Joint productive activity is <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> both teacher and students working toge<strong>the</strong>r to producesomething that is <strong>of</strong> value to everyone involved.Developing <strong>the</strong> language and literacy <strong>of</strong> instruction in all activities means that <strong>the</strong>re is an overtfocus on learning <strong>the</strong> discourse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> content area concurrent with learning <strong>the</strong> concepts.Contexualizing schooling in students’ lived experiences refers to making connections (in anovert manner) between <strong>the</strong> content being learned and <strong>the</strong> students’ personal prior experiences,both within and beyond school.Teaching for cognitive complexity means making sure that every student is cognitivelychallenged, which implies individualization <strong>of</strong> tasks so that everyone is working on a task that isappropriate for his or her knowledge and ability.<strong>In</strong>structional conversation refers to <strong>the</strong> teacher engaging in conversation with an individual orgroup <strong>of</strong> students, where <strong>the</strong> topic <strong>of</strong> conversation is <strong>of</strong> importance to all involved, and <strong>the</strong>teacher does not already know <strong>the</strong> answer to <strong>the</strong> question he or she is asking, and additionally,has an au<strong>the</strong>ntic reason for wanting to know <strong>the</strong> answer.Despite <strong>the</strong> various successes <strong>of</strong> educational approaches grounded in cultural difference <strong>the</strong>ory,in recent years cultural anthropologists have begun to critique <strong>the</strong> underlying framework onseveral counts. These critiques can provide insight into how Tharp’s principles can be enhanced.The first criticism is that cultural difference <strong>the</strong>ory pays insufficient attention to power relations(Mehan, 1993). For example, how can <strong>the</strong> gap between poor, urban Latino culture and <strong>the</strong>culture <strong>of</strong> a discipline <strong>of</strong> power, such as math or science, be successfully negotiated when <strong>the</strong>reis such a great power differential between <strong>the</strong> two? The second critique is that cultural difference<strong>the</strong>ory focuses almost exclusively on <strong>the</strong> structural (macro) level when defining culture, byfocusing on class, race, and/or gender issues. This overlooks <strong>the</strong> more micro level influencessuch as peer groups, or <strong>the</strong> culture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual institution (Geertz, 1973).The third critique deals with cultural difference <strong>the</strong>ory's inattention to issues <strong>of</strong> identity andindividual agency (Minick, 1993). From this perspective, <strong>the</strong>re is no room for an individual todevelop a cultural identity that is at odds with his or her structurally defined culture <strong>of</strong> origin,while in reality, such individuals clearly do exist. The final argument is that cultural difference<strong>the</strong>ory paints a monolithic perspective <strong>of</strong> culture. For example, all students from <strong>the</strong> samecultural group are thought to have developed <strong>the</strong> same patterns <strong>of</strong> thinking, talking, and actingduring childhood, and can likewise be aided by <strong>the</strong> same classroom interventions (Eisenhart &Graue, 1993).Simply by examining one's own cultural background and <strong>the</strong> variety <strong>of</strong> factors that effect it, itbecomes clear that cultural difference <strong>the</strong>ory is an oversimplification <strong>of</strong> how culture helps shapean individual’s identity in practice. For this reason, we turn to a second anthropological tradition,practice <strong>the</strong>ory, which addresses some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> more intricate dynamics in <strong>the</strong> interactions betweenstructural features and individual agency.Practice <strong>the</strong>ory is concerned with a number <strong>of</strong> different aspects <strong>of</strong> culture, including: 1) <strong>the</strong>socio-historical development <strong>of</strong> cultural groups and <strong>the</strong>ir members over time (Levinson &Holland, 1996); 2) <strong>the</strong> interplay <strong>of</strong> cultural productions (resistance) and cultural reproductions(conforming voluntarily or involuntarily to <strong>the</strong> cultural and structural norms) (Levinson, 1996);3) power relations within and across cultural groups (Luykx, 1996); and 4) <strong>the</strong> dialectic betweenstructural (macro-level) features and individual agency (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990). Practice<strong>the</strong>ory explores how historical persons are formed in practice, within and against larger societalforces and structures. These structures provide <strong>the</strong> (tacitly understood) framework that governs<strong>the</strong> functioning <strong>of</strong> schools, as well as o<strong>the</strong>r social institutions.© 2008 Dr. Ca<strong>the</strong>rine CollierAll Rights Reserved122
