Spring 2011

Research and Classroom Issues for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Sunshine State TESOL Journal

Sunshine State TESOL JournalSpring 2011

ManuscriptsManuscripts may be submitted via the Sunshine State TESOL Website. Submit through the SST Journal link at:

http://sstesol.org

AdvertisingInterested in advertising? Submit an inquiry through the Sunshine State TESOL Website. Submit through the SST Journal link at:

http://sstesol.org

The deadline for submission of advertisements is February 15, 2012.

Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages ia a state affiliate of TESOL, Inc.

This journal is an annual publication of:Sunshine State TESOL7220 Rue Notre DameMiami Beach, FL 33141

EditorDr. Mercedes PichardSchool District of Lee County

Book Review EditorDr. George IberNova Southeastern University

Volume 10 • Issue 1

Editorial Review Board

Nora DawkinsMiami-Dade College

Dr. Ester de JongUniversity of Florida

Dr. Eric S. DwyerFlorida International University

Noriah IsmailMALA University of Technology

Dr. Cynthia Schuemann Miami-Dade College

Dr. Camilla VazquezUniversity of South Florida

Cover DesignPublishing Design Class_Sprint 2011Valencia Community CollegeCover Art Courtesy: http://www.iclipart.com/

Digital Design TeamLindi Kourtellis Valencia College

Dr. James MayValencia College

Sunshine State TESOLJournal 2011

About Sunshine State TESOL Journal

The Sunshine State TESOL Journal is a refereed journal published annually by the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. The main purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for TESOL professionals to share ideas and research on second language teaching and learning. The Journal welcomes submissions of manu-scripts based on research projects, classroom practices, conference presentations, and other professional activities of substance and interest to the general membership.

A double-blind review process is used in which submitted manuscripts are distributed by the editor to two-three reviewers with expertise in the areas addressed in each manuscript. Written comments by reviewers and a rec-ommendation on acceptance are returned to the editor, who then communicates the comments and decision on acceptance to the authors.

Manuscript Guidelines

• The manuscript should appeal to the instructional, admin-istrative, or research interests of educators at various lev-els, such as adult education, K-12 issues, or teacher educa-tion issues.

• The manuscript should be substantive and present new ideas or new applications of information related to cur-rent trends in the field.

• The manuscript should be well written, clearly organized, and carefully proofed.

• A complete reference list should be supplied at the end of the manuscript, and the entire manuscript should be for-matted according to guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th Ed. (2001) or later.

• Manuscripts should generally be no longer than 15-20 double-spaced pages.

• An abstract of 150 words or less should accompany each manuscript.

• A biographical statement of 50 words or less should be in-cluded for each author. Information should include current job or title, institution, degrees held, professional experi-ence, and any other relevant information.

• Please include a cover letter with the name, postal and e-mail address, and phone number of the first author (or other contact person) clearly noted.

• Manuscripts must be submitted in electronic format as an e-mail attachment. Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word). Camera-ready figures and tables are re-quested.

Book review guidelines

• Materials reviewed must have been published in the past three years.

• Reviews should be a maximum of three double-spaced pages.

• Each review must include complete bibliographic in-formation, a description of the book/material, the au-dience for whom it is designed, and how well it ac-complishes its purposes.

• A cover letter should provide the author’s name, post-al and e-mail address, telephone number, and a brief (25-word) biographical statement.

• Reviews should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in Microsoft Word.

Sunshine State TESOLJournal 2011

Articles

Dr. Kevin MurryDr. Socorro Herrera

Linking Language: A Canvas of Opportunity for ELA Students

5

Dr. Ester J. De JongPatricia Lopez Estrada

The Role of a Teacher in Promoting Language Use through Think-Pair-Share Interactions

8

Dr. Hongli Fan Authentic Practice within a TESOL Methods Course

15

Cynthia HaringGloria Ortiz

ESOL Instructional Assistants Team Attends SETESOL Conference and Gives Thanks

20

Dr. Rebecca Burns Speaking of Errors 21

Susan Gottschalk Secondary ESOL Classroom Narratives 25

Seongah Byeon Literacy Development 28

Dr. Lisa Crayton Bilingualism and Cultural Assimilation as Factors in Home Literacy: A Case Study

39

Dr. Evelyn Torrey Haiti Education: Here and There, Then and Now 44

LinkingLanguage: A Canvas of Opportunity for ELA Students

English language acquiring (ELA) students bring a broad range of both unique assets and differential learning needs to the classroom. The linking language strategy helps K-12 teachers maximize ELA student assets before the lesson. The information gained then helps teachers to adapt instruction for the differential needs of these students.

English language acquiring students often bring a broad range of differential needs to the instructional setting.

Some have recently immigrated and have little proficiency in English. Others have a history of interrupted schooling and are not able to perform at grade level. Still others live in families that frequently migrate according to the availabil-ity of job opportunities. Nonetheless, many of our English language-acquiring (ELA) students bring valuable assets to the classroom. Increasingly, these students are second-generation Americans who are both bicultural and bilingual (Migration Policy Institute, 2006). Others have lived in a variety of differ-ent communities across the country and bring a rich history of experiences inside and outside the school. Some have prior schooling experiences with curricula that are cutting-edge and highly differentiated for multicultural and/or multilingual school populations.

So, how can we maximize these ELA student assets in our teaching so that language acquisition is accelerated and student achievement is enhanced? Emergent evidence suggests that what we do before the lesson is pivotal to both what is learned during the lesson and what is retained long after the lesson is over (Welniak, 2010; Herrera, Murry, & Cabral, 2007). What we have before the lesson is an opportunity to set the tone for, and change the outcomes that may be associated with, a given lesson.

In fact, Herrera (2010) has referred to this aspect of the teaching cycle as a canvas of opportunity for ELA stu-dents to disclose what they already know about the topic and content of the lesson. Research by Rubie-Davis, Hattie, and Hamilton (2006) indicates that what we do with this canvas subtlety but strongly communicates our teaching expecta-

tions for these students. Do we value what our ELA students already know that we can build upon during the lesson? What opportunities have we created for these students to share that information? Will our students discern the connections or relationships between what they already know or have experi-enced with what we will teach in the lesson, today?

Brain research tells us that the mind of the student must first notice new information (e.g., the content of your lesson) before it will become sufficiently engaged with that information that it does not move on to other distractions (Jensen, 2008; Sousa, 2006). Often, what the brain of the stu-dent notices is determined by his or her schemata or patterns of understanding (Caine & Caine, 1991; Herrera, 2010). These schemata, in turn, reflect the culture in which the student has been raised and the language or languages through which he or she has processed experience.

Therefore, students notice more from, and engage more with, lessons that teachers have already linked to the students’ schemata or biography of experiences, knowledge, skills, and ways of knowing (Herrera, 2010). Of course, if ELA and other students are first reminded of what they already know about a topic (for example through opportunities for disclosure) they are in a much better position to link what is unknown (i.e., the lesson content) to what is known (i.e., what has been made public through disclosure). In the process, students are more likely to identify with and be motivated by this disclosure and the links in learning that it enables.

One powerful strategy for this sort of disclosure and for con-nections to the ELA student’s schemata or biography is Linking Language (Herrera, 2010). This biography-driven strategy is de-tailed in Figure 1 and is especially beneficial for ELA students.

Dr. Kevin MurryDr. Socorro Herrera

One reason is the very visual and social nature of the strategy. That is, it begins with pictures, photos, or similar media that reflect the topic of the lesson that will be taught.

The lesson illustrated in Figure 2 featured the topic of simple machines and was taught as one aspect of a third-grade science curriculum. After students examined and discussed the illustration in groups of four to five students, they sub-sequently disclosed what they already knew about the topic represented. Students wrote about these disclosures using single words and short passages of text written next to the illustration.

In Figure 2, the teacher has allowed students to write what they knew about simple machines, such as pulleys – in two languages. Some ELA students wrote their words in their language of greatest comfort – Spanish, as in the word hallando (an ELA student’s phonetic spelling of jalando -- or pulling). Other ELA students preferred to write in English, but did not yet have strong, English spelling skills, as in the letters, “barl.” This combination of letters was used to represent the word barrel at the bottom of the figure for the linking lan-guage activity. Still other ELA students knew and could write in English about the power of a pulley (a simple machine) to help

lift (i.e., pull up) weight, such as the weight of a barrel (in this case spelled, “barle”).

These social and literacy developing activities of disclosure activate students’ background experiences with and knowledge about that topic – that is, the topic gets no-ticed, through student’s schemata. Once the lesson is taught, students are then in the best position to draw lasting connec-tions between key topical concepts of that lesson and their activated schemata about the topic. For example, ELA students who lived near rivers or the coast in their home countries may have seen cargo lifted onto boats, using a pulley or a hoist. Through the strategy, he or she may be able to draw connec-tions between the topic and these prior experiences with cargo lifting. These are the key learning links enabled by the linking language strategy.

They are also language links. For example, many words associated with topics taught in English, especially tech-nical topics, are cognates in other languages. One such word associated with simple machines, is the word fulcrum. This

word is spelled precisely the same in both Spanish and English and is a cognate. It is also a word that many students will be able to share and link at the experiential level, since the pivot point in a common seesaw, with which many students across cultures are familiar, is a fulcrum.

After groups of students disclose, they then rotate so that other groups may do the same. This added benefit of the strategy, makes public what students already know and reveals the commonalities of experience and knowledge that they may share. This rotation also provides a canvas of opportunity through which ELA students may demonstrate the many as-sets that they bring to the lesson. These assets are too often ignored by what we may not think of doing before the lesson.

These lost opportunities are frequently at the core of ELA students’ lack of motivation for learning. It is little differ-

Figure 1 – Instructions for Linking Lan-guage Strategy

Select three or four pictures that illustrate key con-cepts from the lesson (pictures can be taken from the internet, clip art, or magazines, or the actual textbook pictures can be used).

Tape each picture on the center of a large piece of chart paper (if using the textbook, place the textbook in the center of the chart paper).

Divide the class into groups of four or five students.

Instruct the students to write down everything they think of or feel when they look at the picture.

Allow only 1-2 minutes for students in each group to write.

Then have the whole group rotate to the next chart/picture.

Continue until all groups have visited each picture.

As students are working at each picture, rotate around the room and circle any words that come close to the target vocabulary or actually reflect the academic vocabulary for the day.

At this time, you can work as a silent observer to reflect upon the knowledge that students bring to the learning community.

Source: Adapted from Herrera (2007), p. 32. Used with permission from KCAT/TLC, Kansas State University.

Figure 2

ent than the disengagement that many college students experi-ence in algebra or calculus courses. Too often, they naturally tend to notice less what they may already know about a derivative in calculus or quadratic equation in algebra than they attend to all the many complex mathematical concepts that they do not know. In the end, they become frustrated and lose their motivation to learn. The linking language strategy for ELA students utilizes tech-niques that tend to prevent such disengagement with a difficult lesson in the grade level classroom.

For instance, this strategy is beneficial for the links it encourages ELA students to make between their schemata or biographies and the key content vocabulary for the topic. These links are represented by the target vocabulary words (or ap-proximations of those words) that the teacher, as the facilitator, circle for students as part of the strategy.

Finally the linking language strategy is beneficial for the teacher of ELA students as well. This is true because the teacher, as silent observer of strategy activities, gains authentic, prein-structional assessment information. Such assessments enable the teacher to later adapt biography driven instruction for the ex-periences and knowledge that students disclose during strategy implementation.

In summary, the linking language strategy of biography driven practices helps the teacher ensure that what happens be-fore instruction is not an opportunity lost. Through this strategy, ELA students gain valuable opportunities to disclose what they know about the lesson topic, engage with the lesson, activate their schemata about that topic, and begin to draw connections or links between their biographies and the topic. In the processes of strategy implementation, the teacher demonstrates to the ELA student that his or her background is valuable. As a result, the student is more likely to remain engaged with the subsequent lesson and motivated to learn.

REFERENCESCaine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Herrera, S. (2010). Biography driven culturally responsive teach-ing. New York: Teachers College Press.

Herrera, S., Murry, K., & Cabral, R. (2007). Assessment accom-modations for classroom teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Jensen, E. (2008). A Fresh Look at Brain-Based Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 408-417.

Migration Policy Institute. (2006). Spotlight on limited English proficient students in the United States. Retrieved from: www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=373

Rubie-Davis, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R.). (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 429-444.

Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns (3rd ed.). Thousand

oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Welniak, R. (2010). ELL teaching strategies: Beneficial to all stu-dents or just ELLs? Retrieved from: www.smcm.edu/education-studies/pdf/rising-tide/.../rachel-welniak-mrp.pdf

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Kevin Murry is an Associate Professor in Curriculum & Instruction and the Director of Research and Development at the Center for Intercultural and Multilingual Advocacy (CIMA) in the College of Education at Kansas State University. Dr. Murry has been involved with the professional development of school educators for over ten years.

Dr. Socorro Herrera is a Professor in Curriculum & Instruction and the Executive Director of the Center for Intercultural and Multilingual Advocacy (CIMA) at Kansas State. Dr. Herrera’s work emphasizes biography-driven instruction.

ContaCt InformatIon

Dr. Kevin MurryAssociate Professor, College of Education Kansas State University238 Bluemont HallManhattan, KS 66506(785) 532-2125xmas@k-state.edu

Dr. Socorro HerreraProfessor, College of EducationKansas State University238 Bluemont HallManhattan, KS 66506(785) 532-2125sococo@k-state.edu

Introduction

Second language learning is supported by participation in language-rich environments that provide meaningful op-

portunities for multiple interactions with more expert language role models, such as teachers and peers (Christian, 1996; Lotan, 2007). Research has shown that, in addition to comprehen-sible linguistic input, language learners also need to engage in meaningful opportunities for language output (Swain, 2005). That is, they need to participate in situations in which they can “respond, verbally and non-verbally... where meaning is negoti-ated and communication accomplished through give and take, trial and error” (Peregoy & Boyle, 1999, p. 15).

Research is also clear that the mere presence of more ex-pert or native speakers is insufficient for social and academic second language development. Teachers play an important role in structuring their classroom in such a way that there are multiple opportunities for students to engage in meaningful talk (Platt & Troudi, 1997; Valdés, 2001). The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the role of the teacher in structuring peer interaction between native and non-native speakers to support oral language development. We first provide a brief overview of the literature on cooperative learning and the role of the teacher. We then present a study that examined the practices of one teacher in implementing pair work in her

classroom. The article concludes with a summary of findings and implications for practicing teachers.

Teachers’ Roles in Structuring Peer InteractionCooperative learning (CL) has a long tradition as a key strategy for teachers to mediate racially, ethnically, and socioeconomi-cally diverse classrooms in equitable ways. The research base on CL is extensive and well beyond this article to review (but see Johnson & Johnson, 2007 and Webb, 2007 for overviews). Most studies on CL have focused on student interaction dur-ing small group work (e.g., Cummin-Potvin, Renshaw & van Kraayenoord, 2003; Lee, Hill-Bonnet & Gillispie, 2008, Wiltse, 2006) and the impact of cooperative learning on developing positive intergroup relations (Slavin, 1985), conceptual devel-opment (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 2003), as well as second language development (McGroarty, 1989; Jacob, et al., 1996; Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1986). Interestingly, only a few studies have examined the role that teachers play in scaffolding language use and interaction among students.

Studies that have considered the role of the teacher have particularly documented teachers behavior prior to and during small group work (Webb, 2007). One consistent finding from these studies is that the teacher is important in modeling the kind of talk and thinking that students are expected to use and

The Role of a Teacher in Promoting Language Use through think-Pair-Share Interactions

Peer interaction plays an important role in second language and literacy development. While research on cooperative learning (CL) has extensively examined student interaction and the aca-demic and social outcomes of CL, less attention has been paid to the role that teachers play in CL. This study addressed this gap in the CL literature by focusing on the strategies that one first grade dual language teacher used to effectively structure peer interaction among native and non-native speakers during Morning Message and Literacy. The study’s findings confirm the central role that teachers play in CL by choosing to implement CL and model expected CL behaviors. Additionally, in the case of linguistically diverse classrooms, teachers are especially important because they can provide access to the content and language structures necessary for the CL activity, and they can encourage extended language use from students.

Dr. Ester J. De JongPatricia Lopez Estrada

in reinforcing cooperative behaviors. Gillies and Boyle (2005), for example, found that when teachers model specific types of thinking, students feel encouraged to imitate them. Two studies reviewed in Webb (2007) similarly indicated that, when teachers provide various models of explanations and play an active role modeling expected cooperative learning behavior, student-cen-tered activities were more successful (see also Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2007; Meloth & Deering, 1999).

These studies took place in standard curriculum classroom and provide some insights on teacher behavior during CL. However, research on the teacher’s role when small group work includes native and non-native speakers of the instructional language is limited. Studies by Peregoy (1991) and Peregoy & Boyle (1999) are interesting exceptions. They examined specific aspects of learning that encouraged participation of native and nonnative Spanish speakers in a two-way immersion Kindergarten class-room. A two-way immersion (TWI) program is an “integrated model of bilingual education where native English speakers (language majority students) and native speakers of a minority language (language minority students) are educated together for most or all of the day, and receive content and literacy instruc-tion through both English and the minority language” (de Jong & Howard, 2009, p. 81). The goals of TWI are academic achieve-ment, additive bilingualism and biliteracy, and cross-cultural competence for all students (Garcia, 2004; Lessow- Hurley, 2009). Its characteristics include a balanced ratio of native and nonnative speakers, an emphasis on the minority language in early grades, and students’ participation for at least six years (Thomas & Col-lier, 1997). Due to the dual target population, peer interaction among native (fluent) and non-native (less fluent) speakers is a key source for second language development in TWI programs (Christian, 1996; de Jong & Howard, 2009).

