Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier - Woodring College of ...

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierThe Comprehension Hypothesis ........................................................................................... 44The Incomprehensible Input Hypothesis............................................................................... 44The Output Hypothesis.......................................................................................................... 45Look-Say ............................................................................................................................... 45No Phonics?.......................................................................................................................... 45What is Whole Language? .................................................................................................... 45DOES WHOLE LANGUAGE WORK?............................................................................................. 45A Decline in California?....................................................................................................... 46Has Whole Language Failed? .............................................................................................. 47REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 47REFORMING SCHOOLS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: ACHIEVEMENTGAP CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................... 49BY WAYNE P. THOMAS & VIRGINIA P. COLLIER ....................................................................... 49LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND THE BILINGUAL EXCEPTIONAL CHILD............ 53BY J. S. DE VALENZUELA........................................................................................................... 53INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 53DEFINING LANGUAGE ................................................................................................................ 54Language is a dynamic construct ......................................................................................... 54DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT LANGUAGE ......................................................................... 54IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN LINGUISTICS ..................................................................................... 55LANGUAGE ACQUISITION........................................................................................................... 58Theories of Language Acquisition ........................................................................................ 58THE PROCESS OF FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ..................................................................... 59Precursors to language production. ..................................................................................... 59Language comprehension. .................................................................................................... 60The process of language acquisition..................................................................................... 61Input influences..................................................................................................................... 63SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION............................................................................................. 63Different Types of Language Acquisition ............................................................................. 64The Process of Bilingual/Second Language Acquisition...................................................... 64Similarities to first language acquisition.............................................................................. 65Differences from first language acquisition. ........................................................................ 65Critical Periods..................................................................................................................... 66MODELS OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ......................................................................... 68WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR STUDENTS WITH EXCEPTIONALITIES? ......................................... 70SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 72REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 72TEACHING &TESTING FOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: THE ROLE OFLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 76BY MURIEL SAVILLE-TROIKE.................................................................................................... 76INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 76FOCUS ON LANGUAGE............................................................................................................... 76POSITIVE TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 77INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE .................................................................................................. 782

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier© Dr. Catherine Collier...................................................................................................... 131PRÉCIS OF TPR ...................................................................................................................... 132BY CATHERINE COLLIER.......................................................................................................... 132THE STEPS......................................................................................................................... 134APPLICATION TO OLDER STUDENTS ........................................................................... 136LEARNING WITH MOVEMENTS...................................................................................... 136MORE LESSON IDEAS ...................................................................................................... 138VARIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 138SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 139Resources ............................................................................................................................ 139CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION: AN ESSENTIAL DIMENSION OFEFFECTIVE EDUCATION .................................................................................................... 140BY ORLANDO L. TAYLOR, PH.D. ............................................................................................. 140Introduction......................................................................................................................... 140Cultural Diversity in America............................................................................................. 140The Neglect of Cross Cultural Communication Issues in Schools ..................................... 141Self Assessment on Communication and Culture................................................................ 142Discovering Characteristics Of Other Cultures ................................................................. 143CULTURE, COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE......................................................................... 146Sociolinguistics ................................................................................................................... 146Cultural Differences in Discourse ...................................................................................... 148Examples of Cultural and Communicative Tendencies ...................................................... 149The Significance of Culture Based Communicative Behavior in School............................ 151USING CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION TO IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS.............................. 152Tactics for Removing Cross CulturalCommunication Barriers ......................................... 152TEACHING STANDARD ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF NONSTANDARD ENGLISH DIALECTS ......... 154Why Do Nonstandard English Speaking Children Fail to Acquire Standard English? ..... 154Toward More Effective Teaching of Standard English....................................................... 155Teaching Standard English from a Cultural Perspective................................................... 155What Is a Good Approach to Implementing Standard English as a Second Dialect (SESD)Programs?........................................................................................................................... 157How Can Aides and Parents Help? .................................................................................... 157COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCES, TEST PERFORMANCE AND EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT........ 158Sources of Bias in Tests and Assessment Procedures......................................................... 159What to Do About Assessment Bias .................................................................................... 160COMMUNICATION DIFFERENCES AND DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS.................................................. 160Sources of Cultural and Communicative Incongruities Which Lead to Discipline Problems............................................................................................................................................. 162What Do We Do About Cultural and Communicative Sources of Student Misbehavior?.. 163SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 163WEBSITES FOR FURTHER ARTICLES ............................................................................ 1654

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierA Brief Description of Second Language AcquisitionBy Dr. Kathy Escamilla & Elizabeth GrassiFrom the Professional Development Resource Series, “Second Language Acquisition”, BUENOCenter, University of Colorado, Boulder (2000)This essay serves as a summary of several of the seminal theories of second languageacquisition. It is meant to be used as a supplemental resource for those users who are looking fora more detailed description of the theories mentioned throughout the module. While theperspectives discussed here are theoretical in nature, they are grounded in the needs of theclassroom teacher who is increasingly likely to be faced with growing numbers of Englishlanguage learners in her classroom. Teachers of second language students are faced with manychallenges and often have questions about how to best teach these students. Common questionsinclude:• How long does it take to learn a second language?• What do we know about second language learners?• What influences the learning of a second language?• What can I do in my classroom to facilitate the process of second language acquisition?• What should I expect the second language learners in my classroom to be able to do?This paper will address the above questions through an analysis of two second languageacquisition theories which have greatly influenced second language teaching today: NativistTheory, and Environmentalist Theory. Nativist theory explores the linguistic aspects of languageacquisition and provides an answer to the question of how people acquire a second language.However, this theory does not adequately address the environmental factors which can affectlanguage acquisition. Environmentalists suggest that social and psychological factors are equallyas important as linguistic factors in second language acquisition. This article provides a briefdescription of both theories and discusses the principal researchers within each camp and thecontributions they have made to the teaching and understanding of second language acquisition.Nativist TheoryThe term nativist “is derived from the fundamental assertion that language acquisition isinnately determined, that we are born with a built-in device of some kind that predisposes us tolanguage acquisition.” (Brown p.25). In 1965, Noam Chomsky, a linguist, proposed the theorythat all people have an innate, biological ability to acquire a language. He theorized that peoplepossess a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), a sort of neurological wiring that, regardless ofthe language to be acquired, allows a child to listen to a language, decipher the rules of thatlanguage, and begin creating with the language at a very young age. With the LAD they are ableto make or understand utterances that they have not previously heard. Their first language isacquired with no direct instruction, no practice, no drills and with no apparent difficulty.Chomsky suggests that, if provided with the correct input, the LAD predisposes all people to theacquisition of a second language in basically the same manner.Most of us cannot remember learning our first language – it just seemed to happenautomatically. However, for many children learning a second language, the process does not5

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierseem natural or automatic, and it can be associated with many negative experiences andmemories.Stephen Krashen (1977,1981,1982,1985) developed his Monitor Theory based onChomsky’s concept of a LAD. The Monitor Theory is composed of four hypotheses that providea framework for teaching a second language:• The Input Hypothesis;• The Natural Order Hypothesis;• The Affective Filter Hypothesis; and• The Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis.These hypotheses lay the foundation for the communication-based teaching strategies thathave become popular with many instructors today. We will briefly describe each hypothesis, andthen provide a checklist summarizing the methods and tools necessary to put Krashen’s theoryinto action.Input HypothesisKrashen proposes that children only comprehensible input to activate the LAD and beginacquisition of a second language. Comprehensible input is language (either written or heard) thatis understood by the second language learner. Input becomes comprehensible when the teacheruses strategies such as:• Showing pictures or visuals to accompany new vocabulary words andcommunicative concepts. For example, a math lesson on multiplying anddividing negative and positive numbers should incorporate pictures of thepositive (+) and negative (-) signs, as well as the symbols for multiply anddivide. A history lesson on Columbus sailing to the New World shouldincorporate pictures of Columbus, the ships, maps and the Taino Indians.In wood shop, rather than just telling the students what the tools are andwhat they can do, the teacher can hold up the tool or point to the tool ashe/she says the name and demonstrate the tools capabilities. Additionally,the teacher can provide second language students with pictures of the toolsnext to which the students can write the name and use of the tool to use asa study guide.• Incorporating gestures, drama and music into the lessons,Listening to rhythms and music and physically acting out situations makea lesson more comprehensible and memorable. To better illustrate theexperiences of the first English colonists in Virginia, the teacher mighthave students act out the situation using their new vocabulary and usingfacial expressions to demonstrate the feelings of the colonists. TheAmerican states can be taught through songs such as “The United States.”which rhythmically introduces the students to the name of each state.Carolyn Graham has produced a number of books for English languagedevelopment which use these rhythmic “jazz chants” to emphasizedifferent grammar rules.• Designing lessons with hands-on activities and manipulatives. Scienceand math are ideal subjects for incorporating hands-on activities andmanipulatives. In math class, the teacher can demonstrate the concept ofperimeter and area by having students place a string around different6

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliersections of grid paper. The string represents the perimeter and the squareswithin the grid paper represent the area. To study the planets of the solarsystem in science class, the teacher can help students measure out a scaledrepresentation of the distances between planets outside on the playground.Students can then represent each of the planets and find out why differentplanets take different lengths of time to complete their orbits. An Englishor history lesson can utilize pictures and props to support the newvocabulary and the plot of a story. To check for comprehension, theteacher might have students place the pictures in order and describe thepictures using the newly learned vocabulary. In geography, the teacher orthe students can design a floor puzzle of the United States consisting of 50pieces, each one a different state. Students can work jointly on putting thepuzzle together. As well, the teacher or students can design a floor map ofthe world and students can stand on the different continents as the teachersays their names.• Repeating new vocabulary. The teacher repeats vocabulary crucial to theunderstanding of the lesson in a variety of ways: 1) games where studentsplace the written vocabulary word on the corresponding picture or writethe word as the teacher holds up the picture; 2) board games such as trivialpursuit, vocabulary, scrabble, boggle or hangman. 3) computer assistedlessons that incorporate the new vocabulary.• Translation. When the second language group is homogeneous, theteacher can quickly translate key concepts to make the lessoncomprehensible. However, the teacher should not come to rely upontranslation as a common teaching tool in her second language classroom,as the students will learn to direct their attention to the translation ratherthan the target language.Krashen posits that without comprehensible input, the second language learner is leftwith a group of words that are perceived as incomprehensible noise and can not be processed inthe LAD. As Met (1994) states, “By enabling students to match what they hear to what they seeand experience, teachers can ensure that students have access to meaning. Experiential, handsonactivities make input comprehensible.”Comprehensible input should be adjusted as the child acquires more and more language.“The acquirer understands (via hearing or reading) input language that contains structure ‘a bitbeyond’ his or her current level of competence.” (Krashen 1981a:100) Krashen refers to thisconcept as i+1, where “i” symbolizes the child’s present stage of acquisition and the “1”symbolizes the more advanced input the teacher will provide the child so that she may progressbeyond the present stage. For example, if a student in a Chinese language class has alreadylearned the weather expressions (its hot, its cold, its snowy etc..) the teacher can introduce theseasons using the weather terms as descriptors. In winter, it is cold and snowy. In summer, it ishot and sunny. The seasons (the more advanced concepts referred to as “1”) becomecomprehensible by describing them using known vocabulary words (“i”) .Ideally, comprehensible input should be attended to in more than just the Englishlanguage development classroom. Northcutt-Gonzalez and Schifini developed what they refer toas the “sheltered approach” to instruction, where materials in content area classes are madecomprehensible by incorporating the strategies of comprehensible input outlined above. Tharp7

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier(1989,1991, 1992, 1994) discusses the principal of Contextualization in which teachers tap intostudents’ prior knowledge to create a comprehensible content area lesson. For example, a targetlanguage science lesson on electricity will yield differing results if it is taught to a secondlanguage student who has previously studied batteries and circuits in school in her country oforigin (prior knowledge) versus a second language student who may not have even grown upwith electricity in her house. The student who has previous experience with electricity will havethe capability to transfer that prior knowledge to the present lesson and therefore, will have abetter understanding of the lesson and the new vocabulary. The student who has had only alimited exposure to electricity in her personal experience will most likely find the new materialincomprehensible and, therefore, difficult to acquire. It is important that teachers assess the priorknowledge of their students and then, build upon the complexity of the lesson from the point ofprior knowledge to the introduction of more advanced concepts. The principal ofContextualization is very similar to Krashen’s notion of “i+1.” The “i” in this situation is thestudent’s previously acquired academic knowledge. The “1” would symbolize the newknowledge the teacher will build onto the prior knowledge.It is important to note that the sheltered approach to content area instruction is best suitedfor a homogeneous group of English language learners. If the Sheltered class consists of a mixedgroup of English-only students and English language learners, the lesson is more difficult toimplement. These two groups have different needs and the English-only students will tend todominate the class due to their superior English skills.Making a lesson comprehensible also involves assessing a student’s level of academicvocabulary. Cummins (1979) discusses two forms of language developed in the acquisitionprocess: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic LanguageProficiency (CALP). BICS is the first type of language a student acquires and is often referred toas “playground vocabulary” or survival vocabulary. It is the language that a person needs tofunction in society or to socialize with family and friends. It usually takes a student 2-5 years toacquire a high proficiency in BICS. Students with advanced BICS skills can converse about aseemingly endless number of topics and are familiar with the target language slang and idiomaticexpressions. However, these same students may have great difficulty in academic areas such asscience, math and history that require a different type of vocabulary (i.e. CALP). Rarely dostudents discuss academic subjects using academic vocabulary while socializing with family orfriends. Therefore, unless specifically instructed in the academic vocabulary necessary tounderstand the lesson, second language students are prone to a low proficiency in this cognitiveacademic language, which can lead to academic failure. To ensure the success of secondlanguage students, it is important for content area teachers to directly instruct second languagestudents (using comprehensible input strategies) in the academic vocabulary and languagepatterns necessary to comprehend the content area lesson. The following would be consideredexamples of academic vocabulary:• Math - add, subtract, divide, multiple, integer, graph, etc.;• History - democratic, vote, president, constitution, etc.;• English - plot, protagonist, character, outline, scene, etc.; and• Science - beaker, Bunsen burner, electricity, atoms, etc.Thus, while teachers need to be aware of providing comprehensible input, they must alsoattend to the degree of Cognitive Challenge. As Tharp (1994) warns, “At-risk students,particularly those of limited Standard English proficiency, are often “forgiven” any academicchallenges, on the assumption that they are of limited ability; or they are “forgiven” anygenuine assessment of progress because the assessment tools don’t fit.” Teachers should not8

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier“water down” the curriculum to make it comprehensible. At-risk students require instructionthat is cognitively challenging and demanding of analysis and critical thinking, not just drillsand repetition. Teachers should set challenging standards for their students and then preparelessons that facilitate students’ ascension to these standards. A cognitively challenging lessonin history, for example, should involve the same concepts as those introduced in thecorresponding mainstream history class (i.e. Manifest Destiny, the Constitution), but, thesecond language history teacher would incorporate strategies to make the lesson morecomprehensible (i.e. visuals, drama) and directly instruct the students on the academicvocabulary necessary to understand the lesson. If the teacher uses comprehensible input in thelessons while simultaneously developing CALP vocabulary, the majority of students will meetthe cognitive challenge presented by the teacher.Checklist for Teachers Implementing the “Input Hypothesis” in the Classroom• Prepare visuals, realia, and manipulatives (drawings, photographs, real life objects,counting devices, etc.).• Determine the prior knowledge students bring to your lesson and plan the lesson from thatpoint.• Plan content area lessons that incorporate the same concepts as the mainstream classes butmodify the curriculum by adding devices to make it comprehensible to your students.• Decipher the academic vocabulary the students require to understand the lesson and plan astrategy to teach the students this vocabulary.Natural Order HypothesisKrashen hypothesizes that every person learning a language will acquire that language in apredictable order. For example, students learning English, regardless of their cultural andlinguistic background, will acquire the plural “s” (girls) before the third person singular “s”(likes). Despite the time a teacher spends practicing the grammatical aspect of third personsingular “s” with the students, the students will not use the grammatical aspect in target languageconversations until they have naturally acquired it. The natural order of acquisition is notaffected by instructional sequences. Krashen suggests that providing students with meaningfulcomprehensible input that contains grammar, but focuses on communication, will enablestudents to naturally acquire the necessary grammar. Krashen expanded the “Natural Order”hypothesis when he teamed with Tracy Terrell to develop the four stages of BICS languageacquisition.Stage 1- Pre-ProductionStudent Characteristics and Examples of Student WorkDuring this stage, the second language student actively listens to the language input.Much like a one year old baby, the student is developing comprehension in the second language.At this level, student ‘s reading and oral production will be marked with a transference of theirfirst language pronunciation. For example, the letters of the alphabet represent different soundsin different languages. A Spanish speaker will pronounce the letter “i” as “e,” and “v” as “b.”Because the Asian languages do not differentiate between the phonemes [l] and [r], the studentswill mix these letters when speaking or reading. Given time, however, the students will acquirethe sounds of the English alphabet and slowly change their pronunciation. As well, the format of9

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierstories differs among languages. For example, a Spanish speaker is accustomed to longersentences and will, therefore, often ignore the English punctuation when reading aloud toproduce a story formatted more like his/her native language. Again, given time, the secondlanguage student will acquire the format of English language story telling and writing. A stage 1student will be unable to correctly produce verbs in the past or future tenses and will rely on thepresent tense for communication. A stage 1 student will have great difficulty writing in the targetlanguage.Length of stageThe length of this stage varies greatly, although most students spend 3-6 months in stage 1.Some students are ready to produce language immediately and will mimic the sounds of theteacher and the target language group until they can produce words in the target language. Otherstudents are more hesitant to produce language and will spend a longer period listening beforethey attempt to speak. However, a student’s reluctance to speak in the target language is not anindication that he/she is not acquiring the second language. Students at this stage can followdirections, point, draw, and act out situations in the target language - all without speaking.Teaching StrategiesEffective teaching strategies at Stage 1 include Total Physical Response (TPR), NaturalApproach, and cooperative grouping. To view an example of these strategies, please see video#_____ in the SLA module.Assessment TechniquesAssessment techniques involve a number of modifications, especially that of substituting purelywritten examinations for visual and oral assessments. Students may be assessed by:• placing pictures in order to show the history or sequence of a story,• matching vocabulary words to pictures,• touching or pointing to the vocabulary word (Show me a “saw.” Where is the“chalkboard?”).• drawing concepts and adding words to the drawings (Draw the “Stamp Act” and label itusing these words - “fire,” “stamp”,” British,” and “Colonists”).Each of these assessment techniques require oral instruction and support from the teacher. TheStage 1 learner will not understand solely written or abstract oral instructions.Stage 2 Early ProductionStudent Characteristics and Examples of Student WorkAt this level, students began producing utterances of one word. Students will repeat words theyhave often heard and that are comprehensible. It is not uncommon for students at this stage toproduce memorized phrases such as “My name is..” My address is,” “Sit down!, “ and “Leaveme alone.” Many teachers are fooled by the student's ability to produce a perfectly formedphrase. However, use of a memorized phrase does not indicate that the student is capable ofmanipulating and forming original sentences in the target language. The student has notnecessarily learned the function of the separate words in the phrase, but has learned the functionof the phrase as a whole. In other words, the whole phrase is utilized in the same manner that thestudent would utilize a single word. At stage 2, students will still have transference of nativelanguage pronunciation similar to stage 1. Toward the end of stage 2, students will begin toincorporate different verb forms into speech but will over-generalize the grammar rules. Forexample, once the student attributes “ed” with forming the past tense, he/she will use “ed” toform all past tense – regular and irregular. Students will produce utterances such as “She goed to10

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierthe store,” or “She doed her homework.” Although the teacher might view theseovergeneralizations as a negative, they actually indicate that the student is progressing quite wellin the target language. Given time and adequate comprehensible input, the student willeventually differentiate between the regular past tense and the irregular and correctly apply thegrammar rules.Length of StageAs with all stages of BICS acquisition, length of time spent at this stage varies;some students pass through this stage rather quickly and move on to complete sentenceswhile other students will communicate in one word utterances for a few months beforeprogressing to stage 3. The typical amount of time spent at this stage is 6 months to oneyear. As long as the teacher provides comprehensible input that continues to progressbeyond the students’ present capabilities (i+1), the student will continue to acquire theL2.Teaching StrategiesEffective teaching techniques at stage 2 include T.P.R., Natural Approach,cooperative grouping, drama or acting out of concepts, reading books with illustrations,Sheltered Approach instruction in the academic content areas of math, science andelectives, and Instructional Conversation.Tharp advocates the use of Instruction Conversation to encourage skills that willenhance interaction with the target culture. “Basic thinking skills - the ability to form,express, and exchange ideas in speech and writing - are most effectively developedthrough dialogue, through the process of questioning and sharing ideas and knowledgethat happens in the instructional conversation” (Tharp 1989, 1994). InstructionalConversation involves eliciting responses from students beyond the “known answers”established in many classrooms. In the majority of classrooms, teachers tend to do mostof the talking which focuses on a “predetermined and decontextualized inventory of skillsand topics.” (Pease-Alvarez and Vasquez 1994) Student opportunities to talk are limitedand do not mimic the type of talk utilized in student’s home or social interactions.Instructional Conversation, on the other hand, focuses on eliciting authentic dialoguebetween students and the teacher. This type of dialogue not only encourages the practiceof new and different vocabulary, but enlightens the teacher as to the beliefs, ideas andculture of the students. If Instructional Conversation is utilized in a classroom of mixedcultures, other students will also gain an understanding and, hopefully, acceptance of thecultures represented in the classroom.Assessment TechniquesAssessment modifications are similar to those of stage 1 except the teacher cannow introduce more written words into the exams. For example, the student can:• match written vocabulary words to short written descriptions (1. Columbus -c. a man from Italy who wants to discover a New World.)• find the written definition of a vocabulary word in a multiple choice test (aslong as the vocabulary utilized is not more advanced than the student’s presentknowledge).• match a written word to a picture.• answer “who,” “what,” “where,” and “when” questions requiring one wordanswers (Who gave Columbus the ships to travel to the New World? When11

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierdid Columbus land in the New World? What type of people did Columbusfind in the New World?).• carry out performance assessments that focus on higher order thinking skillswhile minimizing linguistic demands.The student will still require oral assistance while taking the test and can rarelyperform effectively on a totally written exam. As well, the teacher should expectsignificant spelling and grammar mistakes at this stage as listening, speaking, reading,and writing all precede written proficiency.Stage 3 Speech EmergenceStudent CharacteristicsDuring this stage, students begin to construct simple sentences until they acquireenough language to produce increasingly complex phrases. Transference of first languagepronunciation will begin to subside although accent will continue to be an issue,especially for older learners. Students at this stage begin to use differing verb forms (past,present, future) and can engage in more lengthy conversations. However, teachers shouldexpect a multitude of grammar rule overgeneralizations. For example, students willproduce sentences such as:• “doesn’t can” instead of “can not”• “doesn’t goed” or “didn’t went” instead of “didn’t go”• “I have many money” instead of “I have a lot of money”• “He have little apples” instead of “He has a few apples”• “She are going to the store” instead of “She is going to the store.”All of these overgeneralizations indicate great progress on the part of the secondlanguage student. The above examples demonstrate that the student has acquired rules fornegatives, past tense, future tense, and count and non-count nouns. The student requiresmore time and more comprehensible input to sort out the grammar rules and begin toutilize them correctly.Length of StageAs with the prior two stages, students progress through this stage at varied times.The typically amount of time spent at this stage is 1-2 years.Teaching StrategiesTeaching strategies at stage 3 include Natural Approach, Sheltered Instruction incontent area classes, cooperative grouping, drama, reading, writing, and InstructionalConversation. To develop better communicative competence as well as culturalawareness, it is beneficial to the second language learner to have ample contact andinteraction with the target language group at this stage.To encourage interaction between the second language students and the targetculture, Tharp advocates the use of Joint Production Activity. Tharp highlights thefrequency with which joint activities are used within families, communities and jobs tohelp children or novices learn by working jointly on a project with more experiencedothers. However, in K-12 education, joint activity is rarely practiced. A Joint ProductionActivity is an activity performed among mixed groups: novice student--expert studentgroups; student--teacher groups; second language student--target language studentgroups; and expert community member--student groups. Such an activity is designed toyield an end product that is meaningful to all who are involved in producing it and12

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierincludes all those involved in the planning. Joint Production Activities have manyadvantages in the second language classroom:• they enhance opportunities for SLLs to acquire new vocabulary andcommunicative strategies;• they assist second language students in learning new linguistic skills byinteracting with experts;• they increase the opportunity for SLLs to hear language used in meaningfulconversations and increase the opportunity for SLLs to test their ownhypothesis of language usage and;• they help SLLs develop relationships within the target language culture whichenhance feelings of acceptance and understanding and help to eliminate socialand psychological distances.Assessment TechniquesAssessment techniques at stage 3 can include more written work, although thevocabulary should be modified. Assessment techniques include:• Multiple choice and matching answers,• Short answer essay type questions incorporating “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “how” questions.• Continued reliance on high cognitive ability – low linguistic ability assessmentsuch as performance tasks.At this stage, teachers can expect exam answers to be grammatically incorrectwith spelling and punctuation mistakes. For example, a stage 3 answer to the question,“Was Columbus a good governor?” would look something like this: “Columbus, he nogood governor because he treat bad the Taino Indians. They no like he and he take theysmoney and make they slave.” The student has the correct answer although the answer isriddled with grammar and spelling mistakes. At this stage, the teacher needs to be clearabout the criteria he/she wishes to grade; the knowledge of the content area lesson or theEnglish language. If knowledge is being graded, then the teacher should not mark downfor spelling and grammar errors. If language is being graded, then it is appropriate tomark for spelling and grammar.Stage 4 Intermediate FluencyStudent CharacteristicsThe student can now manipulate the language to create original sentences andengage in more complex conversations. The student should have a good grasp ondifferent verb forms (past, present, future, etc..) although grammatical mistakes are stillquite common. The student is ready to acquire advanced writing skills and perfect his/heroral and reading skills.Length of StageThe student tends to stay in stage 4 longer than the other stages. This stageinvolves more complex language skills and the acquisition of advanced academicvocabulary should be emphasized. It is not unusual for a student to be at this stage for 2-3years.Teaching Strategies13

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierThe teacher should continue to provide the child with comprehensible input, bothoral and written. At this stage it is beneficial for the child to spend a significant amount oftime with target language peer models. Instruction should emphasize the teaching ofacademic language using sheltered techniques, the Natural Approach, InstructionalConversation and Joint Production Activities.Assessment TechniquesAssessment techniques are similar to those of stage 3 but can also includemodified mainstream exams that incorporate the more advanced “why” questions. Theseexams should use wording that is straight forward with no slang or idiomatic expressions.The teacher should be aware that grammar and spelling mistakes are still common at thisstage.Affective Filter HypothesisKrashen claims that all people possess a “filter” which moves into one of two positions,low or high. A low position allows language to enter the person’s LAD and be acquired. A highposition prohibits language from entering the LAD thereby restricting acquisition. A lowaffective filter exists when the student feels comfortable and non-threatened in the learningenvironment. A high affective filter exists when a person is too pressured by outside factors torelax and allow the acquisition process to occur. Outside factors include a stressful learningenvironment such as too much instructional focus on error correction, pronunciation and form, ora humiliating learning situation where the child is forced to produce language before he/she isready. To ensure acquisition of the second language, it is important that the teacher maintain arelaxed and enjoyable learning environment.Checklist for Teachers implementing the “Affective Filter Hypothesis” in the Classroom• Create a learning environment that is comfortable for all students• Attempt to model the correct grammar form rather than explicitly correcting the studentevery time a mistake occurs.• Focus the majority of the lesson on meaningful communication and content area subjects.Acquisition vs. Learning HypothesisKrashen asserts that two separate systems underlay second language performance. Thefirst system is the acquisition system, which naturally occurs when a person receives plenty ofcomprehensible input, has a low affective filter, and the focus of the language lesson is oncommunication and meaningful use of the language. If these criteria are met, the language entersthe learner’s LAD and is acquired into the mind - a totally unconscious process. The advantageto acquiring a language is that the language becomes part of the linguistic system of the learnerand can be automatically used in conversations and communication with the target culture group.The learning system is activated when the learner is conscious of the language and isfocused on the form and rules of the language. Learning a language encourages the student tofocus on editing and planning the language rather than communicating with the language.Learning occurs most often in a grammar-based, drill and practice type instructional setting.Although learning is an important aspect of second language acquisition, Krashen believes thatin order to fully use language in a communicative setting, the second language student must firstacquire the language before learning is introduced. Learning too early in the process will14

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierinterrupt the acquisition process and produce learners that focus on form and editing and arestilted in their ability to communicate fluently.While Krashen’s Monitor Theory offers numerous linguistic explanations for theacquisition of a second language, it fails to completely address the social or psychologicalaspects of learning a second language. These additional factors are important in second languagelearning. Too often teachers are faced with linguistically capable students whose feelings ofalienation, fear or frustration toward the target culture prevent them from acquiring highproficiency in the second language. The Environmentalist theory of second language acquisitionspecifically addresses the affective aspects of second language learning.Environmentalist TheoryEnvironmentalists posit that environmental/outside influences over the learner play asubstantial role in acquisition of a second language. The principal environmentalist theory,Schumann’s “Acculturation Model,” suggests that a learner’s social and psychological distancefrom the target language group influences that individual’s ability to develop proficiency in thetarget language.Social distance refers to the social proximity of two cultures that come into contact with oneother. For example, the culture of Americans and Canadians are quite similar. Therefore, thesocial distance between them is minor. However, American and Mexican cultures are verydifferent. Therefore, the social distance between these two cultures is quite great. Schumann(1976) describes social distance as consisting of eight factors, described below, having positiveor negative effects on the acquisition of a second language.Positive Social Factors• Social DominanceThe second language learner’s culturalgroup feels dominant or of equal status tothe target language group.• Integration PatternThe second language learner desiresassimilation or acculturation into the targetlanguage group.• CohesivenessThe second language learner’s culturalgroup encourages ample contact with thetarget language group.• EnclosureThe second language learner’s grouprequires contact with the target languagegroup to go about daily life.• SizeThe second language learner’s group isNegative Social Factors• Social DominanceThe second language learner’s group feelssubordinate to the target language group.• Integration PatternThe second language learner desirespreservation of his/her own culturalidentity.• CohesivenessThe second language learner’s group iscohesive and tends to discourage contactwith the target language group.• EnclosureThe second language learner’s group has itsown churches, newspapers and leaders andis not dependent on the target culture fordaily living.• SizeThe second language learner’s group is15

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliersmall and encourages inter-group relations.• Cultural CongruenceThe target language group and the secondlanguage group are culturally congruent(similar).• AttitudeThe attitude of the two groups toward oneanother is positive.• Length of ResidenceThe second language learner intends toreside within the target culture for anextended period of time.large and tends to facilitate only intragrouprelations.• Cultural CongruenceThe target language group and the secondlanguage group are incongruent(dissimilar).• AttitudeThe attitude of the two groups towardone another is negative.• Length of ResidenceThe second language learner onlyintends to reside within the targetculture for a limited period of time.Schumann hypothesizes that the greater number of negative social factors affecting asecond language learner’s (SLL) relationship with the target language (TL) group, the moredifficult it will be for the second language learner to acquire the target language. For example, ina new culture, a SLL can face a number of social pressures:• alienation from the target culture because he/she feels subordinate to the TL group (-social dominance),• encouragement only to associate with people from his/her culture ( - enclosure) ,• origin from a culture that is very different from the target culture ( - cultural congruence),• a decision to stay in the target culture for only a limited period of time (- length ofresidence).These social pressures all work against the SLL and make acquiring a high proficiency in thetarget language a difficult task. On the other hand, if the learner feels:• accepted into the target culture and shares equal status with the target culture (+ socialdominance),• associates often with the target culture (+ enclosure),• is highly motivated to learn the language (+ attitude),• and plans to reside in the target culture for a significant amount of time (+ length ofresidence),the learner will have greater ease in acquiring the language.In addition to social distance, Schumann (1978) describes psychological distance whichconsists of three factors: 1) culture shock, 2) language shock, and 3) motivation. Thesepsychological factors, as well as the social factors mentioned above, affect an individual’s abilityto acquire a second language.1) Culture shock is the second stage of acculturation into a new society. The excitement andeuphoria over the newness of the situation eventually wears off and the feeling that more andmore cultural differences are intruding into the SLL’s own image of self and security arise.At this stage, the SLL often complains about the target language (TL) culture and seekssolace in countrymen or situations similar to his/her own culture. It is not uncommon forSLLs to temporarily reject the target language and culture at this stage. However, if the SLLreceives assistance and support during the culture shock phase and is encouraged to continuestudying the TL, he/she will eventually acquire proficiency in the TL.16

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier2) Language shock occurs when the target language is so different from the second languagelearner’s own language that the learner passes through a “shock” period very similar to thatof culture shock. The language system is so overwhelming that the second language learnercan reject the target language for a period of time. Seville-Troike refers to the “saturationpoint” as part of language shock. Although required to attend school all day in the targetlanguage, newly arrived second language learners can reach a saturation point of learning inthe new language after 30-45 minutes of instruction. Students who have reached thissaturation point will stop paying attention, act out in class and become frustrated anddiscouraged. The saturation point can also occur in second language learners who have beenin the target culture for 6 months to a year. These students hit a plateau in their languagelearning; they seem to stabilize at a set point and can not progress. These students also act outin class and become very discouraged. It is important for teachers to recognize when astudent is at the saturation point and remove the pressure to produce. Eventually, the studentwill move beyond the saturation point on his/her own and begin to absorb more language.The second language learner needs encouragement and support to successfully overcomelanguage shock and continue acquiring the target language.3) Motivation is subdivided into two categories: instrumental and integrative. Instrumentalmotivation refers to the desire to learn the second language for reasons such as furthering acareer, translation, gaining employment, or college admissions. Integrative motivation refersto a SLL’s desire to integrate into the TL culture. In this case, the SLL must learn the targetlanguage to become part of that society. Research by Lambert (1972) and Spolsky (1969)found that SLLs with integrative motivation scored higher on second language proficiencytests than those with instrumental motivation. However, studies by Yasmeen Lukmani (1972)have found that in India, instrumental motivation played an even greater role in languageacquisition than did integrative motivation. Basically, motivation in general ispsychologically essential to acquiring a second language. If the learner is involuntarily in thetarget culture and has no motivation to learn the target language, proficiency is unlikely.Regardless of the competence and qualifications of the SL teacher, if the learner feelsgreat social or psychological distance from the target culture, acquisition of the TL will benegatively affected. One of the manners in which a teacher can prevent social or psychologicaldistance is by helping students become familiar with and enjoy the target culture. Swain, Canale,Long and Gee hypothesize that language acquisition is enhanced through interaction with peopleof the target language and culture. Swain argues that opportunities for output (student speech)are as important to the acquisition of a second language as opportunities for input. While inputprovides students with vocabulary and grammar, output provides students with opportunities totest their hypothesis of the linguistic and discourse rules of the language. Gee hypothesizes asocial component to language acquisition. “Acquisition is a process of acquiring somethingsubconsciously by exposure to models, a process of trial and error, and practice within socialgroups without formal teaching. It happens in natural settings that are meaningful and functionalin the sense that acquirers know that they need to acquire the thing they are exposed to in orderto function and that they in fact want to so function” (1992 pg. 113).ConclusionOur understanding of the process of second language acquisition continues to evolve.These developing conceptions in turn influence our beliefs as to what is best practice for theteaching of English language learners in our schools. Recommendations for teachers have17

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierchanged over the years along with our understanding of the research on classroom practice. Inthis module our goal is to present the latest knowledge on both the theory and practice ofteaching English language learners. As we discussed in the introduction, teachers of secondlanguage learners often have questions about how to best teach these students, questions like:what can I do in my classroom to facilitate the process of second language acquisition, and whatshould I expect the second language learners in my classroom to be able to do?In this article we have tried to address such questions by outlining two popular secondlanguage acquisition theories: Nativist Theory, and Environmentalist Theory. We have arguedthat nativist theory provides an answer to the question of how people acquire a second language,but that it falls short in addressing the importance of the environmental factors encountered bythe second language learner. Environmentalist theory highlights the social and psychologicalfactors as well as the linguistic factors in second language acquisition. This article is meant tointroduce the reader to both of these theories as well as to some of the principal researcherswithin each camp. Much of the remainder of this module is dedicated to the further explorationand elaboration of these ideas.18

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierAcquiring a Second Language for SchoolBy Virginia P. CollierGeorge Mason UniversityDirections in Language & EducationNational Clearinghouse for Bilingual EducationVol. 1, No. 4, Fall 1995During the past two decades, rapidly increasing language minority demographics have had amajor impact on U.S. schools. Yet even with all the varied instructional approaches that U.S.educators have undertaken to address the concern for providing a "meaningful education" forlanguage minority students (Lau v. Nichols, 1974), we are still struggling to identify the mosteffective education practices. When newcomers arrive, a school district's first response isusually to provide additional staff development training. To provide current information, trainerswork hard to keep up with the latest research, but the issues are complex and difficult to presentin a short training session. Given the misinformation that persists about second languageacquisition among both educators and the public, this short publication is written to guide thereader through the substantial research knowledge base that our field has developedover the past 25 years.Much misunderstanding occurs because many U.S. policy makers and educators assume thatlanguage learning can be isolated from other issues and that the first thing students must do is tolearn English. To understand the reasons why this oversimplistic perception does not work, aconceptual model that explains the process that students are going through when acquiring asecond language during the school years was developed. This conceptual model is based on thework of many researchers in linguistics, education, and the social sciences, as well as my ownwork with co-researcher Wayne Thomas. For the past ten years we have been exploring thelength of time needed for students attending school where instruction is provided in their secondlanguage to reach deep enough levels of proficiency in the second language to compete on anequal footing with native speakers of that language. In this research, we have also worked onidentifying key variables that have major impact on the acquisition of a second language forschool contexts.We believe that the conceptual model that has emerged from our research helps to explain manycomplex interacting factors that the school child experiences when acquiring a second languageduring the school years, especially when that second language is used in school for instructionalpurposes across the curriculum. This process of acquiring a second language through the schoolcurriculum is very different from foreign language learning taught as a subject in school. Theexamples in this paper will focus on the language minority student, who comes from a homewhere a language other than the dominant language of the society is spoken, and is beingschooled in a second language for at least part or perhaps all of the school day. The conceptual19

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliermodel may also be applied to the language majority student who speaks the dominant languageand is being schooled in a bilingual classroom.Acquiring a Second Language for School: A Conceptual ModelThe model has four major components: sociocultural, linguistic, academic, and cognitiveprocesses. To understand the interrelationships among these four components, figure oneillustrates the developmental second language acquisition process that occurs in the schoolcontext. While this figure looks simple on paper, it is important to imagine that this is amultifaceted prism with many dimensions. The four major components-sociocultural, linguistic,academic, and cognitive processes-are interdependent and complex.Figure 1Language Acquisition for School(Copyright, Virginia P. Collier, 1994.)Sociocultural processes. At the heart of the figure is the individual student going through theprocess of acquiring a second language in school. Central to that student's acquisition oflanguage are all of the surrounding social and cultural processes occurring through everyday lifewithin the student's past, present, and future, in all contexts-home, school, community, and thebroader society. For example, sociocultural processes at work in second language acquisitionmay include individual student variables such as self-esteem or anxiety or other affective factors.At school the instructional environment in a classroom or administrative program structure maycreate social and psychological distance between groups. Community or regional social patternssuch as prejudice and discrimination expressed towards groups or individuals in personal andprofessional contexts can influence students' achievement in school, as well as societal patternssuch as subordinate status of a minority group or acculturation vs. assimilation forces at work.These factors can strongly influence the student's response to the new language, affecting theprocess positively only when the student is in a socioculturally supportive environment.20

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierLanguage development. Linguistic processes, a second component of the model, consist of thesubconscious aspects of language development (an innate ability all humans possess foracquisition of oral language), as well as the metalinguistic, conscious, formal teaching oflanguage in school, and acquisition of the written system of language. This includes theacquisition of the oral and written systems of the student's first and second languages across alllanguage domains, such as phonology (the pronunciation system), vocabulary, morphology andsyntax (the grammar system), semantics (meaning), pragmatics (the context of language use),paralinguistics (nonverbal and other extralinguistic features), and discourse (formal thoughtpatterns). To assure cognitive and academic success in a second language, a student's firstlanguage system, oral and written, must be developed to a high cognitive level at leastthrough the elementary-school years.Academic development. A third component of the model, academic development, includes allschool work in language arts, mathematics, the sciences, and social studies for each grade level,Grades K-12 and beyond. With each succeeding grade, academic work dramatically expands thevocabulary, sociolinguistic, and discourse dimensions of language to higher cognitive levels.Academic knowledge and conceptual development transfer from the first language to the secondlanguage; thus it is most efficient to develop academic work through students' first language,while teaching the second language during other periods of the school day through meaningfulacademic content. In earlier decades in the United States, we emphasized teaching the secondlanguage as the first step, and postponed the teaching of academics. Research has shown us thatpostponing or interrupting academic development is likely to promote academic failure. In aninformation driven society that demands more knowledge processing with each succeeding year,students cannot afford the lost time.Cognitive development. The fourth component of this model, the cognitive dimension, has beenmostly neglected by second language educators in the U.S. until the past decade. In languageteaching, we simplified, structured, and sequenced language curricula during the 1970s, andwhen we added academic content into our language lessons in the 1980s, we watered downacademics into cognitively simple tasks. We also too often neglected the crucial role of cognitivedevelopment in the first language. Now we know from our growing research base that we mustaddress all of these components equally if we are to succeed in developing deep academicproficiency in a second language.Interdependence of the four components. All of these four components-sociocultural,academic, cognitive, and linguistic-are interdependent. If one is developed to the neglect ofanother, this may be detrimental to a student's overall growth and future success. The academic,cognitive, and linguistic components must be viewed as developmental, and for the child,adolescent, and young adult still going through the process of formal schooling, development ofany one of these three components depends critically on simultaneous development of the othertwo, through both first and second languages. Sociocultural processes strongly influence, in bothpositive and negative ways, students' access to cognitive, academic, and language development.It is crucial that educators provide a socioculturally supportive school environment that allowsnatural language, academic, and cognitive development to flourish.21

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierResearch Evidence to Support the ModelFirst and second language acquisition: A lifelong process. To understand the processesoccurring in language acquisition during the school years, it is important to recognize thecomplex, lifelong process that we go through in acquiring our first language and the parallelprocesses that occur in second language acquisition. Development of a complex oral languagesystem from birth to age five is universal, given no physical disabilities and no isolation fromhumans. But the most gifted five-year-old entering kindergarten is not yet half-way through theprocess of first language development. Children from ages 6 to 12 continue to acquire subtlephonological distinctions, vocabulary, semantics, syntax, formal discourse patterns, and complexaspects of pragmatics in the oral system of their first language (Berko Gleason, 1993). Inaddition, children being formally schooled during these years add reading and writing to thelanguage skills of listening and speaking, across all the domains of language, with each age andgrade level increasing the cognitive level of language use within each academic subject. Anadolescent entering college must acquire enormous amounts of vocabulary in every discipline ofstudy and continue the acquisition of complex writing skills, processes that continue through ouradult life as we add new contexts of language use to our life experience. As adults we acquirenew subtleties in pragmatics, as well as the constantly changing patterns in language use thataffect our everyday oral and written communication with others. Thus first language acquisitionis an unending process throughout our lifetime (Berko Gleason, 1993; Collier, 1992a). Secondlanguage acquisition is an equally complex phenomenon. We use some of the same innateprocesses that are used to acquire our first language, going through developmental stages andrelying on native speakers to provide modified speech that we can at least partially comprehend(Ellis, 1985; Hakuta, 1986). However, second language acquisition is more subject to influencefrom other factors than was oral development in our first language. When the context of secondlanguage use is school, a very deep level of proficiency is required.Academic second language proficiency: How long? Cummins (1989) popularized foreducators the concept of different levels of language proficiency needed depending on thecontext of language use, basing his theories on the work of many other researchers before him.Given the level of language development needed to succeed in an academic context, my coresearcher,Wayne Thomas, and I have been exploring the "how long" question for the past tenyears, following Cummins' initial examination (1981) of long-term academic achievement ofimmigrants in Canada. In the Thomas and Collier series of studies (Collier, 1987, 1989, 1992b;Collier & Thomas, 1989; Thomas & Collier, 1995), we have carefully controlled for a widevariety of student background variables and instructional treatments, to examine studentperformance on many different types of outcome measures across time. The measures we areusing are the academic achievement measures used by school systems to monitor students'progress in school, including standardized tests and performance assessment measures inlanguage arts, reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. In contrast to a typical languageproficiency test, these are not static measures. Instead, they change with each succeeding gradelevel, because the academic and cognitive work expected with each additional year of schoolingbecomes increasingly more complex. Therefore, results on these tests are very different from theresults on a language proficiency instrument that uses the same form each time it is administered.We choose to use these tests because they are the ultimate measures of academic proficiency in asecond language. When students being schooled in a second language reach deep enough22

