The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1980) defines culture as “the incorporated pattern of human behavior that includes thought, speech, action, and artifacts and depends on man’s competence for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations” and “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material behavior of a racial, religious, or social group.” These definitions point to numerous important aspects of culture. First, culture permeates all human behaviors and interactions.
Second, culture is shared by members of a group. And third, it is handed down to newcomers and from one generation to the next. This description of culture is not aimed at organizations but is very appropriate to them (AAhad M. Osman-Gani ; Zidan, S.
S. 2001, pp.452-460).Whereas, Society can be defined as a grouping of people that has some common interests, common way of life, activities, purpose, principals, background, or goals and objectives.
A society can thus be consist of individuals, small groups of people or larger organizations such as establish in a local or state government, the federal government, or the country as an entire society. These groups or societies can be effective for the same or related goals and objectives, have some overlying goals and objectives, be in direct disagreement to one another, or any permutation of it. Most of these groups serve their own self-interests and their power is extensively anyone society such does not proscribe decentralized total power as labor, the military, the government, business, or any mixture of societies. This is a pluralistic society that exploits freedom of expression, action, and accountability; this in turn consequences in a widely expanded set of loyalties to many different causes and organizations and curtails the danger that any one leader of anyone organization will be left unrestrained.
These advantages and disadvantages, with its structure and composition, are in part several causes for the differences in point of view on what social accountability is, what it must be, what it should include, and what it should achieve.Thus, Native inhabitants, colonizers, and immigrants to the United Kingdom have and continue to represent a diversity of language backgrounds. Like it or not, the United Kingdom is highly multilingual after United States. Fashions in using language in education and attitudes to bilingualism have undergone numerous changes since the United Kingdom became autonomous.
The changing models of education and research viewpoint reflect shifting political moods rather than sound educational and linguistic research.Cultures diverge in setting up priorities for the teaching of reading and writing ( Freire, 1985). It is necessary that ESL students participate efficiently in a culture and understand and construe the goals of such institutions as schools and government. The development of biliteracy skills is necessary for these purposes.
Freire( 1985) maintained that biliterate individuals have the capability to interpret the events, institutions, and power structures that establish their existence; they can read the world first before the word.Wells (1987) referred to four literacy levels. All culturally bound: performative, functional, informational, and epistemic. The performative centers on speech or the written code for communication, such as answering questions or writing a home address; the functional underlines interpersonal communication, such as reading a newspaper or writing a job application; the informational presume that reading and writings are for informational purposes, such as for accessing the accrued knowledge that schools transmit; and the epistemic level relays to literacy as a mode of communication and offers ways for cultured persons to act on and alter knowledge and experiences engaged to illiterates.
The attitudes optimistic by the epistemic level of literacy are those of originality, exploration, and critical assessment.According to McLeod (1986), literacy for thinking and social decision making will authorize language-minority children to view society in a logical way. This view permits them to claim control of society and offset present educational prominence on tests, skills, and external controls that are anti democratic in their effects. For instance, Franklin (1986) argued that literacy teaching is culturally based.
Teachers embrace tacit prospect of how literacy skills must be taught, the use of materials and methods, and the association of classroom literacy events. These expectations find out the literacy success and failure of children. To observe these findings, she presented excerpts of first-grade classroom transcriptions and teacher interviews in her study of literacy in bilingual classrooms. She concluded that the majority first-grade teachers expect students to have meta linguistic knowledge of sounds, letters, and words before the reading and writing of texts takes place.
Franklin explained that when Hispanic LEP children had obscurity with these skills, it was their cultural and language background that was blamed, somewhat than methods, materials or teacher assumptions (p. 51).In the case of bilingual students, language disparities are not to be interpreted as language deficits. Limited English proficiency does not mean the student is imperfect in the competence to develop language and thinking skills.
For this motive, biliteracy instruction is significant for the bilingual student’s involvement in an assortment of purposes and a variety of settings. Children’s bilingual literacy can be studied and deliberate as communication skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in two languages for school purposes specifically, for placement, promotion, and grouping.Bilinguals use different languages depending on the setting and the addressee. Children often use the heritage language with older relatives whereas they use English with contemporaries.