Peregoy (1991) found that teacher-directed activities involved three specific types of scaffolds: the physical space arrangement, the daily routines (accompanied by some type of nonverbal communication), and the use of native speakers as models of the language. The study by Peregoy and Boyle (1999) expanded on this work and highlighted the importance of routines as a way to scaffold language, provide peer interaction, and set models for the students. They argued that the systematic reinforcement and constant repetition of routines throughout the entire year served as ways to initiate students in the classroom environment as beginner participants (for more on peer interaction in TWI, see Howard, Sugarman & Christian, 2003).

The purpose of this study was to build on this framework and address the gap in the literature on CL by specifically consider-ing the role of the teacher in structuring peer interaction among native speakers and second language learners.

The StudyThe study took place in the context of a TWI program. TWI programs provide a unique opportunity to examine the role of teachers in structuring interaction between native and non-native speakers. Specifically, this study examined how a first-grade TWI teacher structured peer interaction among fluent and non-fluent Spanish-speakers to support oral language development.

SettingTeacher Esperanza’s (pseudonym) first grade classroom is part of a TWI school that currently implements a 80-20 TWI model, i.e., all students are initially taught 80% of their instruction through the minority language (Spanish) and 20% in English. The amount of English instruction gradually increases to become 50% by 3rd grade (and 50% Spanish). Literacy instruction takes place in Spanish for all students, native Spanish and native English speak-ers. There are about 600 students in the school; half of them are Hispanic and about 40% are English language learners. About 86% are low-income or qualify for free/reduced lunch.

Teacher Esperanza is a non-native Spanish speaker who has spent time and lived in several Latin American countries including Ecua-dor, Chile and Mexico. Her maternal relatives (uncles, aunts and cousins) are from Nicaragua, where she used to spend her time as a child learning Spanish. Her undergraduate degree is from Wesleyan University, where she majored in Latin American Stud-ies. Teacher Esperanza obtained her Master’s Degree in Bilingual Education from Boston University. She has been part of bilingual education since 2000, and started working in the TWI program in 2004. At the time of the study, there were 21 students in the class. Teacher Esperanza indicated that six of them were English fluent students, eleven were Spanish fluent and the other four were fluent in both languages, English and Spanish. There were 11 female and 10 male students in her first grade classroom. Throughout the day a native Spanish-speaking paraprofessional was also present in the room.

Data collection Data collection took place in teacher Esperanza’s Spanish classroom during the 2009-2010 school year. A total of twenty lessons were video-recorded and audio-taped during two-week visits to the school in October, November, and December 2009 and January, May and June, 2010. The lessons observed included the daily Morning Message (10 observations) and Literacy block (10 observations). Each Morning Message (MM) was about thirty minutes. The MM was the opening activity of the day where students read the “message of the morning.” It included greet-ings, reviewing of content previously learned and content and/or concepts to be learned. It also included reviewing grammar points such as subject verb agreement, and Spanish accent rules. At the end of the MM, there were usually some specific language structures and one or two questions that served the purpose of getting students engaged and having them interact in pairs or groups.

The Literacy block lasted about 90 minutes and focused on the teaching of reading content and skills. It was organized around self-regulated centers, which targeted various skills, including independent reading, partner reading, creating their own books, reviewing vocabulary words, vocabulary and sight word devel-opment. In addition, in the guided reading center, the teacher worked with three or four students and focused on specific read-ing skill development.

Data analysisAll classroom videos were transcribed. Initial analysis of teacher-structured peer interaction showed that teacher Esperanza used one main structure for peer interaction, namely pair work in the form of Think Pair Share (TPS). TPS is a three-step process where students are given some time to think and reflect on a topic or question, then pair up to discuss their answers, and final-ly they share with a larger group of students. TPS is a well-known cooperative learning structure that can provide opportunities for students to interact with their peers. The structure enhances language use and allows for language input, student interaction, and output.

Since TPS was the only structure observed in this first grade classroom, we isolated all instances of TPS in the observations, resulting in a total of 21 “TPS events.” Due to the nature of the literacy block where students dispersed quickly to their centers, most of the TPS events were observed during MM (17 out of the 21). Open coding was subsequently conducted on these TPS events to develop conceptual categories to identify teachers’ behaviors and techniques used. Key codes that emerged include: Behavioral Expectations for TPS, Activating Prior Knowledge, Teacher Language Use, Comprehensible Input, TPS-Task, and Vocabulary.

FindingsTeacher Esperanza structured her TPS events in four phases which we refer to as a preparation phase, a direction phase, a pair talk phase and a sharing phase. These phases were fairly predict-able, and were typically structured sequentially. However, particu-larly the direction phase would recur throughout the TPS event, reinforcing the task and expected behaviors (see below). We will use the general structure of these four phases to organize our findings. We will explain the purpose of each phase and provide examples of how teacher Esperanza structured or scaffolded the phase. We then present an example of one TPS event to illustrate the various strategies observed.

The Preparation Phase The purpose of this phase was to ensure that students had ac-cess to relevant academic and linguistic background knowledge to participate in the TPS task to be given. The preparation phase was characterized by two main features: comprehensible input (CI) and linguistic scaffolding (LS). Comprehensible input included activating students’ prior learning, providing relevant content information, and using non-verbal and visual supports (such as gestures, pictures, and drawings). Linguistic scaffolding involved vocabulary building and reinforcement of specific language struc-tures. Teacher Esperanza provided explicit vocabulary instruction and reinforced the vocabulary taught as the TPS evolved. When dealing with language structures, teacher Esperanza was very ex-plicit and consistent in introducing the language structures to be used during the TPS activity. She modeled and reinforced the use of the expected language structure for any given TPS event.

The Direction PhaseThis phase included organizing the students and presenting the task of the activity. During this phase, teacher Esperanza orga-nized the pair or triads making sure that every single student

had a partner to interact. There were times where students were absent, and teacher Esperanza re-organized the students to make sure all students had a chance to share with someone. TPS behaviors were presented, reviewed, and reinforced verbally and non-verbally: students were encouraged to face one another, sit knee to knee, establish eye contact, and be responsive to one another. The most common key words to ensure the face to face interaction was “rodea, rodear, rodearte” (implying that students turn around, encircle, and surround their partners).

During this phase, the task of the TPS (i.e., the actual question students had to discuss) was also explained and presented. The tasks varied over TPS events. They included: listing, defining, asking and answering questions, explaining, brainstorming words, talking about semantic and grammatical differences, talking about the past, choosing favorite words, and expressing likes and dislikes in terms of music and school subjects. The purpose of the TPS activity was often rephrased and reinforced during other TPS phases to keep students on task and focused.

Pair Talk PhaseThe third phase, the Pair Talk phase, occurred after the task was given to the pairs. The students turned to one another and shared their answers. During this phase, teacher Esperanza played a central role. She actively monitored students’ interactions and encouraged them to keep talking and interacting in their groups. She engaged in conversation and encouraged students individually (and as a group) by calling on their names and pushing them to produce more language by expanding and extending their Spanish utterances. During these interactions, she provided verbal and non-verbal support of behavioral expectations. For example, when addressing the whole class, teacher Esperanza used “sigan, sigan” (“continue, continue”) repeatedly to make sure students kept talking and stretching the language.

Sharing Phase The sharing phase occurred when students were invited to share their discussions with the whole group. There were four types: oral sharing without writing, oral sharing with some writ-ing, non-verbal sharing and no sharing at all. In the case of oral sharing without writing students only shared orally what they had talked about in their pairs or triads. In the oral sharing with some writing, students shared their responses, while teacher Esper-anza wrote some words or phrases in the board. Non-verbal sharing consisted of ways in which students showed with their hands or body the answers, e.g., the number of words they had talked about with their partners. Other examples include giving thumbs up/thumbs down, and students signaling with two fingers that they have the same idea(s) as somebody else. No sharing happened when there was an immediate transitioning to another classroom activity. The latter occurred especially when TPS was mainly used to quickly share some shared knowledge.

A TPS Example We illustrate some of the key scaffolding techniques discussed in the previous sections by analyzing one example in more depth. The excerpt was taken from a MM on November 18, 2009. The social studies unit focused on the Pilgrims and a guest speaker, Master Cooke, who had visited the class the day prior. Master Cooke was a Pilgrim arriving in Plymouth, Massachusetts. He

talked about his travels and differences in language and customs. Teacher Esperanza uses the MM to review what the students learned from Master Cooke.

Spanish ExcerptTeacher Esperanza: Ahora la pregunta que les hice fue ¿Qué apre-ndiste del Master Cooke? El Master Cooke fue el peregrino que vino ayer y yo podría hacer una lista de cien cosas que aprendí, pero yo quiero que le cuentes a tu pareja tres (mostrando tres dedos) cosas que aprendiste, entonces vas a decirle a tu pareja, la pregunta primera vas a ser a tu pareja es ¿Qué aprendiste del Master Cooke? Y tu pareja te va a contestar: aprendí… que los peregrinos… que los Wampanoags…tres cosas (mostrando tres dedos), pero una pregunta ¿debo de decir mis tres cosas de inmediato y mi pareja se queda ahí esperando o podríamos turnarnos?

Teacher Esperanza: digo una cosa, mi pareja me cuenta otra cosa, cuento una cosa, mi pareja me cuenta otra cosa, le cuento la ter-cera cosa y mi pareja me cuenta la tercera cosa. La única persona que no puede hacer, contar tres cosas es Elizabeth que triste-mente no estuvo ayer, pero los demás sí tres cosas sí tenemos tiempo para más de tres cosas pueden seguir ¿ok? Primero hacen la pregunta, ¿Qué aprendiste del Master Cooke?

Teacher Esperanza: (interactuando con un grupo de estudiantes, sentada en el suelo con los estudiantes) entre los peregrinos y los Wampanoags y lo más chistoso, cuéntale del pelaje del castor (a un estudiante) ¿sabes lo que es un castor? (a toda la clase) Un castor es un animal, el castor, si estás buscando la palabra, el cas-tor es el animal que usa sus dientes así (mostrando sus dientes) y es mas marrón (usando sus manos)… usa sus dientes así, se llama un castor, el pelaje del castor fue lo que usaron los peregrinos para, ¡perdón! los Wampanoags para algo chistoso...

(Students continue to talk among one another. The following interaction takes place with one of the pairs during this Pair Talk Phase.)

Teacher Esperanza: ¿Qué comía qué? Comidas duras ¿Te acuerdas que tenía ese pan que era tan duro y toco la mesa así y sonó, sonó como si fuera un tambor? ¿Te acuerdas?

Teacher Esperanza: (interactuando con otro grupo de estudi-antes) Quiero que cuenten también sobre la comida de los per-egrinos, sobre la ropa de los niñas y las niños… (a todo el grupo) sigan, sigan…la comida, la ropa, el viaje, los animales, el olor que los peregrinos estaban comentando que había (pausa) su familia ¿dónde dejo su familia? (a un estudiante) Cuéntales una cosa que aprendiste de los peregrinos ¿ya terminaron? ¿Me pueden mostrar que terminaron? ¿Me pueden mostrar que terminaron así? (tocando su cabeza)

(Students conclude the TPS activity by showing some of the greetings of the Pilgrims.)

English TranslationTeacher Esperanza: Now the question I asked was, what did you learn from Master Cooke? Master Cooke was the Pilgrim that came yesterday and I could make a list of a hundred things that I learned from him, but I want you to tell your partner three things

(showing three fingers) you learned, so you will tell your partner, the first question you will ask your partner is, what did you learn from Master Cooke? And your partner will answer: I learned... that the Pilgrims... that the Wampanoags... three things (showing three fingers), but I have a question, should I tell my three things all at once and then my partner has to wait? Or should we take turns?

Teacher Esperanza: I say one thing, my partner says another thing, I tell one thing, my partner tells another thing, I tell my partner the third thing and then my partner tells me the third thing. The only person that cannot tell three things is Elizabeth who was not here yesterday, but everybody else should tell three things. If we have some time for more, you can continue, ok? First, you ask the question, what did you learn from Master Cooke?

Teacher Esperanza: (interacting with a group of students, sitting on the floor with the students) ...between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoags and you can talk about the funny thing about the fur of the beaver (to one student) Do you know what a beaver is? (to the entire class) A beaver is an animal, if you are looking for the word, a beaver is an animal that has teeth like this (show-ing her front teeth) and it is brown (using her hands)... has front teeth, it is a beaver, the fur of the beaver was used by the Pilgrims to, I mean the Wampanoags for something funny...

(Students continue to talk among one another. The following interaction takes place with one of the pair during this Pair Talk Phase.)

Teacher Esperanza: What did they eat? Hard foods. Do you remember that they had that bread that was so hard that when it touched the table it sounded like a drum? Do you remember?

Teacher Esperanza: (interacting with another group of students) I also want you to talk about the foods of the Pilgrims, the clothing of the boys and the girls... (to the entire class) continue, continue... the foods, the trip, the animals, the smell the Pilgrims were talking about (pause) the family, where was the family? (to a student) Talk about one thing you learned from the Pilgrims, do you finish? Can you show me that you finish? Can you show me that you finish like this? (touching her head)

(Students conclude the TPS activity by showing some of the greetings of the Pilgrims.)

The example shows the integrated nature of the Preparation and Direction phases (from lines1-14). After reading the MM (written on chart paper), teacher Esperanza indicates she wants students to think about what they have learned from Master Cooke. She explicitly poses the question, the task for students to perform (Direction Phase, lines 1,-2; “¿Qué aprendiste del Master Cooke?”) and then reiterates the same question later on (line 5). After giving the task, the teacher interacts and monitors individ-ual students as well as the group while constantly reinforcing the task (Pair Talk Phase; lines 15 to 31). During this particular event the students did not share the answers they discussed during pair work. Instead, the teacher finishes the TPS event by asking students to collectively demonstrate one thing Master Cooke taught them (greetings).

Specific scaffolding techniques can be noted as well. Teacher

Esperanza begins by activating students’ prior knowledge (line 2—“El Master Cooke fue el peregrino que vino ayer”) and by reminding students of important content (lines 24-26—“¿te acuerdas que tenía ese pan que era tan duro...? ¿te acuerdas?”). In lines 15 through 21, teacher Esperanza responds to students’ need for vocabulary development. While interacting with one pair of students, she realizes that the majority of the students might also be struggling with the meaning of the word “castor.” In response to that, she addresses the entire class and explains what “castor” means, using verbal (descriptive language) and non-ver-bal (drawing) means to make input comprehensible. She also uses body and hand gestures to represent the size of the beaver and the beaver’s front teeth. In addition to vocabulary development, specific linguistic scaffolding also occurs by modeling the TPS question, as can be seen in line 5 (“¿Qué aprendiste del Master Cooke?”), and possible ways to answer (line 6). This modeling occurs orally and is reinforced by referencing the written ques-tion on the MM chart.

Teacher Esperanza also sets the behavioral expectations of the students while doing the TPS activity. In lines 6 through 11, she clearly dictates what it is expected from the students in terms of turn-taking during TPS. Notice how the teacher at this point also reiterates the task (line 14) to remind students of what it is expected of them. Finally, this transcript also shows how the teacher’s role and talk can shift during the pair talk phase. Whereas providing input was the main focus during the prepara-tion and direction phase, teacher Esperanza now interacts with groups of students (lines 15-31) and becomes a facilitator of lan-guage use. Thus, she encourages students to use more language by asking them to speak more (lines 27, 28) and to continue talking (line 29).

Discussion and ImplicationsOur study considered the question how a first-grade teacher structured cooperative learning strategies to promote language development and peer interaction among native and non-native speakers of the target language. From our analysis it is clear that teachers play a central role in structuring cooperative learning activities. Although our study took place in a TWI classroom, we believe it provides useful insights for any setting where there are varying language proficiency levels, including beginners and native speakers.

First and foremost, teachers must take the step to select and implement CL activities. Teacher Esperanza decided to use TPS on an almost daily basis. The simple paired structure is relatively easy to incorporate. Our study also stresses, however, that TPS is quite complex and requires teachers to engage in practices that simultaneously ensure (1) access to content; (2) access to language, and (3) extended language use.

Successful TPS events call on teachers to provide students with access to the necessary content that is referred to and/or as-sumed. Providing comprehensible input and accessing prior learning were two core dimensions to help access to content. Key strategies observed in this study include:

• Activating students’ prior knowledge by referencing prior learn-ing

• Providing relevant information needed to answer the TPS ques-tion

• Making content comprehensible (verbal and non-verbal sup-port)

Teachers also need to ensure that students have the actual lan-guage they need to engage in the TPS. It is important to explicitly model the language to be used to respond to the question asked during the TPS, orally as well as in writing. Key strategies to meet this goal include:

• Modeling the TPS linguistic frame (question and answer)

• Building vocabulary

• Reinforcing already-taught grammar and semantic structures

Finally, the teacher plays a key role as a monitor and encour-ager of student language use and interaction. During the shar-ing phase, the relationship between students and the teacher changes, transitioning from being the one directing the task and the discussion of the content related to the task to become that of a facilitator of conversations among students. Key strategies that supported student language use include:

• Monitoring students

• Encouraging students to continue to speak

• Eliciting more extended utterances

In short, teachers play an important role in facilitating peer interaction and supporting oral language use in their classrooms. They need to decide to use and implement CL activities, which are varied and range from simple partner activities to complex small group structures. Once CL activities are selected, however, teachers continue to play a key role. Particularly when small groups include native and non-native speakers our study sug-gests that teachers must do more than modeling CL and thinking behaviors. While limited to one teacher’s practices, our find-ings illustrate that successful (second language learner) student participation in CL activities, including TPS, may depend on the teacher’s ability to use multiple strategies to simultaneously pro-vide access to content and language (Sharpe, 2006; Waqui, 2006). Moreover, the teacher is crucial in encouraging and monitoring more extended language use while students share their answers. Awareness of these three features of effective TPS for native/non-native speaker partners and the use of appropriate strategies to support these features will help facilitate effective language use through peer interaction in the classroom.

REFERENCES

Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66-76.

Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.

Cohen, E. G, & Lotan, R.A. (1997). (Eds.). Working for hetero-geneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teacher College Press.