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierproficiency levels in a second language to compete at the typical level of native speakerperformance (expressed on a standardized test as 50th percentile or normal curve equivalent[NCE]), this is a major achievement, because native speakers are not sitting around waiting fornon-native speakers to catch up with them. During the school years, native speakers' firstlanguage development is continuing at a rapid rate. For non-native speakers, the goal ofproficiency equal to a native speaker is a moving target (Thomas, 1992).In our studies we have found that in U.S. schools where all instruction is given through thesecond language (English), non-native speakers of English with no schooling in their firstlanguage take 7-10 years or more to reach age and grade-level norms of their native Englishspeakingpeers. Immigrant students who have had 2-3 years of first language schooling in theirhome country before they come to the U.S. take at least 5-7 years to reach typical native-speakerperformance (similar to what Cummins [1981] found). This pattern exists across many studentgroups, regardless of the particular home language that students speak, country of origin,socioeconomic status, and other student background variables. In our examination of large datasets across many different research sites, we have found that the most significant studentbackground variable is the amount of formal schooling students have received in their firstlanguage. Across all program treatments, we have found that non-native speakers being schooledin a second language for part or all of the school day typically do reasonably well in the earlyyears of schooling (kindergarten through second or third grade). But from fourth grade onthrough middle school and high school, when the academic and cognitive demands of thecurriculum increase rapidly with each succeeding year, students with little or no academic andcognitive development in their first language do less and less well as they move into the uppergrades.What about students schooled bilingually in the U.S.? It still takes a long time to demonstrateacademic proficiency in a second language comparable to a native speaker. But the difference instudent performance in a bilingual program, in contrast to an all-English program, is that studentstypically score at or above grade level in their first language in all subject areas, while they arebuilding academic development in the second language. When students are tested in their secondlanguage, they typically reach and surpass native speakers' performance across all subject areasafter 4-7 years in a quality bilingual program. Because they have not fallen behind in cognitiveand academic growth during the 4-7 years that it takes to build academic proficiency in a secondlanguage, bilingually schooled students typically sustain this level of academic achievement andoutperform monolingually schooled students in the upper grades (Collier, 1992b; Thomas &Collier, 1995). Remarkably, these findings apply to students of many different backgrounds,including language majority students in a bilingual program. For example, in Canada, Englishspeakingstudents who receive all their schooling bilingually, typically begin to reach nativespeakernorms on academic tests given in their second language (French) around fifth or sixthgrade, and when tested in their first language, they outperform monolingually schooled students(Collier, 1992a; Genesee, 1987).Role of first language. Many studies have found that cognitive and academic development inthe first language has an extremely important and positive effect on second language schooling(e.g. Bialystok, 1991; Collier, 1989,1992b; Garcia, 1994; Genesee, 1987, 1994; Thomas &Collier, 1995). Academic skills, literacy development, concept formation, subject knowledge,23

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierand learning strategies developed in the first language will all transfer to the second language. Asstudents expand their vocabulary and their oral and written communication skills in the secondlanguage, they can increasingly demonstrate their knowledge base developed in the firstlanguage.Furthermore, some studies indicate that if students do not reach a certain threshold in their firstlanguage, including literacy, they may experience cognitive difficulties in the second language(Collier, 1987; Collier & Thomas, 1989; Cummins, 1981, 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1995). Thekey to understanding the role of the first language in the academic development of the secondlanguage is to understand the function of uninterrupted cognitive development. When studentsswitch to second language use at school and teachers encourage parents to speak in the secondlanguage at home, both students and parents are functioning at a level cognitively far below theirage. Whereas, when parents and children speak the language that they know best, they areworking at their actual level of cognitive maturity. Cognitive development can occur at homeeven with non-formally-schooled parents through, for example, asking questions, solvingproblems together, building or fixing something, cooking together, and talking about lifeexperiences.Role of input and interaction in language development. In our current research (Thomas &Collier, 1995), we have also found that classes in school that are highly interactive, emphasizingstudent problem-solving and discovery learning through thematic experiences across thecurriculum are likely to provide the kind of social setting for natural language acquisition to takeplace, simultaneously with academic and cognitive development. Collaborative interaction inwhich meaning is negotiated with peers is central to the language acquisition process, both fororal and written language development (Ellis, 1985; Enright & McCloskey, 1988; Freeman &Freeman, 1992; Goodman & Wilde, 1992; Swain, 1985; Wong Fillmore, 1991).Sociocultural context of schooling. Research from anthropology, sociology, sociolinguistics,psycholinguistics, and education has provided insights into the powerful and complex influencethat sociocultural processes have on language acquisition. Just a few examples are provided here.Among our new arrivals to the U.S. are undocumented as well as legal refugees seeking refugefrom war, political oppression, or severe economic conditions. These students bring to ourclasses special social, emotional, and academic needs, often having experienced interruptedschooling in their home countries. Students escaping war may exhibit symptoms of posttraumaticstress disorder, such as depression, withdrawal, hyperactivity, aggression, and intenseanxiety in response to situations that recall traumatic events in their lives (Coelho, 1994). Studiesof these refugees' adaptation to life in the U.S. and success in school have emphasized theimportance of a bicultural schooling context, integrating first language, culture, and communityknowledge into the curriculum, as well as the importance of parents' maintenance of homelanguage and cultural traditions (Caplan, Choy & Whitmore, 1992; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988;Trueba, Jacobs & Kirton, 1990).External societal factors in the U.S. may have major influence on language acquisition forschool. Examples are the social and psychological distance often created between first andsecond language speakers, perceptions of each group in inter-ethnic comparisons, culturalstereotyping, intergroup hostility, subordinate status of a minority group, or societal patterns of24

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieracculturation vs. assimilation forces at work. Majority-minority and inter-ethnic relations, as wellas social class differences are at the heart of these factors influencing second languageacquisition and success in school. Researchers such as Ogbu (1993), Oakes (1985), andMinicucci and Olsen (1992) have found extensive evidence of institutionalized structures in U.S.schools that deny access to the core curriculum through tracking, ability grouping, and specialprograms that segregate language minority students. Segregated transitional bilingual classes andEnglish as a second language (ESL) classes can sometimes heighten the social inequities andsubconsciously maintain the status quo in majority-minority relations (Hernandez-Chavez, 1984;Spencer, 1988).The negative social perception of these classes that both English-speaking and language minoritystudents have often developed in U.S. schools has led to second-language students' socialisolation, denying them the critical conditions that Wong Fillmore (1991) says must be presentfor second language acquisition to take place. To break the cycle of special classes beingperceived as remedial in nature, they must be a permanent, desired, integral part of thecurriculum, taught through quality instruction that encourages interactive, problem-solving,experiential learning, through a multicultural, global perspective (Frederickson, 1995). Schoolscan serve as agents of change or places where teachers, students, and staff of many variedbackgrounds join together and transform tensions between groups that currently exist in thebroader society.Research-based Recommendations for EducatorsIn our current research (Thomas & Collier, 1995), when examining interactions among studentbackground variables and instructional treatments and their influence on student outcomes, wehave found that two-way bilingual education at the elementary school level is the most promisingprogram model for the long-term academic success of language minority students. As a group,students in this program maintain grade-level skills in their first language at least through sixthgrade and reach the 50th percentile or NCE in their second language generally after 4-5 years ofschooling in both languages. They also generally sustain the gains they made when they reachsecondary education, unlike the students in programs that provide little or no academic supportin the first language. Program characteristics include: (1) integrated schooling, with Englishspeakers and language minority students learning academically through each others' languages;(2) perceptions among staff, students, and parents that it is a "gifted and talented" program,leading to high expectations for student performance; (3) equal status of the two languagesachieved, to a large extent, creating self-confidence among language minority students; (4)healthy parent involvement among both language minority and language majority parents forcloser home-school cooperation; and (5) continuous support for staff development, emphasizingwhole language approaches, natural language acquisition through all content areas, cooperativelearning, interactive and discovery learning, and cognitive complexity of the curriculum for allproficiency levels.In our research, we have also found significant differences between "traditional" vs. "current"approaches to language teaching for students schooled in the U.S. for kindergarten throughtwelfth grade. In the long term, students do less well in programs that focus on discrete units of25

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierlanguage taught in a structured, sequenced curriculum with the learner treated as a passiverecipient of knowledge. Students achieve significantly better in programs that teach languagethrough cognitively complex content, taught through problem-solving, discovery learning inhighly interactive classroom activities. ESL pullout in the early grades, when taught traditionally,is the least successful program model for students' long-term academic success. During GradesK-3, there is little difference between programs, but significant differences appear as studentscontinue in the mainstream at the secondary level.When first language instructional support cannot be provided, the following programcharacteristics can make a significant difference in academic achievement for English languagelearners entering U.S. schools at the secondary level: (1) second language taught throughacademic content; (2) conscious focus on teaching learning strategies needed to develop thinkingskills and problem-solving abilities; and (3) continuous support for staff developmentemphasizing activation of students' prior knowledge, respect for students' home language andculture, cooperative learning, interactive and discovery learning, intense and meaningfulcognitive/academic development, and ongoing assessment using multiple measures.We have found that for young children and adolescents in Grades K-12, uninterrupted cognitive,academic, and linguistic development is essential to school success, and neglect or overemphasisof one of these three components may affect students' long-term growth. Our data show thatextensive cognitive and academic development in students' first language is crucial to secondlanguage academic success. Furthermore, the sociocultural context in which students areschooled is equally important to students' long-term success in second language schooling.Contrary to the popular idea that it takes a motivated student a short time to acquire a secondlanguage, our studies examining immigrants and language minority students in many differentregions of the U.S. and with many different background characteristics have found that 4-12years of second language development are needed for the most advantaged students to reachdeep academic proficiency and compete successfully with native speakers. Given the extensivelength of time, educators must understand the complex variables influencing the second languageprocess and provide a sociocultural context that is supportive while academically and cognitivelychallenging.ReferencesBerko Gleason, J. (1993). The development of language (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Bialystok, E. (Ed.). (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Caplan, N., Choy, M.H., & Whitmore, J.K. (1992). Indochinese refugee families and academicachievement. Scientific American, 266 (2), 36-42.Coelho, E. (1994). Social integration of immigrant and refugee children. In F. Genesee (Ed.),Educating second language children (pp. 301-327).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.26

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierCollier, V.P. (1987). "Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes."TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.Collier, V.P. (1989). "How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in secondlanguage." TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531.Collier, V.P. (1992a). "The Canadian bilingual immersion debate: A synthesis of researchfindings." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 87-97.Collier, V.P. (1992b). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student dataon academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (1-2), 187-212.Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in schoolEnglish? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26-38.Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educationalsuccess for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students (pp. 3-49).Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association forBilingual Education.Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingualchildren. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Enright, D.S., & McCloskey, M.L. (1988). Integrating English: Developing English languageand literacy in the multilingual classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Frederickson, J. (Ed.) (1995). Reclaiming our voices: Bilingual education critical pedagogy andpraxis. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.Freeman, Y.S., & Freeman, D.E. (1992). Whole language for second language learners.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Garcia, E. (1994). Understanding and meeting the challenge of student cultural diversity.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingualeducation. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Genesee, F. (Ed.). (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child, the wholecurriculum, the whole community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.27

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierGoodman, Y.M., & Wilde, S. (Eds.) (1992). Literacy events in a community of young writers.New York: Teachers College Press.Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1984). The inadequacy of English immersion education as an educationalapproach for language minority students in the United States. In Studies on immersion education:A collection for United States educators (pp. 144-183). Sacramento, CA: California Departmentof Education.Minicucci, C., & Olsen, L. (1992). Programs for secondary limited English proficient students:A California study. Washington, DC: NCBE.Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.Ogbu, J. (1993). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of anexplanation. In E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives(pp. 83-111). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.Spencer, D. (1988). "Transitional bilingual education and the socialization of immigrants."Harvard Educational Review, 58, 133-153.Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 235-253). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling insocial context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Thomas, W.P. (1992). "An analysis of the research methodology of the Ramirez study."Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (1-2), 213-245.Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (1995). Language minority student achievement and programeffectiveness. Manuscript in preparation.Trueba, H.T., Jacobs, L., & Kirton, E. (1990). Cultural conflict and adaptation: The case ofHmong children in American society. New York: Falmer Press.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learningin social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49-69).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.28

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierToward a Sociocultural Model of Second LanguageAcquisitionBy Cory A. Buxton & Dr. Kathy EscamillaFrom the Professional Development Resource Series, “Second Language Acquisition”, BUENOCenter, University of Colorado, Boulder (2000)IntroductionCulturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in our schools today face considerablechallenges to their academic success. These students need to develop interpersonal skills, adaptto a new culture, master subject area content, and acquire academic language proficiency foreach subject -- all in their second language.We highlight key aspects of the evolution toward the development of a sociocultural model ofsecond language acquisition. We begin by briefly discussing the lengthy history of bilingualeducation in the United States. Next, we consider several of the theories that continue to holdsway over much of the work in bilingual education and second language acquisition. Third, wediscuss some of the teaching practices that have proven to be successful in working with CLDstudents. Finally, we present a sociocultural model of teaching and learning, grounded in thework of Roland Tharp and his colleagues (D'Amato & Tharp, 1997; Tharp, 1989; Tharp, 1997;Tharp & Dalton, 1994; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), and discuss how this model can be modifiedand applied to second language acquisition in order to enhance the success of culturally andlinguistically diverse students in our schools.At this point, we should pause to make clear who we are referring to as culturally andlinguistically diverse students. CLD students are those students who come from a cultural, social,and linguistic background that is different from the received norms of mainstream EuropeanAmerican culture in this country. CLD is often used to refer to those students who speak a natallanguage other than English. Some of these students may be Limited English Proficient (LEP),while others may be fully fluent in English. The term CLD is generally not used for thoseindividuals of culturally diverse heritage who learn English as their first language and may ormay not be fluent in their heritage language. The term English Language Learner (ELL) is oftenused synonymously with CLD.Historical Trends in Second Language AcquisitionThere is a forgotten legacy of bilingualism and linguistic diversity in this nation. From the timeof the earliest European settlements in the United States until the late 19 th century, an acceptanceand an appreciation of bilingualism could be found in schools and in society at large (Crawford,1991; Kloss, 1977). Since there was no official language policy in the US during our earlyhistory, schools catered to the language needs and desires of the local populous. For example, inthe mid-1800’s, many Midwestern schools offered instruction partly or entirely in German onaccount of the preponderance of German-speaking settlers. The same was true of French inLouisiana and Spanish in New Mexico (Crawford, 1991; Lessow-Hurley, 1991).In all of the above mentioned educational settings, schools were practicing what would today berecognized as maintenance bilingual education. Instruction began in the first language, and then29

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierEnglish was gradually added in the upper elementary grades, while the student’s first languagecontinued to be supported and maintained. Access to these educational opportunities wassupported by state laws. However, “Americanization” efforts in the 1880’s, and later, anti -German sentiment during World War I, lead to a rise in language restrictionism (Castellanos,1983; Kloss, 1977)After World War II, cultural deprivation theory in educational psychology and culturalanthropology, along with political ideologies such as McCarthyism, created a belief thatlanguages other than English and cultures other than the mainstream (white) American culturewere inferior (Castellanos, 1983; Crawford, 1991; Darcy, 1963). The role of the school in thispolitical and educational environment was to remediate cultural deprivation and Americanize theimmigrant. Submersion models, commonly called “sink or swim,” became the norm in schools,with the emphasis being placed on learning English as quickly as possible, with no attentiongiven to the development of skills and knowledge in the first language, and no culturalaffirmation. It is not surprising that disproportionate numbers of language minority studentsbegan ending up in special education classes, and that they continue to do so in schools thatcontinue practicing this model (Baca & de Valenzuela, 1998; de Valenzuela, 1998; Figueroa,1993).It the early 1960’s, bilingual education was reborn in this country due to the immigration ofmiddle-class, educated Cubans following the Cuban Revolution (Castellanos, 1983; Gonzalez,1979). A highly successful, two-way model, bilingual education program was implemented inCoral Way, Florida in 1969. It is important to note that there was a great deal of political andpublic support for Cuban immigrants and their desire for bilingual education because they wereresisting the Communist revolution in Cuba. Programs modeled on the successful experiences ofthe Cubans, using first language instruction and maintenance bilingual education, have continuedto spread over the last several decades. However, an ever-present and growing resistance tobilingual education has flourished as well.During the Reagan Era, the English Only movement, through the political lobbying of the groupU.S. English, gained power and advocated a legislative agenda that directly attacked bilingualeducation. This movement was complimented by the cultural conservatism movement,exemplified by authors such as E.D. Hirsch (1996) and William Bennett (1987). These writerscontended that pluralistic education movements, such as bilingual education, would fragmentand divide Western society. Battles between the proponents and opponents of bilingual educationshow every signs of intensifying during the next few years. Political issues, such as the EnglishOnly movement of the 1980’s and 1990’s, coupled with a backlash against affirmative action andanti-immigrant sentiments, have fueled the controversy about bilingual education. Such politicaldebates have manifested themselves in the form of Propositions 63, 209, 227, and 287 inCalifornia. These propositions made English the state’s “official language,” severely limitedbilingual education, attempted to deprive many immigrants of the right to a public education, anddismantled affirmative action (Padilla, 1990). No doubt, bilingual education will continue to beinfluenced by the larger political and social context.Current Theories of Second Language AcquisitionOur understanding of what language is, how it develops and how it is used by differentindividuals at different times and in different settings, continues to evolve. What is important toremember is that the fundamental goal of language is to communicate one’s intentionssuccessfully to another person. When communication is taking place, proper language usage is30

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieroccurring, regardless of our value judgements based on factors such as speech style or adherenceto reified linguistic norms. Our view is that no one language is any better than another. Alllanguages have developed over time to allow their speakers to effectively communicate theneeds and ideas that are important to them.Having an understanding of the basic components of language is an important first step in theconsideration of the more complex ideas surrounding second language acquisition. A lack ofbasic knowledge about language may be at the root of many of the misunderstandings aboutsecond language acquisition. Such misunderstandings have negatively influenced school policyand pedagogical practices.The process of second language acquisition is both similar to and different from the process ofnatal language development (Wong Fillmore, 1991a). Children whose development is influencedby two language systems must be understood vis a vis two languages and cultures. It isinappropriate to focus only on their development in English. The extent to which these studentshave had a chance to develop their native language can have important implications for secondlanguage acquisition. Studies suggest that students acquire a second language better if they havea firm conceptual foundation in their native language (Cummins, 1979; Cummins, 1994; Perozzi,1985; Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992).Debate continues among modern linguists as to the specific neurological and cognitive processesthat take place during language acquisition. However, it is generally agreed upon that the humanbrain is predisposed: to attend to language input differently than it does to other sounds, toprocess that input according to some preset principles, and to formulate unconscious rules forlanguage comprehension and production (Chomsky, 1993). What this implies is that humans’approach to learning language is fundamentally different than our approach to learning any otherkind of skill, task, or concept.Thus, an understanding of the process of second language acquisition can only be developedthrough the study of language learners and not through the study of other cognitive tasks. Thequestion of social setting is also critical to understanding how first and second languagesdevelop. Studying language development in one or more languages requires that researchersconsider psycho and sociolinguistic variables as well as individual and situational factors(Hakuta, 1986). These factors make the study of language acquisition, whether in the first orsecond language, messy and complex, but also valuable and fascinating.Based on the above ideas, there are a number of current theories that have been developed in anattempt to explain various aspects of the process of second language acquisition. Five suchtheories are discussed briefly here.Stephen Krashen is one of the foremost theorists in second language acquisition. He hasdeveloped an number of interrelated hypotheses based on the idea that individuals learn languagebest in authentic settings, when they are made to feel relaxed and comfortable, and when thesecond language input that they are receiving is only slightly more advanced than their currentlevel of proficiency (Krashen, 1994).Lilly Wong Filmore (Wong Fillmore, 1991a) focuses on the importance of social, linguistic, andcognitive settings that encourage native speakers and language learners to interact in meaningfulways. She claims that the social environment and the states of language influence languageacquisition and development, including language loss.Jim Cummins has postulated three basic principles related to second language acquisition(Cummins, 1979; Cummins, 1994). These have come to be known as: the conversational/academic language proficiency principle, the linguistic interdependence principle, and the31

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieradditive bilingual enrichment principle. It is the first of these three principles that has given riseto the now famous distinction between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) andcognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).Saville-Troike has focused on the social settings and academic skills necessary for maximumacademic achievement of CLD students (Saville-Troike, 1984; Saville-Troike, 1988). Amongother things, she found that a well-developed vocabulary is the most important aspect of oralEnglish proficiency for academic achievement. However, an academic focus on structuralpatterns, such as basic grammar rules, appears to contribute little toward meeting students’immediate academic needs. At the root of her theory is the belief that students need opportunitiesto discuss academic concepts in their native language if they are to master content areaknowledge. Thus, social interaction between students is not sufficient for development ofacademic English language skills.Finally, Roland Tharp’s work on sociocultural theory (D'Amato & Tharp, 1997; Tharp, 1997;Tharp & Dalton, 1994), and his development of five principles for cross-culturally compatibleeducation, while not explicitly a theory of second language acquisition, can be readily applied tocreating environments that encourage language development and bilingualism. Tharp’s theoryand its application are discussed in more detail in the final section of this article.Best Practices for Second Language LearnersFrom the perspective of this model, every student brings with him/her to the classroom a widerange of prior skills and knowledge. In order to take advantage of this rich background, as wellas to provide students with the skills and knowledge that they need to be successful in ourschools, teachers must focus on authentic and meaningful language use. Authentic language usetakes place when students are active participants in language use focusing on topics that aremeaningful to them.One important factor in fostering authentic language usage is to focus on the social organizationof the classroom. Research with CLD students (Garcia, 1991; Miramontes, Nadeau, & Commins,1998) demonstrates the importance of teachers making the shift from the traditional classroommodel where the desks are in straight rows and teacher is in front, to a model of classroomorganization emphasizing student centers, and a mixture of guided, group, and independentwork. Not surprisingly, the same organizational models have been shown to be successful withdominant culture students as well (Resnick, 1987a; Resnick, 1987b). When such a shift in socialorganization occurs, it is almost impossible for a teacher not to change her pedagogy to onewhich is more closely aligned with the sociocultural model of teaching and learning.Assessment of the following conditions can be used to provide a rough estimate of whether aschool is providing an adequate learning environment for CLD students that is aligned with whatwe know about best practices: 1) classrooms should be student-centered and offer a nonthreateningenvironment that is informal and literature-rich; 2) classroom climate should becomfortable in terms of space, temperature, and freedom from distractions, and offer access totechnology, curriculum, and supplies that allow for plentiful and appropriate learning choices;and 3) to be equitable, CLD students should be participating in all activities the school offersincluding honors classes, programs for the gifted and talented, and all manner of extracurricularactivities.The best practices models can be thought of as constituting a rough continuum, from those thatpay the least attention to the role of the student’s first language, such as immersion and Englishas a Second Language (ESL) instruction, to those models that give the first language a prominent32

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierrole, such as developmental bilingual education and dual language. While each of these modelshas some merit in certain settings, the sociocultural approach to second language acquisition thatwe advocate calls for instruction that supports and develops the first language as the way to besttake advantage of a student’s prior knowledge base (Collier, 1995; Wong Fillmore, 1991b).A Sociocultural Model for Second Language AcquisitionThe sociocultural model that is presented is meant to address the complexities of secondlanguage acquisition, including the challenges faced by CLD students and the importance ofcreating a classroom environment that does as much as possible to help these students cope,survive, and thrive within the challenges of school in an alien culture and a foreign language. Asmentioned earlier, the model we present is based largely on the work of Roland Tharp (D'Amato& Tharp, 1997; Tharp, 1997; Tharp & Dalton, 1994) and his colleagues. Tharp’s model iscomposed of five standards for culturally congruent education. These standards are meant toprovide a framework for creating a classroom environment (both social and academic) thatserves as a starting point for addressing the challenges we have discussed.While Tharp does not consider himself a cultural anthropologist, his model can be categorizedwithin the anthropological framework known as cultural difference theory. The five principlescan be expanded and strengthened by looking to a newly emerging framework from culturalanthropology known as practice theory. Therefore, our sociocultural model for second languageacquisition starts with Tharp’s five standards, and adds a sixth, awareness of culturalproductions. Together, these six principles are meant to push students to succeed academically,while at the same time helping to create a safe and comfortable social environment where theywill not be intimidated and will not have their prior knowledge devalued.We begin here by briefly outlining the framework of cultural difference. Cultural differencetheory is grounded in the idea that cultural differences arise when groups face differenthistorical, social, and economic conditions (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990; Levinson & Holland,1996). Children learn the culture of the group through child-rearing practices in the home and thelocal community. Different child-rearing practices across groups lead to consistent patterns ofbehavior, language use, thinking, and feeling for individuals within groups. However, thesepatterns differ from the behavior, language use, etc. of members of other groups coming fromdifferent historical, social, and economic conditions. Further, the relationship between groups israrely symmetrical. Some groups enjoy greater power, prestige, and status that other groups.One of the strengths of cultural difference theory is that this view lends itself to developinginterventions, based on cultural differences, that can be successful in certain settings. Forexample, strategies that address uses of time, space, motivation, and language that are morecompatible with, and which build upon community-specific features, can help engage students inschool who are otherwise prone to disengagement and failure (Heath, 1983; Moll, 1992).Tharp’s five standards have been derived from working with such diverse populations as nativeHawaiian elementary school students (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), adult Hawaiian vocationaleducation students (D'Amato & Tharp, 1997), and native Americans on the Navajo and Zunireservations (Tharp & Dalton, 1994). The effectiveness of these principles comes from studyingand making use of broad cultural patterns of behavior. The principles that have emerged asseemingly cross-culturally compatible are as follows:Joint productive activity is the process of both teacher and students working together to producesomething that is of value to everyone involved.33

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierDeveloping the language and literacy of instruction in all activities means that there is an overtfocus on learning the discourse of the content area concurrent with learning the concepts.Contexualizing schooling in students’ lived experiences refers to making connections (in an overtmanner) between the content being learned and the students’ personal prior experiences, bothwithin and beyond school.Teaching for cognitive complexity means making sure that every student is cognitivelychallenged, which implies individualization of tasks so that everyone is working on a task that isappropriate for his or her knowledge and ability.Instructional conversation refers to the teacher engaging in conversation with an individual orgroup of students, where the topic of conversation is of importance to all involved, the teacherdoes not already know the answer to the question he or she is asking, and additionally, has anauthentic reason for wanting to know the answer.Despite the various successes of educational approaches grounded in cultural difference theory,in recent years cultural anthropologists have begun to critique the underlying framework onseveral counts. These critiques can provide insight into how Tharp’s principles can be enhanced.The first criticism is that cultural difference theory pays insufficient attention to power relations(Mehan, 1993). For example, how can the gap between poor, urban Latino culture and theculture of a discipline of power, such as math or science, be successfully negotiated when thereis such a great power differential between the two? The second critique is that cultural differencetheory focuses almost exclusively on the structural (macro) level when defining culture, byfocussing on class, race, and/or gender issues. This overlooks the more micro level influencessuch as peer groups, or the culture of the individual institution (Geertz, 1973).The third critique deals with cultural difference theory's inattention to issues of identity andindividual agency (Minick, 1993). From this perspective, there is no room for an individual todevelop a cultural identity that is at odds with his or her structurally defined culture of origin,while in reality, such individuals clearly do exist. The final argument is that cultural differencetheory paints a monolithic perspective of culture. For example, all students from the samecultural group are thought to have developed the same patterns of thinking, talking, and actingduring childhood, and can likewise be aided by the same classroom interventions (Eisenhart &Graue, 1993).Simply by examining one's own cultural background and the variety of factors that effect it, itbecomes clear that cultural difference theory is an oversimplification of how culture helps shapean individual’s identity in practice. For this reason, we turn to a second anthropological tradition,practice theory, which addresses some of the more intricate dynamics in the interactions betweenstructural features and individual agency.Practice theory is concerned with a number of different aspects of culture, including: 1) thesocio-historical development of cultural groups and their members over time (Levinson &Holland, 1996); 2) the interplay of cultural productions (resistance) and cultural reproductions(conforming voluntarily or involuntarily to the cultural and structural norms) (Levinson, 1996);3) power relations within and across cultural groups (Luykx, 1996); and 4) the dialectic betweenstructural (macro-level) features and individual agency (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990). Practicetheory explores how historical persons are formed in practice, within and against larger societalforces and structures. These structures provide the (tacitly understood) framework that governsthe functioning of schools, as well as other social institutions.By focusing on the dialectic between structure and agency, practice theory gives equal weight tomacro-level structures (i.e. gender, class, race) and micro-level factors (i.e. an individual’s34

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieragency and capacity to resist). From this perspective, culture is seen not as a set of characteristicsas it is in cultural difference theory, but rather as a process, continually being constructed inpractice. Individuals are not seen as passively accepting the conditions in which they live andfunction. Instead, they are given agency to counter the determining structures, though they muststill do so while functioning within those structures. Through agency, individuals may have theopportunity to create a different vision for the culture in which they function, and ultimately, acton that vision in ways that challenge the status quo. However, at the same time, there arepressures on the individual to conform to the culture as currently practiced.A consideration of practice theory gives rise to the need for a sixth principle in our socioculturalmodel - awareness of cultural productions. As stated above, cultural productions are the actionsthat an individual takes both within and against the cultural confines in which he/she findshim/herself. This perspective implies that each CLD student will react in different ways to theacademic and social settings in which he/she finds him/herself. Students from nearly identicalcultural backgrounds may react to their school environment in very different ways based on arange of factors, including their interpretation of the power structure in place in the classroom orschool, their interactions and place in the social hierarchy of their peer group, or the opinion ofthe value of education held by individual family members.Given these individual idiosyncrasies, each student will determine the arenas in which she willattempt to conform to the culture of the classroom and school, and those arenas in which she willresist the system. The importance of these avenues of resistance cannot be overstated, because itis through this resistance that transformation of the cultural norms that govern the educationsetting can occur.Thus, awareness of cultural productions is an important principle in considering culturallycompatible academic settings for CLD students, because it calls into question the entire notion ofcultural compatibility. While there are, without question, certain cultural norms that will befound in the majority of the members of a given cultural group, the very nature of being a CLDstudent means that one will be thrust into a dynamic cultural milieu that will challenge and alterthe beliefs inherited from one’s heritage culture. An awareness of cultural productions meansthat a teacher will not make assumptions about a student’s academic needs, desires orpreferences based on cultural overgeneralizations. Rather, the teacher will attempt to get to knoweach student as an individual, to understand why the student accepts and rejects the aspects of theschool’s culture that he or she does, and perhaps even work with the student to transform thoseaspects of the social and academic setting that he or she opposes.ConclusionAs a framework, we have outlined what we mean by a sociocultural model of second languageacquisition. This model takes pieces from several areas of study: existing research done inunderstanding the specifics of how humans process and learn language, principles grounded inbeliefs about cultural difference, and emerging theories related to how individuals work bothwithin and against structural norms to both conform to and resist their cultural and linguisticidentities.35

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierReferencesBaca, L. & de Valenzuela, J. S. (1998). Background and rationale for bilingual special education. In L..M. Baca & H. T. Cervantes (Eds.), The Bilingual Special Education Interface (2-25), Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill.Bennett, W. (1987). James Madison High School : A curriculum for American students. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education.Castellanos, D. (1983). The best of two worlds: Bilingual/Bicultural education in the US. Trenton, NJ:New Jersey State Department of Education.Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and thought. Wakefield, Rhode Island: Moyer Bell.Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language & EducationNational Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1(4), 1-6.Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education : History, politics, theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA:Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.Cummins, J. (1994). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success forlanguage minority students. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language-minority students: Atheoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 3-46). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and AssessmentCenter, California State University.D'Amato, J. D., & Tharp, R. G. (1997). Culturally compatible educational strategies: Implications fornative Hawaiian vocational education programs. . Honolulu, HI: Center for Studies of MulticulturalHigher Education.Darcy, N. (1963). Bilingualism and measured intelligence: A review of a decade of research. Journal ofGenetic Psychology, (103).de Valenzuela, J.S. (1998). Language Acquisition and the Bilingual Exceptional Child. In L. M. Baca &H. T. Cervantes (Eds.), The Bilingual Special Education Interface (pp.120-146), Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill.Eisenhart, M., & Graue, M. (1993). Constructing cultural difference and educational achievement inschools. In E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspective (pp. 165-179).Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Figueroa, R. & Ruiz, N. (1993). Bilingual pupils and special education: A reconceptualization. In R.C.Eaves & P.J. McLaughlin (Eds.), Recent advances in special education and rehabilitation (pp. 73-87).Boston, MA: Andover Medical Publishers.Garcia, E. E. (1991). Educational Practice Report 1: Education of linguistically and culturally diversestudents: Effective instructional practices . Santa Cruz, CA: University of California.Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), Theinterpretation of culture (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.Gonzalez, J. (1979). Coming of age in bilingual/bicultural education: A historical perspective. In H.Trueba & C. Barnett-Mizrahi (Eds.), Bilingual multicultural education and the professional: From theoryto practice (pp. 1-10). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. NewYork, NY: Basic Books.Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New York: Doubleday.Holland, D., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement and college culture.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Krashen, S. D. (1994). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In B. E. Office (Ed.),Schooling and language-minority students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 47-75). Los Angeles,CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.36

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierLessow-Hurley, J. (1991). A Commonsense Guide to Bilingual Education . Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.Levinson, B. A. (1996). Social difference and schooled identity at a Mexican secundaria. In B. A.Levinson, D. E. Foley, & D. Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person: Criticalethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 211-238). Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress.Levinson, B. A., & Holland, D. (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: An introduction.In B. A. Levinson, D. E. Foley, & D. Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person:Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 1-54). Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.Luykx, A. (1996). From indios to profesionales: Stereotypes and student resistance in Bolivian teachertraining. In B. A. Levinson, D. E. Foley, & D. Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educatedperson: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 239-272). Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation.In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 241-268). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Minick, N. (1993). Teacher's directives: The social construction of "literal meanings" and "real worlds" inclassroom discourse. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity andcontext (pp. 343-374). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Miramontes, O., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N. (1998). Linguistic diversity and school reform: A decisionmaking process. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using aqualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, (2) (pp. 132-141).Padilla, A. (1990). Bilingual Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications,Inc.Perozzi, J. A. (1985). A pilot study of language facilitation for bilingual, language-handicapped children:Theoretical and intervention implications. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders(50), 403-406.Perozzi, J. A., & Sanchez, M. L. C. (1992). The effect of instruction in L1 on receptive acquisition of L2for bilingual children with language delay. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools(23), 348-352.Resnick, L. (1987a). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Resnick, L. (1987b). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher(December), 13-20.Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement?TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 199-219.Saville-Troike, M. (1988). From context to communication: Paths to second language acquisition. In D.Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 249-268). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.Tharp, R. (1989). Psychocultural Variables and Constants. American Psychologist, 44(2), 349-359.Tharp, R. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice. Santa Cruz,CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.Tharp, R. G., & Dalton, S. (1994). Principles for culturally compatible Native American education.Journal of Navajo Education, XL(Spring), 21-27.Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in socialcontext. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991a). Second-language learning in children: A model of language learning in socialcontext. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49-69). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991b). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly(6), 323-346.37

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierAssessment of LanguageBy Yvonne S. Freeman & David E. Freeman(1998) Excerpt from ESL/EFL Teaching: Principles for Success. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.It is extremely difficult for teachers and administrators to change their view of bilingual learnersand for bilingual learners to value themselves when they are labeled by inappropriate evaluationinstruments. Standardized tests of all kinds tell educators what students cannot do but give verylittle indication of what they can do. Standardized testing is especially harmful to languageminority students. When they are required to take nationally normed exams, they are at adisadvantage because they are competing with native English speakers.In addition to standardized tests, English language learners take tests to determine their ability touse English. A review of three widely used tests of language proficiency gives an idea of theproblems inherent in these instruments.The Bilingual Syntax Measure (BSM) asks students to look at cartoon pictures and answerquestions such as "What's he doing?" Responses are rated for grammatical correctness, based onconversational norms. Students are not expected to, produce complete sentences, andpronunciation, is not rated. This test is widely used to place students, but since it does notmeasure the ability to read and write English, it is not a good predictor of academic success.Two other tests commonly used to measure English proficiency are the Language AssessmentScales (LAS) and the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (IPT). The LAS assessespronunciation, vocabulary, syntax, and pragmatics, or functional language use. The IPTmeasures the same four areas. These tests include activities such as having students distinguishbetween minimal pairs (pot and dot), naming objects in pictures, and having them listen to a(very short) story and then answer questions about it. In the IPT, the questions are arranged insequential order, and the tester stops as soon as the student reaches a level where he or she can'tanswer. Thus, for many students, this test is quite short. The LAS and IPT claim to measureboth conversational and academic proficiency.All three tests give only rough measures of what students can do. Generally, tests are firstadministered when students enter a new school system. The students may be confused. They areoften undergoing some degree of culture shock, and they may not understand the purpose of thetest. The test tasks they are asked to complete are not meaningful,, and students may not seetheir purpose. Furthermore, these language proficiency tests are fairly expensive, and they aredirectly tied to specific instructional materials. The tests serve as placement measures for theESL programs the test makers have also published.In some schools, limited English proficient students are also tested for literacy development.These tests are used to supplement language proficiency tests. This helps compensate for theemphasis in the language tests on oral language. However, the literacy tests for second languagestudents are the same tests used for native English speakers, so English language learners tend toscore low by comparison.38

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierLanguage proficiency tests such as the BSM, LAS, and IPT are not consistent with the principlesfor success. They test parts of language; they test language out of context; they have no meaningor function for the students; they are individual and competitive; they fail to draw on backgroundknowledge and strengths of the students; and they are used to label students. The tests don'tprovide the kind of information that effective teachers need to make decisions about how tointegrate English language learners into their classrooms.Current testing practices may simply serve to reinforce negative impressions of English languagelearners. However, this is nothing new.39

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierEffective Practices for English LearnersBy David and Yvonne FreemanThe Freemans teach at Fresno Pacific College where Yvonne is the Director of BilingualEducation, and David is the Director of the CLAD and TESOL programs. Contact them atFresno Pacific College, 1717 S. Chestnut, Fresno, CA 93702 (FAX 209-456-0443).In the last two columns we have described how Silvio helped his bilingual students becomebiliterate by using good literature and meaningful writing assignments. Silvio's class exemplifiesthe effective practices we introduced in a previous column. He organized around a big question:Why is agriculture important? His students were involved in authentic reading and writingexperiences that drew on their background knowledge and interests. The content wasmeaningful. Students used all four modes as they worked collaboratively. Their primarylanguages and cultures were supported and developed even as they began the transition towardbiliteracy. And most important, the activities built self-esteem and provided opportunities forSilvio's students to succeed.The Checklist for Effective Practice is intended as a guide for evaluating curriculum generally.Teachers like Silvio make literacy development the keystone of their curriculum, and in thiscolumn we wish to focus more specifically on one important component of literacy: readingdevelopment. We present a Checklist for Effective Reading, (Freeman and Freeman, 1997). Wediscuss the checklist in this column. In our next column, we will evaluate some of California'snew literacy initiatives, particularly the move toward phonemic awareness training, using thisChecklist. (The Checklist in Spanish appears at the end of the column).Checklist for Effective Reading Instruction1. Do students value themselves as readers and do they value reading?2. Do teachers read frequently to students from a wide variety of genres?3. Do students see teachers engaged in reading for pleasure as well as for information?4. Do students have a wide variety of reading materials to choose from and time to read?5. Do students make good choices and read a variety of genres for authentic purposes?6. Do students regard reading as meaning at all times?7. Are students effective readers? That is, do they make a balanced use of all three cueingsystems?40

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier8. Are students efficient readers? That is, do they make a minimal use of cues to constructmeaning?9. Do students have opportunities to talk about what they have read, making connectionsbetween the reading and their own experiences?10. Do students revise their individual understandings of texts in response to the commentsof classmates?11. Is there evidence that students’ writing is influenced by what they read?12. Are students provided with appropriate strategy lessons if they experience difficulties intheir reading?The first item on the Checklist reflects the goal for all reading instruction: to helpstudents see that reading is worth doing. When Silvio’s students read books about agriculture,books that connected with their reality, they could see the benefits of reading, they became moreproficient readers. The more students value reading, the more they come to value themselves asreaders. The second item reflects the importance of reading to students. Silvio and othergood teachers read to their students frequently. These teachers make a point of reading fictionand non-Fiction, poetry and prose. As students are exposed to a wide variety of texts, they cometo see the many different purposes that reading and writing can serve. They also build anunderstanding of the differences in organization and style of different literary genres. Manystudents who are fed a steady diet of stories experience difficulty with content texts. That's whyteachers like Silvio make a point of reading all kinds of books to their students. The next threeitems on the Checklist highlight the importance of encouraging students to be independentreaders. Silvio reads to his students every day. But he also provides time for them to read booksthat they choose. While his students read, Silvio also reads. He might rather be making hislesson plans or responding to student writing, but he realizes how important it is for his studentsto observe the demonstrations he provides by reading books that genuinely interest him.Students come to value reading when they see that people they admire, their teachers, also valuereading.It is important for teachers to provide students time to read and also to provide many high qualitybooks to choose from. In the past, it was difficult to find good literature and content texts InSpanish. It is still hard to find reading materials in some languages, but there are manywonderful Spanish books, and teachers can work to build up classroom and school libraries sobilingual students have enough books to choose from. The books students write also serve as arich reading resource for their classmates. Some students, even when they have many goodbooks to choose from, make poor choices. Silvio and other effective teachers recognize that partof their job is to help students learn how to make good choices of what they read. Silvio'sstudents know that the should always have three books available, one that is challenging, onethat is about right, and one that is a little east. Then, depending on the day, students can choosefrom among these books. Of course, all students are eager to read for themselves the books thatSilvio reads to them each day.Items six through eight on the Checklist focus on the process of reading itself. Silvio'sstudents know that reading is not just calling out the names of words. Rather, reading only occurs41

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierwhen students are constructing meaning. Proficient readers use cues from three systemsgraphophonics,syntax, and semantics- to make sense of texts. Effective readers make abalanced use of all three-cue systems, and efficient readers make the minimum use of cuesnecessary to comprehend a text. That is, good readers know that meaning is the goal of reading,so they don’t labor over every word so long as the text is making sense to them. The next twoitems reflect the social nature of reading. As they read, students construct meaning. Meaningdepends on both the text and the students’ background knowledge and purposes for reading.When students are given opportunities to talk and write about what they have read, they oftenrethink the meaning they have made. They reshape their individual understandings to moreclosely match the meanings their teacher and classmates have constructed.This same process applies to all of us. We go to a movie. We understand it, but then aswe talk about it with our friends, we get new understandings Sometimes details are added ormisconceptions are cleared up. We want to allow children this same opportunity, and that’s whyit’s so important for them to talk and write about what they have read. In addition, we often seethat children’s writing reflects features from their reading. They begin to use some of the sametechniques as the authors they read. The last item on the Checklist refers to strategy lessons.Sometimes children in even the best classes have trouble reading. Usually, they just need moretime. When teachers read to and with children daily, most children start to read by themselves.However, a few children benefit from specific lessons designed to help them make a morebalanced use of the three cueing systems. Reading strategy lessons are similar to writing minilessons.They are taught to groups of students in response to a need those students have. The;brief lessons use authentic texts and engage students in meaningful activities. A useful resourcefor strategy lessons is Reading Strategies: Focus on Comprehension by Goodman, Watson, andBurke. It is crucial for students to become proficient readers because so much of theiracademic success depends on their ability to make sense of texts. For bilingual students, the goalis biliteracy, the ability to read well in both languages.Characteristics of Texts that Support ReadingAre the materials predictable? Prediction is based on the use of repetitive patterns, cumulativepatterns, rhyme, alliteration and rhythm. Books are also predictable if students have backgroundknowledge about the concepts presented.For picture books, do the visuals provide support for the text? Is the placement of the text andpictures predictable and easy to follow?Are the materials interesting and/or imaginative?Is the language in the texts natural? For Spanish materials, was the book originally written inSpanish or translated from English? If the book was translated, how good is the translation?Do the situations and characters in the book represent the experiences and backgrounds of thestudents in the class?Seven Strategies for Supporting ALL Students in Classrooms1. Ensure that the environmental print in your classrooms reflects the languages and culturesof ALL of your students.42

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier2. Supply school and classroom libraries with books, magazines, and other resources inlanguages in addition to English. Be sure materials reflect a variety of cultures.3. Encourage bilingual/multilingual students to publish books and share their stories inlanguages other than English.4. Allow bilingual/multilingual students to respond in their primary languages todemonstrate comprehension of content taught in English.5. Have bilingual/multilingual students read and write with aides, parents, siblings, or otherstudents who speak their first languages.6. Use videotapes produced professionally or by students to support the academic learningand raise the self-esteem of ALL students.7. Use reading, writing, and research activities to promote primary cultures of ALLstudents.43