Church services may be in the heritage language, but Sunday school is often conducted in English because the younger generation is typically not fluent enough in the heritage language.Limited use of a language is particularly harmful for the development of those heritage languages that are highly contextual. Development of the nuances of these languages depends on opportunity to use them in different contexts. Japanese, for example, uses very different terms when the speakers are of different age and social standing.
Children who are not exposed to the language in different situations and different speakers do not learn the full range of the language. A Japanese student recalled moving back to Japan and being unwilling to speak to her school principal for fear of using improper language. Korean children in the United States report abandoning Korean after adults scolded them for not being addressed using the proper form of the language.Bilinguals, when communicating with other bilinguals, frequently alternate languages.
Such code switching is more common in oral than in written language. A number of linguistic constraints determine when and how the switch occurs (Romaine, 1995). The syntax, morphology, and lexicon of the languages play a role on possible switches. Code switching occurs at the discourse, sentence, or word level in the communication between bilinguals.
A person may be talking to somebody in one language but switch to a different one when switching topics or when a different person joins the conversation. Bilingual mothers and teachers often employ code switching to call children’s attention.Basically, Children from linguistically and culturally diverse environments share learning, communication, and motivational styles that are at discrepancy with those of the mainstream culture. Language and culture of children emerge to play a significant role in the ways children communicate with and relay to others and in their methods of perceiving, thinking, and problem solving.
Individual differences in cognitive functioning are due not to distinctions in intelligence, but, rather, to personality appearances inherent in the sociocultural system.Oral and written language development of bilingual learners is affected in many ways by their linguistic context. The sociolinguistic categories of languages influence the way languages are regarded in our society and the relative status they hold in comparison to English. It is not surprising that Standard English predominates in schools and other situations, given its status as world, national, and official language.
The type of languages students speak and the type of writing system used by the languages will influence the ease of acquisition of English. The greater the difference, the more likely that families and school will neglect the development of the heritage language. Often these students develop limited oral language skills in their heritage language whereas they become fluent and monoliterate in English.The function and amount of use of a language influence proficiency of specific languages and language skills.
Our society offers opportunities to use English in a wide variety of contexts. Heritage languages are mostly relegated to use at home or ethnic neighborhoods. When the language is used only in casual conversations, the student will develop the informal oral register of the language. Practice of the written language in academic settings is needed to develop the language for successful schooling.
Opportunity to use languages stimulates motivation to learn and to practice them. Intensive exposure to English helps develop English proficiency among students who are native speakers of other languages. As the heritage language erodes due to its limited use, speakers become less motivated to search for such opportunities and their families, school, and churches accommodate increasing use of English and contribute to the loss of the heritage language. Persistent language loss among young members of an ethnic group results in language shift for the whole community.
Other social, cultural, political, and economic variables contribute to the maintenance or erosion of heritage language use within an ethnic community.Families and educators realize that if they want their children to achieve bilingualism, they must provide opportunities for use of the two languages in both oral and written form. Students need plenty of exposure to social English through activities that integrate bilingual students with native speakers of American English. A demanding curriculum that explicitly teaches English academic skills is a precondition to success in the educational system (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).
Exposure to the heritage language through the Internet, connections with students in other countries, and as a medium of instruction in schools helps develop these languages beyond the familiar uses.Families do not always have access to written material in the heritage language. Their children develop oral skills but do not acquire literacy unless the schools have bilingual programs or they attend special weekend schools for the promotion of ethnic languages. In some cases the language is not written.
Thus, although students may be bilingual, they are not necessarily biliterate.Fundamental to the lack of communication in discourse on bilingual education are diverse perceptions of bilingual education. Bilingual education broadly defined is any “educational program that entails the use of two languages of instruction at several point in a student’s school career” ( Nieto, 1992, p. 156).
This simple definition is not what most people have in mind while they think of bilingual education. Lots of people in the United Kingdom, particularly its critics, think that bilingual education is giving “instruction in the native language most of the school day for several years” ( Porter, 1994, p. 44). Various proponents describe bilingual education as “dual language programs” that “consist of instruction in two languages equally distributed across the school day” (Casanova ; Arias, 1993, p.
17).Schooling usually defined as bilingual education really comprises a variety of approaches. Several programs have as goal bilingualism, whereas others ask for development of proficiency in English only. Programs are intended to serve different types of students: English speakers, international sojourners, or language minority students.