Cumming-Potvin, W., Renshaw, P., & van Kraayenoord, C.E. (2003). Scaffolding and bilingual shared reading experiences: Promoting primary school students’ learning and development. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 54(26), 54-68.

de Jong, E.J., & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two-way im-mersion education: Equalising linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 81-99.

Garcia, E.E (2004). Teaching and learning in two languages. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gillies, R.M.; & Boyle, M. (2005). Teacher’s scaffolding behaviours during cooperative learning. Asian-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3) 243-259.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2007). Beyond the classroom and into the community: the role of the teacher in expanding the pedagogy of cooperation. In Gillies, R.M, Ashaman, A.F, & Terwel, J. (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 37-54). New York: Springer.

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J. & Christian, D. (2003). Trend in two-way immersion education: a review of the research. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved on November 12, 2009 from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report63.pdf

Jacob, E., Rottenberg, L, Patrick, S. & Wheeler, E. (1996). Coopera-tive learning: Context and opportunities for acquiring academic English, TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 253-280.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R.T (2007). Social independence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In Gillies, R.M, Ashaman, A.F, & Terwel, J. (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implement-ing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 11-36). New York: Springer.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kagan, S. (1986). Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles, CA: Evalu-ation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.

Meloth, M. & Deering, P.D. (1999). The role of teacher in pro-moting cognitive processing during collaborative learning. In O’Donnell & A. King. (Eds.). Cognitive perspectives on peer learn-ing (pp. 253-256). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lee, J.S, Hill-Bonnet, L. & Gillispie, J. (2008). Learning in two languages: Interactional spaces for becoming bilingual speakers. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 75-94.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (2009). The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction. Pearson.

Lotan, R.A (2007). Developing language and mastering content in heterogeneous classrooms. In Gillies, R.M, Ashaman, A.F, & Terwel, J. (Eds.) The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 187-203). New York: Springer.

McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning ar-rangements in second language instruction. NABE Journal, 13(2), 127-143.

Peregoy, S.F. (1991). Environmental scaffold and learner’s respons-es in a two-way Spanish immersion kindergarten. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 47 (3) 451-476.

Peregoy, S.F, & Boyle, O.F. (1999). Multiple embedded scaffolds: support for English speakers in a two-way immersion Spanish immersion kindergarten. Bilingual Research Journal, 23 (2-3), 113-124.

Platt, E., & Troudi, S. (1997). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking child’s place in the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 81, 28-49.

Sharpe, T. (2006). ‘Unpacking’ scaffolding: Identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support learning. Language and Educa-tion, 20(3), 211-231.

Slavin, R. E. (1985). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in desegregated schools. Journal of Social Issues, 41 (3), 45-62.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkle (Ed.),

Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 895-911). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). Two languages are better than one. Educational Leadership , 55(4), 23-26. Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Waqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: a conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.

Webb, N. M (2007). Teacher practices and small-group dynamics in cooperative learning classrooms. In Gillies, R.M, Ashaman, A.F, & Terwel, J. (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 205-225). New York: Springer.

Wiltse, L. (2006). ‘Like pulling teeth’: Oral discourse practices in a culturally diverse language arts classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(2), 199-223.

ContaCt InformatIon

Dr. Ester J. de Jong Associate Professor ESOL/Bilingual Education Program University of Florida College of Education School of Teaching and Learning 2413 Norman Hall

PO Box 117048 Gainesville, FL 32611 PHONE: 352-392-9191 x 280 FAX: 352-392-9193 edejong@coe.ufl.edu

Patricia Lopez-Estrada University of Florida lopezpatt@yahoo.com

Practicum has been an integral part of ESL teachers’ profes-sional preparation in many TESOL (Teaching English to Speak-

ers of Other Languages) programs. However, most programs offer the practicum as a capstone course that lasts for only a semester. According to a survey conducted with 78 institutions in the U.S. that offer a degree in TESOL (Richard & Crookes, 1988), 89% of the institutions situate the practicum near or at the end of their program. Johnson (1996, p. 768) claims that this one-semester teaching experience is “grossly inadequate” to prepare pre-service teachers for their future profession.

In order to provide more authentic practice to pre-service teachers, the present paper explores a new way of integrating more field experience into TESOL teacher preparation by dis-cussing a study that incorporates a practical component within a methods course. The process of implementing the project as well as the findings of the study will be presented following a rationale for the study.

A rationale for more authentic practiceFreeman (1989) proposes a descriptive model of language teacher education which defines teaching as a decision-making process based on the categories of knowledge, skills, attitudes and awareness. Traditionally, second language methods courses have examined the evolving history of language teaching meth-odology, theoretical linguistics and second language acquisition (Grosse, 1993) which cover the first two categories: knowledge and skills. To foster a change in awareness and attitude, field ex-perience is crucial because in order to be aware of one’s teaching and attitude, one has to be in a situation where one is actu-ally teaching. According to Freeman (1989), the field of teacher preparation has focused too much on talking about teaching (language acquisition, applied linguistics and methodology) instead

of teaching itself. In order to be effective teachers with informed choices, pre-service teachers must not confine themselves within university classrooms.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Johnson (1996), theory often fails to inform practice because of the idiosyncratic nature of any classroom situation. In cases where theories can help in class-rooms, it only helps “to the extent to which teachers themselves make sense of that theory (Johnson, 1996, p. 767).” The process of making sense is one in which pre-service teachers internalize the theories they learned in lectures by trying them out in real teaching.

Not only do pre-service teachers need to put theory into prac-tice, but they also need to do so while theories are still fresh in their mind. The capstone practicum course common in TESOL programs creates a gap between methods courses and practice. By the time pre-service teachers go into classrooms for stu-dent teaching in their last semester, they may have forgotten the theories and techniques they learned in their methods courses. Besides, it is a long-held view that certain teaching skills can be mastered only through working with students in real classrooms. These skills include, but are not limited to, classroom manage-ment, teacher-student rapport, activity organization, external policies and curriculum.

Studies investigating experienced and novice second language teachers’ (including ESL teachers) pedagogical knowledge (Al-marza, 1996; Feinman-Nemser & Foldden, 1986) have found that the source of pedagogical knowledge lies not within the courses they took but rather the learning experiences they had. These findings do not necessarily devalue methods classes, but rather they suggest the power of experience. It could be hypothesized that the experience pre-service teachers gain through teaching ESL learners will have an impact on their perception of what

authentic Practice within a tESoL methods Course

While the importance of real world connection is widely acknowledged in TESOL teacher train-ing programs, student teaching remains, in general, the only format of teaching practice and is usually offered as a capstone experience at the end of the program. This article emphasizes the need for more practical experience within teacher training programs and presents a new format of practicum that incorporates real teaching experience within a methods course. Pre-service teachers enrolled in a methods course were required to design lesson plans and teach ESL learners in local schools. Data gathered through student journals and teacher-student confer-ences suggested that integrating a practical component into a methods course offered a unique way to relate the real world to pre-service teachers without extensive coordination or cost.

Dr. Hongli Fan

constitutes good teaching.

It has also been reported (Brinton & Holten, 1989) that through real classroom teaching practice, pre-service teachers’ implicit knowledge of the techniques learned in a methods course be-came more explicit.

Pre-service teachers in TESOL are in a unique situation because there is a big difference between teacher and student popula-tion. While the ESL student population is composed of diverse linguistic, racial and cultural backgrounds, the pre-service teacher population is predominantly white, middle class, female and monolingual (Baldwin et al., 2007). The majority of pre-service teachers in TESOL have never experienced or even witnessed the challenges that their future students experience in terms of linguistic, cultural, academic or social adjustment. Compared to their peers in many other disciplines, pre-service teachers in TESOL are disadvantaged by their lack of knowledge concerning their students and their sociocultural environment.

In a broader context, connecting secondary schools with higher education promotes engaged learning which focuses on what John and Evelyn Dewey called “the concrete, the human side of things” instead of only on the abstract (Dewey & Dewey, 1915, p. 121). A study conducted with pre-service teachers in a diverse setting (Baldwin et al., 2007) suggests that service-learning, em-phasizing multiculturalism and social justice, has the potential for empowering prospective teachers to begin deconstructing some of their lifelong negative attitudes and constructing socially just practices.

In summary, real classroom teaching is an important part of pre-service teachers’ knowledge base; it helps to put theory into practice; it fosters certain skills that are impossible to learn sim-ply by listening to lectures; it promotes cultural awareness, and finally it trains more engaged citizens.

Remedies proposed in previous studiesIn order to provide a remedy for the one-semester practicum at the end of most TESOL programs, Johnson (1996) proposes PDSs (professional development schools), real schools where univer-sity faculty and site-based teachers share in the responsibility for preparing novice teachers. In PDSs, in-service school teachers learn about up-to-date research in their discipline, pre-service teachers experience first-hand the teaching environment they will be working in and university professors gain insights into what is really going on in pre-college classrooms. Teaching is seen in PDSs as an ever-evolving form of art that requires not just doing but also reflecting and thinking. But setting up and sustaining a PDS is no simple task (Grossman, 1994) because it requires a consider-able amount of coordinating and commitment from three parties (local schools, the university and pre-service students), not to mention the cost.

An integrative model for practicum which is similar to PDSs is proposed by Stoynoff (1999). The model proposed is a four-

semester long, integrative one. Instead of treating practicum as a capstone course, the model connects pre-service teachers with in-service teachers from their first semester. The responsibility of pre-service teachers and their participation in the field gradually increase as they proceed through their program. The amount and difficulty of the tasks they are involved in also change over time, ranging from observation, peer teaching and lesson-plan designing to classroom teaching. All the traditional components of practicum are in this model, but they are spread out into four semesters and gradually increasing in intensity. Again, this model requires considerable coordination and cooperation.

In a survey conducted with 94 TESOL teacher preparation programs in the United States, Grosse (1991) found that some programs did have an authentic practice component that “re-quires students to work directly with ESL students – precisely what they will do as professionals (Grosse, 1991, p. 37).” The problem is that only 17 out of the 94 institutions required this practice in the methods courses. As reported in the survey, opin-ions were split over whether or not practical components such as teaching demonstrations and real-classroom teaching should be part of the methods course. While some respondents felt that putting theories and skills into practice was more appropriate for the practicum at the end of the program, others felt that the methods course was the right place. The author shares the idea of the latter, in that the practical component in a methods course serves to bridge the gap between what Pennycook (1989) called the theories of experts and textbooks and classroom practice. In the following section, I introduce a project carried out in a TESOL reading methods course incorporating authentic practice.

The ProjectIn the spring semester of 2009, a tutoring component was added to the reading methods course (generally taken in the third year) in addition to all other existing components (lectures, group discussions, lesson-plan designing and revision and teaching demonstrations). The course has always required that pre-service teachers design and revise lesson plans. In the project, they were also required to teach the first version of the lesson plans to an ESL student before revising and submitting them again for a grade.

The benefit of the project was two-fold: pre-service teachers would have a real set of proficiency level, language background and grade level to base their lesson plans on while the instructor (the author) could rely on the learners to show pre-service teachers what worked and what did not. Further-more, by introducing real-life experiences, the reading methods course allowed academic and field experiences to become interrelated and complementary parts of a whole that students engaged in simultaneously. Practice was thus integrated into the program instead of being a capstone course. Students enrolled in the course participated in teaching while talking about teaching; in other words, they learned how to teach while actually doing it. Their experience became concrete, not merely abstract.

ParticipantsThe participants in the study were seven pre-service teachers—all white, middle-class and female. They were in their junior year

of college, first or second year into the TESOL program.

For their lesson plans, the pre-service teachers could choose to teach any ESL learner at any level. One pre-service teacher chose an undergraduate student from China who was also her friend and another chose two ESL learners (2nd grade) from South America attending a school in her hometown. The other five pre-service teachers had no personal contact, so the instructor con-tacted a local ESL teacher who gladly accepted the pre-service teachers to teach her students.

The ESL students in the local schools were five girls of five origins: Ukraine, Laos, Mali, Vietnam and Puerto Rico. The grade level ranged from third grade to high school senior. Their reading proficiency levels ranged from low-intermediate to advanced.

Procedures and Data CollectionPre-service teachers and ESL learners met periodically through-out the semester to improve learners’ reading proficiency. As part of the requirements for the course, the pre-service teach-ers needed to design four lesson plans. They were asked to meet with their assigned learner(s) at least once to carry out each les-son plan. Before actual teaching sessions, they were required to meet with the learner at least twice to get to know him/her. After teaching their lessons to their ESL learner-partner(s), they wrote a one-page reflection essay identifying what went well and what did not and attached it to their revised lesson plan. Reflecting on one’s own teaching makes clear one’s teaching philosophy, beliefs, techniques, successes and failures so one can improve. Reflection is essential to bring awareness to pre- and in-service teachers. In fact, reflection was an essential component of the course. There were three different types of assignments on reflection: the re-flection essays attached to each of their revised lesson plans, ten journals they kept throughout the course and a final reflection paper they wrote at the end of the course.

In addition to the refection papers and journals required for the course, toward the end of the semester, pre-service teachers also had conferences with the instructor to talk about the experi-ence. The objective of the conference was to provide an open and relaxing environment for pre-service teachers to talk freely about their experience so that they might provide more details than on paper. Data was collected through the journals, reflection papers, conferences, and the lesson plans. The research questions explored in the project were:

1. To what extent does the project influence pre-service teachers’ knowledge, skills, awareness and attitude?

2. Is this project an effective way to bridge the gap between methods courses and the one-semester capstone practicum?

ResultsThe results gathered from the data suggested that the project had a positive impact on pre-service teachers. There were, of course, areas that needed improvement, but the gains outweighed the problems.

The instructor had concerns when designing the project because it required extra work not originally associated with the course on the part of pre-service teachers. When the project was

introduced the first day of class, some of the pre-service teachers were hesitant and a little apprehensive, but they welcomed the project and agreed it would be beneficial.

Data gathered throughout the semester showed an overwhelm-ingly positive attitude toward the project. The following themes emerged from the data:

The project gave pre-service teachers insights into the profession and confirmed their career choice.

Even though not solicited, five out of the seven pre-service teachers mentioned how this practical component in the course confirmed their love for teaching and their career choice. For all but one student, it was the first time they had experienced authentic practice or even met with an ESL learner. Before the course, most of their knowledge on teaching ESL in elementary or secondary schools had been based on anecdotes.

This project opened the door for them as insiders into the pro-fession. It provided a closer look at what to expect when actually teaching in a classroom, and they liked what they saw, as indicated in one of the journals (All the quotes are from the pre-service teachers enrolled in the methods course and all the names are pseudonyms. Words in italic are added by the author.):

• I was able to observe the ESL students in their natural environ-ment and watch their teacher interact with them. This gave me plenty of insight into what my future career will be like. … I think I have definitely found the career I want to have for the rest of my life (or close to it).

Pre-service teachers also received a dose of reality shock which confirmed that real-life was not always rosy. ESL programs are gaining momentum across the country, as witnessed in media coverage and through advocacy by professional organizations such as TESOL, MLA and ACTFL. The spotlight position of TESOL is one of the reasons some of the pre-service teachers became interested in the profession in the first place. But as two of them pointed out, ESL programs were unfortunately not on the priority list in some schools. In accordance with this observation, some of the content teachers were found to be non-sympathetic towards the differences brought by ESL students.

• The project made it possible for pre-service teachers to inter-nalize teaching techniques learned through textbooks.

When designing their lesson plans, pre-service teachers were re-quired to choose a specific grade and proficiency level on which to base their plans. Before this project, reading material not appropriate for the designated grade or proficiency was often found in the lesson plans. With an imaginary audience that be-haved perfectly, this problem did not even surface for pre-service teachers. The project proved to be an excellent solution because it had a far more reaching effect than just written feedback from the instructor, as illustrated by the following quotes:

• Your original thought of what is difficult and what is easy may not be the case with a real student.

• The experience helped me design my lesson plans because it gave me more of a focus on what to teach at what level.

Another requirement in the lesson plans was the time allocated to each activity. Before the project, most student teachers could only put a rough time estimate on each activity without knowing how realistic it was in a real classroom. As for anyone new in the profession, pre-service teachers are more concerned with filling the forty-minute class time. The result of this fear of silence is the piling up of activities in lesson plans.

• Timing was a bit of an issue because there were only forty minutes and the student had to perform pre-, during- and post-reading activities.

• I have learned not to create too much (activities and work) for my students because it can be very overwhelming at times.

The importance of knowing the learners’ interests was empha-sized in class and ways and techniques to find out about them suggested, but it was not until the field experience that pre-ser-vice teachers realized just how important these seemingly simple techniques were.

• I had high expectations. I wanted N to be really involved and interested in the lesson. In addition, I also wanted her to un-derstand everything. … I had to modify the directions and the student’s objectives because they were simply too high.

• I had to develop a lesson that I thought N would enjoy. To my dismay, my reading did not interest her one bit.

• After learning about B (a seventh grader) and observing her reading, I decided to write a lesson plan that reflected a book of fiction she wanted to read. This lesson was fun and it encouraged her to read the entire book (close to 600 pages) in a few weeks. Mrs. K (a cooperating teacher) and I were astonished at her perseverance in reading the novel.

Along the same lines, the course also emphasized the importance of knowing the students’ previous linguistic knowledge, content background and reading strategies. One pre-service teacher had planned to teach reading strategies introduced in the course to her student (a high school senior). After receiving feedback from the instructor, she changed her mind and found it was a smart move when she was teaching the lesson:

• I am glad that I decided not to focus on reading strategies as much as I had in mind…. I found that S already used some of the reading techniques I had in mind. When she reads in Russian, she always highlights and takes notes in the margins.

The instructor was pleased to see that the experience really put the education of students as the central focus for the pre-service teachers.

• The project certainly infused a sense of cultural awareness into the pre-service teachers.

