Multilingual Settings. Retrieved from
http://www.01-sil.org/literacy/promo.htm
UNESCO. (2014). Two sides one goal at International Literacy Day. Retrieved from
http://www.unescobkk.org/…/two-sides-one-goal
Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in Society: The
Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 8, No. 7; 2015
37
Walker, R. F. (1984). A language experience approach to language development. In P. Kidston, & D. Patullo
(Eds.), Reading and Writing: Implications for Teaching. Meanjin Reading Council Australian Reading
Association, Brisbane, Australia.
Walker, R. F. (2000). About CLE for Adult Illiterate. Graduate School of Education. Brisbane: University of
Queensland.
Walker, R. F., & Rattanavich, S. (1987). The concentrated language encounter programme at Srinakharinwirot
University. Paper presented at the RELC Seminar on The role of Language Education in Human Resource
Development, Singapore.
Walker, R. F., Rattanavich, S., & Forrester, E. A. (1998). Literacy Teaching in Developing Countries: Turning
Failure into Success. Evanston, Illinois: Rotary International.
Walker, R. F., Rattanavich, S., & Oller, J. (1992). Teaching all the children to read: Concentrated language
Encounter techniques. Buckingham: The Open University Press.
Wasinee, S., & Petchragsa, S. (2005). Project on Research Study and Material Development for a literacy
programme for ethnic minority in Omkoi district, Chiengmai, Thailand, Non formal Education Department,
Ministry of Education Thailand.
Wood, D. (1980). Teaching the young child: Some relationships between social interaction, language & thought.
In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The Social Foundations of Language and Thought. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Credit to the Original Article | Explore More of Their Work If You Found This Article Enjoyable.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281391355_Concentrated_Language_Encounter_Approach_in_Practice_for_Global_Teaching_of_Literacy_Lighthouse_Strategy_Implementation