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierHas Whole Language Failed?By Dr. Stephen Krashen(Linguistics, UCLA) is currently professor of Education at the University of Southern California..AbstractThe “failure” of the whole language approached to literacy development has been widely reported. Iattempt here to give a clear definition of whole language, discuss some of the research, and provide someinformation about the impact of whole language in California.What is Whole Language?There are several competing definitions. One use of the term “whole language” refers to what we willcall the Comprehension Hypothesis. Other definitions are very different, even contradictory to theComprehension Hypothesis.The Comprehension HypothesisThe Comprehension Hypothesis (also known as the Input Hypothesis, Krashen, 1985) claims that thedevelopment of literacy and the development of language in general occur in only one way: when weunderstand messages. Smith (1975) stated the Comprehension Hypothesis in the title of his bookComprehension and Learning, claiming that comprehension and learning are very much the same thing.Reading pedagogy, according to the Comprehension Hypothesis, focuses on providing students withinteresting, comprehensible texts, and the job of the teacher is to help children read these texts, that is, tohelp make them comprehensible. The direct teaching of “skills,” e.g., phonics instruction, is helpful onlywhen it makes texts more comprehensible.More precisely, comprehension of messages is necessary for language acquisition and literacydevelopment, but it is not sufficient. It is certainly possible to comprehend a text or message and notacquire anything. We acquire when we understand messages that contain aspects of language that wehave not yet acquired but that we are developmentally ready to acquire.The Comprehension Hypothesis claims that we learn to read by reading (Goodman, 1982; Smith 1994a)and that other aspects of literacy competence are the result of meaningful reading. Reading, it is claimed,is the source of much of our vocabulary knowledge, writing style, advanced grammatical competence andspelling.The Incomprehensible Input HypothesisIncredibly, whole language has also been described as just the opposite of the ComprehensionHypothesis: providing incomprehensible input. Los Angeles Times reporter Richard Colvin (1995)characterizes whole language as giving children texts they do not understand:The frustration of students taught with the whole language method was obvious last year in the faces ofher first graders, said Tammy Hunter-Weathers, a teacher at Hyde Park School in the Crenshaw area ofLos Angeles. “The children were in tears,” she said, when they were asked to read texts even though theydid not know the letters or sounds. “They look at you with three paragraphs on a page and they say,‘What do we do with this?’”This is not the Comprehension Hypothesis version of whole language. Practice based on theComprehension Hypothesis will focus on providing interesting and comprehensible texts, and animportant role of the teacher is to help children understand them.44

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierThe Output HypothesisDelpit (1986) has argued that “holistic teaching approaches” do not give minority children competence inthe forms “demanded by the mainstream” (p. 383) and recommends the teaching of skills in context.Delpit’s view of whole language, however, was instruction that emphasized a great deal of writing: “Ifocused energy on ‘fluency’ and not on ‘correctness’” (p. 381).Delpit’s conclusion that a focus on writing fluency will not do the job, although not supported with dataor writing samples in her report, is consistent with research on writing (Krashen, 1993). These is nosupport for the hypothesis that writing itself causes language acquisition or literacy development.Acquisition of the conventions of writing, it has been argued, is a result of reading, not writing (Smith,1994b; Krashen, 1993). Delpit does not mention whether reading was emphasized in her classes.The Comprehension Hypothesis does not suggest that we avoid writing. There is evidence that writing,while not a means of language development, is a powerful way of clarifying thinking (Krashen, 1993).Look-SayShanahan, the CEO of Gateway, the company that produces Hooked on Phonics, claimed that his son hadbeen taught “with what was known as the whole language method and was expected to rememberhundreds of whole words by their shapes, with occasional clues from pictures or context” (Shanahan,1994, p. 3). This is neither whole language nor an application of the Comprehension Hypothesis but is“Look-Say”, a method that focuses on the memorization of sight words.No Phonics?The Comprehension Hypothesis does not forbid the direct instruction of phonics. Weaver (1994) andKrashen (1996) have pointed out that proponents of phonics typically support the teaching of just thestraight-forward phonics rules and expect children to “induce” the more complex rules. This is exactlythe position of those sometimes considered to be anti-phonics. There is surprising agreement when onelooks at the research. Smith’s conclusion (Smith, 1994a) appears to be the most reasonable: “Teach“skills” when they help make texts comprehensible. It is, of course, an empirical question just how usefuldirect teaching of phonics is in making texts comprehensible.What is Whole Language?The term “whole language” does not refer only to providing interesting, comprehensible texts and helpingchildren understand less comprehensible texts. It involves instilling a love of literature, problem-solving,critical thinking, collaboration, authenticity, personalized learning and much more (Goodman, Bird andGoodman, 1991). In terms of the process of literacy development, however, the ComprehensionHypothesis is a central part of whole language.Does Whole Language Work?The claim has been made that skills-based approaches produce results superior to whole languageapproaches. The origin of this claim is Chall (1967) who concluded that methods that stressed intrinsicphonics (less phonics and in context) and that both systematic and intrinsic phonics were superior to“Look-Say,” which involved no phonics at all. None of these comparisons dealt with the kind of wholelanguage considered here, that is, methods that emphasize a great deal of interesting, meaningful reading.After a review of more recent studies of method comparisons involving beginning readers, I haveconcluded that when “whole language” is in fact real reading, it does very well. Students in classes thatdo more reading have better attitudes toward reading (McKenna, Stratton, Grinkler and Jenkins, 1995;Merver and Hiebert, 1989), read more (Freppon, 1995), do as well as traditional students on tests in whichthe focus is on form, do as well or better on more communicative tests (Merver and Hiebert, 1989;Hagerty, Hiebert and Owens, 1989; Hagerty, Hiebert and Owens, 1989; Morrow, O’Connor and Smith,45

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier1990; Klesius, Griffith and Zielonka, 1991; Morrow, 1992) and show better development of the kind oflanguage used in books (Freppon, 1995; Purcell-Gates, McIntyre and Freppon, 1995).Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates and Fletcher (1997) is the only apparent counterexample to thegeneralization that students who do more real reading will outperform those who do less. It was not clearin this study, however, that the “whole language” children did more reading than the other children; theabysmal scores in reading comprehension for all subjects in this study suggest that none of the groups didmuch reading.On the other hand, when whole language is not defined as real reading, it does not do well whencompared to skills-based methods. Here are some examples:In Holland and Hall (1989), no differences were found between whole language and a basal method, butthe whole language method emphasized deliberate vocabulary development and a focus on words inisolation.In Reutzel and Cooper (1990), results favored whole language, but both groups read a great deal.In Eldridge and Baird (1996), a “phonemic awareness” approach was claimed to be superior to wholelanguage, but “whole language” included “studying” words and sentences in stories. Also, the children inwhole language “were taught to read” using a basal reader (p. 198).Stahl, McKenna and Pagnucco (1994) reported in their metanalysis that whole language students werebetter in four studies, traditional methodology was better in one study and no difference was found in 12studies. While all studies analyzed by Stahl et al. Are listed in their bibliography, they do not tell uswhich studies were used in the analysis. In addition, many of the studies are unpublished. We thus haveno idea what “whole language” meant in this analysis.Method comparison studies thus show that whole language is not a failure. On standardized tests,children who do more real reading do as well or better than children who read less, and they consistentlydo better on other measures, a result very similar to that found for sustained silent reading for moreadvanced readers (Krashen, 1993).A Decline in California?There is the perception that reading performance has declined in California because California fourthgraders did so poorly on the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) compared toother states, and in 1987 a literature-based approach was officially endorsed by the state. But there is noevidence that reading scores have declined in California, as shown by the California Assessment Program(CAP) scores from 1984 to 1990:CAP ScoresGrade 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 19903 268 274 280 282 282 277 2756 249 253 260 260 265 262 2628 250 240 243 247 252 256 25712 236 241 240 246 250 248 251Source: Guthrie et al., 1993, cited in McQuillan, 1998To be sure, California did poorly on the NAEP test, but as McQuillan (1999) has pointed out, performingpoorly is not the same thing as declining.There is strong evidence that California’s poor performance is related to its print-poor environment.California ranks last in the country in the quality of its public libraries. In addition, its children do nothave reading material at home; California ranked ninth in the country in the number of children ages fiveto 17 living in poverty in 1995 and near the bottom of the country in the percentage of homes with more46

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierthan 25 books in the home (McQuillan, 1998). Moreover, all of these variables are strongly correlatedwith NAEP READINBG SCORES (Krashen, 1995; McQuillan, 1998). All this points to the conclusionthat California’s problem is not whole language but a lack of reading material.Has Whole Language Failed?Whole language has not failed. If it is defined, in part, as providing children with comprehensible andinteresting texts and helping children understand them, it has done extremely well.References• Chall, J. 1967. Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill• Colvin, R. 1995. State report urges return to basics in teaching reading. Los Angeles TimesSeptember 13, 1995.• Delpit, L. 1986. Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Harvard EducationalReview 56:379-385.• Eldredge, L. and Baird, J. 1996. Phonemic awareness training works better than whole languageinstruction for teaching first graders how to write. Reading Research and Instruction 35:193-208.• Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D. and Fletcher, J. 1997. Early intervention forchildren with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities 8:63-71.• Freppon, P. 1995. Low-income children’s literacy interpretations in a skills-based and wholelanguageclassroom. Journal of Reading Behavior 27:505-533.• Goodman, K. 1982. Language, literacy and learning. London: Routledge Kagan Paul.• Goodman, K. Bird, L., and Goodman, Y. 1991. The whole language catalog. Santa Rosa, CA:American School Publishers.• Hagerty, P., Hiebert, E. and Owens, M. 1989. Students’ comprehension, writing, and perceptions intwo approaches to literacy instruction. In B. McCormick and J. Zutell (Eds.) Thirty-eighth yearbookof the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. pp 453-459.• Holland, K. and Hall, L. 1989. Reading achievement in first grade classrooms: A comparison ofbasal and whole language approaches. Reading Improvement 26:323-329.• Klesius, J., Griffith, P. and Zielonka, P. 1991. A whole language and traditional instructioncomparison: Overall effectiveness and development of the alphabetic principle. Reading Researchand Instruction 30:47-61.• Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis. Beverly Hills: Laredo.• Krashen, S. 1993. The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.• Krashen, S. 1996. Every person a reader. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.• Merver, K. and Hiebert, E. 1989. Literature-selection strategies and amount of reading in twoliteracy approaches. In S. McCormick and J. Zutell (Eds.) Thirty-eighth yearbook of the NationalReading Conference. Chicago National Reading Conference. pp. 529-535.• McKenna, M., Stratton, B., Grindler, M. and Jenkins, S. 1995. Differential effects of whole languageand traditional instruction on reading attitudes. Journal of Reading Behavior 27:19-44.• McQuillan, J. 1998. Literacy crises: False claims and real solution. Portsmouth: HeinemannPublishing Company.• Morrow, L. 1992. The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use ofliterature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly 27:250-275.• Morrow, L., O’Connor, E. and Smith, J. 1990. Effects of a story reading program on the literacydevelopment of at risk kindergarten children. Journal of Reading Behavior 22:255-275.47

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier• Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E. and Freppon, P. 1995. Learning written storybook language inschool: A comparison of low-SES children in skills-based and whole language classrooms.American Educational Research Journal 32:659-685.• Reutzel, D. and Cooper, R. 1990. Whole language: Comparative effects on first-grade readingachievement. Journal of Educational Research 83:252-257.• Shanahan, J. 1994. Letter. Hooked on Phonics Magazine 1:3.• Smith, F. 1975. Comprehension and learning. Katonah, NY: Owen.• Smith, F. 1994a. Understanding reading. Fifth Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.• Smith, F. 1994b. Writing and the writer. Second Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.• Stahl, S., McKenna, M. and Pagnucco, J. 1994. The effects of whole-language instruction: Anupdate and reappraisal. Educational Psychologist 29 (4):175-185.• Weaver, C. 1994. Reading Process and Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.48

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierReforming Schools for English Language Learners:Achievement Gap ClosureBy Wayne P. Thomas & Virginia P. CollierGeorge Mason University, presentation at National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), 2001.This session provides an overview of our research findings to date from the National Study of SchoolEffectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-term Academic Achievement, federally funded byOERI, US Department of Education, 1996-2001, as one of the studies of the Center for Research onEducation, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE). As principal investigators, we establish collaborativeresearch agreements with each school district that chooses to participate, to follow every languageminority student who enters the school district for every year of his/her attendance in that school district,by each program type attended including the mainstream, and by cohorts of similar student background(e.g. SES, L1 & L2 proficiency upon entry, prior schooling). Measures of student achievement are thosegiven by the school district, including standardized test scores, and we report generalizations acrossschool districts based on group performance on standardized measures, in normal curve equivalents(NCEs- equal-interval percentiles). The school districts participating in the study have been promisedanonymity until they choose to self-identify. Our school districts use the results of our data analyses formore effective decision-making that is data-driven.Currently 16 school districts in 11 states are actively sending data. To enhance generalizability of ourfindings, we have data from 4 rural, 4 suburban, and 8 urban school districts, 4 border districts (nearCanada or Mexico), and a balanced representation of sites from all regions of the US (NW, SW, Midwest,Midsouth, NE, SE). The total number of language minority student records collected to date is over 2million, from 1982-2000.Our program effectiveness findings to date continue to confirm our findings from our 1991-1996 researchin five urban and suburban school districts. The pattern in our six-lined figure (Figure 1, with CaliforniaProposition 227 test results added) is now generalizable to our 16 additional school districts, with thefollowing points added:‣ Proposition 227 has resulted in even less gap closure than ESL pullout, the next lowest achievingprogram.‣ Typical end-of-school achievement for graduates of ESL pullout is 11 th percentile (24 th NCE) –highest is 18 th percentile (31 st NCE); and its dropout rate is highest among the programs.‣ ESL content (or sheltered instruction or segregated structured English immersion for 2-3 years)graduates reach the 22 nd percentile (34 th NCE) by the end of their high school years.‣ Transitional bilingual education (TBE) in a segregated classroom 2-3 years, reaches the 24 thpercentile (35 th NCE)‣ TBE for 3-4 years, integrated with native-English speakers for L2 half-day, reaches the 32 ndpercentile (40 th NCE).‣ Late-exit bilingual programs (5-6 years L2-L2 support) are perceived as remedial; although theyprovide as many years of L1 support as one-way developmental bilingual programs (DBE),student achievement is not as high as DBE but is generally higher achievement (40 th percentile,45 th NCE) than TBE (with only 2-4 years L1-L2 support).49

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier‣ Enrichment one-way and two-way DBE programs (also termed dual language, bilingualimmersion) are the only programs we have found to date that assist students to fully reach the 50 thpercentile in both L1 and L2 in all subjects and to maintain that level of high achievement, orreach even higher levels (highest we’ve seen is 83 rd percentile, 70 th NCE), through the end ofschooling. The fewest dropouts come from these programs.‣ In segregated, remedial programs, students do not close the achievement gap afterreclassification. Instead they maintain or widen the gap in later years. Therefore, their averageachievement NCE at reclassification should be as high as possible. Ideally this is bestaccomplished in an enriched (not a remedial) program.‣ Socioeconomic status influences only 5% of achievement with strong programs, but 18% forweaker programs.‣ The strongest predictor of student achievement in L2 is amount of formal schooling in L1.Instruction must meet students’ developmental needs: linguistic (L1-L2), academic, cognitive, emotional,social, physical. Schools need to create a natural learning environment in school, with lots of natural, richlanguage (L1, L2), both oral and written, used by students and teachers; meaningful, ‘real world’problem-solving; all students working together; media-rich learning (video, computers, print); challengingthematic units that get and hold students’ interest; and using students’ bilingual-bicultural knowledge tobridge to new knowledge across the curriculum. Programs must be effective (at least 3-4 NCEs gain peryear), well implemented, not segregated, and sustained long enough for gap closure to happen.Effect of Prop 2275040CA 2000 nonLEPNCE30CA 2000 StatewideCA 1998 Statewide20CA 2000 LEP10CA 1998 LEP0K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Elementary (expect 3-4 NCE/yr, gap closure) Middle (expect -1-4 High (expect -3 to +2 NCE/yr, gapNCE/yr, little gap closure)increase)Grade LevelsThis chart shows the original findings from the 1997 Collier and Thomas research, now furthersubstantiated by their continuing studies noted above.50

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierOriginal706050Two-way DBE w/ Content ESL40One-way DBE w/ Content ESLNCETransitional BE w/ content ESL30Transitional BE+ESLESL academic content (no L1)20ESL Pullout (no L1)100K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Elementary (expect 3-4 NCE/yr, gap closure) Middle (expect -1-4NCE/yr, little gapclosure)Grade LevelHigh (expect -3 to +2 NCE/yr,gap increase)Watch for Thomas & Collier publications on www.ncbe.gwu.edu under What’s New in the fall of 2001.51

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierLanguage Acquisition and the Bilingual Exceptional ChildBy J. S. de ValenzuelaFrom the Professional Development Resource Series, “Second Language Acquisition”, BUENOCenter, University of Colorado, Boulder (2000)OBJECTIVES• To emphasize the importance of understanding language acquisition in bilingual children• To discuss popular fallacies about bilingual children with exceptionalities• To define basic concepts of language• To overview language acquisition as a general process• To define second language acquisition• To compare and contrast first and second language acquisition• To examine some models of second language acquisition• To discuss current controversies in second language acquisitionIntroductionUnderstanding the process of language acquisition is crucial to the appropriate education andassessment of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. The purpose of this chapter isto provide a framework for considering how language development is different for bilingualchildren. This will hopefully lead educators to consider how bilingualism can effect the academicperformance and assessment of bilingual students and how it plays a part in the education ofCLD students with exceptionalities.In this chapter, “language acquisition” is used as a central concept, rather than “second languageacquisition.” This is done so with the intent of shifting the focus from examining how English isacquired to a more general examination of how bilingual students acquire language. There areseveral reasons for this shift in focus: 1) many bilingual students in this country begin theprocess of developing English before their native language is fully established and their languagedevelopment can most accurately be called “bilingual”; 2) understanding the effects of secondlanguage development on first language development will help us understand where students are,in terms of their overall language competence; and 3) incorrect assumptions about students’native language competence and development can lead to inappropriate referrals and erroneousassessment procedures. We cannot simply talk about acquisition of English as a second languagewithout considering the general process of language acquisition for bilingual students.There are many popular misconceptions about bilingualism, language acquisition, and bilingualstudents. Some people erroneously believe that students with exceptionalities cannot learn two(or more) languages. Others believe that encouraging the parents of CLD students, with andwithout exceptionalities, to speak with their children at home in English, is in the best interests ofthe students. Another common fallacy is that acquiring more than one language is “difficult” andcan lead to academic problems. Some teachers have been heard to suggest that their bilingualstudents don’t speak any language to a real extent and are “semilingual.” We will return to thesemyths at the end of this chapter. By then, the intervening information will have provided you53

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierwith enough understanding about the normal process of language acquisition that the faulty logicof these beliefs should be obvious.Regardless of whether the above beliefs lack grounding, they are very common and caninfluence how educators assess and educate CLD students. Without understanding how languageacquisition works, the continuation of these fallacies is understandable. Therefore, educatorsworking with bilingual students must understand the language acquisition process for effectiveimplementation of assessment and selection of appropriate intervention techniques.Defining LanguageLanguage is a dynamic constructWhat is “language”? The answer to this question is both extremely simple and extremelycomplex. Although we all know what it is, we may have a hard time defining it exactly. Insimple terms, we can say that language is how we communicate with one another. Webster’sUnabridged Dictionary (1986) defines language in the following ways:• The body of words and systems for their use common to a people who are of the samecommunity or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition• The system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (as opposed tospeech)• Any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a numberof people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another• Any system of formalized symbols, signs, gestures, or the like, used or conceived as ameans of communicating thought, emotion, etc.These definitions convey several important concepts, that language is: systematic (rulegoverned), symbolic, abstract, culturally relevant, and social. We can also say that language is adynamic construct, as it means different things to different people and in different contexts andbecause it is ever changing, both in terms of individual language and as generic concept. Thesedefinitions recognize that the word “school” in English means “a place where children go tolearn” only because our community has agreed that this is what it means. There is no inherentrelationship between this particular group of sounds and the concept “school.” Rather, therelationship is socially agreed upon.Language is also culturally defined. “School” means “school” because of how our culture defineswhat the institution of schooling is. Although individuals from other cultures may understand ingeneral the use of the term “school,” they may not have the same cultural understandings aboutschool that Americans do. For example, “school” in the United States conveys the idea of aparticular age group; young children through adolescents. However, in other countries, not allchildren are expected to participate in “schooling” nor is “school” restricted to a particular agegroup. A “third grader” might be an adult who simply had not completed this grade earlier inlife. The term “school” also conveys ideas about particular behaviors and activities that can varyfrom culture to culture. Just as our cultural background influences our behaviors and beliefs, italso shapes how we use language.Different Ways of Looking at LanguageWhen we talk about language, we can talk about it in different ways. As described above, we candiscuss the social and cultural components of language. More commonly, when we think about54

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierlanguage acquisition in schools, we think about the form of language. We can also talk about thecontent of language and about language use.We use terms such as syntax, morphology, and phonology when we talk about linguistic form.Syntax and morphology refer to the grammatical system of a language. Syntax governs the use ofdifferent word classes (such as nouns and verbs) and how these words are combined intointelligible and grammatical sentences. Morphology refers to the rule system that governs howwords are put together from smaller grammatical parts, such as root words, prefixes, andsuffixes. We refer to the internalized rule system for putting together sounds as our phonologicalsystem. For example, the phonological system of English prohibits certain types of consonantclusters in the beginning of words, which makes it difficult for native English speakers tocorrectly pronounce the names of the following cities: Mbandake (Zaire); Mtwara (Tanzania);and Mpika, Mzimba, and Shiwa Ngandu (Zimbabwe). These rules also govern whether the plural-s sounds like as “s” or a “z,” as in “dogs” and “cats.” No one consciously learns the rules ofphonology, morphology, and syntax of their native language. In fact, most people would be hardpressed to explain why they form words and sentences in the way they do - most of ourknowledge about language is unconscious.We can also talk about the content of language. When we talk about word meanings, we aretalking about semantics. Semantics refers to more than just vocabulary knowledge, or themeaning of words. Semantics also refers to the function of words. Understanding how wordsfunction is very important in child language research, as many times one word will assume manyfunctions, depending on the context. An example is “daddy go”, which could mean a variety ofdifferent things. Also, there is a relationship between content and form - what you want to saycan influence the form you select to use and the form of an utterance can affect the content.More recently, people have also started talking about language use, or pragmatics. This area isconcerned with the multitude of ways that people can say things and how this varies in differentsituations. Pragmatics involves language form and content, as well as other facets of language,such as intonation, hesitancies, pauses, loudness, and rate. Speakers should be able to switchstyles of speech according to different communicative contexts. An analysis of language use willidentify how well speakers can accommodate their speech production to different contexts. Forexample, the way students address their peers is most likely different from how they would greetthe school principal. Pragmatic language skills are acquired along with knowledge and use ofsyntax, morphology, phonology, and semantics. Children learn very quickly the language userules of their community and dialect, although, as with any linguistic ability, full competencetakes a matter of years to develop.Important Concepts in LinguisticsLinguistics has provided us with a framework for understanding language in a variety ofcontexts: historically, cross-culturally, developmentally and theoretically, to name just a few.Regardless of the different ways that we can talk about language, there are a few basic conceptsthat most language specialists hold in common. These concepts are: 1) the understanding the noone language is intrinsically better than another ; 2) the difference between prescriptive anddescriptive grammars; 3) the difference between linguistic competence and performance; 4) thedifference between receptive and expressive language abilities; and 5) commonalties among allliving languages, called linguistic universals.Is the English spoken by educated university professors in England intrinsically better than thatspoken by blue collar workers in the Appalachian Mountains of the United States? Socially,55

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierStandard English, and especially the form known as RP (“received pronunciation” after thedialect “received” in the royal court of England), is more prestigious than Appalachian English.But is RP really “better” or more “correct” than other dialects of English? From a purelylinguistic perspective, all languages and dialects are able to convey equally complex informationand are equally able to adapt to new situations, such as developing vocabulary for computertechnology. Speaking on a functional level, the question of “better” depends on the socialsituation. Clearly it would be awkward, less effective, and really quite inappropriate to use RP ata family party among working-class people who were raised in the Appalachians. So “better”depends upon the social situation and the ability to effectively convey a message, including therelevant social information. In fact, the mark of a truly accomplished communicator is the abilityto vary speaking styles according to the social situation. Although acquiring Standard English (orStandard Spanish for that matter) may be an appropriate academic goal, it is imperative thatteachers understand that students’ native dialects are as valid, functional, appropriate, andgrammatical as the standard dialect. Non-prestige forms should never be considered ”broken” or“corrupt” - they are legitimate and appropriate forms of speech in the students’ homecommunity. Educators must demonstrate respect for their students’ native dialect/language ifthey want them to acquire another.The goal of linguists is to describe the underlying rules and regularities of languages, withoutmaking judgments about the value of particular forms. They want to understand how languagefunctions under different circumstances and how to best describe the interaction of linguisticforms and their functions. That goal, the goal of language description, is very different fromlanguage prescription, which seeks conformity with a linguistic standard. Linguists recognizethat while “ain’t” and “gonna” are not considered “correct” in formal Standard English, theseverb forms are appropriate in informal speech for most speakers of Standard English and followa definite pattern of rules for the formation and use of these forms (I’m gonna, you’re gonna,we’re gonna, etc.). Although these words may not be socially correct in some circumstances,from a linguistic perspective, they are grammatically correct and well-formed. Whether aspecific grammatical construction is considered “correct” by the public has more to do with thesocial context and the prestige of a particular dialect, rather than any intrinsic value. StandardEnglish is considered correct English because it is the dialect associated with the dominant socialculture, not because it is inherently any better than any other dialect of English. As teachers, weneed to distinguish between dialectally inappropriate and grammatically incorrect productions.“Don’t have none” is dialectally inappropriate in Standard English but is not grammaticallyincorrect - the use of double negation is rule-governed and “grammatical” in many dialects andlanguages. However, using “goed” instead of “went” is grammatically incorrect - there is nodialect of English that uses that grammatical form.In fact, whether or not an individual uses “ain’t” or aren’t” or “gonna” or going to” when talkinginformally to friends does not tell us whether they could or would use the prestige form underdifferent circumstances. Observations of linguistic performance do not always indicate anindividuals’ linguistic competence. This distinction between competence and performance isimportant for teachers of CLD students to understand. Many constraints can operate to influencehow students produce language in the school context. Sometimes the situation will influence astudent to use a different language, dialect or speech style. Other times, the situation will inhibitthe student from using forms correctly (grammatically). This may especially occur underpressured situations when the student is in the process of acquiring English as a second language.This type of production error is akin to the common errors we all make when we are tired or56

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierunder stress. For example, an ice skater make not be able carry out a complicated jump duringcompetition, even though she had no difficulty with it during practice.Related to this idea that performance does not always give an accurate representation oflinguistic competence, is the understanding that expressive language skills do not always indicateaccurately the level of receptive language skills. Students may understand a grammatical form orvocabulary item even though they do not or cannot use it independently in speech. Sometimessecond language learners undergo what is termed a “silent period”; a period of time during whichthe student produces little or no spontaneous oral speech for communication with others. Duringthis time, which can vary from days to months, the student may understand more of what hehears than he is able to demonstrate through his speech. Conversely, young children and secondlanguage learners may produce words or phrases that they have heard without evidence of realcomprehension. Research indicates that repetition (either immediately or at a later time) ofoverheard utterances, even without comprehension and in inappropriate contexts, can be astrategy used by children in the process of learning a second language (Hakuta, 1986; Saville-Troike, 1988).Linguists have developed over the years a set of linguistic universals - facts which are believedto pertain to all languages. The following are from Fromkin and Rodman’s introductory text onlinguistics:1. Wherever humans exist, language exists.2. There are no “primitive” languages - all languages are equally complex and equallycapable of expressing any idea in the universe. The vocabulary of any language can be expandedto include new words for new concepts.3. All languages change through time.4. The relationships between the sounds and meanings of spoken languages and between thegestures (signs) and meanings of sign languages are for the most part arbitrary.5. All human languages utilize a finite set of discrete sounds (or gestures) that are combinedto form meaningful elements or words, which themselves form an infinite set of possiblesentences.6. All grammars contain rules for the formation of words and sentences of a similar kind.7. Every spoken language includes discrete sound segments like p, n, or a, which can all bedefined by a finite set of sound properties or features. Every spoken language has a class ofvowels and a class of consonants.8. Similar grammatical categories (for example, noun, verb) are found in all languages.9. There are semantic universals, such as “male” or “female,” “animate” or “human,” foundin every language in the world.10. Every language has a way of referring to past time, negating, forming questions, issuingcommands, and so on.11. Speakers of all languages are capable of producing and comprehending an infinite set ofsentences. Syntactic universals reveal that every language has a way of forming sentences suchas:Linguistics is an interesting subject.I know that linguistics is an interesting subject.You know that I know linguistics is an interesting subject.Cecilia knows that you know that I know that linguistics is an interesting subject.Is it a fact that Cecilia knows that you know that I know that linguistics is an interestingsubject?57

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier12. Any normal child, born anywhere in the world, of any racial, geographical, social, oreconomic heritage, is capable of learning any language to which he or she is exposed. Thedifferences we find among languages cannot be due to biological reasons. (Fromkin & Rodman,1988, p. 18-19).Language AcquisitionTheories of Language AcquisitionWhy do we study language acquisition? Depending on the orientation of the researcher, the studyof language acquisition can be either important in and of itself or as a mechanism forunderstanding other areas of research such as theoretical linguistics, cognitive psychology,neuroscience, or child development. Some want to know what the process of first and secondlanguage acquisition tell us about human development, learning, and organization of the brain.Others want to know about language acquisition so they can make recommendations abouteducational programs. Regardless of their research focus, all of these researchers must take aposition on some fundamental arguments about the development of language and its relationshipto other mental functions.Linguistic theory can be divided into several main camps depending on 1) whether language isviewed as either separate from or as an outgrowth of cognition and 2) whether languageacquisition is believed to be directed by a preprogrammed, language-specific area of the brain orwhether it is guided primarily by experiential factors. Noam Chomsky addressed both of theseissues when he proposed that human brains are “hardwired” for language acquisition via whathas come to be called the “Language Acquisition Device” or LAD (Chomsky, 1965). This isconsidered a “nativist” theoretical position. The development of this theory was in directopposition to B. F. Skinner’s ideas about the development of language as shaped by behavioralreinforcement received from a child’s environment (Skinner, 1957). Chomsky demonstrated thatthe language available in a child’s environment is far too complex and the reinforcement (i.e.praise) far too inconsistent to account for a behavioral model of language development. Althoughthe extent to which grammatical structures are specifically preprogrammed is still hotly debated(Bowerman, 1994), most child language specialists today agree that, at least to some extent, thehuman brain is predisposed to 1) attend differentially to language input, 2) process that inputaccording to some preset principles, and 3) formulate unconscious rules for languagecomprehension and production.This perspective of language as biologically driven has been traditionally considereddiametrically opposed to sociocultural perspectives that recognize the role of the environment inshaping language development. However, many child language researchers are coming to theconclusion that this does not necessarily need to be the case. Some have come to take theposition that “it is perfectly consistent to believe that, while much of language development isgoverned by the operation of powerful innate principles, some important aspects of earlylanguage development are significantly influenced by the child’s language experience” (Harris,1992, p. XI). These researchers, while acknowledging the existence of the biological basis oflanguage acquisition, also acknowledge that “interpretation and meaning are necessarilyembedded in cultural systems of understanding. If language is a meaning-making system andspeaking and listening are meaning-making activities, then accounts of these phenomena must atsome point draw on accounts of society and culture” (Ochs, 1988, p. 4). In recognition of theinfluence of culture, Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) refer to the process of language acquisition in58

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierthe sociocultural context as “language socialization.” Ochs defines socialization as “the processby which one becomes a competent member or society” (p. 5) and language socialization as“socialization through language and socialization to use language” (p.14). This perspectiverecognizes that linguistic competence involves much more than the ability to comprehend andproduce grammatically correct utterances. Language competence involves the ability to selectbetween a variety of possible options of linguistic form and content according the social contextand cultural norms, as well as interpreting subtle meanings that require extensive social andcultural knowledge. An example is knowing when “Would you like to sit down?” becomes anindirect command, a real question, or a comment on inappropriate behavior.The study of second language acquisition clearly fits within the above theoretical debate.Understanding how second language learners best acquire a new language may shed moreinformation about the relative influence of cognition, language-specific brain functions, andenvironmental influences. Unlike the process of first language acquisition in young children, theprocess of second language acquisition can be observed under a variety of circumstances. Therelative influences of age, personality, social context, type of language input and other factorscan be better isolated and explored. This information can, in turn, inform our understanding ofhow language acquisition as a generic process unfolds.The Process of First Language AcquisitionIt is a remarkable fact that, without special training or carefully sequenced linguistic input,every normal child acquires a natural language. The universality of language in our speciesstands in glaring contrast to the much more selective attainment of comparable cognitive skills,such as the ability to perform arithmatic calculations. A related fact is that every child in alinguistic community succeeds in converging on a grammatical system that is equivalent toeveryone else’s, despite considerable variability in linguistic experience. Moreover, childrenacquire language quite rapidly and with few wrong turns, considering the number of potentialpitfalls that exist (Crain, 1994, p. 364).Precursors to language production.Language acquisition is indeed a remarkable process. Children acquire the language(s) heardaround them and seem to do so in strikingly similar ways the world over. This process is evenmore remarkable when we consider what a child must know and be able to do to produce herfirst word, for example, “mama.” To answer this question, we need to distinguish between thereal use of a word for communicative purposes and the imitation of a string of sounds. It is easyfor first time parents, eagerly anticipating Joey’s first word, to interpret /mama/ as mother and/dada/ for daddy when the child is really just engaging in babbling or sound play. In order to call/mama/ or /dada/ a word, it should occur in consistent contexts, spontaneously (withoutimitation), and appear to indicate a communicative intent. Clearly, this can be difficult todetermine. However, if Joey says /dada/ when repeating sounds made during play with hismother and produces this consonant-vowel combination along with others, such as /baba/, /gaga/,and /dadada/, then we can probably suspect that it is not a real word. On the other hand, if Joeysees his father coming into the room and spontaneously looks at him and says /dada/, and inaddition, has done this before in a similar context, then there is a good likelihood that for him,/dada/ is now a word that means “Daddy.”For Joey to do this, what must he know and be able to do? He must have a variety of linguistic,cognitive, social, and perceptual competencies. It is amazing to consider all that a child must be59

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliercapable of to produce even one real word. This is as true for the child acquiring a secondlanguage as it is for her first.Linguistically, Joey has already developed quite a bit of knowledge about the phonology of hisfirst language. Studies have indicated that within the first year of life, children have alreadylearned what sounds and sound combinations are possible in their native language. Using theexample presented in the beginning of this chapter, native-English speaking infants learn that aword cannot start with “mb.” Joey has also learned how to produce a variety of sounds correctlyin English. Although his pronunciation is not adult-like, it is well-enough developed that manyearly words are grossly intelligible.Joey has also started understanding how language functions. Although first words can assume avariety of grammatical functions, young children have at least a basic understanding of what aword is and what different functions they can perform. Joey also understands the meaning ofvarious words, even though his understanding may not be exactly like that of an adult. To at leastsome extent then, Joey understands the words “mama” and “daddy.”In addition to understanding the early words that he produces, Joey understands their underlyingconcepts. To identify a mother, Joey has to understand what a mother is. His understanding ofthis concept, again, may not be exactly like that of an adult (he may conceive of a mother as anyfemale adult caregiver rather than one unique individual) but he clearly does have some idea.This means that Joey can also differentiate between individuals and can typically differentiatebetween genders and age groups. Joey must be able to understand a lot of what goes on aroundhim and differentiate and interpret relationships between objects, actions, sounds and people inhis environment.To produce one word, a child must also have acquire quite a bit of social and cultural knowledge.Words have social functions - they can be used to label, request, greet, query, and deny, to namejust a few. Therefore, by saying “mama”, Joey demonstrates his knowledge about the socialfunctions of language and his understanding of social relationships. He knows that words are tobe used interactively with others and he knows when and how to initiate and continuecommunicative interactions. He knows how to take conversational turns and he expects thatothers will respond to him in specific ways.Joey must have some useful auditory capabilities if he is producing his first words orally.Although deaf and severely hearing impaired children do begin to babble, they stop doing soaround the age of six months. Therefore, production of oral speech is dependent of the ability tohear. Joey is also able to process auditory input. He can distinguish between human speech andenvironmental sounds. Visual acuity is not necessary to the development of oral language,however, the language development of blind children has been studied and found to be affectedby their blindness. Clearly, children can do and know a lot, even before they ever produce theirfirst words.Language comprehension.What does it mean to understand a word? Language comprehension is not an all or nonephenomena. This idea is important for educators to understand. Children may be able to“comprehend” a word or phrase in some contexts and not in others. Children may firstcomprehend a word within a specific routine or context (such as “jacket” during a gettingdressed for going outside routine) and with an accompanying gesture or linguistic cue (such aspointing to or naming an item using known words, such as “doggie book”). We can say a childreally understands a word when she is able to follow a direction or identify an item, when the60

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieritem(s) involved are not present and the context is not routine. For example, a child demonstratessome amount of comprehension when she puts her shoes on after being asked to during adressing routine. She demonstrates greater comprehension when she is asked to “show me howyou put your shoes on” during a non-dressing situation, such as play testing. With secondlanguage learners, we must be careful that we do not either over- or under-estimate theirreceptive language abilities by failing to analyze the linguistic, social, situational, and/or gesturalcontext of comprehension.The process of language acquisition.Language acquisition does not progress randomly. Although there is significant individualvariation, children appear to acquire language in a fairly systematic fashion. The sequence ofacquisition of syntax and morphology, the manner in which these develop, and the developmentof phonology all appear to proceed in a somewhat consistent and systematic fashion.Evidence for the biological foundation of grammatical acquisition came with the discovery thatgrammatical morpheme acquisition appears to progress in an orderly fashion (Brown, 1973).Brown observed the grammatical development of three children, Adam, Eve and Sarah, over aperiod of several years and discovered that the order of appearance of the first 14 grammaticalmorphemes was the same for all three children. Table 6-1 lists these morphemes in their order ofappearance. Another classic study also found striking similarities in the sequence ofmorphological acquisition among native-English speaking children (deVilliers & deVilliers,1973).Figure 6-1Brown’s first 14 Morphemespresent progressive -ing (without auxiliary)“in”“on”regular plural –sirregular pastpossessive – suncontractible copula (to be as main verb)articlesregular past –edregular 3 rd personirregular 3 rd personuncontractible auxiliarycontractible copulacontractible auxiliaryIn addition to determining the sequence of acquisition of grammatical morphemes in English, theresearch by Brown (1973) and deVilliers and deVilliers (1973) was also important inestablishing parameters for when these morphemes should appear, in terms of stage of languagedevelopment. This research described children’s level of language development according to ameasure of utterance length - Mean Length of Utterance (MLU). A determination of MLU ismade by analyzing a 100 utterance language sample for the average length of child-produced61

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierutterances, in terms of morphemes. For example, the utterance 'Bobby hitting' has a morphemecount of 3, as 'hitting' includes both the verb 'to hit' and the present progressive morpheme -ing.This type of measure of language development, rather than age, is considered a better predictorof grammatical development, as children of similar chronological ages can vary greatly in theirlanguage acquisition. Therefore, researchers have attempted to determine in what order and atwhat stage of linguistic development different language forms should appear.Until recently, most research has focused on similarities in grammatical development, with theaccompanying perception that all normal children follow a relatively fixed and stable pattern ofgrammatical development. However, more recently, investigators have begun to question thisassumption, with research that indicates a greater variability than previously assumed (Lahey,Liebergott, Chesnick, Menyuk & Adams, 1982). Given the original research indicating veryconsistent patterns of grammatical acquisition among middle-class native-English speakers, thistrend was assumed to hold for non-dominant culture English speakers, as well as childrenacquiring languages other than English.A considerable amount of research on the grammatical development of native-Spanish speakershas been performed, with the goal of finding a consistent order of acquisition of morphemes suchas been found among middle class, native English speakers (e.g. González, 1978; Kvaal,Shipstead-Cox, Nevitt, Hodson & Launer, 1988; Olarte, 1985; Vivas, 1979). However, in a metaanalysisof these studies, Merino (1992) found that no more than very gross generalities could befound, such as the acquisition of the present tense before the subjective. These findings haveimportant implications for the language assessment of bilingual and non-English speakingchildren.These studies that indicate that the order and developmental age of appearance of morphemesmay not be as consistent as previously thought should warn educators and assessment personnelagainst making judgements about grammatical development for the purposes of determiningspecial educaiton placement. We need to be very cautious when making comparisons ofindividual children against assumed benchmarks of “normal” development. These guidelines ofmorphological development should be seen as generalities and deviance from this observedprogression should not be taken as indications of a language problem.In addition to research focused on the stage and sequence of grammatical development,researchers have also looked at the process by which children acquire grammatical forms. Thisprocess was assumed to be a matter of modeling, imitation and reinforcement when Skinner’sbehavioral model of language development was in vogue. However, researchers have sinceobserved that children seem to go through a process of hypothesis testing. Children may acquirea form of a word, such as “went” without acquiring the rule for irregular past tenses. Later, whenthey acquire the rule for formation of regular past tenses, they may overgeneralize the rule,forming productions such as “goed”. As they fine tune their system of grammatical rules andacquire the irregular past tense, they will once again correctly produce “went”. During thisperiod of over-extensions, children may be very resistant to corrections of forms that they havenot yet acquired. Table 6-2 provides an example of a hypothetical, but typical mother-childinteraction that demonstrates children’s attention to the truthfulness, rather than the grammaticalcorrectness of the input. In fact, observations of mother-child dyads indicate that parents respondmore to the truthfulness of the child’s productions, rather than to the grammatical form. This ismore evidence of why the behavioral model of language learning has been rejected as untenable.Figure 6-262

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierExample of Grammatical Over-extensionChild:Mom:Child:he falled downno Timmy, he fell downyeah, he falled downSimilar to grammatical acquisition, phonological acquisition appears to follow a general patternof development, with some sounds typically appearing earlier than other. In general, sounds suchas ‘p’, ‘b’, and ‘m’ appear very early, even across different cultures. Other sounds, such as ‘s’,‘th’, ‘r’, and ‘l’, typically appear much later. However, as with all generalities, these patternsmay not hold for individual children. Although a normally developing English-speaking childmay not correctly produce ‘r’ in all phonological contexts until age 5 or 6, some 3 year olds canproduce this sound without difficulty. This is one more reason that we must take a child’s totallanguage abilities into consideration when evaluating their language competence: language form,content, and use all must be assessed.Input influences.Even if we accept a strong nativist position, the influence of external input on the process oflanguage acquisition is undeniable. A child growing up in China learns to speak Chinese, notbecause of a physical predisposition, but because that is the language of his environment. If thatsame child had been born in the United States, of monolingual English speaking, Chinese-American parents, his native language would be English. Obviously the language of input is thelanguage that will be acquired.A child raised in a home where American Sign Language (ASL) is the dominant language, willacquire that code. In addition to the language of input, the mode of input, signed or spoken, willdetermine the language acquired. Sign language, just like spoken language, is a complex,systematic, rule-governed code. The linguistic universals discussed in the beginning of thischapter apply to sign languages just as to oral languages.The language and mode of input are unarguable examples of the influence of external factors.The influence of other factors though, are more questionable. Some researchers have found thatthe way that parents speak to their children may affect early vocabulary development (Beals &Tabors, 1995; Harris, 1992). However, what long-term affect different maternal styles will haveis still unknown. At one time, the typical way that middle-class English-speaking motherscommunicate with their children was thought to a universal pattern. The elevated pitch,expressive intonation and the tendency to treat even very young infants as capablecommunicative partners has been termed “motherese.” However, by the 1980s evidence fromcross-cultural studies has begun to reveal that what was once considered a universalcommunication style with young children, and necessary for facilitation of language acquisitionis not found in all cultures (Ochs, 1982, 1988; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Although there areconsiderable differences in the ways that adults communicate with young children and theexpectations they have for children’s participation in conversation, children the world overacquire language fluently and competently.Second Language AcquisitionThe focus of this chapter has been on language acquisition as a general process and on firstlanguage acquisition as providing fundamental understandings about the development of63

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierlanguage. Although in many important ways, second language acquisition differs from firstlanguage acquisition, it is an error with CLD students to focus only on their development inEnglish. The extent to which they have had a chance to develop their native language can haveimportant implications for second language acquisition (Cummins, 1991). Studies indicate thatstudents acquire their second language better if they have a firm foundation in their nativelanguage. Additionally, the acquisition of a second language for very young children may bemore similar to first language acquisition than the second language acquisition process of anadult.Different Types of Language AcquisitionSecond language acquisition has typically been divided into two categories, depending on theage of acquisition of the second language. Second language acquisition before the age of threehas been considered concurrent or simultaneous language acquisition. The simultaneousdevelopment of two language from birth is also sometimes called bilingual language acquisition.Many of the early second language acquisition studies fall into this category, as they typicallyinvolved the observation of a researcher’s own child who was acquiring two languageconcurrently (see Redlinger, 1979 for a review of this research). Summarizing the researchregarding bilingual language development, Garcia (1983) drew the following tentativeconclusions:1. Children can and do acquire more than one language during early childhood.2. The acquisition of two languages need not hamper the acquisition of either language.3. The acquisition of two languages can be parallel but need not be. That is, one languagemay lag behind, surge ahead, or develop simultaneously with the other language (p. 7).Exposure to the second language after the age of three has been considered sequential languageacquisition (Kessler, 1984). However, there is no evidence that age three is a magical number, atwhich point the acquisition process changes dramatically. This division is an artificial one, whichbest serves to emphasize that early exposure to two languages is different from acquisition at alater stage of development. Sequential language acquisition is also sometimes divided intodifferent categories, such as early and late sequential bilingualism (Kessler). However, it mightbe most realistic to view these different categories of second language development (bilingual,concurrent/simultaneous, early sequential and late sequential) along a continuum, ranging fromtrue bilingual language acquisition to second language acquisition in adulthood.The Process of Bilingual/Second Language AcquisitionDepending upon the age of acquisition of the second language, there will be more or lesssimilarities to first language acquisition. Currently, there is much debate about the extent towhich the processes of first and second language acquisition are similar. According to Kessler(1984, p. 33) “while research does not support the hypothesis that the acquisition of a secondlanguage is identical to that of the first language, neither does it support the position that the twoprocesses are different.” Part of the difficulty differentiating between these two processes is thatthere is still much disagreement between researchers as to the exact nature of first languageacquisition. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the extent to which a language dedicatedfunction of the brain, such as a LAD, or general cognitive development is responsible is stillhotly debated. Additionally, the literature is not consistent in supporting the importance of otherfactors, such as parental input, in first language acquisition. Without agreement as to how firstlanguage acquisition proceeds, it will be very difficult to achieve consensus about the similarity64