When talking about culture in TESOL in the United States, American culture is often mentioned as the target culture for ESL learners to integrate into. Only recently has the field started paying attention to ESL learners’ identity (including their culture, language and lived experiences) and its impact in TESOL (Ku-maravadivelu, 2006). Through their experiences in the project, pre-service teachers learned to understand ESL learners not only

as a unique community, but more importantly as individuals with their own cultures, languages, and personalities. “Culture” was no longer a big word the instructor preached about in classes. It became better situated, understood and individualized through their ESL learner-partners. Pre-service teachers might forget the words or stories in their textbooks, but the knowledge gained in their experience will remain with them in their personal and professional development.

Pre-service teachers also came to understand that teaching was a two-way learning method as both teachers and students assume both roles at the same time.

• I will never forget how she looked up at me and pointed to her hand and then to mine and said: why did the whites call the blacks Negros and force them into slavery?

• If we show more interest in our partner’s culture, they will most likely feel more comfortable with us, respect us more and we could learn a lot from them, instead of them just learning from us.

• B taught me about many things, such as “how to see America through a fourteen-year old ESL learner’s eyes.”

• I have learned from Mrs. M. (a cooperating teacher) that culture needs to be spoken about, and that it is the very key element in an ESL student’s life.

• N taught me a great deal, in fact, what N taught me happened to be the most unexpected lessons. For example, she taught me the importance of catering the lesson to the needs and wants of the students. Although I learned this from my professor and the textbook, N gave it an entirely different meaning and reason to it.

•I feel that I learned a lot from them because I will probably never go to these countries and if I did I would experience them as a tourist, not as someone who lives there.

DiscussionIn the final reflection paper, all seven pre-service teachers sug-gested that the project should continue in the future, but they also mentioned some limitations. The biggest challenge in the project was difficulty in scheduling. Since the authentic practice was done outside of course time, pre-service teachers needed to find time on their own to carry out their lesson plans between the two versions of each lesson plan (two weeks apart).What is more, the pre-service teachers’ schedule had to fit with the ESL teachers’ and that of the ESL learners. A possible solution to this problem is to schedule the project as an after-school program so that it is less intrusive to the regular ESL classes in the local schools, and pre-service teachers can have more quality time with their ESL partners. Another problem was the scarcity of ESL students. The area where the university is situated has a very limited ESL student population receiving individual pull-out instruction sessions. Some of the pre-service teachers preferred a classroom-teaching environment closer to their future teaching experiences. Choosing an adjacent school district with a larger ESL population may be a better choice in the future.

Integrating authentic practice into a methods course helps bridge the gaps between the following pairs: theory and practice, pre-

service teachers and ESL students, pre-service teachers’ per-ception of teaching and reality, knowing and doing. The positive effects of the project manifest themselves not only through the specific techniques and skills of teaching learned in the project, but also and more importantly, in changing the awareness and at-titude of pre-service teachers toward teaching and ESL students. The change of awareness and attitude does not necessarily mean a change from negative to positive, but rather a change in quality. All seven pre-service teachers decided to be ESL teachers before taking the course because they loved children and teaching, but it was the project that made it clear to them what it means to be a good teacher and how to become one.

Through this project, the practical component proves not only to have a place in a methods course, but also to play an essential role in connecting pre-service teachers with the real world. The sample size of the project is too small to generalize, yet the re-sults show that the inclusion of a practical component in a TESOL methods course is highly recommended for improving the effec-tiveness of the course. The format of the component could vary depending on the specific circumstances, but the key is direct connections between pre-service teachers and ESL students.

The present study shed light on methods courses as well as on teacher training. A practical component in a methods course echoes the need in teacher training for more authentic practice and offers a unique yet pertinent way to fulfill this demand. Its small scale helps avoid the extensive coordination and cost of establishing a PDS (Professional Development School) or other larger-scale projects (see Johnson, 1996 & Stoynoff, 1999) that also seek to integrate practice into the curriculum.

In summary, this study proves that it is necessary and feasible to inject a practical component into college classrooms in general and into teacher training in particular whenever an opportunity presents itself.

REFERENCES

Almarza, G. G. (1996). Student foreign language teacher’s knowledge growth. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 50-78). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baldwin, S., Buchanan, A., & Rudisill, M. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice, and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 315-327

Brinton, D. & Holten, C. (1989). What novice teachers focus on: The practicum in TESL. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 343-350

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of tomorrow. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.

Feinman-Nemser, S., & Foldden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teach-ing. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd

ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 27-45

Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 35-50

Grosse, C. (1991). The TESOL methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 29-49

Grosse, C. (1993). The foreign language methods course. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 303-312

Grossman, P. (1994). In pursuit of a dual agenda: Creating a middle level professional development school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. (pp. 50-73). New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, K. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 765-771

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, chal-lenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowl-edge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589-618

Richard, J. & Crookes, G. (1988). The practicum in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 9-27

Stoynoff, S. (1999). The TESOL practicum: An integrated model in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 145-151

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hongli Fan, Ph. D. from University of Florida, is an assistant professor in the department of Modern Languages at State University of New York at Cortland, NY, United States. Her research interests include Second Language Acquisition and TESOL Teacher Training.

We had three ESOL IAs attend the Southeast Regional TESOL conference (two from Pasco County and one

from Hernando County), as part of our ‘Collaboration in Advo-cacy’ presentation. Later they said they thought that maybe they were the only ESOL IAs there, and they were so grateful for the opportunity to be included!!!

Thanks

Cynthia Haring, Pasco ESOL Resource Teacher

Serving CLMS, NWES, HHS, HES, MGES, SHES

The Southeast Regional TESOL Conference held on September 23-25 in Miami was a very exciting experience for me. I am an ESOL Instructional Assistant at Northwest Elementary School in Hudson, Florida, and it was my first time attending a TESOL Conference of any kind. I was afforded the opportunity to meet ESOL professionals, resource teachers, program directors and professors from all over Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Colorado and other states. The speakers were phenomenal, professional and very knowledgeable when it came to giving ideas about meaningful instruction and strategies to support our ESOL students. The publishers, exhibitors, and vendors were also informative and generous in giving books and other resources to those attending the conference. I learned so much from these people, and I came home energized to do even more for the ESOL students at my school in Pasco County.

I was also a presenter at the conference, as part of a ESOL teach-er/IA team which included Cynthia Haring, a Resource Teacher in Pasco County, and Millie Ortiz an ESOL IA at Hudson Elementary

in Pasco; Katia Valdeos, an ESOL Lead Teacher in Hernando County, and Carmen Diaz, an

ESOL IA from Hernando; and Dr. Sandra Hancock, a professor

in Georgia. Our pre-sentation focused on

“Collaboration in Advocating for

Student Suc-cess,” and it was exciting to see our ideas come together and be so appreciated by those

attend-ing. In our

PowerPoint presentation

with nearly 100 photos, we shared the

many events, activities, meetings, and ways that we

celebrate our students. We also gave ideas and suggestions about how to

collaborate effectively with teachers, administrators, parents, families, district personnel, and community members to ensure success of our ESOL students. It was a wonderful experi-ence for me, and I hope to attend this conference again in future years.

Thank you to Nora Dawkins and Cynthia Schuemann, co-chairs of this conference, as well as Pat Grant, and all the other people who were involved in making this conference so successful!

Gloria Ortiz, ESOL Instructional Assistant Northwest Elementary School, Pasco County Hudson, Florida

A Note of Thanks

Introduction

In the lead chapter of the book edited by Adger, Snow, and Christian entitled What Teachers Need to Know about Lan-

guage, Fillmore and Snow (2002) argue strongly that all teachers, not just language teachers, must have a solid base of knowledge about language in order to meet the high standards of teaching school age learners in today’s diverse society. The authors present key questions that teachers should be able to answer (adapted from Fillmore and Snow pp. 20-39):

1. What are the basic units of language?

2. What is regular and what isn’t? What are the recognizable pat-terns of language?

3. How is vocabulary acquired, learned, and used?

4. How is language used differently by groups of people in differ-ent places and different situations (including language learners)?

5. What is academic language?

6. What is necessary to learn a new language successfully?

7. How is spelling learned and why is English spelling so compli-cated?

8. Why do some students have more difficulty than others in performing classroom tasks?

9. Why do students have difficulty with structuring narrative and expository writing?

10. What makes language easy or difficult to understand?

11. How should one judge the quality and correctness of a stu-dent’s work?

The last question is the focus of this paper; specifically, the claim

that the answer to this question requires educators to learn a new way of speaking about what we traditionally call “errors” or “mistakes.” In this discussion, I limit my claim to the specific problem of making judgments about the quality and correctness of a student’s use of language rather than the factual content of a student’s work.

As language teachers, we all tacitly agree that language learners are expected to make errors as a necessary and natural part of language acquisition. The more we know about language acquisi-tion, the more we see the systematicity of speech and writing errors of all speakers, native and nonnative speakers alike. We make distinctions between local and global errors, performance errors, developmental errors, and interference errors. We think of errors as positive evidence of growth and development in language acquisition. For example, when an English learner begins to apply the past tense suffix /-ed/ to all verbs, regular and irregu-lar, we know that an important grammatical milestone has been achieved. We seem to be unable to describe learner language and progress in acquisition without some references to errors. The ESL Proficiency Standards published on the TESOL website rely on error-based terminology for some of the key descriptors:

Level 2: …systematically produce basic errors. Errors in writing are present…

Level 3:…simple sentences … frequently marked by grammatical errors.

The ProblemThe problem, as I see it, is that we have no way of distinguishing between our specialized use of the term error and the every-day lay person’s use of the term. Furthermore, I believe that as specialists we are largely unaware of the unequivocally negative meanings embedded in the concept of error. It follows, then, that we are not always cognizant of how the underlying negativity of the term affects our perceptions of student work as well as our

This paper discusses the problem of language professionals’ use of the word “error” to refer to non-target forms in language acquisition and development. The meanings of “error” that are intended in the discourse of language professionals (i.e. useful, expected, system-atic) cannot be naturally linked to any of the meanings that can be found for the word “error” or “mistake” as these words are fundamentally negative in their semantic repre-sentations. Alternative terminology is discussed and the terms Interlanguage Forms and Noticeable Forms are suggested for use in the discourse of language professionals. (91)

Speaking of ErrorsDr. Rebecca Burns

actions (focusing on errors, error correction, incomplete learning, etc.) in communicating with students and colleagues.

To demonstrate the semantic representation of negativity in the words error and mistake, I present a concept map of related words and their meanings. The ThinkMap Visual Thesaurus pro-vides a computationally constructed semantic map of the words closely related in meaning to the word in question.

The related words that most closely match the context of speech and language are “erroneousness,” “mistake,” and “fault.” The ThinkMap Visual Thesaurus provides an expanded definition of each of the words in the map when the cursor touches the node to which the word is attached. The expanded definition of each of these words as presented in the map of meanings for the word “error” is as follows:

erroneousness: inadvertent incorrectness

mistake and fault (overlapping meaning): a wrong action attribut-able to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention

mistake: part of a statement that is not correct

All three definitions are composed of negative units of mean-ing. We see the semantic elements WRONG and BAD along with NOT + ( incorrectness, ignorance, and inattention). The definition of “erroneousness” requires two negative elements, “inadvertent incorrectness,” to represent the slightly positive aspect of innocence on the part of the agent—“not intending to be not correct.” Nowhere do we see any possible connection to the language teacher’s specialized meaning of language errors as natural, necessary, systematic, useful, creative, inventive, or indica-tive of growth and progress in language acquisition. Given the unequivocally negative meaning of the word error, it is problem-atic to assume the word can take on the neutral or even posi-tive psychological values we intend when we speak of language learning errors.

In their highly influential book, Metaphors We Live By (1980), Lakoff and Johnson demonstrate that our everyday speech is based on highly productive underlying metaphors, and that meta-phors are the primary means by which we conceptualize human experience. For example, the metaphor that life is a journey is expressed in the familiar phrases of finding ourselves “at a cross-roads,” “taking the road less traveled,” “following a path,” “on the bus,” “off the wagon,” and having “arrived.” Lakoff and Johnson go on to make the point that the metaphors we encode in our speech shape our perceptions and actions without our ever noticing. When we speak of students “making errors” in their speech and writing, the strong negative meanings of error shape our perceptions—possibly extending the negative connection to our students as behaving negatively. These perceptions then shape our actions. For example, intensive error-correction is a natural response to the negative perception of speech errors and their speakers.

In 1979 Michael Reddy published an influential paper analyz-ing the metaphors underlying our everyday expressions about language: IDEAS ARE OBJECTS, LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS, and COMMUNICATING IS SENDING. The metaphors are expressed in everyday phrases such as ``it’s hard to get that idea across,’’ ``it’s difficult to put my ideas into words,’’ or ``his words carry little meaning.’’ Reddy goes on to say that these metaphors form a larger metaphor of a CONDUIT–a secure pipeline--which ensures the successful transmission of in-formation via language communication. His analysis demonstrates the pervasiveness of this concept or schema in our language about language. Because the CONDUIT metaphor implies the natural success of language communication, everything that does not succeed in communication is described as some kind of failure: “a breakdown in communication,” “a misunderstanding,” “a lack of language proficiency.” Most of the everyday language used to describe language learners in school is focused on their limitations in English proficiency, invoking the CONDUIT and its component metaphors:

• “S/He couldn’t [say, remember, pronounce, spell,] the word.” EMPTY CONTAINER

• “S/He mixes up the [tenses, words, letters, sounds].” WRONG/BAD OBJECTS IN THE CONTAINER

• “S/He tried to say X.” DID NOT SEND/ACHIEVE COMMUNI-CATION

When we describe language learners’ use of language in deficit, BROKEN CONDUIT, terms, we fail to perceive all that our stu-dents achieve and accomplish every time they read, write, speak, and listen in their new language. English learners produce large portions of on-target speech and language throughout their years of acquisition.

Alternative Terminology

To discover alternative, psychologically descriptive terminol-ogy, we can eliminate error and its semantically related words, i.e. mistake, from use. To experience this effort, think how you might complete the phrases taken from TESOL’s ESL Proficiency Standards:

• At Level 2, students still systematically produce basic _______.

•_______ in writing are present that often hinder communica-tion.

•At Level 5, _______ are minimal, difficult to spot, and generally corrected when they occur.

The term “goof” was proposed by Burt and Kiparsky in their 1972 book, The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English, in an attempt to capture the “inadvertent” and “harmless” aspects of speech errors. In that sense, “goof” and “goofs” fit the sentence frames above, but the semantic associations with this word (see Figure 2) are also negative characterizations of persons who goof or make goofs: clowns, bozos, buffoons. Perhaps this associ-ated disparagement is the reason the term “language goof” was never widely used.

What is needed is an altogether neutral descriptor for language forms that, for whatever reason, differ from the expected target forms. The statement above suggests that the obvious base word for the needed terminology is the word form. To complete the needed terminology, the modifier of this base word must capture the entirely neutral nature of “differing from expected target forms.” The term Interlanguage (Selinker 1972) is just such a term. Interlanguage is defined as a dynamic, psychological system used by second language learners to use the new lan-guage in meaningful situations. The term “Interlanguage form(s)” captures the psycholinguistic functions of what we have been calling errors without negative implications for the behaviors or the persons. It fits very well into the test frames we have been using:

•At Level 2, students still systematically produce basic Interlan-guage forms.

•Interlanguage forms in writing are present that often hinder communication.

•At Level 5, Interlanguage forms are minimal, difficult to spot, and generally corrected when they occur.

In addition, the term “Interlanguage forms” can be naturally extended by analogy to describe “Inter-dialect forms” used by learners of a new dialect of their language and “Inter-register forms” used by learners of a new register of their language. Using the term “Interlanguage forms” allows us to invoke the psychologically necessary characteristics of naturalness, univer-sality, necessity, and systematicity of learner language forms that differ from target norms.

Use of the term “Interlanguage form(s)” supports a constructiv-ist view of language and language acquisition: communication depends on the interaction of participants within the specific context of the language event. The language that students use in the classroom is the product of their interpretation of how their knowledge (of everything) applies to the persons, materials, and events of the moment. Thus, when we are required to make professional judgments regarding the quality and correctness of a student’s work, our judgment must reflect our own interpre-tive process. This process entails much more specific and useful characterizations of students’ use of language than the term error allows. Our professional knowledge of Interlanguage forms as natural, necessary, systematic, useful, creative, and inventive phenomena that are indicative of growth and progress must be communicated to students and colleagues as we make judgments about the quality and correctness of student work. As language educators, we have the knowledge base for describing students’ Interlanguage forms as on-target, target approximations, first lan-guage transfers, etc. We can document achievements in language acquisition along with characterizations of developmental stages. Our specialized knowledge base consists of four components:

1. knowledge of language domains or subsystems (e.g. phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse)

2. knowledge of language patterns (deletion, addition, substitu-tion, or movement of units)

3. description of consistency and interaction of the pattern(s) (increases, decreases, alternates, switches, etc.)

4. description of communication outcome (impact of form in specific context or application)

The application of this knowledge in judgments about the quality and correctness of student work might look something like the following generic, de-contextualized examples:

• The learner frequently substitutes tense vowels for lax (short) vowels in animated conversation but represents vowels accu-rately in age-appropriate spelling tasks.

• The learner frequently deleted plural, possessive /-s/ and past tense /-ed/ in oral reading but accurately represented these inflections in writing.

• The learner consistently moved the auxiliary verb to the front in Wh- clauses but does not treat the construction as a question (“I know what was he doing.”)

• Throughout the narrative, the writer consistently added articles

to both plural and mass nouns.

ConclusionI have presented a case against the use of words such as error or mistake in referring to characteristics of learner language based on the failure of those words to capture the inherently natural and useful nature of learner language forms that differ from target language forms. I have suggested that as a professional body, we seriously challenge ourselves and our colleagues to use the alternative term, Interlanguage form, to more accurately and more usefully characterize learner language. Underlying such a change in use of terminology is a much deeper shift in our under-standing of language and speaking about language. The judgments of language educators regarding the quality and correctness of students’ work must represent the interactive, interpretive, and context dependent nature of language use in general, and make specific reference to student progress in language acquisition.