Some models assimilate these students. Models differ in how much and for how numerous years they use each language for instruction. The preliminary language of literacy and content instruction differs across models.Several use mostly the native language originally, others deliver instruction in both, and still others begin instruction in the second language, adding up the home language subsequent to a few years.
There are special programs for language minority students in which all the teaching is done in English with a second language approach. The difference between bilingual education and English-only instruction models is significant. Bilingual education presumes use of English and another language for instruction. Submersion, structured captivation, and ESL models work with bilingual learners but are not bilingual because they rely on simply one language English for instruction.
“Programs that do not provide significant amounts of instruction in the non-English language should not, in fact, be included under the rubric of bilingual education” (Milk, 1993, p. 102).As Ofelia Garcia’s statement with reference to bilingual children’s underachievement in education: ‘The greatest failure of contemporary education has been precisely its inability to help teachers understand the ethnolinguistic complexity of children …… in such a way as to enable them to make informed decisions about language and culture in the classroom.’ (Cited in Baker, 1996).
The present UK National Curriculum, for example, specially does not suppose to tell teachers how to teach (only what to teach), whereas the highly significant Offices for Standards in Education and Teacher Training Agency both appear more anxious to assess teaching by quantifiable outcome and evidence of preparation than by the excellence of teacher—student relations (TTA 1998). With allusion to bilingual students, the dearth of the pedagogic perspective is mainly noticeable. In its current document The Assessment of the Language Development of Bilingual Pupils’, for instance, the Office for Standards in Education (UK) is principally concerned concerning the validity and expediency of ascribing ‘levels’ to bilingual students over and exceeding the levels already accessible through the National Curriculum (OFSTED 1997).As illustrations of ‘good classroom practice’ are presented in this document, none of these apply to the group of bilingual students regarding whom teachers often articulate the greatest concern (Moore 1995): that is to say, students who arrive in the country fluent in one language but possessing little or no visible knowledge of the chief language of the classroom (‘Stage 1 learners’).
Nor is there any obvious acknowledgment, in what is fundamentally a competence-driven picture of good practice (OFSTED 1997, p.9), of the significance of the teachers’ student correlation: an acknowledgment, that is, that for bilingual students ‘to invest their sense of self, their identity, in acquiring their new language and participating actively in their new culture, they must experience positive and confirming interactions with members of that culture’ (Cummins 1996, p.73).Moderately, the absence of a learned pedagogical perspective from ‘official’, centralized educational discourses has been reflected in a consequent absence at the local level.
In the quarter of continuing professional development for teachers, for case, there is a still a propensity for the prime focus to be on teaching materials for bilingual students, while in books and published research there remains an importance on de-contextualized theory rather than on the application of this theory to analysis of actual teaching and learning events. No one would desire to deny the instant value of classroom materials for teachers of beginner-bilingual students, numerous of whom are denied any constant support in the classroom, in the form either of an experienced EAL teacher or of proper and adequate training linked to working with bilingual students: positively, the provision and development of appropriate as well as working classroom materials have offered a helpful lifeline to lots of teachers on the brink of despair.Additionally, the requirement to develop such materials, as well the bases upon which they are developed, is typically underpinned by staid theory and research in the area. Though, the complexity with a prominence on classroom materials, if it is at the expense of professional development linked more particularly to pedagogy, is (a) that it just produces a quick-fix, short-term solution to a more enduring difficulty; (b) that it redirects teachers’ attentions away from the actual issues at stake, which are to do with how bilingual students are marginalized and silence, and how teachers can best assist those students to conquer such marginalization.
Placing such an importance on pedagogy is, a potentially risky business, as it inexorably quotes, describes and evaluates practice which is distinctly ineffective, counterproductive or absolutely hostile, besides practice which is effective, accommodating and understanding. It might also, proffer examples of practice which take a practical, realistic view of the place of teaching within the wider social framework and within the grammar of that wider perspective alongside examples of practice that shows to operate only within the restricted grammatical framework of the particular classroom or school situation within which the teacher is working.Whereas the latter practice might often though not completely be characterized by its fundamentally reactive nature (‘this is what needs to be done concerning this student or set of students in order to keep discipline, makes them more prone to achieve their best grades, and so on’), the former is more characteristically characterized by its fundamentally responsive nature (‘this is what need to be done concerning this student or set of students in order to maximize their opportunities—and the opportunities of all people—in the wider social framework in which they must operate’).As in a real case, a teacher who is deal with a work of art by recently arrived a bilingual student a work which apparently does not conform to any of the preset, outwardly fixed criteria by which the student will consequently be adjudged to be a proficient artist.