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieror difference of this process to second language acquisition. Nevertheless, it is possible to drawsome tentative conclusions.Similarities to first language acquisition.In general, we can say that the process of grammatical development, the relationship ofcomprehension to production, and the role of hypothesis testing and formulaic speech aresomewhat similar in first and second language development.Although we cannot specify the exact order of morphological development for second languagelearners (i.e. Brown’s first 14 morphemes), we can observe that the process is not random.Grammatical forms develop, just as in first language acquisition, in a relatively orderly andsystematic fashion. Depending upon the individual’s native language and learning context, somegrammatical forms will be acquired before others. Second language learners will not begin to useall forms correctly at once; the process will be incremental and reflect common language usepatterns of the language being acquired. For example, the passive grammatical construction willmost likely not be the first to be used correctly in the speech of either a first or second languagelearner.Second language learners, depending upon the environment in which they are acquiring theirsecond language, may undergo a similar process of hypothesis testing, in which they first acquirea non-productive grammatical form. Non-productive refers to an utterance that may appeargrammatically correct, but which the learner has acquired as an unanalyzed whole. An examplewould be the student who uses “it’s mine” to indicate possession of an object. However, if thestudent has not acquired the contractible copula, he probably cannot produce other phrases usingthe components of this utterance, such as “it’s not yours,” “it’s all right,” or “that’s mine.” Theseunanalyzed whole utterances, called prefabricated utterances (Hakuta, 1986) or formulaic speech(Wong Fillmore, 1994), play a role in the acquisition of first and second language. When learnersacquire the grammatical rule for formation of a particular construction, they may over-extend itsusage to inappropriate contexts. Just as the first language learner may begin to use “goed” inplace of went, second language learners may also begin to over-extend their grammatical rules.When using formulaic utterances, second language learners may generally understand the socialcontext for their use, without really understanding what the utterance means. Diaz, Padilla andWeathersby (1991) observed their research subjects using English words in contexts where itwas clear the students did not understand the word meaning, such as in imitation of nativespeakers or in sound play. This type of production without corresponding competence can alsobe observed in first language learners.Just as production does not necessarily imply competence, comprehension does not always implyproduction. First language learners may understand more than they are able to produce.Likewise, second language learners may exhibit a period of time during which they do notactively engage in verbal communication. This “silent period” does not indicate that studentshave a lack of comprehension - they may be actively acquiring language competence eventhough they are not yet ready to speak.Differences from first language acquisition.Studies indicate that social interaction is important for second language acquisition(Chesterfield, Hayes-Latimer, Chesterfield & Chávez, 1983) just as it is for first languagelearners. However, the contexts under which second language learners acquire their secondlanguage may vary greatly. Snow (1992) concurs, finding that “the social and the cultural65

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliersituatedness of language learning and use...constitute a much greater source of variation insecond- than first-language acquisition” (p. 17). Second language learners may not be exposed totheir second language outside of a formal learning environment. They may not be exposed to aswide a range of social experiences. Therefore, we can say that the amount, type and variation ofinput may differ greatly between first and second language acquisition and that this can influenceand rate and quality of second language acquisition.The simple fact of already having acquired a language is different for second language learners.According to Kessler (1984), for second language learners, “increased age, cognitive maturityand more extensive language experience are variables which can serve to enhance the process”(p.49). They may be able to draw upon information about language structures and language usefrom their native language experiences. Although the use of native language grammatical formsin the second language may be looked at as errors or “native language interference,” it can alsobe seen as a resource that learners can call upon to increase their communicative competence.Although the structures may not be grammatically correct, they may allow the speaker to achievesome level of fluency early in the acquisition process.With increased age and experience, learners may also be able to capitalize on cognitive strategiesunavailable to first language learners. Second language learners may be able to use consciouslearning strategies, such as mnemonics, to remember new vocabulary. They may already havenative language literacy skills, making it easier to acquire second language literacy. Due togreater knowledge and life experiences, they may be better able to anticipate and interpret thecontext of utterances, thereby facilitating comprehension.Unlike monolingual first language acquisition, where the language acquired is the language ofthe child’s environment and community, bilingual or second language acquisition may involveissues of differential language status. When a child’s native language is not that of the dominantculture, it may not be considered a high status language. This is the case in the United States formany immigrant languages, such as Spanish, Hmong and Vietnamese. The social de-valuing of astudent’s native language may have repercussions for both continued native languagedevelopment as well as second language development. These second language learners are at riskfor native language loss and/or difficulty acquiring English as a second language.Critical Periods.Related to the issue of similarities and differences between first and second language acquisitionis the notion of critical periods for language development. This idea comes from theneurosciences, where it has been discovered that some parts of the brain must receive stimulationfor development. For example, studies of critical periods in the development of the visual systemhave been performed with cats. Researchers have found that if kitten’s eyes are covered with eyepatches for a specific period of time during infancy, then after the patches are removed, thekittens will be blind. This type of experiment has shown that certain functions of the brain mustbe activated by stimulation and furthermore, that this stimulation must occur during a specificperiod of development. Up until a certain point of development, the brain is considered to be“plastic”, that is, receptive to new input (Hoffman, 1991).Following this research, linguistics hypothesized that there may be a critical period for languageacquisition as well. This is a multi-faceted issue that incorporates several different sub-questions:1. Is there a critical period for exposure to a first language?66

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier2. Is there a critical period only during which a Language Acquisition Device functions,after which the LAD ceases to function, affecting continued language acquisition (i.e. secondlanguage acquisition)?3. Are adults or children “better” at acquiring language?Research with individuals who have been deaf since birth or who became deaf before acquiringtheir first language indicates that there may be a critical period during which time exposure to afirst language is necessary for well-developed language. Some deaf individuals have been raisedin homes where they were not exposed to sign language until they were 5 or 6 years old andsubsequently began attending a school where sign language was used. As adults, theseindividuals’ language abilities have been found to be different from those of other deaf adultswho were exposed to sign language at an earlier age (Newport, 1993). This research seems toindicate that acquisition of a language during early childhood is important to the end result andsupports the idea of a possible critical period for exposure to a first language.However, even if we accept that early exposure to language is necessary to trigger the languagespecific portions of the brain, this does not necessarily imply that a LAD only functions during aspecific time period, once triggered. After all, adults clearly can learn a second language, underoptimal conditions. However, some research suggests that a critical period may exist for somefeatures of grammatical acquisition (Newport, 1993). Additionally, it is a common observationthat children acquire native-like accents much more readily than adults. Some have taken this asevidence that there may be a critical period for the establishment of neuro-muscular patterns(Hoffman, 1991). However, according to Hoffman, this issue has clearly not been resolved.Many times, what people really want to know when they discuss critical periods is whetheradults or children learn language better. First, it is important to clarify a popular misconception -that young children acquire language at a rapid pace unmatched by second language learners.Consider the grammatical, semantic and pragmatic development of a two year old. A toddler isjust beginning to put two-and three-words together and although competent in communicatingmost basic needs, is not nearly as functional as we expect a second language learner to be aftertwo years of exposure to English. Many second language learners in our school are“transitioned” to English-only classes after only two years of bilingual instruction, if they arelucky enough to have received this much native language instruction. We clearly have muchgreater expectations of linguistic competence for our school-aged second language learners thanwe do of toddlers.Whether or not first language learners have an advantage, in terms of a critical period, olderlearners may also have certain advantages, in terms of better developed cognitive abilities andgreater social and linguistic experiences. Additionally, discussions of the best time to learn asecond language cannot be placed within the context of “all things being equal, are younger orolder learners better at acquiring a second language?” The problem with this type of discussion isthat all things are not equal for all individuals. When considering the best time to expose astudent to a second language, factors other than age must be considered, such as level ofdevelopment of the native language, type of educational programs available, support for the firstand second languages in the environment, and student motivation. These factors may faroutweigh any physiological or cognitive advantage experienced during a specific developmentalstage.67

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierModels of Second Language AcquisitionIn this section, we will consider three well-known models of second language acquisition, thoseproposed by Krashen (1981), Wong Fillmore (1991a) and Cummins (1981). Although all ofthese models have been criticized to some extent, and no one alone is sufficient to explain theprocess of second language acquisition in all contexts, they have had a significant impact on ourunderstanding of how second language learners function in academic contexts and have greatlyinfluenced pedagogy. Perhaps the greatest impact of these models has been the recognition ofhow both factors internal to the student as well as the environment can influence the pace andquality of language development. Previous pedagogical styles, such as the audio-lingual method,became much less popular after the introduction of these models. Other teaching methods,emphasizing the natural acquisition of language in real communicative contexts and attention tolearner motivation have been developed and implemented.Krashen.Krashen’s model of second language acquisition has five primary hypotheses: 1) The AcquisitionLearning Hypothesis, 2) The Natural Order Hypothesis, 3) The Monitor Hypothesis, 4) The InputHypothesis, and 5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis. This model, along with Cummins’, waspresented in 1981 in a text produced by the Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center atCalifornia State University, Los Angeles, as well as in other publications. This text has recentlybeen updated, although the primary tenet of the original proposals remain. Readers areencouraged to use this as a resource for further understanding of these theories. Krashensummarizes all five hypothesizes with the following statement:People acquire second language when they obtain comprehensible input and when their affectivefilters are low enough to allow the input in. In other words, comprehensible input is the onlycausative variable in second language acquisition. All other factors thought to encourage orcause second language acquisition only work when they are related to comprehensible input.(1994, p. 58).With this statement, Krashen emphasizes two primary parts of his model, namely,comprehensible input and the affective filter. The input hypothesis postulates that learnersacquire language from input that is just above their current competence, which Krashensymbolizes as i + 1. This idea of facilitative input being just beyond the learner’s current level issomewhat similar to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). A learner’s ZPD is justbeyond her current independent level, but within her grasp with assistance from another. This“scaffolding” of learner’s current competence with assisted performance has influenced teachingtechniques in many different areas, not only second language instruction.The second important part of Krashen’s model involves what he calls an “affective filter.” Thisfilter in composed of those affective variables that have been found to influence second languageacquisition. These variables are: 1) anxiety, 2) motivation, and 3) self-confidence. According tothis theory, these learner variables can block access to the learner’s LAD. By referring to a LAD,Krashen is taking an implicit stance on two theoretical issues in language acquisition: that thebrain is biologically predisposed to acquire language and that it is not significantly influenced bymaturational factors (critical period).Wong Fillmore.Wong Fillmore’s model of second language learning in social context is not contradictory withKrashen’s model. This researcher identified three components necessary for second languagelearning which interact with three types of processes. The necessary components are the learnersthemselves, speakers of the target language, and a social setting that allows second language68

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierlearners and proficient speakers to interact. The processes identified in this model are 1) social,2) linguistic, and 3) cognitive. These three processes are interrelated with each other, as well aswith the three components. The social skills of the second language learner, as well as competentspeakers of the target language, will influence the social setting. Linguistic processes influencehow second language learners and target language speakers use and interpret language. Usingone of Krashen’s ideas, we can say that the assumptions that target language speakers hold aboutlanguage will influence whether they produce comprehensible input when communicating withsecond language learners. The linguistic expectations that second language learners hold willinfluence how they interpret that input. Cognitive processes “involve the analytic procedures andoperations that take place in the heads of learners and ultimately result in the acquisition of thatlanguage” (Wong Fillmore, 1991a, p. 56). This idea that second language learners can draw uponcognitive skills is one of the hypothesized differences between first and second languageacquisition and may help accommodate for the decreasing importance or effect of a criticalperiod for a functioning LAD, if indeed such as maturational decrease does occur.Cummins.Cummins (1981) postulates three principles related to second language acquisition: 1) theconversational/academic language proficiency principle, 2) the linguistic interdependenceprinciple, and 3) the additive bilingual enrichment principle. The issue of how to define languageproficiency will be addressed in greater detail in chapter 7. Cummins proposed an interestingdichotomy between communicative skills, what he terms Basic Interpersonal CommunicationSkills (BICS) and the language proficiency required for academic success, Cognitive AcademicLanguage Proficiency (CALP). He postulates that educators can make false assumptions aboutstudent’s total language proficiency when they rely primarily on observations of students’ abilityto participate in social conversation.The linguistic interdependence principle posits “a common underlying proficiency (CUP) modelin which the literacy-related aspects of a bilingual’s proficiency in L1 and L2 are seen ascommon or interdependent across languages” (Cummins, 1981, p. 18). This principle isconsistent with Wong Fillmore’s postulated linguistic and cognitive processes, which secondlanguage learners originally develop via their native language but which they can access forsecond language acquisition.The additive bilingual enrichment principle draws upon Lambert’s (1975) idea of additivebilingualism as the acquisition of a second language without detriment to the first. Subtractivebilingualism, in contrast, is the replacement of the first language by the second. Cummins’principle suggests that additive second language acquisition has a positive cognitive benefit forlearners, when they are able to acquire a high degree of proficiency in both languages. Hesummarizes the research on the cognitive effects of bilingualism with the following statement:The development of additive bilingual and biliteracy skills entails no negative consequences forchildren’s academic, linguistic, or intellectual development. On the contrary, although notconclusive, the evidence points in the direction of subtle metalinguistic, academic, andintellectual benefits for bilingual children. (Cummins, 1994, p. 27).Saville-Troike.As Cummins stated, research does not support the hypothesis that bilingualism is tantamount to acognitive deficit. Many research studies and literature reviews have supported the idea thatadditive bilingualism is a cognitive benefit (for example, see Ben-Zeev, 1984; Bialystok &Cummins, 1991; Diaz & Klingler, 1991; Malakoff & Hakuta, 1991; and Ricciardelli, 1992).69

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierOther research has focused on more applied dimensions of these theories. A group of researchersinvestigated the effects of different language competencies on the academic performance ofsecond language learners from a variety of linguistic backgrounds (Saville-Troike, 1984). Theresults indicated the following four generalizations:1. In English, a well-developed vocabulary is the most important aspect of oral Englishproficiency for academic achievement.2. Oral practice may not be necessary for the development of English proficiency and insome instances may retard acquisition. An emphasis on interpersonal communication maytherefore inhibit academic achievement.3. A focus on structural patterns, especially grammatical inflections, appears to contributionlittle toward meeting students’ immediate academic needs. When participating in realcommunicative interaction, most beginning students do not use grammatical inflections.4. Social interaction between students is not sufficient for development English languageskills.5. Students who had opportunities to discuss academic concepts in their native languagewith other children or adults obtained the highest performance in content area knowledge, asmeasured by tests in English.What Does This Mean for Students with Exceptionalities?To understand how all of this information applies to students with or suspected as havingdisabilities, we now return to the fallacies introduced at the beginning of this chapter.1) Fallacy: Students with exceptionalities cannot learn two (or more) languages.The reality is that many CLD with disabilities must learn a second language. If a child withdisabilities speaks a home language other than English, she must acquire a second language toparticipate in the school environment. Although research does suggest that some children mayacquire a second language more slowly, especially if they exhibited language difficulties in theirnative language (Kessler, 1984), this should not dissuade educators from assisting their students’second language acquisition as much as possible. Therefore, the real question becomes, shouldthe language of instruction for CLD students with disabilities be the student’s first or secondlanguage. Studies suggest that, just as for students without disabilities, a second language is bestacquired from a firm and well-developed first language foundation (Perozzi, 1985; Perozzi &Sanchez, 1992). This research suggests that grammatical forms are most quickly and accuratelyacquired in English when they have first been taught in the student’s native language. Thissupports a bilingual approach to special education with CLD students.2) Fallacy: Parents of CLD students, with and without exceptionalities, should speak with theirchildren at home in English.This advice, although popular, is incorrect for several reasons. As discussed above, students willbest acquire a second language if their first language is well-established. Second, asking parentswho may not be able to provide an adequate language model in English to restrict the use of theirmore proficient language is absurd. Parents will neither be able to stimulate their child’slanguage development nor will they be able to communicate easily for social purposes with theirchild. Wong Fillmore (1991b, p. 343) makes the following poignant observation:When parents are unable to talk to their children, they cannot easily convey to them their values,beliefs, understandings, or wisdom about how to cope with their experiences. They cannot teachthem about the meaning of work, or about personal responsibility, or what it means to be a moralor ethical person in a world with too many choices and too few guideposts to follow. What is lost70

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierare the bits of advice, the consejos parents should be able to offer children in their everydayinteractions with them. Talk is a crucial link between parents and children: It is how parentsimpart their cultures to their children and enable them to become the kind of men and womenthey want them to be. When parents lose the means for socializing and influencing their children,rifts develop and families lose the intimacy that comes from shared beliefs and understandings.3) Fallacy: Acquiring more than one language is “difficult” and can lead to academic problems.Cummins’ additive bilingualism enrichment principle and the research on the cognitive benefitsof bilingualism clearly suggest that bilingualism is not a burden for students. In fact, in manyparts of the world, it is a common part of daily life. When fluently bilingual parents areencouraged to raise their children monolingually, as in the case of a 1995 child custody case inwhich Texas State District Judge, Samuel C. Kaiser equated raising the child of a bilingualmother in a Spanish-speaking home as tantamount to child abuse, beliefs about bilingualism as acognitive deficit are reinforced. Regardless of the cognitive benefits, bilingualism is of socialbenefit in our global village and can only have positive outcomes when students leave school andseek employment.4) Fallacy: Some bilingual students don’t speak any language to a real extent and are“semilingual.”This idea of “semilingualism” can be compelling when we do not understand languageacquisition. Educators may confuse students undergoing a “silent period” as demonstrating alack of ability to communicate. Remember all that a child has to know to be able to say even oneword in his first language. Even those children who demonstrate little expressive language in theschool environment (in their first or second language) bring with them a wealth of informationabout the phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, and language use patterns of their nativelanguage. Additionally, standardized tests developed based on standard dialects in English andthe student’s native language may fail to identify their communicative competence.There are three important concepts that relate to this issue of language competence in bilingualchildren: language attrition, semilingualism, and code switching. Language attrition is arecognized phenomena in which an individual loses all or part of her native languagecompetence. It can happen naturally as a result of immigration and the lack of opportunities tocommunicate in a particular language. For adults who have immigrated without their families toa new country and rarely return for visits, this may occur over time. It can also happen to youngchildren who are exposed to a new language at school before their first language has been wellestablished or where there is a significant discrepancy between the social prestige of the twolanguages. Language attrition is a common phenomena in the United States among children fromdiscriminated and dominated ethnic groups, such as Hispanics. The preliminary results of theNational Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) No-Cost Study on Families indicate thatthe early exposure to English, by enrollment of non-English background children in preschoolprograms that are not conducted exclusively in the children’s home language, results in a shift inuse of the native language at home and leads to language attrition (Wong Fillmore, 1991b).Merino (1982) found that among the native-Spanish speaking children in her research project,language attrition occurred by the fourth grade, and sometimes even earlier. She also found thatlanguage attrition initially affects later developing skills and abilities. The dynamic relationshipbetween increasing second language proficiency and first language loss can result in a temporarystage in which the child appears limited in both languages.The problem with applying the label of “semilingualism” to these children is twofold: 1) thisterm suggests a difficulty in acquiring language and does not recognize that children may have71

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierlost language skills they once possessed, and 2) this term implies a resultant cognitive deficit.Although bilingual children from non-dominant culture backgrounds do have a higherpercentage of below average academic performance, there is no evidence that this stems from acognitive problem brought about by their bilingualism. Inappropriate academic programs andhome-school incongruities have been suggested as reasons for these academic problems. In fact,one of the major problems facing our school system today is the lowered academic achievementof all culturally different youth, regardless of whether they speak a home language other thanEnglish or not.Sometimes the term semilingual is applied because educators observe students speaking whatthey consider to be a mixture of two languages. However, research has indicated that what mayappear to a monolingual speaker to be a random hodgepodge of two different languages is in facta systematic and socially governed interplay between two separate and well-developed linguisticsystems (Genishi, 1981). In fact, that students are able to switch back and forth between twodistinct codes is a sign of linguistic maturity. Code-switching refers to “the use of two or morelinguistic varieties in the same conversation or interaction” (Scotton & Ury, 1977, p. 5). This caninvolve switching between social styles or registers or between different languages. Most peoplecode switch as a regular part of social interactions, but we don’t even recognize what we aredoing because it is such a normal part of communication. When we are talking with a friend andusing informal speech and then start speaking more formally when the boss walks by, we areengaging in “code-switching.” Research suggests that bilingual children are able to differentiatebetween their two languages at a very early age, even as young as age two (Lindholm & Padilla,1978; Meisel, 1987). Therefore, we can conclude that the use of two different languages, as wellas a range of social styles, merely makes a bilingual individual able to communicate in a widerrange of social contexts. Depending on the social situation and the community norms, bilingualcode-switching may be more or less prevalent. However, regardless of the frequency of codeswitching,it should not be taken as evidence that a child is “semilingual.”SummaryIn this chapter, the foundations for first and second language acquisition were reviewed. Centralconcepts in linguistic and child language were presented and discussed in terms of theirimplications for second language acquisition. The similarities and differences between first andsecond language acquisition were delineated. Three current theories of second languageacquisition, those developed by Krashen (1981), Wong Fillmore (1991a), and Cummins (1981)were summarized and their central tenets were compared with the research literature forfeasibility. In light of the information presented on linguistic fundamentals and first and secondlanguage acquisition, the four common fallacies which were presented at the beginning of thechapter were revisited. These were considered with regard to CLD students both with andwithout disabilities. The information presented in this chapter should allow the reader to makemore informed observations and assessment and intervention decisions regarding CLD studentsin the schools.REFERENCESBeals, D. E., & Tabors, P. O. (1995). Arboretum, bureaucratic and carbohydrates: Preschoolers’exposure to rare vocabulary at home. First Language, 15, 57-76.72

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierBen-Zeev, S. (1984). Bilingualism and cognitive development. In N. Miller (Ed.), Bilingualismand language disability: Assessment and remediation (pp. 55-80). San Diego: College-Hill Press.Bialystok, E., & Cummins, J. (1991). Language, cognition, and education of bilingual children.In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 222-232). Cambridge,Mass: Cambridge University Press.Bowerman, M. (1994). Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive predispositionsplay? In P. Bloom (Ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings (pp. 329-363). Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UniversityPress.Chesterfield, R., Hayes-Latimer, K., Chesterfield, K. B., & Chávez, R. (1983). The influence ofteachers and peers on second language acquisition in bilingual preschool programs. TESOLQuarterly, 17(3), 401-419.Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Crain, S. (1994). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. In P. Bloom (Ed.),Language acquisition: Core readings (pp. 364-409). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educationalsuccess for language minority students. In Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Schooling andlanguage-minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-47). Los Angeles: Evaluation,Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingualchildren. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89).Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Cummins, J. (1994). The role of primary language development in promoting educationalsuccess for language minority students. In Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Schooling andlanguage-minority students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 3-46). Los Angeles:Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.deVilliers, J., & deVilliers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammaticalmorphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 267-278.Diaz, R. M., & Klingler, C. (1991). Towards an explanatory model of the interaction betweenbilingualism and cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingualchildren (pp. 167-192). Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Diaz, R. M., Padilla, K. A., & Weathersby, E. K. (1991). The effects of bilingualism onpreschoolers’ private speech. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 377-393.Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1988). An introduction to language. (4 th ed.). New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Garcia, E. E. (1983). Bilingual acquisition and bilingual instruction. In T. H. Escobedo (Ed.),Early childhood bilingual education: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 3-17). New York: TeachersCollege Press.Genishi, C. (1981). Codeswitching in Chicano six-year-olds. In R. P. Durán (Ed.), Latinolanguage and communicative behavior (pp. 133-152). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.González, G. (1978). The acquisition of Spanish grammar by native Spanish speaking children.Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism: Basic Books.Harris, M. (1992). Language experience and early language development: From input to uptake.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.73

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierHoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. New York: Longman.Kessler, C. (1984). Language acquisition in bilingual children. In N. Miller (Ed.), Bilingualismand language disability (pp. 26-54). San Diego: College-Hill Press.Krashen, S. D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In BilingualEducation Office (Ed.), Schooling and language-minority students: A theoretical framework (pp.51-79). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.Kvaal, J. T., Shipstead-Cox, N., Nevitt, S. G., Hodson, B. W., & Launer, P. B. (1988). Theacquisition of 10 Spanish morphemes by Spanish-speaking children. Language, Speech, andHearing Services in Schools, 19, 384-394.Lahey, M., Liebergott, J., Chesnick, M., Menyuk, P., & Adams, J. (1982). Variability inchildren’s use of grammatical morphemes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 373-398.Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A.Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students (pp. 55-83). Toronto: OISE Press.Lindholm, K. J., & Padilla, A. M. (1978). Language mixing in bilingual children. Journal ofChild Language, 5, 327-335.Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals.In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals (pp. 141-166). Cambridge, Mass:Cambridge University Press.Meisel, J. M. (1987). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In K. Hyltenstam &L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss(pp. 13-40). Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Merino, B. J. (1982). Order and pace of syntactic development of bilingual children. In J. A.Fishman & G. D. Keller (Eds.), Bilingual education for Hispanic students in the United States(pp. 446-464). New York: Teachers College Press.Merino, B. J. (1992). Acquisition of syntactic and phonological features in Spanish. In H. W.Langdon & L. L. Cheng (Eds.), Hispanic children and adults with communication disorders:Assessment and intervention (pp. 57-98). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen.Newport, E. L. (1993). Maturational constraints on language learning. In P. Bloom (Ed.),Language acquisition: Core readings (pp. 543-560). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Ochs, E. (1982). Talking to children in Western Samoa. Language in Society, 11, 77-104.Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and languagesocialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Olarte, G. (1985). Acquisition of Spanish morphemes by monolingual, monocultural Spanishspeaking children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.Perozzi, J. A. (1985). A pilot study of language facilitation for bilingual, language-handicappedchildren: Theoretical and intervention implications. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,50, 403-406.Perozzi, J. A., & Sanchez, M. L. C. (1992). The effect of instruction in L1 on receptiveacquisition of L2 for bilingual children with language delay. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 23, 348-352.Redlinger, W. E. (1979). Early developmental bilingualism: A review of the literature. TheBilingual Review, 6(1), 11-30.Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to thresholdtheory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(4), 301-316.Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academicachievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 199-219.74

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierSaville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: Evidence for second language learning strategiesduring the “silent” period. Journal of Child Language, 15, 567-590.Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Melbourne,Australia: Cambridge University Press.Scotton, C. M., & Ury, W. (1977). Bilingual strategies: The social functions of code-switching.Linguistics, 193, 5-20.Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Snow, C. E. (1992). Perspectives on second-language development: Implications for bilingualeducation. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 16-19.Vivas, D. M. (1979). Order of acquisition of Spanish grammatical morphemes: Comparison toEnglish and some cross-linguistic methodological problems. Kansas Working Papers inLinguistics, 4(3), 77-105.Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. (1989). New York:Gramercy Books.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991a). Second-language learning in children: a model of language learningin social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49-69).Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991b). When learning a second language means losing the first. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346.Wong Fillmore, L. (1994). The role and function of formulaic speech in conversation. In A.Grimshaw (Ed.), What’s going on here? Complementary studies of professional talk (pp. 230-269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.75

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierTeaching &Testing For Academic Achievement: The Role ofLanguage DevelopmentBy Muriel Saville-TroikeNCBE FOCUS: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, Number 4, Spring 1991IntroductionFrom Charles Fries' (1945) definition of mastery of a second language as control over thepronunciation and grammar within a limited vocabulary, to the recent development of contentbasedESL (English as a Second Language)materials emphasizing the importance of vocabularyin relation to cognitive information, the field of teaching ESL has come a long way in the pastforty years.However, not all areas of ESL have changed at the same rate, and there has been a "cultural lag"in some areas, perhaps most notably in the area of assessment. Meanwhile, even as a newinstructional paradigm is beginning to emerge in ESL, based in part on recent concepts incognitive psychology such as schema theory, new developments are taking place and thoseconcepts are already being called into question and replaced by others. The purpose ofthis discussion is to sound a warning about premature fossilization of theoretical frameworks andmethods in ESL--even the latest and most promising ones--and to explore the implications forassessment of some of these new developments, as well as of what we already know about firstand second language learning. Some basic questions are raised about the need for specialassessment instruments for limited English proficient (LEP) students, while at the same timecalling for fairly radical changes in assessment procedures and interpretation.Focus On LanguageTo understand how language relates to academic achievement, we need to consider thatrelationship in terms of language development as more comprehensive cognitive processes. Ourefforts in ESL and bilingual education in the 1960s and the 1970s were founded largely on thepremise that linguistic differences, and particularly a lack of proficiency in English, are aprimary causative factor in the low academic achievement of students in American schools whoare from minority language backgrounds. This certainly seemed a plausible argument at the time,and still does, especially in those cases where students with limited English-speaking ability arerequired to learn exclusively through the medium of English. Certainly these students are at adisadvantage trying to understand instruction and express themselves in a foreign language,especially when they must compete with other students who have already mastered English. Wehave since learned, however, that such an explanation is overly simplistic, that students'competence in English at the time they come to school does not have as much impact on theirultimate academic success as do some other factors, and that a foreign language of instruction isonly one of the potential barriers to learning for students from linguistically and culturally76

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierdifferent backgrounds. Evidence for this comes not only from the negative educationalexperiences of many groups of students, but also from the positive educational experiences ofothers (see Hakuta, 1990).Let us begin with one example of why our focus on language has generally been too narrow. Atraditional concern in ESL has included contrasting students' native language with English as abasis for assessing “interference" or "negative transfer" so that appropriate remediation couldbe applied. While native language interference is still a viable issue in applied linguistics, there islittle evidence that it has much effect on students' learning to read or on their academicdevelopment.Positive TransferOne thing that has not been adequately recognized is the extent to which positive transfer takesplace across languages, and across contexts of learning for limited English-speaking students.Most important is the extent to which that transfer is social and cultural, as well as cognitive innature.Let us first relate this concept to oral language development. In the earliest stages of a child'sfirst language acquisition, meaning exists in the social and cultural context of interaction.Linguistic forms (such as words and sentences) are first ascribed meaning only because they areembedded in these contexts. With time, through further social interactional experience andcognitive development, "meaningful context" additionally comes to include the linguistic formsthemselves (Nelson 1981).The knowledge representations that develop and are brought to bear in the communicativeprocess have been labeled "schemata" or "scripts" by cognitive psychologists (Bartlett, 1932;Minsky, 1975; Rinehart and Ortony, 1977; Schank and Abelson, 1977). Scripts are typicallyorganized around are current situation or process such as "going to see Grandma," traveling bybus, or ordering food in a restaurant. They include such matters as knowledge of setting, theidentity and function of props, participant roles and responsibilities, expected activity sequences,rules for interaction, and norms of interpretation.Once they have been acquired, the schemata or scripts that are developed in this process areavailable for the interpretation of meaning in similar events even if the language that is beingspoken by other participants cannot be completely understood. When students begin learning asecond language, they do not start learning all over again, but interpret meaning in terms of whatthey already know--not just about language, but about the context in which it is being used, andabout strategies for social interaction. This means that the process of second language learning isheavily dependent on prior experience and apparently also on the nature and level of firstlanguage development.This transfer phenomenon is easiest to recognize in face-to-face interaction where extra linguisticcontextual cues are abundant. For instance, in my own research I have documented numerousexamples of children who do not share a common language successfully playing with oneanother, negotiating ownership of property, and settling disputes about rights and relationships(Saville-Troike, 1987; Saville-Troike, McClure and Fritz, 1984).We can observe this type of transfer phenomenon in U.S. school settings where there arestudents who have just entered from schools in other countries. Even if the students do notunderstand the language of instruction, those who have had prior school experience enterEnglish-medium classrooms already equipped with a knowledge base for making inferences andpredictions about the meaning of events that will occur there. This preexisting "script for school"77

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieraccounts in large part for most students ability to behave appropriately even when they cannotunderstand the words others are using, and it provides a meaningful context for the interpretationof new language forms.Because script knowledge is cultural knowledge, however, scripts can be expected to differaccording to social experience. Learning new scripts, or adapting preexisting ones, is thus part ofacculturation or resocialization to a new group and its structure. Efforts to assess limited Englishspeakingstudents need to be sensitive to points where misunderstanding does occur and mayinterfere with academic performance.In the school where we conducted research, Jo Anne Kleifgen and I (Kleifgen and Saville-Troike, in press) analyzed instances of successful communication between the very limitedEnglish-speaking students and their content-area teachers in regular English-medium classroomsto find out what does work in such situations. Based on an examination of videotapes, we foundthat both students and teachers employed a general "top down" cognitive processing strategy,using their understanding of the larger context for the interpretation of particular events andactions. Because of similarities in prior knowledge and experience on both sides, students oftenonly needed to comprehend a single key word to interpret questions, complaints, and directives,and to make an appropriate response. From the standpoint of second language teaching, it isnoteworthy that student errors in pronunciation and grammar had only a minimal effect, if any,on their negotiation of meaning with teachers and English-speaking students when otherdimensions of the situation were understood. Vocabulary knowledge, not surprisingly, was moresignificant than grammar or pronunciation. Even so, students and teachers often bridged lexicalgaps with nonverbal cues (pictures, gestures, and tone of voice), but interpretation again requiredembedding the interaction in known or apprehensible context.The students studied were children of foreign graduate students or visiting faculty at theUniversity of Illinois. Similar social class background, family educational level, andinternationally shared conventions of formal schooling provide the basis for commonalities inscripts between teachers and students. Thus, a relatively high level of positive transfer enablesstudents to function in a new school setting while having limited proficiency in the language ofinstruction--often more successfully, in fact, than native English-speaking students in the sameclassrooms from a less affluent and less well educated social class.Interactional CompetenceOne concept that should be questioned is the common working definition of “comprehensibleinput," which presumes that simplified sentence structure is a significant feature. Our analysis ofclassroom interaction demonstrates that background knowledge is crucial to interpretation ofmeaning when knowledge of language forms is limited, but sentence complexity does not seemto make much difference. Even in the context-reduced processing of written text, Floyd andCarrell (1987) have shown that providing ESL students with supplementary backgroundinformation significantly improves reading comprehension, while simplifying the syntacticstructure has no significant effect. First language readability studies yield similar conclusions: infact, simplifying sentence structure often makes a text more difficult for native speakers toprocess since it reduces redundancy. While students can often negotiate meaning in face-to-faceinteraction even with extremely limited linguistic skills, because of the familiarity or redundancyof the extra linguistic context in which it is situated, their attainment of a high level of academiccompetence requires the ability to decode and encode meaning in context-reduced tasks, such as78

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierreading and writing. (Cummins [1980, 1981, 1984] has written extensively on this point,particularly with respect to the different requirements placed on linguistic competence.)While not disagreeing that interpretation of written text requires a higher level of language skills,what should be brought into question is the dichotomization of language competence into CALP(Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) and BICS (Basic Interpersonal CommunicationSkills) which many have adopted, with common equation of CALP alone with academicachievement. (For a discussion of language competences, see Harley, Allen,Cummins and Swain, 1990.) This is, at least, partially due to the nature of most assessmentinstruments, which abstract tasks from contexts in which they are actually learned and used.Achievement in school is actually heavily dependent on interactional competence--includingdisplay functions which teachers use for continuing informal assessment and calibration ofinstruction (Mehan, 1979). Further, sociolinguistic competence is important in conveying the"good attitude" toward school which receives heavy weighting both in teachers' evaluation of"readiness" and "progress" and in determining students' opportunities to learn. As Cummins(1980) points out, teachers may overestimate students linguistic ability to handle context-reducedtasks if they appear linguistically competent in social interaction. On the other hand, however,many students who lack competence in interaction can handle more cognitively demanding andcontext-reduced tasks, but may not be offered the challenge or the opportunity to do so. We willreturn to this issue, which is essentially one of instructional bias, since it merits much moreattention.Development Of Strategies In The Native LanguageIn addition to the higher level of language skills required to interpret written text, it is alsoimportant to recognize that academic success requires such strategies as listening or reading forthe main point, generalizing, making logical inferences from known information, andconstructing more complex schemata-- strategies which are not specific to a particular language.Again, once these strategies have been developed in the native language, they apparently transferquite readily to academic tasks in a different language.Among the students I have studied who began school in another country, I have found thatreading achievement in English as a second language is more dependent on reading achievementin their native language than it is on relative oral proficiency in English. This is true even whenthe language the students first learned to read is written in symbols which are quite differentfrom our Roman alphabet, such as Japanese, Korean, and Arabic (Saville-Troike, 1984).Most second language teaching and research has focused on the linguistic factors which makereading comprehension possible, and they are, of course, important. However, as I haveindicated, research in both first and second language on the intersection of backgroundknowledge and reading comprehension shows that prior experience and expectations have asignificant effect on the process. Background knowledge has a direct impact on how readersinteract with what they see on a page. It affects how their thinking is directed as they read alongand what kind of sense they make of a given text. The expectations and interpretive processesreaders bring to the material and the expectations and understandings which they develop ontheir way through the material are directly related to their experience of the world, and theircognitive schemata, attitudes, and values, as well as their previous experience with the printedpage .In addition, academic competence requires knowing how to use language as a tool inacquiring knowledge and in performing analytic processes, but these skills again appear to relate79

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliermore closely to language competence in a general sense, rather than to any particular language.Programs often choose to separate languages of instruction, but students who are academicallyengaged probably cannot and should not separate them.In my own research (Saville-Troike, 1984), I have found that most of the students who achievedbest in content areas, as measured by tests in English, were those who had the most opportunityto discuss the concepts they were learning in their native language with peers or with adults,even when they were mainstreamed in English-medium classes. Further, our research on privatespeech (using wireless microphones attached to students; Chen,1987; Saville-Troike, 1988) hasshown that students practice to themselves in their native language what they have been learningin English, providing evidence that their understanding often exceeds their ability to display theirknowledge in English, a point which has more than considerable significance for assessment.First Language Development And Academic AchievementMajor support for the suggestions of Cummins (1980, 1981, 1984) and others concerning theimportance of prior first language development for second language academic achievementcomes from the study of immigrant families(for example, Collier, 1987). There is goodindication that the longer that students are schooled in their native country before immigrating tothe U.S., the higher their school achievement in the U.S. and their learning of English is likely tobe. This finding is one of the most important to emerge in recent years.The now classic study of this phenomenon was reported by Skutnabb- Kangas and Toukomaa(1976) on the basis of a study of Finnish immigrant children in Sweden. They revolutionized theprevailing thought that the younger that children begin school in the new country the better theywould do academically and in learning the second language. Skutnabb-Kangas andToukomaafound that the optimum time for immigration appeared to be about10-12 years of age. Based onresearch conducted both in Illinois and California, Gonzalez (1986) has found that sixth graderswho had immigrated to the U.S. after two years of education in Mexico consistently did better asa group on the CTBS English reading comprehension test than students who had started schoolin this country. It should be emphasized, however, that what is involved is more than languagealone. Part of the answer also clearly lies in the types of social experiences children have whichcontribute to their knowledge structures. Those which more nearly match the experiences andexpectations of school are going to transfer more readily. Children like those I have studied inIllinois, from well-educated families with extensive literacy-related experiences, are very likelyto succeed in our schools no matter what their entry-level competence in English. Lesseducationally advantaged children have also developed knowledge structures before they cometo school, but the widely held "deficit" position considers their language and culture a barrier tolearning--a source of negative interference-- rather than a resource for potential positive transfer.An alternative which would make their success more likely is to adapt school experiences andallow continuity and transfer of what students already know, and of their interactional andlearning styles. This has been done in a dramatic way in the Kamehameha program for Hawaiianchildren in Honolulu (Au and Jordan,1981) but is not likely to be widely adopted, as institutionsgenerally expect the individual to change to meet their demands, and not vice-versa.Developing The Second LanguageFor limited English speakers who have not yet fully developed their native language skills, thecontext-reduced tasks of reading and writing, or literacy-related processes like inferencing and80

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliercomplex schema formation, are obviously more easily fostered in the language students are mostfluent in. Those skills and processes will then transfer to English. Even when we are sure this issound educational practice, however, we must recognize the powerful influences of culture andpolitics on our schools. There is a false but pervasive belief in our nation that children should"get into English” as soon as possible or they will be retarded in learning. Because this is amatter of faith, based on profound social attitudes and convictions, evidence to the contrary hashad little impact on policy (for discussion, see Krashen, 1991).Unfortunately, initial emphasis ondeveloping English language skills often involves placement and instructional content which isbased on students supposed language proficiency level rather than what would be considered“normal" curriculum content in the larger educational setting, or their level of cognitivedevelopment and prior learning in their native language. This creates a separate (and unequal)curriculum track for LEP students which is often discriminatory in effect, if not in intent. AsMoll (1986)has pointed out: The problem of instructional bias and of watering down thecurriculum is, of course, not limited to non-native English speaking students; it may occur inthe education of speakers of non-standard English dialects or of students whose language orcultural behavior does not conform to that of the dominant society. In fact, as Anyon (1980),among others, has shown, watering down the curriculum may be viewed as part of a broaderstratification of instruction across social class groups. In the present move toward so-called"sheltered English" programs, well-intentioned as they may be, we are running a great risk thatthe isolation of LEP students from native speakers and regular classes may in fact serve to retardtheir linguistic and academic development. Research by Nagy and others (Nagy, Anderson andHerman, 1987; Nagy, Herman and Anderson,1985) has shown that a high percentage ofchildren's vocabulary growth during the elementary school years is not based on directvocabulary instruction at all, yet successful reading and academic achievement in content areasdepends heavily on the acquisition of just this other vocabulary.This instructional bias--teaching to children's low level of English--is found even in bilingualprograms, regardless of the children's academic competence in their first language. Moll (1986)also cites evidence that this same phenomenon has more recently become evident in computerinstruction: Poor and [limited English] students do drill and practice; affluent and English-fluentstudents do problem solving and programming....Part of the problem is the overwhelmingpressure to make [limited English] students fluent in English at all costs. Learning English, notlearning, has become the controlling goal of instruction for these students, even if it places thechildren at risk academically.And again, more than language is involved in this phenomenon. Much of the massive schoolfailure among students from non-English backgrounds must be attributed to attitudes both thoseeducators hold toward minority students and students perceptions of themselves and of theschool. Teachers of the advantaged foreign children in Illinois described earlier knew they wouldbe good students before they even met them. On the other hand, in one first grade classroomvisited near the beginning of the school year, the teacher had already determined that a not-soadvantagedgroup of Spanish-speaking children in the class, to quote her, "would not be able tolearn to read this year."Academic AchievementWhy do large numbers of our Spanish-speaking students not succeed in school? Again, I doubtthat the Spanish accent or grammatical interference in their English has much to do with it, atleast directly. As mentioned earlier, Gonzalez (1986) has shown that immigrant students from81

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierMexico who attended school for two years prior to coming here had higher reading scores inEnglish by the sixth grade than did Spanish-speaking peers who began school here. In short,students with two years less instruction in English and here we are not talking about advantagedmiddle class children did better in English than those who had two years more instruction in theU.S. Why should this be, and why should it be that, nationally, blacks consistently average belowHispanics in achievement scores, even though blacks are almost all native speakers of English?The answers are not simple to find, and we should beware of simplistic unidimensionalresponses. Educational programs for non- English-speaking students, whether bilingual or all-English, do not exist in isolation from the schools, school systems, and communities in whichthey are embedded, any of which may exert more effects on program outcomes--for good or ill--than many of the efforts that are expended in instruction, curriculum design, or materialsdevelopment. Ogbu (1978) has argued that the long-term effects of social and economicdiscrimination may negatively affect the cultural attitudes and expectations of minoritycommunities. At the same time, research on school "climate" and the effects of educationalleadership at the school level show that these influences are not wholly deterministic, and thatthe attitudes and behaviors of principals can affect academic results for an entire school. Thefindings of recent "school effectiveness” research (Rutter, 1983) indicate that whole-schooleffects do exist and maybe considerable.It is easy to take refuge in the "home-school discontinuity hypothesis," or the "linguisticmismatch hypothesis," to explain the educational problems of many of the non-English-speakingstudents in our schools. But these simplistic answers--though they are certainly relevant--do notaccount satisfactorily for the academic stratification of blacks and Hispanics in the U.S.--orAsians, for that matter. Here we are in a larger realm of the effect of attitudes on instruction,learning opportunities, motivation, and cognitive demands. Language does not exist in a vacuum,and how it is developed, and for what purposes, lies beyond but is inextricably intertwined withlanguage form and use. The recognition of these issues helps frame the problem for any effort torelate language assessment to academic placement and achievement.Recent developments in the field of cognitive psychology have also begun to emphasizerecognition of the complexities of human knowledge and behavior. One of those working on thecutting edge of this field nationally is RandSpiro (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich and Anderson, 1988;Spiro, Vispoel,Schmitz, Samarapungavan and Boerger, 1987), who is challenging theoversimplification and limited scope of previous work in schema theory and arguing that thereare many areas of knowledge which are best characterized as "ill-structured domains," andrequire a more complex approach to understand. He is proposing that we adopt Wittgenstein'smetaphor of landscapes in examining these areas, since they can be looked at from differentperspectives, and may look different depending on the perspective from which they are observed.This view is consonant with other recent developments in science generally, which move awayfrom the older notion that the way to study a phenomenon is to artificially simplify it as much aspossible, and to abstract away from the complexities of natural contexts. While at an early stagein the development of a science this approach may have some heuristic value, there is a seriousdanger that the understandings which result may in fact be an artifact of the simplification, andmay have to be rejected when an analysis is undertaken which more fully acknowledges thecomplexities. The danger is greater in that the illusion that we are dealing with a "well-structureddomain" contributes to development of overly rigid schemata, which have been shown to inhibittransfer and application of knowledge in an "ill-structured domain," such as education. Cziko(1989) has recently come to a similar conclusion, namely, that much of the failure of educational82