REFERENCES

Burt, M.K. & C. Kiparsky. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Newbury House: Rowly, MA.

Fillmore, L. W. & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.) , What teachers Need to Know About Language (pp. 7-54). Wash-ington D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc. Prepared by the ERIC Clearninghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.

Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and thought (284-324). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10, 1-4, 209-31.

TESOL PreK–12 English Language Proficiency Standards Framework. http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=281&DID=13323

Th!nkmap© Visual Thesaurus. http://www.visualthesaurus.com/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rebecca Burns is Assistant Professor of ESOL in the College of Education at the University of South Florida Sarasota Manatee. Her research interests include teachers’ knowledge base about language and its impact on student achievement, language acquisi-tion in settings outside the home, and language awareness across the professions.

ContaCt InformatIon

Rebecca Burns, College of Education, USFSM B322, Sarasota, FL 34243. E-mail: burnsmr@sar.usf.edu

Loves and Crushes in the Classroom

“Iceberg” was the first piece of spontaneous writing Tuan handed me. He wrote:

“This week I met an angel. I can’t believe it – just a first look at her, and I was falling in love. She make me melt like an iceberg on the sea. .. I think I should tell her that she make me melt, but I can’t even say a word to her. . . My heart is her now, but I can’t even say a word. I’m just like a bird and got trapped in her heart. . . I try to play it as cool as ice, but you make me melt. I wish to be the wind so I can play in your hairs. . .when I see you sad, I feel like a storm in my head. . . ”

Later that week, Tuan passed by with a pale face, tossing a paper at me in the hallway.

“. . .Sweet night, full of stars. I’m here filled with the loneliness and cold. From the moment you are gone, our rainbow’s not full. Just a half of a rainbow like my love without you. . . Dew’s so cold on my shoulder. Moon of love and waning rainbow. . . ‘When can I have you again?’ I asked the moon, the stars, and the rainbow, and when can I see our rainbow sitting here in the night ask me why I can cry. And now I know what is love.”

Tuan continuously scribbled out notes, handing them to me regularly. Finally, I muttered loudly, “Your work is just too good not to share. Could we please let someone else read this?”

Other students, curious about Tuan’s notes, pleaded, “Tuan, let us read them!”

Ultimately relenting, Tuan shared with his friend Maria, whom he trusted. She, like Tuan, wrote poems and stories, and sang songs of love.

“Tuan! This is great!” she shouted with enthusiasm. “Oh, I love it!” Eventually, his writing made it to the desk of every girl in the class, and Tuan had many new admirers for his language of love. Tuan’s power with the pen was a bit like Cyrano de Bergerac’s.

This ardor for love did not have cultural boundaries. One after-noon, Wasim from Morroco, sat quietly, lanky legs stuffed under his desk, staring into space. Tears silently slid down his face, as another student slipped him a Kleenex. Wasim, usually upbeat, had entered class in a subdued mood. I saw him in the hall before class, holding hands with his Honduran girlfriend, looking solemn. He muttered on his way in, “I didn’t mean to hurt her feelings. I don’t know why she takes me wrong. I only wanted to help.” The next day, things were back to normal, and the tears subsided, replaced by a smile. Through their periodic romantic

spats, Wasim and his girlfriend improved both their English and their cultural knowledge.

Fascinated by girls from all over the world, flirtatious Fahd from Saudi was motivated not only to learn English, but Spanish as well. His Syrian friend Ammon, smitten by a Costa Rican student, helped her write essays; his English improved dramatically, while hers remained on a plateau. Admonished for writing his young friend’s essays, Ammon made himself useful by tutoring and as-sisting her with Power Point Presentations. Having learned so much English that he tested out of ESOL, Ammon was forced to leave his crush behind. This was fortunate for her, since she began learning English through her own efforts, instead of his using his ability for her.

It is clear that romance is truly a unique motivator for learn-ing English when star-struck admirers do not share a common language. When my classes are immersed in reading love stories and poems, reams of “extra credit” pieces appear on my desk spontaneously, Valentines and poems appear around the room, and students who normally have little to say or write want to stay in class for extra time to finish “love” projects. Even Dario, Macho King of the classroom, was transformed into a teddy bear, writing about his girlfriend and his devotion to her. Out of all the outpourings of love, the most unforgettable was Eduardo’s, who creatively left notes in Spanish and English on the back of his script for a videotaped news production. The news “anchor” for the sports segment of our class production, Eduardo – with no change in facial expression or pacing as he looked at the cam-era - held up the script for all to see: “I love you, bebe.” And of course, everyone knew exactly who the intended recipient was.

Prejudice, Racism, Sexism, Blonde-ism, Ism, Ism . . .

“That’s racist!” students shouted.

“What’s racist?” I countered.

“The man – Bob in the play – everybody hate him because he a stranger.”

“Is it racist because he is new in a small town, where some people don’t like strangers?”

“Well. . .”

“What is another name for Bob, judged because he is new?”

Astutely, Dung blurted, “. . . um, prejudice!”

Secondary ESOL Classroom Narratives Susan L. Gottschalk

Thus began a somewhat typical class discussion on a topic in which any person, without qualification, could be labeled as rac-ist. On any given day, at least one student proclaimed, “That is racist!” in response to some incident in the school or the news. One girl, Maria, who had been in the ESOL program for at least three years without making noticeable progress, was particularly prone to this habit. While studying Number the Stars, she vocif-erously announced, “I hate what Hitler did to Jews!”

Yet when it was time for Maria to research a famous person from her home country of Guatemala, she knew of no one. I suggested Rigoberta Menchú, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, 1992, and I was unprepared for her response.

“No. I hate her!”

“Do you know anything about her?”

“My mother hate her. She is Mayan!”

“Maria, how is hating and hurting Mayans different from Hitler and the Jews?” She was stumped.

Maria and other students protested when there was a local news event in which two dozen Hispanics were arrested for trafficking drugs. “That’s racist!” students ranted.

“Look, drug trafficking is against the law. Anyone, regardless of color, is treated the same way when selling and moving drugs.” Most were still not convinced, muttering under their breaths about the unfairness of it all.

On yet other occasions, Maria proclaimed the immigration laws (or lack of) as racist. And Juan always chimed in, “Yeah! White people don’t want us here.”

“I am tired of you using the word racist all the time. I’m the only white person in the room. I often hear you talking about white people just the way you think they talk about you. We are all in the family of man, of humans. So what if we have different skin color? According to the federal cards, Abdullah and I are the same race, and our skin color is quite different.

“Furthermore, look around this room. You have many things other students don’t have: small classes, an educational assistant in each ESOL class, a room full of computers, and a smart board. Other students do not have the support you have all the time (we are in a very poor school district and our ESOL center is in an inner city neighborhood). If I went to your countries, do you think I would receive a free education, and breakfast and lunch if needed? Or health care? We work hard to help you, and one of these days our immigration policies will change. You have a great opportunity to walk through that door; you are becoming bilingual and bicultural. Do you know what an advantage that is, either in your country or ours?”

The class was silent, and then some students admitted thought-fully, “That’s true.”

Months later, one of our graduating seniors, a member of Na-tional Honor Society and a star soccer player, experienced dif-ficulty in obtaining entrance to a college. He had no papers. We

all felt bad, but had exhausted every avenue we could. Students knew about this dilemma, and surprisingly Maria piped up, “Well, I can understand both sides. We want to get educated, but it is a lot of money, and some Americans can’t go either.” It was a relief not to hear the racist card again.

Class discussions began to turn toward sexism and the rights of women in countries around the world. “Women in Saudi don’t want to drive, because they have drivers, and it is easy,” com-mented Abdullah one day.

“What?” many stunned students asked.

“They are taken care of. They just shop, and they like it.”

Of course, discussions about women’s rights emerged. “In the United States women only gained the right to vote 90 years ago. It takes time, but we’ve improved, and women in this country have made huge gains. Our constitution says we are not sup-posed to discriminate on the basis of color, race or religion, and women are protected by most state constitutions. Hopefully, women all over the world will experience freedom as well.”

“What about gay people?” students asked.

“Everyone is protected. It doesn’t matter.”

I was amused one day to encounter another type of discrimina-tion. Class began, and Miguel off-handedly queried, “Why don’t you change your hair color to black?”

“You don’t like blonde?”

“No. I think you’d look better with black hair.”

“I’ve been blonde my entire life, so I don’t see any reason to change now. You know, I suffer from blonde-ism; some people in our culture think we are dumb because of our hair color. Most of us experience some type of discrimination: whether obese, skinny, short, tall, smart, homeless, whatever – it’s usually based on fear or ignorance, but, like all prejudice, we need to try to improve. And thanks for your suggestion, Miguel. If I need beauty advice in the future, I’ll consult you.”

And so the “isms” go: communism, capitalism, ageism, classism, Catholicism, atheism, terrorism,

globalism, ism, ism. . . I like to think that we ESOL teachers - learning, exploring, and embracing multiculturalism - aspire to a unique type of heroism: overcoming ism, isms with egalitarianism and humanitarianism.

Universal Language and the Saudi Princess

Through history people have claimed that beauty is the ulti-mate and irresistible power. One day just as spring was about to bloom, I witnessed the beauty effect in the ESOL classroom. The ESOL counselor, who helped with testing and placement, was accompanied by a stunning and exotic young lady as he entered my class room.

This dazzling girl with dark eyes downcast, head tilted slightly to-ward the floor, and deep ruby red lips that curled into a shy smile, wore a black hijab that covered what looked like a thick ponytail underneath. A somewhat loose black smock covered her very ample torso, and tight blue jeans completed the look. Her move-ments were exceptionally feminine and gentle, almost fragile.

Needless to say, every young man in the room stared wide-eyed at this lovely girl from Saudi. Two quick-thinking handsome young men from Peru ran over to open the door, smiled, and charmingly offered help, should she need anything from getting around to classes to finding the cafeteria. They were obviously captivated.

The smiling beauty shyly murmured “Thank you” in a soft lilting voice.

During class, all boys were on best behavior, eagerly answering questions during discussion, working diligently on assignments, and asking for extra credit, while sneaking furtive glances at the radiant princess in the back of the room. They waited patiently and anxiously for her to complete testing, hoping she would be placed in their classes so they could admire her up close and have a good excuse to get to know her.

After A’lia’s testing, she shadowed her friend Nubia to her classes.

“Three visitors showed up in my class today,” the Spanish teacher later reported. “Nubia’s lovely friend and two gentlemen, Pe-ruvian, I believe. The two boys were well-mannered, but do you know why they were there?” the instructor asked.

“Oh, yes. Now I know why they missed their last class,” I replied knowingly.

By the end of the day, it was obvious that A’lia’s English proficien-cy level was so low that she would need one-to one tutoring and Rosetta Stone, devastating news to all of the young men unable to communicate in Arabic; on the positive side, as the year went along, they became unusually adept with nonverbal communica-tion, in their continuing saga to impress this young woman.

It was clear that the power of beauty trumped in the classroom, paling in comparison to the study of English, and yet providing the key to learn it.

ContaCt InformatIonSusan L. Gottschalk Department Chair, ESOL Pensacola High School Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cell # 207-647-4397 s_gottschalk@hotmail.com

Introduction

One of the most important and challenging tasks for school educators in the field of literacy development of cultur-

ally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students is incorporating the school’s view of literacy with the CLD students’ home and com-munity lives. Instead of the deficit perspective on CLD students’ different life experiences, recent studies have attempted to focus on how school educators capitalize on CLD students’ prior knowledge, build on their heritage languages (HLs) or unique cul-tural experiences, relate classroom instruction to their everyday lives in meaningful ways, promote their engagement in class-room tasks, and ultimately enhance their academic achievement (Gay, 2000; González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992; Reyes & Halcon, 2001; Schecter & Cummins, 2003). Much of the current research on CLD students’ literacy development has also focused on literacy practices in home and community environments (González, 2005; Moll, 2001).

Existing studies, however, tend to be based on a fractional view on literacy education by focusing separately on literacy practiced in one domain – either community, home, or school. In particular, literacy education at school has been highly centered on, whereas literacy education in community-based complementary heritage language schools (HLSs) that are common to some CLD commu-nities has rarely been included in existing studies regarding CLD students’ literacy development. This study is intended to empha-size that CLD students are situated in the three domains simulta-neously by illustrating literacy development of a CLD student in

all of the three domains from a holistic perspective.

In addition, compared with studies on CLD students from Spanish-speaking backgrounds, there have been few studies re-garding CLD students from Asian language backgrounds. Though CLD students are defined broadly as students who are not from dominant English monolingual families, they are characterized as heterogeneous depending on factors such as ethnicity, nationality, religion, culture, socioeconomic status, HL, English proficiency, or bilingual proficiency. CLD students are often divided into several subgroups, each of which has different life experiences and unique needs in literacy education. Hence, this study is centered on the case of one Korean-American student who is developing literacy in two languages, Korean and English.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore how literacy is conceptualized by a 3rd-grade Korean-American student at home and by his teachers at a public school as well as a community-based complementary Korean heritage language school (KHLS) through the examination of writing activities in which the student participated for one year. This study can contribute to enhanc-ing understandings of literacy development of CLD students by presenting a whole picture of literacy conceptualized in various domains where CLD students are positioned. Also, this study can make contributions to developing awareness of Korean literacy education for Korean-American students in community-based complementary KHLSs and promoting collaboration among edu-cators at school and in the community.

Literacy Development:

A holistic perspective of school, community, and home

Literacy is currently viewed as multiple, complex, dynamic, and socially and culturally constructed practices. This study attempts to explore how literacy is conceptualized in the context of school, community, and home of a culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student through the examina-tion of writing activities in which the student participated. A 3rd-grade Korean-American student’s writings in English or Korean at a public school, at a community-based complementary Korean heritage language school (KHLS), and at home were collected for one year. Data analysis reveals differences in the ways to conceptualize literacy among the CLD student and his teachers as well as how the student views, expresses, and negotiates with the world around him through two lan-guages. The findings suggest that the examination of literacy from the holistic perspective of school, community, and home provides profound insight into biliteracy development of CLD students.

Seongah Byeon

Literacy as Social Practice Moving beyond the traditional conceptualization of literacy as a universal, abstract, static, and discrete set of skills to be devel-oped individually and psychologically, literacy is currently viewed as multiple, complex, fluid, dynamic, and socially and cultur-ally constructed practices (Au, 1998; Brandt, 2001; Comber & Cormack, 1997/2005; Fu, 1995; Gee, 2005; Heath, 1983). What counts as literacy and how it is practiced, taught, learned, or valued can vary among contexts. However, the dynamic nature of literacy is not often accepted at school. Literacy education at school is viewed by critical theorists as an ideological mechanism through which a dominant social group attempts to reproduce and perpetuate existing social structures. Therefore, literacy is not conceptualized as neutral but ideologically value-laden (Boutte, 2002; Comber & Cormack, 1997/2005; Gee, 1996, 2005; Heath, 1983; Li, 2006; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Rogers, 2003; Street, 1996).

The different conceptualization of literacy in different family or community cultures is clearly demonstrated in Heath’s (1983) ethnographic study of two working-class communities, Roadville and Trackton, and a middle-class community, the Townspeople. In Roadville that was populated largely by White people, reading and writing activities were private in their own room and not often linked with actual actions. Parents in Roadville perceived children’s language acquisition as parents’ responsibility, providing children with immediate language correction with strong empha-sis on forms rather than on active and creative meaning-making processes through communication and interaction. The parents’ attitudes reflect the behaviorists’ perspective on language or literacy development that children can learn language through imitation and that their imitation of correct language forms should be maintained by positive reinforcement such as teach-ers’ praise, whereas their incorrect language forms should be changed as soon as possible by negative reinforcement such as teachers’ punishment or correction (Lindfors, 1991; Peregoy & Boyle, 2005). To be well-prepared for school, children in Road-ville often participated in individual tasks for literacy mechan-ics at home or in the community, which were mostly discrete, decontextualized, and strictly sequenced by parents or teachers.

On the other hand, reading was not an individual but a social activity in a traditional African-American community, Trackton. Meanings of the prints were not transmitted in a consistent and unilateral way in Trackton but constructed and negotiated by participants in the reading activity while sharing their experienc-es. Also, their literacy activities were purposeful to be followed by immediate actions. Parents in Trackton believed that children could learn language through natural exposure to language-rich environments. The parents represent the interactionists’ orien-tation in language education, which emphasizes conversational interactions to negotiate meanings in authentic and purposeful contexts (Bruner, 1990; Donaldson, 1978; Lindfors, 1991; Paley, 1981, 2000; Vygotsky, 1986). As Bruner (1990) states, “[l]anguage is acquired not in the role of spectator but through use. Being “exposed” to a flow of language is not nearly so important as using it in the midst of “doing.” Learning a language … is learn-ing “how to do things with words.” The child is not learning simply what to say but how, where, to whom, and under what

circumstances” (p. 70-71). Maintaining that children learn vari-ous language functions specific in social and cultural contexts through the interactional processes, interactionists insist that children be provided with meaningfully contextualized situations in which they could participate purposefully and cooperatively in communications and interactions with their interlocutors.

In addition, Heath’s (1983) study illustrates the ideological association of literacy education at school with unequal so-cial structures. According to Gee (2005), literacy constitutes Discourses with a capital D, which is referred to as “ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity” (p. 21). Discourses in both working-class communities in Heath’s (1983) study, Roadville and Trackton, were different from school Discourses, whereas Discourses of the middle-class community of the Townspeople were similar to school Dis-courses, regardless of their racial classification. To be successful at school, students need abilities to understand and use school Discourses. The school Discourses are usually congruent with dominant Discourses in mainstream society. In other words, the dominant discourses are affirmed, legitimized, and reproduced as standard norms through school education, privileging children from the dominant social group and rationalizing their school as well as social success. Thus, discourse mismatch between school and underprivileged , dominated, or CLD home or community is often interpreted from a deficit perspective (Fu, 1995; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Roger, 2003).