By focusing on <strong>the</strong> dialectic between structure and agency, practice <strong>the</strong>ory gives equal weight tomacro-level structures (i.e. gender, class, race) and micro-level factors (i.e. an individual’sagency and capacity to resist). From this perspective, culture is seen not as a set <strong>of</strong> characteristicsas it is in cultural difference <strong>the</strong>ory, but ra<strong>the</strong>r as a process, continually being constructed inpractice. <strong>In</strong>dividuals are not seen as passively accepting <strong>the</strong> conditions in which <strong>the</strong>y live andfunction. <strong>In</strong>stead, <strong>the</strong>y are given agency to counter <strong>the</strong> determining structures, though <strong>the</strong>y muststill do so while functioning within those structures. Through agency, individuals may have <strong>the</strong>opportunity to create a different vision for <strong>the</strong> culture in which <strong>the</strong>y function, and ultimately, acton that vision in ways that challenge <strong>the</strong> status quo. However, at <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong>re arepressures on <strong>the</strong> individual to conform to <strong>the</strong> culture as currently practiced.A consideration <strong>of</strong> practice <strong>the</strong>ory gives rise to <strong>the</strong> need for a sixth principle in our socioculturalmodel - awareness <strong>of</strong> cultural productions. As stated above, cultural productions are <strong>the</strong> actionsthat an individual takes both within and against <strong>the</strong> cultural confines in which he/she findshim/herself. This perspective implies that each CLD student will react in different ways to <strong>the</strong>academic and social settings in which he/she finds him/herself. Students from nearly identicalcultural backgrounds may react to <strong>the</strong>ir school environment in very different ways based on arange <strong>of</strong> factors, including <strong>the</strong>ir interpretation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> power structure in place in <strong>the</strong> classroom orschool, <strong>the</strong>ir interactions and place in <strong>the</strong> social hierarchy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir peer group, or <strong>the</strong> opinion <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> education held by individual family members.Given <strong>the</strong>se individual idiosyncrasies, each student will determine <strong>the</strong> arenas in which she willattempt to conform to <strong>the</strong> culture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> classroom and school, and those arenas in which she willresist <strong>the</strong> system. The importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se avenues <strong>of</strong> resistance cannot be overstated, because itis through this resistance that transformation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cultural norms that govern <strong>the</strong> educationsetting can occur.Thus, awareness <strong>of</strong> cultural productions is an important principle in considering culturallycompatible academic settings for CLD students, because it calls into question <strong>the</strong> entire notion <strong>of</strong>cultural compatibility. While <strong>the</strong>re are, without question, certain cultural norms that will befound in <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> a given cultural group, <strong>the</strong> very nature <strong>of</strong> being a CLDstudent means that one will be thrust into a dynamic cultural milieu that will challenge and alter<strong>the</strong> beliefs inher<strong>ited</strong> from one’s heritage culture. An awareness <strong>of</strong> cultural productions meansthat a teacher will not make assumptions about a student’s academic needs, desires orpreferences based on cultural overgeneralizations. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> teacher will attempt to get to knoweach student as an individual, to understand why <strong>the</strong> student accepts and rejects <strong>the</strong> aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>school’s culture that he or she does, and perhaps even work with <strong>the</strong> student to transform thoseaspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social and academic setting that he or she opposes.ConclusionAs a framework, we have outlined what we mean by a sociocultural model <strong>of</strong> second languageacquisition. This model takes pieces from several areas <strong>of</strong> study: existing research done inunderstanding <strong>the</strong> specifics <strong>of</strong> how humans process and learn language, principles grounded inbeliefs about cultural difference, and emerging <strong>the</strong>ories related to how individuals work bothwithin and against structural norms to both conform to and resist <strong>the</strong>ir cultural and linguisticidentities.© 2008 Dr. Ca<strong>the</strong>rine CollierAll Rights Reserved123