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierresearch in particular, and the social sciences more generally, to arrive at valid generalizationsarises from the efforts to abstract, simplify, and analyze data indexically rather than in thefullness of their ecological context.Language AssessmentWhat then of testing and assessment of LEP students for academic purposes? Languageassessment in the past, developed largely by linguists working with specialists in measurement,neither of whom have immediate experience in educational contexts, has generally followedpositivistic models and has been focused on language rather than on language in relation toacademic proficiency. If we ask, what is really important to assess in regard to a LEP student'schances for succeeding in a regular English-medium classroom?, we are posing a very differentkind of question than has been asked in the past, and one which, considering the complexities Ihave discussed, requires a very different answer.First of all, it is important to recognize that existing language assessment measures show a verylow productivity with regard to academic achievement, suggesting that they measure the wrongthings from an educationally-significant perspective, and are largely irrelevant for academicpurposes. Such tests reflect the earlier simplistic view that language was the only, or principal,factor affecting academic achievement, so such results are not surprising, and indeed might havebeen expected. Given our present realization of the complexity of factors affecting achievement,what sort of assessment program might we need that would give due recognition to all of thesefactors? Since it is evident that different factors and diverse configurations of factors affectachievement of LEP students differently in various contexts, one approach which might beproposed would be to measure as many of these factors as is feasible, and to examine theirrelation to academic achievement independently in each context. Before this can be done, it willbe necessary to carefully map the areas which are to be assessed. We cannot measure knowledgeor language proficiency directly, since we cannot simply insert electrodes into the brain to do so.Consequently we must construct maps representing the areas of the landscape to be assessed, andthen develop instruments which validly sample the maps.Assessment should be multidimensional. The multidimensionality of the aspects which need tobe considered move us beyond two- dimensional cubes to three-dimensionally interconnectedarrays of these cubes in a model resembling Rubik's famous six-sided cube. A speculativeproposal for such a model would assign various areas to different faces of the cube as follows:(Pictured in the original text is a three-dimensional cube with nine blocks per side. On the top ofthe cube appear the words "Instruction,” Social/Cultural Factors," and "Personality Factors." Onthe front of the cube appear the terms "Language," "Academic Achievement," and "Assessment."All of these words overlap boxes shown on the cube.)Each of these faces would then be divided into sub-areas: language, for instance, would includesubdivisions for different skills in both native and second languages, and academic achievementsubdivisions for cognitive processing capacities, content knowledge, and performance skills. Themain point of such a model is to recognize not only the complexity of the facets involved, buttheir interconnection as well. This obviously goes beyond what can be portrayed on a twodimensionalpage, but is quite feasible with computer-modeling capabilities. Another approach isto consider what constitutes the ingredients of successful academic achievement among nativeEnglish-speaking children, and how the schools at present routinely measure student progress83

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierand use such information in their ongoing operations. Since reading ability in English is thesingle most important skill determining school achievement beyond the third grade, this is amajor criterion in measuring student progress, either in the form of formal tests, or in informalteacher assessment. As has been well-known for a number of years, the most highly correlatedsub score within a reading test with the overall score is that for vocabulary knowledge, so muchso that the vocabulary subtest is often administered as a proxy for the full test. Thus we in ESLare rediscovering what educators have known for some time--that vocabulary knowledge is oneof the most important determinants of academic achievement, and vocabulary tests provide oneof the most reliable measures of academic progress. While such tests, either standardized orteacher-made, are clearly a type of language test, note that they are related to normativeexpectations of the types of abilities, skills, and knowledge associated with placement on theacademic scale from success to failure. As such, they do not simply test knowledge of isolatedwords, but rather they are indexical for a larger body of concepts, schemata, and cognitive skillsconsidered central to achievement in the educational enterprise as it is presently defined.ConclusionPerhaps, then, an answer to our search for an adequate and appropriate measure of academiclanguage proficiency has already been found, and all we need to do is adopt some currently usedstandardized reading tests for use with LEP students. Such tests are highly integrative in natureand tap a large proportion of the skills which determine school achievement. While some suchsolution may, in fact, prove to be reasonable, it is not without some caveats and suggestions fornecessary supplementation. As I indicated at the beginning of this discussion, radical changes areneeded in testing procedures and interpretation. For example, Garcia (1987) has shown that LEPchildren may misinterpret English words or reading passages based on erroneous lexical orsemantic associations with their own language, or on different cultural schemata or personalexperiences. This research emphatically showed that scores by LEP students on such tests shouldnot betaken uncritically at face value, but that debriefing interviews afterward are essential tocheck on comprehension and reasons for responses. (This maybe an equally valid point fornative English speakers.) Secondly, we may look to the model of Special Education forassessment and placement procedures, since Federal law and many state plans require thatstudents from non-English language backgrounds must be assessed in their primary language aswell as in English before they are placed into a special program. Despite all of the researchpointing to the importance of the native language in cognitive development, we have failed toinsist that where appropriate (e.g., not where native language loss has occurred or skills aremarginal) all LEP students should have a right to assessment in their native language as well asin English, and that placement judgments should not be based on English performance alone.Further, tests of English language proficiency alone which are not based on or related to standardcurriculum content for native speakers should not be allowed to be used as the basis for academicplacement.ReferencesAnyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal ofEducation, 162, 67-92.84

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierAu, K., and Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children:Finding a culturallyappropriate solution. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrieand K. H.-P. Au (Eds.), Culture and thebilingual classroom: Studies inclassroom ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Chen, R.-M. (1987). The private speech of a Chinese-English bilingual child: A naturalisticlongitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes.TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.Cummins, J. (1980). Entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. NABE Journal, 4(3), 25-59.Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal ofEducation, 163, 16-29.Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency toacademic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (Eds.), Language proficiency andacademic achievement. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments andimplications for educational research. Educational Researcher,18(3), 17-25.Floyd, P., and Carrell, P.L. (1987). Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content schemata.Language Learning, 37, 89-108.Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.Garcia, G. (1987). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-Englishbilingual children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Gonzalez, L. A. (1986). The effects of first language education on the second language andacademic achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school children in the United States.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Hakuta, K. (1990). Bilingualism and bilingual education: A research perspective (Focus:Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 1990, No. 1). Washington, DC: NationalClearinghouse for Bilingual Education.Harley, B., Allen, A., Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (Eds.). (1990). The development of secondlanguage proficiency (The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.Kleifgen, J., and Saville-Troike, M. (in press). Achieving coherence in multilingual interaction.Discourse Processes.Krashen, S. D. (1991). Bilingual education: A focus on current research (Focus: OccasionalPapers in Bilingual Education, No. 3). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for BilingualEducation.Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Eds.), Thepsychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Moll, L. C. (1986). Writing as communication: Creating strategic learning environments forstudents. Theory Into Practice, 25, 102-108.Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., and Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from contextduring normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.85

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierNagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., and Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 20, 233-253.Nelson, K. (1981). Social cognition in a script framework. In J.H. Flavell and L. Ross (Eds.),Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York: Academic Press.Rumelhart, D. E., and Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In RCAnderson, R. J. Spiro and W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Rutter, M. (1983). School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications.In L. S. Shulman and G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy. London: Longman.Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academicachievement? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 199-219.Saville-Troike, M. (1987). Bilingual discourse: Communication without a common language.Linguistics, 25, 81-106.Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: Evidence for second language learning strategiesduring the `silent' period. Journal of Child Language, 15, 567-590.Saville-Troike, M., McClure, E., and Fritz, M. (1984). Communicative tactics in children'ssecond language acquisition. In F. R. Eckman, L. H. Bell and D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals ofsecond language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Schank, R., and Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry intohuman knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Skutnabb-Kangas, P., and Toukomaa, O. (1976). Teaching migrant children, mother tongue, andlearning the language of the host country in the context of the socio-cultural situation of themigrant family. Tutkimuksia Research Reports. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., and Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitive flexibilitytheory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel and G. Groen(Eds.), Tenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. L., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., and Boerger, A. E. (1987).Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex contentdomains. In B. C. Britton and S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.86

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierTeaching Language through ContentBy Yvonne S. Freeman & David E. Freeman(1998) Excerpt from ESL/EFL Teaching: Principles for Success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Introduction"How many of you eat tamales?" Juan Carlos asked the intermediate level students in his adult EFL classin Medellin, Colombia. Most of his students were business people who studied English grammar insecondary school and were trying to improve their English for the workplace. They came to his class twoevenings a week, and although they arrived tired, they were always interested and eager to use theirsecond language.In answer to his question, most of his students nodded or raised their hands. "Now, the importantquestion is, what kind of tamales do you like?"' asked Juan Carlos. "Tamales antioquehos," shoutedsome. "No, profesor, tamales tolimenses," called out others. Two smaller groups protested that theirfavorites were "tamales santanderianos" and "tamales santafereflos." The different types of tamalesrepresent different regions of Colombia, so Juan Carlos asked students to form groups according to thetype of tamale they chose and to write in English a description of the tamale. As students discussed, theywrote down ingredients, preparation, and words such as "delicious" and "spicy."Then, students from each group read their descriptions. Next, Juan Carlos drew four columns on theboard and wrote the name one of kind of tamale on the top of each column. "Now, let's compare andcontrast the different tamales." Students got involved as they began to compare ingredients, size, andtaste. When they finished the comparison, which included many good-natured claims about which tamalewas the most delicious, Juan Carlos changed the topic by asking the students, "What other dishes aretypical of this country and served on special occasions?" He wrote as students called out different dishesand foods including, arepas (a kind of thick tortilla), empanadas (a meat or sweet turnover), sanchocho (apopular soup), and sudado (a thick stew). This activity motivated students to talk naturally about whichof these dishes, or ingredients in the dishes, they liked and which they disliked. So Juan Carlos gavethe students an assignment, "For tomorrow, I want you each to bring mea list of ten foods or dishes that you like and ten that you dislike."The following day students were divided into pairs. They interviewed each other about the foods theyliked and disliked, asking, "What food do you like?" or "What food don't you like?" Then, Juan Carlosasked students to go to the blackboard and write down two foods or dishes they liked under "Likes" andtwo they disliked under "Dislikes." The class examined the list, noting several students disliked carrotsand chicharr6n and most liked chicken and arepas.Next, Juan Carlos changed the direction of the lesson by taking out a world map and saying, "We havebeen looking at food typical of Colombia, now let's look at food that is not typical of Colombia, but maybe typical of some ethnic groups living in our country. What different countries do we have restaurantsfor in our city?" The class brainstormed a list that included Japan, China, Italy, Germany, and France. Aseach country was mentioned, one student found it on the world map, and the class talked about whetherthe country was north or south, east or west of Colombia. For homework, Juan Carlos asked students tofind or draw a picture of a food sold in Colombia that is typical of another country.For the next class, students brought in pictures of French bread and French pastry, Italian pasta dishes andpizza, a Chinese rice dish, and even German sauerkraut. The students told about their pictures and namedsome of the ingredients. At the end of class, Juan Carlos gave the students a related assignment, "Fortomorrow look around your house or in a supermarket and find one food product that has a label withwriting in English. Bring that next week, and we will discuss it."87

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierOver the next few weeks students brought in an extended collection of labels and other kinds ofenvironmental print in English. They discussed not only the ingredients on labels, but also the types ofproducts that had labels in English, and eventually got into a discussion of the influence of U.S.economics and U.S. culture on Colombia. This led to reading articles from magazines such as Time andNewsweek. Students examined the U.S. political positions, including its position on intervention in othercountries.The contexts for second language teaching may vary, but from a socio-psycholinguistic orientation, thebest way to teach language in any context is through content. Juan Carlos took what could have been atraditional vocabulary lesson on foods and drew his students into a series of related lessons on foodtraditions in their country and other countries. He continued the lesson with discussion of commercialismand politics. Juan Carlos was teaching English to his EFL students through content that was relevant andinteresting to them.Why Teach Language Through Content?Halliday (1984) argues that children learn language, they learn through language, and they learnabout language. All three aspects develop simultaneously in classes where language is taughtthrough academic content. it is this idea of learning language through meaningful language usethat is the basis for content-based instructional methods for English language learners. Becausepeople learn language as they use it, it is logical to have them learn English as they studymeaningful content, rather than to have them study the English language as a separate subjectapart from meaningful content. Arnie, a foreign language teacher who studied languageacquisition from a principled perspective, discovered that one of the main problems with hisforeign language curriculum was that he really had no content to teach! Arnie realized thatinstead of having his students study the grammar of the foreign language, they should learn thelanguage by studying topics related to social studies, science, or math. in other words, he couldteach them language through meaningful content.Brinton et al.(1989) present five rationales for integrating the teaching of language and content. First, thisapproach provides the language forms students need. if a student is interested in economics, the best wayfor a student to learn economic concepts such as supply and demand, is by reading books and discussingeconomics. As students study economics, they learn the vocabulary and language structures associatedwith that subject area. Secondly, even if the content area of study involves language that is difficult,students are more apt to be motivated to learn because of their interest in the subject matter.A third rationale for teaching language through content is that this approach ensures that teachers build onthe background knowledge of the students. Most students have some knowledge of the subject areas thatinterest them. Fourth, this approach ensures that lessons include contextualized language use rather thanfragmented studies of usage. That is, students are involved with language in the context of authentic textsinstead of doing exercises or drills on language forms presented out of context.Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) argue that for teachers to take this approach they must use authentictexts, those that are not specifically designed for language teaching but, instead, are written as literature tobe enjoyed, or as informational material related to some subject area. Teachers select particular languagestructures or functions found in the texts to focus lessons on. This approach begins with learner needsand interests. it requires teachers to find creative ways to make content areas understandable for studentswhose English proficiency is limited.A final rationale for teaching language through content comes from second language acquisitiontheory. Krashen (1982) argues that students acquire language when they receive comprehensible inputthat contains items slightly beyond their present level of proficiency. The input can come from reading orfrom listening. As they study different content areas by reading texts in English, discussing the content,and writing about the subject area, students naturally acquire English.88

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierTeaching language through content is not something new. As Brinton et al (1989) point out, most earlylanguage learning came when travelers or scholars recognized the need to learn a new language to meetdaily needs or to engage in studies of texts written in foreign languages. in addition, teachers recognizethat for students to fully develop their first language, study in all areas needs to include a focus on bothcontent and language. in England, for example, the Bullock (1975) report stressed the importance oflanguage across the curriculum. "A major finding of the committee was that first language instruction inthe schools should cross over all subject matter domains" (pp. 5-6). In other words, every teacher wasboth a content area teacher and a language teacher.In second and foreign language teaching, there developed a number of courses referred to as English (ormore generally, language) for specific purposes. For adult students, many courses were designed to teachthe language of a specific subject area. For example, engineers might take a course in English forengineers. Doctors might study the English needed to talk with patients and write prescriptions. Thisapproach appealed to groups interested in specialized fields of study because the classes were directly tiedto their area of interest.Another example of teaching language through content comes from immersion education. In Canada, forexample, young students learn either French or English in immersion classes. Teachers focus onacademic content and use a number of techniques to make the content accessible to students who havelimited proficiency in the language of instruction. In the United States, there is a growing interest in dualimmersion or two-way bilingual programs in which all students learn a second language. in theseprograms, as well, language is taught through academic content.Many books on teaching second or foreign languages describe ways to teach language through content.Not all books take exactly the same approach, of course. There are always questions about how much ateacher should focus on content and how much on language. Should teachers directly teach somegrammatical points, or will students acquire the language as they study different content areas that interestthem? Even though there is some disagreement on these points, there is widespread agreement on thevalue of content-based language teaching.In fact, TESOL, the international organization for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,recently issued a series of goals and standards for students in public schools pre K- 1 2. The second goalof Standard 2 is "To use English to achieve academically in all content areas." This goal states that"Students will use English to obtain, process, construct, and provide subject matter information in spokenand written form"(TESOL 1997).There are good reasons and there is strong support for teaching language through content. The principleswe develop in subsequent chapters are chosen to help guide teachers as they teach language throughcontent, and all the principles work best when teachers are teaching language through content. Thisapproach is consistent with teaching whole to part, centering on the learner, making learning meaningful,including all modes, creating opportunities for social interaction, and including students' primarylanguages and cultures in the lessons. This approach only works if teachers have faith that students canlearn both language and content together.We already described Problem Posing, an approach to teaching language through content designed foradults. The content for Problem Posing comes from the social concerns of the students. in this chapter wereview how content-based language instruction has been developed in public school settings withelementary and secondary students. We also consider the special challenges of content-based instructionin settings where English is a foreign language.From ESL and Sheltered English to ELD and SDAIEEven though content-based instruction may be the logical response in a context where students need tolearn both school subjects and English, it is a relatively new approach. As content-based languageteaching became more widespread, it evolved. in the past, students with limited English proficiency wereoften pulled out of regular classes and taught ESL until they developed an intermediate level ofconversational proficiency. Usually, ESL instruction focused on developing the social functions of89

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierlanguage (greetings, requests, and sp on) and everyday vocabulary (clothes, games, household items, and$o on). Teachers used programs like the idea Kit or the Rainbow Collection, which have pictures andsmall group lesson ideas, at the elementary level and textbooks published especially to teach ESL at thesecondary level. However, the problem was that the conversational language proficiency studentsdeveloped didn't prepare them to compete academically in mainstream classes.When the responsibility for teaching English learners shifted to the regular classroom teacher, at least inthe primary grades, no major problems seemed to surface. Lower-grade elementary teachers were oftensuccessful in involving English language learners in instruction because the techniques they use are oftensimilar to those recommended for use with English learners. With young children, there is always thechallenge of making lessons understandable and getting the students involved. Primary teachers are morefocused on student development than on transmitting the body of knowledge associated with a particularacademic discipline.Older students, though, particularly at the intermediate and secondary levels, face greater demands tolearn academic content. At the same time, teachers of older students often use techniques, such as lectureand longer reading assignments that prove difficult for students with limited English proficiency. Theseteachers generally teach a single subject, and they see their job as teaching that academic content area, notas developing their students' English proficiency.When we have worked with intermediate and secondary teachers, we have presented a list of suggestionsfor making their instruction more comprehensible for their English language learners (see the followinglist). The focus on using techniques to make input comprehensible is an important one. It is based on thetheory of second language acquisition developed by Krashen (1982). This theory emphasizes the role ofinput. Language develops naturally in humans when they receive messages they understand. This mayreflect an innate predisposition in humans for language acquisition. The reason for teaching languagethrough content is to provide the input students need to develop academic as well as conversationallanguage.•• Use visuals and realia. Always try to move from the concrete to the abstract.• Use gestures and body language.• Speak clearly and pause often, but don't slow speech down unnaturally.• Say the same thing in different ways (paraphrase).• Write key words and ideas down. (This slows down the language)• Use overheads and charts whenever appropriate.• Make frequent comprehension checks.• Have students explain main concepts to one another working in pairs or small groups. Theycan do this in their first languages.• Above all, keep oral presentations or reading assignments short. Collaborative activities aremore effective than lectures or assigned readings.•We encourage teachers to use techniques such as those listed. However, these techniques apply best insituations where teachers are giving a lecture, and lecture is not the most effective way to help studentsdevelop academic concepts. instead, students develop concepts and academic language most easily duringcollaborative social interaction. Both Kagan (I 986) and Holt (I 993) argue that second language studentsmake significant gains in language, academics, and social skills and also build self-esteem in classeswhere they work together collaboratively.If teachers take into account the importance of teaching language through content, making the inputcomprehensible, and getting students to work together collaboratively, a new view of curriculum emerges.Teachers can no longer simply use a set of techniques to make their lectures more understandable. They90

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliermust also restructure their classrooms to ensure that students are actively involved in working together tosolve problems.Sheltered InstructionIn the early 1980s, the number of limited English proficient students in public schools increased, and bothresearchers and teachers recognized the need for programs that would meet the linguistic and academicneeds of these students. Krashen and others developed a program model for older students that included acomponent called sheltered English (Freeman et al. 1987, Freeman and Freeman 1991, Krashen 1985).This model was designed for students at an intermediate level of English proficiency with adequateprimary language academic preparation. In schools that use sheltered instruction, English languagelearners are taught some subjects in their primary language, some in sheltered classes, and some inmainstream classes. As students become more proficient in English, they are transitioned from primarylanguage instruction to sheltered instruction, and then they are mainstreamed. For example, studentsmight take social studies classes at first in their primary language. Later they take a sheltered socialstudies class, and eventually they are mainstreamed into social studies classes with native Englishspeakers.Over time, the term sheltered developed two different meanings. In some schools, the English languagelearners were put in one class. Teachers knew their students were not fully proficient in English, so theyused special techniques to help students understand the academic content. Students were "sheltered" inthat they didn't have to compete with native speakers. In other schools "sheltered" referred to the deliveryof academic content, not the class composition. Teachers in classes with both native and normativespeakers of English used special techniques to make their subject understandable. Many teachers foundthat this style of teaching benefited all their students, not just their English language learners. Whethersecond language students were grouped together for instruction or mixed with native speakers, manyteachers began to reconceptualize their way of teaching.Sheltered instruction is a step in the right direction because students' needs for content and for languageare both taken into account. Sheltered classes help many intermediate and secondary students to succeed.However, teachers of sheltered classes face various problems. Some students are put into shelteredclasses before they develop an intermediate level of proficiency in English. Many of these students arenot at grade level in their primary language. As a result, teachers have to go more slowly or risk losingtheir students. Because teachers of sheltered classes are seldom able to cover as much content asmainstream teachers, they often sacrifice academic content to meet language needs.In addition, many content area teachers who are asked to teach sheltered classes are not adequatelyprepared. A high school biology teacher, for example, might be given a two or three hour in-service onsheltered techniques and then be expected to work effectively with English learners. This is simply notenough time. In some schools, mainstream teachers coordinate with ESL teachers, but they are seldomgiven the time needed to plan together. Often, ESL teachers are not confident in their knowledge ofacademic content areas such as math and science, so that adds to the difficulty of team teaching.Even students who succeed in sheltered classes often flounder when mainstreamed. They are generallybehind in the content, and they have difficulty catching up because the mainstream teacher doesn't use thetechniques that the English learner still needs. in fact, the real problem is that students simply need moretime to develop linguistic, cognitive, and academic proficiency. Extensive studies by Thomas and Collier(I 995) showed that students need at least five years to score at the fiftieth percentile on standardized testsgiven in English in different subject areas. older students often don't have five years before graduation,and few are given five years before being completely mainstreamed. Primary language instruction isessential for these students, but it is seldom available. Sheltered instruction helps, but it can't make up forthe time needed to acquire enough English to compete academically with native English-speaking peers.Despite the research showing how long it takes for students to develop academic proficiency in a secondlanguage, the blame for poor student performance is laid on the sheltered instruction (and instructors).One of the main criticisms is that sheltered classes are "watered down." Often the criticisms are leveled91

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierby mainstream teachers. in essence, rather than rethinking the curriculum or attempting to adjust theirown teaching techniques to accommodate students who are still learning English these teachers blamesheltered classes.A New Approach: ELD and SDAIEThe charge that sheltered classes are watered-down versions of mainstream classes has caused educatorsto rethink the goals of content based instruction. Is the goal content or is it language? Should students ina sheltered biology class be learning English through studying biology, or should they be learning biologythrough the medium of English? It seems unreasonable to assume that students with relatively low levelsof English proficiency can learn as much biology as their native English-speaking peers within the sametime frame. Furthermore, it seems unreasonable to expect students without much primary languagescience background to succeed in a high school science class. However, it might be possible for studentsat intermediate to advanced levels of English proficiency who have an adequate academic base in theirfirst languages to learn the same amount of biology as native speakers.A good way to think about what might be reasonable for these two groups of students is to pictureyourself going to Japan next week. If your level of Japanese is low or nonexistent, you wouldn't want tobe in a sheltered biology class competing with native Japanese students. The teacher could use wonderfultechniques to make the content comprehensible, but if she tried to cover the normal biology content, youprobably wouldn't receive a high grade in the course.On the other hand, if you have a reasonable level of proficiency in Japanese, you might succeed in thesheltered class. Of course, it's not just your knowledge of Japanese that would make a difference. Yoursuccess also would depend on how much biology you had studied in English. That knowledge wouldtransfer over to the new setting. Success might also depend on your study skills and your test-takingskills. Collier (I 995) pointed out that linguistic, cognitive, and academic Proficiency are interrelated.Students whose English language abilities are not highly developed can't be expected to do well inacademic classes in English.The problem with many sheltered English programs was that students with quite different levels ofEnglish proficiency and primary language education were lumped together in the same class. No matterhow well teachers used sheltered techniques, they could not succeed with all types of students, eventhough individual students often did his "blame the victim" response surfaces regularly in the history ofESL and bilingual education. Such a response can't be expected to solve the problem very well. Thiscommon situation led educators to distinguish between two kinds of content-based ESL instruction. Thefirst type of class, English language development (ELD), is designed for students with lower levels ofEnglish proficiency and less primary language academic development. In ELD classes, the focus is onlearning English through content instruction suited to the level of the students' academic background.The second type of class, Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), is for studentswith intermediate to advanced levels of English proficiency and grade-level academic development intheir primary language. SDAIE classes are content classes taught using special techniques to makeinstruction comprehensible. The primary goal of ELD classes is language development, and the primarygoal of SDAIE classes is academic development.ELD and SDAIE are similar. Both include language and content. However, there are significantdifferences.Some Considerations for Developing ELD LessonsIn ELD classes, the students are at beginner or low intermediate levels of English proficiency and/or aresignificantly below grade level in subject area background in their first language. For that reason,teachers provide first language support whenever possible, especially to help students with key ideas andconcepts. in addition to using techniques to make oral input comprehensible, most ELD teachers organize92

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierthe curriculum around thematic units. This helps students to develop needed academic vocabulary fordifferent subject areas.Teachers also choose materials carefully. Books with photographs or pictures and somewhat limited textare generally appropriate. It is important, however, to be sure that students do not perceive the books as"baby" books. Texts should include illustrations or photographs of older students. When teachers decideto use texts originally written for younger children, they give clear reasons for using those books. Forexample, students may practice reading the books for a cross-age tutoring time with younger students, orstudents could be encouraged to read the books to younger siblings at home.Above all, ELD teachers allot more time to studying a theme or unit than they would take with nativeEnglish speakers so students can begin to develop the vocabulary and language structures needed for thecontent area. By providing extra lessons on a topic, ELD teachers ensure that students have moreopportunities to interact using the language associate with the content area.ELDStudent CharacteristicsProficiency beginnerLI academic proficiency not consideredFocus of instruction and evaluationTeach language through contentDevelopmentEvaluation focuses on languageMost often used at Elementary orsecondarySDAIEEnglish proficiency intermediate to advancedLI academic proficiency at gradeTeach grade-appropriate content with emphasis onlanguageUsing special techniques to make the languageunderstandableEvaluation focuses on academic contentMost often used at secondaryELD vs. ESLELD is language instruction based on content.It is Usually taught by the regular classroomteacher.ESL may be based on content or the focus maybe on some aspect of language itself, either thegrammar or social use. A pullout specialistoften teaches it.SDAIE vs. ShelteredSDAIE classes provide grade-level appropriatecontent instruction taught by content teachers.Sheltered English classes are content-based but areoften at a lower academic level than thecorresponding mainstream class.Example ELD LessonSue teaches a fifth grade ELD class in a rural school in the central valley of California. All of herstudents speak Spanish as their primary language. She wanted to draw on her students' background, andafter she found several books about the migrant experience, she decided that a theme around migrantswould be perfect for her students. While only a few of Sue's students were part of a migrant family, manyof them worked in the fields. Many had relatives who were migrant workers. Several students had beenin California for only a short time and had little schooling in their native rural Mexico.Sue began the theme with a book to inspire her students. The author, now a poet and college professor,spent some of his childhood as a migrant child in the local area. Sue first asked one of her strong Spanishreaders to read the bilingual book, Calling the Doves: El canto de las palomas (Herrera 1995) in Spanish.Then, she asked the students to write down what the book made them think of; the students shared thiswriting in pairs. Students could do this initial writing and sharing in either Spanish or English. Duringthe whole class discussion in English that followed, students eagerly described personal experiences that93

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierwere similar to those in Herrera's book. Next, Sue read the book in English. She asked the students tonotice the artwork in particular. After Sue read the book, students discussed the images and shared moreof their experiences.The next day Sue brought in two more books, El camino de Amelia (Altman 1993) and the Englishversion, Amelia's Road (Altman 1993). Again, she began by asking a student to read the book to the classin Spanish. Sue asked the students to notice the illustrations in this book and to compare theseillustrations by Enrique Sanchez with those by Elly Simmons in Calling the Doves: El canto de laspalomas. After the reading, the students were asked to work in pairs listing English words to describehow the colorful illustrations in the two books were the same and how they were different. After the pairsof students brainstormed, the whole class made a list of the descriptive words in English. Using thosewords, the students each wrote a paragraph description in English of an experience they remembered fromtheir childhood. Because of the reading they had done, many wrote about experiences in the fields. Atthe end of the day, Sue read the English version of Amelia's Road to her class. The earlier Spanishreading, the discussion, and the writing activities helped prepare her students to understand more of theEnglish text.The following day Sue brought in another book about laboring in the fields, Working Cotton (Williams1992). This story tells about an African-American family working in the cotton fields of California'scentral valley. The students compared and contrasted the three books they studied so far. Sue organizedthe students' ideas in a three-circle Venn diagram that represented the similarities and differences amongthe books (see Figure 2-3).A last book that Sue shared with the class on this theme was A Migrant Family (Brimmer 1992). Thisbook has photographs of a migrant family and tells about the difficulties of living the life of a migrant.Because there is more text in A Migrant Family than in the other books, Sue read it to her students inthree sections. At the end of each section, Sue asked the students to write summaries and share them withtheir classmates. After completing all their reading, the students decided they wanted to interview familymembers and friends who had lived or were living as migrant workers. Sue helped her students tobrainstorm a list of questions for their interviews. They decided to work in teams to conduct theinterviews. The students got permission from the people they interviewed to publish something aboutthem. Then, using the information they gathered, each team wrote a section of a class book on the topic ofthe migrant experience, in most cases, the students conducted the interviews in Spanish, but they did theirwrite-ups in English. The students worked hard on this section, they worked in teams to draft, revise, andedit.For each story took pictures of several of the people they interviewed to use in the book. The studentsand their teacher were so proud of the book that they wrote based on the interviews thatthey shared it with the principal and parents at open house.Sue's focus was more on language development than on content, even though this unit connected wellwith her social studies curriculum. She extended the unit to provide her students with many opportunitiesto use academic English for real purposes. The books Sue chose introduced vocabulary that students drewon to develop their questionnaire. The book project gave students additional opportunities for productiveuse of the language they were, acquiring. Publishing the book for others to read, motivated students tolearn English writing conventions.Some Considerations For Developing SDAIE LessonsSDAIE is the second type of instruction for English learners, especially for students at the secondarylevel. These classes are for students with intermediate to advanced levels of English proficiency and neargrade level academic development in their primary language. SDAIE differs from ELD in that the focusis on academic content, not on language development. Students must deal with the content and textbooksthat mainstream classes use. SDAIE classes are content classes taught using special techniques to makethe instruction comprehensible. In addition, teachers pay special attention to helping students deal with94

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieracademic texts in English. This often means creating lessons so students can develop strategies foreffective content-area reading.Example SDAIE Lesson"Mi meta en la vida es ser un majordomo en el fit" (My life's goal is to be a foreman in the fields). This isa response that Mary, a bilingual, high school English teacher in a rural community got all too often frommigrant students. Mary explains a dilemma she often sees: "The biggest reason that these students haveso much trouble in school is that people think they are proficient in reading and writing English justbecause they speak English. Once this assumption is made, the trouble begins." Mary knows that unlessher students can achieve academic success and show to themselves as well as to their teachers that theycan be readers and writers of academic English, they will probably drop out of school and take minimumwage jobs.Like Sue, Mary also developed a unit on the migrant experience. The Hispanic high school students inher SDAIE English class were going to read The Grapes of Wrath (Steinbeck 1967). Mary wanted tohelp the adolescents understand the text and make connections between it and their personal experiencesor the experiences of people in their community. She started by drawing on her students' experiences and,at the same time, helping them build background for the novel. She read the poem, "Border Towns"(Duran 1994). She put a copy of the poem up on the overhead projector and then asked students to writea reaction to the poem. Then the students discussed the poem in groups of three and shared theirresponses with the whole group. They talked about how it felt to be called a "wetback" and expressedtheir sympathy for the undocumented people trying to cross the border into the United States. Thestudents also discussed a videotaped beating by policemen of undocumented immigrants. Recently, thevideotape was shown on a local television station. Students also discussed the recent newspaper coverageof wage disputes among local farm workers.Next, the students read "Salvador Late or Early," a one-page excerpt from Cisneros' (1991) WomanHollering Creek, This description of a poor, gallant, rural Hispanic child who is totally ignored by theschools and Anglo society caught the students' attention. Mary asked the students to write their reactionsto this excerpt and then discuss their ideas in small groups. While the reading and writing were inEnglish, students could use Spanish in the small groups to clarify ideas. Then, the students picked outphrases and descriptive words that created powerful images. Each group wrote their choices on anoverhead transparency and explained to the whole group why those images were so vivid for them.The following day Mary began class by reading Lights on the River (Thomas 1994) the poignantly toldand beautifully illustrated story of a migrant family. Mary chose this book because the illustrations andthe text paint a vivid picture of the difficulty of migrant living. Then, she showed her students three otherbooks about migrant life, Voices from the Fields, (Atkin 1993), A Migrant Family (Brimmer 1992) andEarth Angels (Buirski 1994). Each book is a photographic essay of migrant life. Mary had two copies ofeach book, so she divided the class into six groups. She asked each group to choose sections of the bookto share with the class. The groups selected both photographs and text that conveyed important points.Again, some students used Spanish as they discussed their choices and prepared for their presentation, butthey gave their reports in English.After their presentations and further discussion, Mary's students read Steinbeck's novel. Theirreading assignments were not too long each night, and each day students shared (in groups of three) theirwritten journal responses to the reading. Because Mary's students live in areas similar to those Steinbeckdescribed and because Mary had worked to build background concepts and vocabulary before herstudents began the novel, they were able to make many important connections and to discuss and writeabout the novel, showing a depth of understanding. As a final project, the students chose sections of thenovel to write up in play form that they dramatized.Mary's SDAIE English class worked with the same content that mainstream English classes at their gradelevel were reading. The techniques she used to introduce the novel and get students involved helped themunderstand and appreciate a novel that they might otherwise have considered tiresome and irrelevant.95

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierMary used a number of effective teaching strategies as she worked with her students to provide contentbasedlanguage instruction. Her focus was on content instruction in the areas of literature and writing, butshe also paid special attention to the language needs of her students. Figure 2-4 lists the books Mary andSue used in their units on the migrant experience.Migrant BibliographyAltman, Linda Jacobs. 1993. Amelia's Road. New York: Lee & Low Books Inc.Altman, Linda Jacobs. 1993. El camino de Amelia. Translated by Daniel Santacruz. New York: Lee &Low Books.Atkin, S. Beth. 1993. Voices from the Fields: Children of Migrant Farmworkers Tell their Stories.Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Brimmer, L.D, 1992. A Migrant Family. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company.Buirski, Nancy. 1994. Earth Angels. San Francisco: Pomegranate Artbooks.Cisneros, Sandra. 1991. Woman Hollering Creek. New York: Vintage Press.Herrera, Juan Felipe. 1995. Calling the Doves: El canto de las palomas. Emeryville, CA: Children'sBook Press.Steinbeck, John. 1967. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Penguin Books.Thomas, Jane Resh. 1994. Lights on the River. New York: Hyperion Books for Children.Williams, Sherley. 19(J2. Working Cotton. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Example Lesson on Diversity and Nutrition: Language Through ContentAt the elementary level the line between SDAIE and ELD often blurs, especially in self-contained classeswith students who represent a range of English proficiency levels and a range of levels of prior academicknowledge. in these settings, teachers find ways to teach both language and concepts by organizingcurriculum around themes. By building on student interests and experiences, teachers help students movebeyond their present level of proficiency in English while they are learning academic language andconcepts. At this level, it is more useful to refer to SDAIE or ELD students rather than classes.Whenever possible, teachers allow students to respond to assignments in different ways, and they basetheir evaluation more on content knowledge for SDAIE students and more on language development forELD students, even though both groups are learning both language and content.Roberto is a third grade bilingual teacher who teaches much of the content and reading in his class inSpanish. However, he knows that his students need to transition to an all-English classroom soon. Healso knows that their ability to read, write, and speak Spanish helps them as they study in English. Hisunit on "Diversity and Nutrition" is an example of how he carefully chooses materials and topics that helphis students develop academic concepts and linguistic proficiency in English. Like Juan Carlos, whosecultural food lesson was described at the beginning of this chapter, Roberto avoids teaching traditionallists of English words or having students memorize dialogues about foods. Instead, he involves studentsin analyzing the eating habits of a variety of cultural groups.To introduce a unit on nutrition and to encourage students to begin talking about the topic of the foodtraditions of different cultures, Roberto read El sancocho del sabado (Torres 1995) (Saturday Sancocho)to his third grade students. Then, he asked them if they had eaten a dish like the sancocho described inthe book. Some students explained that their families prepared sancocho but their sancocho had somedifferent ingredients. Other students enthusiastically described ingredients and preparation of stews andsoups their relatives served, including typical Mexican stews like posole and menudo. To stimulatefurther discussion of traditional foods, Roberto read Todos cocinan arroz (Dooley 1993) (EverybodyCooks Rice) to his class. This reading stimulated lively discussion as students talked about their favoriterice dishes.As the discussion in Spanish progressed, some of the students complained that they did not like certaindishes or particular ingredients within them. Then, Roberto moved the discussion to English and read the96

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierstudents "in the mood for a favorite food," one of the playful poems from the collection, What's on theMenu? (Goldstein 1995). The students brainstormed in English a list of foods they liked and did not like.Next, students interviewed one another about those foods, asking which they liked and which theydisliked. Then, they graphed the class results following a suggested math activity from theDescubrimiento! Finding Out, (Santillana 1986) program, "Diagramando lo que Te gusta"(DiagrammingWhat You Like).Because spaghetti came up often as a favorite food, the students and the teacher looked for stories andpoetry about pasta. They sang, "On Top of Spaghetti" using the big book (Tillotson 1997) andenthusiastically repeated together the Jack Prelutsky poem, "Spaghetti! Spaghetti!" (Prelutsky 1996).Two students also located two more poems from What's on the Menu? that were about pasta, "ItalianNoodles" and "Ready for Spaghetti."Next, Roberto showed the students a large poster of the food pyramid. He asked students to look at thepyramid, talk together in pairs, and then tell him what they noticed. Students immediately pointed outthat pasta was at the bottom and "You should eat lots of bread and pasta." They also pointed out that thepyramid showed "You shouldn't eat too much greasy or sweet stuff." Roberto asked the students to thinkabout spaghetti and traditional dishes like sancocho and posole and decide if they were nutritious or not.Students noted that all the dishes included different sections of the food pyramid. Several students addedthat they ate bread or tortillas with their posole or spaghetti.Because bread can be an ideal topic to get at the idea of the rich diversity in eating, Roberto read hisstudents the big book version of Bread, Bread, Bread (Morris 1989). Students were interested to seedifferent shapes of loaves of bread, tortillas, French bread, and even pretzels and pizza among thephotographs of breads eaten around the world. The teacher also put up a poster, "Los panes del mundo"(Breads of the World) for students to look at and discuss.Roberto's goal for this discussion of the varieties of bread people eat was to have his students begin tounderstand the value of their different eating customs and the eating customs of others. To further thisdiscussion about different eating customs around the world, the class read Good Morning, Let's Eat (Badt1994), a book rich in photographs that tells what people eat for breakfast all over the world. They alsoread "Sandwiches around the world," an excerpt taken from, Crayota Kids, a children's magazine.Using the English version of Todos cocinan arroz (Dooley 1993), Everybody Cooks Rice (Dooley 1991),Roberto continued with the theme of eating around the world. in the book, the main character goes fromhouse to house, and in each home is served rice prepared in the style unique to a particular culture.Drawing on this plot line, Roberto divided his students into groups. Each group chose one section of thebook and reported on the special rice preparation described in that section.Roberto turned to the foods that were representative of his students' Latino backgrounds. He read Chato'sKitchen (Soto 1995) and students listed the traditional Mexican foods the "cool cats" from the barrioprepared to try to trick the mice at their dinner. They also read Judge for a Day (Gonzalez-Jensen 1997)in which an Anglo boy hesitates to judge in a Latino food contest because he is afraid the dishes will betoo spicy. He is amazed to learn of the variety of Latin American food that is not spicy at all. In fact, it isthe spicy Texas chili that really burns! From Father to Son (Almada 1997) fascinated the students as theyread about the art of making Mexican pan dulce (sweet breads). Later, their interest led to a field trip to alocal panader(a (Mexican bakery).To conclude the unit, students wrote about traditional family dishesand decided whether they were nutritional or not. The students found that most dishes were, indeed, verygood for their, health. As a final activity, each student brought a sampling of a favorite family recipe, andthe class shared a traditional and nutritious meal together. Figure 2-5 lists the books Roberto used in hisnutrition unit.Roberto chose a content theme of interest to his students, one for which they already had backgroundknowledge. By reading a variety of literature around the same theme, Roberto's students built up theirEnglish vocabulary of terms that refer to food, food preparation, and health matters. The studentsincreased their content knowledge in the areas of both health and social studies. Perhaps the greatestbenefit of the unit for Roberto's students is that they came to appreciate their own cultural tradition aswell as the traditions of other cultural groups.97

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierSeveral teachers we have worked with in our multicultural city have expanded on nutrition units. Oneadult education teacher had her students bring in traditional recipes for favorite foods. Together, the classtalked about the recipes and translated them into English. The published booklet includes a Russiansponge cake, a Laotian papaya salad, a Cambodian fish dish, a Hmong pork recipe, and a Mexicanmeatball soup dish. Other teachers have asked immigrant parents to come into the classroom to talk aboutand cook different ethnic foods for their classes. Some teachers end a multicultural unit with a meal thatincludes foods from many cultures. One high school SDAIE class collected ethnic recipes from thestudents in the school and put together a very professional ethnic cookbook to sell. The success of thisproject helped both the students and their families feel a new pride in their heritage. In addition, others inthe community began to appreciate different nutritional habits. Anglos may eat large quantities of breadand potatoes instead of rice or tortillas, for example, but students see that each cultural group relies oncertain staple foods. When teachers validate the customs of different cultures, they validate the studentswho represent those cultures at the same time.Nutrition BibliographyAlmada, Patricia. 1997. From Father to Son. Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby.Badt, Karin. 1994. Good Morning, Let's Eat. Chicago: Children's Press.Dooley, Norah. 1991. Everyone Cooks Rice. New York: Carolrhoda Books, Inc.Dooley, Norah. 1993. Todo el mundo cocina arroz. New York: Scholastic.Goldstein, Bobbye S., ed. 1995. What's on the Menu? New York: Puffin Books.Gonzalez-Jensen, Margarita. 1997. Judge for a Day. Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby.Klien, Ann. 1994. "Sandwiches from Around the World." Crayola Kids.Morris, Ann. 1989. Bread, Bread, Bread. New York: Mulberry Books.Prelutsky, Jack. 1996. "Spaghetti! Spaghetti!" In Celebrate, edited by 1.David Cooper and John J. Pikulski. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Soto, Gary. 1995. Chat6's Kitchen. New York: Scholastic.Tillotson, Katherine. 1997. On Top of Spaghetti. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Torres, Leyla. 1995. El Sancocho del Sabado. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.Content-Based Teaching with Languages Other than EnglishIn previous sections, we defined and gave examples of content-based instruction for English learners. Inthis section, we show how this approach can apply to students learning other languages by providing anexample of an ELD lesson with a twist; this is also an SLD (Spanish Language development) lesson. Thestrategies would be the same for ELD or SLD, but in this lesson the teachers are working with limited-Spanish proficient students and attempting to teach them content in both English and Spanish.We chose this example for two reasons. First, we want to emphasize the importance of using students'primary languages. This helps students reclaim their linguistic and cultural heritage and builds selfesteem.it also highlights the importance of bilingual students as human resources in any classroom.Second, we suggest that teaching language through content organized around themes using learnercenteredand interactive methods is a valid approach that applies to students of any language.Example Spanish Lesson: Earthquakes!Denette was a monolingual fifth grade teacher in a rural school with a high Hispanic population. Theschool did not have a bilingual program, and ELD was only provided on a pullout basis for a half houreach; day. This meant that it was up to the classroom teachers to provide comprehensible contentinstruction in English. Because Denette understood the benefits of primary language instruction, shelooked for ways to support her students’ first language, Spanish: "My dilemma has always been, how do1, a monolingual teacher, provide the best language instruction for my second language learners when Ido not speak their language?"98