For instance, Roger’s (2003) study reveals how literacy prac-tices of a poor, urban, African-American home and community were different from those of school and how this mismatch had devastating impacts on a life of one student and her family from the community. June was able to handle most of the literacy de-mands in her household and even use her literacy skills for social actions in her community. Her daughter, Vicky, could also con-duct research on the perceptions of her community members about their community life by interviewing them and summariz-ing and analyzing the interview data. However, June and Vicky were not labeled as literate in the literacy assessments at school that emphasized accuracy and structural forms of texts more than their functions or meanings. Furthermore, June and Vicky did not see themselves as literate even though they successfully used their literacy purposefully to meet their needs. The norms that social institutions accepted as legitimate were also internal-ized and rationalized by them.

Purcell-Gates’ (1995) study also shows how one urban Appa-lachian family from a non-literate community was struggling to accommodate themselves to literacy at school and mainstream society. In their family and community, most communication took place verbally, whereas reading and writing activities neither existed nor were valued. Though prints existed in their fam-ily and community, the prints did not represent any meaning to them. Donny in this study did not have any experience of exploring the symbolic connection between prints and meanings and using prints for functional purposes at home or in commu-nity. Besides, school literacy programs for low-track children in which Donny was placed were not meaningful and relevant to

him. Discrete, decontextualized, skill-based literacy activities for accurate spelling and formal written language structures in the intervention programs did not provide any meaningful opportu-nity for him to connect prints with his everyday life experiences. Jenny, Donny’s mother, was not assessed as literate in Literacy Center, either, even though she succeeded in writing about her daily life and reading what she wrote by herself.

Additionally, Fu’s (1995) study demonstrates how four English lan-guage learners (ELLs) from Laos were struggling to assimilate to mainstream school Discourses including English. The accommo-dation was required only in one way from the ELLs to the school norms, not mutually between the ELLs and the school. In the literacy program for low-achieving students at school in which the ELLs were placed, discrete skill-focused literacy activities in English were emphasized without any consideration of their HL. In the remedial intervention program, the four ELLs were not provided with any opportunity to share their HL, culture, family, community, or previous life experiences and connect them with English literacy. Their differences were viewed as a problem to be resolved as quickly as possible at school.

The deficit perspective on literacy that CLD students develop at home or in the community is affirmed and reproduced by current educational policies emphasizing school standardization and accountability nationwide such as No Child Left Behind Act (Crawford, 2004; Cummins, 2001, 2005; Dicker, 2003: Wright, 2007). The educational policies mandate public schools to ad-minister high-stakes standardized tests in English to all students, implying that there is only one uniform norm of the nation by which all students are educated, assessed, and compared. The policies impede curricular modification or differentiation by class-room teachers to integrate different literacy of CLD students. In other words, the educational policies tend to reject diversity among student population and homogenize it in diverse society. Besides, the compensatory intervention programs that are com-mon school responses to struggling readers tend to restrict their access to high-quality literacy instruction (Gaskins, 1998; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1991; Morris, 1999).

Criticizing the standardization movements, the deficit perspective on differences, as well as the remedial educational programs for low achieving readers at school, Cummins and Schecter (2003) have presented a framework for academic language learning with a focus on meaning, language, and use for all students. Using this framework, they attempt to acknowledge the different literacy or Discourses that CLD students bring to school from home or community as resources to be nurtured for school enrichment. This framework places more focus on meaningful interactions with texts to develop students’ critical literacy than discrete surface-level text processing skills. Critical language awareness is also emphasized in this framework so that students could be-come aware of how language operates within society in combina-tion with social structures. Moreover, the framework encourages students to create literature or art on social realities to initiate or participate in actions for linguistic and cultural pluralism.

Also, Browning-Aiken (2005) shows the culturally responsive pedagogy implemented in a middle school in Tucson, Arizona, where copper mining and Mexican-origin workers traveling

across the border had an important influence on local economy, history, trade, or environment. To transform school curricula to be relevant to the CLD students from the Mexican-origin families, teachers used the copper mining and Mexican immigrant work-ers’ life experiences as a theme for interdisciplinary units of lan-guage arts, social studies, math, and science. In particular, reading stories about mining towns and settlers as well as writing family anecdotes, journals, or descriptive essays using familiar vocabulary in language arts classrooms motivated the CLD students to de-velop their English literacy for authentic and functional purposes and to promote their social interaction with teachers, peers, or community members in their local context.

In addition, Chow and Cummins (2003) illustrate the cultur-ally responsive pedagogy implemented in an elementary school setting with heterogeneous immigrant communities in Ontario, Canada. Teachers carried out projects for dual-language books and multilingual mathematics activities, which promoted the involvement of CLD parents and the cooperation of bilingual siblings in upper grades. Although teachers used English as a medium of instruction in classrooms, they sought to validate and develop students’ biliteracy in HL as well as English through the bilingual projects. They perceived bilingualism as individual, social, and national assets that could facilitate positive self-identity formation and close family relationship of bilingual students and provide them with practical advantages such as employment op-portunities in the future (Baker, 2001; Cho, 2000; Cummins, 2001; Wong-Fillmore, 2000).

Bilingualism including biliteracy would currently be interpreted as a specific, different, and unique linguistic entity in bilinguals rather than two separate or isolable language competences in one person (Cook, 1995; Cummins, 2001; Grosjean, 1989; Hall, Cheng, & Carlson, 2006). As Cummins (2001) points out, the two languages of bilinguals are positioned functionally in their com-mon underlying proficiency (CUP) of bilingual capacity so the two languages develop interdependently, interacting with each other. Code-switching is thus not regarded as an accidental or careless language contact of two incomplete language systems but as si-multaneous activation of two languages. Hall, Cheng, and Carlson (2006) argue that bilingual competence should be evaluated from a usage-based approach, which means to assess bilinguals’ ability to use, accommodate, and modify their communicative repertoire dynamically and appropriately for their communicative situations.

In sum, the enrichment perspective of literacy education at school such as the framework for critical thinking skills and the culturally responsive pedagogy serves to acknowledge and legitimize diverse literacy that CLD students bring to school from home and community. The inclusive criteria for literacy at school address the fluid and dynamic nature of literacy that literacy can be conceptualized in various ways depending on contextual situations. Besides, the affirmation of the diversity in literacy at school has a potential to promote linguistic and cultural pluralism in society.

MethodologyJinho (pseudonym), a participant in this study, was eight years old, living with his parents and a younger sister in a city in the north-central Florida during the study. He was born in Korea, and came

to the United States with his parents when he was three years old. Both parents are Koreans who were born and educated in Korea. His sister was born in the United States. When he was in Korea, he acquired the Korean language. He attended a pre-school for about one year in the United States before going to kindergarten, where he was immersed in an all-English environ-ment except a few Korean children.

Jinho was in the third grade in an elementary school. His school did not provide any bilingual program but did provide a pull-out English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) program for read-ing and writing with ESOL-endorsed teachers, part-time bilingual teacher assistants in Spanish and English and in Chinese and English, and class volunteers. Thus, English was the only medium of instruction in content areas such as mathematics, science, and social studies in all classrooms. When Jinho started kindergarten, a home language survey was conducted as mandated by Florida Consent Decree, and his oral English competence was tested in English. He was identified as limited English proficient (LEP), placed in the pull-out ESOL program for one year in kindergar-ten, and exited by reassessment into mainstream classrooms when he started the first grade. One year later, he was identified and placed in a gifted program at school.

Jinho was also attending a community-based complementary KHLS once a week. The KHLS was founded in 1985 to sup-port maintenance and development of the Korean language and culture among children in the local Korean-American community. During the study, nine Korean teachers and two assistants taught Korean to approximately fifty students in nine classes for two hours from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. While most students were from families with both Korean-speaking parents, there were some students of one Korean parent and a few American students without any Korean heritage who were simply interested in learning the Korean language and culture for per-sonal reasons. Most students were placed in a class depending on their age, while a few students were placed by their Korean proficiency. Also, two teachers and two assistants taught arts and Korean traditional musical instruments to ten students before the Korean classes started. In addition, the KHLS held several cultural occasions such as a Day of Korea, Korean Essay Contest, an End-of-the-Semester Celebration, and so on.

For this study, Jinho’s writings at the public school, at the commu-nity-based complementary KHLS, and at home were collected for one year. His writings were first divided into several categories in each setting and then the nature of writings was analyzed in each category. Next, the nature of writings was compared and contrasted across settings. His writings in Korean at the KHLS were translated into English by the researcher when necessary. Pseudonyms were used for all names of people or places in his writings.

FindingsJinho’s writings were analyzed in three sections; 1) writings in English in a public school classroom; 2) writings in Korean in a community-based complementary KHLS classroom; and 3) writ-ings in English at home.

Writing in English at public school

Jinho’s writings in the most common writing tasks in his public school classroom were divided into five categories. To begin with, Jinho was given a list of fifteen words on Mondays, which usually had words with the same or similar spelling patterns such as -tion and -sion, comparative or superlative forms of adjectives ending with -er and -est, or homophones such as one and won, way and weigh. For example, one list included combination, action, vision, motion, sensation, tension, quotation, production, vacation, atten-tion, question, confusion, permission, nation, and section. These words were introduced with a one-page workbook task. Then, Jinho was assigned to do homework of copying each word two times on Mondays, arranging the words in an alphabetical order on Tuesdays, and choosing ten words and making ten sentences using the words on Wednesdays. For instance, Jinho wrote:

Ten Sentences:

1. I made six combinations.

2. I like to watch action movies.

3. I have very good vision.

4. I always get the permission to play.

5. One question in a test caused a lot of confusion.

6. I asked my neighbor a question.

7. My teacher told me to pay attention.

8. I had a vacation for 1 month.

9. How many sections does a spider have?

10. The surprise quiz created tension in our classroom.

At the end of each week, a spelling test was scheduled with these words in class. When a teacher sounded out each word, students including Jinho were expected to spell the word on a lined paper during the test.

Second, Jinho was given homework of reading an article and answering five to six multiple choice questions and one writing question to check comprehension. The article was usually com-posed of one to three short paragraphs without any illustration. For example, Jinho wrote:

Reading an Article Homework:

A Girl Called Babe

10. You just read an article about Babe and a poem about Babe. How are they ALIKE? How are they DIFFERENT? Explain your answer.

They are alike in that they are telling us that Babe was a good athlete. They are different in that the article is longer than the poem. And it is different because the article gives a lot of infor-mation about Babe, but the poem does not have much informa-tion about Babe.

Third, after reading each story in a textbook for about one

week, Jinho had to take an end-of-the-chapter test in class, which consisted of seven multiple choice questions about vocabulary and eleven multiple choice questions and two one-paragraph-long writing questions about comprehension. All the stories in the textbook were organized according to a theme, and one theme was composed of about five stories from various genres and content areas such as realistic fiction/physical education, narrative nonfiction/social studies, magazine article/science, fantasy/social studies, expository nonfiction/informational article, personal narrative/social studies, and so on. Each story had its pre-reading vocabulary section, illustration and photos with captions, five to six open-ended questions about the text, and some additional activities extended from the text. To the writing questions at the end-of-the-chapter test, Jinho responded:

End-of-the-chapter tests:

Little Grunt and the Big Egg

19. Is this story about real or imaginary people and things? Ex-plain how you know.

This is a story about imaginary people, because caveman couldn’t talk, couldn’t have a dinosaur for a pet, and dinosaurs couldn’t cry.

20. Why is the dinosaur’s name changed to Georgina?

The dinosaur’s name is changed to Georgina because, Georgina had eggs which meant that Georgina was a girl.

Fourth, Jinho participated in modeled group writing activities collaboratively with his teacher and classmates. They practiced writing an essay with an organizational structure of introduction (one topic and two main ideas), body (the first main idea and its two details, and the second main idea and its two details), and conclusion (the topic and the two main ideas in the introduction part again) repeatedly with different topics, to be able to write it independently using the same organizational structure. Before writing, they completed a planning sheet regarding a topic, main ideas, details, and personal experiences.

Modeled group writing:

Title: The Best Field Trip

“Beep, Beep”. That’s the sound of the bus leaving to take my class on a field trip. The Brown Center is the best field trip ever! First of all, it is a very historical place. Also, you get to dress up. This was an amazing field trip.

As I mentioned, the Brown Center is full of history. There were many old photographs on the walls and antique furniture in the building. The Brown Center was once a mansion where the Brown’s lived. Then it became a hotel. The docent, Ms. K was dressed as a flapper. She went into a historical room and told us to wait outside the door. The next thing we knew old-fashioned music was playing. We opened the door and saw Ms. K dancing like a flapper.

Another wonderful part of our field trip was being able to dress up. The girls wore feather boas and held purses. They also wore necklaces. The boy’s wore collars and bow ties. I loved wearing my costume during the tour. Ms. K showed us an original bed-

room. I felt like grown up who was transformed to another time.

In conclusion, the Brown Center is the best field trip ever! We learned a lot about history and we were able to dress up.

Independent writing:

“Stomp, stomp”, that is the sound of me exercising. Exercising is one of my goals for 2008. There are 2 reasons why I want to exercise for 2008. One of the reasons I want to exercise is for me to lose weight.

Another reason I want to exercise is to get healthier. Exercising is good for my body, but not only is exercising good for just my body it’s also important for others too.

Another of my goals for 2008 is listening to my teacher more than I did last year. There are two reasons I want to listen more. One of the reasons I want to listen more is because I could get better grades including As and Bs. Another of my reasons I want to listen more to my teacher is to be a better student, And If I become a better student, I will get good reports from my parents and teacher.

In conclusion, I have many goals for 2008. One of them is to exercise more. Another of them is to listen to my teacher more than I did last year.

Finally, Jinho often read an entire chapter book for several weeks in his gifted program, doing related activities. For example, he loved to read a book titled ‘Charlotte’s Web,’ written by E. B. White. His teacher had students read each chapter and summa-rize it in addition to vocabulary tasks.

Writing in Korean at Korean heritage language school

Jinho’s main writing tasks at the community-based complemen-tary KHLS were divided into three categories. First, he was given a list of about ten sentences in Korean, had to do homework of copying the sentences ten times, and took a spelling test of the sentences. His teacher selected most of the homework sen-tences from a story in a textbook that would be a topic for the following week. The Korean national anthem or the ‘Pledge to the Korean National Flag’ were also used for homework. During the spelling test, his teacher read aloud each sentence or a part of the sentence – usually a clause – slowly several times, and stu-dents were expected to write it on a lined paper. For example, Jinho wrote:

Sentence Dictation

Title: The Honest Woodcutter

1. Once upon a time in a remote village

2. there lived a woodcutter.

3. When he was chopping down a tree at the edge of a pond

4. He fell his ax into the pond [by mistake].

5. Not knowing what to do, he just stayed around the pond

6. Sil-lyoung-nim* with a white beard appeared. (*A traditional guardian spirit in Korea)

7. Showing a shiny golden ax

8. Is this yours?

9. No, it is not mine.

10. Yes, right. It is mine.

11. Hahaha you are very honest.

12. A greedy woodcutter told a lie.

13. [He] threw [his] iron ax on purpose.

14. The greedy woodcutter regretted, but it was no use.

Second, Jinho was given homework of writing at least one diary per week with a picture on the piece of diary paper provided by his teacher. On the paper, there was a space for planning before writing a diary such as who, when, where, what, and how. When he turned in his diary, his teacher read it, corrected some spelling or grammar errors, and posted a sticker saying “Wow,” “Great,” or stamped it with a Korean mark “(Excellent!).” For example, Jinho wrote:

Diary in Korean

Saturday, September 15

We went to Valley Park last Saturday. The most exciting thing in the playground was the tire swing. I played with Minsu and Jisun. We had a [Catholic] outdoor mass there. We ate grilled pork and beef ribs with rice for lunch and dinner. We also played dodge ball.

Sunday, November 25

I had a farewell party for Eunji with my friends Sunday afternoon on November 25. We ate pizza, chicken, nuggets, chips, and punch. I gave Eunji a decoration for the Christmas tree as a gift. The party was fun.

Sunday, February 3

My dad and his friends went fishing in St. Augustine. They came back in the evening. I played with my friends. We ate the fish that my dad and others caught. We ate chicken, and adults ate the fish.

Third, Jinho was given a topic and a prompt for writing a short essay every week such as “The reason that I go to Korean school,” “Sullal [Korean New Year’s Day],” “My family,” “When do I feel proud to be a Korean?” or “When I grow up”. Jinho wrote:

Essay in Korean

The reason that I go to Korean School

I have three reasons that I go to Korean school. The first reason is that I go to Korean school to be able to read Korean. The second reason is that I go to school to write Korean better. The third reason is that I come to Korean school because the Korean school is fun.

When I grow up …

I want to be an architect when I grow up. I’d like to build houses and buildings. I will build my house higher than a 200-story build-ing. I want to paint my house orange. The reason that I want to paint my house orange is that orange is my favorite color. I will make an elevator in my house because it is a 200-story building. I have to learn math and arts to be an architect. I also have to study buildings constructed in the past.

Writing at home

Jinho agreed with his family’s language policy to speak Korean at home, and tried to comply with it. Though the primary language spoken for communication in his family was Korean, Jinho was allowed to code-switch from Korean to English whenever he did not know Korean words or expressions for the meaning that he intends to convey. In particular, when he wanted to talk about events that took place at school or new concepts or knowledge that he learned through English inputs in school classrooms, he code-switched into English frequently. Though he had Korean friends in the neighborhood, they mostly spoke English while playing together. His voluntary writing activities at home were also performed mainly in English.