The teacher’s retort to this student, as someone who is simply not compliant up to standard of artistic practice, leads her to treat the student totally in terms of the amount of time and effort he is likely to demand and of the improbability of his ever being able to attain the necessary skill to pass a public assessment in the subject. Her pedagogy in relation to this student as a result becomes one subjugated by the need for repression and surveillance rather than by a stress on development. Against this, there is the teacher who, on encountering an almost same situation, assesses the student’s work (a) within the potential frames of allusion of a hypothetical alternative set of cultural practices and predilections, This might not match to the criteria by which the student’s capability will be judged here, but could they possibly conform more strongly to those that apply somewhere else?’), as well as (b) within the framework of the skills and general expertise the student will require in order to be considered competent within the terms of reference of the new symbolic value system within which they are now working (‘What extra skills will the student need to attain in order to be successful in the public examination in this subject?’).These two quite diverse perspectives on and interpretations of bilingual students’ work, partially caused by deviating, autobiographically rooted views as to what the teacher’s role must be, can lead to two quite distinct pedagogies and contribute to two very diverse learning outcomes (Alladina, Safder.
1995).The risk in making such identifications along with comparisons of teachers’ practice lies partly in its instant openness to misinterpretation. There is always the prospect, for instance, that the critical analysis of positive episodes of classroom practice will be read as a common criticism directed toward all teachers, signifying that they have a personal and exclusive accountability for everything that goes wrong with a student’s education a view too often originating from the official views and agendas of central government. There are as well the dangers that case studies can generalize the ‘messy complexity of the classroom’ and its never more than ‘partially apprehend able practice’ (Goodson and Walker 1991, p.
xii), or that they can entertain attention from where and in whose hands the larger troubles lie. On the other hand, teachers are, very keen to develop the quality of their work and find it as practical to reflect upon examples of futile practice as to imitate upon examples of practice that appear to be ‘good’.Teachers do not require being secluded from notions of improvement. Certainly, to treat them as if they do is as impertinent as to believe that their presented experience and expertise must be ignored.
Teaching to children’s low level of English is found even in bilingual programs and in spite of the children’s academic proficiency in their first language. In several schools the bilingual language curriculum is so impecunious that children cannot function in the more complex English-language lessons except at the lowest levels available. In writing instruction for secondary level limited English-proficient students, writing is frequently used mainly in response to test items or worksheets, to the elimination of more demanding expository writing (Moll ; Diaz, 1986).More lately, this similar phenomenon has become apparent in computer instruction.
Poor and LEP students do drill and practice; affluent and English-fluent students do predicament solving and programming ( Boruta, Carpenter, Harvey, Keyser, Labonte, Mehan, ; Rodriguez, 1983; Mehan, Moll, ; Riel, 1985). In all cases, students are locked into the lower levels of the curriculum.Part of the predicament is the devastating pressure to make LEP students fluent in English at all costs. Learning English, not learning, has become the controlling goal of instruction for these students, even if it places the children susceptible academically.
This prominence, usually based on the assumption that a lack of English skills is the prime if not sole determinant of the children’s academic failure, has become yet another means to preserve the educational status quo and contributes significantly to the domineering failure rate of Latinos and other minority youth in schools. This argument does not counteract the goal of children mastering English and achieving rationally in that language. Parents and teachers want that; it is obviously an important goal.The pedagogical validation for the reductionist practices described above is as follows: These children require learning how to deal with English-language schooling; therefore it is crucial that they learn English as soon as possible; otherwise they might never be competent to benefit from instruction.