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierAll of Denette's fifth graders were mainstreamed, and none were pulled out for ELD. Many of themclaimed that they no longer spoke or understood Spanish, much less read or wrote it. Denette wanted tofind a way to restore pride in her Latino students' linguistic and cultural heritage, and to introduce herEnglish-only students to Spanish. Her goal was to help all her students to develop both linguistic andacademic competence.Denette found a creative solution to her own lack of bilingualism by collaborating with Ann, a bilingualundergraduate college student who planned to become an elementary teacher. Denette knew that togethershe and Ann could provide instruction in two languages. They planned a unit of study aroundearthquakes, a topic of interest to Denette's fifth graders. The two big questions Denette's students posedwere: "What causes earthquakes?" and "What should we do if an earthquake hits?"As they organized the unit, Denette and Ann gathered articles and stories in English about earthquakes.Over the next few weeks, Denette involved her students in the earthquake study. Students chose anarticle or story to read alone or in pairs and then discuss with the class. These readings and discussionshelped students build background knowledge for the earthquake study. In the sections that follow, wedescribe some of the lessons Denette and Ann designed together to promote Spanish languagedevelopment and teach content. Both their goals and their methods also are appropriate for teacherswhose goal is English language development.To introduce academic Spanish, Ann passed out an article about earthquakes from the Spanish ScholasticNews, "¿Que pase aqui?" ("What Happened Here?") (1995), and Denette led a discussion about possiblereading strategies students could use to comprehend a text in a new language. One goal of this lesson wasto help students develop the strategies they need to read any difficult material they encounter. Manystudents rely on trying to sound out words or resort to looking them up in a dictionary. Denette and Annwanted the students to learn to rely on extralinguistic cues, such as pictures; linguistic cues, such ascognates; and human resources beyond themselves or their teacher. Denette asked her students, "Whatcan you do to understand this article if you do not read Spanish?" The students volunteered the followingideas:Look at the pictures.Look for words that are similar to English words. Buddy up with someone who knows some Spanish.Look at the pictures, then the words, then the pictures again.Then, the students were divided into groups of three. Denette didn't think any of her students could readin Spanish, but she put one student she thought could speak some Spanish in each group. She asked thestudents to work together to read the article. Denette reminded them to use the strategies theybrainstormed. She also told them that after they read and discussed the article they would be called on toreport back on what they learned and on the strategies they used.The whole class discussion that followed the activity revealed that the students understood the academiccontent of the article written in Spanish and used the strategies the class listed. One group commented,"We saw the Scholastic News and looked at it, and we saw that it was in Spanish so we saw the picturesand looked at the words and found out what it meant." The students went on to explain how they foundconnections between English and Spanish words. By expanding the discussion to include not onlyacademic content but also the strategies students used to understand the content, Denette and Ann helpedstudents develop both language and academic competence.What surprised Denette was how much Spanish some of her students could read. Different groupscommented on how important the Spanish speakers had been. They shared how the Spanish readers onlyhad to give a few key ideas. The more proficient Spanish speakers shared their pride in teaching someoneelse Spanish. One student commented, "I felt proud about myself when I taught Ashley and Marcos howto read in Spanish." By creating a situation where her students could demonstrate their primary languagecompetence, Denette built their self-esteem. Her new awareness of the strengths of these students also ledher to involve them fully as language experts in subsequent activities.99

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierThe next activity Denette and Ann developed dealt with plate tectonics, which Denette introduced theprevious week. She reviewed plate tectonics using overhead transparencies for visual support. Then shetold the students to turn to the back of their Scholastic News and follow along as Ann explained theinstructions in Spanish for a science activity. The students worked in their groups, again relying on theSpanish speakers for clues, to follow the illustrated instructions and build a structure representing platetectonics by placing blocks on top of two books. The books represented the plates under the earth. Thestudents wrote a hypothesis (in English) about what they thought would happen to the structures as thebooks were moved in different ways. The students moved the books in different directions and recordeddifferences in how the structures collapsed with each type of plate movement. Each group recorded theirresults to test against their hypothesis. Afterwards, the whole class met, and the groups reported anddiscussed their results.Again, during whole class discussion in English, Denette and Ann helped students reflect on both theacademic content they learned and the process they used to understand the content, including workingwith others and using different strategies to comprehend instructions written in a second language. Onceagain, the Spanish speakers in Denette's class made an important contribution.For the final activity, students acted out earthquake scenes. They formed groups of five, with at least oneproficient Spanish speaker in each group. Then Ann passed out descriptions of different scenes wherepeople were experiencing an earthquake. These were written in Spanish on a strip of paper. Theyincluded situations such as "You are in a bus on the way to school, and an earthquake begins." "You arein your math class, and the floor starts to shake." "You are out on the playground playing a game withyour friends when you feel the earth moving."The students read their scenes in groups and then discussed the best way to react in that situation. Thenthey chose a way to pantomime the scene and their response. The object was to act the scene out in a waythat classmates could guess the situation. The students decided how to present their scenes and practicedthem. Then each group acted out a scene, and the other groups wrote their guesses down in Spanish withthe help of the group expert. After each performance, Ann collected the guesses and announced thewinning group or groups.To end the exciting day, each student responded with a quick write (spontaneous writing for a shortperiod of time) to answer the questions: "How did your day go? What was it like if you did not speakSpanish? Did you surprise yourself in how much you could comprehend today?" Student responses wereconsistently positive. For example, Ashley commented, "I loved the way I learned new Spanish words. Ionly know a tiny bit, but Jesse helped me." Terry wrote, "I am a second language learner, and I likelearning languages because it helps us talk to other people." And Jesse concluded, "I felt proud ofmyself."The theme study Denette and Ann's students participated in helped them learn science content. Thestudents were actively engaged in answering questions they helped to raise. What made this theme studyeffective is that Denette considered her students' linguistic and affective needs as well as their academicand cognitive needs. By including Spanish in her lessons, Denette more fully involved all her students.Ann's use of Spanish in the classroom seemed to legitimize the language and functioned as an invitationfor students with some Spanish ability to use their primary language in class. As one student commented,"Well today it went wonderful. Because I knew Spanish a little, but now I know much more." Inaddition, students with higher levels of Spanish proficiency were regarded as important resources by theirclassmates.This theme study provides a good example of an approach to language and to curriculum that bestexemplifies ELD lessons. In this case, the language being developed was Spanish, so this was ELD witha twist. What is important, though, is not which language is used, but how both language and content canbe learned together when teachers engage students in meaningful curriculum organized around interestingthemes.100

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierContent-Based Instruction In EFL SettingsTeaching language through content sounds wonderful for students in the ESL setting, but for those whoteach EFL (English as a Foreign Language), it's different. They cannot simply take ESL strategies andactivities and use them successfully.We heard this concern over and over as we traveled, lived, and worked in Latin America over the pastfive years. We spoke to groups because they were interested in hearing about innovative approaches toteaching English, and they had heard or read about content-based approaches such as whole language, theuse of literature to teach language, and sheltered English instruction. As we explained how teachers inESL settings implemented content-based language instruction, EFL teachers expressed their interest butalso raised concerns. in the following section, we discuss some of the challenges these teachers face intrying to move toward teaching language through content using a socio-psycholinguistic orientation.Then, we provide some examples of ways that teachers in Venezuela have met those challenges.Challenges for Content-Based Teaching in EFL Contexts1. Taking a socio-psycholinguistic orientation and teaching language through content is particularlychallenging in EFL settings for a variety of reasons. Most EFL settings have several of thesechallenges.2. Often, there are limited resources available that reflect literature/ content-based practices.3. Many countries have depressed economies, so available materials often seem extremely expensive;money to buy available materials is extremely limited.4. Available materials are often out-of-date textbooks that reflect a traditional grammar-based approachto language teaching.5. The official government curriculum reflects a traditional approach, and teachers do not know how toreconcile that with a new orientation.6. The official government curriculum calls for more current, innovative approaches, but teachers lacktraining to implement it.7. There is limited time allocated for teaching English in schools.8. Teaching conditions are often poor. Problems include large class sizes, heavy teaching schedules,low salaries, and poor physical conditions in the schools.9. Because of the lack of opportunity to use English, many teachers' English proficiency may be limited.10. Because of the lack of teacher training opportunities, teachers may teach as they were taught-usuallythrough grammar translation or audio-lingual methods.11. Teachers often teach the language found in textbooks rather than the language students need tocommunicate or compete academically in an English-speaking environment.12. The emphasis is on learning skills, not on acquiring the language.13. National and international examinations of English proficiency are based on the content oftraditional approaches to teaching English.14. Teachers often have to work several jobs to make a living. This makes collaboration, planning ofthemes, and sharing of materials difficult.15. Parents have definite expectations for their children's English learning. They expect traditionalapproaches and traditional homework assignments.16. Administrators of innovative programs find it difficult to coordinate complicated teaching schedules,overwhelmed teachers, and limited resources.17. Students may see little relevance in learning English if they have limited opportunities to useEnglish outside school or to interact with native speakers.18. It’s hard to learn language outside the cultural context of native speakers of the language.Some of these challenges exist in the ESL setting as well: the reluctance to move away from statemandated curriculum, poor teaching conditions, the tendency to teach as we were taught, and the101

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieremphasis on skills. In the EFL setting, however, teachers are more likely to face strong pressure to followofficial guidelines; they are more likely to face poor teaching conditions (especially in public schools);they are more likely to have been taught English with a traditional method, and they are more likely to besurrounded by other teachers who teach English as a set of skills,Other challenges are unique to the EFL setting. These may include limited access to content-basedmaterials in English and pressure to use grammar-based textbooks with the result that students don't learnthe language they need. EFL teachers have limited time for teaching English. Some teachers are limitedin their English proficiency. Administrators trying to implement current practices find their efforts tochange schools affected by these challenges and by the pressure of parent expectations. Because manyteachers in EFL settings work in private schools, the parents are essentially the customers, and theirdemands must be taken into account for schools to survive. Added to all these constraints is the difficultyof teaching language outside its cultural context. Because English does not have immediate use andpurpose, many students are not motivated to learn the language because they don't see it as relevant.Despite these challenges, content-based teaching from a socio-psycholinguistic orientation is possible inthe EFL setting. Next, we describe ways that elementary EFL teachers as well as teachers of adult EFL inVenezuela, adapted their curriculum and their approach so that they could teach language throughcontent.During our year in Venezuela, we became aware that teaching language through content offered not onlypossibilities but huge challenges as well. We worked with teachers in a K-6 public school who wanted tohelp their students, but struggled against the odds. The average salary for an elementary school teacherwas about $150 a month. Inflation rates were high, and the salary barely covered food and housing. Theschools had very few supplies. Children brought their own paper. Bulletin boards were very strictlyrationed. No copy machines were available at the school. The only books were some bland governmenttexts in reading, social studies, and science. The official reading program consisted of copies of fourliterature titles for each grade level. Often, these small paperbacks never reached the school or, if theydid, they never got past the librarian.We talked to the teachers about how people learn and what kinds of materials support reading. Weshowed them children's books in Spanish and English, including big books we brought from California.They responded enthusiastically, but they also knew that access was almost impossible. Teachers literallycouldn't afford to buy books for their classrooms. When we explained, for instance, that a big book inSpanish or English cost around thirty dollars, they were aghast at the expense.It was clear we needed to look for alternatives to the beautiful materials we have in many ESL settings.We talked with the teachers about alternative materials to help support a quality reading and writingprogram that would teach language through content. The teachers came up with the following list:• Initiate a campaign to buy a set of big books in Spanish and English for the school. Each studentcould bring the equivalent of ten to twenty cents to begin a general fund.• Investigate if grants to buy books might be available from various industrial firms or educationalagencies.• Make big books by hand, referring to commercial books for ideas.• Have students put together class sets of big and little books around themes the whole class isstudying. Preserve the books for continued use by covering them with contact paper.• Cut out pictures from magazines to create stories that can be made into books.• Choose an interesting theme and find newspaper articles on this theme. Mount articles onto heavypaper or cardboard.• Invite experts in the community to share ideas and materials.• Establish pen pals with students in other schools or other countries.102

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierThese teachers became enthusiastic about adopting a new orientation toward teaching. Despite thechallenges they faced, they saw that these ideas would help their students learn both language andacademic subjects.Another group of teachers we worked with in Venezuela were adjunct faculty members of theUniversidad de los Andes and were teaching English to older learners, from teenagers to adults. This wasa large program of over one thousand students who registered for different levels of English about everythree months. The teachers attended workshops we gave on successful practices, including a workshopon teaching language through meaningful content. Each week we met with teachers to help themimplement a meaningful curriculum.The director of this program adopted a textbook series that was based on a combined notional-functionaland communicative approach. A series of characters are introduced in the first lessons and their storiesunfold throughout the series in the dialogues of each lesson. Lessons center around traditional functionssuch as introductions, apologies, and requests. Suggested activities are interactive and include suchthings as discussing pictures in the text, interviewing classmates, and asking, and answering questions.For the most part, the teachers in the program were young and had no background in language teachingpedagogy. They were selected primarily for their English proficiency. They used the textbooks rathertraditionally, going through the exercises with their classes mechanically. Then, they came to our weeklymeeting complaining there wasn't enough in the lessons to fill up the class time. When we probed, theteachers admitted that their students did not speak that much English nor did the quick run through thelessons seem to teach them much.As a group, we decided to take each lesson and brainstorm ways to extend it and make it more authentic.Even though the extended lessons were not content-based because there was no science, social studies, orliterature within most of the original lessons, the ideas the teachers came up with got them and theirstudents more involved and excited about English.Taking a socio-psycholinguistic orientation and teaching language using authentic materials and drawingon student interest and backgrounds is a challenge for teachers in EFL settings. This is because mostlanguage textbooks teach the language and culture of the target language generally. Not much can bedone to personalize lessons and allow students to really draw on their background and strengths. Whenteachers adapt their lessons using successful practices, they offer students a better chance for success.References• Brinton, Donna and Peter Master, eds. 1997. New ways in Content-Based Instruction. Alexandria,Virginia: TESOL.Part One includes a chapter on the theoretical background of content-based instruction. There aresections on K- 1 2 instruction; postsecondary instruction; and teacher preparation, assessment, andresearch. Part Two deals with practical issues of implementing content based instruction in differentsettings, and Part Three has articles connecting content-based instruction with other approaches.• Crawford Alan. 1994. "Communicative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition: From OralLanguage Development into the Core Curriculum for L2 Literacy" In Schooling and Language MinorityStudents: A theoretical framework, edited by Charles Leyba. Sacramento: Evaluation, Dissemination andAssessment Center.Crawford’s, chapter helps show teachers how to move students into content-area studies and provides agood explanation of how to help students develop academic literacy in a second language.• Enright, D. Scott, and Mary Lou McCloskey. 1988. Integrating English: Developing EnglishLanguage and Literacy in the Multilingual Classroom. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Enright and McCloskey's book contains many practical ideas for elementary teachers, including ways toorganize the classroom for thematic instruction.• Law, Barbara, and Mary Eckes. 1990. The More Than Just Surviving Handbook. Winnipeg: Peguis.This book offers many practical ideas for both elementary and secondary teachers of English languagelearners, written in a teacher-friendly style.103

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier• Peregoy, Suzanne F, and Owen F Boyle. 1993. Reading, Writing, & Learning in ESL. New York:Longman.Peregoy and Boyle's book is subtitled "A Resource Book for K-8 Teachers" and that is what it is. Theauthors offer good suggestions for teaching reading and writing across the curriculum for both elementarysecond language students.• Richard-Amato, Patricia, and Marguerite Snow, eds. 1992. The Multicultural Classroom: Readingsfor Content Area Teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.The chapters include both theory and practical ideas. The book has four sections: theoretical foundations,cultural considerations, the classroom: instructional practices and materials, and reading in specificcontent areas. This last section contains several chapters, each focusing on a different content area. Thelast two sections of this book, in particular, contain many practical ideas for implementing content-basedlanguage teaching.• Scarcelia, Robin , and Rebecca Oxford. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual inthe Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Although the title suggests a communicative approach, Scarcelia and Oxford include many useful chartsand practical ideas that would be easy to implement in a content-based language classroom.• Snow, Marguerite, and Donna Brinton, eds. 1997. The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives onintegrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman.This book focuses on university-level content-based instruction. It offers a very good theoreticalgrounding for teaching language through content.• Stryker, Stephen, and Betty Lou Leaver, eds. 1997. Content-Based Instruction in Foreign LanguageEducation. Baltimore: Georgetown University Press.Books that provide examples of content-based instruction in foreign language settings are rare. However,this book shows how teachers of many languages (Arabic, Croatian, French, Indonesian, Serbian, andRussian among others) with students at different proficiency levels are using subject matter content ratherthan grammar to teach language. This is a practical book with many actual classroom descriptions.104

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierHow Children Acquire Language: A New AnswerBy Dr. Laura Ann PetittoReprinted by permission. Originally publishedHow do babies acquire language? What do babies know when they start to speak? Prevailingviews about the biological foundations of language assume that very early language acquisitionis tied to speech. Universal regularities in the timing and structure of infants’ vocal babbling andfirst words have been taken as evidence that the brain must be attuned to perceiving andproducing spoken language, per se, in early life. To be sure, a frequent answer to the question"how does early human language acquisition begin?" is that it is the result of the development ofthe neuroanatomical and neurophysiological mechanisms involved in the perception and theproduction of speech. Put another way, the view of human biology at work here is that evolutionhas rendered the human brain neurologically "hardwired" for speech. Over the past 20 years Ihave been investigating these issues through intensive studies of hearing babies acquiring spokenlanguages (English or French) and deaf babies acquiring signed languages (American SignLanguage, ASL, or Langue des Signes Québécoise, LSQ), ages birth through 48 months. Themost striking finding to emerge from these studies is that speech, per se, is not critical to thehuman language acquisition process. Irrespective of whether an infant is exposed to spoken orsigned languages, both are acquired on an identical maturational time course. Further, hearinginfants acquiring spoken languages and deaf infants acquiring signed languages exhibit the samelinguistic, semantic, and conceptual complexity, stage for stage. If sound and speech are criticalto normal language acquisition how then can we account for these persistent findings? In orderfor signed and spoken languages to be acquired in the same manner, human infants at birth maynot be sensitive to sound or speech, per se. Instead, infants may be sensitive to what is encodedwithin this modality. I propose that humans are born with a sensitivity to particular distributional,rhythmical, and temporal patterns unique to aspects of natural language structure, along specificphysical dimensions (temporal "sing-song" prosodic patterning and bite-sized, maximallycontrastingsyllable segments--both levels of language organization that are found in spoken andsigned languages). If the input language contains these specific patterns, infants will then attemptto produce them--regardless of whether they encounter these patterns on the hands or on thetongue. One novel implication here is that language modality, be it spoken or signed, is highlyplastic and may be neurologically set after birth. Put another way, babies are born with apropensity to acquire language. Whether the language comes as speech, sign language, or someother way of having language, it does not appear to matter to the brain. As long as the languageinput has the above crucial properties, human babies will attempt to acquire it.Timing MilestonesDeaf children exposed to signed languages from birth, acquire these languages on an identicalmaturational time course as hearing children acquire spoken languages. Deaf children acquiringsigned languages do so without any modification, loss, or delay to the timing, content, andmaturational course associated with reaching all linguistic milestones observed in spokenlanguage. Beginning at birth, and continuing through age 3 and beyond, speaking and signing105

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierchildren exhibit the identical stages of language acquisition. These include the (a) "syllabicbabbling stage" (7-10 months) as well as other developments in babbling, including "variegatedbabbling," ages 10-12 months, and "jargon babbling," ages 12 months and beyond, (b) "firstword stage" (11-14 months), (c)"first two-wordstage" (16-22 months), and the grammatical andsemantic developments beyond. Surprisingsimilarities are also observed in deaf and hearingchildren's timing onset and use of gestures as well.Signing and speaking children produce strikinglysimilar pre-linguistic (9-12 months) and postlinguisticcommunicative gestures (12-48 months).Deaf babies do not produce more gestures, eventhough linguistic "signs" (identical to the "word")and communicative gestures reside in the samemodality, and even though some signs and gestures are formationally and referentially similar.Instead, deaf children consistently differentiate linguistic signs from communicative gesturesthroughout development, using each in the same ways observed in hearing children. Throughoutdevelopment, signing and speaking children also exhibit remarkably similar complexity in theirutterances.The Discovery of Manual BabblingIn trying to understand the biological roots of humanlanguage, researchers have naturally tried to find its"beginning." The regular onset of vocal babbling--thebababa and other repetitive, syllabic sounds thatinfants produce--has led researchers to conclude thatbabbling represents the "beginning" of humanlanguage acquisition, albeit, language production.Babbling--and thus early language acquisition in ourspecies--is said to be determined by the developmentof the anatomy of the vocal tract and theneuroanatomical and neurophysiological mechanismssubserving the motor control of speech production. In the course of conducting research on deafinfants' transition from pre-linguistic gesturing to first signs (9-12 months), I first discovered aclass of hand activity that contained linguistically-relevant units that was different from all otherhand activity at this time. To my surprise, these deaf infants appeared to be babbling with theirhands. Additional studies were undertaken to understand the basis of this extraordinary behavior.The findings that we reported in Science revealed unambiguously a discrete class of handactivity in deaf infants that was structurally identical to vocal babbling observed in hearinginfants. Like vocal babbling, manual babbling was found to possess (i) a restricted set ofphonetic units (unique to signed languages), (ii) syllabic organization, and it was (iii) usedwithout meaning or reference. This hand activity was also wholly distinct from all infants'rhythmic hand activity, be they deaf or hearing. Even its structure was wholly distinct from all106

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierinfants' communicative gestures. The discovery of babbling in another modality was exciting. Itconfirmed the hypothesis that babbling represents a distinct and critical stage in the ontogeny ofhuman language. However, it disconfirmed existing hypothesesabout why babbling occurs: It disconfirmed the view that babbling isneurologically determined by the maturation of the speechproductionmechanisms, per se. Specifically, it was thought that the"baba," CV (consonant-vowel) alternation that infants produce isdetermined by the rhythmic opening and closing of the mandible(jaw). But manual babbling is also produced with rhythmic, syllabic(open-close, hold-movement hand) alternations. How can we explainthis? Where does this common structure come from? A new series ofstudies is currently under way to examine the physical basis of thisextraordinary phenomenon (see Optotrak studies below, "The Physics of Manual Babbling").The Physics of Manual BabblingWhere does the common structures in vocal and manual babbling come from? Is manualbabbling really different from all babies' other rhythmic hand movements? I have hypothesizedthat the common structure observed across manual and vocal babbling is due to the existence of"supra-modal constraints," with the rhythmic oscillations of babbling being key. Both manualand vocal babbling, alone, are produced in rhthymic, temporally-oscillating bundles, which Ihave hypothesized may, in turn, be yoked to constraints on the infant's perceptual systems. Thenext challenge then was to figure out how to study it.I recently conducted a new study of manual babblingwith my colleague at McGill, David Ostry, andstudents Siobhan Holowka de Belle, Lauren Sergio,and Bronna Levy. We used the powerful"OPTOTRAK Computer Visual-Graphic AnalysisSystem. The precise physical properties of all infants'manual activity were measured by placing tiny Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) on infants' hands and feet.The LEDs transmitted light impulses to cameras that,in turn, sent signals into the OPTOTRAK system.This information was then fed into the computer software that we designed to provide us withinformation analogous to the spectrographic representation of speech, but adapted here for thespectrographic representation of sign. Thus, for the first time, we were able to obtain recordingsof the timing, rate, path movement, velocity, and "fo" for all infant hand activity, and to obtainsophisticated, 3-D graphic displays of each. This work is presently in press in Nature (2001).Bilingualism and Early Brain DevelopmentI. Bi-lingual hearing babies acquiring a signed and a spoken language from birth, and bi-lingualhearing babies acquiring two different signed languages from birth (and no speech): Presently, anadditional test of the hypothesis that speech is critical to the acquisition process is underinvestigation in my laboratory, testing two critical populations: (1) "bi-lingual" hearing infantswho are being exposed to signed and spoken languages (i.e., one parent signs, one parent107

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierspeaks), and (2) "bi-lingual" hearing infants who arebeing exposed to two distinct signed languages(ASL and LSQ), but who are receiving no spokenlanguage input whatsoever. With regard to group(1), bi-lingual, signing/speaking children achieve alllinguistic milestones in both modalities at the sametime (e.g., vocal and manual babbling, first wordsand first signs, first grammatical combinations ofwords and signs, respectively, and beyond; seePetitto et al., in press, Journal of Child Language).Further, infants in both groups (1) and (2) exhibittheir linguistic and semantic-conceptual milestoneson the identical overall maturational time course as seen in monolingual children (Petitto, 2000),with their specific developmental patterns being identical to that which has been observed in thetypical case of bi-lingual hearing babies exposed to two spoken languages (e.g., spoken Frenchand spoken English; more below).II. Discovery of common timing in bi-lingual and mono-lingual children: In the course ofconducting the above research on the maturational timing mechanisms in hearing babiesacquiring signed & spoken languages from their bilingual parents, we discovered that our younghearing controls--bilingual children learning spokenFrench and English--were achieving all major linguisticmilestones in each of their respective languages on theidentical time course, and on the identical time courseas monolinguals (Petitto, 1994, 1997). Significance:Prevailing research on very young bilinguals, however,had reported that bilingual babies under 20 monthsexhibted language delay and confusion relative tomonolingual babies because they ostensibly had asingle, fused representation of their two nativelanguages, which they were only able to sort out overthe first three years of life. By contrast, my findingssuggested that very young bilingual babies have highlydistinct representations of their two native languagesquite probably from birth. I have further advanced anhypothesis stating what mechanisms in the human brainmay enable the very young baby to differentiatebetween its two native languages from birth, and I haveoffered the field an explanation as to why theperception of "delay" and "confusion" in youngbilinguals has prevailed, both among scientists and thepublic (see Petitto et al., 2001, Journal of ChildLanguage).108

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier109

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierAre Signed Languages "Real" Languages?By Dr. Laura Ann PetittoEvidence from American Sign Language and Langue des SignesQuébécoiseReprinted from Reprinted from: Signpost (International Quarterly of the Sign LinguisticsAssociation), vol. 7, No. 3. 1-10. French and Spanish translations available on request. photo by EmmaAmsden (British Deaf Association) HTML fileLaura Ann PetittoDepartment of PsychologyMcGill University1205 Dr. Penfield AvenueMontréal, Québec H3A-1B1Canadapetitto@hebb.psych.mcgill.caPreambleIn the Fall of 1993, a Mr. Gilles Read sent me a letter. Mr. Read is the General Manager of theMontreal Metropolitan Deaf Community Center. He wrote to me seeking a document thataddressed the question of whether signed languages were "real" languages. At the time, I wassurprised to discover that there did not exist a document that simply and directly asked andanswered his question, especially in one single source. Therefore, I wrote Mr. Read a letter, ofwhich an expanded version appears below. To be sure, I could not possibly have summarized forMr. Read all studies of signed languages to date, as fortunately thousands now exist. Nor was itpossible to summarize the many important studies of signed languages that have been undertakenoutside of North America. Indeed, Mr. Read was preparing to attend meetings in the Provincialgovernment of Québec and he needed a document that specifically addressed the linguistic statusof the two main signed languages used in these regions, in particular American Sign Language(ASL) and Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ). Thus, my goal was to draw together thedisparate studies on signed languages that have been conducted in a very clear way, and to showhow they bear on the critical question, "are signed languages 'real' languages?" Although theexamples are drawn from studies of ASL and LSQ, the general structure of the argumentspresented here are applicable to arguments for the "real language" status of other natural signedlanguages around the world.***I. IntroductionThis paper summarizes over thirty years of scientific research, which, in one form or another,addresses the following question: Are the natural signed languages that are used by many deafpersons throughout the world "real" languages? Below I demonstrate that signed languages areindeed "real" languages. I do so by drawing evidence from three categories of scientific research,including (i) Linguistic analyses of natural signed languages, (ii) Sociolinguistic analyses of110

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliernatural signed languages, and, crucially, (iii) Biological analyses of the status of natural signedlanguages in the human brain.1.1. "Real" signed languages versus invented codesMy discussion here concerns the linguistic, social, and biological status of the world's naturalsigned languages, rather than the invented sign-based codes that are often used in classroomswith deaf students as a teaching tool, such as, in Québec, "Seeing Essential English" ("S.E.E.") inthe English schools, and "Française Signée ("F.S.") in the French schools. There is generalscientific agreement about the status of these invented sign-based codes: Invented sign-basedcodes that are used as a pedagogic tool with deaf pupils are not "real" or natural languages.Instead, (i) they are artificially-invented teaching devices that are not used spontaneously by anynative Deaf community anywhere in the world, (ii) they are not passed down from generation togeneration of Deaf people, (iii) they do not delineate Deaf cultural communities, and (iv) theyare "hybrids," amalgams of parts of spoken language structure and parts of signed languagestructure that do not possess the full grammar of either of the two languages from which theywere drawn (e.g., Marmor & Petitto, 1979; Supalla, 1986). In the following text, therefore, mydiscussion will focus on the scientific investigations of natural signed languages--such asAmerican Sign Language and Langue des Signes Québécoise, addressing each of the above threecategories of scientific research in turn.2. Natural Signed Languages are "Real" Languages: The ResearchEvidence2.1. Linguistic analyses of natural signed languagesIntensive linguistic research over the past three decades on the natural signed languages of theworld has revealed that they demonstrate the identical linguistic properties common to theworld's spoken languages. Like spoken languages, signed languages have evolved naturally.Contrary to a widely held misconception, no person (hearing or deaf) actually invented any ofthe world's signed languages. Like spoken languages, natural signed languages are passed downfrom one generation of language users to another, and the people who use particular signedlanguages constitute distinct social and cultural groups. Moreover, signed languages are nonuniversal,that is, there is no single signed language used by all Deaf people around the world,and non-concrete, that is, they are not made up of "concrete pictures, " mime, or "gestures in theair." Natural signed languages have the full abstract and expressive capacity, as well as the strictgrammatical regularities, of all spoken languages.For example, linguistic analyses of American Sign Language (ASL), a naturally-evolvedlanguage that is used by many Deaf persons in the United States and parts of Canada, haverevealed that it exhibits grammatical organization at the same three levels found in spokenlanguage. These include (1) a sub-lexical level of structuring internal to the sign, identical to thephonetic, phonemic, and syllabic levels of language organization (e.g., Battison, 1978; Bellugi,1980; Brentari, 1989, 1990; Coulter, 1986; Lane & Grosjean, 1980; Liddell, 1990; Liddell &111

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierJohnson, 1989; Padden & Perlmutter, 1987; Perlmutter, 1989, 1991; Sandler, 1986; Stokoe,1960), (2) a level that specifies the precise ways that meaningful units are bound together to formcomplex signs and signs to form sentences, identical to the morphological and syntactic levels oflanguage organization (e.g., Baker-Shenk, 1983; Fischer & Siple, 1990; Klima & Bellugi, 1979;Liddell, 1978; Padden, 1981; Supalla, 1982), and (3) a level that specifies the precise ways thatsentences are joined into conversational patterns, identical to the discourse and pragmatic levelsof language organization (e.g., Wilbur & Petitto, 1981, 1983).Scientific study of the structure and grammar of the other signed languages used throughout theworld have revealed that they, too, demonstrate the identical linguistic properties found in bothASL and in spoken language. For example, studies of Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ), thesigned language used in Québec and elsewhere in Canada by culturally French Deaf persons,have revealed that it is a fully autonomous natural language with a unique etymology (history ofthe derivation of its signs): It is a grammatically distinct language from ASL and it is agrammatically distinct language from the signed language used in France. Indeed, LSQ is acomplete and richly complex language. It has "phonological," morphological, syntactic,discourse, pragmatic, and semantic structures that are entirely equal in complexity and richnessto that which is found in any spoken (or signed) language (e.g., Petitto, 1987b&c; Petitto &Charron, 1988; Petitto, Charron, & Briére, 1990; see also Brentari, 1991; Lacerte, 1991; Miller,1991).Taken together, the scientific study of the linguistic status of signed languages has demonstratedthat complete human languages are not restricted to the speech channel. Signed languagespossess all of the linguistic features that have been identified as being the essential, universalfeatures of the world's spoken languages.2.2. Sociolinguistic analyses of natural signed languagesSociolinguistic studies have been conducted that examine the social and cultural conditionsunder which natural signed languages are used. These studies have revealed that signedlanguages exhibit the identical sociolinguistic patterns observed in spoken languages. Likespoken languages, signed languages undergo change over time, and they demonstrate the sametypes of historical change that are seen in spoken languages. For example, signed languagesexhibit the same processes of expanding their lexicons (the set of words or signs in a language)through sign borrowings, loan signs, and compounding (e.g., see Battison, 1978; Klima &Bellugi, 1979; Woodward, 1976; Woodward & Erting, 1975). As is common among users of aparticular spoken language (e.g., English, French), signed language users within distinct signedlanguage communities (e.g., ASL or LSQ communities) demonstrate regional accents in theirsigning, lexical (=sign) variation depending on socio-economic status, and lexical variationdepending on the language user's age, sex, and educational background (e.g., Battison, 1978).Further, users of distinct signed languages abide by language-specific (tacit) rules of politeness,turn-taking, and other discourse (conversational) patterns found in spoken languages (e.g., Hall,1983; Wilbur & Petitto, 1981, 1983).As can be seen with users of particular spoken languages, users of particular signed languagesoften share beliefs, attitudes, and customs with others who use the same language, binding them112

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierinto a distinct cultural group--one that is not simply the signed version (or Deaf translation) ofthe majority spoken culture within which they reside (e.g., Hall, 1989; Lane, 1989; Padden &Humphries, 1988; Rutherford, 1988). In Canada, for example, the ASL and the LSQ signedlanguage communities, respectively, are bound by a distinct collection of beliefs and attitudesthat are expressed in a variety of ways. These include, for example, (a) the existence of poetry inASL or in LSQ, (b) humor and jokes in ASL or in LSQ, (c) indigenous artistic expressionthrough theatre and dance in ASL or in LSQ, (d) indigenous meeting customs and traditions(e.g., witness the many Deaf social clubs in the ASL or the LSQ community, as well as in theother signed language communities throughout the world), (e) Deaf religious organizations inASL or in LSQ, (f) Deaf sports events in ASL or in LSQ, (g) Deaf newspapers and otherpublications for the ASL or the LSQ communities, and so forth.In summary, sociolinguistic studies of natural signed languages have determined that theydemonstrate strikingly similar patterns of change, variation, and social and cultural use that arecommon to the world's spoken languages.2.3. Biological analyses of the status of natural signed languages in the human brainThough there is now wider acceptance that signed languages are "real" languages based onlinguistic and socio-cultural grounds, a persistent and powerful misconception remains. Themisconception can be summarized as follows: "Spoken language is fundamentally ëbetterí thansigned language; sign is 'inferior' ('secondary') to speech.î The notion that signed languages areìrealî languages, but somehow "inferior" or ìlowerî than the ìhigherî status spoken languages, isreminiscent of the late 19th century division of spoken languages into "high" and "low"languages. (Here, languages deemed "high" were those used in Western Europe, and "lowî or"primitive" languages were those used elsewhere by aboriginal peoples.) Though subsequentscientific studies have shown that the ìhigh-lowî classification of spoken languages is whollyfallacious, similar attitudes regarding spoken versus signed languages have not been subject tothe same sorts of scientific scrutiny.The above view about signed languages runs especially deep because it invokes biology. At theheart of the misconception is the notion that signed languages are biologically inferior to spokenlanguages. Why is this so? The answer involves a three-tiered set of related assumptions: First, acommon quip is "most people speak, so speaking must be better." I call this the "more is better"assumption. Second, drawing from the observation that "most people speak," people have furtherassumed that this must "prove" that speech, alone, has been selected for over the development orevolution of the species (or, in "phylogeny"). Third, the assumption that speech has been selectedfor over human evolution, has implicitly been used to support the core, critical assumption aboutthe biological foundations of human language: the brain must be neurologically set for speechearly in the developmental history of individual human organisms (or, in "ontogeny").This third assumption has generally been regarded as being true because of the remarkableregularities observed in very early spoken language acquisition. Noting such universalregularities in, for example, the timing of the onset of speaking children's early vocal babblingand first words, researchers have concluded that the brain and its' maturation must be attuned toperceiving and producing spoken language input (per se) in early life. To be sure, a typicalanswer to the question "how does early human language acquisition begin?" is that it is the result113

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierof, and wholly determined by, the development of the anatomy of the vocal tract and theneuroanatomical and neurophysiological mechanisms involved in the motor control of speechproduction (e.g., Locke, 1983; MacNeilage & Davis, 1990; MacNeilage, Studdert-Kennedy, &Lindblom, 1985; van der Stelt & Koopmans-van Beinum, 1986). An implicit assumption thatunderlies such views is that spoken languages are better suited to the brain's maturational needsin development. Put another way, the view of human biology that underlies the prevailing thirdassumption is that the human brain is "hardwired" for speech and that speech is "special" or"privileged." On this view of the brain, then, signed languages can only be regarded as being"biologically" inferior to (or "lower" than) spoken languages. By extension, many educators andresearchers, alike, have assumed that speech is better in order to achieve "normal" languageacquisition.2.3.1. Is there any evidence in support of the alleged "inferior" biological status of signedlanguages?Surprisingly, with the exception of the studies reported below, the critical studies required toevaluate the above assumptions have not been conducted. As noted above, most allcontemporary answers to questions about the biological foundation of language have been basedon the core assumption that very early language acquisition is tied to speech. There is, however,a fatal flaw with this assumption: Given that only languages utilizing the speech modality arestudied, it is in principle, a priori, impossible to find data that would do anything but support thishypothesis. Only when a modality other than speech is analyzed can any generalization about thebrain's predisposition for speech be evaluated, and, therefore, whether signed languages have thesame or different status in the human brain.2.3.2. The critical ontogenetic evidence regarding the biological status of natural signedlanguageOver the past 12 years, research in my own laboratory has been directed at understanding thebiological foundations of human language. My central aim has been to discover the specificbiological and environmental factors that together permit early language acquisition to begin inour species.Studies of very early signed language acquisition offer an especially clear window into thebiological foundations of all of human language (be it spoken or signed), as well as its biologicalstatus in the brain. Spoken and signed languages utilize different perceptual modalities (soundversus sight), and the motor control of the tongue and hands are subserved by different neuralsubstrates in the brain. Comparative analyses of these languages, then, provide key insights intothe specific neural architecture that determines early human language acquisition in our species.If, as has been argued, very early human language acquisition is under the exclusive control ofthe maturation of the mechanisms for speech production and/or speech perception, then spokenand signed languages should be acquired in radically different ways. At the very least,fundamental differences in the time course and nature of spoken versus signed languageacquisition would suggest that each may be processed and represented in different ways,presumably due to their differing biological status in the human brain.114

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierTo investigate these issues, I have conducted numerous comparative studies of childrenacquiring spoken languages (English or French) and children acquiring signed languages(American Sign Language or Langue des Signes Québécoise), ages birth through 36 months.The empirical findings from my cross-linguistic and cross-modal studies are clear:(i) Deaf children who are exposed to signed languages from birth, acquire these languages on anidentical maturational time course as hearing children acquire spoken languages. Deaf childrenacquiring signed languages from birth do so without any modification, loss, or delay to thetiming, content, and maturational course associated with reaching all linguistic milestonesobserved in spoken language. Beginning at birth, and continuing through age 3 and beyond,speaking and signing children exhibit the identical stages of language acquisition. These includethe (a) "syllabic babbling stage" (7-10 months, approx.) as well as other developments inbabbling (e.g., "variegated babbling," ages 10-12 months, and "jargon babbling," ages 12 monthsand beyond; Petitto, 1984, 1987a&b; Petitto & Marentette, 1991a), (b) "first word stage" (11-14months, approx.; e.g., Petitto, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1993b; Petitto & Marentette, 1991b;Petitto, Costopoulos, & Stevens, in preparation), and (c)"first two-word stage" (16-22 months,approx.; Petitto, 1987a; Petitto & Marentette, 1991b). Though some researchers have claimedthat "first signs" are acquired earlier than "first words," subsequent analyses have revealed thatthe claim is wholly unfounded1.Surprising similarities are also observed in deaf and hearing children's timing onset and use ofgestures. Signing and speaking children produce strikingly similar pre-linguistic (9-12 months)and post-linguistic communicative gestures (12-48 months; e.g., Petitto, 1984, 1987a, 1992).They do not produce more (or more elaborate) gestures, even though linguistic "signs" (identicalto the "word") and communicative gestures reside in the same modality, and even though somesigns and gestures are formationally and referentially similar. Instead, deaf children consistentlydifferentiate linguistic signs from communicative gestures throughout development, acquiringand using each in the same ways observed in hearing children (see Petitto, 1992).Signing children exhibit highly similar patterns of later grammatical development as well (ages22-36 months, approx., and beyond), including systematic morphological and syntacticdevelopments (e.g., "over-regularizations," negation, question formation, and so forth; e.g.,Petitto, 1984, 1987a; see also Newport & Meier, 1985).Throughout development, signing and speaking children exhibit remarkably similar complexityin their utterances. For example, analyses of young ASL and LSQ children's social andconversational patterns of language use over time, as well as the types of things that they "talk"about over time (its' semantic and conceptual content, categories, and referential scope), havedemonstrated unequivocally that their language acquisition follows the identical path as isobserved in age-matched hearing children acquiring spoken language (Charron & Petitto, 1991;Petitto, 1992; Petitto & Charron, 1988).(ii) Hearing children exposed to both signed and spoken languages from birth (e.g., one parentsigns and the other parent speaks) demonstrate no preference for speech whatsoever, even thoughthey can hear. Instead, they acquire both the signed and the spoken language to which they are115

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierbeing exposed on an identical maturational timetable (the timing of the onset of all linguisticmilestones occurs at the same time in both the signed and spoken modalities). In addition, suchchildren acquire the signed and spoken languages to which they are being exposed (e.g., ASLand English, or, LSQ and French) in the same manner that other children acquire two differentspoken languages from birth in a "bilingual" home, for example, one with spoken French andspoken English (Petitto, 1985, 1986, 1993b; see especially, Petitto, 1993a, and Petitto,Costopoulos, & Stevens, in preparation).(iii) Hearing children who are exposed exclusively to signed languages from birth through earlychildhood (i.e., they receive little or no systematic spoken language input whatsoever), achieveeach and every linguistic milestone (manual babbling, "first signs," "first two-signs," and soforth) in signed language on the identical time course as has been observed for hearing childrenacquiring spoken language and deaf children acquiring signed language. Thus, entirely normallanguage acquisition occurred in these hearing children (a) without the use of auditory andspeech perception mechanisms, and (b) without the use of the motoric mechanisms for theproduction of speech (Petitto, a&b; Petitto, Costopoulos, & Stevens, in preparation).2.3.3. Significance of biological studies of early signed and spoken language acquisitionDespite the modality differences, signed and spoken languages are acquired in virtually identicalways. The differences that were observed between children acquiring a signed language versuschildren acquiring a spoken language were no greater than the differences observed betweenhearing children learning one spoken language, say, French, versus another, say, Finnish.Such findings cast serious doubt on the core hypothesis in very early spoken languageacquisition: that the maturation of the mechanisms for the production and/or perception ofspeech, exclusively determines the time course and content of early human language acquisition.These findings further challenge the hypothesis that speech (and sound) is critical to normallanguage acquisition, and they challenge the related hypothesis that speech is uniquely suited tothe brain's maturational needs in language ontogeny.If speech, alone, were neurologically set or "privileged" in early brain development, then, forexample, the hearing infants exposed to both speech and sign from birth might be expected toattempt to glean every morsel of speech that they could get from their environment. Facedimplicitly with a "choice" between speech and sign, the very young hearing infant in this contextmight be expected to turn away from the sign input, favoring instead the speech input, andthereby acquire signs differently (e.g., later). Simlarly, deaf and hearing infants exposed only tosigned languages from birth should have demonstrated grossly abnormal patterns of languageacquisition. None of this happened.What is most interesting about these research findings is that the modality "switch" can be"thrown" after birth regarding whether a child acquires language on the hands or the language onthe tongue. Such findings have led me to propose a new way to construe human languageontogeny (see especially Petitto, 1993a&b). Speech and sound are not critical to human languageacquisition. Instead, there appears to be a stunning, biologically-based equipotentiality of the116