1. One sunny hot day, Buster and Jim were in the swimming pool. Jim hopped in the water with a splash. He was so excited about the new swimming pool. But it was not one bit exciting. You see, 12 year-old Buster was not afraid of the deep end, but Jim was only 8 years-old, and was so afraid of deep ends. He wouldn’t dare to go in the 9 feet-deep swimming pool……

Dear: Jim Wyckoff

I loved all the wonderful details you put in your letter. However, I must tell you, I may not be able to visit you in the summer. That’s the day when I have my high school graduation. I am really sorry.

Love, Buster Franklin

2. One hot rainy day, … Then I will carefully put mud around Buster’s bed, and when he wakes up, with no idea he will wake up and step on the mud and become dirty …

3. The first Sponge bob story of South Korea

Author: Jinho Kim Genre: Play

Narrator: This is the story of Sponge bob and his friends going to ancient South Korea around the time of 234. I will now tell you a summary from the story. There they meet a monk who shows

them what to do for a living. The story starts as Sponge bob go-ing to work.

Sponge bob: (happily) I’m ready, for motion Bee ba.

Narrator: On the way to work, Sponge bob meets Sandy.

Sponge bob: Well hello Sandy. How’s it going?

Sandy: (happily) Well howdy Sponge bob? You want to try my time machine?

4. Sibling Hardnesses

By: Jinho Kim

Contents

1. 9 month old

2. Baby Birth

3. Baby hardness

4. Easier as grows

5. Baby Kindergarten (At last)

6. Not Another!!!!!!

7. It’s strange! He’s harder to take care of.

8. No more worries!!

5. Timmy L. Davis and the first day of Kindergarten

Hi! My name is Timmy l. Davis. A week ago, we had a gradua-tion presentation for preschool. Yesterday, me and my parents celebrated my fifth birthday. We had the graduation on Monday. Now it’s the next Monday. I was so nervous about Kindergarten. Who would our new teacher be? How would she look? On SUNDAY, 1 day before school started, my mom tucked me into bed and said “Timmy, don’t be unhappy on school. You’ll make new friends.” She was right. I did make friends……

6. The Many Adventures of Captain Scar Off

Before we can tell you the story of how someone named Scar Off discovered an island named Kabalo, we must tell you how Kabalo was formed. Just like Hawaii, Kabalo was formed by volcanoes. One year after that, Scar Off was born. Scar Off was born in Paris, France in a spring day, April 22th to be exact. When Kabalo [Scar Off] was only 4, he wanted to discover unusual and unexpected islands ……

The first and the second stories are about best friends, Buster and Jim. In the first story, Jim was jealous of Buster because Buster was better at everything than Jim, but Jim was sad when Buster left for his own land. The story ends with two letters corresponding to each other, Buster and Jim. In the second story, Jim was angry at Buster and attempted to play a trick on him, only to fail. The third story is a play of Jinho’s favorite animation characters, Sponge Bob Square Pants and his friends, taking a time machine to visit Korea in the past. The play begins with an author and a narrator line, telling a summary of the story. The

next stories are written in a chapter-book format. They all begin with a title, an author, and a table of contents with eight to ten chapters. “Sibling Hardness” is about Tommy whose baby brother was just born. “Timmy L. Davis and the first day of Kindergarten” is about Timmy who has just started his kindergarten life. Jinho enjoyed writing adventure stories like “The Many Adventures of Captain Scar Off.”

In addition, Jinho voluntarily produced a variety of writings such as a large number of comic books with illustrations, lyrics of songs including chorus parts, history, news articles, or brochures about his imaginary land, baby growth charts before and after birth, Chinese letter charts with meanings, video game directions, notes for parents on the door of his room, Mother’s Day card, and the like.

DiscussionLiteracy was conceptualized differently in the three settings of a public school, a community-based complementary KHLS, and the home in which Jinho was situated. The nature of the writing activities in which Jinho participated in each setting was different and had a significant impact on his overall writing performance and outcomes. Moreover, the different conceptualization of lit-eracy at school, community, and home represented sociopolitical perspectives on languages, English and CLD students’ HLs, as well as bilingualism including biliteracy, which also influenced Jinho’s way to conceptualize them.

To begin with, Jinho’s writing tasks in a public school classroom were primarily aimed to prepare him for the nationwide or state-wide high-stakes standardized tests such as Florida Comprehen-sive Assessment Test (FCAT) required for all students from the third grade. The writing tasks were always performed in English. The tasks were largely composed of repeated practice of discon-nected words, multiple-choice or short essay questions to check comprehension of isolated and decontextualized paragraphs, or teacher-initiated writing activities with a strong emphasis on organizational structures of texts. The topics of the writing tasks were often not much related with Jinho’s real life in and outside of the classroom. Also, the writing tasks did not give him any chance to express his Korean language competence, culture, or unique life experiences as a CLD student.

The writing activities at the community-based complementary KHLS also emphasized repetition and memorization of discrete mechanic skills of Korean literacy. The sentence-copying home-work was a meaningless task with little purpose, reflecting the behaviorists’ view on literacy education that perceives students as passive recipients of knowledge. However, the diary home-work provided Jinho with full authorship to be able to choose his own topics, purposes, and pictures. It was an authentic task to express his real life and connect prints with his life experiences meaningfully. Furthermore, the essay homework at the KHLS, though its topic and prompt were given by his teacher, provided him with opportunities to develop critical awareness of language, culture, or identity in diverse society.

Next, Jinho was engaged in writing activities at home in the most active, voluntary, enthusiastic, and prolific way. He enjoyed writing various genres of stories including personal narrative, play, adventure, fantasy, mystery, and so on. Either specifically

purposeful or recreational for entertainment, his writings at home were closely connected with his everyday life. Several themes found in his writings at home mostly encompassed his friends, family, and the mass media. First, he often wrote about his old friends who left the city as well as new friends. Though he had many Korean-American friends in the neighborhood, in the local Korean community, or at school, many of them tended to leave the community soon. Because many Korean families with children came to the city for the purpose of parents’ study in the local university, they left for another city or to return to Korea for employment when their study was completed. Second, issues about arguments, competitions, or conflicts with his friends in his everyday life were often topics in his writings. Third, the media including books, movies, and animations that he was exposed to every day had huge influence in his writings. Topics or characters from adventure stories in the books of Magic Tree House series, school stories in the Junie B. Jones series, scientific stories in the Magic School Bus series, comic books such as Astro Boy, the Ad-ventures of Super Diaper Baby, Captain Underpants, and Sponge Bob Square Pants were easily found in his writings. Fourth, one of the most exciting events in his life so far seems to be the birth of his sister. For two years before and after her birth, many of his writings at home were related to it.

Finally, when it comes to Jinho’s writing activities at school, com-munity, and home from a holistic perspective, his bilingualism in-cluding biliteracy was neither acknowledged nor practiced in any domain. The public school saw only English as legitimate, while the KHLS validated only Korean to be used in writing. Bilingual projects such as bilingual book publication or bilingual math ac-tivities implemented in the study of Chow and Cummins (2003) did not exist in his writing activities in the public school and the KHLS. English is granted a prestigious status as a legitimate medium of instruction at school or as a standard lingua franca for communication in mainstream society and the globalized world. As a result, English is perceived as the only language for students to achieve academic and socioeconomic enhancement and to be included in mainstream society. By this English-dominant ideol-ogy, other languages such as Korean are often marginalized to be invisible at school and society. Thus, the KHLS intends to maintain the Korean language, culture, or identity among Korean-American students by privileging Korean with an official and formal status through the Korean-only policy at least in the KHLS facility.

Because of the strict language compartmentalization at school and community, Jinho’s bilingual competence should be divided into two separate language system – English and Korean – to be accepted in each domain. As a bilingual or biliterate, his commu-nicative competence – both verbal and in writing – has a poten-tial to choose and use one out of the common underlying profi-ciency (CUP) of two language repertoire or codeswitch between the two languages appropriately depending on his conversational partners, purposes, and various social and cultural contexts in which the conversation takes place. However, his bilingualism or biliteracy still tends to be understood as a simple combination of two separate language competences as shown in the literacy activities that focused exclusively on one language development in each setting of the public school and the KHLS. Both educa-tional contexts, therefore, did not provide Jinho with any space

for bilingualism or biliteracy to be celebrated.

In addition, Jinho’s Korean competence seemed to be gradually shifting into English, leading to subtractive bilingualism. When the full authorship was given to him at home, Jinho mostly used English in his writings. His language choice of English at home indicates that the unequal sociopolitical stratification and func-tions of the two languages, English and Korean, or biliteracy were internally rationalized and practiced by Jinho.

ConclusionsLiteracy is currently conceptualized not as a static set of skills or processes to be developed cognitively and individually but as dynamic, multiple, complex, and socially and culturally con-structed practices. As literacy is practiced and valued differently in different contexts, negotiation for meanings and functions of texts in conversational interactions is considered as one of the central components of literacy. From this stance, it is claimed that literacy education programs should provide students with authentic and meaningful contexts in which they could practice literacy purposefully and cooperatively.

Especially for CLD students’ literacy development, their different language, culture, religion, unique life experiences, or Discourses at home and community should be included in the literacy pro-grams at school and respected as resources to be nurtured for school enrichment. The inclusive curricula for literacy at school enable the CLD students to develop biliteracy through relevant and meaningful experiences. In addition, the holistic perspec-tive of literacy development at school, community, and home could provide valuable insight into literacy education of bilingual students in community-based complementary HLSs as well as public schools. The validation of CLD students’ uniqueness could empower them at school and society. Then, schools could be transformed from an ideological institution for social reproduc-tion to an institution for social change toward equity and justice.

REFERENCES

Au, K. H. (1998/2005). Constructivist approaches, phonics, and the literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. In Z. Fang (Ed.), Literacy teaching and learning: Current issues and trends (pp. 212-224). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingual-ism (3rd ed.). Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Boutte, G. S. (2002). Resounding voices: School experiences of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York, NY: Cam-bridge University Press.

Browning-Aiken, A. (2005). Border crossings: Funds of knowledge within an immigrant household. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in house-holds, communities, and classrooms (pp.167-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bruner, J. (1990). Entry into meaning. In J. Bruner, Acts of Meaning (pp.67-97). Harvard University Press.

Cho, G. (2000). The role of heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4).

Chow, P., & Cummins, J. (2003). Valuing multilingual and multicul-tural approaches to learning. In S. R. Schecter, & J. Cummins (Eds.), Multilingual education in practice: Using diversity as a resource (pp. 32-61). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Comber, B., & Cormack, P. (1997/2005). Looking beyond ‘skills’ and ‘processes’: Literacy as social and cultural practices in class-rooms. In Z. Fang (Ed.), Literacy teaching and learning: Current issues and trends (pp. 3-10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Cook, V. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of many lan-guages. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 8(2), 93-98.

Crawford, J. (2004). Hard sell: Why is bilingual education so un-popular with the American public? Language Policy Studies Labo-ratory of Arizona State University. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/brief8.htm

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empow-erment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recogniz-ing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585-592.

Cummins, J., & Schecter, S. R. (2003). School-based language policy in culturally diverse contexts. In S. R. Schecter, & J. Cum-mins (Eds.), Multilingual education in practice: Using diversity as a resource (pp. 1-16). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dicker, S. J. (2003). Languages in America: A pluralist view (2nd ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Fu, D. (1995). My trouble is my English: Asian students and the American dreams. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gaskins, I. W. (1998). There’s more to teaching at-risk and delayed readers than good reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 51(7), 534-547.

Gay, G. (2000). Power pedagogy through cultural responsiveness. In G. Gay, Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 21-44). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in dis-courses. London: Taylor & Francis.

Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

González, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of

knowledge. In N. González, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguistics, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.

Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 220-240.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Li, G. (2006). Culturally contested pedagogy: Battles of literacy and schooling between mainstream teachers and Asian immigrant parents. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lindfors, J. W. (1991). Children’s Language and Learning (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1991/2005). The gridlock of low reading achievement: Perspectives on practice and policy. In Z. Fang (Ed.), Literacy teaching and learning: Current issues and trends (pp. 173-183). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Moll, L. C. (2001). The diversity of schooling: A cultural-historical approach. In M. L. Reyes, & J. J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 13-28). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Morris, D. (1999). Preventing reading failure in the primary grades. In T. Shanahan, & F. Rodriquez-Brown (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook, 48, 17-38. National Reading Conference.

Paley, V. G. (1981). Wally’s stories. MA: Harvard University Press.

Paley, V. G. (2000). White teacher (2nd ed.). MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2005). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers (4th ed.). Pearson Educa-tion.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words. Harvard University Press.

Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices: Power in and out of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Reyes, M. L., & Halcon, J. J. (Eds.) (2001). The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Schecter, S. R., & Cummins, J. (Eds.) (2003). Multilingual educa-tion in practice: Using diversity as a resource. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Street, B. V. (1996). Literacy and power? Open Letter, 6(2), 7-16. Sydney, Australia: UTS.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educa-tors be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 203-210.

Wright, W. E. (2007). Heritage language programs in the era of English-Only and No Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Jour-nal, 5(1).

ContaCt InformatIon

Seongah Byeon Ph.D. Candidate ESOL/Bilingual Education School of Teaching and Learning College of Education University of Florida annabsa@ufl.edu

Introduction

Immigrant families face many issues when they transition from one culture to another. Learning to read, write, speak,

and understand a new language is one of the factors immigrant families must grapple with as they enter a new social and cultural world. This study examines the home literacy environment of a low-income family of five from Guatemala. The three children--ages three, seven, and ten--face daily challenges as they navigate between two worlds--the culture of their Spanish-speaking home and the Anglo world of their community and school in South Florida. First, theoretical background on sociocultural influences of the home, community, and school are discussed in relation to immigrant, Spanish-speaking families. Second, the methodol-ogy used to examine the family’s home literacy environment is described. Third, the context of the study is described with details of the parents, children, their home, and lifestyle. Fourth, in the findings section, two distinct areas of influence are described in relation to the home literacy environment of the family-- bilin-gualism and cultural assimilation. Finally, educational implications for teachers are discussed. The purposes of this study are three-fold: 1) to share an insider’s point of view of the home literacy experiences of a non-dominant culture family; 2) to address the sociocultural influences that shape the reading attitudes and motivation of low-income, Hispanic children; and 3) to offer ways schools and teachers of reading can adapt to meet the needs and experiences of immigrant, bilingual children.

Theoretical PerspectiveSociocultural theorists view literacy acquisition as occurring in the midst of specified social environments and cultural land-scapes. The quality and quantity of social interactions, as well as the construction of the literacy atmosphere in home, com-munity, and school contexts, are critical factors influencing the reading and writing behavior and attitudes of young children. A

sociocultural perspective defines literacy in cultural terms and views children as becoming literate within the cultures of their homes, communities, and schools. From this view, knowledge is constructed by the interaction of the individual with the socio-cultural environment; higher mental functions such as reading and writing are social and cultural in nature; and members of the culture can assist and mediate others while learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). This “situated knowledge” constructed in particular situations refers to the idea that language and literacy forms can only be understood in terms of context and function (Gee, 2001). The following theoretical background offers a review of literature concerning the social and cultural aspects of literacy development in three sections-l) the influence of the home on bilingual literacy development; 2) the influence of the community on bilingual literacy development; and 3) the influence of school on bilingual literacy development. Specific emphasis is placed on low-income, immigrant, and Hispanic children’s literacy experi-ences in the home, community, and school.

The Influence of the Home on Bilin-gual Literacy DevelopmentPerhaps the most important social environment for literacy development is the home. The home is the single most significant reading environment for children (Ryan, 2000). Cultural and social factors have been shown to influence the home literacies of Spanish-speaking immigrant families making language and literacy transitions in the home. For example, Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez & Shannon (1994) found that in everyday exchanges and social situations, even in the personal space of their homes, four Span-ish- speaking Mexicano families living in California were required to negotiate their new culture and language with the Anglo world. Similarly, social and cultural factors in the home contributed to Delgado-Gaitan’s ( 1987) findings of the functions and meanings of literacy for Mexican immigrant families. Despite the fact that

BILInGUaLISm anD CULtUraL aSSImILatIon aS faCtorS In HomE LItEraCY: a CaSE StUDY

This study applies a sociocultural perspective to examine the home to school transitions in literacy achieve-ment of three low-income children from Guatemala. Through participant observation and informal conversa-tions with the family during home visits, two factors appeared to influence the literacy development of the family’s young children: bilingualism and cultural assimilation. Investigating the home literacy environment of an immigrant family provides an insider’s perspective of the life experiences of children from non-main-stream homes. Understanding their home reading and writing experiences, and their transition to school literacy, is valuable for reading teachers facing increasingly diverse students from multicultural backgrounds.

Dr. Lisa C. Crayton

the parents had little prior schooling and did not perceive them-selves as readers, Delgado-Gaitan found that each of the four families she studied used a range of text types in both English and Spanish in a variety of ways that went beyond school-related reading. Even among demographically similar families, a diverse set of constraints and variables are at play which significantly impact children’s reading motivation (Rueda et al., 2001). Similarly, Janes & Kermani (1997) found that family literacy events among low-income Latino recent-immigrant families did not occur and are not scaffolded in the same manner as in middle-class, mainstream families, but are likely to happen in a variety of time frames and locations, routinized in culturally specific ways. The family is also influenced by the community where the family lives.

The Influence of the Community on Bilingual Literacy DevelopmentTo what extent the community where children live can influ-ence their literacy development has been examined by several researchers. For example, Neumann and Celano (2001) studied the access to print in four neighborhoods and found striking differences between neighborhoods of differing income in access to print: middle-income children have a large variety of private and public resources from which to choose, whereas low-income children are limited mainly to public institutions. Another study which examined children’s literacy from the sociocultural context of the community was conducted with culturally and linguisti-cally diverse children in the U.S.-Mexico border area of Texas. Quintero (1993) found several aspects of Hispanic culture and community life that point to the existence of diverse cultural norms. For example, according to Quintero, parental authority is an important value in Hispanic culture, and cooperation of group members, whether in the family or community, are a significant part of children’s social experiences. Community contexts also influence the messages embedded in social interactions. For ex-ample, Delpit (1995) examined literacy in Native Alaskan villages and found parent/ child relations were different in these commu-nities than in mainstream, Anglo communities. Specifically, Native Alaskan parents do not make their children go to school or do homework: “In the parents’ view, children were not to be coerced with authority, but were to be treated with the respect that provided them with rationales, stated or unstated, to guide them to make decisions based on their own good sense” (Delpit, 1995, p.101). Communities with diverse socioeconomic, language, and cultural backgrounds appear to influence the quality of children’s literacy experiences in the home and at school.

