Word-level reading and phonological processing measures were administered in English and Chinese to adult ESL students whose first language (L1) was Mandarin and whose second language (L2) was English. Instructors also identified students who may be at risk for L2 reading difficulties based on specific identification criteria. L2 phonological processing measures were related to L2 word-level reading and there was a cross-linguistic relationship between L1 and L2 phonological processing measures. Students considered at risk for L2 reading difficulties also differed significantly from those students not at risk on one L1 and several L2 phonological processing measures. Results are discussed in relation to contemporary theory on the assessment and identification of reading difficulties in English language learners.Although there has been burgeoning interest and research conducted recently in the early assessment and identification of language minority children who may have literacy problems, the literacy needs of older children and adults with limited English proficiency have been relatively neglected in the research literature (August & Shanahan, 2006). For adult educators of students learning English as a second language (ESL), the assessment and identification of reading difficulties presents a significant challenge. Students come to the centres from heterogeneous linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds with varying degrees of literacy in their first language (L1). It is also difficult to determine reliably the relative contribution of literacy experience, the impact of acquiring a second language (L2) with a similar as opposed to a dissimilar orthography as the L1 (e.g. alphabetic versus non-alphabetic, shallow versus deep) and the contribution of language proficiency to literacy acquisition in mature ESL students. Additionally, there is research to suggest that generally, educators are not very accurate in identifying those ESL students who may be at risk of reading disabilities (Limbos & Geva, 2001). Further compounding these challenges is the lack of consensus in the field of learning disabilities for operationalising a method for valid and reliable identification (Wagner, Francis & Morrison, 2005).

The objective of this paper is to share with other educators a teaching method that was developed to help graduate students, and potentially undergraduate students, understand how to properly reference and cite academic papers. In an attempt to teach rather than reprimand, a new teaching practice was developed for a graduate class at the University of Saskatchewan.  The innovative assignment gave graduate students a short literature review to complete independently. The project then became a formative assessment of their referencing and citation skills. Student response was overwhelmingly positive. Upon successful completion, the instructor was assured of the students’ understanding of appropriate referencing and citation practices.

This paper outlines the learning opportunities that emerged when international students acquiring English for Academic Purposes joined Canadian undergraduates fluent in English for an Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies. Critical reflections provided by students, course facilitators, and the graduate student researcher were gathered through surveys, interviews, and focus groups that examined experiences of academic internationalization in feminist and language acquisition classrooms, co-designed to engage difference as a valuable resource in community and knowledge-building. Results included development of mutual mentoring relationships across a wide range of educational and cultural backgrounds; honing of international students’ English-language skills through structured, intentional learning opportunities with others fluent in English; deepening awareness of non-western and Indigenous contexts as sites of critical knowledge production; and evidence that international and local newcomers to university campuses have much to offer one another. For everyone involved, there were opportunities to reflect critically on both subject matter and pedagogies of community building; use accessible language to build connections; interrogate knowledge claims emerging from the many contexts that instructors and students brought with them into learning conversations; and practice collaborative knowledge-building by probing the effects of local and global power systems in the learning pathways of students, instructors and institutions.

No abstract