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliermodalities (spoken and signed) to receive and produce natural language in ontogeny (Petitto,1994).The only way that signed and spoken languages could be acquired with such startling similarity,is if the brain's of all newborns possess a mechanism that is sensitive to aspects of the structuralregularities of natural language, irrespective of the input modality. Rather than being exclusively"hardwired" for speech or sound, our species appears to "hardwired" to detect aspects of thepatterning of language (specifically, aspects of its structural and prosodic regularies; see Petitto,1993a&b). If the environmental input contains the requisite patterns unique to natural language,human infants will attempt to produce and to acquire those patterns, irrespective of whether theinput is signed or spoken. (For a discussion of the specific neural substrates that underlie thiscapacity in ontogeny, as well as their possible roots in phylogeny, see especially Petitto,1993a&b.)In summary, the present findings prove wholly false assumptions about the "biologicalinferiority" of signed languages relative to spoken languages. Signed and spoken languages areacquired in the same ways, and on the same maturational time course. With regard to the brainand human biology, this indicates that signed and spoken languages engage the same brain-basedmechanisms in very early language acquisition.3. Conclusion: Are Signed Languages Real Languages?Results from studies of early language acquisition provide especially strong evidence relevant toassessing whether signed languages are real languages. Here we see clearly that the prevailingassumption about the biological foundations of human language--indeed, the very assumptionupon which notions of the alleged biological superiority of speech over sign rests--is notsupported when the relevant studies are conducted. Specifically, no evidence was found that thenewborn brain is neurologically set exclusively for speech in early language ontogeny. Noevidence was found that speech is biologically more "special," more "privileged," or "higher" instatus than sign in early language ontogeny. Instead, the key, persistent research finding toemerge is this: The biological mechanisms in the brain that underlie early human languageacquisition do not appear to differentiate between spoken versus signed language input. Bothtypes of input appear to be processed equally in the brain. This provides powerful evidence thatsigned and spoken languages occupy identical and, crucially, equal biological status in thehuman brain.In summary, I have outlined three lines of scientific research on the status of natural signedlanguages relative to spoken languages, including Linguistic, Sociolinguistic, and Biologicalresearch. All three types of research provide powerful converging evidence that natural signedlanguages are "real languages," demonstrating all of the features characteristic of language in ourspecies. Thus, there is no scientific reason to exclude ASL or LSQ, or any other natural signedlanguage, from the family of languages used by human beings. That signed languages are reallanguages can now be considered to be an unequivocal scientific fact.AcknowledgementsI thank Kevin Dunbar, Jamie MacDougall and the researchers (students and staff) who assisted117

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierin the studies discussed within, and, crucially, the Deaf and hearing families who so lovinglygave their time and support to these studies. I also thank the following for funding this research:Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada, the MacDonnell-Pew Centre Grant inCognitive Neuroscience, and the McGill-IBM Cooperative Project.Footnotes1 Most all of the claims regarding the earlier onset of first signs over first words stem from onegroup of researchers (e.g., Bonvillian, Orlansky, Novack, & Folven, 1983; Folven & Bonvillian,1991). Recently, a second group of researchers (Meier & Newport, 1991) has based theirtheoretical arguments in support of a possible "sign advantage" largely on Bonvillian et al.s'claims. The subjects in Bonvillian et al.'s studies are reported to have produced their "first sign"at a mean age of 8.2 months (a date that differs from hearing childrens' first words, which occursat approximately 11 months). However, in their studies, the infants' "first signs" were notrequired to be used in a meaningful or referential way. Instead, infant manual productionscontaining "recognizable adult phonetic forms" without any "referential" content, wereattributed "sign" status (=lexical or word status). What they were actually measuring, however, isclear from the spoken language acquisition literature and from my own work: In spokenlanguage, we see that hearing infants around ages 7-10 months begin production of "syllabicbabbling," whereupon they produce vocal productions containing recognizable adult phoneticforms without any referential content. Similarly, in signed language, we see that sign-exposedinfants around ages 7-10 months also begin production of "syllabic babbling," albeit on theirhands (Petitto & Marentette, 1991a). Thus, it would appear that Bonvillian et al., havemislabeled genuine instances of manual babbling in sign-exposed infants as being "first signs."Recall that their date for the age of first signs is 8.2 months--which is smack in the middle ofinfants' manual (and/or vocal) babbling stage (see also Petitto, 1988, for a discussion of othermethodological considerations associated with this research, including the overattribution oflinguistic ìsignî status to these infantsí non-linguistic communicative gestures).ReferencesBaker-Shenk, C. (1983). A microanalysis of the non-manual components of questions inAmerican Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign languageresearch. New York: Academic Press. 27-57.Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, Md.: LinstokPress.Bellugi, U. (1980). The structure of language: Clues from the similarities between signed andspoken language. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken language:Biological constraints on linguistic form. Dahlem Konferenzen. Weinheim/Deerfield Beach,Fla.: Verlag Chemie. 115-140.Bonvillian, J., Orlansky, M.D., Novack, L.L., & Folven, R.J. (1983). Early sign languageacquisition and cognitive development. In Rogers & Sloboda (Eds.), The Acquisition of symbolicskills. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. 201-214.118

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierBrentari, D. (1991). L'accord verbal et la structure conceptuelle en LSQ et en ASL. Revuequébécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée. 10: 1. 57-70.Brentari, D. (1990). Harmonic phonology in ASL. Doctoral dissertation, Department ofLinguistics, University of Chicago. Chicago, Il., U. S. A.Charron, F & Petitto, L.A. (1991). Les premiers signes acquis par des enfants sourds en languedes signes québécoise (LSQ): Comparaison avec les premiers mots. Revue québécoise delinguistique théorique et appliquée, 10:1. 71-122.Coulter, G. (1986). ASL consonants, syllables, and stress: Implications for universals of prosodicstructure. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Fischer, S. & Siple, P. (Eds.) (1990). Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol.1.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Folven, R.J. & Bonvillian, J. (1991). The transition from nonreferential to referential language inchildren acquiring American Sign Language. Developmental Psychology, 27: 5. 806-816.Hall, E.T. (1989). Deaf culture, tacit culture and ethnic relations. Sign Language Studies, 65.291-303.Hall, S. (1983). TRAIN-GONE-SORRY: The etiquette of social conversations in American SignLanguage. Sign Language Studies, 41. 291-309.Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard UniversityPress.Lacerte, L. (1991). Bilinguisme et diglossie chez les sourds. Revue québécoise de linguistiquethéorique et appliquée. 10: 1. 141-155.Lane, H. (1989). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Vintage Books.Lane, H. & Grosjean, F. (1980). Recent perspectives on American Sign Language. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Liddell, S. (1990). Structures for representing handshape and local movement at the phonemiclevel. In S. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.) Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol.1.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 37-65.Liddell, S. (1978). Non-manual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. In P.Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. New York: AcademicPress. 59-90.119

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierLiddell, S. & Johnson, R. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. SignLanguage Studies. 64. 195-278.Locke, J. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.MacNeilage, P.F. & Davis, B. (1990). Acquisition of speech production: Frames, then content. InJeannerod (Ed.) Attention & Performance XII: Motor Representation & Control. Hillsdale,N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 453-476.MacNeilage, P.F., Studdert-Kennedy, M.G., & Lindblom, B. (1985). Planning and production ofspeech: An overview. In J. Lauter (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference of planning andproduction of speech by normally hearing and deaf people. American Speech and HearingReports.Marmor, G. S. & Petitto, L. A. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: How wellis English grammar represented? Sign Language Studies, 3. 99-136.Meier, R. & Newport, E. (1991). Out of the hands of babes: On a possible sign advantage inlanguage acquisition. Language, 66. 1-23.Miller, C. (1991). Une théorie prosodique de la phonologie des langues des signes. Revuequébécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée. 10: 1. 21-55.Newport, E. & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. I. Slobin(Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 1: The data. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 881-938.Padden, C. (1981). Some arguments for syntactic patterning in American Sign Language. SignLanguage Studies, 32. 239-259.Padden, C. & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA.:Harvard University Press.Padden, C. & Perlmutter, D. (1987). American Sign Language and linguistic theory. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory, 5. 335-375.Perlmutter (1991). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Unpublishedmanuscript. Department of Linguistics. University of California, San Diego.Petitto, L. A. (1994). On the equipotentiality of signed and spoken language in early languageontogeny. In B. Snider (Ed.), Post-Milan ASL and English literacy. Issues, trends, and research.Washingon, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 195-223.Petitto, L. A. (1993a). From the beginning: On the genetic and environmental factors that makeearly language acquisition possible. In M. Gopnik & S. Davies (Eds.) The genetic basis oflanguage. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. In press.120

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierPetitto, L. A. (1993b). On the ontogenetic requirements for early language acquisition. In B. deBoysson-Bardies, S. de Schonen, P. Jusczyk, P. MacNeilage, & J. Morton (Eds.), Developmentalneurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Press. 365-383.Petitto, L. A. (1992). Modularity and constraints in early lexical acquisition: Evidence fromchildren's first words/signs and gestures. In M. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (Eds.) Modularity andconstraints in language and cognition: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 25-58.Petitto, L. A. (1988). "Language" in the pre-linguistic child. In F. Kessel (Ed.), Developmental ofLanguage and Language Researchers: Essays in Honor of Roger Brown. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 187-221.Petitto, L. A. (1987a). On the autonomy of language and gesture: Evidence from the acquisitionof personal pronouns in American Sign Language. Cognition, 27:1. 1-52.Petitto, L. A. (1987b). "Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of sign languagebabbling: Preliminary evidence from American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des SignesQuébécoise (LSQ)." Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research,Lappeenranta, Finland, July 15-19.Petitto, L. A. (1987c). Deaf people in Canada: A look at their sign language and culture. InParker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Deaf people and deafness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Petitto, L. A. (1986). Language versus gesture: Why signed languages are not acquired earlierthan spoken languages. Abstracts from Theoretical Issues in Sign Language ResearchConference. Rochester, New York: Cognitive Science Technical Report. University ofRochester, 32. 30-31.Petitto, L. A. (1985). Are signed languages acquired earlier than spoken languages? Society forResearch in Child Development Abstracts, Volume 5. Biennial Meeting. Toronto, Canada. 269.Petitto, L. A. (1984). From gesture to symbol: The relationship between form and meaning in theacquisition of personal pronouns in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Departmentof Human Development and Psychology, Harvard University. Cambriged, MA., U. S. A.Petitto, L. A. & Marentette, P. (1991a). Babbling in the manual mode: Evidence for the ontogenyof language. Science, 251. 1483-1496.Petitto, L. A. & Marentette, P. (1991b). The timing of linguistic milestones in signed and spokenlanguage acquisition. Society for Research in Child Development Abstracts, Volume 8. BiennialMeeting. Seattle, Washington. 145.121

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierPetitto, L. A. & Charron, F., (1988). "The acquisition of semantic categories in two signlanguages, ASL & LSQ." Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, II, GallaudetUniversity, Wash., D.C., May 18-21.Petitto, L. A., Charron, F., & Brière, S. (1990). Etude de la phonologie de la Langue des SignesQuébécoise (LSQ). Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratoray for Language, Sign, and CognitiveStudies. Department of Psychology, McGill University. Technical Report #7.Petitto, L. A., Costopoulos, N., & Stevens, L., (in preparation). The identity of linguisticmilestones in signed and spoken language acquisition: Evidence for a unitary timing mechanismin the ontogeny of language.Rutherford, S. (1988). The culture of American Deaf people. Sign Language Studies, 59. 129-147.Sandler, W. (1986). The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. SignLanguage Studies, 50. 1-58.Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system ofthe American deaf. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8. University of Buffalo.Supalla, S.J. (1986). Manually coded English: An understanding of modality's role in signedlanguage development. Abstracts from Theoretical Issues in Sign Language ResearchConference. Rochester, New York: Cognitive Science Technical Report. University ofRochester, 32. 14-15.Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American SignLanguage. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of California, SanDiego. La Jolla, CA., U. S. A.Wilbur, R. & Petitto, L. A. (1983). Discourse structure in American Sign Languageconversations. Discourse Processes, 6:3. 225-241.Wilbur, R. & Petitto, L. A. (1981). How to know a conversation when you see one. Journal ofthe National Student Speech Language Hearing Association, 9. 66-81.Woodward, J. (1976). Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. SignLanguage Studies, 10. 81-94.Woodward, J. & Erting, C. (1975). Synchronic variation and historical change in ASL. LanguageSciences, October. 9-12.van der Stelt, J.M. & Koopmans-van Beinum, F.J. (1986). The onset of babbling related to grossmotor development. In B. Lindblom & Zetterstrom (Eds.) Precursors of Early Speech. NewYork:Stockton Press.163-173.122

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier123

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierEssential Academic Learning Requirements (WA)CommunicationCommunication for Today and TomorrowThe information age and the increasing contact between people of different cultures makecommunication more important than ever before. These global realities heighten the need forclarity and an understanding of the ethical responsibilities and consequences of communication.As education researcher Ernest Boyer noted, “It should be remembered that we speak more thanwe write. Throughout our lives we judge others and we ourselves are judged by what we say andhow we speak. The information age raises to new levels of urgency the need for all students tobe proficient in the use of the spoken as well as the written word.” (1983)What Is Communication?Communication is defined as a process by which we assign and convey meaning in an attempt tocreate shared understanding. This process requires a vast repertoire of skills in intra-personaland interpersonal processing, listening, observing, speaking, questioning, analyzing, andevaluating. Use of these processes is developmental and transfers to all areas of life, home,school, community, work, and beyond. It is through communication that collaboration andcooperation occur.Fundamental Beliefs About Curriculum and AssessmentIf there is one unifying theme that crosses all disciplines it is communication. Communication isour window to basic literacy and academic excellence. Reaching levels of excellence andaccuracy of expression mandate mastery of formal English. These are the capabilities thatcultivate the potential in each student and the possibilities for our future.1. The student uses listening and observation skills to gain understanding.To meet this standard, the student will:1.1 Focus attention.1.2 Listen and observe to gain and interpret information.1.3 Check for understanding by asking questions and paraphrasing.2. The student communicates ideas clearly and effectively.To meet this standard, the student will:2.1. Communicate clearly to a range of audiences for different purposes.2.2. Develop content and ideas. Develop a topic or theme; organize thoughts around a clearbeginning, middle, and end; use transitional sentences and phrases to connect relatedideas; and speak coherently and compellingly.2.3. Use effective delivery. Adjust speaking strategies for a variety of audiences andpurposes by varying tone, pitch, and pace of speech to create effect and aidcommunication.124

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier2.4. Use effective language and style. Use language that is grammatically correct, precise,engaging and well suited to topic, audience, and purpose.2.5. Effectively use action, sound, and/or images to support presentations.3. The student uses communication strategies and skills to work effectively with others.To meet this standard, the student will:3.1. Use language to interact effectively and responsibly with others.3.2. Work cooperatively as a member of a group.3.3. Seek agreement and solutions through discussion.The student analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of formal and informalcommunication.To meet this standard, the student will:4.1. Assess strengths and need for improvement. Assess own and others' communicationstrengths and needs and set goals for improvement.4.2. Seek and offer feedback. Seek and use feedback to improve communication; offersuggestions and comments to others.4.3. Analyze mass communication.4.4. Analyze how communication is used in career settings.125

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier1. The student uses listening and observation skills to gain understanding.To meet this standard, the student will:BENCHMARK 1—GRADE 4 BENCHMARK 2—GRADE 7 BENCHMARK 3—GRADE 101.1 Focus attention.Pay attention while others are talking.Pay attention to oral stories, instructions, reports, assemblies,and daily announcements.Give evidence of paying attention such as nodding, maintainingeye contact, taking notes, and asking relevant questions.Pay attention and respond appropriately in particular contextssuch as social interactions and receiving information.1.2 Listen and observe to gain and interpret information.Recognize non-verbal communication. Identify the relationship between verbal and nonverbalcommunication.Identify visual information such as from a scienceexperiment.Interpret visual texts such as illustrations, comics, andvideos.Listen for, identify, and explain:✏ Main ideas✏ Details✏ Fact versus opinion✏ MeaningIdentify visual information and/or people’s behaviors such as in amath activity or an ethnographic study.Interpret and discuss relationships among ideas, information, andevents in visual texts such as illustrations, art, dance, graphs, anddiagrams.Listen for, identify and explain:✏ Important as well as extraneous details.✏ Relationships in stories, poems, etc.✏ Pitch, intensity, and intonation.Use attention level appropriate for particularcircumstances and contexts.Analyze and reflect on ideas while paying attentionand listening in a variety of situations.Interpret and draw inferences from verbal andnonverbal communication.Draw inferences based on visual information and/orpeople’s behaviors.Explore different perspectives on complex issuesthrough viewing a range of visual texts.Listen for, identify, and explain:✏ Information vs. persuasion✏ Inferences✏ Emotive rhetoric vs. reasoned arguments.Demonstrate listening strategies for following instructions. Demonstrate listening strategies for gaining information. Use a variety of effective listening strategies.1.3 Check for understanding by asking questions and paraphrasing.Ask questions to clarify content and meaning, includingwho, what, why, when, where, and how.Ask questions to clarify content and meaning in a variety ofcontexts and situations.Ask questions to interpret and evaluate oral and visualcontexts based on information from a variety ofsources.Paraphrase information. Paraphrase conversations and information. Paraphrase to expand and refine understanding.Ask questions to verify judgments and inferences.Make judgments and inferences.Select information and give opinions. Construct hypotheses. Ask questions to refine and verify hypotheses.126

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier2. The student communicates ideas clearly and effectively.To meet this standard, the student will:BENCHMARK 1—GRADE 4 BENCHMARK 2—GRADE 7 BENCHMARK 3—GRADE 102.1. Communicate clearly to a range of audiences for different purposes.Communicate to teacher, small group, and class, for example, bytutoring or giving reports.Show beginning awareness of the needs of an audience.Use narrative and descriptive forms of speech2.2. Develop content and ideas.Choose content, which relates to topic.Select material from readily available sources.Organize information in a sequential pattern (beginning, middle,end) using simple transitions.Communicate with an expanding range of audiences such ascommunity members and voice-mail.Determine needs of an audience and make limited adjustmentsin content and technique.Communicate for a range of purposes, for example,e to inform,explain, persuade, or entertain.Communicate using different forms of oral presentation such asreports or drama.Choose content appropriate to own purposes and interests andneeds of an audience.Communicate effectively with different audiences.Make well chosen and varied connections betweenown purposes and audience interests and need.Communicate for a broad range of purposes, forexample, to reflect, make inferences, interview, andinfluence.Identify and use different forms of oral presentation.Use a variety of content to convey messages to achosen audience.Select and document relevant material from a variety of sources. Access and use a variety of primary and secondarysources.Organize information with a clear sequencing of ideas andtransitions.Create a comprehensive and organized presentationwith a clear sequencing of ideas and transitions.Describe ideas in concrete terms. Develop a rational argument. Make a well-reasoned, insightful presentationsupported by related details.2.3. Use effective delivery.Speak at a volume and rate that enables others to follow. Speak at a volume and pace appropriate to the situation. Vary tone, pitch, and pace of speech to create effectand aid communication.Project voice well. ➨ Project voice well. ➨ Project voice well.Speak fluently and expressively to the class. Appeal to the interests of the audience. Use logic, arguments, or appeals to persuade others.Use good posture and eye contact. ➨ Use good posture and eye contact. ➨ Use good posture and eye contact.Begin to use facial expression and body language to convey amessage or enhance an oral presentation.Use facial expression and body language to heighten andemphasize message.Skillfully use facial expression, body movement, andgestures to convey tone and mood appropriate to theaudience and message.127

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier2. The student communicates ideas clearly and effectively (continued).To meet this standard, the student will:BENCHMARK 1—GRADE 4 BENCHMARK 2—GRADE 7 BENCHMARK 3—GRADE 102.4. Use effective Language and style.Speak using standard grammar. ➨ Speak using standard grammar. ➨ Speak using standard grammar.Use complete sentences. Use complex sentences. Use a variety of sentence structures.Use age-appropriate vocabulary. Use a range of vocabulary related to a particular topic. Use language that is interesting and well suited to thetopic and audience.Use words and illustrations such as pictures or charts to createan effective presentation.Use language well suited to the chosen audience.2.5. Effectively use action, sound, and/or images to support presentations.Experiment with a variety of media and resources to convey amessage or enhance an oral presentation.Use a variety of media to illustrate and support ideas.Use available technology as a presentation tool.Develop effective voice for the audience and purpose.Communicate messages through oral, artistic, graphic,and/or multimedia presentations.Demonstrate sophisticated use of available technologyto present ideas and concepts.128

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier3. The student uses communication strategies and skills to work effectively with others.To meet this standard, the student will:BENCHMARK 1—GRADE 4 BENCHMARK 2—GRADE 7 BENCHMARK 3—GRADE 103.1. Use language to interact effectively and responsibly with others.Demonstrate conversation skills, for example, entering in,taking turns, responding to others’ remarks, and closing aconversation.Distinguish between types of speech such as a chat, a warning,or a joke.Use language that is respectful of others feelings and rights.Show awareness of possible difficulties when communicatingcross-culturally.3.2. Work cooperatively as a member of a group.Assume a variety of assigned roles within a group to performa task.Use language to interact with others, for example, to greetpeople, compliment, give encouragement, or express feelings.Use language to influence others, for example, topersuade, convince, correct, or disagree.Respond to different types of speech and audiences. Use appropriate humor, slang, idioms, andconversational styles with both peers and adults.Use language that is free from stereotyping, bias, libel, slander,or harassment.Identify cultural assumptions and perspectives.Assume roles or tasks within a group to perform a task.Use language that is accurate and equitable.Show awareness of cultural premises, assumptions, andworld views in order to effectively communicate crossculturally.Participate in a group to write, work toward consensus,propose solutions, or achieve results.Contribute to group with ideas and effort. Contribute to group with suggestions, research, and effort. Make individual contribution to the group and extendthe contribution of others.Respect others’ feelings and right to participate in a group.3.3. Seek agreement and solutions through discussion.Identify and share ideas and points of view.Demonstrate respect for others’ opinions by allowing time forresponses.Acknowledge others’ ideas and points of view; identifysimilarities and differences.Check for understanding in group interactions.Encourage group members to offer ideas and points ofview.Respect that a solution may require honoring otherpoints of view.Analyze group interaction to anticipate consequences.Accept responsibility for personal actions. Contribute responsibly to group efforts. Accept accountability for group results.Formulate ideas and identify possible alternatives. Choose a position and develop a plan of action. Advocate, implement, and evaluate a plan.Suggest solutions and initiate action. Define challenges and encourage others to action. Influence by encouraging and supporting others to actindependently.129

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier4. The student analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of formal and informal communication.To meet this standard, the student will:BENCHMARK 1—GRADE 4 BENCHMARK 2—GRADE 7 BENCHMARK 3—GRADE 104.1. Assess strengths and need for improvement.Use established criteria to evaluate and improve one’s ownand others’ presentations.4.2. Seek and offer feedback.Offer feedback on others’ presentationsAccept and apply feedback on own presentation whenappropriate.4.3. Analyze mass communication.Identify various forms of mass communication such asmagazines, television, newspapers, and the internet; identifymessages in simple advertisements.Identify fact, opinion, and assumptions in masscommunication.Understand that all media is produced from a point of viewand with a set of assumptions.4.4. Analyze how communication is used in career settings.Identify different ways people communicate in theworkplace, for example, telephone, e-mail, or formalpresentations.Establish and apply criteria for evaluating one’s own andothers’ presentations.Know the qualities that make a presentation effective.Evaluate excellent presentations to improve own work.With guidance, offer feedback on others’ presentations withregard to content and organization.Accept feedback when appropriate and revise own presentation.Identify and evaluate techniques used in mass communicationsuch as name-calling, celebrity appeal, and identification withthe audience.Identify and explain the uses and impact of fact, opinion, bias,etc. in mass communication.Identify the accuracy, point of view, and assumptions of media.Identify different communication techniques used in a varietyof career settings such as to persuade, inform, or instruct.Defend choices to deviate from established criteria.Use one’s own and established criteria to improvepresentations.Assess own strengths and weaknesses as a presenter.Independently offer specific feedback on others’presentations with regard to content, design, deliveryskills, word choice, and conventions.Seek, evaluate, accept, and apply feedback.Identify and evaluate complex techniques used in masscommunications such as generalization, appeal topopularity, and appeal to emotion.Analyze and explain the effectiveness of methods used inmass communication.Analyze and interpret the influence of media sources.Determine effective communication techniques for anoccupational/career field of interest.130

Oral Language Acquisition Grid© Dr. Catherine CollierReading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierPre-Production Early Production Speech Emergent Intermediate Advanced Intermed Advanced FluencyFluencyFluency0-6 months 6 months-1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years 5-7 yearsDepends on contextHas minimal receptivevocabularyComprehends keywords onlyPoints, draws, orgesture responsesMay not producespeechAdjusting to USculture0-500 receptive wordvocabularyDepends heavily oncontextProduces words inisolationVerbalizes key wordsResponds withone/two word answeror short phrasesPoints, draws, orgesture responsesMispronunciationGrammar errors500-1000 receptiveword vocabularyShort phrasesMany mistakes ingrammarResponds orallyHears smallerelements of speechFunctions on sociallevelUses limitedvocabularyBetween 1000-6000receptive vocabularySimple sentencesProduces wholesentencesMakes somepronunciation & basicgrammatical errorsbut is understoodResponds orally andin written formUses limitedvocabularyInitiates conversationand questionsShows goodcomprehensionUp to 7000 receptiveCan communicatethoughtsEngage in andproduce connectednarrativeShows goodcomprehensionUses expandedvocabularyMakes complexgrammatical errorsFunctions somewhaton an academic levelUp to 12,000receptive & activeFunctions onacademic level withpeersMaintains two-wayconversationDemonstratesdecontextualizedcomprehensionUses enrichedvocabularyBeyond 12,000 wordvocabularyAble to observe,locate, label, match,show, classify, sort.Able to name, recall,draw, record, pointout, underline,categorize, list.Able to share, retell,follow, associate,organize, compare,restate, role-play.word vocabularyAble to tell, describe,restate, contrast,question, map,dramatize,demonstrate, giveinstructions.word vocabularyAble to imagine,create, appraise,contrast, predict,express, report,estimate, evaluate,explain, model.Able to relate, infer,hypothesize, outline,revise, suppose,verify, rewrite, justify,critique, summarize,illustrate, judge.LAS 0 (0-10) LAS 1 (11-54) LAS 2 (55-64) LAS 3 (65-74) LAS 4 (75-84) LAS 5 (85-100)WM 0-1 WM 1 WM 2 WM 3 WM 4 WM 5CLIC 0-4 CLIC 5-10 CLIC 11-17 CLIC 18-32 CLIC 33-44 CLIC 45-55SOLOM (0-5) SOLOM (6-10) SOLOM (11-15) SOLOM (16-18) SOLOM (18-20) SOLOM (21-25)IPT A IPT B IPT C IPT D IPT E IPT F131

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierPrécis of TPRBy Catherine CollierTell me and I forget.Show me and I understand.Involve me and I remember.A popular and effective way of teaching language is one that actively involves the students andfocuses on understanding the language rather than speaking it. The Total Physical Response (TPR)method asks the students to demonstrate that they understand the new language by responding to acommand with an action.At first, the teacher gives the commands and does the actions along with the student. As the studentunderstands the vocabulary, the teacher stops doing the action and has the student do the action alone.Later, the student can give commands to other students or to the teacher.TPR is simple to use. First, choose the topic you want to work on and gather any props or visuals thatyou might need. You will probably also have to demonstrate your commands to your students so thatthey will understand how to respond. For example:• Point to your eyes• Point to your nose.• Point to your mouth.Your student will learn the command “point to” along with the vocabulary you are teaching. Onces/he sees you doing the action with the command, s/he will begin to understand. You may physicallyhave to help the student at first to give him/her the idea of what you want him/her to do. Add the newvocabulary slowly, along with new commands: point to, show me, touch, go to, etc. Soon you canmix them with familiar vocabulary:• Point to the door.• Now, show me the window.• Touch the red pencil. (You would have several colors of pencils)Constantly review material as you add new material. After several lessons, your student willunderstand a great deal of language.In his book, Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s Guidebook,Dr. James J. Asher outlines the techniques and answers questions about his method of languageteaching known as “Total Physical Response” (TPR). His basic method and theory can beadapted to all levels of second language learning, from pre-school through college. Since it isbased on the process of learning the first language as a child, it seems very relevant for preschoolage children who are still operating in this mode with respect to their first language. Attimes using TPR may seem so natural that you may find yourself saying: “We’re already doingthis in the classroom,” or “This is what I do with the children anyway.” If so, you are farther onthe road to becoming an effective language teacher in addition to being a pre-school teacher. But132

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierI think everyone can appreciate the specific training which TPR offers as a means to improve ourskills in dealing with language development.Perhaps the best initial presentation of TPR is a sample introduction Dr. Asher suggests for abeginning class of intermediate students to explain what he is about to do. The following is aquote from the book:The first step in learning another language is to internalize the code of that language. You willinternalize the code in that same way you assimilated your native language which was throughcommands. Like most of us, you probably have amnesia for your infancy but research suggeststhat many, many of the utterances directed to you when you were a baby—perhaps half of whatyou heard—was in the form of commands such as “Don’t spit up on your blouse!” or “Look atthe bird on the branch of that oak tree!” So what I am saying is that, as an infant, you probablydeciphered and internalized the code of your first language in a chain of situations in whichpeople manipulated and directed your behavior through commands.For hundreds of hours you were silent except for babbling, but during that time you weredeciphering that important code. You were sorting out the patterns that would transform thenoise coming from people’s faces into information. It was only after many months of decodingthat you began to speak and even then your understanding was far in advance of your speakingskill and it remained that way for years. Well, that’s the way you will enter this new language—through commands. I will utter a command and act along with you for several times. Then eachof you will act alone when I give you a command. Gradually, the entire code of the newlanguage will be visible to you and spontaneously your tongue will produce utterances in thenew language.The idea behind TPR is that the best way to teach another language to anyone is not bytranslating, but by almost recreating the process in which the person learned the first language.From one-third to one-half of all a child hears in the first years, as Dr. Asher points out, is in theform of commands or directions. Parents talk and talk to the baby, knowing often that the childdoes not understand all that is said. They do not translate—they can’t. To communicate, theyoften must point, make facial expressions or gestures, or act out things until the child picks upthe meaning and gets the message. Parents speak, expecting the child to understand. If the childdoesn’t, they usually restate, rephrase, or even demonstrate.“Give Mommy a kiss.”“Give Mommy a kiss.”“Come here. Give Mommy a kiss.”(No response.)(Smack lips.)(Picks up and kisses child.)Even beyond recreating the first language learning process, Dr. Asher believes that the humanbrain and nervous system are biologically programmed to acquire language (any language andmore than one language) in a particular sequence and in a particular mode. The sequence isLISTENING BEFORE SPEAKING and the mode is SYNCHRONIZING LANGUAGEWITH BODY MOVEMENTS. There is a long period in which the baby listens to sounds andsorts them out before ever trying to say them. All language methods recognize the more basicstep of understanding before speaking, yet they often jump immediately from one to the other.Also, according to Asher, the readiness to speak is a developmental phenomenon and as such isdifferent in each individual. To push speaking before the child is ready will not necessarily133

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieraccomplish speech faster and may psychologically develop negative experiences connected withlearning the language.In addition, learning attached to physical movement is often retained much longer, as the studieson recall using TPR support. Notice how a person can often take up physical skills which werelearned and then not used for years, such as skating, bicycle riding, swimming.THE STEPSWith the teacher as leader and model, the three basic steps of TPR are:1. DEMONSTRATE the actions several times as you give the directions, waiting for the children toaccompany you.2. HESITATE to see if the children will follow the direction without your demonstration. If not,demonstrate again.3. TEST to see if they have made the connection of words and meaning by not doing the actionyourself, just giving the verbal directions. If not, repeat the previous steps until they can.For example, the initial directions taught are: Stand up. Sit down. Turn around. Jump. In thefirst step the teacher says “Stand up,” and stands up as she says it. She waits and even motionsfor all the children to stand up. When they have, she says “Sit down,” and sits down as she saysit. The same as she introduces “Turn around” and “Jump”. She may repeat these four directionsseveral times until she feels the children have associated the meaning of each with theappropriate action. Then she gives the directions and hesitates before doing them, primarily tosee which children have made the associations. When the children begin to initiate the actioncorrectly before the teacher, she moves to the final step in which she does not demonstrate, butmerely gives the verbal directions. If at any time the response (executing the action requested) isnot correct, she will go back and repeat the step before. Only about three or four directions areto be introduced at a time and mastered before others are presented or before expanding on these.With four such commands as “Stand up”, “Sit down”, “Turn around”, and “Jump”, the techniquemay seem too simple and even boring (but remember for a child who doesn’t know English, itwon’t be). Many variations and complexities can be added as you build up with each lesson andthe directions are actually multiplied into many possible combinations in a short period of time:“Stand up. Go to the table. Find the book. Put the book on Armando’s head. Shake his hand.Go back to your chair. Turn around. Jump. Sit down.” And you may already recognize manypre-school songs and rhymes which fit well with this technique:“Open them, shut them…”“Put your finger in the air…”“If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands…”And teachers (like mothers) are forever finding command utterances necessary to direct childrenin the most basic activities of the classroom:Put on your jacket.Get in line.Wash your hands first.TPR, then, becomes basic survival English. It can and should begin as soon as possible, the firstday of class, and can be used informally as well as in planned lessons in all areas of the134

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierclassroom once the technique becomes automatic and habitual. Teachers naturally givecommands and directions, but with TPR training they should resist the tendency to translate forthe children who don’t understand and take the extra time to act it out, walk through it, or repeatand rephrase. In the long run time is saved, no translation is needed, and a chunk of language islearned and stored to build on later.When, then, do the children speak? At their own pace and readiness and hopefully on avolunteer basis. The first step in speaking might be the fourth step in TPR. That is, after all thechildren are executing correctly the commands, the child takes the role of the teacher and givesthe commands to others. When questions enter the program, at first they are on the simplest(yes/no) level, with the least amount of pressure to speak:Is this a duck?Who has the block?Did you wash your hands?Do you want milk or juice?Yes.John.Yes.Milk.Notice that answers are very natural. We are not requiring full sentences when no native adultspeaker would respond that way. When the child has reached this simple-answer stage with abasic understanding and confidence to begin speaking, the best further technique to developfluency is to set-up and create situations which allow for the maximum amount of time topractice the language.As far as tolerance for spoken speech and the distortions made when learning the language, weagain follow the natural pattern of first language learning, which is to gradually narrow thetolerance for these “mistakes”. At first any utterance is accepted, no matter how unintelligible.A mother is ecstatic when the baby makes the first sounds, and she may even swear she heard“glasses” when the baby says “ga ga”. She may even try to encourage the child by mimickingwhat was said. After the child has made the attempt several times, the mother will start repeatingthe word and gradually begin correcting the child. Baby talk is cute in babies, but as the childgrows it is often less and less tolerated in that it is not rewarded and often corrected. Similarly,the first steps of talking are completely accepted and gradually we narrow in on pronunciation,but never to put the pressure on “correct speech” and kill the desire to communicate.The fact that you are only speaking one language to the children and using no translation of anykind makes this a direct teaching method and compatible with immersion. Important to realize,however, is that there is continual and immediate feedback at every step. If the child did notcomprehend, you repeat and revert to a former step. You can immediately tell whether there wasunderstanding by whether the child responded. As a variation and test of fluency, the lessonsshould be loaded with incorrect or impossible directions or with comical and creative ones:Put the book in the wastebasket.Sit on the orange.Stand on the ceiling.These variations and “error detections” provide interest and offer teachers an indication of thecomprehension the children have gained. With creative variations the lessons will not get dulland they should be much more successful than picture-by-picture language lessons. Commandswhich teach parts of the body can be done as exercises or dances to music in the background.You can create plays as directors and vary the locations of the lessons (e.g. the playhouse, the135

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierblock area) to pick up new vocabulary in that location. You can even act out nursery rhymes orcreate stories. It should be a fun and natural way to learn the new language.And as an extra bonus—The parent who assists in the classroom will certainly be impressed tosee her child participate from the beginning and without knowing the language (in this case,English). To watch a Spanish-speaking child of three or four carry out directions given inEnglish will seem quite an accomplishment to the parent who may not realize that it was becauseof the careful steps and the techniques you used to develop comprehension. The parent will needto understand the method and not rush speaking, but she will be more impressed that the childjumped in and understood and participated along with the others than that you constantlytranslated for her child.APPLICATION TO OLDER STUDENTSWith minor changes in vocabulary, these lessons can be used effectively with older students whoare starting their study of English.The procedure is identical for students from pre-school to adults. First students internalize athorough understanding of spoken English by listening to a direction, then executing theappropriate action. Next, when individual students are ready, invite them to reverse roles withyou. They become the instructor and utter commands to direct your actions or the actions ofother students. Incidentally, when the students are ready for role reversal, they will usually uttercommands from Lessons 1 and 2 even though you are working on comprehension from let ussay, Lesson 4 or 5. Speaking always shadows comprehension, just as it does in childdevelopment. This is the normal development of skills in language acquisition.Students who are literate in their native language seem to appreciate seeing a visualrepresentation of the language that is being acquired through body movements. After studentsare responding quickly and accurately to spoken directions in the target language, the printedlesson is often distributed. Again, it is recommended that the printed lesson be delayed untilunderstanding has been thoroughly internalized. Otherwise, students tend to make faultyassociations between phonology and orthography.With the printed lesson, students begin to acquire reading with ease. They use the lesson tocheck on items they may have missed. They use the printed lesson to prepare a script for rolereversal which means practice in writing. Also the printed lesson is a guide at more advancedstages when students write scripts for skits which they will act out with other students. For moreinformation on acquiring skills or speaking, reading and writing with TPR, please read Asher’sguidebook and documentary films which show children and adults acquiring French, Spanish,German, and Japanese with the stress-free TPR approach.LEARNING WITH MOVEMENTSIntroduce the vocabulary/actions using the 3 Steps: demonstrate, hesitate, and test. Expand thelesson using both paradigm and consistent syntax. Finally, combine and review all elements.1. Introduce: Stand up. Sit down. Turn around. Jump.2. Expand:Watch Everyone stand up.Listen Armando sit down.Youturn around.I’lljump.136

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier3. Introduce: Raise your hand(s). Touch your (head, shoulders, knees, feet). Touch the (floor, desk,wall).4. Expand:Armando touch my hand(s)You raise your deskI’ll Betsy’s shouldersthe knees5. Introduce: Take the ball. Give it to (Armando, Betsy, me). Keep the ball.6. Expand:Take the ball to me Please.Give the basket to Armando Thank you.Bring the doll to himKeepto BetsyThrowto her7. Introduce: Put your hands (up, down) (on your hair, face, waist, hips).8. Expand:Put your hands on your hairTouch my faceThis is Betsy’s chestWhere is (are) her kneesArmando’s shouldershis9. Introduce: Look at (smile at) me. Close your (eyes, hands). Open your eyes (hands). Show me yourhands. Open your hands. Close your hands. Shake hands with me.10. Expand:Look atme.Smile atShake hands withArmando.him.Betsy.her.yourself. (in a mirror)11. Introduce: Put your finger on your (eye, nose, ear, mouth, finger, chair).12. Expand:Put your finger on my eye(s) oneTouch Armando’s nose(s) twoCount his ear(s) threeBetsy’shersmouth(s)finger(s)chairs(s)13. Introduce: Clap your hands. Tap your feet. Shake your head. Snap your fingers.14. Expand:137

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierClap my hand(s)Tap your feetShake our footSnap his toe(s)herfinger(s)itspaw(s)their head(s)MORE LESSON IDEAS1. Do this. (Make a motion.) Do that. (Have another person make a motion.) Expansion:Don’t do this. Don’t do that.2. Get in line. March. Hop. Walk. Run. Crawl. Stop. Go.3. Go to (around, over under) the rug (table, chair, window, door).4. Find the book (doll, block, puzzle, ball). Give (bring) it to me.5. Put the car (orange, book, it) on (under, beside, in) the box.6. Wash (rinse, dry, comb, brush) your body (hair, teeth, arms, legs, feet).7. What is this? Who is this? Where is this?8. Who wants to be the teacher? Come up here. Tell us what to do.9. Who wants (has, will give me, gave me) the book?10. Put the shirt (hat, shoes, pants, jacket) on Armando. Take it off.11. Put the shirt (dress) on the boy (girl). Take it off.12. Draw a person. Draw the head (body, arms, legs, eyes, nose, mouth).13. Put the napkins (cups, forks, knives, spoons, plates) on the table.14. Find the bedroom (living room, kitchen, bathroom, garage, furniture).15. Cry. Laugh. Smile. Frown. Sing. Who is crying (laughing, smiling, frowning, singing).Expansion: dancing, hopping, running.16. Is this a bear (deer, lion, tiger) or other animal?17. Pretend you’re (make a sound like, act like, walk like) a duck (a bird, an elephant).VARIATIONS1. Give the directions through a puppet.2. Do the movements to music.3. Add “faster” and “slower” to the directions.4. Whisper the directions.5. Vary the location of your lessons.6. Have someone else prepare and give the lesson.7. Make a chant or song out of the directions.8. Have the children take turns playing “robot” to follow directions.9. Tape the lesson ahead and play student yourself.10. Make the lesson into a game of “Simon Says”.11. Call on two children at a time (Armando and Betsy…).12. Use a series of directions to dramatize a song or rhyme.13. Vary the directions from individuals to “everyone” and “I’ll”.14. Give some small tokens of reward.15. Send home a lesson as homework.138

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierSUMMARYWith a minor change in some vocabulary items, the lessons in this book can be easily adapted forolder students. The pattern of TPR instruction is the same no matter what the age of the student.First the student acquires listening comprehension when the instructor utters directions in thetarget language which require an appropriate action from the student. Gradually, the student’sunderstanding of the target language becomes more and more sophisticated.As the student’s understanding expands and expands, there comes a point when the student isready to talk. This will occur spontaneously. At this time the instructor invites the student toreverse roles so that the student utters commands to direct the instructor and other students. Ofcourse when students talk, their speech will not be perfect just as infant speech is not perfect.But gradually, as students gain more and more self-confidence, speech will improve. Hence,instructors should be as tolerant of student errors in speech as parents are of children learningtheir first language.When older students start role reversal, they are often ready to see the printed version of thecommands they already comprehend. The printed version should be delayed until a lesson hasbeen thoroughly internalized. Also limit print to the content used previously in lessons. Oncestudents see the lessons in print, they are then in the process of acquiring reading and writingwithout stress.ResourcesLearning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s Guidebook (1980) byDr. James Asher is available from Sky Oaks Productions, P. O. Box 1102, Los Gatos, CA95031-1102Cognitive Learning Strategies for Diverse Learners (2000) by Dr. Catherine Collier. Theory andapplication for identifying differences in cognitive style and for using cognitive learningstrategies with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Available from CrossCulturalDevelopmental Education Services, Ferndale, WA 98248Creating Language and Content Reinforcement Games for English Language Learners (2003) byDr. Catherine Collier. Theory and application for developing and using games and simulationswith culturally and linguistically diverse students. Available from CrossCultural DevelopmentalEducation Services, Ferndale, WA 98248139

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierCross-Cultural Communication: An Essential Dimension ofEffective EducationBy Orlando L. Taylor, Ph.D.Copyright © 1987 Revised and reprinted 1990. The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center - 5010Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 310 - Washington, D.C. 20016 - (202) 885-8517.IntroductionEverything that occurs within a school, and especially in the classroom, involvescommunication, the act of sharing information. Sometimes communication involves the use oforal or written verbal symbols. On other occasions, communication involves various types ofnonverbal symbols, including body language.Communication is the medium for instruction, assessment, interpersonal relationships, groupinteractions, parent and community relations and counseling. Most behavior problems in schools,and their resolutions, involve some type of communication. In sum, communication permeateseducation.Communication is culture bound. The way an individual communicates emanates from his or herculture. Of course, a person may know more than one culture or may be competent in acombination of cultures. Nonetheless, one basic truth prevails: communication is a product ofculture.Students with different cultural norms are at risk if teachers have little knowledge, sensitivity orappreciation of the diversity in communication styles. Such teachers may perceive differences asproblems and respond to students' diversify with negative attitudes, low expectations andculturally inappropriate teaching and assessment procedures. Culturally and communicativelydiverse students, in turn, may respond with low self concepts and low academic achievement to aschool climate they perceive as hostile. The result is reflected in these students' excessiveplacements in special education, reduced placements in talented and gifted programs and highsuspension rates.• Cultural Diversity in America• The Neglect of Cross Cultural Communication Issues in Schools• Self-Assessment on Communication and Culture• Table I: What Do I Know About Culture, Communication and Language?Cultural Diversity in AmericaThe United States is currently experiencing radical demographic shifts which are changing thecolors and the cultures of its citizenry. According to recent statistics, one American in fourcurrently defines himself or herself as non white. By the year 2010, because of higher birth ratesand immigration trends, non whites are expected to constitute more than one third of theAmerican people, and upwards of 50 percent of its school aged population. By the year 2050, the140