Thus, while faced with LEP children, usually at diverse levels of English-language fluency, the foundation makes it seem quite rational for teachers to group children by fluency and regulate the curriculum accordingly, typically starting with the teaching of the simplest skill at least until the children know adequate English to benefit from more advanced instruction. Of course, learning English will take a little time, and the students might fall so far behind academically that disappointment is guaranteed. That risk seems inevitable to those who advocate this approach.Recent classroom ethnographies, as well as other types of observational studies, indicate the strong connection between social interactions that structure educational events and academic performance (Diaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1986; Mehan, 1979).
These studies argue that what goes on in the classroom counts, and that it counts a lot. They transfer the responsibility for school failure away from the distinctiveness of the children and toward a more common societal process. The basis of students’ problems in school is not to be found in their language or culture; it is to be found in the social organization of schooling.While student characteristics do matter, while the same children are shown to succeed under modified instructional arrangements it become clear that the problem’s minority children face in school should be viewed as a result of institutional arrangements which entangle certain children by not capitalizing fully on their talents and skills.
This conclusion is pedagogically positive because it suggests that just as academic failure is generally organized, academic success can be communally arranged.The work of Vygotsky ( 1978) provides a source of ideas for developing effective teaching and learning surroundings. His ideas are an influential supplement to ethnography because they state practical steps to take advantage of the interactional patterns that ethnographic studies so appropriately describe.Humans are inevitably social beings.
As all learning occurs in social and historical environments, these environments play a decisive role in an individual’s learning and development. Human beings themselves, through their social relations, form the social environments in which they function and in which they learn; thus, social interactions are the major mechanism through which human beings create change in environments and in themselves.Vygotsky (1978) points out that these individual-environment interactions are rarely direct. Humans use tools (e.
g., speech, reading, writing, mathematics, and most recently, computers) to intercede their interactions with their physical and social environment. A primary property of tools (be it speech or writing) is that they are first used for communication with others to intercede contact with the world. Much later they are used to mediate relations with self, as we internalize their use and they develop part of our behavioral repertoire.
Thus, Vygotskian theory posits a strong correlation between intellectual activity and external, practical activity interceded by the use of “psychological tools” such as literacy.The point, however, isn’t just that all learning takes place in a social framework and that the use of tools is a well-known characteristic of human beings, but rather than the trail of intellectual development moves from the social to the individual. The academic skills’ children acquire are directly related to how they interrelate with adults and peers in explicit problem-solving environments ( Vygotsky, 1978).Children internalize the kind of help they obtain from others and ultimately come to use the means of guidance initially provided by others to direct their own consequent problem-solving behaviors.
In other words, children first execute the suitable behaviors to complete a task with someone else’s supervision and direction (e.g., a teacher or peer) before they complete the task proficiently and independent of outside direction or assistance.Vygotsky intimates the instructional implications of this connection between social interface and individual psychological action through his notion of a zone of proximal development.
This zone is distinct as the distance between what children can accomplish autonomously (the actual developmental level) and what they can achieve with the assist of adults or more capable peers (the proximal developmental level). Vygotsky suggests that the proximal level reveals, in a real sense, the child’s future; the skills or behaviors that are in the procedure of developing or maturing.For instruction to be effective it should be aimed at children’s proximal level, at the future, and social interactions within the zone require to be organized to prop up the children’s performance at the proximal level until they are capable to perform independent of help (upon internalization). Instruction aimed at the actual developmental level is useless because those behaviors have already “matured” and been mastered by the children.
Likewise, aiming instruction underneath the actual developmental level or way beyond the proximal level is evenly ineffective. The “trick” is to aim instructional activities proximally, while offering the social support or help to ease performance at those levels.It is also observed that the significant issue of the cultural exclusivity of literature can be approached by rethinking what it is that we’re doing when we read texts with pupils in English classrooms. It might be more positive and less culturally restricted, to believe English teaching as an educational practice that is centrally concerned with reading practices, and that is interested in diverse texts and how they might be read and interpreted.
This approach opens the textual field limitlessly and resolves the problematic issue of canonicity. It entails a significant extension to the reading practices of English teaching.It is as well found that current bilingual education teaching and learning strategies gain from a holistic approach for biliteracy instruction ( Rigg ; Scott Enright, 1986; Rivers, 1986). Such an approach values the bilingual students’ background knowledge and strengths in developing discovery and inquiry learning modes.