- Page 2 and 3:
"Those who arrive by age 12 or 13 m
- Page 5:
Article I.2 Are Signed Languages "R
- Page 8 and 9:
Biological analyses of the status o
- Page 10 and 11:
and beyond, speaking and signing ch
- Page 12 and 13:
Conclusion: Are Signed Languages Re
- Page 14 and 15:
Article I.3 The Interpreter: Has a
- Page 16 and 17:
A few weeks earlier, I had called F
- Page 18 and 19:
“We struggled even getting to the
- Page 20 and 21:
herself by strapping a cassette rec
- Page 22 and 23:
In 1998, after nine years as the ch
- Page 24 and 25:
momentary burst of excitement that
- Page 26 and 27:
can shape core grammar. Because the
- Page 28 and 29:
The authors compared animal and hum
- Page 30 and 31:
monkey moved. He followed it with h
- Page 32 and 33:
delight, fear, laughter, and surpri
- Page 34 and 35:
Piipaío in a hut: Pirahã huts typ
- Page 36 and 37:
LEP students, and equitable organiz
- Page 38 and 39:
4. Second language development crea
- Page 41 and 42:
curriculum or "teaching to the test
- Page 43 and 44:
portfolio work was scanned and stor
- Page 45 and 46:
experiences of many groups of stude
- Page 47 and 48:
While not disagreeing that interpre
- Page 49 and 50:
sound educational practice, however
- Page 51 and 52:
arises from the efforts to abstract
- Page 53 and 54:
Article II.2 Cross-Cultural Communi
- Page 55 and 56:
males who can serve as positive rol
- Page 57 and 58:
Understanding another culture is a
- Page 59 and 60:
Pets and AnimalsWhich animals are v
- Page 61 and 62:
to teach standard English is reflec
- Page 63 and 64:
Asking personal questions of a pers
- Page 65 and 66:
Using Cross Cultural Communication
- Page 67 and 68:
Why Do Nonstandard English-Speaking
- Page 69 and 70:
Before beginning to teach standard
- Page 71 and 72: • Negative attitudes toward low p
- Page 73 and 74: New standardized tests and assessme
- Page 75 and 76: Each of the behaviors listed above
- Page 77 and 78: Article II.3 Hard Work Hypothesis:
- Page 79 and 80: each point higher in SES, students
- Page 81 and 82: This case does not provide strong s
- Page 83 and 84: Article II.4 Language Acquisition a
- Page 85 and 86: 1992, p. XI). These researchers, wh
- Page 87 and 88: comprehend a word within a specific
- Page 89 and 90: more to the truthfulness of the chi
- Page 91 and 92: This idea of “semilingualism” c
- Page 93 and 94: Article III.1 A Brief Description o
- Page 95 and 96: take different lengths of time to c
- Page 97 and 98: example, should involve the same co
- Page 99 and 100: As with all stages of BICS acquisit
- Page 101 and 102: Assessment techniques at stage 3 ca
- Page 103 and 104: different. Therefore, the social di
- Page 105: integrative motivation. Basically,
- Page 109 and 110: (Ellis, 1985; Hakuta, 1986). Howeve
- Page 111 and 112: that sociocultural processes have o
- Page 113 and 114: Article III.3 How Children Acquire
- Page 115 and 116: phonetic units (unique to signed la
- Page 117 and 118: Article III.4 Toward a Sociocultura
- Page 119 and 120: emember is that the fundamental goa
- Page 121: The best practices models can be th
- Page 125 and 126: intergenerational wisdom shared by
- Page 127 and 128: Daily Realities RecappedThe above v
- Page 129 and 130: traditions. At a time in our histor
- Page 131 and 132: We will now look at two examples of
- Page 133 and 134: Speakers communicate fluently, main
- Page 135 and 136: question the effects of such attitu
- Page 137 and 138: Article IV.3 Culture Change: Effect
- Page 139 and 140: and psychological characteristics o
- Page 141 and 142: Contraryto what wewere expecting, t
- Page 143 and 144: Article V.1 Assessment in ESL & Bil
- Page 145 and 146: vocabulary does the student lack?Is
- Page 147 and 148: whether they are LEP and to provide
- Page 149 and 150: Fourth, ESL and bilingual program s
- Page 151 and 152: competent reader/writer. All versio
- Page 153 and 154: Table 1Comparison of Recent Accultu
- Page 155 and 156: unilinear model, which measures the
- Page 157 and 158: an English-only instructional progr
- Page 159 and 160: Article V.3 Assessment of English L
- Page 161 and 162: 8. Change answers only for a very g
- Page 163 and 164: Riles, 1979; Jose P. v Ambac, 1983)
- Page 165 and 166: proficiency is often underestimated
- Page 167 and 168: Finally, when second language reade
- Page 169 and 170: for their decisions, noting issues
- Page 171 and 172: As mentioned above, when the transi
- Page 173 and 174:
ather than generic adjectives and t
- Page 175 and 176:
their imagined points of view. Ther
- Page 177 and 178:
English texts and demonstrate progr
- Page 179:
using inter-district teams). In the