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieraverage U.S. resident will trace his or her descent to Africa, Asia, the Hispanic world, the PacificIslands, the Middle East almost anywhere but white Europe.As diversity increases in our nation's schools, teachers, administrators and other educationpersonnel will be challenged increasingly to become more knowledgeable about the assumptions,attributes, and norms of a range of cultures. These challenges will occur in every dimension ofschool life·from the curriculum to the communication that occurs in classrooms. As a result, theissue of cultural diversity will, by necessity, have to be taken into account if effective educationis to be a reality in our nation's schools.The Neglect of Cross Cultural Communication Issues in SchoolsThe failure of many schools to take cross cultural communication issues into account cancontribute to school related problems experienced by specific groups of children. The currentcrisis of African American males in many of the nation's schools demonstrates this point.According to recent statistics, the percentage of African American males who graduate from highschool has decreased since the mid 1970's. A similar trend exists for the percentage who go on tocollege. In 1989, 34 percent of young African American males attended less than four years ofhigh school and only 11 percent attended four years of college or more. In 1990, one out of four(23%) African American males ages 20 29 were in the criminal system, while only 6% of whitemales and 10% of Hispanic males were in the system.Within many schools, it is a well documented fact that African American males aredisproportionately placed in special education and speech language pathology programs, and aremore likely to be recipients of disciplinary actions.Recent research has shown that language and communication norms among African Americanmales, particularly those of lower socioeconomic status, are related, at least in part, to theseproblems. For example, lower SES African American males are likely to see the speaking ofethnically based English vernaculars, and the use of urban argots, to be markers of masculinityand defiance of white standards.While adherence to ethnic vernaculars allows validation to be achieved within the AfricanAmerican male peerage, their employment within the school setting virtually guaranteesacademic problems and, sometimes, social problems. When students' communication normsconflict with the school's communication norms, erosion of academic performance andacceptable classroom behavior frequently follows. Thus, while the use of Black vernacularspeech by African American males may be perceived as "fresh" by peers, it is viewed byteachers, all too often and incorrectly, as indicators of a slow learning, violent, undisciplined,and obnoxious individual.In order to address these issues, schools must build into their curricula (particularly in thelanguage arts area) the notion that there is a time and place for all language. In this way, respectcan be given to students' culturally based vernaculars when used in informal, nonacademicactivities, while teaching them the necessity and validity of the school's language in formal141

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieracademic settings. Indeed, the creative teacher uses the vernacular linguisitic system forcontrastive analysis during the process of teaching standard English. This approach encouragesthe African American male to adapt a bidialectal approach to language use. Techniques forimplementing these approaches to instruction are discussed elsewhere in this booklet.In addition, the school must provide examples of strong male images who are able to alternatelyspeak the school's language or the vernacular language, as necessary. Jesse Jackson, Spike Leeand Arsenio Hall represent good examples of highly successful and popular African Americanmales who can serve as positive role models for young students, and who demonstratecompetence in the standard language required in formal situations as well as the communitylanguage when required. Though the condition of the African American male has been describedin detail, many of the concepts presented in this publication can be applied to all culturallydiverse groups.Self Assessment on Communication and CultureThe quiz presented in Table I assesses a person's knowledge of the relationships among culture,communication and language. Before reading further, you may want to take this test.TABLE I:What Do I Know About Culture, Communication and Language?Directions: Circle A for each statement with which you agree or D for each statement with whichyou disagree.A D 1. One's culture and one's race are usually one and the same.A D 2. Culture consists exclusively of a group's art, music, dance, food, language and dress.A D 3. Cultural groups are generally mutually exclusive of one another.A D 4. Cultural traits tend to have a genetic base.A D 5. In general, people who speak the same language are members of the same culturalgroup.A D 6. People are usually aware of all of the rules of their culture.A D 7. Culture is expressed exclusively by one's verbal behavior.A D 8. The only significant components of one's oral language are vocabulary and rules onpronunciation and grammar.A D 9. Standard English is the correct way to speak at all times.A D 10. There are universal norms for acceptable communicative behavior within the UnitedStates.A D 11. If a student violates the school's cultural or communicative norms, it is almost always142

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierthe act of defiance.A D 12. In general, speaking a nonstandard dialect suggests low cognitive development.A D 13. Standard English has more and better structures than other varieties of English.A D 14. Most standardized tests are based on rules of English used by individuals in alllinguistic groups.A D 15. Standard English is White English.A D 16. In general, students from poor families do not communicate as well as those frommiddle-class families.A D 17. In general, African American students do not communicate as well as Whitestudents.A D 18. Parents who do not speak standard English should avoid talking to their children toprevent them from developing poor speech habits.A D 19. If students are to learn standard English, they must unlearn any other variety ofEnglish that they speak.A D 20. African American English is by definition a nonstandard variety of English.You can get the answers to these questions from your instructor.Discovering Characteristics Of Other CulturesWhen teachers ask "How can I learn about culture X?", all too often teachers are discouraged tolearn that there is no comprehensive book (or list) available on culture X. The lack of readingmatter on various cultures is, in some ways, a blessing, since knowledge of other cultures isbetter acquired by experience than by study. Thus, teachers should plan to experience culturesdifferent from their own, particularly the cultures represented in their schools and classrooms. Tobe valid, these experiences should incorporate a few basic principles and discovery techniques.As you begin to discover the characteristics of other cultures, remember that cultures varyinternally and are changeable. There are usually many cultural differences within a single race ornationality. It will be useful to keep the following principles in mind:• Firsthand experience is necessary to understand many subtleties of any culture.• Feelings of apprehension, loneliness or lack of confidence are common when visitingand experiencing another culture.• Differences between cultures are often experienced as threatening.• What is logical and important in a particular culture may seem irrational and unimportantto an outsider.• In describing another culture, people tend to stress the differences and overlook thesimilarities.143

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier• Stereotyping due to generalizing may be inevitable among those who lack frequentcontact with another culture.• Personal observations of others about another culture should be regarded withskepticism.• Many cultures often exist within a single race, language group, religion or nationality,differentiated by age, gender, socioeconomic status, education, and exposure to othercultures.• All cultures have internal variations.• Cultural awareness varies among individuals.• One's own sense of cultural identity often is not evident until one encounters anotherculture.• Cultures are continually evolving.• Understanding another culture is a continuous process.• One should understand the language of a culture to best understand that culture.An understanding of these principles can help you to become a more insightful observer of othercultures. Saville-Troike (1978) suggests a specific set of questions to guide those who seek tounderstand another culture. Some of her questions are presented in Table II . They can providethe basis for interesting, informative and stimulating discussions among teachers, students,administrators and parents.Family StructureTABLE IIQuestions to Ask About CultureWho is considered to belong in the family?What are the rights, roles and responsibilities of the members?144

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierLife CycleRolesInterpersonalRelationshipsCommunicationDecorum andDisciplineReligionHealth and HygieneFoodHolidays andCelebrationsDress and PersonalAppearanceValuesHistory and TraditionsEducationWork and PlayTime and SpaceNatural PhenomenaPets and AnimalsArt and MusicWhat are the important stages, periods and transitions in life?What behaviors are inappropriate or unacceptable for children at variousages?What roles are available to whom?How are roles acquired?How do people greet each other?Who may disagree with whom?How are insults expressed?What languages and dialects are spoken?What are the characteristics of speaking "well"?What roles, attitudes and personality traits are associated with particularaspects of verbal and nonverbal behavior?How do people behave at home and in public?What means of discipline are used?What religious roles and authority are recognized?What should an outsider not know or acknowledge knowing?How are illness and death explained?How are specific illnesses treated?What is eaten, in what order and how often?What are the rules for table manners, including offering foods, handlingfoods and discarding foods?What holidays are observed? For what purposes?Which holidays are important for children?What cultural values are instilled in children during the holidays?What significance does dress have for social identity?What is the concept and value of beauty and attractiveness?What traits and attributes in oneself or others are important? Undesirable?What attributes in the world are important? Undesirable?How are history and tradition passed on to the young?How do cultural understandings of history differ from "scientific" facts orliterate history?What are the purposes of education? What kinds of learning are favored?What teaching and learning methods are used in the home?What are parental expectations for boys versus girls?What behaviors are considered "work"? "Play"?What kinds of work are prestigious? Why?What is considered "on time"?What is the importance of punctuality?How important is speed of performance?How are groups organized spatially by age, gender and role?Who or what is responsible for rain, thunder, floods and hurricanes?Are behavioral taboos associated with natural phenomena?Which animals are valued and for what reasons?What animals are considered appropriate as pets? Inappropriate?What forms of art and music are most highly valued?145

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierExpectations andAspirationsWhat forms of art and music are considered appropriate for children toperform or appreciate?Do parents expect and desire assimilation of children to the dominantculture, language or dialect?What cultural values are expected to be maintained despite the degree offormal education?(From Saville Troike, M. A Guide to Culture in the Classroom. Rosslyn, VA: NationalClearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1978.)Culture, Communication and LanguageNow that your "cultural eye" has been sharpened, let us look at how culture influences students'language skills and their learning of standard English, the language of education.The concept of communicative competence (Hymes, 1962), based on one's knowledge of therules of language structure and language use within a given culture, will be useful.A major responsibility of teachers at all grade levels is to teach the language and communicationskills needed for academic success, and for career and social mobility. Many students come fromcultures which use different, though valid, communication and language systems from what isconsidered "normal" in the classroom.The study of sociolinguistics can help us understand different systems as a means of improvingthe quality of our instruction in language and the communication arts.• Sociolinguistics• Table III: Some Varieties of Nonstandard American English• Cultural Differences in Discourse• Examples of Cultural and Communicative Tendencies• Table IV: Examples of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication• The Significance of Culture-Based CommunicativeBehavior in School• Table V: Culture and Communication Conflicts in the ClassroomSociolinguisticsSociolinguists examine social and cultural influences on language behavior. Among the mostimportant concepts to emerge are those relating to dialects and language standards.Sociolinguists have documented the presence of dialects in every language. These dialects, all ofwhich are legitimate, are associated with educational, economic, social and historical conditions.To linguists, the word "dialect" refers to a way of speaking a language, and not to an incorrectway of speaking a language.While all dialects of a given language are linguistically legitimate, some achieve social prestige.In literate, economically developed societies, the dialect spoken by those with the most formaleducation, the highest socioeconomic status and the greatest degree of political power tends to146

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieracquire the greatest social prestige. Typically, it becomes the standard for the culture, for writingand for education.Standard dialects also provide a medium through which persons from different linguisticbackgrounds can communicate with one another. Social and regional variations may exist withinstandard dialects as long as they conform to specified linguistic rules, largely grammatical innature. Standard English, therefore, should not be considered "Northern English" or "WhiteEnglish," since it is spoken, in one form or another, in all parts of the United States and by somemembers of all racial and cultural groups.At the other end of the social spectrum, so called nonstandard dialects are generally spoken bythe "have nots:" the powerless, the less educated, the less economically well off and the lesssocially prominent. While legitimate linguistically, these dialects tend to be unacceptable to the"haves" of society.In American English, nonstandard dialects exist within all racial, ethnic and regional groups ( seeTable III ). Each dialect is a product of distinct social, historical, cultural and educational factors.All are legitimate in that they represent the concepts, needs and intentions of their speakers.TABLE IIISome Varieties of Nonstandard American EnglishAppalachian English"He just kept a begging and a crying and a wanting to go out." (He persisted in begging, cryingand wanting to leave.)Athabascan English (Alaska)"Most time we play games." (Most of the time we play games.)African American English Vernacular"He be scared, but I be brave." (He is usually scared, but l am usually brave.)General American Nonstandard English"don't nobody want none." (Nobody wants any.)Keaukaha English (Hawaii)"I no can place that name." (I cannot place that name.)New York City Nonstandard English"She's a good cook, your mother." (Your mother is a good cook.)Southern American Nonstandard English"I mon' rest." (I am going to rest.)Spanish Influenced English"Carol left yesterday. I think is coming back tomorrows." (Carol left yesterday. I think she iscoming back tomorrow.)For a variety of reasons, including negative public attitudes and inadequate teaching models,nonstandard English speakers often do not effectively learn standard English in school. Withoutcompetence in standard English, students will fail academically and face diminished career,social and life options. Many students who do learn standard English do so at a great price:devaluation or rejection of their home or community dialect. When competence in standardEnglish is coupled with rejection of one's own home or community dialect, it may lead to seriouspsychological and identity problems (Chambers, 1983).147

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierIn the United States, the schools' failure to teach standard English is reflected in the poorperformance of nonstandard English speakers on achievement, aptitude and diagnostic tests.Perhaps the most alarming evidence of this failure is the low performance of nonstandardEnglish speakers on tests used to place students in remedial or gifted programs. Virtually all ofthese tests presume competence in standard English (Oakland, 1977).Many African American children, usually from working class homes or communities, speak anonstandard variety of English. This variety, often referred to as Black English Vernacular, isthought by many sociolinguists to reflect African influences on American English, and isreinforced by social isolation, segregation and group identity.Cultural Differences in DiscourseIn addition to differences in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammatical structures amongcultural groups, variations also exist in the rules for general discourse in oral communication,covering such specific acts as narratives and conversation. In communicating with one another,teachers and students naturally will follow the assumptions and rules governing discourse withintheir respective cultures. Discourse rules govern such aspects of communication as:• Opening or closing conversations;• Taking turns during conversations;• Interrupting;• Using silence as a communicative device;• Knowing appropriate topics of conversation;• Interjecting humor at appropriate times;• Using nonverbal behavior;• Expressing laughter as a communicative device;• Knowing the appropriate amount of speech to be used by participants; and• Sequencing of elements during discourse.With respect to narratives, Gee (1985) claims that story telling during sharing time in the earlyschool years helps to provide students the foundation for reading and writing instruction in latergrades. Both he and Michaels (1981) report that schools and teachers prefer linear, single topicstory telling, the style that is compatible with strategies encountered in reading and writingactivities.These topic centered stories are characterized by tightly structured sentences that reflect on asingle or small set of highly related topics. The speaker presumes little shared knowledge withlisteners. Topic centered stories, therefore, tend to be very explicit and contain great detail,emphasizing more telling than showing. Topic centered stories are thought by some to beassociated with the field independent cognitive style. IGee and Michaels note further that many working class children, particularly those from oralcultures, tend to prefer a topic associating narrative style. These story tellers presume a sharedknowledge with the audience, do more showing than telling and imply linkages among a widerange of topics which need not be presented in temporal sequence. Topic associating narrativestyle is thought by some to be associated with the field dependent cognitive style.148

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierWhile both narrative styles provide meaningful ways for children to talk about their experiencesand realities, research shows that students who tell topic associating stories tend to be called onless and interrupted more often than do children who tell topic centered stories (Michaels, 1981).They also tend to be wrongly considered disorganized or poor thinkers. Finally, they are morelikely to be erroneously referred for psychological assessments or placed in special education.Examples of Cultural and Communicative TendenciesIn this section, we will present examples of cultural and communicative tendencies observableamong African American and white students from several cultural groups in the United States.Tendencies are not universal. In order to avoid generalizations and stereotypes about culturalgroups, variations within cultures must always be considered. Highly educated people of a givencultural group are less likely to reveal indigenous language and communication patterns than lesseducated persons. Moreover, many people communicate in ways influenced by other cultures.Based on a review of literature and anecdotal reports, Taylor (1985) has listed verbal andnonverbal communication styles of working class African Americans as they contrast with thoseof Anglo Americans and middle class persons of other ethnic groups. Some of thesecharacteristics are presented in Table IV. Similar comparisons may be made between othercultural groups in the "typical" American classroom.Unfamiliarity with cultural communication differences can lead to misinterpretation,misunderstanding and even unintentional insult. For example, the African American student whoshows little reserve in stating his or her feelings may be misperceived as hostile, or perhaps asdangerous. The student, meanwhile, may see himself or herself as an honest person willing toshare feelings as a necessary first step in resolving problems.Similarly, the African American student who looks away from speakers during conversation maybe erroneously perceived as showing disrespect or not paying attention. The African Americanstudent who freely states his or her position to the teacher may be perceived as challenging theteacher's authority when the student may be demonstrating honesty and pride in the value of hisor her opinion.Teachers, like all human beings, have their own expectations about communicative behavior.The teacher should 1) recognize any incongruencies that may exist between his or herexpectations and those of the child; 2) make certain that behavioral norms in the classroom aresufficiently broad to embrace all cultural groups; and 3) teach the rules of standard Americanculture and the reasons for them.Have you witnessed any of the behaviors identified in Table IV? How did you interpret what yousaw? Which behaviors do you find represented in your classes? What characteristics could youadd to the list from other cultural groups? What in group variations have you observed?149

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierTable IV:Examples of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication ContrastsAmong Some African Americans and Some Anglo AmericansSome African AmericansHats and sunglasses may be considered by menas adornments much like jewelry and may beworn indoors.Touching another's hair is generally consideredoffensive.Asking personal questions of a person met for thefirst time may be seen as improper and intrusive.Use of direct questions is sometimes consideredharassment, e.g., asking when something will befinished is like rushing that person to finish."Breaking in" during conversation by participantsis usually tolerated. Competition for the floor isgranted to the person who is most assertive.Conversations are regarded as private betweenthe recognized participants; "butting in" may beseen as eavesdropping and not tolerated.The term "you people" is typically seen aspejorative and racist.Listeners are expected to avert eyes to indicaterespect and attention.Speakers are expected to look at listeners directlyin the eye.Confederate flags and Black lawn ornaments areconsidered offensive and racist.Purposely including a minority person in groupactivities is seen as tokenism.Adoption of dance patterns or music of anothercultural group is suspect or considered offensive.Some Anglo AmericansHats and sunglasses are consideredutilitarian by men and as outwear to beremoved indoorsTouching another's hair is a sign ofaffection.Inquiring about jobs, family and so forth ofsomeone one has met for the first time isseen as friendly.Use of direct questions for personalinformation is permissible.Rules on taking turns in conversationdictate that one person has the floor at atime until all of his or her points are made.Adding points of information or insights toa conversation in which one is notengaged is sometimes seen as helpful.The term "you people" is tolerated.Listeners are expected to look at aspeaker directly to indicate respect andattention.Speakers are expected to avert eyes,especially in informal speaking situations.Symbols of the Old South, such asconfederate flags and Black lawnornaments, are considered acceptable bymany.Including a minority person in groupactivities is seen as democratic.Adoption of dance patterns or music ofanother cultural group is seen as a free150

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collierand desirable exchange.Talking "Black" by outsiders without authorizationis an insult.Showing emotions during conflict is perceived ashonesty and as the first step toward the resolutionof a problem.Borrowing of language forms form anothergroup is permissible and encouraged.Showing emotions during conflict isperceived as the beginning of a "fight" andan interference to conflict resolution.The Significance of Culture Based Communicative Behavior in SchoolA variety of cross cultural communication problems can arise in school, and it is important thatteachers not automatically blame the student or the student's family or culture. Problems oftenresult from misunderstandings or value conflicts between teachers and students who are obeyingdifferent culturally based communication rules. Some common problems linked to cultural andcommunicative diversity are presented in Table V.Table V:Problems That May Result From Culture andCommunication Conflicts in the ClassroomStudentCharacteristicsDiverse CulturalAssumptionsSome examples ofInappropriate Responses• Negative attitudestowards dialectvariation• Lower studentexpectations• Excessive interruptionsSome Examples of PossibleImpact on Student• Lowered self-image• Lowered achievement andexcessive special educationplacements• Low student participation;disproportionately lowplacement in talented andgifted programsDiverse VerbalBehavior• Diversity ignored inteaching process• Insufficient attention tostudent speech• Lowered self-expectations• Excessive speech/languagetherapy placementsDiverse NonverbalBehavior• Frequentmisunderstandings andmisinterpretations ofstudent• Perception of student• Lowered achievement in oralstandard English• Lowered achievement andacademic self-concept151

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collieras disorganizedDiverse Story-Tellingand ConversationalRules• Perception of studentas poor thinker• Perception ofcommunicationdifferences as disciplineproblem• Perception ofcommunicationdifferences as socialinsults (unintentional)• Perception of frequent socialinsults (unintentional) fromteachers and other students• Frequent misunderstandingsand misinterpretations frompersonnel and otherstudents• Perception of negativeschool climate• Interpersonal / intergroupconflicts• Poor performance on testsand assessmentsUsing Cross Cultural Communication to ImproveRelationshipsIn culturally diverse communities, differences may be expected to exist in the communicationstyles of students, teachers, parents, administrators and noninstructional staff. Perhaps the mostimportant reason for educators to understand cross cultural communication is to improve theirrelations with the diverse groups of students and parents they will encounter. If left ignored,communication differences will inevitably lead to various types of miscommunication whichmay lead, in turn, to conflicts which erode school climate and cause certain groups of studentsusually African American and other nonwhite students to feel unwelcome.The fact that these circumstances occur is a tragedy, of course. The greater tragedy, however, isthat educators do not always know how to eliminate or minimize this type of discord.Tactics for Removing Cross CulturalCommunication BarriersOnce we have established the prerequisites for understanding communication issues, we shouldthen seek to remove cross cultural communication barriers from the school environment. Themajor tactics that might be employed for this purpose fall under two categories:• Removing language which appears to stereotype students; and• Reducing violations of cultural rules during discussions and conversations.With respect to removing stereotypical language, the following strategies might be useful:- Be aware of words, images and situations that suggest that all or most members of aracial group are the same.152

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierExample: "Why can't Joe ever be on time?" "He's African American, isn't he?"- Avoid using qualifiers that reinforce racial and ethnic stereotypes.Example: "The articulate African American student" implies that African Americanstudents typically have low verbal skills.- Avoid racial identification except when it is essential to communication.Example: "Judy, an outgoing student" is preferable to "Judy, an outgoing AfricanAmerican female student."- Be aware of possible negative implications of color symbolism and usage that couldoffend people or reinforce bias.Example: Terms such as "black magic" or "black market" can be offensive.- Avoid language that has questionable racial or ethnic connotations.Example: Phrases such as "culturally deprived," "culturally disadvantaged" and "youpeople" have racist overtones. With respect to changing communicative behaviors whichviolate the cultural rules of others, the following strategies may be useful:- Be aware of rules for attentiveness during conversation.Example: The constant maintenance of eye contact while listening during a conversationoften violates a conversational rule in working class African American and Hispaniccultures.- Be aware of rules regarding the distance between speakers during conversation.Example: In some cultures, speakers stand close enough to touch often. In othercultures, distance is maintained to denote respect.- Be aware that objects, characters and symbols may reflect different beliefs or values fordifferent groups.Example: The confederate flag and Uncle Remus stories may offend African Americansbecause they reflect the culture of slavery and the Old South.- Be aware that cultures may vary in what they consider humorous or taboo.Example: Ethnic humor is often perceived by many groups as evidence of racialprejudice. Discussion of in group cultural rules and behaviors with outsiders isconsidered taboo within many cultures.- Be aware of different rules for taking turns during conversations.Example: African American children frequently perceive "breaking in" to reinforce ordisagree with another's point to be perfectly permissible, indeed desirable.- Cultures may use different standards for loudness, speed of delivery, silence,attentiveness and time to respond to another's point.Example: Many Native American societies place high value on contemplation and tend,therefore, to feel little responsibility to make immediate responses during conversation.- Be aware of different cultural rules for entering into conversations in progress.Example: African American students tend to consider conversations as private betweenrecognized participants. Therefore, anyone, including the teacher, who "butts in" isviewed as an eavesdropper and rebuked.One way to improve relationships across cultural lines, particularly in the upper grades, is todevelop a unit on "Communicating with One Another." The purpose of such a unit would be toteach students how to communicate more effectively across cultural lines and how to address andnegotiate differences.It is also useful for teachers to brainstorm with one another on how to remove communicationbarriers. In addition, a well designed staff development program can lead to better relationsamong staff and generate effective cross cultural communication activities for the classroom.153

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierIt can also be useful for teachers to ask parents to identify sources of miscommunication andsocially offensive behavior or language. Parents may be asked to suggest ways that schoolpersonnel can improve communication with students, adults and the communities.While schools have a responsibility to teach students the behavioral I codes of the society atlarge and to expect students to adhere to them, they have a similar responsibility to reduceculturally induced discipline problems and to avoid misinterpreting cultural differences asbehavioral problems.Patton's (1986) research on cross cultural communication behaviors and their relationship todiscipline problems at the junior high school level provides excellent reading on this topic. Otherreadings are Gappa and Pearce's (1983) Removing Bias: Guidelines for Student FacultyCommunication; Kochman's (1981) Black and White Styles in Conflict; and Pickens' (1982)Without Bias: A Guidebook for Nondiscriminatory Communication.Teaching Standard English To Speakers Of Nonstandard EnglishDialectsThere is little disagreement that educational success and expanded social and career options arelinked to competence in standard English. An alarming percentage of students who speaknonstandard English are failing to acquire standard English, the language of education.Moreover, many students who do acquire standard English do so while being taught to reject thelanguage of their home, community and peers. In the process, they are denied an effectiveelement of social solidarity, which is an important element of cultural heritage.• Why Do Nonstandard English-Speaking Children Fail to Acquire Standard English?• Toward More Effective Teaching of Standard English• Teaching Standard English from a Cultural Perspective• What Is a Godd Approach to Implementing Standard English as a Second Dialect(SESD) Programs?• How Can Aides and Parents Help?Why Do Nonstandard English Speaking Children Fail to Acquire StandardEnglish?Many arguments have been advanced to explain the low achievement levels of nonstandardEnglish speaking children, particularly African American children, in acquiring oral competencein standard English. The most tenable argument suggests that the philosophy, assumptions andtraditional classroom methodologies employed in language arts education have failed becausethey have been prescriptive and corrective and have focused too much on language structurerather than on communicative competence (Taylor, 1985). Moreover, traditional teachingmethodologies have not typically been culturally sensitive, nor have they made use ofindigenous, nonstandard dialects. These significant deficiencies are probably due to naivete, or tonegative attitudes toward language variations by language arts teachers.154

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierToward More Effective Teaching of Standard EnglishIn recent years, a number of educators have begun to devise and implement instructionalstrategies which take into account the various language systems that students bring into theclassroom. In general, these strategies are based on modern sociolinguistic learning theory andon established principles of second language teaching.In 1981, California became the first state to recognize the importance of indigenous dialects inteaching standard English. Focusing primarily on the language of African American nonstandardEnglish speaking children, California's State Board of Public Instruction stated in part:Many Black learners come to the school setting speaking a language that is linguisticallydifferent from standard English. The language they speak is an integral part of the Afro-American culture . . . It is a unique language which serves a uniquely rich culture. However, theschool setting and that of the larger American society, including the economic and commercialcommunities, represent another linguistic sphere in which the student must learn to move andspeak successfully. To the extent that the young student fluently communicates in eitherlanguage, he increases his opportunities in both realms ....Therefore, to provide proficiency in English to California students who are speakers of BlackLanguage and to provide equal educational opportunities for these students, it is recommendedthat the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education hereby recognize:That structured oral language practice in standard English should be provided on an ongoingbasis.That special program strategies are required to address the needs of speakers of Blacklanguage.That parents and the general public should be informed of implications of educational strategiesto address the linguistic needs of Black students.Teaching Standard English from a Cultural PerspectiveTeaching the standard language from a cultural perspective differs from the traditional languageeducation approach in that it does not blame the victim. Standard English instruction from acultural perspective does not presuppose the devaluation or elimination of a learner's indigenouslanguage as a pre-requisite for learning. It recognizes that students need to retain their homedialect where its use is appropriate.Several major requirements for teaching standard English from a cultural perspective follow.Instruction should:• Focus on both the structure of language, and on how to communicate;• Maintain an oral basis;• Concentrate on the structure of language, situational language requirements andlanguage as a vehicle for thinking;• Be linked to clearly defined long term goals; and• Be integrated across the curriculum.155

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierA successful culturally based standard English program recognizes that learning proceeds in anorderly way from the introduction of a particular aspect of language through its mastery. Themodel which has enjoyed the widest use and greatest success was designed in the late 1970s bythe San Diego Oral Language Program. It has been used with modifications in Standard Englishas a Second Dialect (SESD) programs in Dallas, Texas, and in Richmond and Oakland inCalifornia. The model lists several necessary steps for learning a new linguistic system whilepreserving the student's indigenous system. The model includes the following eight steps:• Developing positive attitudes toward one's own language. The first and continuing job ofthe teacher is to counteract negative evaluations of the students' indigenous language.Lessons on the historical development of various dialects and on language diversity areuseful in accomplishing this goal.• Developing awareness of language varieties. Students develop a sensitivity to thevarious forms of a given language via stories in standard English, poems in differentdialects, and records, tapes or video recordings of various speakers. At this stage,specific likenesses and differences are emphasized.• Recognizing, labeling and contrasting dialects. Students learn to recognize differences invarious languages and dialects and to associate specific features with each linguisticsystem.• Comprehending meanings. Students learn to recognize differences in meanings andintentions when an idea is translated from one language or dialect to another.• Recognizing situational communication requirements. Students determine the types ofspeech appropriate to various situations.• Producing in structured situations. Students practice producing successiveapproximations of standard English. Initially, students follow a model at this stage, e.g., ascript, choral reading or poem.• Producing in controlled situations. Students receive instruction and practice in producingstandard English without a model, e.g., role playing or retelling a story.• Matching the language to the situation. Students practice speaking appropriately in reallife, spontaneous situations leading to communicative competence.Before beginning to teach standard English from a cultural perspective, the teacher and schoolneed a clear language arts philosophy which embraces modern principles of ethnology,sociolinguistics and second language instruction The philosophy and assumptions statementdeveloped by the Richmond Unified School District in California is a good example of whatschools and teachers may usefully adopt. (See Appendix I.)Finally, before beginning program implementation, the teacher and school community mustbecome thoroughly familiar with the following general principles of second dialect instruction:• Instruction should be preceded by a non biased assessment of each learner'sknowledge of his or her first dialect and of the second dialect.• Students must feel positive toward their own dialects.• Students must want to learn another dialect. If motivation is not present, the teachermust help students discover the advantages of acquiring the second dialect.• Instruction must consider the language goals of students, their families and theircommunities.• Instruction must take into account cultural values associated with learning and teaching.156

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier• Instruction must accommodate the preferred cognitive learning styles of the students.Some children prefer a field independent (object oriented) cognitive style. Others prefera field dependent (social oriented) cognitive style. Both are valid, however, schools tendto be more oriented toward the field independent style. See Appendix II for a summary ofthese two preferred cognitive styles.• Both the teacher and students must be able to contrast the linguistic and communicativerules of the existing and targeted dialects.• Linguistic and communicative features of the existing dialect should be compared withthose of the targeted dialect.• Instruction should be integrated with students' experiences.Both the teacher and students must believe that it is possible to acquire a second dialect.What Is a Good Approach to Implementing Standard English as a SecondDialect (SESD) Programs?Minimum standards must be established for evaluating the validity of culturally based SESDcurricula and teaching/learning strategies. An SESD program should:• Permit students to demonstrate their listening skills by summarizing, responding,paraphrasing or following directions.• Allow varied and frequent opportunities for students to communicate with each other.• Provide students opportunities to summarize, analyze or evaluate oral or writtencommunication completed by themselves, their peers or the teacher.• Provide students opportunities to listen and respond appropriately to the teacher, theirclassmates or audio visual materials.• Allow students to use speech for different purposes in a variety of situations, e.g.,persuading, informing, imagining, questioning or asserting.• Teach students how to evaluate the effectiveness of their own communication.• Stress that learning new speech patterns is linked to short term and long term goals.• Underscore the importance of situation, audience or topic during communication.• Indicate that oral communication activities will be included throughout the totalcurriculum.• Have a clear language and communication focus.The Richmond and Los Angeles school districts in California and Dade County Public Schoolsin Miami, Florida, have developed lessons and support materials for implementing SESDprograms.How Can Aides and Parents Help?The teaching of a second dialect cannot be solely the responsibility of the classroom teacher, nomore than it can be limited to the language arts classroom. Teacher aides and parents can supportthe instructional process and assist children's language development in general and SESDinstruction in particular by:• Encouraging children to speak in a variety of situations and before many audiences;• Establishing talking as a frequent, enjoyable and secure activity;157

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier• Modeling and expanding students' speech into language appropriate for the topic,situation and audience;• Pointing out what language and communicative behaviors are appropriate as situationsoccur;• Discouraging teasing about speech;• Not over-correcting students' speech;• Linking corrections of speech to the situation;• Providing the school and teachers with examples of speech used in the home andcommunity to incorporate in instruction, assessment and teacher training;• Reinforcing writing or reading activities with activities that include talking;• Providing an abundance of verbal stimuli for students irrespective of language orcommunication competencies;• Encouraging students to engage in conversations with a variety of people and on avariety of subjects; and• Encouraging students to recount their experiences in narrative form as often as possibleand before a variety of audiences.Communication Differences, Test Performance andEducational PlacementVirtually all tests and assessment procedures used in schools and classrooms require students tomanipulate information using tools of communication. Often these tests and procedures presumecompetence in standard English and in the communication rules of the educated segment ofsociety.Much discussion and research in the last decade have focused on test bias and on culturally fairmethods for assessing students" behavior and knowledge. Indeed, a number of court cases andlegislative initiatives have prohibited the use of culturally discriminatory tests and assessmentprocedures, e.g., Public Law 94 142: the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.Culturally biased tests can adversely affect students from many cultural groups, particularlythose who do not speak standard English. For example, these tests can contribute to:• Lowered expectations of student performance;• Negative attitudes toward low performing students;• Lowered self esteem and expectations by students;• Lowered expectations of student performance by parents;• Inappropriate placement in special education and speech/language therapy programs;and• Lowered probability of placement in talented and gifted programs.While classroom teachers do not typically administer standardized tests, they do use assessmentprocedures in classrooms. Also, because students are placed in classes on the basis ofstandardized test results administered by others, teachers' expectations of students are ofteninfluenced by such test results. Furthermore, teachers typically take part in the referral andevaluation process to determine whether a student needs special education or related services.158

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierFor these reasons, and others, teachers should understand test and assessment bias and shouldknow what to do about it.• Sources of Bias in Tests and Assessment Procedures• What to Do About Assessment BiasSources of Bias in Tests and Assessment ProceduresIn general, teachers should be aware of seven major sources of test and assessment bias. They arepresented with examples in Table VI.Table VI:Sources of Communication Biases and Communication Related Biases in Tests andAssessment ProceduresSituational BiasDirections BiasValue BiasLinguistic BiasFormat BiasCulturalMisinterpretationStimulus BiasMismatches between examiner and examinee regarding the societal rulesof language, e.g., sarcastic answers to obvious questions. (Examiner:What time does the clock say? Examinee: Everybody knows clocks don'ttalk.)Test directions involve linguistic complexities unfamiliar to the examinee,e.g., "None of the following is true except . . ." is incorrectly interpreted as"all of the following are true except . . ."Examinee is required to exhibit a particular moral or ethical preference,e.g., "One who is dishonest is a) an offender, b) a politician, c) anambassador, d) an officer." One might presume each choice to bereasonable.Test presumes that examinee is competent in standard English, e.g.,"Which sentence is ungrammatical? a) They saw Rose. b) You done itwrong. c) My brother has never eaten. d) Don't use too much." Anonstandard English speaker might see each as grammatical.Test procedures or requirements are inconsistent with examinee'scognitive and/or learning style, e.g., "Select the best answer to thefollowing . . ." One might consider answers to be either right or wrong,thereby no such thing as a best answer if all are correct.Examiner erroneously interprets cultural practices of examinee, e.g., achild who exhibits silence as a natural reaction to an unfamiliar adultexaminer is diagnosed as nonverbal, or a child who does not respondquickly to test items is labeled unknowledgeable.Examiner presents stimuli rich in objects and analytical materials to anexaminee who prefers a field dependent cognitive style, and is more likelyto be responsive to materials rich in social content.Teachers need to be aware of how communicative factors can influence test performance and ofthe impact their evaluations of students' performance can have. For example, if students fail tounderstand test directions, they may respond incorrectly to a whole series of questions. If theyare not competent in standard English, students may answer questions incorrectly because ofinaccurate analyses of their content. If their cognitive learning style is field dependent or159

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Colliersynthesizing rather than field independent or analytical, they may have difficulty with formatswhich seek best answers to questions when all answers contain an element of truth. Furthermore,students may hold different values than those assumed by the teacher or they may obey differentcommunicative rules for verbal behavior in the social situation which test questions address.Finally, the teacher may misinterpret a student's culturally based communicative style and drawerroneous conclusions about the student's knowledge.What to Do About Assessment BiasIt is not reasonable to expect that teachers will develop their own culturally fair tests andassessment procedures. However, teachers can contribute to a more positive assessmentenvironment for culturally diverse students. According to Taylor and Payne (1983), teachers canaddress the assessment bias issue in the following ways:• Ensure that all students understand the test directions.• Ensure that the test does not presume linguistic knowledge that students may not haveunless, of course, the test is designed to assess knowledge of a specific language ordialect.• The test should not require students to articulate values which they do not share.• The test should be compatible with the preferred learning styles of the student.• Situational and interactional constraints must be considered from a cultural perspectivein evaluating oral communication behavior on tests.• In the scoring or interpretation of test performance, the student's response style must beconsidered.• When referring students for special testing or placement in special education, be certainthat results of evaluations are not flawed by cultural differences in behavior andlanguage.• Do not include culturally discriminatory items on tests.• Accept as correct those test answers which are considered valid within the student'sculture, even if the particular answer is not listed in the manual as being correct.• Consider two scores for tests which have a cultural component, a culturally unadjustedscore and a culturally adjusted score.• Support efforts to decrease reliance on standardized tests for assessments, usingalternative assessment procedures where possible and appropriate.• Support efforts to involve parents and the community in assessing test findings.New standardized tests and assessment procedures are needed which are culturally valid. Untilthose tests are available, teachers should be skeptical of the results of most standardized testsadministered to culturally and linguistically diverse children and should exercise caution in usingthese results for making placement decisions.Communication Differences and Discipline Problems• Table VII: Explanations of Blame• Sources of Cultural and Communicative Incongruities• What Do We Do About Cultural and Communicative Sources of Student Misbehavior?160

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierMost educators would agree that schools have a responsibility to establish an educationalenvironment that encourages positive learning experiences for all students. Many would alsoclaim that schools should be expected to teach students the social behaviors which are consideredacceptable by the society at large, as well as the sanctions which are likely to be applied whenacceptable standards are violated. In light of these dual and sometimes conflicting imperatives,the disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates for minority students throughout the nationare cause for considerable concern. In 1979, for example, the National Advisory Committee onBlack Higher Education and Black Universities and Colleges reported that while students fromminority ethnic groups comprised approximately 25 percent of the nation's public schoolpopulation, they comprised 40 percent of those suspended. A 1982 Fact Sheet on InstitutionalRacism revealed that while 16 percent of the nation's students were African American, theycomprised 29 percent of all suspensions and 27 percent of all expulsions.In a 1984 report by the Minority Relations Monitoring Committee of Montgomery County,Maryland, it was stated that:. . .Nowhere is the school system more vulnerable to the charge of being "unfair" in dealing withits students than in the manner in which it manages student behavior . . . Clearly the differencein suspension rates of White and African American students in many of the senior high schoolsis so broad as to constitute a serious threat to the opportunity for an equal education.Many reasons are given to explain the high rate of discipline problems among minority students,particularly African Americans. Some blame the institution; others blame the student or victim.(see Table VII)Table VIIExplanations of BlameInstitutional ExplanationsVictim-Focused Explanations• Negative school climate• Low student motivation• Racial and ethnic bias• Cultural disrespect for rules• Inadequate classroommanagement• Unfamiliarity with rules of school and themainstream society• Inappropriate educationalplacements• Lackadaisical discipline standards instudent's home and community• Inappropriate teacher expectations• Differential applications of rules forstudent conductBefore drawing any conclusions relative to the cause of the high rate of discipline problems andsuspension and expulsion rates for non white students, it would be useful to explore the majortypes of student behaviors that teachers report as being unacceptable. Mitchell (1983) reports thatfive of the nine most frequently reported behaviors involve cultural and communicative issues,e.g., verbal threats, classroom disruptions and disrespect.161

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierYou may recall that the claim was made that every human encounter·positive or negative·reflectscultural assumptions upon which communication rules are based. This claim leads us to advancetwo important hypotheses about cross cultural communication and school discipline problems:• Discord is inevitable among students when they have different perceptions of the rulesfor communication and what is appropriate and acceptable behavior.• Teachers and other school personnel are more likely to perceive students' behaviors,including their communicative behaviors, as being disruptive and discordant when thosebehaviors diverge from the norms of the school.Schools reflect culture, mainly the culture of the dominant society. Patton (1986) claims thatschools are a microculture with a distinct system of preferred and required communicativebehaviors. This culture, she asserts, is more congruent with some cultures than with others.Typically, it reflects the values and norms of the immediate community. Students with culturaland communicative norms which are incongruous with the schools" norms are more likely, sheargues, to engage in unacceptable behavior.Sources of Cultural and Communicative Incongruities Which Lead toDiscipline ProblemsResearch suggests that several categories of communicative behavior are consideredunacceptable in many, if not most, school environments. While some of these unacceptablebehaviors do not result in sanctions, many do. Examples of behaviors which almost always arepunished include:• Challenging the teacher's authority;• Using obscene language in class;• Using obscene language with other students;• Not listening quietly when the teacher is presenting a lesson;• Moving around the room when the teacher is presenting a lesson;• Interrupting another student;• Seeking assistance from another student on a test;• Not waiting until one person has finished speaking before taking a turn;• Ignoring the teacher's directions;• Responding in a loud voice;• Socializing in class;• Being late to class;• Not walking away during discord;• Using physical means to settle a conflict; and• Showing emotion during discord.Each of the behaviors listed above may be in conflict with communication rules for a givencultural group. The teacher's task is to determine through reading, discussion and observationwhich perceived behaviors could have a different cultural significance for the groups representedin the classroom.162

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierWhat Do We Do About Cultural and Communicative Sources of StudentMisbehavior?While the majority of students, including those from minority groups, learn, accept and conformto the rules of schools, cultural differences may play an important role in apparent disciplineproblems in the school. These differences cannot account for all student misbehavior, yet manydiscipline problems may result from students' failure to know, accept or conform to school normswhich are either divergent or incongruous with their own cultural or communicative norms.School personnel should be open to examining the causes of perceived misbehavior in theclassroom. In those cases where school or classroom norms are intolerant of cultural differences,revisions of school norms would seem to be most appropriate. Where school norms are generallycongruent with norms across the cultural spectrum of the school community, the school has aresponsibility to teach those norms to the student. One cannot expect that all students come toschool with prior knowledge or acceptance of school norms.In any case, schools, like all institutions, must establish reasonable rules of conduct, but theserules should be sensitive to the cultural assumptions, values and communication expectations ofthe total school community.The following activities are useful in considering cross cultural communication issues foraddressing school discipline problems:• Devise a plan for teaching all students the acceptable communicative behaviors of theschool and the justification for them.• Devise a plan for teaching students the nature, origin and need for rules to governschool and classroom communicative behavior, while simultaneously recognizing thevalidity of other behaviors in different settings, such as students' homes or communities.• Determine which school or classroom norms may be in conflict with cultural orcommunicative norms of specific cultural groups.• Engage in discussions with colleagues on how school or classroom norms might berevised to make them more sensitive to the various cultural groups in the schoolcommunity.SummaryThis booklet has reviewed several basic concepts relating to culture, communication andlanguage and has shown how communication issues affect human behavior in general and schoollife in particular. Also, suggestions have been made relative to instruction, assessment,interpersonal relationships and discipline.You might now re-take the introductory test from Table I. Any change reflected in your scorewill give you a measure of what you have learned about culture and communication.To put into use what you have learned, consider working with your colleagues to:• Integrate cross cultural communication topics and materials into the curriculum;163

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - Collier• Educate those who administer standardized tests that different styles of communicationare used by various cultural groups;• Review and revise classroom tests to eliminate cultural bias; and• Address cross cultural communication issues in all phases of school life.Suggestions for classroom utilization have been made throughout the booklet. The rest is up toyou. Cross cultural communication is an ongoing process. Mistakes are inevitable, but sensitivityto cultural and communication issues can enhance the quality of education for all students.Some Attributes of Field Independent and Field Dependent Cognitive Styles(Adapted from Ramirez and Castaneda, 1974).StudentCharacteristicsField Independent CognitiveStyleOverall characteristics • Focuses on parts, ratherthan on the whole• Is reality oriented toobjects and analyses ofdiscrete elements• Demonstrates topiccentered narrative styleField Dependent Cognitive Style• Focuses on the whole, ratherthan the parts• Is reality oriented torelationships and socialattributes• Demonstrates topicassociating narrative styleRelationship to peers: • Prefers to workindependently• Likes to compete andgain individualrecognition• Is task oriented andinattentive to socialenvironment whenworking• Likes to work with others toachieve a common goal• Likes to assist others• Is sensitive to feelings andopinions of othersPersonal relationshipto teacher:• Rarely seeks physicalcontact with teacher• Interacts with teacher totasks at hand• Openly expresses positivefeelings for teacher• Asks questions aboutteacher's tastes and personalexperiences; seeks to becomelike teacherInstructionalrelationship to teacher:• Likes to try new taskswithout teacher's help• Is impatient to begintasks; likes to finish first• Seeks nonsocial rewards• Seeks guidance anddemonstration from teacher• Seeks rewards whichstrengthen relationship withteacher• Is highly motivated whenworking individually withteacher164

Reading Packet for TESOL 410 - CollierCharacteristics ofcurriculum thatfacilitate learning:• Details of concepts areemphasized; parts havemeanings of their own• Mathematics and scienceconcepts areemphasized• Emphasis placed ondiscovery• Performance objectives andglobal aspects of curriculumare carefully explained• Concepts are presented inhumanized or story format• Concepts are related topersonal interests andexperiencesWebsites for further articlesPetitto: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~lpetitto/Krashen: http://www.sdkrashen.com/main.php3Collier: http://www.crosscultured.com165