Thus, teaching is hasty rather than structured instruction.Holistic teaching amalgamates multi-level of communication skills listening, speaking, reading, and writing concurrently in the learning process. The entire, rather than its parts, are significant. From a holistic teaching approach, reading and writing are related processes.
Reading can generate writing and writing generates reading. It must be noted that an approach derives from a theoretical perspective, whereas a method or technique is a practical relevance based on an approach.Holistic teaching approaches utilize the four communication skills in every learning situation. Students learn not simply through formal instruction, but through the possibilities of discovery and inquiry.
Learners, furthermore, are bounded by meaningful language contexts in which they can commence and react in the discovery and inquiry process and imaginatively seek to learn in a reactive, impulsive manner, rather than in passive, structured learning settings.The holistic teaching methods and strategies’ most renowned in recent research for bilingual children developing literacy skills in two languages are the language experience approach, dialogue journal writing, the conference-centered approach, and ethnographic teaching methods. These approaches center on the communicative functions of bilingual development supporting researchers who advocate the native literacy approach as a method to allow Latino children to develop expertise in their native language so that they can instigate to read in that language. This approach has the added benefit of demonstrating to children that their native language is renowned as valuable and valuable.
Most assaults on bilingual education arise from an unsupported fear that English will be neglected in the United Kingdom, whereas, in fact, the remaining of the world fears the opposite; the attraction of English and interest in British culture are seen by non-English-speaking nations as an intimidation to their own languages and cultures. It is duplicitous because most opponents of using languages other than English for instruction also desire to encourage foreign language requirements for high school graduation. Finally, it is regressive and xenophobic as the rest of the world considers capability in at least two languages to be the marks of good education.Educating bilingual students has to go outside merely teaching them English or merely sustaining their native language.
The worlds of work demands that graduate attain not only high-level literacy skills in English, and even facts of other languages, but also analytic ability and the capability to learn new things. Bilingual students have not simply the potential but also the right to be prepared to meet up the challenges of modern society.Criticisms of bilingual education are not all tenuous. Some bilingual programs are inappropriate for conveying quality education even if they have marked off some successful students.
Much of the credit goes to the daring efforts of individual teachers (Brisk, 1990, 1994a).Numerous bilingual programs are substandard. Somewhat than offering a blanket approval for programs on the basis of whether they use the children’s native language, advocates of bilingual education need to be selective by supporting only those programs and schools that adhere to the principles of good education for bilingual students. Bilingual education too often falls victim to political, economic, and social forces that feed on unfavorable attitudes toward bilingual programs, teachers, students, their families, languages, and cultures.
Such approaches translate into school characteristics that limit quality education for language minority students. Research on effective schools exhibits that schools can arouse academic achievement for students regardless of how situational factors persuade them. Deliberations of language and culture facilitate English language development devoid of sacrificing the native language and the ability to function in a cross-cultural world.Implementation and evaluation of bilingual education programs require to move beyond supporting what have too often become compensatory programs.
All students, but particularly bilinguals, deserve quality programs that prevail over negative stereotypes. Abundant consequences from empirical research and experience can help show the way.Numerous bilingual programs exist as school districts must fulfill with legislation and court decisions. They survive in segregation within unsupportive schools where the attitudes toward the program are negative and the prospects of students are low.
Students reject their identity in schools that do not accept their culture, but cannot adopt a new one ( Commins, 1989). Such students often become angry and unsettling ( Brisk, 1991b; McCollum, 1993). “One wonders what the achievements of such students would be if their energies were enlightened by an environment in which they no longer desired to trade ethnicity for school learning” ( Secada ; Lightfoot, 1993, p. 53).
Schools without clear goals depend on the individual teacher for the quality of the program and are more vulnerable to ideological pressures. Devoid of explicit goals for bilingual education, confusion and discontent between staff and community are expected results. Lack of leadership and inclusion of the program leads to disparities in opinion with respect to the purpose of bilingual education. While English-speaking and a bilingual faculties do not share goals, a profound gap in communication develops amongst the faculty members, affecting teachers, students, and language use.
Though many teachers are well qualified, escalating demands on personnel have resulted in the hiring of inadequately qualified teachers or the recycling of mainstream teachers with no training to teach bilingual students. Because the program is often seen as remedial, curriculums are narrow, materials are deficient, and assessment is inadequate to English language development.Such bilingual education programs must not be supported. The bilingual education should be supported not merely because it is good for bilingual students, but also because its accomplishment can benefit schools as a whole.