The Influence of the School on Bilin-gual Literacy DevelopmentAnother key sociocultural context that influences children’s literacy development is the school. McGee and Richgels (2003) discovered that children from low-income families who are likely to attend schools with low reading performance are less likely to have acquired certain literacy knowledge prior to the initiation of beginning reading instruction in kindergarten. Dyson (1997) studied children’s literacy in school and found cultural categories or socioeconomic status did not define the children: “it was in the interplay of institutional structure and sociocultural circum-stances that “differences” from the assumed norm most often emerged as “problems,” the “problems,” for example, of children

speaking varied languages, having an employed single parent, and not entering school with institutionally expected expertise in print conventions” (Dyson, 1997, p.122). To counteract the inher-ent discrepancies in children’s home backgrounds and school expectations, Kirk (2001) suggests that educators must appreci-ate home culture as a key factor in school success by considering the social context of learning to read and by utilizing instructional approaches that culturally diverse learners can relate to.

To conclude, this theoretical background was intended to il-lustrate the various ways home, community, and school contexts influence children’s literacy development. Researchers have exam-ined a wide range of home, community, and school environments with children from diverse socioeconomic, language, and cultural backgrounds. Examining the home literacy environment of a low-income family from Guatemala will provide another perspective of the influences of the home environment on bilingual literacy development.

MethodThe research questions guiding this study are: 1) What roles do literacy activities play in the culture of the home environment? ; 2) What are the functions and uses of reading and writing in the daily life routines of the family members? ; and 3) What types of print information and reading materials are available in the home? These questions were examined as I spent two years observ-ing and interacting with the family during home visits (Graue & Walsh, 1998). During my home visits, I held several roles in the family dynamics (Givens, 1999). I provided child care, tutored the children in English, helped with homework, and served as an English language interpreter for the parents. Through participant observation, collection of fieldnotes and artifacts, and interviews and informal conversations, a portrait of the home literacy environment emerged (Clay, 1995; Geertz, 1973; Glesne, 2001; Spradley, 1980). I analyzed the events in the home through coding, memos, patterns, and vignettes. I shared my observations and sto-ries with the family (Barnett & Frede, 2001; Erickson, 1986). They trusted me and were open about their home environment and experiences (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). I was invited to the children’s birthday celebrations, holiday get-togethers, and din-ners. I was given traditional Guatemalan food made by the family to take home. As the patterns of their home literacy environment and lifestyle emerged, I was able to notice factors that were influ-encing the literacy development of the children.

ContextThe sociocultural context of this study is described in the fol-lowing section in four parts: 1) the parents; 2) the children; 3) their home; and 4) lifestyle. This background is intended to give the reader detailed descriptive knowledge of the participants and their home environment that sets the stage for literacy learning.

Jose Diaz (all names have been changed to protect the anonymity of the participants) moved to South Florida in 1995 with his wife Catarina and young daughter Anna. He moved to this particular community because there is a large immigrant Guatemalan com-munity where they would be near relatives and have contacts to find employment. He works as a landscaper--planting trees, main-taining gardens, and doing yard maintenance at wealthy, suburban subdivisions. “I love my job,” he tells me. He is the crew leader

and supervises ten other Guatemalan immigrants in the landscap-ing business. He works six days a week from 7 am until 4 pm. His wife, Catarina, gets ready to go to work when Jose comes home. At 5:30 she leaves to clean offices until 10 pm. During the day, she stays home with their three-year-old son Junior. She also takes care of her sister’s two young children, does housework, garden-ing, shopping, and cooking. Anna Diaz is the only child in the family who was born in Guatemala. She came to South Florida eight years ago when she was two and has never been back to her home country. Anna’s role in the household is to watch after her two younger brothers, Miguel, aged seven, and Junior, while their mother is at work each evening. She is responsible for child care, cleaning, cooking, laundry, and shopping while her mother is at work. Miguel, as the oldest boy in the family, has privileges his sister and brother do not. He gets preferential treatment in terms of toys and freedom. “Miguel never has to do anything,” Anna tells me. “He always gets presents and can do whatever he wants.” Miguel spends his time when he’s not at school watch-ing cartoons on television, playing Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon card games and video games with neighbors, and climbing trees in the yard. Anna and Miguel ride the school bus that stops at the cor-ner by their house each morning. They both receive free lunch at school based on their family’s income. They leave at 7:30 am and return home at 2:30 pm. They do not participate in after-school activities. As the baby of the family, Junior is showered with at-tention and affection. Jose printed a decal on the back window of the family truck proclaiming “We love you Junior!” He plays with toy cars in the yard, goes on bike rides with Jose sitting on a bike seat, and practices riding his bicycle with training wheels in the driveway.

Jose bought the two-bedroom, one bathroom mobile home where they have been living for the past five years for eight thousand dollars cash. He could not finance a home because he has no credit history and no bank account. All transactions are cash only for the family. When Jose and Catarina get paid from their jobs, they go to a check-cashing business to cash their pay-checks. The family has no insurance on their home. The parents sleep in one bedroom, the boys sleep in the other, and Jose has made a bedroom on the porch for Anna. With some plywood and curtains, Anna has some privacy from her little brothers. The porch was destroyed during Hurricane Frances and all of Anna’s possessions were ruined by flooding water. The family received emergency assistance from FEMA (Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency) to fix their porch roof.

There are four televisions in the home--one in the living room, one in each bedroom, and one on the porch. Also in the living room is an entertainment center with a combination VCR, DVD, and music cassette player. Stacks of children’s videos, DVD’s, and Spanish music cassettes line the shelves of the entertainment center. Photos of the children at different ages and symbols of Jesus Christ adorn the walls of the living room. There are no books in the living room. In the boys’ room, there is only enough space for two twin beds, a closet, and a dresser where the televi-sion sits. Toys and clothes cover the floor. The only rooms in the house with reading material or print are in the kitchen, where the refrigerator door is covered with school announcements and the school lunch menu, and the porch, where a cardboard box is

filled with old toys, coloring books, crayons, and school work-sheets. Junior chooses a toy from this box and takes it outside to play with. When he gets bored with it, he drops it on the ground and goes to the box to retrieve another. Anna and Miguel discard their school worksheets in this box as well.

When the parents are not working and the children are not in school, the family life centers around several entities. Jose and his sons spend time daily maintaining, washing, and fixing the family’s two vehicles-a minivan and a pick-up truck. All the family participates in mending and watering the large garden of flowers and vegetables in the front of the house. Also, the family spends considerable amount of free time visiting their numerous Gua-temalan relatives who live nearby as well as hosting the relatives at their home during barbeques, informal meals, and celebra-tions. Jose did play soccer with a team of Guatemalan immigrants before an injury made it difficult for him to run. Television is also a daily fixture in the family lifestyle. The children watch between four and five hours of programming a day. The parents watch Spanish programming at night after work.

By discussing details about the parents, children, home, and lifestyle of the Diaz family, their social and cultural world is pre-sented. This background is intended to give the reader an insider’s view into their lifestyle. To what extent reading and literacy experiences were observed in the household is discussed next in the findings section.

FindingsTwo factors emerged that influenced the home literacy environ-ment of the Diaz family. The first, bilingualism, created tension in the home between parents and children. The second, cultural assimilation, was evident as Anna and Miguel embraced and emulated the popular, cultural entities they watched on television programs and commercials.

BilingualismJose and Catarina do not speak English in the home or at work. Their lack of English speaking and reading abilities causes stress and confusion in daily interactions with the English-speaking world. For example, Jose cannot read the tax forms, bills, and other pertinent information that arrives in the mail. He asks me to read them to him and explain their meaning. The only mail he does try to read are coupons, advertising, and catalogs for car parts, Home Depot, K-Mart, and Walmart. When Jose’s sixteen-year-old niece came from Guatemala to live with the family, Jose was able to get her employment as a dishwasher at a Mexican restaurant. The restaurant took advantage of the fact that neither Jose or his niece knew English well enough to know she was not being paid fairly for the work she was doing. Catarina interacts primarily with her Guatemalan relatives . “She wants to keep her Guatemalan culture,” Anna tells me. She does not speak English to her children and only says words such as hi, hello, how are you, and thank you to me.

Anna and Miguel, on the other hand, are fluent in both English and Spanish. They speak English among each other and watch only Eng1ish-speaking television. When their parents speak Spanish to them, they answer in English. Junior navigates between his Span-

ish-speaking parents and English-speaking siblings. “He doesn’t talk very good,” Jose tells me. The family is concerned that Junior is confused between the two languages. The only words I hear Junior say are in English, such as car, Spiderman, ball, candy. When I ask Anna and Miguel about Guatemala and their relatives, they do not want to talk about it. They say they will never go there. “I don’t want to go there, I like it here,” Anna tells me. Both she and her brother have many friends in the neighborhood and at school who are not from Spanish-speaking families. Their interactions are with African- American and white neighbors and schoolmates, as well as cousins, neighbors and schoolmates of Hispanic families. During all of the social interactions I observed, the children spoke English. They appeared to have embraced popular American culture not only in language use, but also in their clothing styles, music preferences, food tastes, and hobbies.

Cultural AssimilationThe extent to which Catarina holds on to her Guatemalan roots by not learning English, interacting only with relatives, and making traditional meals for her family is in direct contrast to the extent to which her children have assimilated to American culture. Anna shows me the lyrics to a popular rap song she has copied from an African- American friend at school. “I’m trying to memorize this rap,” she tells me as she sings the rhyme over and over with her African-American neighbor Vanessa. They dance and sing the lyr-ics asking me to explain some of the words in the song like M.C., strut, and fillet mignon. Anna follows all the popular teen series on the cable television networks Nickelodeon, Cartoon Net-work, and the Disney Channel. She watches the series targeted for pre-teen girls on a daily basis and asks me each time I visit if I’ve seen the latest shows. Anna loves to eat at fast food restau-rants and wears jeans and T -shirts with sayings printed on them such as “Angel” or “Pretty in Pink.” Anna enjoys cooking and I observed her reading the directions and recipes for her EZ-Bake oven that she received as a birthday present. For a few months, she was keeping a diary where she wrote about her friends and family. Miguel stole the diary and, as a result, she never felt like writing in it anymore.

Miguel has also embraced the figures and hobbies of American popular culture. He spends his free time playing the card games of Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh. He reads the cards, collects them, and trades them with his friends. He also follows television series and discusses them continuously. His shows of choice are Power Rangers, Spiderman, and Japanese animation cartoons. Most of his clothing proclaims his enthusiasm for cartoon characters, ac-tion figures, and super heroes. All of my interactions with Miguel center around his interests in these facets of television. Even three-year-old Junior has his favorite super hero, Spiderman. Most of Junior’s clothing and his bedding are covered with Spiderman images. Whenever I come to visit he says “Spiderman” to me and then does karate chops in the air. Jose is concerned about the excess television viewing of his children. “They watch too much T .V. “ he tells me. Reading books did not appear to be an aspect of life that interested the children. I often observed Anna trying to motivate her little brother Miguel to practice his reading. He would systematically whine and refuse to do so.

To summarize, the home literacy environment of the Diaz family

was influenced by two key factors—bilingualism and cultural as-similation. The parents in the home held on to their Guatemalan culture by keeping their language and cultural traditions alive. The children, on the other hand, spoke English and embraced popular American children’s culture. Reading books or writing for com-municative purposes did not appear to be a priority in the home. In the next section, I discuss educational implications for teachers who teach students like Anna and Miguel.

Educational implicationsChildren from non-mainstream homes with language, economic, and cultural factors influencing their school success need schools and teachers who respect their diverse backgrounds. Schools need to reflect the literacy learning that occurs in diverse homes to provide opportunities for children to build upon their exist-ing background of knowledge (Campbell, 1998). Similarly, Janes & Kermani (2001) demonstrate ways in which school’s responses to nontraditional forms of literacy can be accurately identified and program implementation effectively modified to better serve non-mainstream children in school. Comber (2000) contends that schools and teachers need to make “ready” for different children, not only in terms of individual differences, but also in the kinds of differences in children’s linguistic, social, economic, and cultural capital. Schools that value certain forms of knowledge over others create a cultural elitism that hinders alternative construc-tions of literacy: “Some cultures, and consequently the children representing those groups, do not believe in the autonomous, self-contained individual. The behavior, knowledge, and beliefs associated with individualism will not be valued or exhibited by all children. When institutions, such as schools, favor individualism over multiple views of human beings, a cultural elitism emerges for those younger human beings who are part of the group that values autonomy,” (Cannella, 1997, p.39). It is important that the words which become the starting point for learning to read and write come from the student’s ideas, not from the teacher’s reading book (Freire, 1970). By creating literacy experiences in schools that build upon student life experiences, teachers can make schools more open and inviting for children from diverse language, economic, and cultural backgrounds.

ConclusionThe literacy experiences of bilingual, immigrant families are influ-enced by various sociocultural contexts. Home, community, and school environments impact the reading and writing experiences of children growing up in Hispanic, low-income homes. To what extent the home literacy environment of the Diaz family is typical of other Guatemalan immigrant families remains to be examined. By investigating the roles literacy activities play in the culture of the home environment, what the functions and uses of reading and writing are in the daily life routines of the family members, and what types of print information and reading materials are available in the home, a portrait of a family’s literacy environment emerged. The factors influencing the literacy development of the Diaz children were bilingualism and cultural assimilation. By shar-ing an insider’s point of view of the home literacy experiences of a non-mainstream culture family, teachers can more fully under-stand and appreciate where diverse students are coming from when they hop off the school bus each morning. When teachers

know who their students are in terms of their home environ-ments, interests, hobbies, and routines, they can adapt the cur-riculum accordingly with nontraditional literacy experiences that respect the diverse language, economic, and cultural backgrounds of children from multicultural worlds.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and Partici-pant

Observation. In N .K. Denzin & Y .S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248-261. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bamett, S. & Frede, E.C. (2001). And so we plough along: The nature and nurture of partnerships for inquiry. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,]6 (1),3-17.

Campbell, R. ( 1998). Facilitating preschool literacy. Newark, DE: IRA.

Cannella, G.S. ( 1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang.

Clay, M.M. ( 1995). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland: Heinemann.

Comber, B. (2000). What really counts in early literacy lessons. Language Arts, 78 (1),39-49.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987). Mexican adult literacy: New directions for

immigrants. In S.R. Goldman & K. Trueba, (Eds.), Becoming literate in E.S.L. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Dyson, A.H. (1997). What difference does difference make? Ur-bana, IL: NCTE.

Erickson, F. ( 1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Whitrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161 ). New York: Macmillan.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Con-tinuum.

Gee, J .P.(2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44 (8),714-25.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive the-ory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.

Givens, G. (1999). Writing self within the text. Educational Foun-dations, J 3 (I)< 41-60.

Glesne, C. (2001). Being there: Developing understanding through

participant observation. In C. Conrad (Ed.), Expanding perspec-tives: Qualitative research in higher education. Des Moines, IA: Pearson.

Graue, M.E. & Walsh, D.J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics. thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Janes, M. & Kermani, H. (1997). Vertical and horizontal scaffolding of literacy events in Latino immigrant families. ERIC database.

Janes, M. & Kermain, H. (2001). Caregivers’ story reading to young children in family literacy programs: Pleasure or punishment? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44 (5),458-466.

Kirk, L.R. (2001). Learning to read: Painful mystery or joyful suc-cess? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44 ( 5), 420-431.

McGee, L.M. & Richgels, D.J.. (2003). Designing early literacy pro-grams: Strategies for at-risk preschool and kindergarten children. New York: Guilford.

Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle- income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Re search Quarterly, 36 (1),8-26.

Quintero, E. ( 1993 ). Points of power: Mexican children in family literacy. The Review of Education, J 5, 233-249.

Rueda, R., MacGillivray, D., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, K. (2001). En-gaged reading: a multilevel approach to considering sociocultural factors with diverse learners. CIERA Report # 1-012.

Ryan, S.A. (2000). The value of early literacy and parental involve-ment. M.A. Thesis, Biola University.

Spradley, J.P .( 1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & -Winston.

Vasquez, O.A., Pease-Alvarez, L. & Shannon, S. (1994). Pushing boundaries: Language and culture in a Mexicano community. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ContaCt InformatIonLisa C. Crayton, PhD Assistant Professor College of Education Florida Gulf Coast University 10501 FGCU Boulevard South Fort Myers, Florida 33965-6565 lcrayton@fgcu.edu

I had the good fortune to participate in a presentation with Dr. Evelyn Torrey of Florida Atlantic University, in Miami in

September 2010 at the Southeast TESOL conference, where we spoke about education in Haiti and the further education of Haitian immigrant students who come to U.S. schools. We were assisted by Haitian students and Haitian-American educators as co-panelists. I was so impressed by Evelyn’s enormous work in fact-finding and documenting the state of education in Haiti, pre- and post-earthquake, that I urged Evelyn to please publish the entire presentation in the Sunshine State TESOL Journal. We have decided to keep it as a photo-journalistic piece, due to the impacts of the visuals, graphics and photos, as well as the many statistics. This publication is now going to evolve into an embed-ded video film with voice-overs by Evelyn Torrey. The images that we present here are excerpts from this first video-film to be a part of the Sunshine State TESOL Journal publication! To see the complete video presentation look for the link on the SST Journal part of the website. http://sstesol.org

Mercedes PichardEditor SST Journal

Haiti Education: Here and There, Then and NowDr. Evelyn Torrey