;References:AAhad M. Osman-Gani ; Zidan, S.S. “Cross-Cultural Implications of Planned on-the- job Training.
Advances in Develpoing Human Resources, vol.3, no.4, pp.452-460.
November, 2001.Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.
). New York: Basil Blackwell.Chamot, A. U.
, & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach.
Rowley, MA: Addison—Wesley.Arvizu S. F., Hernández-Chavez E.
, Guskin J., & Valadez C. ( 1992). Bilingual education in community contexts: A two-site comparative research design.
In M. Saravia-Shore & S. F. Arvizu (Eds.
), Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies of communication in multiethnic classrooms (pp. 83-130). New York: Garland.Boruta M.
, Carpenter C., Harvey M., Keyser M., Labonte J.
, Mehan H., & Rodriguez D. ( 1983). Computers in schools: Stratifier or equalizer? The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5( 3), 51-55.
Brisk M. E. ( 1990). The many voices of education for bilingual students in Massachusetts.
Quincy: Massachusetts Department of Education.Brisk M. E. ( 1991a).
Cross cultural barriers: A model for schooling bilingual and English-speaking students in harmony. Equity and Choice, 7(2), 18-24.Brisk M. E.
( 1991b). The many voices of bilingual students in Massachusetts. Quincy: Bureau of Equity and Language Services, Massachusetts Department of Education.Brisk M.
E. ( 1994a). Portraits of success: Resources supporting bilingual learners. Boston: Massachusetts Association for Bilingual Education.
Casanova U., & Arias M. B. ( 1993).
Contextualizing bilingual education. In M. B. Arias & U.
Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp. 1-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Commins N. L. ( 1989). Language and affect: Bilingual students at home and at school.
Language Arts, 66, 29-43.Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society, California, CABE.Diaz S.
, Moll L. C., & Mehan H. ( 1986).
Sociocultural resources in instruction: A context-specific approach. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 187-230). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
(Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304-241).Francis, P. (1999) ‘Do it yourself soap’, The Secondary English Magazine, 2(4):18.
Franklin E. A.( 1986). “Literacy instruction for LES children”.
Language Arts, 63( 1), 51-60.Freire P.( 1985). “Reading the world and reading the word”.
Language Arts, 62( 1), 15-22.Goodson, I.F. and Walker, R.
(1991) Biography, Identity and Schooling, London, Falmer Press.Harvey, D. (1991) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.McCollum P.
A. ( 1993, April). Learning to value English: Cultural capital in a two-way bilingual program. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
McLeod A.( 1986). “Critical literacy: Taking control of our own lives”. Language Arts, 63( 1), 37-49.
Mehan H. ( 1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mehan H., Moll L. C., & Riel, M.
( 1985). Computers in classrooms: A quasi-experiment in guided change (Final Rep. No. NIE-G-83-0027).
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.Milk R. D. ( 1993).
Bilingual education and English as a second language: The elementary school. In M. B. Arias & U.
Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp 88-112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Moore, A.
(1995) ‘The linguistic, academic and social development of bilingual pupils in secondary education: Issues of diagnosis, pedagogy and culture’, unpublished PhD thesis, Milton Keynes, Open UniversityNieto S. ( 1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman.
OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (1997) The Assessment of the Language Development of Bilingual Pupils, London, Office for Standards in Education.Porter R. P. ( 1994, May 18).
Goals 2000 and the bilingual student. Education Week, p. 44.Rigg P.
, & Scott D. Enright(Eds.). ( 1986).
Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives. Washington, DC: Teachers of English as a Second Language.Rivers J.( 1986, March).
Whole language in the elementary classroom. “Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages”, Anaheim, CA.Secada W., & Lightfoot T.
( 1993). Symbols and the political contest of bilingual education in the United States. In M. B.
Arias & U. Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp. 36-64).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.TTA (Teacher Training Agency) (1998) National Standards for Qualified Teacher Status, London, Teacher Training Agency.Vygotsky L. S.
( 1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wells G.
( 1987). “Apprenticeship in literacy”. Interchange, 18( 12), 109-123.
